Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Chair, I would like to provide some clarification to the committee. We're talking about an amendment, and the clerks have asked me to do this, so that we don't become confused. It's E021-020-34a. I just want to put that in the record.
This amendment will not surprise anyone here. It's part of a series of amendments. All of my amendments so far, if anyone is keeping score, it's everybody else whatever, Greens zero. You can be quite certain that none of my amendments have carried, and this is consistent with those in order to ensure we do not split the list of toxic substances, thus imperilling the whole scheme of the act.
I want to thank Ms. May for putting this forward. I do think, given that the other ones haven't passed, this doesn't totally make sense without the previous ones, but I will be supporting it because I support the spirit of this amendment. I supported the amendments before. I want to thank her for putting it forward.
It's a pleasure to move CPC-5. This amendment is meant to drive as much precision as possible into the route of exposure, the form, the use or any specific marker related to the list of toxic substances. This would ensure that the substance that is risk managed under the act is limited to that which has an unacceptable risk of exposure. This precision is all the more important for schedule 1, part 1, substances, where the proposed risk management outcome is the prohibition of that substance.
The intent behind this committee is to drive as much precision and to have as much clarity as possible in the regulations to ensure that, especially when something is being banned or prohibited, both industry and Canadians know exactly what that means and that there's as much detail as possible surrounding that.
We now go to NDP‑27, which concerns clause 22 of Bill S‑5.
Before Ms. Collins presents her amendment, I would like to tell you that if the amendment is carried, it will not be possible to present BQ‑8, because both amendments pertain to the same lines in the bill.
Mr. Chair, you are right to say that BQ‑8 does seek to bring an amendment by replacing part of paragraph (a). However, we are proposing to amend paragraph (b) with an addition after line 27.
The two paragraphs do not pertain to the same lines of the bill. In that case, how should we proceed?
Yes, this is yet another time where two of my amendments are split into two different parts. You'll see that NDP-27 and NDP-28 are very similar to BQ-8. They have a similar spirit.
This first half is the one that is about requiring the minister to set out timelines for all measures identified in the risk management plan. I hope the committee will support it.
Instead of presenting the amendment, I'm going to ask my colleagues a question.
Why are they scared of setting deadlines? The deadlines that we are proposing aren't unreasonable.
Amendment BQ‑8 proposes that clause 22 of Bill S‑5 be amended by an addition after line 27. It states that the deadline “shall [...] not exceed two years”. I repeat that the deadline can be extended. I don't understand why some of my colleagues seem so reticent.
I would like to know why my colleagues voted against any amendment that sought to tighten up deadlines.
Committee members may answer your question if they so wish, but they are not obliged to. This is not question period. Even during question period, we are not obliged to answer questions.
A bit earlier, the government presented an amendment seeking to put pressure on the authorities so that research and analyses would be carried out within a period of two years. We believe that this would allow us to reach the goal expressed by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois which, in passing, is completely spot-on, without making it mandatory. This will put pressure on the government and also give it some wiggle room, which is necessary. If the government has not reached the set target after two years without providing any information, it will have to explain itself. There will be pressure, but no mandatory deadline.
Points of view vary, of course, but in cases where a two‑year period might be too short for certain stakeholders and too long for others, we would have that a target. However, there is a difference between a target and an obligation. I do understand my colleague's goal. Actually, I would say that I don't disagree in principle, but I would prefer that we put pressure on the authorities to arrive at a decision within two years and that afterwards, if the authorities believe that the timeline was insufficient, they will have to explain why.
We have exactly the same goal, even if our way of getting there is a bit different. I believe it would be just as efficient or even more so to exert pressure on the government so that the work gets done in less than two years and to demand an explanation if the goal is not met, rather than provide for an obligation to reach the goal in less than two years.
I agree with Mr. Deltell. A one-size-fits-all approach could be diverting resources at the wrong time and the wrong place. It could actually slow down the process.
I think that being able to put the pressure when and where it's needed to get the results that we need is really the spirit of what we're trying to do here.
This has a similar spirit as the last two motions. Given the comments of my colleagues, especially Mr. Deltell and Mr. Longfield, I want to highlight one element of this motion.
It says:
The Ministers may establish a time frame of more than two years if they determine that a proposed regulation or instrument cannot be developed in that time, in which case they shall publish their reasons in the Canada Gazette.
It seems to me that this motion really speaks to exactly what the two members were in favour of. This gives flexibility to the minister. There is pressure to not exceed two years, but there is flexibility in the ability for the minister to establish a different time frame of more than two years, if needed. They just need to propose the rationale.
I hope the members will reconsider and support this motion.
My question is especially in light of the amendment that the government brought forward, which talked about adding the two-year timeline and requiring a published statement and whatnot.
I'm curious and I will ask officials this: With amendment NDP-28, is this something that would be concurrent with that? I'm hoping to get some guidance from the officials as to where they see this in terms of the impacts. We're talking about different clauses of the bill. Is there a similar impact? What is the possibility of this affecting different parts of CEPA?
I'd like to ask for some clarification from the officials, if I could.
Chair, this is further to that same question for the officials. Ms. Collins was talking about publishing the reasons in the Canada Gazette. The amendment brought forward this morning, which we already approved, was that the minister shall publish in the environmental registry.
Perhaps we could have some clarification on just the difference between the two, and where people look for these reasons about what the delay is. It would be instructive.
I will start with the fact there are timelines on lots of the steps that are taken under the bill. Just to clarify, the amendment you discussed previously, and you adopted a government motion related to that, that was moving from a draft risk assessment to a final risk assessment. When the final risk assessment is published, a statement about proposed measures to be taken is also published.
