Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

I don't think we have any objections to the stated goal of promoting pollution prevention, in that the act itself already requires ministers to give priority to pollution prevention when risk-managing substances.

The challenge with this amendment is that it would require a government to require pollution prevention plans with respect to every listed substance. In fact, pollution prevention planning is only one way to promote pollution prevention. It's a bit unfortunate that the term “pollution prevention planning” has become confused with the overall concept of pollution prevention.

When we assess a substance as being toxic and needing risk management, CEPA gives us access to a wide range of risk management instruments, including the authority to require plans, but it also of course authorizes us to regulate, including to prohibit the use of a substance, which is the most effective and powerful way to achieve pollution prevention. It ensures that the substance is not used and therefore never enters the environment.

Requiring the ministers to use this one tool for every substance in fact would be an unnecessary imposition, in that there are more stringent and more immediately effective measures that can be used and have been used to achieve the overarching goal of pollution prevention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

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

May I respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, and very briefly, please.

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

I'm sure that inadvertently Mr. Moffet has mis-characterized this amendment as requiring a pollution prevention plan for every substance.

As I mentioned, if you look at proposed subsection 56(13) at page 47 of your amendment package, you see the applicant may have the opportunity to convince the minister that socio-economic benefits of an activity outweigh the risks and the analysis of alternatives. There are ways to continue to deal with each substance. This amendment isn't a flat prohibition, but it does give the minister tools that currently are not found in this act and the duty to regulate when substances are extremely dangerous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I was going to say the same thing. I read through the amendment, and I saw a clear path for the minister to not do this if the situation was as Ms. May has just explained.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else?

Okay. We can go to the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll now go to NDP‑12.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I won't be moving this amendment, since it would conflict—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, so the amendment won't be moved.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, since this amendment isn't going to be moved, I'd like to move one right now. The clerk already has it.

It concerns the passage in clause 10 of the bill, at lines 33 and 34 on page 7, which I propose to replace with “if he considers, based on scientific grounds and independent evidence from the applicant's provided information, that it is unreasonable or unattainable”.

Let me explain. At present, it's the industry that provides the justifications. We know what happens, and I can give the example of Louis Robert in Quebec. The industry has too much influence on decisions. If these decisions were to also take into account independent studies, that would balance things out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Pauzé. Before dealing with your proposed amendment, however, we have to deal with NDP‑13.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm very interested in Madame Pauzé's amendment as well, but I chose not to move NDP-12 because it would conflict with NDP-13.

The amendment itself is really to incorporate the principle of safer substitution into this act. If my colleagues haven't read through it thoroughly, definitely look at new proposed subsection 56(1.1), which talks about “more sustainable alternatives to the substance”, using safer alternatives.

I hope I'll find the committee's support for this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that the....

Yes. Okay. You can move it.

Who would like to speak to what Ms. Collins has just presented? Would anyone else like to speak?

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't understand why the French version of subclause 10(4) is so different from the English version in NDP‑13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Give me a moment. I'll check.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's in NDP‑13. It's proposed subclause 10(4).

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What's the difference between the two versions?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

NDP‑13 proposes “replacing lines 28 to 35 on page 7” of Bill S‑5 with a new subclause 10(3), which isn't problematic, and a new subclause 10(4), the French version of which really seems to be missing quite a bit of text compared to the English version.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The translation is missing three lines.

[Jean-François Pagé, Legislative Clerk]

The text is prepared by jurilinguists. We aren't involved in this process.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I understand.

Mr. Chair, obviously my colleague is right. The following words haven't been translated.

whether the extension is for the preparation or the implementation of the plan, and the duration of the period of the extension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's pretty obvious.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's written in the sky, we could say.