Environment committee  Thank you for the question. I guess the issue originates with the 2017 report of this standing committee, in which it recommended that there be national ambient air quality standards developed under CEPA. The purpose of them, of course, is to address a half a dozen or so substan

Environment committee  Well, I'm looking at their submission, and the way it's framed, I don't think would be very helpful. I understand the intent, but it's not good enough. The problem is that it simply indicates that as part of the discussion about the implementation framework, there is a suggestio

Environment committee  What we need to do is what we suggest in tab eight of our submission.

Environment committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Collins. There is already an obligation in section 71 of CEPA. It's an authorization whereby the minister may impose a testing obligation in particular circumstances. There's a second section, section 72, which provides an impediment to the minist

Environment committee  The short answer is, you need to make part 4, which is the pollution prevention regime, more robust than it is now. To do that, you should adopt our proposed amendments in tab three of our proposed amendments document.

Environment committee  This is a statute that gets amended once every 20 years. It's most likely that this statute will, in a material way, not be back before Parliament until some time in the 2040s. We've identified nine areas of concern with this statute, some of which go back to the early 2000s. I

Environment committee  Mr. McLean, thank you very much for the question. As you may know, there are already two challenges in the federal courts against the plastic manufactured items designation that's in effect pending the results of federal court cases. They were brought by an industry coalition co

Environment committee  That can be made worse by sloppy drafting, which is what I think Bill S-5 is engaged in. I don't think it was a wise decision to eliminate, for example, the title of schedule 1, “List of Toxic Substances”. Number two—

Environment committee  I'm sorry, but is that a question to me?

Environment committee  I have no comment on whether the industry influenced the drafting of this bill. All I can tell you is, when I read the words of the bill itself, whether I find them satisfactory as a Canadian or not, and as a lawyer or not. In my respectful submission, I don't find Bill S-5 par

Environment committee  Yes, I do. In fact, we've incorporated some of REACH in our proposed amendments, particularly, for example, at tab three, where we were engaged in expanding sections 56 and 60 of CEPA to better approach the issue of pollution prevention than is currently the case. As you know, se

Environment committee  I think the short answer is that on the spectrum of statutes or regulatory regimes that address the issue of toxic substances, laws like CEPA and the American Toxic Substances Control Act are much more risk-driven than is the situation in Europe under REACH, which is much more ha

Environment committee  Our proposed amendments dealing with not only our right to a healthy environment, but also the enforcement, or the remedy portion of that exercise, are also contained in our proposed amendments. We have a separate tab for that—I think it's tab two. There what we're proposing to

Environment committee  Thank you, Madame Pauzé, for your question. In our proposed amendments, we have a number of definitions for terms in Bill S-5 that are not defined. For example, “non-regression” appears in Bill S-5, and a number of other provisions or terms are identified in Bill S-5 but not def

Environment committee  Let me begin by an obvious fact. Number one, CEPA is an extremely complex statute, both scientifically and policy-wise. What's important for those who will be compelled to interpret it over time, whether that's the regulated community, the non-government organization community, t