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.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
We've been around this mulberry bush once. I think we need a little more time to get a substantive analysis of the definition, as proposed by MP Duncan. Presently, we have in front of us a motion, which doesn't require that definition, and we can move forward with this motion regardless. In order to get a definition, we're going to need to review it on the substance and get unanimous consent to incorporate it.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I did get consent to go back. We'll just leave that stand-down, then, in terms of the definition, and we'll come back to that, after there's been some more consideration. However, we can move on this particular amendment, which is LIB-43.
Ms. Duncan.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Will there be there no consideration of adaptive management during the impact assessment review? Is it only going to be considered later in decision-making?
12:20 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Maybe I can speak to that part.
In order for us to get to the conditions in the decision statement, we're relying on the impact assessment to do that. Whether it's adaptive management plan or the other conditions, all of that information has to be assessed for us, in order to develop those. It certainly happens at the outset and then feeds all the way through until—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Well, there is no discussion of adaptive management during the impact assessment. That's my concern.
12:20 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
There are a lot of different measures within proposed section 22 that would need adaptive management and the requirements associated with those would be part of the policy approaches laid out.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Can we have a recorded vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
All of these are related.
The basic intent is that the decision statement must include an evidence-based justification for any trade-offs that were made between or among the the public interest considerations in proposed section 63. It requires that there can't be transparency and accountability without expressly requiring a reasonably detailed explanation of how and why the trade-offs were made. Also, the reasons for the decision must provide a cogent, evidence-based account of why, for example, a project was approved despite the likelihood of adverse environmental effects or impacts on indigenous rights and interests. As well, it allows for amendments to the decision statement in response to unforeseen changes.
One thing I would add is that is in proposed paragraph (a.1) it would say that “the Minister disagrees with” any of “the conclusions”, and the same under proposed paragraph 65(1)(e), which is after line 11 on page 41, “terms and conditions of” any “approval”.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Those are two amendments to the amendment, adding the words “any of” after the (a.1) second line, “disagrees with any of the conclusions”, and then in paragraph (e) you have, in the fourth line down, “terms and conditions of any approval”.
Correct?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I will reiterate that paragraph (e) clearly delineates that responsibility will be assigned to any “appropriate federal authority”.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Next, amendment PV-65 conflicts with LIB-41, so that one is out. We are now on NDP-46. Ms. Duncan.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This one is very straightforward. It comes from a number of northern Alberta first nations. It essentially is saying that it requires that the consultations with affected indigenous peoples be completed before the decision statement is issued. It increases certainty by ensuring that Canada has fulfilled its obligations under both section 35 of the Constitution and the UNDRIP.
Very clearly, it is simply adding in the condition that they won't actually make the final decision until they have completed the consultations with any indigenous peoples that may be impacted by that decision, consistent with what the government has committed to.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
In this case, this one is put forward as a safeguard. It's intended to balance the ministerial discretion that is contained in the bill. This is something that we heard about, and I believe this increases transparency. That's the spirit of this motion. It provides that counterbalance to ministerial discretion that's provided within this bill.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])