Evidence of meeting #50 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as I'm substituting in, I don't get the emails.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll get a hard copy for you, and apparently a copy was sent to you electronically too.
Go ahead, Ms. Thompson, if you want to explain it.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support this motion.
We've heard from witnesses that a presumption of confidentiality exists when requests are made under section 313 of the act. There is concern regarding transparency in CBI claims.
CEPA does not create a presumption of confidentiality per se, but rather requires that information for which there has been a CBI claim not be disclosed unless permitted.
Following a claim for CBI under CEPA, the department will not make any determination until there is an intention to publish the information. At the time of making the determination, the department will look into the CBI.
Currently, and as a matter of policy, the department asks that persons requesting confidentiality under section 313 provide a rationale regarding the nature of the confidentiality, and points at the types of legitimate CBI outlined under section 20 of the Access to Information Act, for example, trade secret, material financial loss, or impact on contractual negotiations in some cases.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Are there any other comments or questions?
I see Mr. Garrison.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a point of clarification.
Since the Liberal amendment proposes to amend clause 50, I'm asking advice from the chair on whether that would allow NDP-37 to go forward. It's an amendment to the same section, although it's a different portion. I'm just asking for a clarification.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have no note to the contrary. Nothing tells me that you can't go ahead with the new NDP-37. There's a new NDP-37, I believe.
What's the new NDP-37?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Chair, I just know that in some circumstances, once you've amended a section, it's not possible to make further amendments to the section.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I agree, but they usually tell me if that's going to cause a problem.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm telling you that they haven't told me it's going to cause a problem, so we can assume it won't.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, we can assume. Assumptions can be wrong, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
As I understand it—the clerks or anyone else can correct me—you would be right if we were dealing with the previously submitted NDP-37. However, there is a new NDP-37, which would not include a section that was in the old NDP-37. Therefore, there won't be a problem; there won't be a conflict.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much.
My other committee is access to information and ethics. I could make a political joke here, but I'll refrain.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
None whatsoever.
It looks to me that this amendment is simply clarifying the needed for compliance with the Access to Information Act, as would be the case with any federal legislation. I'm asking whether the officials could clarify—talking about assumptions—whether that assumption is in fact correct: to ensure that any waiver that would be granted fits the allowances laid out in the Access to Information Act, specifically section 20, as outlined in the amendment.
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct. I think it goes beyond that. It codifies the current policy of both departments to request a set of information from applicants in order to make the determination about whether the decision will be aligned with the Access to Information Act. It's a legal codification of an existing policy, intended to ensure alignment of the access to information regime in CEPA with the Access to Information Act.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you.
To clarify, does the current CEPA have outlined within it the obligation under the Access to Information Act...or is this a new addition that would ensure it's noted that it's legislatively compliant?
February 16th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
There is a cross-reference in the statute. This provision has to do with the information that is requested from applicants, so it's a further reinforcement of that linkage.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else before we vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It is adopted.
We then have new amendments NDP-37 and BQ-13, and I'm told they are very similar.
We will go to new amendment NDP-37.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we could try swapping out to see if anything has changed, given that halfway through a previous meeting the audio changed—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Can the interpreters tell us if anything has changed?
Nothing has changed. I'm getting the thumbs-down again, so nothing has changed, but what I'm understanding, Ms. Collins, is you would like to present this new NDP—
