Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a quick follow-up question for Mr. Moffet, just for clarification.

My understanding is that the regime of highest risk and the use of CMR principles are incorporated in the rest of the bill. I'm confused about why adding “virtual elimination” back in would in any way threaten that, because it would not take out any of the new references to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and risk to reproductive function.

I'm still leaning towards supporting this amendment, because it seems like an important principle that was eliminated in Bill S-5, and this amendment has addressed some of the concerns around quantification of release. It seems as though it would be good to have both of these principles here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

I want to be careful not to get into a situation of debating the merits of amendments with members of the committee and I want to respect your role in decision-making.

I think the concern that we as officials might have with this amendment is that it's not.... The bill attempts to create a new list of substances of concern. If in addition we retain the concept of virtual elimination and retain a virtual elimination list, then we actually have three lists. The purpose of the virtual elimination list, and why it is distinct from this new list, is not clear and could add confusion to the intended functioning of the act.

It's not a concern about the notion of persistence by accumulation as indicators of risk, nor is it a concern about the need for the statute to signal the need for more stringent action for some substances, but I think we would be concerned about a proliferation of lists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. May, very briefly.

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

It's fascinating that he's concerned about the proliferation of lists through creating two lists instead of one.

If I could go back to the virtual elimination point, everything Mr. Moffet said about this amendment, PV-13, would be true if all we were doing was repealing the line found at line 33 on page 8, but we are replacing the language, the very concepts that Mr. Moffet just explained to us were problematic if you couldn't get out and quantify the environment.

I go back to the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act as amended in 1999 so that committee members will have the language fresh in their minds: “the ultimate reduction of the quantity or concentration of the substance in the release below the level of quantification”. That's the language that was problematic.

My amendment replaces that language to focus on virtual elimination by removing the product from commerce. It's straightforward. It does not include anything of the issues that have bedevilled us since 1999.

I don't take away from anything Mr. Moffet said, but since 1999 it's been hard to quantify in the environment, to move towards virtual elimination, which is why my amendment not only restores the virtual elimination act to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act but refines it to eliminate the problems, as Ms. Collins so helpfully pointed out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Understood. Okay.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm very sympathetic to what this amendment is trying to do and to the arguments being made, but my issue is that since the entire regime was changed and the bill was overhauled, going back and trying to put in one area of this virtual elimination and create this list now, when there's a new approach being suggested, seems to me to not work with what's been done already.

While I hear what you're saying, I also feel that the realities or the problems with actually implementing this concept were considered when they put forward the bill, and they tried to address those in a comprehensive way. If we now go back and say, “Well, we fixed the virtual elimination; let's put it back in”, I don't see how that works completely.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm really hoping that we're going to see a lot of strengthening in the regulations as well, which are obviously going to be very important in this case.

I can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

As there are no other comments, can we proceed to the vote on PV-13?

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

Shall clause 12 carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

I've been informed that there was a bit of a computer glitch. After I asked if clause 10 would carry, on my list here there is no mention of clause 10.1. I need to ask whether clause 10.1 can carry. There was no proposed amendment to clause 10.1. Can clause 10.1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Clause 10.1 agreed to on division)

It's the same thing after clause 11. I should have asked. There should have been mention about clause 11.1. For some reason there was a computer glitch, and clause 11.1 doesn't show.

Shall clause 11.1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Clause 11.1 agreed to on division)

We just carried clause 12. There is no proposed amendment to clause 13. Shall clause 13 carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Clause 13 agreed to on division)

(On clause 14)

This brings us to clause 14 and amendment G-9.

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I propose this motion, which seeks to clarify the policy intent in clause 14 and associated clause 39.

Recent feedback has made it clear that the bill is vague and open to interpretation, as the intent was to include only those substances that were on the Revised In Commerce List. This amendment would fix that problem.

I move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there debate? No?

Can we go to the vote?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment G-9 carries. Shall clause 14 as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 15)

On clause 15, we have G-10. Who would like to move that amendment?

Mr. Duguid, before you speak to it, I should mention that if G-10 is carried, NDP-14 cannot be proposed, because there is a line conflict.

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm proposing this motion to make a minor revision to proposed new paragraph 67(1)(d). Although the current version of proposed paragraph 67(1)(d) already provides broad enough regulatory authority to prescribe such procedures and practices, the government proposes to support the provision with minor revisions to ensure that the conditions, procedures and practices are described concurrently throughout paragraph (d).

It's a minor revision, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

While this amendment will mean that my amendment won't be able to be moved, I do support the addition of the word “laboratory” to “practices”. I think spelling out some of these terms is useful, especially given the testimony that we've heard from a number of experts. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

I have Mr. Kurek and then Mr. McLean.

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

In reading through this amendment and some of the other references and seeing how broad it was before, I think this is certainly in line with trying to narrow and define some of the aspects. Looking at it from an agricultural perspective, for example, I think this tightens up some language that otherwise could have been misinterpreted, and certainly it's better to have it clear now, as opposed to having it decided by the courts later.