Evidence of meeting #41 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 substances.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
I have a quick question. There's been a discussion about the involvement of indigenous people in the process. How does strengthening CEPA enhance reconciliation and environmental and health protection for indigenous peoples and communities?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
That's a good question also.
I think we are trying to fundamentally change the way we do things in Canada when it comes to our relationship with indigenous people, whether it is to include indigenous knowledge in an impact assessment that's by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada or whether it is to develop our international priorities by going to meetings like COP27 or COP15. I think this is another in a number of different attempts at reconciliation by ensuring the concerns and priorities of indigenous people are taken into account in the elaboration of the modernization of CEPA and also in its implementation.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
The time is up, so we'll go to Ms. Pauzé for two minutes.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Guilbeault, I would like to go back to the matter I raised earlier. I am referring to the current schedule for MPs, not for the Senate. The Senate had its own schedule; I want to talk about our schedule, as MPs on this committee.
On October 29, the department published a notice of intent regarding the labelling of products containing toxic substances. As it is important to consult Canadians, people were asked to respond by January 12. A consultation was also launched on the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms), which pertain to part 6 of the Environmental Protection Act. We will get the results of that consultation when it ends on December 5, and yet we have to submit our amendments by December 6.
What do you have to say to all those observers who do not understand the current schedule?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I would say two things, Ms. Pauzé.
First, the House spent more time studying this bill at second reading than it spent adopting the budget. I think that says a lot. We gave MPs a lot of time to state their views on it.
Secondly, you say some people find things are moving too quickly. When it comes to consultations, we can never win: it's always too fast or too slow...
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
You are talking about the number of people telling you it is going too quickly. For my part, I have received emails, letters and calls, probably just as many...
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Guilbeault, what I am saying is that ongoing consultations will continue beyond the deadline for MPs to voice their opinions.
Moreover, as we know, it is not at second reading in the House of Commons that amendments are debated. We do that work here, in committee, as MPs. That is what is...
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
What I am saying is that a lot of people are putting pressure on us to get the bill passed and implemented as quickly as possible.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to follow up on the conversation we were having at the end of my time last time, reminding the minister that a regulation cannot do what its authorizing statute does not allow. Section 114 of CEPA would be what allows for public consultation.
I would also echo Nature Canada's comments that the government should not be using a review of the regulations for which they have had 23 years to undertake to postpone action in the act when it's finally before Parliament.
I also want to ask about confidential business information. I'm curious why there is not a presumption of non-confidentiality and why the government isn't requiring some kind of audit when companies are requesting confidential business information.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Maybe on the first part of your question, perhaps I could turn to John or Laura if you want more specific—
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
We will have time with the officials after, so I'd love to hear from you.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
As I said earlier, I don't think that what we're proposing in Bill S-5 will help us to update everything that needs to be updated under CEPA. The amendments being proposed are significant progress.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Okay. Thank you.
I would like to ask about timelines, because I only have 30 seconds left.
Many stakeholders have been asking for strict timelines for priority planning, public requests for assessments and toxic substance assessments. I'm curious if the minister would support those kinds of amendments.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Please bring those amendments forward. The team and I will be happy to look at them with you.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for coming before the environment committee. Likewise, it's the first chance that I've had to be engaged in this way since being appointed to the committee.
Regarding proposed section 9 specifically, and the possible effects that could be had on some oil field activities, such as hydraulic fracturing and whatnot, can you provide some comment as to whether or not that is something that is specified in this bill?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
It's about the chemicals related to what's known as fracking in the oil patch. Is there an effect in proposed section 9 of this bill related to how those substances would be classified?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
You're asking if the amendments that are being proposed would have an impact specifically on chemicals that are used for hydraulic fracturing. Is that your question?
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
As you know, the chemical management.... The proposed reform that is in Bill S-5 would help us to identify chemicals and assess them.
For the sake of giving you a clearer answer, I could turn to John or Laura on this.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I'll be sure to ask that question in the follow-up round.
Minister, you talked in your opening statement about the risk-based versus hazard-based approach. We've heard from a number of witnesses that we need to make sure we keep that strong risk-based approach.
Can you provide further comment as to whether any of the amendments particularly move away from risk and toward hazard, and why they may be problematic?
2 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Problematic in what sense? The CEPA takes a risk management approach to many of these issues, but it's not exclusively a risk management approach.
As you may recall, when the bill was introduced, it was saluted by both industry and environmental groups alike.