SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 278

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 278 - Feb/8/24
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)
  • Feb/8/24 5:56:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked in question period on October 18, 2023, just last fall. The question was asked five days after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down sections of the government's bill on environmental assessment, which it redubbed “impact assessment” and which came forward through Bill C-69. I practised environmental law. I will briefly share with the chamber that I actually worked in the Mulroney government and took a draft environmental assessment law through to the Privy Council to get permission for the government of the day to bring forward the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which ultimately entered into force around 1993. It went through several changes. It was an excellent piece of legislation; it worked well. It was repealed under an omnibus budget bill under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and was struck down and eliminated by Bill C-38 in spring 2012. That was more than lamentable. When the new government came in, in 2015, the current Prime Minister gave a mandate letter to the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, to fix this. Tragically, she ignored the advice of environmental experts, even those she had empanelled. What I asked on October 18 was whether the new Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice would follow the excellent advice of the expert panel on environmental assessment law that was chaired by former Chair of the BAPE, Johanne Gélinas, and many environmental experts, and which was thoroughly supported, certainly by the Green Party and by me. I asked whether we would follow the advice that the essence of environmental assessment law is to evaluate the projects of the federal government itself: at a minimum, the panel said, federal land, federal money or where federal permits are issued. There was an additional list of concerns. Tragically, the government ignored the advice. It took the advice of the Impact Assessment Agency itself. What I asked the minister on October 18 was whether the government would now commit to reviewing and putting in place the recommendations. An excellent opportunity was created by the court's striking down, as I completely predicted it would, the sections that were based on the designated project list itself, a creation of Harper's Bill C-38, which was a terrible way of weakening environmental law while at the same time failing to honour federal jurisdiction. The minister missed the point of my question and merely said that they were going to fix it. I am desperately worried they are going to do a quick fix, and that in the quick fix, they will once again listen to the advice of the wrong people. I beg the parliamentary secretary to tell us tonight that the government will follow the advice of the expert panel that gave them the right road to fixing the environmental assessment law in this country.
487 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 278 - Feb/8/24
Mr. Adam van Koeverden
  • Feb/8/24 6:04:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion provided new guidance on the Impact Assessment Act, while affirming that the federal government's leadership role in environmental assessment legislation is critical. The Government of Canada also developed the Impact Assessment Act to create a better set of rules that respect the environment and indigenous rights and ensure projects are assessed in a timely way. We remain committed to those principles. I just left the environment committee a little while ago and, over the course of two hours, we heard from nine different witnesses. With just nine, there was not necessarily consensus on all issues. Therefore, when the process was undertaken to hear from thousands of Canadian stakeholders with respect to environmental protection, it is important to note that there was no way to develop a full consensus on every single issue. However, deep consultation is and will continue to be a priority of this government as we reassess the Impact Assessment Act.
163 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border