Environment Committee on March 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just a moment, please.

I didn't think you could move it, but I'm being told that you can because you didn't move NDP‑19.

Go ahead with NDP-20.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

NDP-20 is on labelling. I have further amendments on labelling. This one is, I hope, very supportable for the members around the table.

It's “including the manner in which the public may be provided with information regarding substances or products including, in the case of products, by labelling them.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there any debate?

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

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 20)

We have CPC-4.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We heard in testimony over the course of the study that there did not seem to be clear rules about how a substance is added or removed from this list or, for example, the requirement for a risk assessment to be listed or delisted for a particular substance.

The only scenario specified in Bill S-5 that allows for the removal of a substance from the watch-list is a transfer from the watch-list to schedule 1. Bill S-5 does not provide a pathway off the watch-list for substances that are later determined to be not harmful or the hazard profile of which changes as new science is considered. As written, the watch-list will become a parking lot for substances despite any new evidence or information that comes to light about their impacts.

Therefore, this amendment is an attempt to find a reasonable path forward that allows for those changes to be made while still ensuring the protection of the health and safety of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins, go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I want to hear from officials about any impacts of this amendment. It is concerning to me.

[Laura Farquharson]

I think we could see providing a way off the watch-list when there is information to suggest that a substance is no longer capable of becoming toxic. However, I think the part that says one of the reasons you would take it off the watch-list is that it is determined not to be toxic under section 64 is problematic, because that's exactly the kind of circumstance in which you actually would put it on the watch-list. Perhaps you've gone through an assessment to determine whether it's toxic and perhaps the exposure is not such that it is going to make it onto the list, but you put it on the watch-list to signal to people that if they start using it more, they might need to assess it again and that it might become toxic.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment, and I certainly appreciate the intent of this amendment. However, the inclusion of proposed paragraph (b) would defeat the policy intent of the watch-list. The watch-list, as colleagues know, is intended to be a list of non-toxic substances with hazardous properties to inform manufacturers, importers and other stakeholders about substances that could be determined to be toxic if the volume or use or exposure were to increase.

Mr. Chair, I believe this clarifies and helps realize the intent of my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're proposing a subamendment to it?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes, and this has been circulated. You may recall, Mr. Chair, that we had to pause on this particular issue because we didn't have it in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

We now have it in writing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What are you doing? You're just deleting—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

We are deleting proposed paragraph (b), which again on this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're just deleting a paragraph.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's correct.

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

You're also retaining “shall”, because it was changed to “may”.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

We're also retaining “shall”, as Mr. Weiler said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's the subamendment.

Would anyone like to speak to that?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Shall we vote on the subamendment?

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

What about the amendment now? Does it carry as amended?

Ms. Collins, go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Chair, I'm still concerned and I'm curious about the necessity of this amendment.

Ms. Farquharson, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering again. The minister already has the authority to delete a substance from the list. Are there benefits to including this amendment as subamended?

[Laura Farquharson]

It provides clarity.