We have NDP-14.
Evidence of meeting #102 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #102 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, I have a feeling this will have the same result as my previous amendment, NDP-13. Again, NDP-14 allows for the tracking of cumulative effects through letters of advice.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
May 22nd, 2018 / 9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, I am moving this amendment.
There are two sections to this. The first section is in terms of projects that may result in “the death of fish or in the harmful alteration”. Those terminologies aren't used there. It's simply that any project would be covered under “designated project”. This would take from the “designated project” classification projects that did not include the harmful alteration or the disruption of fish habitat.
The second part of this adds a second proposed section 34.4(2.1) after proposed section 34.4(2) and states that if the minister proposes to make recommendations “under subsection (2)”, he shall “consult with the governments of any provinces that he or she considers” would “be interested in the proposed recommendation”. It's simply adding a consultation level to the process of designation of ecologically significant areas.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, I'm trying to keep up with the paperwork here.
This is in reference to testimony we heard from hydro power generation entities that were interested in the changes to this act. Basically, they're concerned that they're going to be impacted by the death of any fish. This amendment says that the minister shall consult with those entities—the electrical producers, for example—in making the decisions. That's in proposed paragraph 35.2(2)(a). In proposed subsection 35.2(9), we're adding a consultation process with regard to those same hydro power producers. Proposed paragraph 35.2(10)(h) is establishing and awarding “fair and reasonable compensation” for people who suffer losses as a result of the designation of “ecologically significant” areas.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Since CPC-15 has been moved, I have a ruling on this one. It is the belief of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible because it aims to create a compensation process that's not envisioned in the bill and that therefore would require a royal recommendation. This amendment is not admissible.
Mr. Arnold.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, if there were a subamendment to remove that proposed paragraph (h) requiring the compensation, would the remainder of the amendment be acceptable?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Mr. Miller has moved a subamendment to remove the section of the amendment that talks about compensation. We'll vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Since the subamendment did not carry, it is the ruling of the chair that this amendment is not admissible.
We'll be moving on then to PV-10.
9:50 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this amendment follows from the Governor in Council's ability to make regulations to designate ecologically sensitive areas. The preceding proposed subsection defines what an ecologically sensitive area is.
This amendment puts forward a process by which another government at a provincial level or an indigenous government—described in my amendment as an “Indigenous governing body”—can request the creation of the designation of an ecologically sensitive area. It also sets out that the minister must respond within 90 days, and with reasons.
It certainly would be advantageous for indigenous governing bodies and provincial governments to be able to take proposals for ecologically sensitive areas to the minister.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Next is amendment PV-11.
If amendment PV-11 is adopted, NDP-15 becomes moot, as they are identical. Also, if PV-11 is defeated, so is NDP-15, as they are identical.
Ms. May.
9:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, I would like to tell you where PV comes from, but you have probably all figured it out.
“PV” means “Parti vert”, the Green Party.
When I had to start doing this—coming in for clause-by-clause—I think they worried at the time that if they called it “G” for “Green”, everyone would think it was a government amendment. Never mind: one of these days, that might be the case.
9:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
But for now,
we are talking about “Parti vert”, the Green Party, amendment PV-11.
This is, I think, a very sensible proposal from West Coast Environmental Law: that whenever one of the various tentacles and arms of the federal government proposes to do something in an area that is designated an ecologically sensitive area—that would include funding decisions, activities, works, policies, whatever a different federal department or agency was doing that could affect an ecologically sensitive area—they would have to consult the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in their processes.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be able to point out alternatives. Who knows? If they don't consult, though, decisions could be made before the minister has a chance to make sure they understand the importance of ecologically sensitive areas.
Anyway, the amendment doesn't say what the minister would do; it just says other departments and agencies would have to consult with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when making decisions, within their own areas of mandate, that could have an impact on an ecologically sensitive area.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Is there further discussion on amendment PV-11?
Mr. Hardie, then Mr. Donnelly.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Chair, let me again ask staff, would this not have happened in the past and would it not happen in the future in any event?
One of the complications, I suppose, is that the new environmental process in Bill C-69 may be setting up some new regimes that I can't say I'm aware of. I guess the question is, will there be other agencies of government that would be able to unilaterally take the actions contemplated here, or in fact, is it pretty much standard fare that they would in any event, regardless of their authorities, consult with the minister?
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
You are correct in your conclusion that all entities that are proposing to do work, undertakings, or activities in a designated ecologically significant area must refer to the department for an authorization.
All projects will, then, be referred to the minister for review and authorization within an ecologically significant area. This is already addressed in the bill.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, it is.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Amendment NDP-15 therefore also does not carry.
We move to amendment NDP-16.
Mr. Donnelly.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, this amendment allows for ecologically significant areas in habitat areas that are already highly stressed, for example, in habitats used by the wild salmon policy conservation units, within red or amber zones.
It requires the minister to respond to requests for designation of such areas within 90 days; requires the minister to respond to requests from provincial and indigenous governments, as well as from members of the public, for designations of ESAs; and requires the minister to provide reasons, if the ESA designation does not proceed.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
