Evidence of meeting #114 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That did not carry, and that applied for both GPQ-1 and GPQ-2.
We'll move on to PV-63. Ms. May.
12:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I think this is a really important amendment. All the amendments are important, but this one I think is an oversight.
I'm adding a proposed paragraph (f) to the list of factors to be considered—and this was a recommendation that some committee members will remember was from the Wildlife Conservation Society Canada —that the minister's determination of factors should include, where it's actually occurred, any outcomes from relevant regional and strategic assessments.
When you look at this, it's a bare-bones amendment. It refers you to proposed sections 92, 93, or 95. Those are the sections that deal with regional and strategic assessments.
Obviously if there has been a determination and outcome from a regional strategic assessment that the cumulative effects of, say, project x will be to tip an ecosystem into cascading population collapses, the minister can't ignore that factor. We ought to list that as one of the factors to be considered.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Absolutely, it should be included. Otherwise, what's the point of doing the regional and strategic assessments?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is again to make sure that when cabinet and the minister make a decision, it's not the adverse effects that they find in the public interest, but that they find that the adverse effects are justified because a project is in the public interest.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
May 22nd, 2018 / 12:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
This one is under the “Mitigation measures and follow-up program”, taking the implementation of the follow-up program and, as noted, “if the Minister considers it appropriate, an adaptive management plan.”
In this one, we heard from stakeholders that the follow-up for some projects should include an adaptive management plan. This can serve as a clear safeguard, so the amendment responds to stakeholder comments.
On the question about definition—as we've had the discussion earlier—I would say that “adaptive management” could be defined in policy if we're unable to do it. Where we'll leave it for now is that's where it could be defined.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is the department ready to come back with anything on adaptive management for us?
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. Parker is prepared to speak to that.
12:10 p.m.
Brent Parker Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Thanks for giving us a few minutes to think it through and talk it over.
I am going to start by kind of contextualizing it before speaking to the specific amendment. Adaptive management has been part of the environmental assessment for a very long time. In our experience, having a uniform definition as to how to manage that has been helpful. We do that currently through policy.
Under the existing act, CEAA, 2012, adaptive management is a concept we use to ensure that mitigation measures that are proposed are achieving the objectives that have been set. It allows the department or the agency to engage with the proponent and identify what changes might happen to those mitigation measures over time when we see the results from those.
That's something we're doing through policy. We have a policy definition for that, and it helps to reduce uncertainty. It's somewhat different from the definition proposed here. I'd say that, in concept, it is similar. In terms of the amendment as drafted, there are certainly some unknowns in it. “Adaptive management” in the motion notes that it's a structured, iterative process. I think there is some uncertainty around what that means.
Looking at LIB-43, it uses the notion of “adaptive management plan” versus process, so there is a difference there.
I think that Justice might be able to speak to the placement of a definition, but I would flag that the Liberal amendment notes “adaptive management” in one section, in proposed subsection 64(4), which is under our “follow-up program”. That is where we would be using that process and that tool. Our plan would be to use policy to support a definition around “adaptive management” so that we can achieve the objectives that I highlighted.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I have a question for our officials. You said that adaptive management plans are already being used under the current process. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That's correct.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The term adaptive management is not used in current legislation. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That's correct.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Why, then, is it necessary to include it in this legislation, if the impact assessment community understands what that means and has been functioning quite well without any fixed definition or including it in legislation?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I'd say that our experience with adaptive management has been variable, in terms of success. There's not a legislative definition of that. Part of the benefit of having that referenced in the act would note that there is the possibility when we come out with a decision statement to specifically have “adaptive management measures” in there. Currently, we can do that, as a policy approach, but there's a backstop if it's noted as “adaptive management plan” within the legislation itself.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I will reiterate this. The call for using, adding in, and defining this term are one and the same. That's based on research that says that empirical work in Canada and the United States indicates that neither proponents, consultants, nor federal departments and agencies have a shared understanding of what the term means. Despite supposed policy considerations, it's not being done properly.
By providing a definition, the suggestion is that you go beyond the ad hoc—in other words, making it up every time. When you require this, you actually have a clear definition, so that everybody is on the same base. There's no reason why the definition couldn't be added in, at the beginning of proposed section 64. It could say, “for the purpose of this section”, which has happened throughout the bill, where we have added in definitions.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm suggesting that we put the definition in that I had recommended, where I thought it made more sense, but it could be added in, just before proposed section 64. It would say, “For the purposes of this section, this definition of adaptive management shall apply.” Without a definition, I don't think we're adding anything to the bill. Nobody knows what we're adding.