Environment committee  Okay. I can't speak to the rationale behind—

Environment committee  No, but even to that particular proposed subsection, other than to say that the way it's structured now would not permit a joint review with another jurisdiction where the life-cycle regulators—the CNSC or the NEB—are involved, but I do see that this amendment and other ones that

Environment committee  I might just add that proposed paragraph 32(a) notes that if an impact assessment is referred to a review panel, it cannot be substituted, so those projects done in collaboration with the offshore boards would all be done by a review panel. They would actually not be available fo

Environment committee  I can speak to that. In proposed section 7 of the bill, there are prohibitions for federal authorities to take decisions, and that ensures the impact assessment must be done and must be completed first for those projects that are on the project list. But in cases where a proponen

Environment committee  There are two separate provisions there. There's the one that Christine noted, that there's the ability to request additional information. The nature of the section that we're talking about, where we can extend the timeline in subsection 19(2), just provides the agency with the p

Environment committee  If I understand the amendment, it notes federal jurisdiction, and that's where the panel came from, and the bill actually in the definitions has “effects within federal jurisdiction” listed out. In addition, it also has a definition for “direct or incidental effects”, and that

Environment committee  I can speak to that second part. That additional text about tailored guidelines refers to the products that would be prescribed in regulation under proposed section 112. Those would be issued then by the agency, as well as the other products that are outlined in addition to the

Environment committee  The regulation would prescribe the various different products that are laid out there, and it would prescribe the information and studies in that guideline that the proponent has to prepare in order to support the impact assessment process.

Environment committee  I can speak to that. I'm just going to look at amendment LIB-12 in terms of explaining the difference between that and what's in the act. Currently under section 17 in the act, there is the ability for the minister to order the agency not to conduct an impact assessment. There

Environment committee  Correct.

Environment committee  I can speak to that. To understand the question, it's does the follow-up program exist in the legislation? It does. There's requirement for a follow-up. That follow-up is an obligation that will come out of the decision statement conditions. There has to be a follow-up program

Environment committee  There are other sections of the bill that speak to that. There are conditions. They are enforceable. They come out of the decision statement that the minister would issue at the end of the public interest test if the project were approved. There is a section that begins in prop

Environment committee  The only thing I would add is that there is a current follow-up program under CEAA 2012 as well. That specific point about it in the purpose arises here, but the follow-up program actually exists currently.

Environment committee  I can speak to that in the context of this act. In the subsequent provision under the definition of “jurisdiction”, paragraph (d) actually outlines “any agency or body that is established under an act of the legislature of a province”. That covers municipalities.

Environment committee  It does speak for itself in the way that member Duncan outlined. You would have to have functions related to an impact assessment in order to be recognized as a jurisdiction there.