Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2016

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

Thank you.

It's the second amendment put forward by the Green Party.

It's very straightforward. Again, as we were just touching on the ongoing issue of agricultural use in the Rouge area, my amendment proposes to replace lines 18 to 21 on page 1, which right now reads, “for greater certainty, [the subsection on maintaining ecological integrity] does not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities”. What my amendment tries to do is to ensure sensitivity of the agricultural activities to the other, larger issues of watershed health.

This phrase would replace lines 18 to 21 with:

considering all aspects of the management of the Park, including the carrying out of agricultural activities and their impact on watershed health and the health of the Park's natural ecosystems.

It's an attempt to ensure that, in management, the agricultural activities face a threshold for agricultural activity that is different from the threshold for agricultural activity that isn't adjacent to an area where you're protecting ecological integrity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

All right. Thank you very much.

Would anybody like to speak on this one?

Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's not so much to speak on it, but to turn to our Parks Canada witnesses to provide comment on it.

When I had first read this, I thought that it was, perhaps, redundant because I saw that we already had the statement in there of “all aspects of the management of the Park”. To me, that seems to be broad and inclusive. I didn't know what the benefit was of bringing in the extra qualifiers. I just saw it as already being broad and inclusive.

I don't know if Parks Canada wants to comment on whether we need to add qualifiers, or if the existing wording is sufficient to deal with the kind of concern that Ms. May has raised.

[Pam Veinotte]

Yes, I think it's very important the way the amendment is structured now in terms of proposed subsections 6(1) and 6(2). I think we have clarity in proposed subsection 6(1) about how the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity will be the first priority when considering all aspects of the park. But very important to the farming community is the fact that their interests are well represented in proposed subsection 6(2), and it's very clear. I think it's important not to qualify something that is already very clearly spelled out in proposed subsections 6(1) and 6(2).

Again, given the situation that you heard about from the farmers represented by Mike Whittamore of Whittamore's Farm last week when he testified, I think that inclusion of proposed subsection 6(2) is extremely important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, I can't consider this amendment. I look at it, and I just see it as the start of what we've been concerned with right from the beginning. It's the first start of ecological integrity trying to chip away at little factors. That is why our argument has been so strong to not have ecological integrity, because this is what's going to continually happen in the future with this urban park.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Does anybody else have anything else to say before we put it to a vote?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Next up is amendment NDP-2.

Over to you, Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

In the balance of our amendments, we are looking to strengthen the act in a number of ways. In this one, section 8 of the act is replaced by changing the words to “The Minister must establish a committee” and then adding conservation organizations as well as organizations and experts that the minister considers appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm going to make a ruling before we start discussion, because it is actually inadmissible. It's similar to what we had last week.

I'll say it again:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

We do not have that clause in front of us, so I'm going to rule that inadmissible.

Next up is amendment NDP-3.

Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Again, this is looking to strengthen some aspects by adding the following:

The management plan must set out a management approach, by area, that includes the following:

The list includes ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions, measures for the protection and presentation of Aboriginal and other cultural heritage, measures for agricultural heritage, environmental guidelines, and a report on the state of the park and the progress that has been made towards achieving the objectives, as well as any amendments to the management plan.

Again, this is just strengthening the wording.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I appreciate all the work that you did for these. A lot of thought has been put into it, but in this case, I have to make a similar ruling. Again, we are working on a clause that is not before the committee, so I'm going to also rule this inadmissible. Sorry.

We now have amendment NDP-4.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Basically it's the same thing. These are all put in place. They're all consistent with Bill C-18's overarching objective, which is to ensure that ecological integrity is the priority in the management of the park.

This one goes to new proposed subsection 12(2):

(2) Before issuing a permit or authorization under subsection (1), the superintendent must (a) ensure that a thorough assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed activity has been conducted; (b) ensure that there has been meaningful consultation with Aboriginal organizations, stakeholders and the general public; and (c) be satisfied that all reasonable measures will be taken to avoid or mitigate any adverse environmental impact that may result from the proposed activity, including in relation to the Park's ecological integrity.

It's the same question, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I think you know how this is going to go, sorry to say. Again, good work but this is inadmissible in this clause-by-clause assessment. Thank you.

The last one of these is NDP-5.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'll read it really slowly so that it takes longer to get to the inadmissible part.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

This one has the same objective of trying to ensure that ecological integrity is the priority in the management of the park. New proposed subsection 16(1.1) would read as follows:

(1.1) A disposal may be made under subsection (1) only if the Governor in Council is satisfied that (a) there is no reasonable alternative to the disposal; (b) cost is not the sole or primary justification for the disposal; and (c) the environmental impact of the installation or maintenance of public infrastructure has been taken into consideration and all reasonable measures will be taken to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts that may result, including in relation to the Park's ecological integrity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Again, thank you for all your work, but I have to consider this out of order as well. It is amending a section of the act that's not before us and being considered by this committee. That one I will rule as inadmissible as well. Thank you.

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I'm just reading through the amendment. Would it be proper for me to ask the Parks Canada people a question in relation to it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Generally, if I'm going to rule it inadmissible, it really isn't going to be before the committee, so you can't really do that.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

But I don't see any reason why you couldn't talk to them about this at another point.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

All right. I just would have asked for some clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're not going to consider it, so once we start getting into it, I think that would be a bit of a problem.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Mr. Aldag, do you have anything?