Environment Committee on March 6th, 2023

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect, what I'm proposing here is to take out duplications and to streamline and make our processes more transparent by removing duplications that might otherwise confuse the process. Maybe the officials could clarify the technical part of what I'm proposing.

[Laura Farquharson]

Sure.

The Senate amended this provision to provide the publication of all notices under the act, including notices of consultation and any decisions made under the act, in multiple modes and media. It says to publish them in the Gazette, in the registry and in newspapers.

It's duplicated in that we're already required, for instance, to publish proposed orders and regulations in the Canada Gazette for 60 days, so I don't think you would want to publish them in every single mode. It's a duplication in that sense, and we have the registry already.

We also have a new online system in which all regulations are being published and, as Mr. Longfield says, where the public can comment on them.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have another question for the officials. If I'm understanding correctly, the Senate added a requirement to publish in a number of different areas, including the Gazette, the registry and media outlets. Is that correct? Is there anything else that you see being taken out by removing lines 15 to 32?

[Laura Farquharson]

I see that being taken out.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Is there anything else that is changing with this, other than the provision to publish in those three areas? Do you see any other impact through this replacement?

[Laura Farquharson]

It's duplicative in that it's naming things that are already named to be published under other parts of the act.

It says, “In addition to any other requirement of this Act, a notice under this Act, a notice of any consultation to be held in relation to a matter under this Act and any decision made under this Act for which a notice is not otherwise required”. I guess I would say that “any decision made under this Act for which a notice is not otherwise required” is very vague to me. I don't know what that means.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Probably that vague piece is not duplicated in another part of the act. The concern there is just that you would be unsure as to how to interpret it.

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

With regard to the requirement to publish whenever there are consultations, you're saying that this part is definitely covered in other sections of the act. Is that—

[Laura Farquharson]

For consultations on regulations it is, absolutely. In fact, those have really broadened in recent years, because they have them for preconsultations as well, before you even start developing the regulations.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If this amendment fails and you then had to live with the Senate amendments, how would that be interpreted and what would be the results when it came to a consultation and any decision made under the act?

[Laura Farquharson]

The result would be.... We already have the required publication on this new online reporting system, called ORCS. In some cases it's in the Canada Gazette or the registry. I think it would be the “newspaper or other periodical that...has a large circulation” and the website. What's the distinction between publishing on the website and publishing in the registry?

It will lead to a lot of thinking about every single situation. I don't think it's a helpful addition to transparency.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any more questions or comments?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have another question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Farquharson, on page 42 of Bill S‑5, where it says, “requesting that a board of review be established”, do the transparency measures apply to that?

My understanding is that they do. However, it seems to me that the answer you gave relates to other elements of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but not that board. I may be mistaken.

Do other amendments or provisions mention that board?

[Laura Farquharson]

Can you specify where in the bill that is?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's on page 42, under the title “Notice of objection”:

(2) Any person may file with the Minister comments, or a notice of objection requesting that a board of review be established under section 333...

Am I to understand that the transparency measures would apply to this board of review, or am I misinterpreting?

[Laura Farquharson]

I don't think this part is being amended right now. I'm sorry. I'm just going to check.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to know if there is a connection between the review board and the Senate's desire to increase transparency by requiring that notices be published on a website, in a newspaper, in the registry, in the Canada Gazette and so on.

You said earlier that transparency was discussed in several other parts of the act, but—

[Laura Farquharson]

It's in the same part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but they are different subjects. They are not related.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

As there are no further questions or comments, we will proceed to a vote on amendment G‑15.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10, nay 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 55 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 56 agreed to on division)

(On clause 57)

We have new G-16.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Can anyone define what “new” means?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!