Evidence of meeting #50 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.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I think I have to go back and work through the rest.
We've stood several clauses before. We can come back to this, as well as the others, with a full understanding of the implications. Would that be okay?
Liberal
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.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, why don't we take a short pause to allow a little time?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Then, when we get back, I have Ms. Mathyssen.
Okay, we'll take a short pause.
Liberal
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.
NDP
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We need unanimous consent to stand it. We don't have unanimous consent.
We can vote on the subamendment.
Liberal
February 16th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
It was his reflection on the subamendment, which seems to reverse a decision we've already made.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
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.
Liberal
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.
Liberal
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.
Bloc
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.
Liberal
Bloc
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Madam Pauzé doesn't see the contradiction. Could you just go over where the contradiction is?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
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.