Evidence of meeting #51 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Basically, what you're saying is.... It's not an amendment. You're just stating your position, which is that you're going to vote against clause 67.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're on clause 67 now, and you'd like to speak to it. Okay. Go ahead.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes. I'd like to make a motion to delete clause 67.1.
To continue with the rationale, it's contradicting the best-placed act and best-placed minister approach. The content required to be included in this report is vague. It's not necessarily within the scope of CEPA. The provision refers broadly to “Canadian standards” and to ensuring that imported products are “safe for Canadian consumers and that Canadian producers are not at a disadvantage”. It's unclear which standards or products this is addressing.
Work is also being undertaken by Environment and Climate Change Canada and by Health Canada to explore voluntary and mandatory mechanisms for further labelling of consumer products and to greater clarify the supply chains. This work is going to be capable of delivering on some of the expectations that would otherwise have been placed on the Minister of Industry in delivering his report.
The Government of Canada will be developing and publishing a strategy in 2023 to enhance supply chain transparency and labelling for substances of products. This strategy is going to include regulatory measures and voluntary collaborative initiatives. It's going to be consistent with the best-placed act approach as well as taking into account other federal authorities respecting labelling, such as those under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
For those reasons, I don't think this belongs in the CEPA legislation. I'd like to see us delete this clause.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, so it's not a motion. You're encouraging members of the committee to vote against it.
Is there anyone else?
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification, if I may.
We passed clause 66 on division. We're now on clause 67. However, Mr. Longfield, I believe, is referencing clause 67.1.
Am I correct in that understanding?
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
We're not quite there yet procedurally, if I'm understanding this situation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're now on clause 67.1. I apologize for the confusion. Mr. Longfield is encouraging everyone to vote against clause 67.1.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Could we hear from the officials on the impact of keeping the requirement for reporting?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I would say that the Minister of Industry wouldn't normally take this on. It wouldn't be the right minister to do this report.
As well, all imported items are subject to Canadian law, and there's a suggestion here that they're not. There are already mechanisms to assure that. There are always a range of tools that can be used to make sure products meet standards. I understand that people feel that they're not always used, but the tools exist.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry. The officials are speaking, but we are going to have a recorded vote, I believe.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The impact is that this is not the right minister, in any case, to be doing this.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Is this reporting happening in any way, shape or form? Who would be the right minister to report on this? If we were to change the minister, is it still duplicating? What would be the impact of some kind of amendment that would change the minister responsible and make this more of a best-placed act provision?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I guess it would be the ministers of environment and health, but I would say that the tools already exist, to the extent that the enforcement tools are there and there is work going on. To the extent that labelling and supply chain transparency are part of the work that needs to be done, the departments have committed to undertake quite a bit of work in that area, including developing a strategy on labelling that considers the best-placed act, sometime in this year.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Explicitly, this provision that Mr. Longfield is advocating we take out is requiring a report from the minister.
What you're saying is that the minister who is named in this provision is not the correct one, but when it comes to actually reporting on what's happening and how the tools are being used, is that happening currently?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Probably not in a consolidated way.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Do you see any value in having that reporting mechanism put in place?