Environment committee  Thank you.

Environment committee  Thanks. I assume you're referring to proposed section 63. Yes. I actually think that, other than changing the language from “consideration” to “based on”, proposed section 63 is fine. What is needed in addition to this, as with other discretionary decisions, is regulations to provide the detail.

Environment committee  I'm not sure whether your question is specific to the choice about panel review, agency review, or something more general, but the approach I would recommend is that the broad criteria should be set out in the statute. You want to put in the statute the kinds of things that you know you're not going to have to change.

Environment committee  In fairness, we've never been clear about that. CEAA 1992 wasn't clear on that. I do think, however, that it's time to provide some clarity on this, and I think there's more uncertainty now as a result of the planning phase. The planning phase talks about asking for information, which is a good idea, but it raises certain questions.

Environment committee  If I understand your question correctly, I'm advocating for an appeals body that would potentially review decisions throughout the process, starting potentially from triggering decisions and then determinations on the scope, the information that is needed, and process options—all along the way.

Environment committee  I think public participation is a good example of the kinds of issues I was talking about more generically, this question of how you move from empowering decision-makers to do the right thing to properly guiding the decision-making. The short answer is I think a definition for meaningful public participation would be a helpful first step, but I think then you need to work through the act and identify appropriate direction, statutory and regulatory, to ensure that good decisions will be made in the future about public participation.

Environment committee  Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you about the impact assessment portion of Bill C-69. To ensure efficient use of my time, I will read from a prepared statement. Very briefly, my background in EA goes back to work on CEAA in 1992 as a policy adviser to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Environment committee  In fairness, I think CO2 was declared toxic under CEPA because of its greenhouse gas emissions effect, not because of—

Environment committee  I'll defer to others on that.

Environment committee  I'll take the first stab at this. I think the answer to it is a combination of what is safe globally. You can have a debate about whether that's 2° or 1.5°, perhaps—

Environment committee  No, I agree.

Environment committee  To start with your last question, the way you operationalize it potentially would be for a CEPA provision to be the trigger for the environmental assessment, but that also depends on how the CEAA review goes. I think that has to be coordinated. If CEAA goes with a list approach to triggering as opposed to the kind of a lawless trigger we used to have, then you would find different ways of ensuring there is an opportunity to do an environmental assessment.

Environment committee  Is the risk warranted in light of the benefits?

Environment committee  Yes, I'll just add to that. I think as a starting point the recognition of the problem is critical because in many jurisdictions we have been fighting over environmental justice issues in a whole variety of contexts, and it's difficult to even get the issue taken seriously. To have a piece of legislation that clearly recognizes that environmental justice is an issue, that it needs to be considered through the life cycle of the regulatory process and then implements, it will make a tremendous difference in this country.

Environment committee  I have a couple of thoughts. First of all, I think it's clear that we need timelines. We need required action and response to designating a substance to be toxic. I think we also need to make sure we understand the totality of the use of the substance, identify opportunities for substitutes, and learn from other jurisdictions.