Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[John Moffet]

That's not our interpretation. Maybe I can turn it over to my colleague, Ms. Laura Farquharson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Farquharson, you have the floor.

[Laura Farquharson, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

There are a couple of things this change would do. The first is that there's a reference to a database in the amendment the Senate made, so this is to eliminate that reference. There are several search engines that are used to find documents, but that may not be how we do it all the time.

The revisions that were made, though, were to take out those long lists—you're right—and to make the more general requirement to publish documents that are relevant. The other change that was made was that it's broader, as Mr. Moffet said, in the sense that it now includes documents published or made publicly available by the ministers or either minister, whereas before it just had “minister”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thank you.

Do you have a follow-up question?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, my follow-up is just the (b) part of that, replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 5 with the following: “registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.” What difference will the amendment make here? I'm unclear; it seems to mean the same thing to me.

[Laura Farquharson]

I'm sorry. I'm just trying to find which part you're looking at.

If this is about its being accessible electronically, it's to replace that language about database, which is a very specific way of providing information.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Please explain the difference to me, because we're talking about a registry. The old wording says “registry is maintained in the form of a publicly accessible and searchable electronic database”, which seems to make sense to me. The new one is “registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form”.

Tell me what the difference is and the nuance of those two specifics, please.

[Laura Farquharson]

I think, literally, “database” may not be how you use it. I think somebody said blockchain. I'm not sure that you would use blockchain for this, but there may be other ways of providing the information than a database. It's literally the database.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there any more before we go to a vote on clause 5.1?

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

On page 4 of the bill, paragraph 5.1(1)(i) refers to “every action, process, decision, assessment or activity—however called—that is carried out in relation to the substance under any provision of this Act, whether it has occurred, is in progress, or is proposed”. Does that remain?

Then, paragraph 5.1(1)(ii) refers to “every international instrument to which Canada is a signatory that applies in respect of that substance”.

Does it all go away? There are still some worthwhile things here for each substance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Did you understand the question, Ms. Farquharson?

Is what Ms. Pauzé just mentioned included in the amendment?

[Laura Farquharson]

The second part, “every international instrument to which Canada is a signatory that applies in respect of that substance”, would not appear in the registry.

I question the value of that, since the way Canadian law works is that whatever is an obligation internationally has to be implemented through domestic law, so that's how you know which instruments apply. You would see it in, for example, a regulation under CEPA that might prohibit the use of a substance that Canada had agreed should be prohibited under an international instrument, so that is not there any longer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's not there any longer, but it's implied in regulations and—

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes. You'll see it in other ways.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think that answers your question, Ms. Pauzé.

Can we proceed with the vote?

No. There's no subamendment.

We're going to vote on G‑7, proposed by Mr. Duguid.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clause 5.1 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 agreed to on division)

Now we'll go to PV-7.

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to say something before Ms. May moves PV‑7.

I want to acknowledge the amount of work that the Green Party has done on this clause. Since Ms. May still has only a few seconds to put forward her amendments, could we not agree unanimously to give her more time?

At one point, Ms. May told us in the House that she had been working on this for years. I congratulate her. I think we can see very clearly the work that has been done here.

So I'd like to give her more than 30 seconds to propose her amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you seeking unanimous consent?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're already allowing Ms. May to speak to her amendment. I also have some latitude.

If I understood correctly, Ms. Pauzé, you would like us to give her a little more time than usual, since the amendment is so long. I'll take note of that, but I'll start by asking Ms. May to give us an overview of it.

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

Thank you.

Once again, I would like to thank my dear colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Ms. Pauzé, for proposing that I be given a little more time. It's only because of the committee motion that I'm being rushed. This is obviously an important amendment, which isn't very short.

In presenting this, let me give the factual context and background. I think members of the committee will know that the section of the act that this amendment replaces is a comprehensive one. It puts forward the ways in which an individual can pursue an environmental protection action. It is significant that, in decades, section 22 has never been used. It is cumbersome; it contains too many obstacles and it has never been used.

I want to thank senior lawyer Joseph Castrilli from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I confess that the two of us have been working on the act. I worked on it before it had first reading, back in the 1980s, when I was in government.

This is an attempt to improve it significantly, especially now that Bill S-5 purports to create the right to a healthy environment, but with no mechanism to enforce that right.

This is a gift to the government, to Liberals and to all of us, to have an act that can work.

Let me explain briefly that PV-7—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Explain very briefly, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

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

I'll take no more than 20 more seconds to say that this amendment includes the ways in which an individual can proceed to federal court, the ways in which an individual can put forward their right and the way a court deals with that request for relief.

It also puts forward a comprehensive set of defences. Also, for those who would worry that this opens floodgates or in any way creates frivolous amendments, proposed section 22 of this amendment very specifically allows a court to dismiss any action that's frivolous or vexatious. In other words, this is a complete scheme. It's a comprehensive framework for the full enforcement of this act that is fair to all and will work in the public interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May.

I'm announcing that PV‑7 seeks to create a legal recourse that isn't provided for in Bill S‑5.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, the amendment brings a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I must rule the amendment inadmissible.

Ms. Collins.