Evidence of meeting #52 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Are there any potential impacts? Would this increase the number of substances taken off the watch-list, in your opinion?
4:40 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
I can't really answer that.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Okay. That's fine. I remain concerned about the potential impacts of adding more ways to remove toxic substances, especially given the number of toxic substances that are currently impacting human health in the environment. I supported the subamendment, but I don't think I can support the amendment as a whole.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I just want to note, Chair, that I think what was made very clear in testimony is the need for a so-called off-ramp so that the effectiveness of the list in general isn't diminished by substances being able to languish there even when new evidence is brought forward.
Certainly, although we would have liked to see it pass in its original form, acknowledging that creating a framework for an off-ramp is still important. Even with the subamendments, which change the original amendment somewhat, it still moves it in a direction that I think stakeholders certainly asked us to go.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We're voting on CPC-4 as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're now on BQ-5.
If BQ‑5 is moved, NDP‑21 can't be moved because both amendments are the same. It cancels the second one out.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think the new NDP-21 has different language from BQ-5.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're just trying to sort out what happens if BQ-5 is tabled.
Ignore what I just said. There's a new NDP-21, so whether or not BQ-5 is tabled, it has no impact on NDP-21.
Ms. Pauzé, go ahead.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bill S‑5 introduces the right to a healthy environment in the preamble to the act. That's good, but we would have preferred to see it in the act. Nevertheless, it's in the preamble.
If people have the right to a healthy environment, they need to know what they are buying and what they are eating. That only makes sense. If I don't know what's being sold on the market, I don't have the right to a healthy environment.
On February 15, Michael Vanzieleghem contacted the committee about the presence of fire retardants in memory foam mattresses and the potential health problems associated with that. There was no label, nothing, at the time of purchase. He bought a product that made him sick.
In their 2021 election platform, the Liberals pledged to make the labelling of chemicals in consumer products, including cosmetics and cleaning products, mandatory by the spring of 2022. This is now the spring of 2023. That's what BQ‑5 seeks to do.
When it comes to potentially toxic substances, the Bloc Québécois believes that informing the public about a product's adverse health impacts is imperative, and labelling ensures that people know what they are buying and using.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any questions or comments?
Over to you, Ms. Collins.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I won't go on too much, since Madame Pauzé explained that very well. I think it is a really critical part of the right to a healthy environment to have a consumer's right to know.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We shall go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That brings us to new NDP‑21.
Did you send it out to everyone, Ms. Collins?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
So that people can hear it as they are searching through their emails for the written language, it adds:
75.2 If a consumer product as defined in section 2 of the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act contains a substance specified on the List or on the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1, the Minister of Health shall, under that Act, establish requirements in respect of labelling such a product accordingly if that Minister is of the opinion that doing so is in the interest of the protection of the environment, public health or public safety.
Given that the previous amendment on mandatory labelling was voted down, I am not hopeful for this one, but I think this is an important moment to have comments on the record about how this issue needs to be resolved and about the government's failure to address this and adhere to its commitments.
The Liberals, in their 2021 election platform, committed that by spring 2022, they would “move forward with mandatory labelling of chemicals in consumer products, including cosmetics, cleaning products, and flame retardants in upholstery, that may have impacts on our health or environment.” That's directly from the platform. This is nearly a year past that deadline, and the government has implemented no labelling requirements in these sectors. It has only promised consultations and a vague commitment to consider labelling requirements at a future date.
We passed one of my mild amendments on labelling, but if we want mandatory labelling, the committee needs to support these amendments.
There was a recently announced notice of intent to label so-called CEPA toxic substances. This is inadequate. By the time a substance is listed as toxic under the CEPA, it's often no longer widely used in the products the government proposes to target with the new regulation. Labelling only a handful of CEPA toxic substances does not fulfill the platform commitment for mandatory labelling of chemicals that may have impacts on our health or on the environment.
I urge the committee to consider supporting this.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does anyone else want to jump in on this, or shall we just go to a vote? We'll go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That brings us to BQ‑6. If it's adopted, NDP‑22 and NDP‑23 can't be moved because of a line conflict.
Over to you, Ms. Pauzé.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
It's very straightforward. BQ‑6 would require the minister to provide the reasons for granting or denying a request to assess a substance. The decision to assess or not assess the substance would have to be explained, plain and simple. That's what the amendment would do.