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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We will resume.
I'll start off by saying that I have to give you a ruling on PV-66 before we go through it, Ms. May.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 772.... I think you can read it there. It's my opinion that the amendment seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation by imposing a new charge on the public treasury, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, I'm not in a position to challenge your ruling as a non-member of the committee, but the participant funding program has been established. It's been stated elsewhere that it's the central purpose of the act. My amendment is a housekeeping detail to make sure it's substantive. It's not creating a new spending power, and it's not altering the purpose of the legislation, nor the government's intent to ensure that participant funding is available throughout the process.
If my amendment is inappropriate, I hope that the government will look at this again and perhaps fix this at report stage.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
The situation here is that you're broadening the powers from what's already been decided. That's why it's not admissible.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I understand that, but I'm only broadening it to the extent of the government's stated intention. The government's stated intention wasn't that only certain participants would qualify for participant funding. It was a broad statement that there would be rights for participant funding.
I want to just grab this opportunity to say that, if my motion is out of order, I would hope that perhaps the other analysts working within the government staff, working within the Liberal research bureau, working for the different members here at the committee, might consider a report stage amendment to ensure that participant funding is available as the government intends.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
At this point, we can take that under advisement.
We're now on to NDP-48.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It may have the same issue. In this amendment, we delete lines 21 to 23 on page 45. That removes the exemption from a participant funding program for assessments conducted through a substitution by another jurisdiction. A substitution, supposedly, the government is saying, could include federal officials appearing and speaking to matters related to federal...and certainly could include members of the public indigenous testifying and bringing forward evidence related to federal responsibility, even though the federal government has said that it will let a province or territory run the review.
There needs to be participant funding to cover anybody who is engaged in any hearing that is dealing with federal areas of responsibility. That should be taken out. Surely the government is going to provide participant funding for anybody who is speaking to matters related to federal jurisdiction in the review of a project.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You're right. It is very similar to what went before, but because you're removing lines, it is admissible. We're going to move forward on it.
We'll now vote on NDP-48.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
One of the greatest surprises and disappointments of this bill is that it's totally vacuous on participant funding or the right to participate.
What this amendment does is clarify the process on how a participant funding process would work, and that would be determined by regulations to be issued and/or agency guidelines. The amendment proposes new subsections to proposed section 75 to clarify how a participant funding program is to be established: the procedures, the guidelines, the submission rules, who determines under proposed section 36 where there's a review panel, where there's a regional or strategic assessment, any right to request, and any rules and procedures for cost advances. These are all normal procedures that are usually in impact assessment procedure. They certainly exist in my province.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm a little confused. You're putting it in after (2), which is in the proposed “Exception” section, right?
I'm just trying to understand. You're on line 23 on page 45, and that is in the exception after (2). You're adding (3) and (4), so it's not (d), then Exception; it's—
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This one is after proposed subsection 75(2). I'm adding whole proposed subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8).
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
You're speaking of NDP-48. This is NDP-49, and it would occur just before “Cost Recovery” and just after proposed subsection (2).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, I've got it now.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to move to CPC-8, but there is a distribution right now of CPC-8.01 to CPC-8.03. Copies are coming around, and they do matter because it's consequential to those.
Go ahead, Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The amendment is that Bill C-69, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 46 with the following:
the costs and amounts referred to in
The previous act only required the proponent of a project to pay the agency for any costs incurred for prescribed services provided by a third party in any prescribed amounts that are related to the exercise of the agency's responsibilities. Currently, this bill reads that the “Governor in Council may make regulations” and then sets out the two items: one has to do with providing for fees, charges, or levies, and the other provides for the manner of calculating those fees.
The rationale is that, if this section were to be kept and the agency can charge the proponent for whatever it wants, then there is no incentive for the agency to be efficient and effective in its duties. Project proponents and investors need certainty if they're going to invest in the Canadian economy. We've seen that certainty dissipate in Canada. We've seen a flight of capital. The regulatory process needs concrete timelines if we're going to have certainty.
I note that the government pledged that investors will get more certainty and shorter timelines with this legislation. In fact, the timelines here are longer, when you add the planning phase to the assessment phase and all of the discretionary powers the minister has in order to extend and suspend. Clearly this is not an expedited process.
I'll leave it at that.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Surely what Mr. Fast is proposing here is exactly what should happen under proposed section 76. My understanding is that industry would have every right to be engaged in the process when promulgating the regulations to actually determine what fees may or may not be determined.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, if they have faith in the regulatory process.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6, yeas 3)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That also voted against CPC-8.01, CPC-8.02, and CPC-8.03.
We'll now move to NDP-50.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm also proposing a section 82.1.
Do you want me to do them at the same time?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
With regard to proposed section 81, I am adding to the definition of “project” because there is a third category. I'm finding, frankly, this whole section very convoluted, and I don't really understand why it's drafted the way it is. However, there is a third category: activities not on federal lands. A federal assessment can occur on projects on federal lands and also on projects on non-federal lands. Authorities have power on federal lands and also on non-federal lands. In other words, they could be aboriginal lands. They could be territorial lands. They could be provincial lands.
I am also proposing a new paragraph under proposed section 81:
(c) a physical activity that is carried out on lands other than federal lands, but that is regulated by a federal authority or wholly or partially financed by a federal authority.