Environment committee  I have the dubious distinction of being the only government representative who will speak. I'm here with Steve Clarkson, from Health Canada, who is available to answer any questions that committee members may have; and Greg Carreau, from Environment Canada, who is the lead risk

Environment committee  If he leaves, it's not because you've offended him. Thank you. Let me start by stating very simply that the government completely supports the need to address PFOS. Any debate that you see this morning is not about PFOS, and it's not about the need to get rid of PFOS. What we'r

Environment committee  Sure. I'll answer the first question and then I'll ask Mr. Carreau to answer the second question. The first question had to do with virtual elimination. Your perception, as I understand it, is that PFOS has somehow fallen through the cracks. I hope to allay that concern. What th

Environment committee  Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask your permission to refer the first question to my colleague Robert Chénier, who is the manager of the assessment section at Environment Canada. So he manages all of the risk assessments and has the full history of the assessment that was und

Environment committee  Bill C-298 requires the minister to do three things: first, add PFOS to the VE list; second, specify a level of quantification; and third, make regulations prescribing the quantity or concentration that may be released into the environment. My testimony earlier suggested that th

Environment committee  Mr. Chairman, I'll just clarify that there will not be an Environment Canada representative at the table for the next bill, which is a Health Canada bill. Mr. Chénier will remain. If there are technical questions, he'll be available to answer them.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Mr. Chair, the departmental staff members don't have the most recent amendments.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thanks, Mr. Chair. It's our reading that this provision does not create a new body—I'm reading the English—but this amendment would designate a body to do these functions. I think Mr. Cullen's questions were about creating a new body; it would be our advice that this provision d

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  In response to Mr. Cullen's question, it's certainly my view that the addition of greenhouse gases is redundant, that the departments have the capacity to research, that the authority that's given in CEPA now to conduct research into pollution prevention gives us plenty of scope

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Sorry, could you repeat that?

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm not sure I completely follow your question. I may have misspoken. But what I'm trying to suggest is that the amendment that Bill C-30 provides to expand the authority to cover pollution prevention would give us all the authority we need to also look at techniques and technolo

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I think what the amendment does is try to make that authority explicit. We conduct that research now. Let's be candid; we conduct it now. The authority is implicit in many of the provisions in the statute. We're just trying to make it explicit.

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  My concern there would be that you'd be distinguishing research into greenhouse gas emissions as being something different from pollution prevention. The working interpretation that we have, at any rate, is that pollution prevention is broad enough to cover greenhouse gas reducti

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  What I'm trying to say is not that the technologies are the same, but that the term “pollution prevention” is broad enough to cover toxic substances, solid waste, greenhouse gases, and energy waste. It's a very broad term that was defined through a process that the federal govern

Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I think from a very strict legal reading that could be the consequence, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. However, if this amendment were to pass, I don't think it would have significant practical unintended consequences. From an official's perspective, I think we could live w