Evidence of meeting #45 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm the one who sent the amendments to the clerk, but this amendment was written by Mr. McLean. Is Mr. McLean able to move it, or am I the one who has to move it?
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I move to withdraw proposed paragraphs 46(1)(k.2) and 46(1)(k.3) in lines 10 and 11, “hydraulic fracturing” and “tailing ponds”. These are additions to the act that are currently covered under provincial legislation on the monitoring of environmental activity that's associated with one specific industry, and as far as tailings ponds are concerned in one specific province, much of that has been ameliorated over the last decade.
I think involving the federal government in an overlapping jurisdictional regulation here is adding more bureaucracy into the environmental oversight of one industry in particular. I think it might be opposed by provincial governments across the country if it's put forward this way. I suggest we withdraw it at this point in time in order to make sure that it's something that is clearly done and regulated at the provincial level, where it currently is done very effectively.
Liberal
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I would definitely disagree that tailing ponds are predominantly remediated and that these kinds of issues are being dealt with effectively. It definitely doesn't have to do with only one province. There are tailing ponds and mines across the country. This is an ongoing issue.
I think it would be a tragedy to delete these two lines, so I hope we don't.
Liberal
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks.
As I recall, tailing ponds are not excluded from the existing legislation. They're already covered in the legislation. I would support taking them out just as a matter of redundancy.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would agree with Mr. Longfield here. Clearly, hydraulic fracturing and other activities that cause tailing ponds are activities that are covered under proposed paragraph 46(1)(k.1) as “activities that may contribute to pollution”. By removing these two lines, we're removing redundancy, but certainly we should be concerned about the potential for those activities to cause pollution to the environment and affect human health.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Yes. I agree.
I'm quite concerned about these activities as well, but as Mr. McLean said, it's in provincial legislation. I don't think that not specifying them here prohibits the government from looking into them, because if they are causing pollution, they will be included.
I understand what you're saying about the provincial-federal jurisdiction. I don't agree that the federal government shouldn't have any role, but I don't think it's necessary to spell them out here.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm a bit confused. If this is something that the legislation is covering, why would people be opposed to specifically naming an instance of environmental pollution that we need to address?
It's surprising to hear my colleagues across the way support the removal of this issue. We should be addressing it and naming it.
Liberal
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
To respond to that, these two specific issues are the ones we're talking about right now, but I think, given that this legislation hasn't been updated for decades and that this is likely to stand for a while, trying to name all of these things in the legislation is problematic, because these things will change over time and there will be other things that come up. If we list things and it's not exhaustive, it's.... They're issues that are important right now, but that may change over time. Perhaps these won't be an issue down the road.
I don't know that we have to put details like this into this legislation when we have the regulations and we have the framework coming up as well.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I love my colleague's optimism that we're going to address these issues quickly.
The government has repeatedly said that it is going to be bringing back this legislation for further updates, so I hope it is genuine in those statements. If that is the case, putting in explicit mention of an instance of environmental pollution—in particular, tailings ponds—that we need to address now shouldn't be a problem, given that the government has promised to bring this legislation back to keep updating it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't see any other requests to comment.
Shall CPC-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 9 carry as amended?
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 10)
That brings us to clause 10 and PV-11, which is deemed already moved. I'll mention that if PV-11 is adopted, NDP-12 and NDP-13 cannot be moved, because of a line conflict.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I know that given the strictures of the motion that compels me to be here if I wish to make amendments—which would otherwise be my right at report stage—I have to be brief. This is particularly challenging with this amendment, because it is five pages of content that intends to replace what we find now under Bill S-5. On clause 10 it runs from, basically, what would be subsection 56(1) in the new version of CEPA right through to the beginning of the next section.
The goal here.... Rather than try to walk you through the amendment, for which I obviously won't have time, I'll at least explain the rationale.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has had a discretionary approach to the creation of pollution prevention plans. There are basically two strategies under the act: You can have a pollution prevention plan or you can have a pollution abatement approach. If you're going to eliminate toxic substances, particularly those that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, seriously a threat to human health....
Bear in mind that this act is about both environment and human health, and that both ministers—the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health—play a role, even though we're before the environment committee.
These are seriously dangerous chemicals for human health and yet, of the 19 substances that have been listed as eligible for this kind of pollution prevention plan, so far, in the experience we've had since 2000, only 25 substances out of 150 have had a pollution prevention plan created—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This amendment then requires...? Could you just explain what the amendment is?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those chemicals that are significant threats to human health have a mandatory requirement on the manufacturer to move away from them.
There are sections here that allow us to consider.... There's an economic problem with moving to elimination, but in brief—and it is hard to do this in brief—this would make pollution prevention plans mandatory for all schedule 1 toxic substances. It's about eliminating the creation and use of toxic substances.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder if we could hear from officials on this. I know that the folks from CELA brought this up a number of times. I wouldn't mind hearing the officials' perspective.
Liberal