Evidence of meeting #38 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 cepa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, though. It's a very interesting discussion.
We will go to Madame Pauzé for two minutes.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
My question is for Ms. Daniels or Ms. McArthur.
I want to talk about microplastics. We know that microplastics are present in the environment. There are microplastics floating in the ocean. We have heard a lot about the plastic ocean. Sometimes, the microplastic particles are light: they break up and wind up in our bodies. That is what many studies are showing.
I'm talking about this because plastics are on the list contained in the schedule, but some stakeholders do not agree. They are wondering if plastics should be listed elsewhere.
Can you please briefly describe how dangerous plastic pollution is for human health?
Manager, Toxics Program, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Jane, would you be able to take this one?
Director, Toxics Program, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Sure.
I think this is an area where we're illustrating the importance of updating our laws and regulations. This is an area where the science has evolved quite dramatically as our shifts in manufacturing and products have changed.
There is an emerging body of science that links exposure to microplastics with adverse human health outcomes. They have now detected microplastics in blood samples, so we are seeing it very deeply in the human body.
We know from research that there are connections between some of the things in plastics that are endocrine disrupting. In the prior panel, my colleague, Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers, talked about some of the problems with endocrine-disrupting chemicals. We know that EDCs are connected to reproductive problems, breast cancer and other forms of cancer and thyroid problems.
We really do need to take seriously what we're seeing in the science—the new science, the emerging science and the existing science—about plastics.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony.
My first set of questions are for Dr. MacDonald.
Thank you for your comments on the need for clearer timelines and accountability in order to prevent multi-year delays and provide certainty.
I want to start by asking you about the recommendation on safer substitution. Can you explain to the committee what is meant by “safer substitution” and how this could be integrated into CEPA?
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
This is what we see the watch-list doing and why we think it is so important. The watch-list is an early-warning system to warn us that these substances are, potentially, ones you want to avoid substituting if another substance is banned or restricted. We call it “regrettable substitution” when a substance is restricted, so another substance replaces it and we later find out that the other substance is also toxic and of concern. The watch-list is intended to prevent that regrettable substitution from happening by putting out an early-warning system on substances that haven't been assessed, but where there is suspicion they're similar to other chemistries that have been assessed and could be toxic.
Therefore, it's an administrative list. It's not enforceable, but it is an early warning that says, “Don't use these chemicals as potential substitutes for something else that could be banned.” That's one of the powers of the watch-list, in my mind, and why I like it so much and want to keep it in Bill S-5.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much.
In your recommendations, you also mentioned including an amendment on fixing the public request for assessment mechanism. Can you go into a bit more detail about this amendment and why it's so important?
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
Yes. Bill S-5 adds a new section where a member of the public can ask the ministers to assess a substance and determine whether or not it is toxic. It adopts language from the existing CEPA that is now used for something called the “priority substance list”, which is a part of CEPA that is rarely used.
That language is problematic, because it doesn't clearly state that the minister has to give a clear answer of “yes” or “no” to such a request. We experienced this ourselves when we put in a request, some years ago, asking the minister to review plastics to determine whether they should be added to the toxic substances list. This was before plastics were added, obviously. We got a response from the minister at the time—I won't say who the minister was—that did not answer the question of whether or not plastics should be reviewed.
When we looked at CEPA and wondered if there was a way to press them on this, we saw that the actual language just says something like, “the minister must tell you what they're going to do about it”—I can quote that exactly—rather than saying the minister must give a clear answer of “yes” or “no”.
We're asking for that language—which has been carried over into this new section from the priority substance list section—to be amended, in order to make it a requirement for a minister to give a clear response. That's very straightforward.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much.
I also want to give you an opportunity to talk a little more about confidential business information. It seems clear to me that we need a higher bar for confidentiality claims, especially given what you said about the disparity between what the U.S. and Canada are doing.
Can you talk a bit more about that?
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
Yes. We see Canada as being behind, in terms of not reviewing these. These are accepted. Bill S-5 adds the requirement to provide reasons, but there's no requirement in Bill S-5 for a minister—or a minister's delegate—to actually look at these and determine whether they truly meet the bar for CBI.
We are simply saying they must be reviewed and determined to be confidential. We're calling this a bit of a “reverse onus”, because we're putting this task in the laps of ministers and saying, “You have to look at these CBI claims, at least, and determine whether they do, in fact, meet the bar of what should be held to be confidential.”
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
This is done in Europe and the U.S. We just want Canada to start doing it, too, because there is evidence showing that there are frivolous CBI requests out there, or requests that do not meet the bar of CBI.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Is Canada doing any kind of auditing right now? Do we have clear data on it?
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
There's nothing published publicly. There is no information at all, in terms of how CBI claims are handled internally, within the department. There's no public information.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Okay, that's great.
Could you talk a bit more about how Bill S-5 establishes a new planning process to establish priorities for substance assessments and control? You spoke a bit about this. Can you explain how your recommendations are going to address these gaps and, if there is time, additional accountability for actions to control toxic substances and how they might be enhanced?
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
Yes, for sure.
I think it's in clause 19 that Bill S-5 sets out a new priority planning process. Once the bill comes into force, they'll have two years to set out a new plan that's going to identify the priorities under CEPA for the assessment and management of substances. Consultations are involved and so on.
However, the bill does not actually say anything about how that plan is going to be updated, whether the plan will be renewed or how new substances that may come in through the public request mechanism, for example, will be added to that plan. We see the need for that priority planning section to have clear timelines attached to it when they publish the plan, so we have a little bit more accountability and certainty with respect to how the plan is going to roll out.
We also think the bill should be amended to require the plan to be updated at least every five years, ideally less than that.
Those are our main recommendations for priority planning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll have to stop there.
We'll go to our second round, which will be four-minute and two-minute rounds.
Mr. Kurek, go ahead.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the testimony from the witnesses.
Mr. Thurlow, I'm wondering if you could unpack the implications of whether this bill affects Canada's place in terms of the competitive environment, specifically regarding the chemistry industry, since I know that's something you're a part of. What impact would this have on Canada's place in the world in terms of competitiveness?
Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Canada
I think it would continue the 20-year legacy of Canada's extremely advanced position on chemicals management. That's why the part of the bill that Dr. MacDonald just referred to needs to advance as quickly as possible. It's so we know what the future of chemicals management will be in Canada and, quite frankly, so that industry can start getting ready to respond to those inquiries.