Evidence of meeting #44 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on this before we vote?
Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I want to understand, because I wouldn't want to propose an amendment like I did with the precautionary principle.
Mr. Moffet, can we just add the word “environmental” because it's an error or an oversight, or do I have to move a motion or a subamendment?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It doesn't seem to be an oversight. It's been like that for years.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Therefore, it needs to be corrected. We had the same discussion about the precautionary principle.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I understand.
I'm told that the word “registry” appears several times in the bill. If we added the word “environmental”, that would have repercussions elsewhere in the text, and it would become very complicated.
There's nothing to prevent you from proposing this addition, but there would be consequences throughout the text.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, this is the same discussion we had last Friday, but I'll remain calm this time.
Subsection 13(1) of the English version begins, “The Environmental Registry”, whereas the French version begins, “Sont conservés au Registre”. Which registry is this?
This is another 1999 error that needs to be corrected. I can't believe that we can't correct it. We just did it for the precautionary principle, and we should be able to get it right in this case too.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
It's strongly suggested that I ask if we can confirm that this amendment deletes everything that's written in line 27 on page 4, ending at line 3 on page 5, of Bill S-5.
In amendment G‑7, it does state, “replacing line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5…”. So that seems to remove everything that was there. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're not talking about the Registry anymore, if I understand correctly.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Before I answer this new point, I have an answer, Ms. Pauzé. We'll be able to address your first concern.
Part 2 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, entitled “Public Participation”, has a section called “Environmental Registry”. After this section, each reference to the word “Registry” refers to the Environmental Registry.
It seems to me the problem is solved. It's for efficiency reasons. Is it more or less to your satisfaction?
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Efficiency isn't the same in English as in French. That's the problem.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
However, it's understood that we're talking about the Environmental Registry.
You raised a second point, though.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Before asking Mr. Moffet to answer you, could you repeat your question?
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes.
Mr. Duguid's amendment seems to cover a lot of ground, from line 25 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5. I just want to make sure that's what it says and understand what the implications are.
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I think this question is better posed to the clerk, but indeed, the amendment would delete all those lines that are referred to.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, it would, but Madam Pauzé's asking what that means substantively for the bill.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Maybe Mr. Duguid could tell us what the purpose of G-7 is.
Madam Pauzé is basically asking what the purpose of G-7 is.
Maybe Mr. Moffet can help.
December 13th, 2022 / 5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Perhaps I can help. When CEPA 1999 was passed, it enumerated the list of documents that the law required the government to include on the registry. In Bill S-5, one thing the government intended to do in multiple places, including in the registry, was to increase public access to information.
This amendment, while shorter, in fact expands the scope of documents the government would need to publish on the registry. Whereas previously it had only to publish the items listed in the lengthy list of provisions, now it is required, at a very high level, to publish all notices and documents published or made publicly available by the minister. It's now a much broader requirement with respect to the kinds of information and documents we will need to publish on the registry. That's the substantive implication of the amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I think the amendment does the opposite, doesn't it, Mr. Moffet? It means filing fewer documents, if I'm correct. I'm going to ask a follow-up question, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Moffet?