Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting to order.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed technical tests. Thank you very much to the witnesses for that.

Many of the witnesses are already familiar with the way we operate when there's a virtual component. Essentially, could you keep your microphone on mute until you happen to be speaking? Members are familiar with the routine as well.

Today we begin meeting number 38 of the committee. We are having our first meeting of witnesses on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.

We have with us, for our first panel, three panellists.

First, we welcome Dr. Claudel Pétrin‑Desrosiers, a family doctor and president of the Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement, the Quebec association of physicians for the environment.

Next is Ms. Cassie Barker, senior program manager, toxics, from Environmental Defence Canada.

Finally, we have Ms. Lisa Gue, national policy manager, from the David Suzuki Foundation.

The witnesses will have three minutes each for their opening remarks. We will then move on to questions.

Without further delay, Dr. Pétrin‑Desrosiers has the floor for three minutes.

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers, Family Doctor and President, Association québécoise des médecins pour l'environnement]

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

To begin, let me say very clearly that I am unequivocally in favour of updating, adequately reforming and strengthening the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. After more than 20 years, it was due, as they say.

I am a family doctor in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, a part of Montreal known for being quite poor. Historically, this part of the city has been exposed to higher levels of atmospheric pollution than other parts, and that has been the case for decades. To this day, the health of people in this part of town, including my patients, is threatened by industrial projects, a lack of green space, and heat islands caused by poor urban planning.

I am telling you this because I believe that the modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, along with a stronger legislative framework to assess and monitor toxic substances, including greenhouse gases, would help me protect my patients' health on a daily basis, and also help protect the health of people in other parts of Canada. In the interest of equity, the CEPA must include an environmental justice strategy, and we have a few proposals to that effect.

In view of climate change, which is recognized as the greatest threat to human health of the 21st century, the loss of biodiversity, which is associated with the growing risk of pandemics, and increased pollution levels, the right to a healthy environment must be seen as a true collective priority. There is no room for partisanship on this issue.

Moreover, COP27 just ended, in Egypt, where Canada was represented by the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault. In the final document, the Sharm El‑Sheikh implementation plan, the minister, along with all member countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, recognized the importance of the right to a healthy environment.

If we are ready to take this step internationally, it is also time to do so here, in Canada. We must therefore strengthen the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment in Bill S‑5, and we have a few amendments to propose in that regard.

In recent years, there have been advances in scientific knowledge about the various forms of pollution. In Canada alone, we now know that it leads to more than 15,000 premature deaths and costs us $120 billion every year. Atmospheric pollution is toxic for nearly every organ in the body, and at all stages of life. It affects the heart, the brain, the lungs, the kidneys and so on. We can put an end to that.

A modernized CEPA must not only recognize the right to a healthy environment, but also include the highest air quality standards. That requires strong language in Bill S‑5 for protection and prevention.

Let me be clear: by supporting the amendments we propose in our brief to strengthen Bill S‑5, and thereby adequately reforming the CEPA, you have the opportunity to considerably improve the life of millions of people in Canada. That is a tremendous privilege, but it is also a responsibility.

We made the mistake of waiting for more than two decades to review this act. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Dr. Pétrin‑Desrosiers.

I should mention that Mr. Benzen is replacing Mr. Kitchen today, and Mr. Morantz is replacing Mr. Deltell.

I would also remind you that we started the meeting 20 minutes late, so I plan to continue the meeting until 5:50. We have the room until six o'clock, but we can stop at 5:50.

Ms. Barker now has the floor for three minutes.

[Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager, Toxics, Environmental Defence Canada]

Hello, everyone.

Thank you, ENVI members.

I am Cassie Barker, senior program manager of the toxics program at Environmental Defence.

My colleagues and I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee and to work together to strengthen this bill.

CEPA is essential to human and environmental health. It provides the government the authority to act on urgent mandates, such as reducing climate-changing greenhouse gases and banning single-use plastics. Bill S-5 is a starting point, but it requires changes to make it a stronger, more rigorous reform of the sections of CEPA that are up for review.

Our proposed amendments will help the government clarify and focus their ambition on securing environmental rights and improving chemicals management.

I would like to raise two transparency-related issues in our proposed amendments. In our submission, this is recommendation two, which relates to labelling. It establishes a new requirement for the minister to ensure that harmful substances are disclosed on the labels of consumer products. This is in clause 20.

Also, recommendation eight, which relates to confidential business information, requires reasons to accompany a request and puts the onus on the requesting party to demonstrate the necessity for confidentiality—this is subclause 50(2)—and it mandates disclosure of the names of substances and organisms when in the public interest, such as when permits, conditions, notices or prohibitions apply. That is in clause 53.

First, on transparency and labelling, people in Canada currently have limited access to information regarding the chemicals found in many products, some of which lead to harmful exposures with potentially serious health and environmental effects. Without complete ingredient labels, information about exposures is unknown. Ingredient disclosures can drive product reformulation, safer substitution and market reform. Providing information on the hazardous substances in products ensures greater transparency and facilitates the consumer's right to know.

