Evidence of meeting #47 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Hello everyone.
I hope that you had a good weekend somewhere warm because in most parts of the country, it was terribly cold.
Friday, we stopped at NDP‑25, so that's where we will pick up now.
Please refresh my memory: had NDP‑25 been presented? Yes? Okay.
We are now at the discussion or debate stage. Is that correct?
Do any members of the committee wish to speak?
Yes, Mr. Duguid.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, the government side will be opposing this motion, but we will be presenting a counter-motion. It is an alternative that I think expresses the spirit our NDP member was expressing in her motion.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Great.
Would other members like to speak?
Ms. Collins, you have the floor.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To remind committee members, since it's been a bit since we were talking about this amendment, it's really about establishing clearer timelines for finalizing substance assessments. We know that there have been multi-year delays. This would prevent these kinds of multi-year delays between proposed and final risk assessments.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Anyone else? No?
I will therefore ask the clerk if we can put NDP‑25 to the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas; 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment is negatived, which brings us to BQ‑7.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I believe I mentioned I would have a counter-amendment to NDP-25.
11:05 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
BQ‑7 proposes to add a one-year deadline after publication. Personally, when I make plans, I always have a deadline or a date in mind to put my plans into action. This is essentially what we are proposing.
I always come back to the fact that everyone told us that the law hadn't been reviewed for 20 years. We therefore have an opportunity to set some deadlines so that evaluations are not pushed back indefinitely. That is what the amendment is about.
At subsection 21(8), we are adding that “the Ministers [...] may extend” the period. This means that if the evaluation or the review is not done after one year and if the ministers believe there is still data to be collected, it is always possible to extend the deadline for another year. That remains a possibility.
Then, at subsection 21(8.1), we are proposing the following: “If the Ministers extend the period [...] they shall provide notice of the extension [...].” This means that after one year, if certain things have not been done, the ministers may provide for a one-year extension and explain why they are doing so. We believe this is a logical measure.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Would someone else like to speak to the amendment?
Since there is no one else, we will vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas; 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment is negatived.
We now go to NDP‑26.
Mr. Duguid, you have the floor.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Is now the appropriate time for the counter-amendment? It's after. Okay.
I'm sorry that I'm so anxious. You know I'm a keener.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, NDP-26 is about establishing timelines around substance assessments. The Bloc amendment in the middle has elements of both of these, but you can go to the vote.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We'll vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I believe, Mr. Duguid, that you have an amendment.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Excuse my enthusiasm this morning. It must be the great lunch.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I believe the amendment has been circulated. I want to check with the clerk.
It has been circulated and I believe everyone has it, so there will be no need for me to read it. I'll just say that it does reflect the spirit of some of the previous amendments in providing some definition around timelines.
Mr. Chair, I would like to present this motion to create a new requirement to publish a statement indicating the reasons for the delay to publish a statement under proposed paragraph 77(6)(b) and an estimated time frame within which the statement under that paragraph is to be published.
Proposed paragraph 77(6)(b) refers to statements indicating the final decision on measures related to an assessment. This motion, if adopted and enacted, will improve transparency and ensure that government remains accountable.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Duguid.
Are there any questions, comments or discussion on this?
Ms. Collins, is your hand up?
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes.
I want to thank Mr. Duguid for putting this forward. I think the previous three amendments, two by the NDP and one by the Bloc, are stronger in terms of ensuring that we'll have clear timelines and prevent those multi-year delays. I do think that this is a step forward. I'll be supporting it.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. We'll go to a vote.
Can we pause for a moment?
Which one is it that we're dealing with here, Mr. Duguid? The email I have has three different motions. Which one is it?
Let's pause, please.