Environment Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

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

I don't want to rush through this, necessarily, and vote on it before we've had the proper time to think about it.

I see some issues with bringing this amendment forward, because it gives the ability to prescribe regulations based on a part of the act we've already removed. I'm not sure how that would fit into the act as it's written right now.

When we talk about meaningful participation.... There is a process going on, right now, for making regulations for new living organisms. The process of ensuring we have meaningful participation will be prescribed through that regulation, so there might be a better place to have that definition, rather than here. It might result in something of an inconsistency in how the act's written.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have Mr. Duguid and—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, why don't we take a short pause to allow a little time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Then, when we get back, I have Ms. Mathyssen.

Okay, we'll take a short pause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do the officials wish to speak?

I have Ms. Mathyssen next.

I'm sorry. I have to do this every time we start.

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

I had to wait for the hammer.

I would argue that a much longer time period is potentially required. There have been questions that haven't been answered. My questions on the amendment weren't answered. Providing time to get adequate answers would be my go-to. I suggest that's what we move towards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you propose standing the whole clause?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We need unanimous consent to stand it. We don't have unanimous consent.

We can vote on the subamendment.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Do we want to hear from Mr. Moffet?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What is the question for Mr. Moffet, though? I forgot.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

It was his reflection on the subamendment, which seems to reverse a decision we've already made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I'm afraid I'm just going to repeat the position I articulated earlier in discussion. I think we agree that the issue here is with respect to the reintroduction, via section 44.1, of proposed subparagraph (g.1)(ii) “the determination of whether to grant a waiver”. Therefore, “prescribing processes for meaningful public participation in the determination of whether to grant a waiver” would appear to contradict the obligation that was created earlier this week to publish decisions about waivers as soon as possible.

It also runs counter to the basic process for or purpose of a waiver, which is to support risk assessments and to ensure that risk assessors have access to all the information needed to make their science-based decisions. This is not a public participation process. This is a science-based process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're talking about Madam Pauzé's subamendment, aren't we? We're saying it's contradicting something in the bill. Can we just vote on this?

I have Mr. Weiler and then Madam Pauzé.

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

I just thought I might say something with regard to Ms. Mathyssen's comment. She raised some concerns about the AFN and consultation with indigenous peoples as part of this. I would just refer to the paragraph proposed for the preamble of CEPA, which says that “Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior and informed consent”. Given that, when we're talking about interested persons in this, I don't see how that would not include consultation with indigenous peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm not nearly as qualified as the officials who are here to help the committee, but I think that amendment G‑14.3 seeks to change subsection 114(1) of the act, which has several subsections. It does so by amending clause 44.1 of the bill, which authorizes the Governor in Council to prescribe processes for meaningful public participation in the circumstances identified in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

As amended by my subamendment, amendment G‑14.3 would add a new paragraph to subsection 114(1) of the act, saying that the Governor in Council may also “prescribe a living organism or group of living organisms for the purpose of subsection 108.1(1);” That would be new paragraph (g.2), I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm being told that there seems to be a contradiction here.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I don't understand. I do not see the contradiction. I am talking about subsection 114(1) of the current act, but I'm being referred to clause 39.1 of the bill, on which we voted earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madam Pauzé doesn't see the contradiction. Could you just go over where the contradiction is?

[John Moffet]

The section we're amending now is not a section that creates a statutory obligation to consult. The section we're amending now is a section that would give the government the authority to regulate how to consult. The obligation to consult would have been contained in the amendment that was discussed earlier and defeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's the difference.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Moffet, my understanding is that G‑14.2 pertains to clause 39.1 of the bill, which would add new section 108.1 to the act.

Now, however, I'm in a completely different section. I don't want to be a broken record, repeating the same arguments, but I don't understand why it doesn't work even when we're talking about an altogether different section.

When it comes to the clause we are talking about now, 44.1, the Senate added two roles for the Governor in Council. We are adding a third, plain and simple.

Personally, that's how I see it, but as I said earlier, I don't have your expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Moffet, do you understand Madam Pauzé's point?