Evidence of meeting #25 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
May I propose, Mr. Chair, that we go to the next speaker and then just come back to Mr. Saini?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay. Let me repeat the question.
Bill C-28 would establish a vulnerable populations panel to help better understand and address the effects of toxic chemicals on vulnerable populations.
Would that panel help to address some of the concerns raised in this bill, and do you see that as a step towards ending environmental racism in Canada?
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
This is Laura. I think I can start, although I know you directed the question to David Morin.
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Bill C-28 recognizes a right to a healthy environment for every individual, as provided under CEPA, and then requires the development of an implementation framework to elaborate on the way that right will affect the administration of the act. There's no requirement to create a vulnerable populations panel, but perhaps it was that implementation framework that you're referring to.
At the same time, though, there are a number of specific references to vulnerable populations in the bill, and there are probably two ways in which Bill C-28 addresses the issue underlying this bill.
The first is in the research requirements. Amendments would require the Minister of Health to conduct biomonitoring surveys, and the bill specifically says that those could be in relation to vulnerable populations.
Also, there's explicit recognition that the government's duty to exercise its powers must be undertaken in a way that protects the environment and human health, including the health of vulnerable populations.
Both ministers must consider available information regarding vulnerable populations and cumulative effects when conducting and interpreting the results of certain risk assessments and in developing the plan of chemicals management priorities.
Maybe I'll stop there. That's probably enough. Those are all ways that, I think, get at some of the issues that underlie this bill as well.
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
If you'd like, let me add from a Health Canada perspective to what my colleague Laura just mentioned. We have over the past many years started including vulnerable populations in the risk assessments we do.
One exercise we did established a vulnerable populations panel. This allowed us to better understand and appreciate the range of vulnerable populations that exist and how each could individually be affected by chemical exposure and what their particular uniqueness is.
Really, what makes the difference in our true ability to factor in vulnerable populations, then, resides in the availability of data to get a sense of what levels of particular chemicals we are seeing in vulnerable populations and where they happen to be located with respect to sources of exposure to chemicals. It is that combination.
It's great to have a panel to identify and expand our understanding of vulnerable populations. It is largely driven by the data that's available. Definitely, as we go forward, the establishment of panels such as that will help broaden our understanding of the issue as we take into consideration the perspectives and the views of a range of other vulnerable populations.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Let me follow up on that, Mr. Morin.
We've heard examples in which it's clear that racism has played a significant role in where environmental destruction takes place and what is done about it. [Technical difficulty—Editor] as a result of this bill in order to prevent similar things from happening again.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Laura.
April 14th, 2021 / 6:10 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Was the question how does Bill C-28 address the siting of industry?
Sorry, it did break up a little bit. Was that the essence of the question?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
What processes do you see changing as a result of this that would be in order to prevent similar things from happening again?
It's more of a general question.
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I think the amendments require a lens for decision-making under the act. It requires you to look at it from the perspective of making sure that people equally enjoy a healthy environment and don't disproportionately bear the burdens, especially for irrelevant reasons like race.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
I'll now give the floor to Ms. Pauzé.
You have six minutes.
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
I'd like to thank everyone here to help us move forward.
My question is for Ms. Farquharson.
There's an “Interpretation” section in Bill C-230.
However, it doesn't provide a definition of the concept of environmental racism. It seems to us that the introduction of a new concept in the act, especially if it stems from a particular theory, deserves a definition. In society and in academia, concepts evolve, but those that are in legislation should always be understandable, known and recognized.
What are the challenges or implications for you of implementing policies resulting from legislative provisions that present concepts that aren't clearly defined?
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I'll just talk generally about the need for definitions in legislation. Clearly, if parliamentarians have a clear idea of what they want to get at in particular, that should be defined in the legislation. When there are not definitions in the legislation, it can be difficult to know exactly how to implement that in the way that parliamentarians intended.
Of course, there are lots of sources for trying to find out what the definition should be. At the same time, as you noted, on a subject matter like this where there is no definition in federal law and you have to gather it from academics and others who are talking about the subject matter, that also means it's evolving. In some sense you may want some flexibility on a definition, so that it can evolve and grow through the consultation that you have.
I guess I'm saying that yes, it can be difficult—
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I understand. So definitions need to be as clear as possible.
Do you think that if Canada had legislation that would establish the right of all citizens to live in a quality environment, as is the case in Quebec because of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, would it be appropriate to establish other laws to specify that the rights of certain citizens in this area are being violated and that the government must take action?
In short, do you think it's wise to guarantee the same rights to everyone and to ensure that the act is applied and that universal rights are respected?