Evidence of meeting #46 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I see a favourable response to that. We have unanimous consent.
(Clause 19 allowed to stand)
(On clause 20)
We have CPC-4.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I'm sorry, Chair, just before I move that, parking this clause would also see NDP-19 parked—
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Also, that's NDP-20, so now we're on CPC-4. Forgive me while I open my notes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would move CPC-4.
One of the consistent items we heard from the testimony—and including from some environmental groups—was that, with the addition of this additional list, there's a need for industry to ensure not only that is there a pathway for a substance to be on this watch-list, but also that there would be an off-ramp, so to speak.
It's to ensure that if a substance, after evaluation, is deemed either to not be toxic or to need some sort of further evaluation—based, of course, on the work the department does and as outlined in the act—that the substance wouldn't end up on this watch-list because of a lack of information. There are negative impacts that would have if there were not the ability for it to be removed if the evidence, testing, etc., were to deem that it was in fact not toxic.
In working with drafting, we hope to have found a reasonable ability for the minister not only to label something to add to the watch-list but also to see an off-ramp, so that if the understanding of certain substance changes, it could be addressed accordingly.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intent of this amendment from my colleague across the way, and I would like to propose a subamendment to this motion.
The inclusion of proposed paragraph (b) would defeat the policy intent of the watch-list. The watch-list, as we know, is intended to be a list of non-toxic substances with hazardous properties in order to inform manufacturers, importers and other stakeholders about substances that could be determined to be toxic if the volume of use or exposure were to increase. The establishment of a watch-list would support the selection of safer alternatives by importers, manufacturers and others.
Therefore, I propose modifying the motion and deleting proposed subsection 75.1(3.1) from the motion, if that makes sense, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm having a bit of trouble following all of this.
Ms. Collins, did you have your hand up?
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
The subamendment is that, if we go to proposed subsection 75.1(3)—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're amending the amendment, so could you go to the amendment and tell us how we're amending the amendment?
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
It's just deleting proposed subsection 75.1(3.1), Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You have to show me what in CPC-4 we're changing.
Take (3.1) out totally. Is that what you're saying?
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Yes. As I was saying, Mr. Chair, it's striking (3.1), but also, if we go to 75.1(3), we would add the word “including” to the first sentence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, it's proposed subsection 75.1(3). There's “Deletion of item” at the top.
Okay, so we want—
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Add to the first sentence, after “that is specified on the List, if”, “(a) an order is made under subsection 90(1) adding the substance to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1; or (b) if the Minister no longer suspects that the substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic.”
I have colleagues who are monitoring this. Perhaps they could send that to you, Mr. Chair, and the clerks and the rest of us.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, so the first part is getting rid of proposed subsection (3.1) in the amendment. We get rid of (3.1), “For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the authority”, etc.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, just because I'm not in the room and I can't completely tell what's happening, I'm just wondering if it would make sense to stand clause 21 as well and get the subamendment—