The amendment you passed said that, if it takes you more than two years, then the minister must publish reasons. Now you're debating timelines on subsequent risk management instruments.
When the final risk assessment is published, there's a statement about the measures that are going to be taken. The first measure is under what we call the CEPA time clock, which is in CEPA and says you have to get the draft regulation done in 24 months and the final one done in 18 months.
The issue has always been about what happens to the other risk management instruments. What are their timelines? The bill proposed that when the first risk management instrument was published, the ministers would have to state what the estimated timelines were for the other risk management instruments. That is to allow for new information to come up and also flexibility among risk management instruments, because if you put a hard deadline on those subsequent risk management instruments, you may find, for instance, that the nature of the industry changes. The instrument you proposed may not be the one you need, not the most effective, or it could be that there are other risk management instruments related to other substances that should move faster.
That's why the flexibility is there. I hope that helps somewhat.
I didn't get the answer between the minister publishing in the environmental registry versus Ms. Collins talking about publishing the reasons in the Canada Gazette.
I wanted to remind the committee of that section. This isn't a hard deadline, but rather a specified deadline that has flexibility built in, because the minister may establish a time frame of more than two years if they determine that the proposed regulation or instrument cannot be developed in that time. Then they just need to give their rationale.
This is really about improving and helping prevent lengthy delays in implementing the full suite of risk management measurements.
I do hope my honourable colleagues will support it.
“More flexibility” just means that we operate it. I'm not sure there's more flexibility in it. We operate the registry and can put it on the registry ourselves. With the Canada Gazette, obviously, we're going through a different process.
I believe stakeholders consult both the registry and the Canada Gazette. I guess I'll stop there. It's the NDP motions that refer to different ones.
If I may, Mr. Chair, if the two said the same thing, would the stakeholders be able to get the information from one source as opposed to drifting between two sources here? As a layperson, I would say that the Canada Gazette is more well understood than an environmental registry, but maybe people who work in this sector and who specifically look at CEPA on a regular basis are more familiar with the environmental registry. Perhaps we should have consistency between the two reporting channels.
I want to speak to Mr. McLean's comments. You'll notice that most of my amendments have the Canada Gazette in them, and that was really hearing from the environmental stakeholders who use this that it was their preference. NDP-29, which is coming up, does have the environmental registry, and that was done to attempt to get support from other parties.
If Mr. McLean supports this amendment but with it going into the environmental registry, I'm very open to amending it as such. I do think the Canada Gazette is a better option, but I think moving forward with this is the best option. I would be in favour of either one if there is support around the table.
To the officials, just so I'm perfectly clear about the environmental registry versus something being gazetted, everything that is gazetted ends up in the registry, but what I don't think your explanation included was that the reverse is not necessarily true or is true. Everything in the environmental registry is not necessarily gazetted; however, the other way around it is. Am I correct in that understanding?
I'm sorry. Back to the analysts here, I'm really trying to understand the difference between BillS-5 and.... Outside of the wording on the registry versus the Canada Gazette, which doesn't seem to be that large a hurdle, what is the difference between the two? Both of them are saying two years, and if we exceed two years, the minister has to give reasons for the delay and the estimated time frame within which the statement under this paragraph is published. It really seems like it's saying the same thing here, just through a different mechanism.
Ms. Collins, if you can walk me through what the difference is between the Liberal amendment and your amendment outside of that point, I'd appreciate that.
Mr. McLean, I will be repeating a lot of what Ms. Farquharson said, but the Liberal amendment deals with the risk management plan and the proposed versus the finalized assessment—“proposed” is the wrong language, but I hope you understand what I mean—whereas this is a later step, and it's really about additional measures and instruments to make sure we have accountability and prevent lengthy delays in the full suite of risk management plans.
Ms. Farquharson, if you want to jump in to correct anything I've said, please feel free.
Mr. Chair, like others, I appreciate this very nuanced discussion, and it does seem that officials wanted a little bit more time to explore the subtleties. I know that our side would very much like to have a pause.
We've been acting informally, but I'll get you a formal response. It's at the discretion of the chair, but the chair can always be challenged. It's not unlimited power.
I'll make a comment as someone who very much wants to be there in person, but is sick today and can't fly. It's difficult knowing that the other committee members are having discussions in those pauses, when I think we should probably have those conversations here, on the record.
First of all, that's why it's so important that we're in person. I understand that the member can't be here right now, but even if we were in the same room all together and we had a pause for clarity, not everybody is in every conversation that we would have if that were the case.
I think we can proceed, but if you have any questions or comments, Ms. Collins, on the substance of your amendment...or do you want to allow others to intervene on the amendment?
Ms. Collins, you'll find us voting against this because of input we had while we were paused on what this implies.
Our concern was.... We wanted to make sure that there was consistency between your motion and the one that the Liberals passed earlier today. We discovered that there wasn't consistency, and there were some reasons to oppose it.
I'll speak to Mr. McLean's point about the pause and the fact that members were able to get information from the officials that could be valuable, both for other members of the committee and for the public who's listening in.
There's not much time left. I'm going to suspend the meeting.
Before I do, I want to make sure that we all understand that, when someone is virtual, we have to plan for a potential malfunction, which means that we have to plan for a quick substitution, especially when we're proposing amendments.
For future reference for everyone here who might be on screen next time, if you're proposing amendments and we run into difficulty, then your side has to be able scramble and find a substitute to present your amendments. There is some contingency planning involved. Obviously, if you're not presenting amendments, it's not as complicated. It's something to keep in mind.
We haven't encountered this before and I guess we're not prepared for it on any side.