Environment Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[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?

[John Moffet]

Yes.

You're correct, Madam Pauzé. These are separate provisions, but sections 106 and 107 create statutory authorities. Under section 106 as amended, “The Minister shall, as soon as possible....”

I could read it in French:

“The Minister shall, as soon as possible in the circumstances, publish in the Canada Gazette a notice stating the name of any person to whom a waiver is granted and the type of information to which it relates.”

The minister must publish as soon as possible the name of anybody who has been granted a waiver. That's section 106.

Section 108 is authority to develop regulations to explain how the government will discharge its obligations under various other parts of the act, including section 106. The contradiction we're pointing out is that section 106 requires the minister to publish the name as soon as possible.

The proposed amendment that you've put on the table is to create regulations to prescribe meaningful public participation in that process. This is not a public process. This is a process that, by law, has to be done as quickly as possible and is a science-based decision. It's hard to have meaningful public participation in a science-based decision that has to be done as quickly as possible. That's the difference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen now.

Ms. Mathyssen, please be quick.

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

Mr. Moffet, if I'm understanding correctly, you said that the obligation of consultation has already been removed. It was voted down in 39 point something.

[John Moffet]

Where was it? I'm sorry; I'm getting lost here.

BQ-12 would have required the minister to ensure that the public is provided with “notice of their assessment and opportunities to participate meaningfully in it.” That had to do with participation in the assessment itself. That was defeated.

However, in government 14.2, this committee created an obligation on the ministers to “consult any interested persons before the expiry of the period for assessing that information” in respect of a vertebrate animal or a list of living organisms.

The main purpose of this new regulatory authority that the government introduced under G-14.3 is to give authority to create that list of living organisms by means of regulation.

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

In G-14.2, the limited part was the public participation. Ultimately, while you've given the obligation to create the list or make it known that there is this list, that opening up to public participation has not happened, so it's hard for people to hear about it.

In addition, I would also note Mr. Weiler's point that, ultimately, within the proposed preamble there may be a reference to “free, prior and informed consent” for indigenous people. However, we all know that something in a preamble doesn't have as much meaning as if it's in the legislation.

The removal of those references, I would say, still weakens that in terms of what we mean by adherence to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the commitment this government made to follow it.

[John Moffet]

I have to apologize. Let's go through it line by line.

Madam Pauzé's amendment would create authority to develop regulations for meaningful public participation for two processes.

One is for the assessment under section 108. That process under section 108, by law, requires the ministers to consult “any interested persons”, so this committee has created the obligation to consult interested persons—

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

There's nothing about participation—

[John Moffet]

No. It's to “consult any interested persons”. There is a clear obligation to consult interested persons, including indigenous people and including vulnerable populations.

The second part of Madam Pauzé's amendment, however, is where the contradiction arises, and that is to create an obligation for an authority to develop regulations, prescribing processes for meaningful public participation and the decision about whether to grant a waiver.

We dealt with that in the committee when you weren't here. The amendment to CEPA that was created earlier this week requires the minister to publish waiver decisions as soon as possible.

I'm pointing out that there's a contradiction there between meaningful public participation in that process and the statutory obligation to publish that list as soon as possible. There's no contradiction with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. I think that clarifies it.

[John Moffet]

—the first obligation about assessments under section 108, and I think I misled you in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It makes sense to me, but go ahead, Madam Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Moffet, if I understand correctly, it would take too long to consult on assessments and the determination of whether to grant a waiver because G‑14.1 added the obligation to publish “as soon as possible in the circumstances”. That's what I took from your answer, but I have to tell you that I don't agree.

We discussed BQ‑12 earlier, and it was defeated. All the Senate's proposed amendments to the bill regarding public participation were defeated.

I imagine that this subamendment will be defeated as well, but the fact remains that new paragraph 114(1)(g.1) proposed in the bill prescribes specific aspects of consultation.

You talked about publishing as soon as possible. The process would be conducted as soon as possible while allowing everyone to participate.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Taylor Roy, are you okay?

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

I'm okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't see any further debate. Shall we vote on Madam Pauzé's subamendment?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 9, yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're voting on amendment G-14.3.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9, nays 2)

Shall clause 44.1 as amended carry? On division?

(Clause 44.1 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 45)

This brings us to clause 45 and PV-22, which is deemed moved.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I regret that the last session didn't give me any opportunity to comment on confusion around whether “interested persons” will include indigenous peoples or the public, but I'll move straight to what I'm allowed to speak about, which is amendment PV-22.

It is, again, in a sequence of amendments related to trying to stop the creation of two lists where the act has, since 1988, had one list in the schedule of toxic substances.

Again, given the rules that this committee passed—the only reason I'm here is the motion you passed—I'm not allowed to remove my own amendments. That's why this one is in front of you. It doesn't make any sense any longer, because all my previous amendments have already been defeated on this point.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Shall we vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

(Clauses 45 to 49 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 50)

We're on G-14.3.1.

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

I'm sorry. Could you say the number again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's G-14.3.1.

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

In which package is it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're at clause 50 now. What I have in front of me is that the government is going to present G-14.3.1.

I don't know. That's what it says—“.3.1”— but should it be “.4”?

Go ahead, Ms. Thompson.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I'm sorry. It's a slightly different number here. I apologize for the inconvenience.

It proposes that Bill S-5, in clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 39 with the following: “(2) A request for confidentiality shall be submitted, with reasons addressing the criteria set out in paragraphs 20(1)(a) to (d) of the Access to Information Act, in writing and contain any supplementary information that may be prescribed.”

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

Thanks, Chair.

The agenda that I printed off was, I believe, the last one sent, and I don't have that particular clause. It goes directly to NDP-37, which is noted as new in the package I have here, but we don't have G-14.3.1.