Thank you, Chair. Thanks, colleagues. This is a really great start. I appreciate hearing the different issues being raised.
I've just reread the mandate letter this morning and I appreciate.... I mean, I'd love to see the minister before this committee, too; I think that will be a good conversation. But we have a solid two pages which are quite detailed, and there's more than a smorgasbord in here to choose from, let alone what we might be interested in. I hope that we'll be able to identify items that are of group and personal interest to put before her.
I note too that the minister represents the executive and we represent the legislature. It's our job, not only to be focusing on matters that we can study and report back on to Parliament, but also to act as legislators, considering the mandate letter and providing advice to this government on how we'd like to see the government's priorities move forward.
We've already had one example that was raised by the member for Skeena—Bulkley. We have the CEAA 2012 review which is part of our agenda. I think it would be helpful to understand more from the minister on where the government sees itself moving forward on that. We also have in the mandate letter mention of water, which has been brought up, and clean air as well. That goes to the heart of federal environmental protection of water and air under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
From my perspective, I'd like to see an in-depth legislative review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The legislation itself provides for five-year reviews, and we haven't done one in years and years. It seems to me that is a requirement. I would suggest that also aligns with the priorities of the members of the loyal opposition. We could actually get into the guts of the regulatory and legislative regime that impacts clean air and clean water.
That allows me that focus on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which is the cornerstone of federal environmental protection legislation. It also enables a discussion around a topic which I think has been under studied nationally and where we as a committee could provide some leadership, and that is on the topic of environmental justice.
There are communities across this country, indigenous communities leap to mind, but there are others on the so-called wrong side of the tracks which have borne the brunt of industrial development, and past generations weren't considering the impacts of polluted air and water on communities. As an environmental lawyer, in the past I've represented individuals and groups and communities who have suffered in terrible ways because they happened to be next door to the dump and their water was polluted, or they live in indigenous communities and don't have access to clean water and are under permanent boil water advisories.
These are circumstances that I know as human beings we care to see resolved. I'm happy that our government made a commitment around aboriginal clean water, and I hope we can work on that aspect, perhaps in the manner of a study around the issues pertaining to environmental justice, particularly how pollution can disproportionately impact particular underprivileged members of Canadian society. There's a historic dimension to that, but there's also a very present-day dimension.
I think that aligns well with a CEPA legislative review, because it can help inform some of the lacuna in that legislation, particularly around the lack of a specified right to a healthy environment at present. Specific communities are suffering as a result of that lack of specified legislative right under CEPA. I think that the two would mesh well together.
To segue into the indigenous theme, as a government we've obviously committed on the water side, but there are all sorts of opportunities. Member Shields made reference to—or maybe it was member Fast—wetlands. That's definitely an issue near and dear to my heart. The good people at Ducks Unlimited have been working hard for many years on issues like this and have come before this committee many times in the past. I think the wetlands issue as well as the national parks issue and engagement in the national parks were addressed in part, at least by certain witnesses, in the context of the previous government's national conservation plan initiative. There is a report that's available for us all to review, and I wouldn't want to re-engage in the studies of the past, but I do think we could focus on opportunities for conservation, not just the environmental protection aspects, but also the sustainable development aspects.
We have so many opportunities across this country to achieve environmental protection and to achieve conservation values, and at the same time reap economic opportunities, particularly around tourism and on lands that are claimed by indigenous peoples across the country. There are so many avenues for discussion around how we could achieve better land-use planning, better conservation outcomes, including, say, wetlands. We should also look at how we might engage indigenous communities in the protection of those lands while building ecotourism and while maintaining opportunities for employment in those areas.
I guess you can tell that I represent a rural riding. My rural riding has significant aboriginal populations, and they have an interest in proper land-use management. They want to have a say in how conservation is achieved and how sustainable development is achieved. It's a backyard interest, but I know that it translates nationally.
I will try to wrap up quickly.
The entire issue of nanomaterials fits into the technology field and it also fits into the CEPA review aspect. I know that the government is at present consulting on a new regulation around micro-beads, and I think that's positive. It remains to be seen what other work we can do but I think nanomaterials is a separate issue from microplastics. These are federally unregulated, and it's pretty clear there are new technologies and new products being invented all the time.
One of the big challenges we face goes to CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, generally. I don't mind revealing some of my feelings about CEPA more generally, but I think this nanoparticle stuff is a case in point. We have a system which presumes that technology should be allowed to be used and that products should be allowed to be developed, and then we figure out how to regulate them after. I think we need to shift so that we're not finding ourselves behind the eight ball and not finding ourselves with polluted waterways or polluted air pursuant to the use of new technologies. We don't need nanoparticles of metals in our waterways if we can know in advance that there are ways to prevent that kind of contamination.
There are two more topics I'll mention.
One is the issue of federal enforcement. I have published studies on that topic in the past. It's a challenging area.
I would be interested to know if the opposition is interested in environmental enforcement issues. It should be recognized that the previous government did invest in enforcement and did make legislative changes to increase penalties related to non-compliance. There are certain aspects of the previous government's performance that I think are to be commended, and others on the enforcement side less so. There may be a point in time when we would want to examine the federal enforcement regime. That could encompass both water and air pollution, but also things such as fisheries. I would put that on the table.
The last issue is an obscure one. It comes with a story, because I know I've been so dry and people are falling asleep. Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency legislation and how it does or does not incentivize the cleanup of contaminated sites is a matter of some concern and has actually been debated before the Supreme Court of Canada in the last couple of years. If people are familiar with the Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater matter, they'll know that it's a really important case. There was not a lot of public attention. You get the news hit on the day the case is argued, and on the day the decision is rendered. I represented intervenors in that matter.
The lesson I draw from it is that federal legislation around bankruptcy and insolvency does not necessarily put front and centre the environmental interest in ensuring that contamination is dealt with. In that case, there are some checkered.... It was an interesting fact pattern. It involved challenged relations between former premier Danny Williams and AbitibiBowater Inc. in the context of a business that was in very difficult economic straits.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador ultimately had a very difficult time putting itself at the front of the queue when it wanted to issue a remediation order to save the company, which was going through insolvency restructuring. It could not go into the proceedings and say, “Listen, there's about 100 million dollars' worth of contaminated site here and we want to make sure it's dealt with first and foremost.” The law does not allow for that. There are all sorts of creditors, debtors, and liabilities that have to be taken into consideration.