Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Cassie Barker]

Thank you for the question.

I would say that we are not talking about eliminating confidentiality. Canada has a very comprehensive regime for managing the confidentiality of the data that is provided to them by applicants in their process for chemicals assessments and management. What we are seeking, and what the government broadly is seeking in its own policy lab process, is transparency and looking for models of how to bring forward supply chain transparency.

I think labelling is only one piece of the puzzle in terms of disclosing ingredients. As I mentioned before, in the EU and in California, companies are disclosing and labelling at a much higher standard than what we are currently seeing in Canada.

We also heard from our colleague, Dr. Pétrin-Desrosiers, about endocrine-disrupting substances and the leadership that other jurisdictions are taking to ensure that people are able to avoid exposures during critical windows of development if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, we have to stop there.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

First, thank you to the witnesses who are here, not just for being here, but for all the work you've put into making recommendations to us, meeting with us and ensuring we have a good sense of what your concerns are with this suggested legislation that's before us.

I'd like to start with one issue that the member opposite mentioned about the need for deadlines and the delays that are harmful to people's health and the environment. In that context, given that it's been 23 years since this legislation was last updated, I'm wondering whether you feel that there is an urgent need to pass this legislation and that we should be trying to move forward without any unnecessary delay tactics and get this done this year.

What are your thoughts on that, Ms. Gue?

[Lisa Gue]

Well, of course I would be very concerned by any delay tactics—parliamentary tricks—to delay passage of this important legislation that has been so long in the making. We do, however, call on this committee to thoroughly consider the bill in front of you and make the necessary amendments: to roll up your sleeves, go the distance and make this the best bill it can be. I don't think that has to be a long process.

The reality is that the original version of this bill was actually introduced in the House before the last election, after a lengthy process of review, as I mentioned, including examination by this committee and multiple engagement processes led by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

I think the committee is well positioned to examine the issues without delay, and I hope you will see fit to approve the amendments we are recommending. I would love to see an improved bill passed by the end of the year, if that is possible. If it takes a bit longer to get it done, I can wait a bit longer, but let's make sure to avoid any further unnecessary delays in updating CEPA.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do you feel that you've had sufficient time to meet with members and give testimony to the Senate and to this committee, given the timeline that we've established?

[Lisa Gue]

Again, thank you for the invitation to appear to appear before you today.

We have submitted to you our.... In fact, the NGOs on both panels today have submitted a joint brief to you to make maximum efficiency of your reading time.

We are available to you to continue this conversation as needed.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you so much.

My next question is for Dr. Pétrin‑Desrosiers.

We know that our lifestyles have an impact on our health and the environment. Can you please explain to the committee how healthcare systems can be allies in protecting the environment? What is the link here with the bill that we are studying today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have approximately 25 seconds to answer the question.

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers]

Healthcare systems are responsible for 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The government therefore has a responsibility in this regard. It has, however, taken certain measures over the past few months in keeping with international initiatives that seek to lessen the environmental footprint of healthcare networks.

However, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions, people are frequently exposed to various toxic substances in healthcare settings, such as endocrine‑disrupting chemicals.

We have to establish a link with CEPA to regulate these substances, so that patients leave a smaller footprint in our healthcare networks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next questions are for Ms. Barker. Thanks so much for both your remarks and your recommendations on labelling. It seems clear that what the government has proposed on labelling in Bill S-5 falls short.

Can you speak a bit more about the importance of the right to know what's in the products that we use to consumers, workers and individuals who are particularly vulnerable or at risk? How do you see product labelling as supporting the right to a healthy environment?

[Cassie Barker]

I agree. A right to know is fundamental, and I think that we're talking about people who are burdened with multiple sources and cumulative impacts of multiple product-based exposures, and their own attempts to manage those exposures. The labelling would be the absolute floor to support their ability to do that.

What we know is that labelling enables product reformulation, in that when you're forced to label hazardous ingredients, companies will reformulate their products, which takes the burden off the individual.

When products are cleaner and when products contain fewer hazardous ingredients, people who aren't able, because of their own socio-economic status, to make choices for cleaner, greener products.... This would make a much more equitable playing field for people who would like to make better and cleaner choices for their family, but are unable to do so.

In addition, I would say that the right to a healthy environment piece that you were talking about in terms of labelling and the right to know is, again, very much an absolutely basic piece of transparency when we are purchasing products. Our ability to know what's in those products shouldn't be in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. McLean, you have four minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me congratulate the witnesses on being here today.

I'm going to ask Ms. Gue some questions, first of all.

Ms. Gue, you testified here today that Canada is one of the few countries without legislative or constitutional recognition of the right to a healthy environment. You also talked about that being passed unanimously by the United Nations, which is all very interesting, especially when you look at the map of the countries that have constitutionally enshrined this or constitutionally provided provisions for a healthy environment.

All of those countries you list here are the majority of the countries in the world. Do you think the majority of them have better environmental practices regarding these types of hazardous materials than we have in Canada?

[Lisa Gue]

Thanks for the question.

Of course, the rule of law is the crucial factor in translating legal obligations to results on the ground, and we know that unfortunately not all countries have effective rule of law systems in place to ensure that even constitutional obligations are upheld.

Comparing apples to apples here and looking at Canada's environmental performance compared to what we might consider our peer jurisdictions, I would actually encourage the committee to invite Dr. David Boyd as a witness. He has examined this very question. He's one of the leading academics in the area of environmental rights and the UN special rapporteur—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. Thank you. We've invited you and accepted you to be here.

[Lisa Gue]

Quickly, the punchline is that the answer is yes. Countries that recognize the right to a healthy environment do tend to perform better on all manner of environmental indicators.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. Let me ask the blunt question, then.

Of all these countries that are coloured in on the map that's provided here in terms of environmental rights, do these countries by and large have better environmental outcomes regarding chemical management than Canada does?

[Lisa Gue]

Well, again, we can't compare apples to oranges—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, we can. Do they have better environmental outcomes for things like dumping toxic substances in rivers? Do they have better life outcomes in terms of length and quality of life, morbidity, mortality and all these things that we actually measure?

Do these countries have better outcomes than the current regime we practise in Canada, where we actually enforce the law?

[Lisa Gue]

Thank you for that last bit. It is key and relates also to the question that MP Collins raised earlier, which is that it's important to upgrade the law and it's important to ensure capacity to implement these new requirements. Without that missing ingredient, it will not make a difference. We see that being the truth, the reality on the ground, in some other countries.

My understanding of Dr. Boyd's research is that comparing Canada to peer jurisdictions where the rule of law is upheld is that, yes, countries that recognize the right to a healthy environment do tend to perform higher on all manner of environmental indicators. I would hope for the same outcome in Canada.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

I don't see the same outcomes environmentally in almost every one of these countries that are on this list in regard to their monitoring of the environment and their mortality. Most of these people die having had much shorter lifespans than Canadians have, and most of these people have less fulsome lives from a health perspective than Canadians have.

I do challenge your answer there, because I don't think it's fulsome. Would you like to be more clear?

[Lisa Gue]

Yes. I think the member countries of the European Union are probably the most relevant examples that I could point you to. I don't think you would find the same conclusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Thompson, you have four minutes.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Ms. Gue, if I could, I'll begin with you and actually go back to your conversation with Ms. Collins. You've just referenced that. It was around the principles of environmental justice and the principles of intergenerational equity. I think those are so very important. Thank you for bringing that forward.

Could you speak to how this can be indeed achieved? Could you drill down a little more in terms of how we can ensure this does become a measured outcome—or as much as you can measure it—of the act?