Environment Committee on Feb. 9th, 2023

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of clarification.

This amendment is about publishing in the environmental registry. It is, again, identical to the process that we've developed for the risk management statement, which in my understanding is also annually reported on, I hope.

We're ensuring that when there are delays and when we've gone past a certain point, there is an obligation for the minister to highlight that and to publish it in the environmental registry. It will give the rationale to the people who are paying attention to these substances and the risk management measures and instruments that are being developed for them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have Ms. Taylor Roy and then Mr. Duguid.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

We have the environmental registry, we have the Gazette and we have the report. Right now we have something in place that says this is going to be outlined in the report.

My assumption is that people following this would be reading the report to see what has been done, so I'm wondering why we need to duplicate it, quite frankly. I don't have a huge objection. It's just that I wonder why we would add another layer onto this when we have so many ways this is being reported. We have this comprehensive report that's going through all the measures and listing which ones have been met and, if they haven't been met, what's going on with them.

It's an administrative burden, from my perspective.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I think I've landed where I was about half an hour ago, Mr. Chair. I would move that we stand this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'd have to stand the whole clause, but we need unanimous consent to stand it and we don't have it.

We'll go to Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'll clarify the difference from what's being reported in the annual report.

Right now, what we passed requires a report on the progress made on developing any subsequent proposed regulations and instruments. Reporting on progress is a good step forward, but it's not the same as providing the reasons for the delay and updating timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Weiler is next.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to ask the officials to clarify this very point, to make sure that this wouldn't indeed be duplicating things and would actually be different from what's already required as part of the annual reporting.

[Laura Farquharson]

Right now, the amendment that you've passed requires an update, as Ms. Collins says. I think an update would explain where things are at and why. It doesn't say that explicitly, though. I think the difference, if I've understood Ms. Collins' motion, is that you would be having to publish in the Gazette each time, on each instrument, that you're not meeting the timelines.

Maybe it's important too to understand that there's one risk assessment per substance. We know what we're assessing. Yes, there's time—you have to gather information and make sure you've formulated the problem correctly and done the right analysis—but you get a draft and then you can move to a final. For risk management instruments, typically there's one principal one, and that's the one that's under the CEPA time clock. Then there may be other ones dealing with different aspects of the risk.

That's why we're insisting that it's important to be able to prioritize among those many risk management instruments that the departments are working on. Greg could probably provide some examples of the variation in those instruments, if that's helpful to understand, but that may be beyond what you're interested in.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

It would be very helpful to hear from Greg, if that's possible.

[Greg Carreau, Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just building on interventions by Laura, the central risk management instrument oftentimes does deal with the primary concern or the risk to health or environment that's been identified. That's the instrument that is subject to the 42-month prescribed timeline in the act. Government resources are focused on addressing the primary risk to health or environment as swiftly as possible within that 42-month time frame that's prescribed in the act.

I think some flexibility is advocated for complementary instruments for recognizing that under the Health Canada portfolio, some complementary instruments may be done under the Food and Drugs Act or under the Consumer Product Safety Act, wherein a mandatory timeline may require displacing a priority that they're currently working on as part of a busy regulatory agenda that they have under the regulation of foods or the regulation of consumer products.

This flexibility enables government resources to be prioritized under what is currently the primary risk instrument, which is the 42 months, and then, when subsequent complementary instruments are required, the flexibility enables priority-setting across the government priority-setting mechanism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield, are you putting your hand down?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, I'm putting both hands up.

We're now writing legislation on the fly. A motion has been table-dropped here. I think maybe we should pause for a little bit. We're impacting several departments. We're adding what looks like red tape to something that would already exist in the annual report.

I'd like to just talk amongst our ourselves for a bit. Could we suspend for a bit?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

We'll go to Mr. McLean when we resume.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll continue.

I have Mr. McLean on the list.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to ask about the timeline here, the 24 months that was in Ms. Collins' proposed amendment, and if that jived with what your legislation already is. You mentioned 42 months earlier, as opposed to 24. Is that a more appropriate timeline? That's the question I would to pose to you.

[Laura Farquharson]

The CEPA time clock is 24 months to publish the proposed regulation and to then finalize that regulation within 18 months after that. When you propose a regulation, you are publishing it in the Canada Gazette. There is a period of consultation, and then typically there is a “what we heard” report. Amendments may be made before the final regulation is published.

That's the typical period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague, Ms. Collins, for proposing the amendment. I am speaking on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, but especially on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Pauzé, who I am sure would have liked to be here to make certain comments.

The amendment proposed by Ms. Collins provides predictability to stakeholders as well as solid accountability measures for the legislator, which is great.

I will vote in favour of the amendment. I hope my colleagues from the other parties will do as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a quick question for Ms. Farquharson just to clarify what she said.

Were you talking about the risk management measures and regulations or were you talking about the draft and final assessment?

[Laura Farquharson]

I was talking about the risk management measures.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. Great. I just wanted to make sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Farquharson, there have been some evolving conversations around the “per substance” approach versus the risk management reporting. I'm wondering if you could clarify the difference just so that we understand exactly how CEPA approaches risk management versus the per substance approach that we're hearing now, equated as almost two different things.