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])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Running along the same theme, this amendment modifies proposed subsection 106(1) to create a permanent record that can be used as a reference and lessons for future cases. At line 29 to 31 on page 55, we are adding “and maintained permanently”.
The second part ensures that the data, and not just subjective reports and other records, be made public, so it's all data collected. There has been a propensity for agencies to just give a summary of data where analysis is done for sometimes “political” reasons. The first part is that they be maintained permanently for reference, for other reviews as well, and the second is that all data collected be posted, not just a summary of the data.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
LIB-56 was dealt with under LIB-9. CPC-8.1 was dealt with under CPC-1.1. Those are out. Now we have—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
CPC-8.1 was defeated and LIB-56 was passed.
We're now at LIB-57.
Mr. Aldag.
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The amendment would add the following to line 3 on page 58:
(b.1) prescribing the process for applications for costs and the awarding of costs for public participation in the participant funding program established under section 75, and the issuance of guidelines for funding following consultation with the public;
This requires the cabinet to make regulations for how the participant funding process will be conducted rather than leaving it on an ad hoc basis. It's necessary to provide direction and cost awards through regulations made under proposed section 109 rather than at the mere discretion of the agency. This is providing some level of certainty and clarity and fairness across the board for all reviews so that communities, indigenous people, and anyone coming forward will know what the rules are for costs.
This is normally what all assessment tribunals do. They make known what the rules are for applying for costs. There's usually a kind of chart that shows how much an engineering witness is paid, how much a lawyer is paid, and how much people will be paid to travel to the location, organize the community, or coordinate with other intervenors and so forth.
That's what this does. It provides that there will actually be clear regulations on how those costs are assessed.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This amendment, at line 23 on page 58, would allow the Governor in Council to make regulations restricting the minister's actions when entering into agreements with other jurisdictions. Proposed paragraphs 114(1)(c) and (f) deal with the minister entering into agreements or arrangements with other jurisdictions. This limits the discretion and would require that the Governor in Council make regulations.
People are very, very concerned about what kinds of agreements might be entered into, including substitutions and so forth, or arrangements with other jurisdictions on cross-border assessments. They highly recommend that there be some kind of clear guidance provided by the Governor in Council any time the minister considers entering into those agreements.
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
On the theme of legal certainty, this revision at line 4 on page 59 changes “The Minister may make regulations” to the “Minister must make regulations”. The reason for this is that this entire bill is rife with discretion, and there's great concern about that. If I heard anything from the majority of witnesses, it was the concern about the level of discretion.
What this would do is actually require the minister—not give her the option—to issue regulations in those areas: procedures; prescribing the information required; respecting participant funding; designating physical activities; and respecting what's in the registry. It would ensure a full suite of regulations to provide a greater level of legal certainty to everybody who is participating in the review process.
