Evidence of meeting #52 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any comments or questions on BQ‑6?
It doesn't look like it.
We will move to the vote, then.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
All right.
That brings us to NDP‑22.
Please be advised that if NDP‑22 is adopted, NDP‑23 cannot be moved because they both amend the same line.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP-22 is similar to but slightly different from BQ-6, which we just voted on. It specifies that the minister's response to a public request for assessment must include a clear decision to grant or deny that request. We know this has been a problem in the past. It also prescribes a timeline for initiating and completing assessments in response to that public request.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Ms. Collins, I'm trying to look for the substantive difference here from the current language that you're changing it to. You still have “90 days” in there and “consider the request and decide whether to add the substance to the plan developed under section 73 or deny the request.”
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
What we heard from people who have made these requests is that responses won't actually specify whether they're granting or denying them. This would ensure that people are getting answers within that time period and that there is a timeline not only for the assessment but also for initiating and completing the assessments in response to these public requests.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
The current proposed subsection 76(2) says the following:
The Ministers shall consider the request and, within 90 days after the day on which the request is filed, the Minister shall inform the person who filed the request of how the Ministers intend to deal with it and the reasons for dealing with it in that manner.
The current language seems to indicate to me that they are being responded to and told exactly how the matter is going to be dealt with.
The amendment changes it in what way?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
What we've heard from stakeholders going through this process is that they get responses, but those responses are unclear. This would clarify that the minister must actually let those people who are making these requests know whether those requests are being granted or whether they are being denied, and maintain timelines, as well, around those requests.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
If I could ask the officials for...because I am not seeing the substantive difference here in the language.
Is there a comment on this from the officials?
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, if we're talking about NDP-22.
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The difference from what it says in the bill now—which is that the ministers have to say how they're going to deal with it—is that it says the ministers have to decide whether to add the substance to the plan or not and have to inform the person within 90 days. In this amendment, there are no time limits on when the assessment will get done.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Is it that there are no timelines in the amendment or that there are no timelines in the current...?
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
There are no timelines in the current act that would say if somebody makes a request for an assessment....
This is what it says: If someone asks for a request for an assessment, they will get an answer within 90 days. The amendment says that they'll be told whether it's going to go on the plan or whether its going to be denied. If it goes on the plan, it might be for gathering further information; it might be for assessment. It's different from what Madame Pauzé proposed, which said that it has to be assessed and within a certain period of time. It's different from that. It doesn't include that.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Proposed subsection (2.1) of NDP-22 says, “Within 90 days after the day on which the request is filed, the Minister shall inform the person who filed the request of the decision, how the Ministers intend to deal with it and the reasons.”
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's just referring to the above—whether or not they're putting it on the plan and the reasons why.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
It's about putting it on the plan or not, versus getting a firm response one way or the other.
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
It's versus getting an assessment right away. The point is that you don't want a public request mechanism to override priorities set through the plan of priorities.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Therefore, the NDP amendment delays things a bit. Pardon me for putting it this way, but it's a procrastinative measure for—
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
No, it's meant to be very clear about where a public request to assess a certain substance will be put on the plan, when one comes in. It's saying, “This is super important, so it's going to the top of the plan,” or “Yes, we understand this is important, but these other 15 things should be assessed first, so it's going here in the plan.”
5 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's the idea.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's just a small thing. My reading of the amended text would have it say, “how the Ministers intend to deal with it and the reasons. for dealing with it in that manner.”
I think we might want to erase that one period, so we don't have that.