Product companies are already complying with disclosure, transparency and labelling requirements in other jurisdictions, such as the EU and the U.S., including California. Government has a duty to uphold health protection, illness prevention and environmental justice. In order to be effective, mandatory labelling must include disclosure of the presence of substances that have been determined to be toxic or that are suspected of being capable of becoming toxic.

Second, we can set a higher bar for confidentiality claims in order to expand public access to data about environmental and health risks.

We respectfully request your support for these amendments, and we look forward to future opportunities to improve CEPA to more fully realize its vision of precaution and protection.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. That was three minutes on the dot. It was well timed.

Ms. Gue, from the David Suzuki Foundation, the floor is yours.

[Lisa Gue, Manager, National Policy, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's truly an honour to appear on this first panel on Bill S-5. This bill has been a long time coming. I was on maternity leave when this committee initiated the review of CEPA, and we just celebrated my son’s seventh birthday.

ENVI made 87 recommendations for strengthening CEPA. The bill in front of you doesn’t address nearly all of them. However, it does propose long-overdue updates to Canada’s legislative framework for assessing and controlling toxic substances, and it would recognize the right to a healthy environment for the first time in federal law.

I will focus my remarks on the latter, but I would be happy to answer questions about any of the recommendations in our joint brief.

There are only a handful of countries in the world that do not recognize the right to a healthy environment in law, and, sadly, Canada is one of them. Bill S-5 would change this, creating a duty for the government to protect the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment, within the scope of CEPA, and laying the groundwork for a framework to implement that right.

This will help align CEPA with the UN resolution recognizing the right to a healthy environment, which passed unanimously at the most recent General Assembly, and the COP27 cover text calling on parties to “respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights...when taking action to address climate change”.

Incorporating the right to a healthy environment in CEPA will be a historic development in Canadian law, so it’s important to get it right.

A crucial Senate amendment fixed problematic language in the formulation of the right in the original bill, but there is a corresponding change that needs to be made to the requirements for the implementation framework. The legislation should not presuppose that consideration of social, health, scientific and economic factors will always justify limiting the right.

Second, we recommend an explicit requirement for the implementation framework to specify how the right to a healthy environment will be upheld in relation to substance assessments and enforcing ambient air quality standards. This would provide a measure of certainty in the law that the framework will address these two critical CEPA responsibilities where we see real opportunity for the right to a healthy environment to drive results on the ground and save lives.

Third, we recommend incorporating key principles related to the right to a healthy environment into section 2 of CEPA as administrative duties. Bill S-5 sets out the principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity in relation to the right to a healthy environment implementation framework, but it does not require these principles to be upheld, only considered. Reinforcing these principles as duties in section 2 would give them greater force and ensure that they are applied consistently throughout the act.

Before I close, I want to recognize the many individuals who have passionately and persistently called for Canada to recognize the right to a healthy environment in law. Some of them are your constituents, and you've probably heard from them.

We hope you will rise to the occasion and pass a CEPA modernization bill that all Canadians can be proud of.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

That takes us to our first round of questioning, which is the six-minute round.

We start with Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for kicking off the Bill S-5 study.

It's an important series of subjects that are addressed in Bill S-5, and I would just note that it's unfortunate that a motion passed recently by this committee limits some of the important debate that I certainly believe needs to be taken into account in relation to a subject that's as important as this.

I'll go through each of the witnesses.

One of the issues I've certainly come to find very important to address—and I'm hoping you can provide some insights—is the interactions between the federal and provincial governments and how jurisdictions need to co-operate when coming to address something as important as the environment.

I'll start with Ms. Gue in the room here, and then I'll move to our online witnesses. On that relationship between the provincial and federal jurisdictions, how do you see that either being addressed or not being addressed in Bill S-5?

[Lisa Gue]

Thanks for the question. It's a very big and eternal question, I guess, in environmental governance in Canada, and possibly the subject for another committee study.

Bill S-5 is a package of amendments to CEPA. The federal jurisdiction under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been examined and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. I think within the range of topics we're addressing today, it's clear that we're discussing the federal responsibility jurisdiction under CEPA.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Barker, you're the next one I can see on the screen. Would you like to address the interplay between federal and provincial jurisdiction and how you see that and interpret that through the bill we have before us?

[Cassie Barker]

I would add that in cases where the provinces are seeking to take leadership on these issues, industry has repeatedly requested that the federal government take leadership on toxics. I think this is an opportunity for this committee to respond to that call, take a strong, progressive view on how we manage chemicals in this country, really follow the requests that are being made by industry to see this federal leadership take place, and support the provinces in their efforts as well.

Thank you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

To our final witness, do you have anything you'd like to add on that?

