Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment, of course, is going in a positive direction; however, it doesn't go far enough. The actual clause remains very redundant, even with this amendment. It causes a lot of issues about just how many different bodies are going to be asking for information from different government departments under different acts.
I'm going to list five examples where this is redundant.
For the first example, part 2 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, requires the minister to establish a registry for the purpose of facilitating documents relating to the matters under the act. This registry has been available online since March 31, 2000, and it contains approximately 3,000 documents related to regulations, notices, orders, permits, guidelines, codes of practice, agreements, policies, substances, and enforcement and compliance actions. Information is available to facilitate participation in consultations in decision-making processes under the act. The registry has also received between 34,000 and 164,000 unique visits per month, since 2009. This particular clause will make that redundant.
The second example, the Species at Risk Act, also requires a minister to establish a registry to facilitate access to documents relating to matters under that act. This registry is also online, and it provides access to over 2,300 documents related to Canada's strategy and legislation for protecting the recovering species, the protected species list, and information on assets. Again, there's already protection provided in that act.
The third example, the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators initiative, gives permanent funding in Budget 2010 to provide Canadians with regular information on the state of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, water quantity, and protected areas. Again, there's protection there.
The Canadian environmental assessment registry was established in 2003 pursuant to subsection 55(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It is an important source of public information on projects undergoing environmental assessment under the act. The registry aims to help the public find information and records related to current assessments, and it provides timely notice about the start of an assessment and the opportunities for public participation. Once again, there's already protection currently under legislation.
The fifth example is the Access to Information Act, which applies to information related to environmental statutes. It gives Canadian citizens and permanent residents the right to be given access, on request, to any record under the control of a government institution. It places an obligation on the head of the government institution to make every reasonable effort to assist a person with their request, respond to the request accurately and completely, and, subject to the regulations, provide timely access to the record in the format requested.
With all of these existing mechanisms in place to share environmental information, it's unclear why the clause is needed. This amendment speaks to that. It tries to address that; however, it doesn't go nearly far enough.
We had witnesses come to committee on this. Theresa McClenaghan of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Professor Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa both emphasized that these rights exist under broad federal access to information provisions.
I believe this amendment goes in the right direction. It addresses the fact that there are many protections already currently in place under many pieces of legislation. However, I don't think it goes far enough because of the redundancies that exist in the clause.
Thank you.
