Environment Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

PV-67 is in the same vein as Madam Duncan's earlier effort. I know that some of the questions put to government witnesses a moment ago would suggest that it might be unusual or overreaching. I want to stress that between 1975 and 2012, a period of over 40 years, any time federal government money was spent on a project, it was screened at least at a minimum. There was a federal environmental assessment review of every project on federal land, every project in which federal money was used, and every project in which an authority was a proponent, as well as those that were triggered by a law list.

We now have a project list. Of course we all know there's a public consultation about what the project list will be. We have an impact assessment bill in front of us, and the guts of it remain a big question mark. When will there be an impact assessment? What projects will come out under review? Everything we've seen in documents from the minister's office and statements from the Minister before this committee is that the intention of the current government is not to repair the process but to keep it only for major projects. That's a fundamental question. What is impact assessment for?

From 1975, through Progressive Conservative governments, Liberal governments, it was always about the federal government having an obligation to assess all the projects in its jurisdiction. Again, we're seeing a substantial shrinking of that in this bill.

That's why I'm putting extra effort into pleading for this one amendment, that if you can accept Green Party amendment 67, we will be saying in the definition of the act, which will inform the project list, that a project is always one that takes place on federal lands or where the authority is a proponent or where the federal government is providing funding. This will go a very long way to meeting the mandate letter that re-establishes trust in the IA process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for that clarity and for that detail.

We have had a bit of debate on this already, so we're going to go straight to vote.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, before we move forward, I have an amendment to proposed section 82 on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, your NDP-50.1. It's “Project carried out on non federal lands”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's very simple. I would be removing proposed paragraph (a) of proposed section 82.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're adding a new proposed subsection 82.1 on page 47.

You're adding something. You're not removing. You're replacing proposed section 82 with proposed subsection 82.1. Is that what you're trying to do?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There are two parts to it, so can I do them in two separate...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm all yours, but let's do it quickly.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The first one was for proposed section 82, as I said. I would remove proposed paragraph (a).

I believe that the assessment should be done by the agency or panel, not by the authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Does everybody understand that amendment that's come in from the floor? It's going to be NDP-50.01, and that is the removal of proposed paragraph 82(a).

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Now we're on to your NDP-50.1.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

On page 48, after line 3, I would add the new proposed section 82.1, along the lines of what we've been discussing, “An authority must not carry out a project on non-federal lands, exercise any power or perform any duty or function...or provide financial assistance unless the authority determines that the carrying out of the project is not....”

It's the same as proposed section 82, but it applies to non-federal lands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. It's putting in a new proposed section, so you're leaving “Project to be carried out on federal lands”, and then you're adding a new proposed section 82.1 right after page 48, line 3.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's correct.

It is word for word the same as proposed section 82, but instead of saying “federal lands”, it would say “on non-federal lands”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Now we're going to PV-68, which is identical to LIB-45.2

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Chair, there's a minor grammatical or spelling error here. We're supportive of this initiative. We just wanted to make sure the change was made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It's identical.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

It's not. There's “based on a consideration” versus “based on consideration”

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

There's an “a”. Because Ms. May can't move her own amendments....

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Unless I'm having a problem here, hers is identical to yours.

We seem to maybe have a version problem with yours. Can you just please read what you are replacing in PV-68? You said, “replacing line 18 on page 48 with the following”. Please tell me what it reads in yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It reads, “adverse environmental effects must be based on a consideration”.