ENVI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 1 of the Bill.
The witnesses answered questions.
“in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“4.1 The following physical activities carried out partly or completely on the territory of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement that have effects within federal jurisdiction are deemed to be designated projects:
(a) developments subject to the impact assessment and review procedures under the environmental and social protection regime applicable to that territory;
(b) physical activities requiring a certificate, permit or similar authorization under the Fisheries Act or the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; and
(c) physical activities which could harm species at risk within the meaning of the Species at Risk Act or migratory birds within the meaning of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, or alter their habitats.
4.2 (1) Despite any contrary provision in this Act, impact assessments of designated projects located partly or completely on the territory of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement must be conducted by the Environmental and Social Impact Review Committee established under section 22.6.1 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
(2) The Environmental and Social Impact Review Committee may require the Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment, the Canadian Energy Regulator, the Department of Transport, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or any other federal authority, as the case may be, to contribute to the impact assessment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
(a) by replacing line 7 on page 9 with the following:
“(a) to ensure sustainability;”
(b) by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 10 with the following:
“(j) to ensure that an impact assessment is based on sound science and takes into account the best available scientific information, traditional knowledge of”
(c) by adding after line 27 on page 10 the following:
“(o) to contribute to achieving and maintaining a healthy and stable climate for future generations;
(p) to ensure environmental justice by ensuring that designated projects do not have a disproportionate negative impact on Indigenous peoples or on other groups distinguished on the basis of grounds including race, colour, national origin or income; and
(q) to ensure adherence to or compliance with related regional agreements and international obligations and commitments.”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(a) to ensure sustainability;”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 4;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 5.
“and the health, social, cultural and economic conditions that”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“(j) to ensure that an impact assessment is based on sound science and takes into account the best tehnologies available to reduce environmental impacts;”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“(o) to contribute to achieving and maintaining a healthy and stable climate for future generations;
(p) to ensure environmental justice by ensuring that designated projects do not have a disproportionate negative impact on Indigenous peoples or on other groups distinguished on the basis of grounds including race, colour, national origin or income; and
(q) to ensure adherence to or compliance with related regional agreements and international obligations and commitments.”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 9 with the following:
“federal government and Indigenous governing bodies, with respect to impact assess-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 9 with the following:
“(f) to promote — while protecting sensitive information — cooperation, communication and information sharing with”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 4;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 9 with the following:
“(g) to protect the rights of the Indigenous”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 7.
“35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, in the course of im-”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“count scientific information, Indigenous knowledge and community”
The question was put on the amendment of Mike Bossio and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8;
NAYS: — 0.
“count alternative means of serving an identified need or carrying out a designated”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“or other activities carried out in accordance with this Act, that are to be carried out on federal or Indigenous lands, or that may impact Indigenous rights, and that may be subject to a federal authority or financially supported by a federal authority, are carried out in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“ments through the exercise of federal regulatory and enforcement powers and the use of follow-up programs.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 4;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 5.
“tainability, respects the Government’s commitments with respect to the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and applies the precautionary principle.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of William Amos and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Linda Duncan, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 6;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 3.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 10 the following:
“(3) The Government of Canada, the Minister, the Agency and federal authorities must, in the administration of this Act, exercise their powers in a manner that adheres to the principles of scientific integrity, honesty, objectivity, thoroughness and accuracy.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
(a) by replacing lines 33 to 40 on page 12 with the following:
“9 (1) The Minister must order an assessment when there are public concerns or when information is otherwise brought to the Minister's attention that a physical activity that is not prescribed by regulations made under paragraph 109(b) may cause significant adverse direct or incidental effects.”
(b) by replacing line 9 on page 13 with the following:
“is referred to in subsection (1).”
(c) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 13 with the following:
“(7) The Minister must not order an assessment under subsection (1) if”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“Act, 1982, and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, as well as any relevant assessment referred to”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“(9) The Minister may designate a physical activity where a federal authority is required to make a determination under sections 82, 83 or 84.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“Public Participation
9.1 (1) The public has the right to receive notice of, and to participate in, all decision-making processes under this Act, including the process leading to:
(a) any decision made by the Governor in Council under subsection 7(2) to amend Schedule 3;
(b) any request made by the Agency for additional information or details in relation to a designated project in accordance with subsection 15(2);
(c) any decision made by the Agency under subsection 16(1) as to whether an impact assessment of the designated project is required;
(d) any order made by the Minister under subsection 17(1) directing the Agency not to conduct an impact assessment of the designated project;
(e) any decision made by the Minister or Governor in Council to suspend or extend the time limits for the Agency to provide notice of the commencement of the impact assessment;
(f) any decision made by the Governor in Council to add or delete a body or a class of bodies from Schedule 1;
(g) any decision made by the Minister under this Act;
(h) any decision made by the Agency to commence an impact assessment of a designated project under section 18;
(i) any decision made by the Minister under section 24 to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel;
(j) any decision made by the Minister under section 31 to replace an impact assessment with a process for assessing the effects of designated projects that is followed by another jurisdiction;
(k) any decision made by the Minister under section 49 concerning the establishment or approval of a panel’s terms of reference;
(l) any decisions made in an impact assessment conducted by a review panel;
(m) any decision made by a review panel under subsection 53(3) not to conduct their hearing in public;
(n) any decision made by the Minister to establish a committee to conduct a regional assessment under subsections 92 and 93; and
(o) any decision made by the Minister to establish a committee under section 95 to conduct an assessment.
