Evidence of meeting #101 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pfas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It has to be a point of order because we're proceeding to a vote.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
It will apply to this.
We're prepared to accept the motion on division. I wasn't anticipating doing this right now because we have witnesses, but if we can accept that the timeline is just between now—
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of process. I think we have to vote on resuming debate before we can start debate.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does everybody want to resume debate?
(Motion agreed to)
We have Ms. Collins and Mr. van Koeverden.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I think this is a very straightforward motion to procure some information that the committee and Canadians deserve to hear.
I have a different opinion on the carbon tax from the Conservatives, but I think being up front about modelling is important.
March 21st, 2024 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The modelling is available and demonstrates that pollution pricing is working.
Surely, the Conservatives wouldn't be moving this motion if they didn't believe that climate change existed or that the emissions are coming down. Perhaps this is progress on behalf of the Conservatives. Maybe next they'll also admit that they're cashing their rebate cheques. I'm happy to let this go to—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Yes, we are, as long as they accept the timeline, which is that, instead of just one week, it's just before the next committee meeting.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
They won't be completed in a week, so if we can just agree to be flexible on the timeline....
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there unanimity that we adopt it as is?
(Motion agreed to on division)
Now we'll go to Madame Chatel for the last question in this round.
You have three minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Now we go back to the witnesses.
My question is for you, Mr. DeMarco.
We've been hearing a lot about the Canada Water Agency. You talked a lot about collaborative work rather than silos, as well as the need to have more data and to be more efficient.
How do you see the role of the Canada Water Agency in that leadership? A number of witnesses have told us that there should be more data and more cooperation so that the work is more effective, which would involve several government tiers and associations.
We're also hearing a lot about farmers, who need data to properly manage water deficits.
I'll let you answer that, Mr. DeMarco.
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Since this is a bill, I can't say much about it. I've read the bill. It's more about the structural framework of the agency. There aren't a lot of details or objectives. It's really enabling legislation. We'll see what the agency does.
That said, we must focus on coordination, cooperation and using all the federal government's powers in fisheries and navigation, its international influence, as well as its leverage in criminal law, particularly with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
I'd also like to see the agency focus on results. Canada doesn't include results in bills like this, which only lay out a structural framework. I'd like to see targets set, real outcomes for freshwater in Canada.
As a Canadian from southwestern Ontario, I see that many of the issues affecting Lake Erie today are the same as they were in the 1970s.
So I would be very happy if the agency focused on results and used all federal powers to improve the state of fresh water in Canada.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I don't have much time left, but could you give us an example of the desired results?
In your opinion, should the OECD definition of PFAS be adopted here?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
Generally speaking, I often ask this question: Is the water safe to drink, can you swim in it and can you fish in it? The Great Lakes have to meet those three criteria.
So we need targets that will actually improve the state of freshwater.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Unfortunately, your time is up, Mrs. Chatel.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Could I have a quick yes or no on whether we should adopt the OECD definition?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Program Manager, Toxics, Environmental Defence Canada
Yes, our current assessment was—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're done. I'm sorry.
I want to thank all the witnesses of the second panel for being here to offer insight and information for the study report.
We'll just take a quick break.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Colleagues, we'll call the meeting back to order.
I want to let you know that Ms. Olsgard has passed the sound test. So we can begin.
By videoconference, we have Mandy Olsgard, senior toxicologist and risk assessor. She's appearing this afternoon as an individual.
Ms. Olsgard, thank you for being with us online. You have five minutes for an opening statement. Unfortunately, I'll have to stop you at five minutes, if you get up to that point, and then there will be lots of time for questions. I'm sure there will be many questions directed to you.
We'll start with you, Ms. Olsgard, for five minutes. Thank you.
