Evidence of meeting #48 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I call the meeting to order. Colleagues, we are continuing along the path of amending Bill S-5.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
If I may, Mr. Chair. Before we start to look at the amendments, I would like to ask a question about something that is eluding me.
Since January, we, the committee members, have been receiving documents and letters that contain all sorts of proposals, and there's nothing to indicate that these documents are confidential. However, the documents are kept in the committee's digital binder, which is not made available to the public.
Are we allowed to take the documents contained in the binder and make them public?
What are the criteria that determine which documents go in the digital binder and are therefore not for public viewing?
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not getting any translation through the English channel.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is the interpretation coming through now? It seems the answer is yes.
Let's get back to Ms. Pauzé's question.
3:30 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
The sound quality for Madam Pauzé is inadequate. That's what the translator has said.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Pauzé, it seems your sound quality was not good enough for the interpreters.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
That can't be. I did all the sound checks earlier and everything was working fine.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
While the technicians are carrying out their checks, I will answer Ms. Pauzé's question about which documents are considered confidential or not.
I have been told that placing documents in the digital binder does not make them confidential. Normally, confidential documents are marked accordingly. For example, we know that amendments are confidential up until the moment they are presented. To my knowledge, however, correspondence is not as a rule deemed confidential. That is what the clerk has confirmed as well.
To summarize, the fact that a document is contained in the digital binder does not necessarily mean that it is confidential.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That said, we still have to get to the bottom of the sound quality problem. We will once again take a short break to try to solve the issue.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Now that we're starting, would we be able to run our meeting until 6 p.m., since we have lost half an hour?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I will ask the members.
Can we go until 6 p.m.?
There's no unanimous consent. It's not just one side. It seems to be generalized.
I'm sorry, Mr. Longfield, but thank you for asking.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, we were at NDP-28.
We are resuming debate. I don't know who is next on the speakers list. I guess we can start anew.
Who would like to speak to NDP-28?
Ms. Collins, go ahead, please.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With this one, I think if we went to the vote, I don't think it would pass, but I have a potential alternative to suggest that I hope people will consider.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could get some feedback from our officials on this particular amendment, which we plan to oppose. We will be supporting NDP-31.
As I understand it—and the officials can correct me if I'm wrong—imposing strict timelines may direct resources from completing the risk management in a timely manner, running counter to the original objective of what the motion seeks to achieve.
Perhaps Ms. Farquharson could respond.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I would like to welcome the officials who are here with us in person. It's nice to see you live.
Go ahead, Ms. Farquharson.
3:50 p.m.
Laura Farquharson Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you. It's nice to see everybody in person.
I think the question is about the implications of having strict timelines for subsequent risk management instruments. I would make three points.
The first is to assure you that departments are highly motivated to manage the risks of substances. Timelines in legislation can sometimes help, but they don't always make things happen. You might recall that 4,300 substances from the 23,000 that were existing in 1998 were assessed between 2006 and 2020 under three plans on timelines and were generally on time without those timelines being legislated. That's one point.
The second is that timelines for risk assessment and risk management are a little bit different. We know that on average it takes two to three years to move from a draft risk assessment to a final risk assessment. The requirement that was added was, when it goes past two years, to explain why.
For risk management instruments, you know that in the act there's already a requirement for that first risk management instrument draft to be published in 24 months and the final version to be done 18 months later. That's 42 months altogether.
It takes that long because it's not only a scientific assessment; it's also considering cost-benefit. Over the time that we're developing the risk management instrument, we get a better idea of the sources of exposure and how to manage the substance. There's a lot more discussion about how to implement that. That's why it takes longer.
In general, the first one that's published will be the one that has the most impact. The supplementary ones are then developed as fast as possible. In general, I would say they are done in time.
I know that the committee will say that there are times when the risk management instruments take a very long time to get into place. There are reasons for that. Sometimes more information is being gathered to understand either the sources or the paths of exposure. Sometimes it's because the market situation has changed. Sometimes it could be because there are multiple instruments from different management instruments impacting a specific area, so they're trying to sequence them. Sometimes they're prioritizing across all the risk management instruments because they wouldn't work on one that has a small effect before they would work on one that has a big effect on a different substance.
That's a long explanation, but that's why. I think we all appreciate that people want the accountability, so I think the reporting on it....
The third reason is sort of administrative. It's to find the least administratively burdensome way to incent fast action. One way to do that would be to require updates in the annual report.
