Environment Committee on Feb. 16th, 2023

[John Moffet]

Amendment 14.1 actually amends CEPA, so it adds an obligation to the existing statutory requirements. It's not just what we currently have in the statute. This adds a new obligation to consult interested persons with respect to these decisions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

This obligation therefore stems from amendment G‑14.2. However, it seems to me that there's no mention of a waiver in this amendment. Isn't that basically what the Senate is adding to this bill?

[John Moffet]

This afternoon, this committee passed government amendment 14.2, which adds an obligation on the ministers of health and environment in new section 108.1, subsection (1), to “consult any interested persons” with respect to the assessment of information in respect of vertebrate animals and any living organisms prescribed by regulation. This is a new obligation that this committee created this afternoon in CEPA.

The authority we're now discussing is just the authority to create the regulation that lists the organisms about which that consultation obligation applies.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Then again, in the assessments, the Senate added the waiver issue, but this isn't in amendment G‑14.2.

Amendment G‑14.3 therefore weakens clause 44.1 of the bill and the proposed subsection 114(1)(g.1) it wants to add to the act, because that is not covered by amendment G‑14.2. Is that correct?

[John Moffet]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

I just want to ask a further question.

When you spoke specifically about all persons being consulted or whatever, is this in line with the obligations under UNDRIP and that legislation as well?

[John Moffet]

I apologize. I don't think I'm able to comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Moffet, in light of your explanations, could I propose a subamendment to amendment G‑14.3?

That would involve replacing the words “by replacing” with the words “by adding”, which would add what the amendment proposes to what is already in clause 44.1 of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will suspend for a few minutes to look at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are back in session.

The subamendment is in order.

Ms. Pauzé, is that what you want to propose?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure whether that should be forwarded to committee members. I'm hoping the clerk would do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What you want to do is change one word.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I propose replacing the word “replacing” by the word “adding”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Basically, we're saying that clause 44.1 be amended by saying, instead of “replacing lines 21 to 25”, “adding after line 25”. We're taking out “replacing lines 21 to 25” and putting in “adding after line 25”. Then we add what Ms. Pauzé wants to add, which is going to be called (g.2).

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, that's it, precisely.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Moffet, can we get your comment on this?

[John Moffet]

I apologize. I was just trying to follow the implications.

In a previous session, the committee approved G-14.1, I believe, which required ministers to publish, as soon as possible, a notice stating the name of anybody granted a waiver. The waiver process is intended to complement the risk assessment process to assess new substances, which is a time-bound process. That's a process managed by risk assessment officials.

This amendment, as I understand it, would interject an implied expectation that the government develop regulations prescribing processes for meaningful public participation in decisions about granting a waiver. That seems to contradict the obligation that was passed to grant waivers “as soon as possible”.

We're wrestling with the implications.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would you like some more time to reflect on it?

[John Moffet]

I apologize to the committee. I did not anticipate this. We'd appreciate coming back to that, rather than prolonging this discussion while everybody stares at us.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

We can't come back. We'd have to stand it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'd have to stand it, or we could just vote on it.

[A voice]

What a novel concept.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you wish to take a pause?