Natural Resources committee  The federal government, from the outset of its addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis, has acknowledged that these are areas of shared jurisdiction that require efforts by all Canadians and all levels of government. The federal government has some jurisdiction over some of these issues.

Natural Resources committee  I'll start, and then I'll turn to my colleague Mr. Hermanutz, who's responsible for modelling. Just to be clear, this is not about carbon pricing.

Natural Resources committee  The commissioner's report relates to regulations, which do not regulate consumer behaviour. They regulate the kind of vehicle fleet that each vehicle manufacturer can sell in Canada.

Natural Resources committee  I didn't say that.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My colleagues and I are happy to meet with you here today to discuss the commissioner's audit recommendations. I'd like to start by acknowledging that the commissioner of environment and sustainable development plays an important accountability role for the government.

Environment committee  There is a cross-reference in the statute. This provision has to do with the information that is requested from applicants, so it's a further reinforcement of that linkage.

Environment committee  That's correct. I think it goes beyond that. It codifies the current policy of both departments to request a set of information from applicants in order to make the determination about whether the decision will be aligned with the Access to Information Act. It's a legal codification of an existing policy, intended to ensure alignment of the access to information regime in CEPA with the Access to Information Act.

Environment committee  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—

Environment committee  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.

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

Environment committee  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.”

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.

Environment committee  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.