Environment committee  That's the idea.

Environment committee  Yes, if we're talking about NDP-22.

Environment committee  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,

Environment committee  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

Environment committee  That's just referring to the above—whether or not they're putting it on the plan and the reasons why.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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

Environment committee  It provides clarity.

Environment committee  I can't really answer that.

Environment committee  I think we could see providing a way off the watch-list when there is information to suggest that a substance is no longer capable of becoming toxic. However, I think the part that says one of the reasons you would take it off the watch-list is that it is determined not to be tox

Environment committee  There is duplication, and there is a reference to a wrong paragraph, but I might have said there was duplication twice. First, you have to— I'm sorry. I don't want to tell you what to do. If you adopt clause 10, there will be duplication and wrong references.

Environment committee  That's the upshot. In clause 10.1, there's a reference to proposed paragraph 56(1)(b), which will no longer exist. Clause 11.1 creates a second proposed section 60.

Environment committee  It's 11.1.

Environment committee  If clause 10 is adopted, then all the duplication happens. It's 10.1 and 11.1 that you probably need to.... It's where the duplication happens.

Environment committee  There's a duplication and a reference. If you pass clause 10, there is a reference to a paragraph that will no longer exist.