Environment committee  Well, I'll put two things, one that's very mundane and that probably applies to a lot of others. It would really benefit our sector to have good government, in the sense of officials who are able to provide guidance and who therefore have the resources to provide guidance, report

Environment committee  I think it's “one of”. I think CEPA is one of many other factors in project permitting, infrastructure and a whole bunch of things. But yes, it is an important factor.

Environment committee  I'll try to do that quickly. If you look at schedule 1, there are a number of listings that are groups. That is what we expect in the future—not a single compound but a group of things with certain characteristics. The person operating a mill, a plant or a manufacturing facility

Environment committee  Essentially, we tried to sort of flow-chart how the decisions are made. You arrive after an assessment at a decision. Do you put something on schedule 1 or not? Look at it from the official standpoint. If you put it on schedule 1, you immediately trigger obligations—it's time-lim

Environment committee  Ideally, I think it should be removed. It's always concerning when the explanation of what it's for keeps changing and isn't clear. But we respect that the government, Parliament, may have an intent. At a minimum, amend it so that if you add something to the list, you're going to

Environment committee  Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill S-5. I am Justyna Laurie-Lean with the Mining Association of Canada. The mining industry is affected by several parts of CEPA, but we do not offer comments on amendments that we have little experience with. We see Bill S

Fisheries committee  I don't think we can, partly because, especially when you go north you're talking water bodies, so—

Fisheries committee  With one thousand in one little square kilometre, it's very difficult to make that number.

Fisheries committee  The differences between the actual interpretation of the act and the changes, at least for our sector in inland waters, were very subtle. Some of the biologists that work in our sector would argue that the current act is scientifically more sound because it focuses on the product

Fisheries committee  Yes. However, it fell down in the compliance, promotion, and implementation. A lot of people were left with an inaccurate understanding of what the act is.

Environment committee  It wasn't so much the introduction or non-introduction of the NEB and the CNSC, because they don't affect any of our members' projects other than CNSC for uranium. It was more the introduction of the agency. Prior to 2010 you had the diffuse self-assessment by 40, I think it was,

Environment committee  I mean CEAA 2012. So that was a shock. But then some of the other provisions weren't evident and what was envisaged at the time of the passing of 2012 wasn't what was implemented. Some of the problems didn't really become evident until 2015 or 2016.

Environment committee  It's 26 years.

Fisheries committee  It would be capacity and guidance. You can write the most beautiful legislation in the world, and if the department does not have the capacity to deliver it, it's not going to be delivered.

Fisheries committee  I don't know. We would not be familiar with their internal operations.