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers]

I share the opinion stated by my two colleagues a few minutes ago. The reform of the Environmental Protection Act is an opportunity not to be missed if we are to reassert strong national leadership on the health of people living all across Canada. We must take this opportunity. Everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment.

That summarizes my thoughts on the issue.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Barker, in your comments you articulated some of the concerns about stakeholders and industry. I'm wondering if you'd care to expand a little bit on the important aspects for stakeholders. That includes those within industry and within different aspects of the economy. The renewable and green-tech sector is also affected by this. I'm wondering if you'd care to expand on some of the impacts you see Bill S-5 having on the economy generally.

There's about a minute left, I believe.

[Cassie Barker]

I would say you're correct in that this is indeed an opportunity for many sectors in Canada to have the playing field addressed so that their efforts towards cleaning up their own supply chain are acknowledged and supported by this government. I think we have heard repeatedly from industry supporting this legislation. I think there is definitely an opportunity for us to capitalize on a cleaner, greener economy.

I would say that having strong rules that enable that cleaner, greener economy as part of Bill S-5 and CEPA does nothing but move us faster, and in a more clear fashion, towards that future.

Thanks.

[Lisa Gue]

Is there a second left for me to add to that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 10 seconds.

[Lisa Gue]

Very quickly, I think it's clear that the future global economy is a clean, green economy. Strong, effective and up-to-date environmental protection laws will be crucial for levelling the playing field and, as the previous speaker mentioned, ensuring clarity across the board and positioning Canada to succeed in that economy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Longfield now.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for seven years of work, in some cases, with our committees, whether here or in the other place. I have looked at the testimonies from the other place. There was a lot of good discussion there, and I thank you for that as well. That's helping us to get a bit of a head start.

Ms. Gue, you mentioned the recent United Nations resolution, which was adopted in October of last year. Resolution 48/13 recognizes the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment”. Is this the type of wording we should be looking towards for this legislation, to include the other words here of “clean, healthy and sustainable environment”?

[Lisa Gue]

Just as a quick update to that, I think you're referring to the resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council last October. The Human Rights Council actually brought the resolution forward to the United Nations General Assembly. The resolution at the General Assembly passed with unanimous support, including the support of Canada, just a few months ago.

I think there are slight differences in how the right is expressed in different statutes, resolutions and constitutional texts. In our view, the language in Bill S-5 captures the essence of this right. But the complementary wording in the UN resolution provides helpful interpretative value as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Great. Thank you.

I will just stay with you here for a bit.

In the Senate's discussions on this, there was a lot of discussion around data and access to data. When we look at the substances that are on the domestic substances list and how we give access to that, there are 30,000 substances on that list. That is a list to manage for sure.

On November 4, Environment and Climate Change made a new tool available to the public that links users to the draft and final screening assessment reports for substances under CEPA. Subclause 13(2) proposes an amendment that seeks to ensure that the environment registry is maintained as a database.

Have you had a chance to look at this existing tool from Environment and Climate Change Canada to know whether this is satisfying what was being discussed in the Senate prior to its being introduced?

[Lisa Gue]

The CEPA registry is a very important, already established tool. There's always room for improvement, for sure. Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to explore this new search function. Those are documents that are available already on the CEPA registry.

While you raise the issue of public access to data, the search platforms are one question. I think the bigger issue that we would bring before the committee is the need to really better control claims for confidentiality in the data that is submitted to the federal government in relation to CEPA responsibilities.

Bill S-5 makes one important step in this direction by requiring persons submitting data to provide reasons with their requests for it to be kept confidential. I do accept that the Government of Canada has responsibilities to protect confidential business information when it does indeed meet that test. The problem is that right now those claims are automatically accepted.

We are proposing, as you'll see outlined in our brief, an amendment to Bill S-5 that would create a presumption of non-confidentiality and require the minister to review those claims with reasons and only approve claims that are indeed legitimate.

By the way, we see in a report from the U.S. EPA, where confidential business information claims are routinely audited, that as much as a third are actually rejected and found to be inadmissible. Presumably many of those same claims are being made in Canada and are being automatically approved due to lack of oversight.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

You are actually leading into my next question for Ms. Barker. That has to do with TSCA in the United States. We have a lot of business between companies on both sides of the border. As we look at how other countries are managing toxic substances, is there something we need to pay attention to from TSCA in the United States, in terms of the things that were just mentioned around approvals? Or are there any other things we should include in our study?

That's for Ms. Barker.

[Cassie Barker]

Thank you so much for the question.

I would say that Canada has done a better job of framing.... Where TSCA has not necessarily deemed substances to meet their threshold where their restrictions necessarily come into play, the CEPA toxic...is quite a useful tool for triggering criminal and other powers, which the federal government is then able to use for substances that meet our toxic substances threshold.

I would say that we do have some very useful and powerful tools. Unfortunately, those tools aren't necessarily all put to use in managing chemical substances.