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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That brings us to NDP‑8.
Would you like to speak to your amendment, Ms. Collins?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is really fleshing out the concept of intergenerational equity, ensuring that we are looking at it in a framework where the government ensures that not only are we meeting the needs of the people who are presently here and the present generation, but we're also doing so in a way that we're not compromising the needs of future generations.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'd like to add something, if I may. When we first began studying Bill S‑5, we talked about definitions. I think the second iteration of the bill should set out clear definitions of the terms used. I am confident that that will happen, so I will vote for NDP‑8.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Maybe I'll just note that this is really just reinforcing key principles in the right to a healthy environment and ensuring that we are establishing them as administrative duties.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other comments?
I will now call the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Congratulations, Ms. Collins.
Now we have to deal with NDP‑9.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
4 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've spoken a lot already about the importance of having legislation that explicitly references air quality standards. I quoted David Boyd, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment. He explicitly says Canada needs legally enforceable air quality standards to keep people safe, and Mr. Weiler mentioned that Canada is one of the very few industrialized nations in the world that does not have legally binding and enforceable ambient air quality standards.
The U.S. has air quality standards that date back to more than 50 years ago. It is essential that we move forward on this. I know that these amendments have been voted down multiple times now, but I would implore the members around this table to read the comments of David Boyd. It is critical. Poor air quality and air pollution increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, lung cancer, and chronic and acute respiratory illnesses such as asthma. They also increase birth defects. This is a critical issue, and I wish the members around the table would ensure that we have this embedded in our legislation.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other questions or comments?
Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I would add that the ministers should certainly be required to respect provincial and territorial jurisdiction, as was the case with G‑6 and indeed BQ‑3. However, I won't make it a subamendment.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I will now call the vote on NDP‑9.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall clause 5 as amended carry?
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Now we need to discuss clause 10 and NDP‑13.
If I recall correctly, there were questions about the fact that the French version of proposed subsection 56(4), at point (b) of the amendment, was shorter than the English version. That's unusual because the French tends to be longer than the English, but I received confirmation that it is indeed correct.
Would you like me to read out the explanation?
4 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes, please.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
All right, then. I will. I have it in English.
It says that the amendment is consistent with how the provision is drafted in the existing act. However, there is quite a different approach taken in each language version. The English focuses on the extension period, whereas the French focuses on the new deadline. This has allowed a more condensed approach to be taken, hence the apparent absence in French of “whether the extension is for the preparation or implementation of the plan”. Having said that, they are reluctant to interfere with the wording. The provision has been there for some time and has been applied. They say, if the wording is changed now, it could lead to interpretive uncertainty.
Therefore, the amendment is acceptable as is.
Now we need to discuss it.
Would you like to speak to your amendment, Ms. Collins?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't go on too much, because we did start discussing this in a previous session before the clause was stood. I just will note for committee members and for any members of the public who are watching that this amendment was really on safer substitution and ensuring that, as we decide that certain chemicals are toxic or harmful to human health, we are not simply replacing them with another harmful chemical. We want to ensure that substitutions are safer and that we're protecting both human health and the environment.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'd like to ask the honourable member something. As I understand NDP‑13, it completely disregards prevention.
The language proposed by the Senate was good because it addressed the prevention side of things. An expert who appeared before the committee, Mr. Castrilli, said that preventing pollution was not currently mandatory. It's optional, so the benefit of what the Senate had proposed was that preventing pollution would become mandatory.
What are we trying to achieve at the end of the day? Do we want prevention or just control and management? I'd like to hear where the member stands on that.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I want to thank Madame Pauzé for her question.
Definitely, we've gone through a number of sections when it comes to pollution prevention planning, and I'm very much in support of anything that will strengthen this bill when it comes to that. If there's a friendly amendment that you think could be added to this amendment, I'm very open to it.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
As I see it, the friendly amendment would amount to voting against NDP‑13 in order to keep what the Senate had proposed.
An expert from the Canadian Environmental Law Association was supportive of the wording in Bill S‑5, as were other experts.
The committee was in favour of that very wording in its 2017 report. What's more, it was something the committee explicitly recommended in its 1995 report, following the first review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
That means that, in 1995 and in 2017, the committee was in favour of making pollution prevention mandatory, but today in 2022, the committee would make it optional by voting for NDP‑13.
Do I understand that correctly? If so, I will be voting against NDP‑13.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
To Madame Pauzé's comments, my intention with this amendment was really to add the language around safer substitution and ensuring that safer and more sustainable alternatives to a substance or product are put in place. I'd love to hear from the officials about the concerns that Madame Pauzé has raised.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Just to be clear, I think the Senate initially said that they should be mandatory, and then at the end, by unanimous consent, changed it to discretionary again. I don't want to misspeak, but that's my recollection of what happened.
Just from the perspective of how these instruments are used, there is a range of instruments that are available under CEPA to manage the risks of toxic substances, and pollution prevention planning is one of them. You wouldn't want to require it in every case, because often you're prohibiting the substance. Why would you require a pollution prevention plan if what you're going to do is regulate to prohibit it outright? The amendments that are proposed do explicitly say these can be used to promote alternatives and also include a discretionary requirement to allow the minister to ask for interim progress reports. They will make it easier to track progress and whether the tools are working or not.