Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Even in the English version, it says “is native to Canada”. Normally one always sees “wild counterpart”.

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes, that's right. One wonders if there is a wild counterpart.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I thought it was strange to see the words “native to Canada” in the motion. Maybe Mr. Weiler knows why we decided to use those words all of a sudden. That was my question. I was perplexed by that wording.

[Laura Farquharson]

I see. I don't know. I can't answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Maybe Mr. Weiler can tell us why it says “native to Canada”.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll move on to another question instead.

Am I to understand that amendment G-14.2 almost completely strikes out the information assessment, meaningful participation and public comment provisions, which are things that the Senate passed?

Maybe Mr. Weiler or the departmental officials who are with us can answer that.

[Laura Farquharson]

Amendment G-14.2 eliminates the notion of demonstrable need, but includes a section on participation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I see.

The new text proposed by the amendment appears to strike out just about everything the Senate proposed on page 32, from the first line up to and including line 10, as I understand it. Even the headings “Assessment of Information” and “Meaningful Participation” would be struck out, as this is done by substitution.

[Laura Farquharson]

This is replaced by the new clause 108.1.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In that case, I will make a comment, Mr. Chair.

Personally, I support what the Senate has done, which has really made an interesting space for public participation and greater transparency. In fact, amendment BQ-12 added some clarification.

So I find it disturbing that through amendment G-14.2, the government seems to be chopping away at anything that has to do with information assessment and meaningful participation.

There are organizations that are looking at the science, following the debates, and have expertise. I think we need to recognize these organizations. I am thinking in particular of Nature Canada and Vigilance OGM. Since the McKinsey firm has been recognized, it seems to me that we should also recognize the work of these scientists.

Here is why I will vote against amendment G-14.2. I find it upsetting to put the axe to what the Senate has done, said and written. I remind you that the Senate had more time than we did. I know it was not always easy, but it also heard more witnesses than we did. The bill will go back to the Senate, and if I were there, I don't know how I would react if they crossed out large parts of my work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have some similar concerns to those raised by Madame Pauzé. I want to hear from Mr. Weiler about the language around “native to Canada” instead of the “wild counterpart” language.

I have questions for Mr. Weiler, but also for the officials. In terms of meaningful public participation, the amendment says:

the Ministers shall consult any interested persons before the expiry of the period for assessing that information.

This amendment concerns me, because it deletes a large section that was added by the Senate and that I think was valuable. Moving ahead, I know the government will be proposing another amendment that's connected to this one, which I believe will add to the section on prescribing processes for meaningful public participation, with the rationale that this new subsection 108.1(1) in clause 39.1 will be adequate.

I guess my question is, who are the interested persons? Rather than having meaningful public participation, this seems to be narrowing it to some specific group, and I'm not sure how the minister will decide who those interested persons are.

During the Harper government, there was a language change to start using “directly affected”, and that narrowed public involvement in environmental assessments. “Interested persons” to me sounds kind of similar to that, and it narrows the scope of public participation.

I also have a concern about “before the expiry of the period for assessing that information.” Could the officials talk a bit about the 120 days?

We heard testimony here, and also in the Senate hearings, that this is not enough time when it comes to a significant proposal, especially when we're talking about something that has a wild counterpart, a wild animal that is important to people, and important to first nations communities. Just knowing what happened with AquaBounty and wild salmon, there is a threat of what effects these kinds of genetically modified organisms could have on wild salmon.

I guess there are three questions there. One is around the language of “native to Canada”. One is around the language of “interested persons”, which seems to narrow public participation. One is around timelines, and the response to the testimony that we heard, that this is not enough time when it comes to these kinds of significant proposals that impact wild animals, especially culturally important ones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is this a question for Mr. Weiler or for the officials?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think the first question is for Mr. Weiler and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Why don't we start with Mr. Weiler? We're getting near the end of the meeting.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to run out the clock on this for the rest of the time, but I'll briefly answer Laurel's question to the extent that I can, and I'll defer to the officials to build on that.

This will require consultations. On “any interested persons”, I take the point on the issues of standing. We've seen that in other pieces of legislation in the past. That's why we have this ongoing consultation that's being done right now on the new substance notification regulations: to really be able to build this out and give it meaning and define it further. As part of this amendment, there is going to be a requirement to publish a notice of this, as well as to consult interested persons.

I will defer to officials on this next point here, about the impact if this were not just organisms native to Canada, or if these were organisms that were native throughout the world.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Gonçalves.

[Jacqueline Gonçalves]

Thank you.

With regard to the scope of “native” species, I think what we're really looking at is species that originated and have developed in the Canadian environment. Those would be the focus of this particular amendment.

With regard to “interested persons” and the public consultation aspect, it really is meant to be broad in practice, so there would be public consultations and anyone who has an interest can participate in the public consultation process.

Then, I believe, there was a question with regard to the meaning of “the timelines”. Generally within the regulatory framework there are specified timelines by which the risk assessment must be done. Those timelines are specified in regulation. That's what's being referred to there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have one last question, and then I think we'll have to adjourn, because it's one o'clock. We'll come back to this.

Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Maybe this could come back to the next meeting. I was just wondering—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Will you be here at the next meeting?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

No, but I think it's important to look at migratory species in the context of native animals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I hadn't gotten all the answers I wanted from the officials. I was hoping I could still continue to ask them the questions I had, but I can come back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're not going to vote on that today, so yes, you can come back to it.

Did you make a comment, Mr. Aldag?