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.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Is it a correct understanding that it's just a minor correction and that this principle already exists within the legislation?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now move to PV-4.
Ms. May, would you like to provide a brief explanation in support of your motion? It's deemed to already have been moved.
4:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Pursuant to the motion passed by this committee, I will exercise my right to explain my amendment, which I otherwise, but for the motion, could have presented at the report stage in front of the whole Parliament.
Quickly, this is to say that we have in the bill a new concept that was introduced on the Senate side, of greater protections for vulnerable populations. They provided a definition to be added to section 3 of the act. It's part of clause 4, and you'll find it on page 3 of Bill S-5.
With this amendment I'm inserting greater clarity around “vulnerable populations” to ensure that we are including children, women, including pregnant women—you can read it for yourselves—seniors and people who are exposed through or have a disproportionate risk due to socio-economic status, race or national or ethnic origin.
You'll notice it gives clarity to the term that is used just above, where I propose we insert this amendment for greater clarity on vulnerable populations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Would anyone like to speak to the proposed amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. McLean.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I thank the member for the definition.
In (f) it says, “workers who use, handle or are exposed to a substance or toxic substance”. Effectively, anybody who is a worker is covered under the vulnerable population.
Is that perhaps a misprint?
I'll ask the member first of all, please.
4:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
Within the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, substance is defined, as is toxic substance, so this would not be a plain-language meaning that any worker who touches anything is covered. It would be those workers who are exposed to a substance within the meaning of the act.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I appreciate the amendment put forward by Ms. May.
I would just like to amend it further by deleting the word “include” to read, “includes, but is not limited to”.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It would go under “(4) For the purposes of the definition vulnerable population, the individuals in the group”, and instead of “include”, we'd put “include, but are not limited to”.
To speak to my subamendment, I think the list provided here is important, but I don't think it is exhaustive. I think people who live in hot spots.... I wouldn't want to limit our definition of who is included in vulnerable populations to this, but it's important to explicitly state these groups.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I have a question for Ms. May.
I know that Ms. May has spoken extensively on racialization and environmental racism. I'm wondering why it's limited to just one group.
Could she clarify that for me?
4:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the question, Dr. Lewis.
It's not to limit. It's to provide greater guidance in the interpretation of the “vulnerable population” definition, which is now included in the act.
What it says is a “disproportionate risk...because of...socio-economic status, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, gender, age or geographic location.” It's not a narrow definition, but it is to provide some precision in the interpretation of the definition that's currently in the act.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry. Mr. Moffet had his hand up.
Did you want to say something, Mr. Moffet?
December 13th, 2022 / 4:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want, first of all, to correct the assumption that it appears some members have that this amendment was introduced in the Senate. This, in fact, has been part of Bill S-5, part of the government bill.
We consulted extensively on the definition of “vulnerable population”, and the feedback.... I'd like to emphasize a couple of aspects of the feedback and then, if the committee will indulge me, I'll turn to my colleague from Health Canada to elaborate.
I have two points.
First of all, one of the main messages was to not limit the term—again, I realize I'm saying this in many cases—but to leave it open, leave it broad and not enumerate a list, so that it can be expanded over time.
Second, we received very specific feedback from some indigenous interlocutors who objected to being considered a vulnerable population. I appreciate that's not a consistent perspective from all indigenous people, but some were very clear that they did not want to be listed.
If I might, I'd like to turn to my colleague Mr. Carreau to elaborate on this.
4:35 p.m.
Greg Carreau Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you, John.
Indeed, Health Canada had the two concerns that were articulated by Mr. Moffet, notably that the motion could limit Health Canada's ability to assess subpopulation beyond those groups that had been identified by the motion, where new information regarding hazards or exposure may come to light with respect to populations that are more susceptible or highly exposed to harmful chemicals. To reiterate the point made by Mr. Moffet, we heard feedback based on public consultations that some subpopulations would rather not be explicitly classified as vulnerable populations. The current definition that's included in Bill S-5 provides clarity with respect to the scope and breadth of vulnerable populations without citing specific subpopulations, which can be defined through policy and implementation of the act.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I have a question for Ms. May again.
When you used the words “vulnerable populations”, was that in reference to the disproportionate effects on these populations? Is that something you would consider changing, given the information we heard about indigenous populations? Would this amendment, especially clause 4, be changed in any way if you added “but is not limited to”, as our colleague has further stipulated?
4:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
To Mr. Moffet's point, while there was reference to vulnerable populations, the Senate amendment substantially expanded what will be occurring under future Canadian Environmental Protection Act policies and implementation around vulnerable populations.
To answer the second part of the question first, Dr. Lewis, I have no objections whatsoever to an amendment that says “but is not limited to”.
Lastly, I would say to any group that finds it a difficulty, that this is the very specific definition that adds to a very general definition that is currently included in the act. It provides greater guidance. It is not overly general, but it does not apply in all circumstances. It's a population, when exposed to....or in the words of the bill now, in the Senate amendment to item 2(iii.2) on page 11, it's where there is a “vulnerable population...in relation to the substance”. It's not a general statement that your population is always vulnerable; it's a statement that your population is vulnerable in relation to a substance regulated under CEPA. That becomes one of the context-setting elements to the question of toxicity, vulnerability and whether the government needs to take steps.
All the language that was adopted in the Senate committee on S-5 is very consistent with the bill this committee has already passed without amendment, Bill C-226, my private member's bill on environmental racism.
Thank you, Chair.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
I'm just looking at the expansiveness of the definition here. You have everybody under the age of 18; women, including pregnant women; seniors, everybody over the age of 65; indigenous people of all ages; individuals with a medical condition of all ages; workers; and then part (g) really is a repetition of many of these, including socio-economic status, race, national or ethnic origin, colour and gender, again.
This seems expansive enough to apply to virtually everybody, so would it be more instructive to say who this doesn't apply to?
In (f) we talk about workers. We're talking about regulating workers. I don't know this answer, but are we treading on provincial jurisdiction by putting some more federal regulations around the provincial workforce? As much as we might be doing the right thing, will it have some spillover effects on provincial legislation?
Those are my two questions.
