ENVI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 3 of the Bill.
“stances to replace or reduce the use of animals;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 3, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 4,
That Bill S-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 3 the following:
“aggregate exposure means the exposure to a single substance by means of all exposure routes and from all sources. (exposition globale)
cumulative effect means the biological effect of aggregate exposure of a human or environmental receptor to all substances that have a common mechanism or mode of action or effect or that target the same tissue. (effet cumulatif)”
Debate arose thereon.
Laurel Collins moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “cumulative effect means the biological effect of aggregate exposure of a human or environmental receptor to all substances that have a common mechanism or mode of action or effect or that target the same tissue. (effet cumulatif)”
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Laurel Collins and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins — 1;
NAYS: Bob Benzen, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Leslyn Lewis, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Monique Pauzé, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler — 10.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bob Benzen, Damien C. Kurek, Leslyn Lewis, Greg McLean, Monique Pauzé — 5;
NAYS: Laurel Collins, Terry Duguid, Lloyd Longfield, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler — 6.
“healthy environment means an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable. (environnement sain)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Patrick Weiler and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Terry Duguid, Lloyd Longfield, Monique Pauzé, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler — 7;
NAYS: Bob Benzen, Damien C. Kurek, Leslyn Lewis, Greg McLean — 4.
“precautionary principle means Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides that the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage. (principe de précaution)”
Debate arose thereon.
At 4:16 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:20 p.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Monique Pauzé and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bob Benzen, Terry Duguid, Leslyn Lewis, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Monique Pauzé, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Karen Vecchio, Patrick Weiler — 10;
NAYS: Laurel Collins — 1.
That Bill S-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 3 the following:
“(3) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4) For the purposes of the definition vulnerable population, the individuals in the group include
(a) individuals under the age of 18;
(b) women, including pregnant women;
(c) seniors;
(d) Indigenous persons;
(e) individuals with a medical condition;
(f) workers who use, handle or are exposed to a substance or toxic substance; and
(g) individuals who are at disproportionate risk of exposure to a substance or toxic substance because of their socio-economic status, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, gender, age or geographic location.”
Debate arose thereon.
Laurel Collins moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “but not limited to” after the word “include”.
After debate, by unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
Laurel Collins moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “include” with the words “may include”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Laurel Collins and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Leslyn Lewis — 2;
NAYS: Bob Benzen, Terry Duguid, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Monique Pauzé, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Karen Vecchio, Patrick Weiler — 9.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins — 1;
NAYS: Bob Benzen, Terry Duguid, Leslyn Lewis, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Monique Pauzé, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Karen Vecchio, Patrick Weiler — 10.
That Bill S-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 3 the following:
“(3) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) the principle of intergenerational equity is the principle that it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, including in respect of the protection of their health and the health of the environment;
(b) the principle of non-regression is the principle that any decisions made under this Act in respect of toxic substances must not result in any weakening of the protection of the environment or human health under this Act; and
(c) the “polluter pays” principle is the principle that a person who manufactures, imports, processes, uses or releases a substance specified on the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 must be held responsible for remedying the harm they have caused — directly or indirectly — to the environment or to human health, including by paying damages based on the extent of the harm caused and the extent to which generally acceptable standards of environmental protection were breached.”
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2;
NAYS: Bob Benzen, Terry Duguid, Leslyn Lewis, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Karen Vecchio, Patrick Weiler — 9.
Clause 4, as amended, carried on division.
At 4:52 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:58 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 5 was allowed to stand.
On Clause 5.1,
Terry Duguid moved, — That Bill S-5, in Clause 5.1, be amended by(a) replacing line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5 with the following:
5.1 (1) The portion of subsection 13(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Contents of Environmental Registry
13 (1) The Environmental Registry shall contain notices and other documents published or made publicly available by the Ministers or either Minister under this Act, and shall also include, subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act,
(b) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 5 with the following:
registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Terry Duguid and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bob Benzen, Laurel Collins, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Leslyn Lewis, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Monique Pauzé, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 5.1, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 6 carried on division.
On new Clause 6.1,
That Bill S-5 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 5 the following new clause:
“6.1 Section 22 of the Act is replaced by the following:
22 (1) Any individual may bring an environmental protection action in the Federal Court
(a) against the Government of Canada for
(i) failing to protect the right to a healthy environment in respect of matters governed by this Act,
(ii) failing to exercise any power or perform any duty or function that is necessary for the administration of this Act,
(iii) failing to fulfil its duty as trustee of the environment, or
(iv) authorizing, or failing to prevent, an activity that results in or is likely to result in harm to the environment; or
(b) against any person for a contravention of any provision of this Act or the regulations that results in or is likely to result in harm to the environment.
