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.
Liberal
Liberal
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I think this amendment introduces a definition at the beginning of that part, yes. Perhaps Ms. Collins can explain it to you.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Exactly. This is just to create greater clarity and ensure we have definitions for future interpretation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any further comments?
(Amendment negatived: yays, 2; nays, 9)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment to create new clause 37.1 is defeated.
(Clause 38 agreed to on division)
(On clause 39)
This now brings us to clause 39.
Did you say you had something?
Liberal
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to propose amendment G-14, which would amend clause 39. This motion essentially seeks to clarify the policy intent in clause 39 and the associated clause 14 in Bill S-5, introducing a new enabling authority under 66.1 to allow the minister to add substances on Health Canada's Revised In Commerce List to the domestic substances list under CEPA, to reflect the fact that they are in Canadian commerce.
The intent was to include only those substances that were on the Revised In Commerce List and not removed by the list identified in my motion—which is the “removal of substances with no commercial activity from the Revised In Commerce List” published in the Canada Gazette—and that have no conditions on them.
The feedback that has been received by the government since then was that this was vague and open to interpretation, so this motion aims to clearly articulate the policy intent. That is more or less the explanation of it.
Thanks.
Liberal
Liberal
Greg Carreau Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you very much.
The proposed amendment as described eliminates some possible misinterpretation of Bill S-5 that may add up to 18,000 substances to the domestic substances list. The policy intent was to add a subset of that list—approximately 2,000 substances. The consequence of not proceeding with this amendment would be that 18,000 substances that have not been assessed for environmental risks would be added to the domestic substances list, essentially providing free market access to those substances.
This amendment would then constrict the list down to 2,000 substances, which is the government's intent. It's a much more manageable number, and Health Canada has prioritized and done some assessment of those compounds.
Thanks.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question on this.
This is replacing lines 2 to 17. Can you explain what the language was before and why it's capturing the additional substances, and maybe then go a bit into the impact of what it would mean if the full suite of substances were published versus the 2,000 that were the intention?
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
The In Commerce List is a list of substances that was created when CEPA was enacted in 2000. It was meant to avoid market disruption for substances that were regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.
The initial language of Bill S-5 referred to the In Commerce List, which is the initial list that was created in 2000, of approximately 18,000 substances. The revised language of the amendment proposes to cite a revised list that the government has published in the Canada Gazette, which reduces that list from 18,000 substances to 2,000 substances.
As I explained previously, the consequences of not proceeding with this amendment would be that 18,000 substances that have not been assessed could be added to the domestic substances list, meaning that there would be no premarket assessment done on that large number of substances prior to their commercial activity.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Does this mean that amendment G-14 eliminates the internal list completely? That's my understanding.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
No, this is a similar amendment to the one that the committee passed regarding part 5 of the act. It is to permit the use of substances in commercial use that have undergone a risk assessment. This is only part of the list of substances on the market.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Since no one else wishes to speak, we will now put amendment G-14 to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to; yays, 11; nays, 0)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall clause 39 as amended carry?
(Clause 39 as amended carries on division)
February 13th, 2023 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will now move on to amendment BQ-11.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
First, I have a question for the clerks.
Amendment G-14.1, which is just a little further on in the package, simply aims to add the words “as soon as possible in the circumstances” to paragraph (9) of the act. Could this simply be incorporated into amendment BQ-11? It seems to me that it is consistent with that amendment.
