Evidence of meeting #49 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 substances.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Liberal
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Amendment NDP-33 has been defeated, which brings us to amendment BQ-10.
Ms. Pauzé, you have a second chance.
Noon
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
In essence, it's the same thing, because we're aiming for the same goal as amendment NDP-33. You have another chance to step up and vote for our amendment, colleagues.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Since there are no further comments, we will now put amendment BQ-10 to the vote.
(Amendment negatived: yays, 2; nays, 9)
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment having been defeated, we will now proceed to amendment PV-19.
Ms. May.
Noon
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a Green Party amendment seeking to protect the constitutional underpinnings of this act by rejecting the splitting of the schedules into two. It's a continuation of a series of amendments that we've brought forward to be coherent. It would change all the sections of Bill S-5 that relate to doing away with the schedule of toxic substances as a single schedule.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there debate?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 34)
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We are moving forward. We are on clause 34 and amendment PV-20, introduced by Ms. May.
Ms. May, you have the floor.
12:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is another amendment from the Green Party of Canada to protect the basic tenets of this bill for environmental protection in Canada.
Again, because I haven't said it in the last several days in clause-by-clause, the splitting of the schedule and removing the word “toxic”, I firmly believe—as a formerly practising environmental lawyer who has worked on this bill since 1988—that this will threaten the constitutional underpinnings of the entire act.
Some people think that as a Cassandra in this movement, I draw satisfaction from being proven right. I would much rather be proven wrong. If this act is struck down by the courts because of what you're doing here today, I will be very sad, but at least you will have been warned.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Mr. McLean, you have the floor.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Could I have more of an explanation from Ms. May on the constitutional underpinnings of the act that she speaks about here?
12:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
The constitutional underpinnings are sometimes misunderstood when we say that it draws from a criminal law head of power. I've heard this in debate in the House, as though, for instance, acting to regulate plastics is to create a Criminal Code offence if you use plastics. That's a complete misunderstanding of the notion of where the federal government draws its authorities for regulating toxic chemicals in Canada. In other words, where does the Canadian Environmental Protection Act fit in a federal head of power?
That constitutional question was challenged in the Hydro-Québec case in the mid 1990s. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the constitutional underpinnings of this act are that it's regulating for public health under the criminal law head of power, because it regulates toxic substances.
It seems to me that by accident, we're backing into something that hasn't been properly reviewed or debated. That accident is to say that the plastics lobby doesn't like its product being described as toxic, because in the common-sense understanding of the word “toxic”, plastics aren't toxic. The definition in the act, as we know, is anything that can become accumulated in the environment and a threat to human health or the environment.
That is as brief as I can possibly do it, Greg.
The Canadian environmental law community, particularly the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which has, as an organization, put more work into tracking CEPA than any other NGO over the years, is very concerned about this, as am I.
It's just a complete fluke that I was the senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment when we took this act to first reading. We looked at this. I was long out of government by the time it was challenged in the Hydro-Québec case. If it had not been for the toxic chemical schedule description, the act might not have survived the 1996 challenge by Hydro-Québec in the Supreme Court of Canada.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I wonder if we could ask the officials to weigh in on this very briefly, please.
12:10 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Maybe it would be of some reassurance to know that when we develop laws, we work very closely with the Department of Justice and look at all the legal angles, including the constitutionality. We are quite comfortable that this bill is within the federal competence.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, why take any risk at all, when the act before Bill S-5 worked and was found by the Supreme Court of Canada to be constitutionally correct? The impetus for taking this risk is only a public relations issue for the plastics industry.
Thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, shall we vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 34 to 37 inclusive agreed to on division)
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This brings us to new clause 37.1, which would be created by NDP-34.
Ms. Collins, perhaps you'd like to move that and speak to it.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Reading through this amendment, committee members will see that it is creating a bit more clarity. The Senate opened up this section, which is why we're able to address it. It provides greater clarity around the concept of “demonstrable need”. I'm hoping that committee members will see the value in “the principle of pollution prevention” and “the precautionary principle”, as well as the need for us to ensure that we aren't threatening wild counterparts, and the impacts that genetically modified organisms might have when it comes to biodiversity and other social and environmental impacts.
It's just really ensuring that there's no hazard to biological biodiversity, especially since.... We know we're in a climate crisis, but we're also in a biodiversity crisis, so it's being careful and scrutinizing the benefits and risks as we move forward.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Actually, I want to ask a question instead. I don't know if Ms. Collins or the department officials who are with us will be able to answer it. The notion of “demonstrable need” was introduced by the Senate in clause 39.1, which refers to information assessment. In this case, you would like to introduce it in clause 37.1. What is the difference? I agree in principle, but I want to understand why you want to introduce it there, when the Senate has already done so in clause 39.1.
12:15 p.m.
NDP