Environment Committee on March 24th, 2022

[Terence Hubbard]

It certainly was a very important court decision. The Impact Assessment Agency is working with federal partners, discussing with the Province of B.C. and working with our colleagues at Justice to review the outcomes of the decision. We're working very closely with the province to look at their action plan to respond to the court judgment. We are looking at how we can better assess cumulative impacts in our project assessments as part of the Impact Assessment Act, as well as looking at the tools available to us to address the issues we can't address on a project-specific basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two minutes and I am going to ask two questions.

The analysts prepared a document for us that contains essential facts. As an aside, I would like to thank them for that. From what is shown in the document, the Impact Assessment Act moves us to a methodology that takes the environmental, economic, social and health factors of a project, both positive and negative, into consideration.

Doing an assessment takes time. Sometimes, when you get to the end of the process, some things may have changed.

Could the Agency consider putting a team in place to update knowledge, to take into account new knowledge that comes up during the assessment process?

[Terence Hubbard]

We are still in the early days of implementing the new Impact Assessment Act. So we don't have a lot of experience when it comes to the process as a whole, from start to finish.

Of course, it will be important to rely on the best available scientific data to support the decisions made by the Minister or the government in this process.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I recommend it because it seems to me that it would be worthwhile for the Agency's operation. It would harmonize with the Agency's proposals and mandate and would significantly enhance its mission.

My next question deals with the climate lens initiative the Minister referred to earlier. He said it took climate, economic and social considerations into account in government decision-making.

What activities is funding planned for with the $1.8 million provided for this initiative, in the horizontal items?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please answer very briefly, because I'm told we have a hard stop at one o'clock. I didn't know that was the case.

[Christine Hogan]

It's an excellent question.

The climate lens resources here are to stand up a centre of excellence, build capability and capacity, and launch this pilot initiative. When you talk about social, economic, and environmental considerations being embedded more into the decision-making processes of departments—ultimately cabinet decision-making, budgetary choices and decisions—the climate lens will create some discipline for departments to do that work in a more systematic way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins, I'm sorry. I didn't know that we would have a hard stop. I thought we could go over 10 minutes, but I'm being told by House resources....

Can you be very brief, Ms. Collins?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The minister mentioned that in reference to the clean fuel standard, we must ensure our methodologies are solid.

Why isn't the government designing a standard that is in alignment with clean fuel standards in Europe, California, and British Columbia?

[Christine Hogan]

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

The clean fuel standard is very much inspired by and based on the clean fuel standards that have been developed in other jurisdictions. We have developed a refined life-cycle analysis tool that is specific to Canadian circumstances and that is based on best practices globally.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have one last question.

The UVic Environmental Law Centre has submitted a response to the proposed draft regulations on single-use plastics. It has a handful of key recommendations, including expanding the narrow definitions of single-use plastics away from durability requirements toward their intended use, expanding the scope of the ban on food service materials to include phthalates and perfluoroalkyl substances, and ending the export exemption.

Is the government going in this direction?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please answer briefly, because we have to stop.

[Christine Hogan]

I'll go back to John Moffet, whose team is leading this regulatory development.

[John Moffet]

The current regulations are intended as an initial step, so we are looking very closely at the recommendations from the University of Victoria and others about ways in which the regulatory regime for single-use plastics should be expanded in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your accommodating the last-minute news that we have to stop at 1:00 because there's an event at 1:15.

Thank you to the witnesses. It was very informative and very interesting. We look forward to seeing you, hopefully shortly, when we do the main estimates, maybe in the next couple of weeks. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.