Environment Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I have a technical question about amendment NDP‑36, which I have in front of me.

The French version of the amendment states: “44.1 (1) Le paragraphe 114(1) de la même loi est mo-”. I understand “mo-” to mean “modifié” based on the French wording in line 20 of the bill. Where does that leave us? It talks about paragraph (g.1), then it goes to the new paragraph (h.1). Does that mean that we leave “difié par adjonction, après l’alinéa g), de ce qui” as is until the end of subparagraph (ii)?

It's a very technical question. Because I'm voting against the amendment, I would like an answer. It may simply be a typographical error. As was said the other day, if we're going to vote on something, it might as well be written correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're replacing one line. We're adding—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's okay, I just figured it out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All right.

Would anyone like to discuss it?

I see that no one does, so we will vote on it.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will go to amendment G‑14.3.

Mr. Weiler, I invite you to move this amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to put forward this motion, that Bill S-5, in clause 44.1, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 25 on page 35 with the following:

(g.1) prescribing a living organism or group of living organisms for the purpose of subsection 108.1(1);

Essentially what this amendment provides is regulation-making authority under the consultations that we just discussed as part of amendment G-14.2 and passed at the beginning of this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any comments or questions or points of debate?

Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I appreciate the reference to what we previously debated, but we're removing all of the current proposed (g.1), and replacing it with something that seems completely different. Should it be added to or should it be...? What are we missing here?

Proposed new paragraph (g.1) right now says:

amended by adding the following after paragraph (g):

(g.1) prescribing processes for meaningful participation in (i) an assessment under section 108, and

(ii) the determination of whether to grant a waiver requested under subsection 106(8);

Do you want to take those lines on public participation out and just talk about prescribing a living organism or group of living organisms for the purpose of new subsection 108(1)?

Could you give us some context, Mr. Weiler?

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

This is for prescribing regulations for this consultation, but I'll defer to the officials so they can speak to it a bit more.

[John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

In amendment G-14.2 as amended, there's a new requirement to consult any interested parties with respect to a prescribed living organism or group of living organisms.

This is the corollary amendment, which would give the government the authority to prescribe what those living organisms are to which this consultation obligation would apply. Otherwise, the consultation obligation is meaningless. You actually have to list the living organisms by means of regulation, and this provision we're discussing now gives authority to the regulatory authority to list those organisms.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

You're telling us that the words we're extracting from clause 44.1 are already covered by amendment G-14.2, as far as public consultation goes.

[John Moffet]

No. I'm sorry, but the provisions that are struck here are not the subject of amendment G-14.2. I think they would have been the subject of authorities that were proposed but defeated just a few minutes ago, so now this amendment is limited to only the new provision that was passed a few minutes ago.

I hope that's clear.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Can you walk me through that one more time? I'm trying to follow what you're saying here.

[John Moffet]

A few minutes ago, the committee discussed and defeated proposed amendments with respect to meaningful public participation. That term has now not been introduced into the bill, so we do not need regulatory authority with respect to that term.

What was passed earlier in the session was new authority or a new requirement for ministers to consult interested persons with respect to prescribed living organisms. That's what was passed. Now we need the authority to prescribe those living organisms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. That's pretty clear. That authority wasn't in the bill before. That's what you are saying.

[John Moffet]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, you had your hand up.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Again, I'm trying to catch up a lot, but ultimately the government or this committee has taken out that idea of public participation or indigenous and full consultation, and has now replaced it or is just leaving it to “interested parties”. Is that correct?

I see that as problematic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

There are just a couple of clarifications.

The committee made the decision.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

That's a confirmation of that, but I would argue that ultimately, you may believe you're including everyone, but that's not always the case. That's always the thing, in terms of indigenous consultation. They've been left out so frequently that I'm surprised no one else sees continuing to do that as a problem.

[John Moffet]

Could I make one other interjection, just to clarify the term?

If we go back to G-14.2, it introduced the obligation on the ministers to consult “any interested persons”. That's standard language that we've used that already exists in CEPA. It covers any person who is interested.

I'm not taking issue with you in terms of past practice. In terms of legal obligations, the legal obligation is to consult with any interested persons. In addition, the bill now includes the obligation to consider impacts on “vulnerable populations”, including indigenous communities, in making various decisions under the act, including risk assessments and risk management.

Again, we'll see how it plays out in practice, but in terms of legal obligations, I want to reassure the committee members that this is broad authority that includes all interested persons.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Again, this isn't against those trying to perhaps offer clarification. However, in terms of government, Liberal colleagues, the removal of that “public participation”.... It's my understanding that this committee heard specifically from the AFN and indigenous communities that they did not feel included...as broad as you may feel that the language is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have the floor, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Moffet, please confirm something for me: Doesn't amendment G‑14.3 take us back to what we had in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999?