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.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No, it would be NDP-40.1, because you need to do it before NDP-41, right?
Do you want to give your explanation again, giving that you're walking it on the floor?
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No, this actually comes after....
Okay: NDP-40.1; whatever you say.
This proposes adding, right after the heading “Decision-Making”, a definition for “adaptive management”. This was pointed out, I think to everyone, by Professor Olszynski of the University of Calgary when he testified before us. He spoke to science and the importance of adaptive management.
Presumably in response to that, Mr. Bossio actually amended LIB-43, adding in the term “adaptive management”. We haven't gotten to LIB-43 yet, but as has been pointed out, adaptive management isn't defined anywhere in the act. Now, I've noted that the minister, in drafting her bill, from time to time adds in definitions where they relate to just that part of the bill. This is the part of the bill that deals with adaptive management, so the suggestion is that the logical place to put it would be at the beginning of that whole part of the bill. That would be on page 38, between “Decision-Making” and “Minister's decision”.
I provided the recommended definition to everyone. I don't think I need to read it out. The recommendation is that a uniform definition is required. There seem to be a lot of differences of opinion between proponents, consultants, and departments on understanding what that is. It's not a bad idea, in terms of providing greater certainty, for this to be what the government says “adaptive management” is for the purposes of this act.
I'm supporting Mr. Bossio's later amendment.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to speak this, just quickly.
I know that a number of us are supportive of this in principle. I have spoken with Professor Olszynski on the topic. In general, I think it would be a good thing for adaptive management to be incorporated as a concept. However, it should be coming in the definitions section, not at the particular point that's suggested through this amendment.
I would also like to ensure that we have Justice's thoughts on the appropriateness of the location of the definition. If it's helpful, I would suggest maybe allowing Justice to give their early thoughts now, but I know that there are subject matter experts who will have specific expertise on the issue of adaptive management, so perhaps they could come back to us.
It would require unanimous consent, I think, to get this into the definitions section, and I don't know if that would be forthcoming from the opposite members.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
There is a proposal now to add “adaptive management”, which is another process. The definition itself, if it's adopted, references a new structured and iterative process. Every time we add another process, we make it more and more and more difficult for Canadian resources to be developed in a sustainable way. It's just more and more red tape and delay. These kinds of steps are not helpful.
Madam Chair, I think we should hear from our Justice officials on, first, where this definition should go, and second, whether the definition actually does justice to the term that Mr. Bossio has used. Then we can make an informed choice on whether we would support this.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think what Ms. Duncan is trying to do is put in a definition, since there would be an amendment that quotes it. I also understand about getting an opinion on where it should go. It probably should go in the definitions section. The problem is whether we'll get unanimous consent from the committee to put it in definitions. If we got that, then I think it probably should go in definitions, but we may not get that. I think this is to try to accommodate not being able to go back.
Let's see what advice we have from our experts.
11:25 a.m.
Jean-Sébastien Rochon Counsel, Department of Justice
Usually when a definition is inserted at a midway point in a statute, it relates specifically to one part. It tends to have a distinction from how the word might be interpreted elsewhere. Unless we mean for “adaptive management” to have a different definition for this section of the bill, or only for specific sections, it would be preferable to put it under proposed section 2, where the other definitions in the bill are found.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think Mr. Fast asked if there were any complications with the actual definition. I just don't know if there is any expertise here to explain that.
11:25 a.m.
Christine Loth-Bown Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Madam Chair, we don't have a copy of the amendment or the proposed definition.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's a problem.
I'm wondering if I can have the unanimous consent of the committee to be able to come back and insert this in here once we get the information and the experts have a chance to have a look at it.
Can I have the unanimous consent of committee? No.
We'll have to get that right now.
What about unanimous consent of the committee to put it properly in the process, in the definitions section? No.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is the only place in the bill the term is used. There is no conflict with the rest of the bill.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I get that too.
You need a copy, so let's quickly get you a copy.
I'll suspend for five minutes.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to resume.
I understand I can get unanimous consent from the committee to come back to the definition after we move on. We're going to reserve an opportunity to come back and give the officials a chance to look at that definition and seeing if there are any issues with it. They'll let me know when we're ready to come back. I think we've got about 15 to 20 minutes.
Thank you very much to the committee for that.
The next one up will be NDP-41. The ruling if adopted is NDP-42 and LIB-40 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
Linda.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I am going to suggest not moving NDP-41 and instead moving NDP-42.
The essence of NDP-42 is that throughout the act, there's deep concern by the public that the factors, which is what got people convinced that the government was willing to consider the aspects of sustainable development.... By the time you move forward in the bill, most of those factors disappear. The essence of this is that the proposed section 22 factors must be taken into account in these decisions. It goes through every section and does the same thing and requires the minister and the cabinet to consider the same proposed section 22 factors in making any decision on public interests. Just have them all read together; that's the essence of this amendment.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much for that explanation and clarity. If adopted, PV-55 to PV-62, NDP-43, NDP-49, LIB-41, and CPC-6 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict. And GPQ-1 and PV-63 will also be moot because they're in the same—
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:35 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is one where the existing wording is odd. There may be a subsequent amendment where the government is attempting to clean this up. As it's currently drafted, the minister will, “determine if the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction—and the adverse direct or incidental effects—that are indicated in the report are, in light of the factors...in the public interest”. I don't think any government would decide that an adverse effect was in the public interest. I think what they meant to say is what my amendment says; that where there are adverse effects—this is on a recommendation of the Canadian Environmental Law Association— “whether these effects are justified, in light of the factors referred to in section 63, because the project is in the public interest”.
I'd like to think that governments didn't decide that adverse effects were in the public interest. It's the project they're interested in, in whether the adverse effects are justified.