Environment Committee on March 6th, 2023

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Since we haven't voted on the subamendment yet and since it's just a change from 18 months to 24 months.... On that in particular, I am not certain about the best path forward and whether it's 18 months or 24 months, but if this subamendment will garner support from other members in order to pass this important amendment, I'm going to be supporting the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are there any other questions before we go to a vote?

(Subamendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back to G-6 as amended.

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, if I could again defer to officials, particularly on the the thorny issue of jurisdiction—the issue of air quality and how we need to work together with provinces in that particular space—why is that important? Perhaps they could add a few reflections on what is going on now in that space.

[Laura Farquharson]

This provision has been written to apply to the entire act. Singling out air quality or chemicals management.... They may be the issues of today, but this act is meant to last for a long time. The idea was that it creates an implementation framework that applies to the entire act.

On air quality in particular, that is an area of shared jurisdiction. Provinces, territories and the federal government work collaboratively right now under the air quality management system, which was agreed to in 2012, when jurisdictions agreed on various responsibilities.

To suggest that the federal minister can fix the problem unilaterally is not appropriate in a collaborative system.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I haven’t yet gotten an answer to the question I asked earlier regarding how, exactly, aspects of this amendment would change Bill S‑5.

[Laura Farquharson]

I don’t know if the member who moved amendment G‑6 explained all the proposed changes, but I can try. There are several.

There isn't the time limit anymore.

We talked about replacing the verb "considérer" by "protéger", and the amendment includes other changes in the proposed wording of clause 5.

I'm sorry. I have it only in English. It says “set out how” instead of “elaborate on”. There are various changes in wording.

The key changes, though, are to add “air quality”. Also, I believe, it adds risk management and risk assessment as specific issues that must be dealt with in the implementation framework. It also eliminates the paragraph that talked about “reasonable limits” with the factors to be considered, which is an important aspect.

There are a bunch of wording changes. One is changing “considered” to “protected” in talking about setting out how the right will be protected instead of elaborated on.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Farquharson, I’m trying to understand if all these little amendments will reinforce clause 5 of Bill S‑5.

You spoke a great deal about ambient air and all that. I almost want to invite everyone to vote against amendment G‑6 and vote in favour of amendment BQ‑3, which won’t be moved if amendment G‑6 passes. Our amendment comes back to the essence of the bill.

[Laura Farquharson]

I've said that the emphasis on particular aspects of the act is perhaps not appropriate. I think the “reasonable limits” paragraph is an important one, and it would be eliminated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll go to Mr. Weiler and Ms. Collins.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To answer Madame Pauzé's question, the language used in relation to air quality is consistent with the language Madame Pauzé has proposed as well. I wanted to reference that.

In my opinion, when we're talking about a right to a healthy environment, the requirement to “protect” it rather than just “consider” it would be a much stronger way of articulating that type of implementation framework.

Lastly, on the deletion of “reasonable limits”, there's nothing preventing the future minister from introducing that within the framework itself. It just removes it as a fundamental requirement to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a quick question about this jurisdiction piece. In our previous conversations around provincial jurisdiction, my understanding of what you said was that when it came to pollution hot spots, the provincial and territorial jurisdictions are respected in these acts.

I guess part of me is tempted to suggest putting in the same subamendment, which was voted down before, about respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions, if that is a concern here for proposed subsection 2.1(a). I'm a bit confused about why it would be a concern here and not for pollution hot spots.

[Laura Farquharson]

I'm not sure that we're talking about.... I don't think it was a concern before, when we were talking about the geographical targeting of the regulations. The federal government can act in that area, but I think here we're talking more about the singling out of air quality and chemicals management in particular under the implementation framework, and the suggestion that you would act alone. For sure, the minister has power to act in the area of air quality and can do targeted regulations.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I don't see a specific reference to the minister acting alone. I'm curious how you interpreted that.

Why would they not automatically be acting in conjunction with the provinces, since that is a requirement when it comes to these issues?

[Laura Farquharson]

I suppose I read it in “the measures that the Ministers shall take to protect the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment” if the ambient air quality goes lower.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If it said after that “respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions”, would that allay your concerns?

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes. I suppose it's not just the legal jurisdiction but the process that's been agreed to under the AQMS, the air quality management system.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The minister is acting when it comes to the implementation framework respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Perhaps there could be a friendly amendment to include the same language that Madame Pauzé sent to the committee, which is just the addition of “respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions”.

In French, it's written as "dans le respect des compétences des provinces et territoires et ce,"

immediately after “levels specified”.

This is, hopefully, a friendly amendment.

To speak to the issue of singling out these.... As Mr. Weiler pointed out, on average, there are 15,000 people who die because of air quality issues in Canada. That is a staggering number. In 2015, a report by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment reported 20,000 deaths.

I think it's incredibly important that we single out this issue. CEPA has not been updated for over 20 years, so it is critical that we single out air quality when it is such an important issue. I know we're going to have other amendments that cover this, but I implore the committee to take this up in a meaningful way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you proposing a subamendment?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes. It's a subamendment with the same language that Madame Pauzé suggested before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you say maybe where the subamendment fits in?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

For sure. I had suggested it for after “the levels specified”, or in French “le taux fixé”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can we vote on the subamendment?

Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.