(2) An individual intending to bring an environmental protection action shall give notice of their intention to the Minister and any potential defendant at least 60 days before the day on which they intend to serve the defendant with the document originating the action.
(3) Proceedings must not be commenced or continued in respect of a contravention referred to in paragraph (1)(b) if the Attorney General of Canada has commenced proceedings against the defendant in respect of the same contravention.
(4) Despite subsection (3), proceedings may be commenced or continued if the activity that has resulted in or is likely to result in harm to the environment is authorized under an Act of Parliament.
(5) An environmental protection action is to be referred to mediation for a period of 30 days after the day on which proceedings commence. The period may be extended by agreement of the parties.
22.1 Despite the provisions of any other Act of Parliament that provide for relief, the court may make any of the following orders:
(a) an order for declaratory relief against the defendant;
(b) an order, including an interlocutory order, requiring the defendant to refrain from doing anything that, in the opinion of the court, could constitute an offence under this Act;
(c) an order, including an interlocutory order, requiring the defendant to do anything that, in the opinion of the court, may prevent the continuation of an offence under this Act;
(d) an order suspending or cancelling a permit or other authorization issued to the defendant under this Act;
(e) an order requiring the defendant to
(i) clean up, restore or rehabilitate any part of the environment that has been harmed or pay an amount, in the manner prescribed by the court, for the purpose of the clean-up, restoration or rehabilitation,
(ii) pay an amount, in the manner prescribed by the court, for the purpose of protecting or enhancing the environment, or
(iii) take any preventive measures specified in the order;
(f) an order to the parties to negotiate a plan to correct or mitigate the harm to the environment or to human, animal or plant life or health, and to report to the court on the negotiations within a time set by the court;
(g) an order to the Minister to comply with or monitor compliance with the terms of any order; and
(h) an order for any other relief that the court considers appropriate.
22.2 In an environmental protection action, the burden lies on the defendant to establish on a balance of probabilities that their act or omission did not or is not likely to result in harm to the environment if the plaintiff has demonstrated that sufficient evidence of harm or likely harm can be adduced.
22.3 It is not a defence in an environmental protection action that the activity that is the subject matter of the action was authorized under an Act of Parliament unless the defendant establishes on a balance of probabilities that
(a) harm to the environment was an unavoidable result of the activity; and
(b) there were no reasonable measures by which the defendant could have avoided engaging in the activity.
22.4 The court may, on application by the defendant, dismiss an environmental protection action if it is satisfied that
(a) another proceeding has been commenced in respect of the same acts or omissions;
(b) the action is frivolous, vexatious or harassing; or
(c) the action has no reasonable prospect of success.
22.5 (1) The court may, on application by the plaintiff, make an interlocutory order requiring
(a) the protection of the part of the environment that is the subject matter of the action if, in the court's opinion, there is a risk of harm to it; or
(b) the advance of moneys for the payment of the costs of the action if, in the court's opinion, it is in the public interest to do so.?
(2) The court shall not dismiss an application for an order under subsection (1) for the sole reason that the plaintiff is unable to give an undertaking to pay costs or damages in the event that the action is dismissed.
(3) The court shall not require the plaintiff to give an undertaking to pay more than $1,000 for costs or damages.
22.6 If an environmental protection action is dismissed, the plaintiff is liable for the costs of the action only if
(a) the court determines that the action is not a test case and does not raise a matter of public importance or a novel point of law; or
(b) the action is dismissed under paragraph 22.4(b).
22.7 (1) Despite subsection 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act, an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister under this Act may be made under that Act by anyone not directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
That Bill S-5 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 5 the following new clause:
“6.1 Sections 29 to 33 of the Act are repealed.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
That Bill S-5 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 5 the following new clause:
“6.1 Section 38 of the Act is repealed.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
“6.1 Paragraph 22(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) caused harm to the environment.
6.2 Section 29 of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:
29 The offence alleged in an environmental protection action and the resulting harm are to be proved on a balance of probabilities.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Laurel Collins appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Bob Benzen, Terry Duguid, Damien C. Kurek, Leslyn Lewis, Lloyd Longfield, Greg McLean, Leah Taylor Roy, Joanne Thompson, Patrick Weiler — 9;
NAYS: Laurel Collins, Monique Pauzé — 2.
On motion of Terry Duguid, it was agreed, — That the committee do now adjourn.
At 5:29 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.