(2) The public has the right to receive notice of any determination made by the Minister in relation to the following:
(a) under subsection 60(1), that the adverse effects of a designated project are in the public interest;
(b) under subsection 60(2), that the matter of whether the adverse effects of a designated project are in the public interest is referred to the Governor in Council; and
(c) under section 73, that the impact assessment is terminated.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 14 with the following:
“made under paragraph 112(a) as well as a description of the alternatives to the project considered by the proponent.”
(b) by replacing line 16 on page 15 with the following:
“made under paragraph 112(a) as well as a description of the alternatives to the project considered by the proponent.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 14 with the following:
“the Internet site, along with a one-page summary of the project and its precise location, for 60 days after the day on which the Agency receives the information in subsection (1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 4;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 5.
“with opportunities to participate meaningfully in its preparations for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, or an assessment under section 92, 93 or 95, including by inviting the public to provide comments within the period that it specifies and in accordance with the regulations.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“with an opportunity to participate meaningfully in its preparations for”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Bossio and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8;
NAYS: — 0.
“(2) For the purposes of the preparations referred to in subsection (1), the Agency must also invite representatives from the following entities to participate in the preparations:
(a) the council of an incorporated city, metropolitan area, town, village or other municipality that may be affected by the carrying out of the designated project; and
(b) an authority responsible for delivering municipal services to an unincorporated city, metropolitan area, town, village or other municipality that may be affected by the carrying out of the designated project.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Sopuck and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 3;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 5.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 19 the following:“(c.1) comments received from entities referred to in paragraphs 11(2)(a) and (b);”
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 14 with the following:
“to consult and share information with any jurisdiction that has powers, duties or”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 4;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Darren Fisher, Bernadette Jordan, Churence Rogers — 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 14 with the following:
“nous group that may be affected by the planning or carrying out of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Gérard Deltell, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8.
“site under subsection 15(3), the Agency must decide whether an impact assessment of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Darren Fisher and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers — 5;
NAYS: Gérard Deltell, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 4.
The Chair ruled that the following three (3) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also adopted:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 36 on page 16 with the following:“Minister’s Notice
17 (1) If, before the Agency provides the proponent of a designated project with a notice of the commencement of the impact assessment of the designated project under subsection 18(1), a federal authority advises the Minister that it will not be exercising a power conferred on it under an Act of Parliament other than this Act that must be exercised for the project to be carried out in whole or in part, or the Minister is of the opinion that it is clear that the designated project would cause unacceptable environmental effects within federal jurisdiction, the Minister must provide the proponent with a written notice that he or she has been so advised or is of that opinion. The written notice must set out the reasons why the federal authority will not exercise its power or the basis for the Minister’s opinion.
(2) The Agency must post a copy of the notice on the Internet site.”
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by
(a) replacing line 3 on page 17 with the following:
“does not approve the”
(b) replacing line 14 on page 17 with the following:
“made under paragraph 112(a), including tailored guidelines regarding the information or studies referred to in paragraph (a) and plans for cooperation with other jurisdictions, for engagement and partnership with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, for public participation and for the issuance of permits.”
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 56.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 15 with the following:
“(2) In making its decision, the Agency must determine whether the designated project is clearly linked to matters of federal interest by considering if it takes place on federal lands or uses federal funding and if the federal government is a proponent of the designated project, as well as the extent to which the project would affect any of the following:
(a) Indigenous peoples and lands;
(b) species at risk;
(c) fish;
(d) marine plants;
(e) migratory birds;
(f) greenhouse gas emissions of national significance;
(g) watershed or airshed effects crossing provincial or national boundaries;
(h) navigation and shipping;
(i) aeronautics;
(j) activities crossing provincial or national boundaries and works related to those activities; or
(k) activities related to nuclear energy.
(2.1) If the Agency determines that the designated project is clearly linked to matters of federal interest, it must take into ac-”
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:35 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:43 p.m., the sitting resumed.
The debate continued.
