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
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
My understanding from the officials is that this isn't necessary. This seems like a duplication of process.
At the same time, I think when we're talking about pollution hot spots, there are gaps both federally and provincially, and I hope that strengthening these laws will help fill those gaps in all jurisdictions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall we vote on the subamendment?
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We go now to the amendment.
Who wanted to speak on the amendment? There was somebody.
Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, we had a number of delegations before us from indigenous communities. We had the Manitoba Eco-Network and other organizations representing inner-city communities that are facing pollution issues.
I want officials to be absolutely clear that the revisions to CEPA that we see in Bill S-5 will improve that situation and will make it more probable that these kinds of situations can be dealt with. I want you to make it absolutely clear, because there is this concern that we've heard repeatedly before our committee. I would like those assurances from officials.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I would say, certainly, that Bill S-5 pursues a policy intention to allow geographically targeted regulations, which, of course, is partly to allow addressing things like hot spots. Also, the committee has adopted, and Bill S-5 includes, a right to a healthy environment, which is meant to provide equitable enjoyment of a healthy environment and avoid disproportionate burdens on vulnerable people or any disadvantaged people.
This is an enabling act, and it will enable actions to get at those issues.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there any more debate on amendment NDP-39?
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Bill S-5 is right now removing an explicit authority around how we are able to manage pollution hot spots. What I'm hearing is that this authority could exist in the implementation framework and be used in that way. I think it's important that we keep this explicit authority in law. Is that...?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
No. I'm sorry. I want to clarify.
Section 333(1) was narrowed. It only allowed us to geographically target regs for specific regs under the act. We remove it and then we can rely on section 8 of the Interpretation Act, which says we can target regs.
In my answer, I referred to the implementation framework, just to answer the question about whether we are doing something good in Bill S-5 to enable action on hot spots. That implementation framework is unrelated to the provision you're dealing with right now.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
This amendment would put back in an explicit ability for us to target it. What would be the impact of putting that back in?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
It's not necessary, because you have the Interpretation Act. In putting it back in, I would want to make sure that we've covered every regulation authority under the act. It could be more narrow then, actually, because I think this amendment includes lists of regulations.
I haven't checked to make sure that we've covered everything we want to cover.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It has sections 93, 135, 140, 167, 177, 94 and 200.
What I'm hearing is that in the previous iteration, you took it out because it was too narrow and it's now in the Interpretation Act. What the Manitoba Eco-Network and the Canadian Environmental Law Association have been arguing is that we need an explicit requirement in this act to ensure that we're dealing with pollution hot spots.
As my colleagues mentioned, there are people who are living in close proximity to industrial pollution. Often in inner cities, these communities are racialized indigenous communities. I think it's important that we ensure that our law is protecting communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution.
I'm going to continue to support my own motion, clearly. I hope that the committee members will consider supporting it as well, especially in areas like Winnipeg. I encourage people to read the report that the Manitoba Eco-Network published around healthy communities and a healthy environment.
It is so essential that we deal with and address this, because we haven't been. We've been failing on this front.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any more comments before we go to a vote?
Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I absolutely agree with what Ms. Collins is saying about the whole concept of environmental racism, which we've been talking about, but it seems to me, from what Ms. Farquharson is saying, that it is protected by removing this and by removing the restrictions. I agree 100%, but I don't feel this is necessary to meet those objectives.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall we go to the vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We now go to a vote on clause 54. Would the committee like to adopt clause 54 on division?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Apparently, this is not the case. Would the committee like me to seek unanimous consent?
Mr. Deltell, go ahead.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, I can confirm that I am a man who cannot do two things at once. Unfortunately, I made a mistake when I voted. These things happen occasionally, but I am very embarrassed about it.
I ask for unanimous consent to reverse my vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It appears that you have it, Mr. Deltell.
Does the committee wish to adopt clause 54 on division?
(Clause 54 agreed to on division)
(On clause 55)
Liberal
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move this motion, which would effectively reverse the Senate's additions to section 332.
While I appreciate the work the Senate did to try to increase public participation and transparency, their amendments actually risk duplicating and confusing other requirements that already exist under the act. They may also lead to implementation of challenges for the bill.
For example, subsection 332(1) of the act also requires that the minister publish draft orders and regulations for a 60-day public comment period. Subsection 13(1) of the act also requires that the environmental registry contain notices other than documents published or made publicly available by the minister. Those would include notices of any approvals granted under the act. Notably, the environmental registry itself already includes a section dedicated to public consultations, both active and completed.
There are also now links to a search engine that contains all the Government of Canada's open, closed and planned consultations and there's also a new online commenting feature available for all stakeholders wishing to send comments on proposed regulations published in the Canada Gazette, so I would make the amendment to take out of section 332 the “notice made public” portion of what's in front of us.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to understand something, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Longfield, when you proposed your amendment, you said that you more or less agreed with the Senate's idea of making things more transparent. But since we've been dealing with this bill, every time transparency is mentioned, I'm sorry to say that the majority of the committee votes against what's being proposed. We say one thing, we boast about something, but we legislate completely differently.
In amending the act, the Senate required the publication of all notices under the act, including notices of consultation and of any decisions made under the act. The amendment proposed by the government through Mr. Longfield blithely removes all Senate consultations. That has also been done for all the other provisions.
What I want is for us to stop boasting about listening to the public and to legislate toward that. We need more than just talk; we need action.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Longfield, go ahead, please, and then Ms. Collins.