Evidence of meeting #38 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cepa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Senior Director, Retail Council of Canada
I have not much to add.
I would just say that the approach we find really effective with CEPA is that flexibility—exactly what I was talking about—so I think that's something we remain very supportive of.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Professor Ariya, you're the only scientist here on this panel. Do you have any views on that?
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Parisa A. Ariya
When you were talking about it, it's basically multi—
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Parisa A. Ariya
Sure.
Multifactorial analysis is what I was talking. That is the terminology for that type of model, meaning that you basically analyze several dimensions of data all together. It increases the validity—it is true—of the forecast, meaning you can guesstimate much better from your starting material what the contaminant is.
The problem is that if the material is complex and includes several types of components, the existence of the validation of the forecast has not been proven yet. But for the before...if you are looking at one type—or as the gentleman suggested, two factorial analyses—this approach, proposed by a colleague, is a more intelligent way to go. This is true, but it's not perfect, because many materials include several different types of compounds, and the risk analysis is assuming that the individual and the interaction behave the same way. In reality, often, we know that is not the case.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'll be brief, because I want to give half of my time to our guest, Mr. Badawey.
Chief Erasmus, I understood your message initially, which was to have an appreciation of the constitutionally protected agreements that have been signed over the course of history between the crown and first nations. If we don't have regard for the text of those and the protections they encompass, then we're missing half the story.
Today, we're looking at federal legislation within federal jurisdiction, and it covers the entirety of Canada and all Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, who are the recipients of protection pursuant to this law in addition to any other protections they may benefit from pursuant to other agreements. We have heard from other witnesses that, in the context of this legislation, particularly, the enshrinement of principles of environmental rights would provide additional and necessary protections for all Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, and that those would be very helpful.
From an aboriginal perspective, would you be supportive of that kind of integration of environmental rights concepts in this legislation?
5:25 p.m.
Regional Chief, Northwest Territories, Assembly of First Nations
Yes, that's a fresh new constructive attitude if you're talking about human rights.
There are a whole number of agreements out there that are now talking about that. The Paris agreement last year dealt with climate change, which Canada committed to. The premiers met last March with the Prime Minister, and they came up with the Vancouver declaration, which talks about that sort of approach. It recognizes there are a whole number of protections, and there are guiding principles that need to be followed. Yes, there are other agreements that include our people, in addition to that.
If we do, in fact, recognize all that, then we're opening up a whole new approach that makes a lot of sense.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
With respect to the CEPA, looking at it and listening to a lot of what's been said today, would you think, as part of that, we should be adding in a mechanism or an enabler—this goes to a life-cycle analysis—an environmental management strategy that would include a life cycle?
It would include, as part of that life cycle, the identification of the contaminants or concerns, whatever they may be, having the science attached to that, and recognizing that science by putting in place repairs and maintenance opportunities to deal with the CFCs. Second to that is looking at it more long term, in terms of new technologies and solutions that are attached to those new technologies, again, attached to those contaminants or concerns. Then based on that, and using scientifically based evidence, to have a historical environmental plan in place to then embark on human health risk assessments, site-specific risk assessments, and phytotoxicology assessments. The science is completed. The mechanisms are put in place. Then you can deal with the historical as well as the current and future environmental challenges.
That's a question.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We've run out of time to get the answer to that.
Here's what we're going to do, because we have run out of time. I think it's a good question.
To our guests, we really appreciate your coming and sharing your insights with us. You may have had questions or some thoughts that you haven't been able to respond to because of the limited time. Is there a chance, if you feel so inclined, that you would share those with us? The sooner that happens, the better because we are trying to bring this to a close. We have more witnesses next week. By the end of next week, if you could think about getting any further thoughts to us, we would welcome it.
We're going to move into that very last bit of time because, before everybody takes off, I need to do a bit of committee business. It's not going to be in camera, so feel comfortable getting your stuff together, and we'll carry on with the work of the committee. Thanks again.
The reason I asked for a little bit of committee business—I need your attention—is that I just got informed today that we will not have the draft report available for December 6, as we had anticipated. We thought we would book December 6, 8, 13, and 15, four sessions, for us to go over the report and try to refine it so we could possibly put it in front of the government before we rose. It was very ambitious. We aren't able to have that report in front of us on December 6. We're hoping to get it on December 7, potentially, by the end of the day. Then we will have our session on December 8.
I still think that's valid. It doesn't give us much time to go through the study before we have to start dealing with it in committee. I just want to make sure people are still comfortable with our getting it on the Wednesday and then coming in and starting to deal with it on December 8.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Then I guess the meeting's over, because it's 5:30.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I was looking at that clock, too, and the meeting's not over yet according to that. Just give me one more minute. It's not much longer.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just give me a second. On December 6, we now have nothing to do, so I would like to suggest—and we could think about it and come back—we could either do some review or drafting structure discussion on our CEPA, because we will have heard all of the witnesses by that time, and we could then start—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We will have finished. The panels we said we were going to do will be all done—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Our panels are finished by the first, according to the panels we had set up.