Linda Duncan moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “determine” with the words “take into account”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS : William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 16 with the following:
“(c) any direct, indirect or cumulative impact that the designated project”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“Constitution Act, 1982, and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“(d) any comments received within the time period specified by the Agency from the public and from any jurisdiction or Indigenous group that is consulted under section 12;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Churence Rogers and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 8;
NAYS: — 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 16 the following:
“(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), a project involving any of the following decisions requires an assessment:
(a) a decision of the Minister of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act to permit any temporary or permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat;
(b) a decision of the Minister of Transport under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to issue a permit pertaining to navigable waters whether or not these are listed in the schedule; and
(c) a decision of the Minister of Environment under the Species at Risk Act to permit activities that pose a threat to a listed species.”
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was allowed to stand.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 16 with the following:
“(3) If the Agency decides that an impact assessment of the designated project is required, it must set the date by which that impact assessment is to be finalized.
(4) The Agency must post a notice of its decision under subsection (1) and the accompanying reasons, as well as the date set under subsection (3), on the Internet site.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 2;
NAYS: William Amos, Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Linda Duncan, Darren Fisher, Churence Rogers — 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 16 the following:
“(4) This section does not apply in respect of an impact assessment that is referred to a review panel in accordance with section 43.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing line 1 on page 17 with the following:
“18 (1) If an impact assessment”
(b) by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 17 with the following:
“the designated project — the Agency must, within the timeline agreed between the Agency and the proponent,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to the consideration of the amendment of Elizabeth May previously stood which read as follows: That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 16 the following:
“(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), a project involving any of the following decisions requires an assessment:
(a) a decision of the Minister of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act to permit any temporary or permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat;
(b) a decision of the Minister of Transport under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to issue a permit pertaining to navigable waters whether or not these are listed in the schedule; and
(c) a decision of the Minister of Environment under the Species at Risk Act to permit activities that pose a threat to a listed species.”
The debate continued.
Linda Duncan moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, after the word “assessment”, the words “prior to”.
The Chair ruled the proposed subamendment inadmissible because it rendered the clause unintelligible or ungrammatical, as provided on page 773 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“(1.1) The Agency must take into account the factors set out in subsection 22(1) in determining what information or which studies it considers necessary for it to conduct the impact assessment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Darren Fisher and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7;
NAYS: — 0.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert Sopuck and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 2;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Linda Duncan, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers — 6.
The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also negatived:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 56 with the following:“of the designated project is terminated under section 73;”
(a) replacing line 17 on page 19 with the following:
“22 (1) The impact assessment of a designated project, whether it is conducted by the Agency or a review panel,”
(b) replacing line 19 on page 19 with the following:
“(a) the changes to the environment or to health, social or economic conditions and the positive and negative consequences of these changes that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the designated project, including”
(c) replacing line 1 on page 20 with the following:
“(f) any alternatives to the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and are directly related to the designated project;”
Debate arose thereon.
Linda Duncan moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, before the word “changes”, the words “direct or incidental”.
At 6:28 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:28 p.m., the sitting resumed.
The question was put on the subamendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS : Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Darren Fisher and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7;
NAYS: Linda Duncan — 1.
“(i) the extent to which the life cycle and lifespan of the direct, incidental and cumulative effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada's ability to meet its international and national obligations in respect of biodiversity as well as of environmental and climate change;”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 19 with the following:
“on any Indigenous group, including any impact that”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“(g) Indigenous knowledge provided with respect to the designated”
The question was put on the amendment of Mike Bossio and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers — 5;
NAYS: Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 2.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 20 with the following:
“Canada’s ability to meet its obligations and commitments in respect of the environment, climate change and biodiversity;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“a jurisdiction — or an Indigenous governing body not referred to in paragraph (f) or (g) of the definition jurisdiction in section 2 — that is in respect of a region related to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Darren Fisher and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers — 5;
NAYS: Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 2.
“der paragraphs (1)(a) to (f), (h) to (l) and (s) and (t) is determined”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Darren Fisher and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers — 5;
NAYS: Linda Duncan, Ed Fast, Robert Sopuck — 3.
“(d) a member of the public or any Indigenous group that may be affected by the carrying out of a designated project and that is participating in the assessment or consultation relating to the designated project.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 21 with the following:
“24 Sections 25 to 28 cease to apply to a designated”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“or a federal authority to collect that information or undertake that study.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
“with an opportunity for meaningful participation in the impact assess-”
The question was put on the amendment of Linda Duncan and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Linda Duncan — 1;
NAYS: Mike Bossio, Bob Bratina, Ed Fast, Darren Fisher, Peter Fragiskatos, Churence Rogers, Robert Sopuck — 7.
At 7:01 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.