Evidence of meeting #43 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was right.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
You should check the map of the House of Commons. It seats us together.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It doesn't change the fact that it's already been deemed moved.
December 9th, 2022 / 1:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes, and that's due to the terms of the motion passed by this committee that reduces the rights I would otherwise have, just to clarify that for all members. I'm here, I know, at some point, because I have many amendments. Some of you may regret that you passed a motion, without really knowing what you were doing, that says that members of parties with fewer than 12 MPs or who are independents must show up with their amendments at clause-by-clause stage even though we have the right to present them in the House as a whole, but for the motion.
This one is a fairly straightforward and small amendment. I hope it might be acceptable to the committee. What PV-1, my first amendment, proposes is to restore what has been in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for decades, which is the concept of virtual elimination of a toxic substance.
We from the Green Party argue that the virtual elimination of toxic substances should remain within the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We know there have been problems with the implementation of this act, of this concept of virtual elimination, but there are ways to ensure that virtual elimination of toxic substances from commerce can be restored to the act. I have additional amendments throughout the bill that make this more workable.
I know I have very little time under the terms of the motion to explain it fully, but I think members of the committee, I hope, are familiar with the arguments made by the Canadian Environmental Law Association about how removing virtual elimination weakens the act.
Thank you.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. May.
Would anyone like to speak to this amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I'd ask if any of the officials would have any....
I think this is going to happen just as a preamble to my question, Mr. Chair. Because this is an extremely technical bill, I expect that a question you'll hear often is asking the officials to expand on the impacts of some of these amendments as especially.... You know, with the paper I printed off, I felt almost guilty of a sin after printing off so much paper for an environmental bill.
My preamble is that I suspect we're going to often hear questions asking the officials, the drafting folks, the legislative clerk and the clerk to weigh in on some of the impacts of what these amendments may or may not include.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would ask if Mr. Moffet or other witnesses would have any insights to share related to the separate amendments, specifically PV-1.
1:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to provide an explanation for—
1:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
MP May is correct in that the bill would slightly amend the preamble, essentially by removing reference to virtual elimination because virtual elimination is codified—well, defined—in the current CEPA, and there is a codified set of requirements regarding virtual elimination. As she explained, the implementation of those provisions has proven unworkable, despite two decades of effort.
There is a new approach proposed in the bill that would expand on virtual elimination, retain the emphasis on a default preference for prohibition of a broader set of substances than are referred to in the current virtual elimination regime, and define that group of substances as substances of highest concern.
In order to avoid confusion by retaining the reference in the statute in one place when we're removing it in all other places, the proposal is to remove it from the preamble while retaining the overall emphasis in the preamble on the need to control, manage and prevent pollution and waste.
I apologize. I said “highest concern”. I think the term is slightly different in the act, but we'll get to that provision later. The point is that there is now a new regime that is broader than virtual elimination and that focuses on giving a preference to eliminating those substances that are posing the worst kind of risk. It's broadening the concept in it but deleting this particular term throughout the act in order to avoid any confusion.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
1:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I had my hand up, but it's okay. I had my hand up to make a comment before you called the vote, but I understand.
1:40 p.m.
Green
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You were afforded some time at the beginning to speak to the amendment, and I believe I was quite liberal in that respect.
We'll go to the vote now.
1:40 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Shall PV-1 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll go now to amendment G-1.
Who would like to move that?
Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
