Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

That's for Mr. Moffet.

I think the first question would be better answered by Ms. May, because she's here.

The second question, about the workers, I would direct to Mr. Moffet.

I can still ask her questions, can't I?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I've been asking her questions. My apologies. Thank you for giving me that latitude. Thank you.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

If that's not the case, then I'll Mr. Moffet to answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, Mr. McLean. We can ask Ms. May a question, but we need a very brief reply. It's sort of....

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I hate these rules you've given me, Mr. Chair, but I will go with them and give the shortest answer possible to Mr. McLean's question if you will allow me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, but briefly, please.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It does not apply to virtually anyone. It does not tread on provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act's application has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It would continue to be upheld within the four corners of the legislation in recognizing that these are the vulnerable populations that could be in exposure to the substances as defined.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Moffet, did you have something to add?

Can we go on to Ms. Collins?

[John Moffet]

I would just echo what Ms. May said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perfect. That's excellent.

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for the officials, my subamendment was really to address the concern around amending it to be “includes but not limited to”. Specifically to the official from Health Canada, I was just reading a list on the Health Canada website that lists what could be considered vulnerable populations. A lot of them are very similar to this list. As I scroll down, it says,

infants and children who may have greater exposures to certain chemicals due to behavioural reasons such as soil and dust ingestion

and

people living near industrial or commercial facilities or any other area with elevated levels of pollutants, including mixtures

and

Indigenous Peoples and communities who may be significantly impacted, due to their close ties to the land and their consumption of country and traditional foods

and

individuals with dietary habits different from the general population, including individuals with special dietary requirements, newborns and infants, new immigrants, or individuals in hunting and fishing communities consuming country foods that may have elevated levels of certain chemicals

It seems like Health Canada does have at least a proposed list for vulnerable populations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that a question for Mr. Moffet?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

They seem to be saying that we shouldn't create a list, and I'm just wondering about it since we have a proposed list on the Health Canada website.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're debating your subamendment, really.

Was that a question for Mr. Moffet?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm sorry. That was a question for either Mr. Moffet or the government official whose name I did not catch from Health Canada.

[John Moffet]

It's Mr. Carreau, but maybe I can jump in initially.

The issue here would the difference between codifying a list in a statute that is fixed until amended by Parliament versus providing an illustrative list as a matter of policy, which Health Canada has done, as you've already noted.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In terms of the subamendment in particular, just so we create language that doesn't limit it, it explicitly says that we're including these things, but we're not limiting it to this list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're adding “not limited to”.

You want feedback from Mr. Moffet.

Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I think the current drafting approaches, consistent with the way in which statutes are being interpreted in the courts, suggest that such language is not necessary. “Including” is intended to be read as “including but not limited to”, as one uses it in normal parlance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're saying we don't need that language.

Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My reading of this amendment is that it's quite a vast range of people. It essentially includes everybody as being a vulnerable population, with the exception of men aged 18 to 64 who are non-indigenous.

I understand proposed paragraph (g) is what this is really about, which is individuals who are at disproportionate risk because of exposure. I have an issue with saying that all folks other than the group I just mentioned are vulnerable. That's the reason I have a problem with it. I'll be voting against.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, but we're voting on the subamendment.

Are we ready to vote on the subamendment?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, can I withdraw my subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, with unanimous consent, you can.

Do we have unanimous consent for Ms. Collins to withdraw her subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.