Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, colleagues. It is nice to see everyone back on the Hill, energized and ready to continue our important work reviewing Bill S-5 clause by clause.

To protect the hearing of the interpreters, I would remind everyone not to lean in to speak in the microphone. Please keep a reasonable distance from the microphone; we will still hear you.

With us today from the Department of the Environment is Mr. Moffet, the assistant deputy minister, who plays a very important role in guiding us in our work, as well as Ms. Farquharson and Ms. Gonçalves. From the Department of Health, we also have Greg Carreau, the director general of the Safe Environments Directorate.

(Clause 7)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I'm not mistaken, we were at clause 7 of Bill S‑5 and amendment PV‑10, which was deemed to have already been proposed. I would like to point out that if PV‑10 is adopted, G‑8 can't be proposed due to a line conflict.

Ms. May, I now invite you to present PV‑10.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone. It's a pleasure to see you again.

Substantially, my amendment PV-10 is quite close in content to G-8, but I urge you to carry this one so that it shows some willingness to hear from opposition parties that care about this bill.

In Bill S-5 in current subclause 7(3.1), the sentence ends with “referred to in paragraph 2(1)‍(a.‍2).” My amendment would expand that to make it clear that in looking at research studies and monitoring activities in support of protecting the right to a healthy environment, the minister shall be mindful of the wording that is found further up in that paragraph. Obviously, this includes the precautionary principle; principles of environmental justice; the polluter pays principle; and principles for sustainable development, substitution, non-regression and intergenerational equity. Those principles are generally found above in the same paragraph.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.

If there are any questions, I'd urge the committee members to give this amendment their support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I'm keeping a speakers list. Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I really appreciate the amendment, because it defines things that are currently undefined here. I know a lot of what we talk about later in the bill, and the amendments we propose are about defining these so that somebody can refer to them and see what they mean. Having definitions this early in the discussion of the amendments we're making, I think, is very constructive.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, if I could, I'd ask the officials if there are any interpretation challenges. It seems to me that making sure that there's some clarity and some definitions is moving in a good direction, but could the officials comment on the application of previously referred to principles in this paragraph?

Would there be any challenges with that in terms of enforcement, the regulatory process and that sort of thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Who would like to take that?

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

I can.

I think the thing is that the amendments have been made under the “duties” section to very clearly connect the principles to the right, to make the principles part of the right, and so the purpose of this proposed subsection 44(3.1) is to require research, studies and monitoring in support of that right, which now, by definition, includes the principles. That's already included, and this proposal would disconnect the principles from the right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I've been informed that the livestream video and audio are not functioning at the moment.

We're working on it. We're going to pause and see where we're at.

We're back in business. I don't see any other speakers on this amendment, which means we can proceed—

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I didn't follow the official's analysis of what she means by this. Because it seems to me that we're clearly defining what we're talking about here, I would like to better understand how she feels that this amendment is disconnecting the legislation from what its intent is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Farquharson, would you comment?

[Laura Farquharson]

Sure.

Under section 2 of the act, which identifies the duties of the government, the committee adopted amendments to say under paragraph (2)(1)(a.2) that there's a duty to

protect the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment as provided under this Act, subject to any reasonable limits;

It then adopted an amendment right under that one, still in the “duties” section, that says in relation to that paragraph I just read about protecting the right, that the government has a duty to uphold principles such as “principles of environmental justice”, “the principle of non-regression” and “the principle of intergenerational equity”.

Now we come to section 44, which is about “research, studies” and “monitoring activities” to support the government in protecting that right. We know now that the right includes those principles, so adding “research, studies” and “monitoring” to protect the right and apply the principles sort of disconnects the principles from the right. You could say that it's already included in saying that it's “protecting the right”.

I hope that helps.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

The amendment I'm looking at here is about defining these so that they're clearly understood by anybody interpreting the act going forward, and by clearly defining these, are we disconnecting it somehow? These aren't previously defined in the legislation, unless I'm mistaken.

[Laura Farquharson]

Okay. I thought we were on PV-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are.

[Laura Farquharson]

I think PV-10 says that section 44 of the act is amended, and under section 44 is subsection 44(3.1), which says:

The Ministers shall conduct research, studies or monitoring activities to support the Government of Canada in protecting the right to a healthy environment referred to in paragraph 2(1)‍(a.‍2).

It then adds—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

That's my mistake. My apologies.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I'm hoping to make sure we're all on the same page. We're currently on version 3 of the amendments package at page 40 and we're on PV-10 as put forward by Madam May. That's just to make sure we're clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any more comments or questions?

I guess we can go to a vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll now go to G‑8. Who wants to move it?

You have the floor, Mr. Weiler.

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

Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that given that they are substantially the same, and given that PV-10 was rejected, by the same token G-8 wouldn't be movable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You don't want to move it. Okay.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, just as a point, I think it is movable, but it may be unwinnable. I do thank Mr. Weiler for trying it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Shall clause 7 carry?

Go ahead with the vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clause 8 agreed to on division)

(On clause 9)

We have CPC-3. Who would like to present that amendment?