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.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
Do I have time for one quick question, Mr. Chair?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You have 25 seconds. That's time for a 25-second question but no answer.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two questions for you.
First, we know that Canada and the United States have chosen a risk-based approach, while the European Union's approach is based on danger. Can you please explain the difference between the two?
2:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I don't think there's a big difference among developed countries in the approach that they take.
The terms that you will hear as we continue to discuss this bill are “risk-based” and “hazard-based”.
A purely hazard-based approach looks at a substance or a group of substances and considers whether, in the abstract, the substance has characteristics that could, in some circumstance, pose a harm to the environment or to human health.
A risk-based approach starts with the hazard assessment, but then asks how the substance is used. Based on how it's used, is there an opportunity or a likelihood of exposure occurring? If there is no exposure occurring, then there is no risk, and that's a risk-based approach. It combines the hazardous characteristics of a substance with its current and possible uses.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
My second question is similar to what my colleague Ms. Collins asked.
Industry has fears about confidential commercial information. Are those fears justified?
Isn't there a way to respect the public's right to know without potentially hurting innovation in Canada?
2:45 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Regarding confidential commercial information, a balance must be struck between transparency and the protection of information in order to encourage innovation. With the current act and the amendments proposed in the bill, I think we strike that balance.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Ms. Collins, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Moffet, you said in response to one of the other questions not to jump to legislative fixes when it comes to the living organisms, part 6, and I wouldn't characterize the government having 23 years to undertake a review of these regulations, a 23-year wait, as jumping to legislative fixes.
I'm concerned that the government is using this review to avoid fixing this piece of legislation, and I think a lot of stakeholders are worried about this aspect. I'm curious about how you respond to the concerns, especially when it comes to public involvement in the assessment and decisions.
2:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I don't want to respond directly to government intentions about hiding or otherwise from public concern. I can tell you that both departments have collaborated in launching a broad-ranging review of the new substances regime for living organisms. I think it is also important, however, to maybe spend a little time—perhaps not today, but in subsequent meetings—in actually digging into exactly how the living organisms regime works—
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm sorry. I only have a minute left.
The new substances notification regulations for organisms don't provide for regulations respecting public involvement in the assessment and decisions. A regulation can't do what its authorizing statute does not allow; that's section 114. Wouldn't you agree that we should be fixing the legislation now to allow for that kind of public involvement?
2:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
We do allow for public involvement. Indeed, current practice does include public involvement and—
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
No, section 114 doesn't currently grant authority for including these elements in the NSNR. Is that not correct?
2:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
We do provide for public involvement, and my colleague, Jacqueline Gonçalves, can explain the current procedures.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Just very quickly, to reiterate, we do currently, for higher living organisms, allow for a period of public consultation within the time period prescribed for the risk assessment to occur.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all the officials for joining us here today.
We've heard some talk about the watch-list. One of the concerns.... I know that a previous answer referred to the classification of substances going on and off the watch-list. However, when looking through the legislation and hearing witness testimony, there is concern that there's not a clearly defined off-ramp for this so-called watch-list. I am wondering if I could get some clarity around why there's a bit of disparity in understanding.
2:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I think the answer we gave was that, as a matter of policy, we would.... Well, we are committed and on record as saying that we will develop a policy about how to implement the watch-list.
That said, as we proceed into clause-by-clause study, there is openness on the part of the government to maybe providing some clarity with regard to the authority to add or remove substances from the watch-list to address the concern that you identified.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I appreciate that, because the work the committee is trying to do is to tighten up some of what could be seen as problematic aspects of the bill. If there is any further information that any of you could provide, it would certainly be helpful.
Could you describe for me some of the characteristics of a substance that would be of the highest risk?
I ask this because the Senate has provided some defining characteristics of what this would look like. One of the things I've heard concern around is that if it's defined in the act as a substance of highest risk, it doesn't necessarily allow the latitude for the experts within your department to ensure that it is defined properly on an ongoing basis. Could you provide some feedback on that?
2:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, again, maybe I could start.
I think there are two sets of issues there.
One is what kind of substances we would think about adding to the watch-list. That goes back to the answer I gave to MP Deltell about the difference between a hazard-based and risk-based assessments. If a substance has hazardous characteristics but at the moment there is no use that is problematic, we identify that in our risk assessments, but we then say that it is not toxic, that it doesn't test for toxic—
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I'm sorry. I'm talking about some of the higher-risk categories—not just the watch-list, but some of the higher-risk categories. I know the Senate offered to define it by providing a few characteristics as the definition as opposed to simply talking about the risk-based analysis.