Evidence of meeting #44 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 definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Since he didn't move his amendment, we can't proceed to the subamendment.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Okay.
My amendment, which deals with definitions, would be in clause 4. So it's not right away.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're getting to clause 4.
Shall clause 3 carry as amended?
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 4)
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll start with PV-3. Pursuant to our routine motion with regard to members from a party not represented on the committee, this amendment is deemed moved.
Would the sponsor like to make a brief explanation in support of her motion?
December 13th, 2022 / 3:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would indeed.
This is, I think, consistent with points made earlier in committee by members of committee, including Greg. It's the notion that in using a term, we shouldn't leave it to courts to define how it's going to be interpreted later.
PV-3 offers definitions that are quite widely accepted in the field for the terms “aggregate exposure” and “cumulative effect”. Given the time, I'm not going to go through describing the definitions—they speak for themselves—but they're straightforward and quite widely accepted, to provide background.
When the bill eventually needs interpretation, these definitions will be very helpful.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to thank Ms. May for the amendment. I appreciate the definition for “aggregate exposure”, but I have concerns about the definition for “cumulative effect”. It reads to me to be too narrow. It excludes environmental effects and also narrows the definition to common mechanisms “that target the same tissue”.
This kind of narrow definition has been problematic in the pesticides act and has meant fewer cumulative risk assessments on important topics like neonics, so I hope we won't repeat the same mistakes we've seen in that definition.
I would propose an amendment to the amendment, to take out the definition of “cumulative effects”.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Now we're debating the subamendment. Then we'll come back to Mr. Kurek. Who would like to speak to the subamendment?
Mr. Longfield.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if maybe Mr. Moffet could provide some technical support on this in terms of the cumulative effects and maybe, in general, the definitions within the act around effects.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Can we just clarify exactly what the subamendment is?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I would like to do that. Is the subamendment just to take out the paragraph on “cumulative effects”?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
My question was on the subamendment, but I think in answering my question it might also help clarify where we stand.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry. You asked Mr. Moffet for an answer.
Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.
3:45 p.m.
John Moffet Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you. I'm happy to respond.
I think the government shares the concern about defining “cumulative effect” in two senses.
One, we don't think it's necessary or appropriate to define it in the act itself, because it is a concept that continues to evolve within the scientific community, and defining it in the act would then lock it in and preclude us from being able to evolve on a policy basis.
Second, we also have concerns about the definition that is proposed, which is at variance with the approach we've included in other parts of the bill, including in proposed section 68, which provides ministers with the power to collect information on various topics, including on whether exposure to a substance in combination with exposure to other substances has the potential to cause cumulative effects.
This kind of information-gathering would not be restricted to substances that have common mechanisms or modes of action. It would go well beyond that and allow us to look at the cumulative effects from multiple completely different substances that may have different kinds of mechanisms or modes of action, or even different effects.
Therefore, this would be unnecessarily restrictive. It's also an example of why, in many cases, when a concept is being introduced that is evolving in science, it's best left to the government to clearly and publicly define it as a matter of policy and put that definition out but then let it evolve as the science evolves.
Just on the issue of “aggregate exposure”, the term doesn't appear anywhere else in the bill, so it's not clear what the legal implication of defining it would be.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Moffet.
Does anyone else want to speak to the subamendment?
Mr. McLean.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm sorry. I got a little confused by Mr. Moffet's explanation. He's talking about this being more restrictive than the current interpretation of the bill as far as “cumulative effect” goes. I thought this would be specific enough.
However, Mr. Moffet, what you're telling this committee is that the non-definition, if you will, would speak to the evolution of the way this could be interpreted in the scientific community going forward. Am I hearing from you that by defining this, we are restricting the use of what “cumulative effect” will mean?
3:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes. I apologize if I was not clear. I was trying to say two things. First, defining it in any way could have the implication of precluding its evolution over time. Second, the particular definition that is proposed here is, in fact, narrower than our current interpretation of the term.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I insisted on the definitions last Friday. I think what's important is that the definitions be the same in French and in English. They have to be identical.
Perhaps Mr. Moffet can enlighten me on that. If the Canadian Environmental Protection Act refers to defence, is that concept under the heading “Definitions and Interpretation” or under the heading “Administrative Duties”?
There are several documents.
3:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to respond directly to the question. Neither term, “aggregate exposure” or “cumulative effect”, is defined in the statute at the moment. “Cumulative effect” and “cumulative effects” are referred to in a number of places in Bill S-5, however, so it is an important concept, and it is one that informs our risk assessments and our risk management decisions.
“Aggregate exposure” is not referred to in the act or the bill.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if we could go to Ms. May. My guess would be that maybe one of her amendments talks about aggregate exposure, so defining it might be important in case that amendment passes. However, I'd love to hear from Ms. May.