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.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
“The vote will apply consequentially to NDP-57 and, if adopted, NDP-4 cannot be moved”, that's what we did when we did NDP-3, and it did not pass.
We are now on NDP-58, which is an amendment to page 59 of the bill, at line 24.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes. I'm proposing a new section 112.1, which, given the fact that they're not mandatory, would give the minister one year to make regulations concerning those specified categories. They include the power to designate a physical activity, the posting of a notice on commencement of an impact assessment, the scope of factors, public participation, the effects set out in the report, delegation to another jurisdiction, approval of conditions for substitution, determinations as to the public interest, conditions in relation to adverse effects, and the minister's obligations regarding a request for assessment. That is, she would have to establish principles and criteria and provide guidance respecting all of those matters.
The second part adds additional areas where the minister must make regulations, and provides the minister with a broad suite of regulation-making powers, ensuring that regulations under these areas are made in a timely manner. It includes public participation procedures, panel procedures, criteria under proposed section 9 if you're designating, direction on how to carry out effective cumulative impact assessments, and so forth.
Again, these recommendations were made by a number of witnesses and briefs, calling for greater certainty in how the process is going to be applied.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
PV-76 was dealt with under PV-71, so now we move on to NDP-59 and NDP-60, which are tied together.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
NDP-59 removes the minister's discretionary power to issue guidelines or codes of practice, or to establish criteria for the appointment of members on review panels or committees in proposed sections 92 and 93. Proposed section 92 deals with regional assessments where the region is entirely on federal lands, and proposed section 93 deals with regional assessments where the region is only partially within or is entirely outside federal lands.
Essentially, it's the same thing again. This isn't about the minister making regulations. It's about her issuing guidelines and codes of practice, and criteria for the appointment of members on the review panels. It all seems to be very sensible, fair, open, and transparent, providing legal certainty.
I will speak to NDP-60 as well, since we're doing them together. Again, it adds a new section 114.1 and makes it mandatory, as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, the Minister must
(a) issue guidelines and codes of practice respecting the application of this Act;
(b) establish criteria for the appointment of members of review panels; and
Actually, we only need to do one or the other. Obviously, this is something a lot of people called for.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Fair enough. I think that's clear.
Mr. Fast has asked for a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That did not pass, so neither did amendment NDP-60.
Amendment NDP-61 says, “Members of the advisory council are entitled to be paid reasonable travel and other expenses while performing their duties” so it it going to infringe—
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That's for disbursements; that's not any fee. That's for travel and other expenses, disbursements. It's my understanding that it is perfectly appropriate. That's under Treasury Board guidelines.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Part of the act involves those people who are going to be involved...but you're basically adding a new statement.
I'm going suspend for two minutes. I have to think about this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
Here's the explanation. Even though it's normal practice to pay reasonable expenses, for travel and other expenses, in practice, it's never written down. Because it's now being written down, it's an obligation. Whereas in practice it's an obligation, it's not in statute. That's why there's a subtle difference if it is written down, and therefore, it's inadmissible. Otherwise, it is a little bit in that grey area. It's not admissible because you are now writing it into the statute to pay them.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Are you saying there's not a single advisory council...? Did we not make this same recommendation for CEPA?
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We did. It was for the Sustainable Development Act. That's what it was.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Maybe we didn't understand the subtleties of what goes on here in legislation and statute.
Anyway, we're going to move on. I've made the ruling. It's not allowed because it is writing it into the statute, and that's not the way it is. It's practice.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If it has been that way in practice, that doesn't mean the government can't finally be more up front.