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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, without going into a long explanation, because this issue has been debated before, ambient air quality is an issue of joint jurisdiction: provincial and federal. As officials have relayed to us, it is important that federal and provincial governments work together to set those.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you for that.
I saw Ms. Collins first, but we'll get to Mr. McLean and Mr. Kurek, all the same.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It's concerning that the government is going to take out the explicit mention of air quality. The rationale is that it's because we need to work with the provinces, but when we attempted to put in an amendment that would ensure it is explicitly mentioned that we are committed to working with provinces and territories, the government voted that down.
This amendment simply ensures that air quality will be addressed in the framework. It doesn't tie the government's hands in terms of how that gets done, so I do not support this subamendment.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
Either to Mr. Duguid or to our officials here, can you please explain the impact this amendment, without paragraph (a) in it, will have on the bill itself?
March 9th, 2023 / 3:40 p.m.
Laura Farquharson Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Proposed paragraph (a) is the part that says, without limiting the generality of the above, the implementation framework shall set out “in relation to each”...things like ambient air quality—
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Don't look at proposed paragraph (a). It's (b) by itself.
Mr. Duguid's amendment here is to take out (a). If we have only proposed paragraph (b) in there, it's “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the implementation framework shall set out” and then it goes to (b), what effect will there be on the bill?
3:40 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
It just means that the framework will not specifically address those two subject matters: air quality and how assessments are done.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
If it doesn't have (a) in it, is the entire amendment redundant?
3:40 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
No, I believe there's still an amendment in there that talks about the relevant factors that have to be considered. It says that the relevant factors—which are social, health, scientific and economic factors—are relevant to defining the right and also to its limits.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would just say that Canada is one of the few western democracies that don't have legally enforceable mandatory air quality standards. We've already talked about the impacts that fact has in Canada. With the way this is drafted, there are still two years in which to figure out how to implement it. There's plenty of time to consult and work with provinces on how to do that.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On the main amendment as amended, does anyone have anything to say?
I have Ms. Collins and Madame Pauzé.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to thank Madame Pauzé for putting this forward. The language is the same as in the NDP amendment that will be ruled out of scope once this passes. I will still support it even though I was hoping it would pass with both sections. I think that ensuring that we change the language and strengthen the language to ensure that the right to a healthy environment is not limited unduly is a good move forward, so thank you, Madame Pauzé.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'm going to vote for BQ‑3 as amended, despite my great disappointment at the removal of that important paragraph. I still encourage you to vote for it.
Proposed paragraph 5.1(2)(c) refers to “the relevant factors to be taken into account in interpreting and applying that right and in determining the reasonable limits”. That's also what it says in Bill S‑5: “the reasonable limits to which that right is subject, resulting from the consideration of relevant factors, including”. The bill goes on to list factors, but a right isn't limited to three or four factors. It should always apply.
For that reason, I encourage you to amend the Senate's bill.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I would agree with Madame Pauzé and Ms. Collins on this. There are still some very important parts in here, including adding detail to the process that needs to be followed to protect the right to a healthy environment. Again, talking about the relevant factors that could limit this is a much less limiting way to phrase this, so I will be supporting it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for both Madame Pauzé and our officials. I'm curious. The meaningful change is adding the part about the “reasonable limits to which it is subject”.
I'm wondering first if Madame Pauzé could expand on that, and then I'd ask the officials what the implications of this would be in terms of the greater CEPA framework?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else?
I'm sorry. I was distracted with a question.
Madame Pauzé, go ahead.