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.
5:40 p.m.
Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Canada
I can't answer that question, because the underlying premise of the question is incorrect.
5:45 p.m.
Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Canada
We have a trilogy of acts that apply to all confidential business information—
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm so sorry to cut you off, but I want to ask Ms. Daniels a question.
Ms. Daniels, could you talk a bit about the cumulative effects and the lack of planning requirements? Specifically, what impact does that have on indigenous communities, especially in the work that you've done as a nurse?
5:45 p.m.
Manager, Toxics Program, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Thanks for the question.
My connection is becoming unstable right now—I'm in the Northwest Territories—so I'm going to defer this to Jane, because I'm sure I'm going to lose connection momentarily.
5:45 p.m.
Director, Toxics Program, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
I'm sorry to hear that, Melissa.
I think this problem of cumulative effects is extremely important for us to consider, and it is something that's illustrated in the concept of vulnerable populations, because what we see is these combinations of effects and combinations of exposures, and these differ for different populations. When we're thinking about the myriad of exposures that we have, some of them are not in our control. Some of them are, but for many people, they are not things that are in their control.
When we are looking at assessments of substances, whether they're toxic and whether we need to be reassessing or substituting, this concept of cumulative is really important, because these combinations have an impact on human health.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm going to ask a question here.
Ms. MacDonald, you and I haven't been able to discuss the right to a healthy environment yet today. I'm going to read this:
Bill S-5 seeks to amend CEPA to recognize the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment. The bill requires the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to develop an implementation framework within two years that would set out how this right will be considered in the administration of the Act. The ministers would be required to include in the framework more information on how the right would be balanced with social, economic, health, scientific and other relevant factors.
All of these things come into one definition. One thing we always lack when we do this is the precision around what these definitions are in the right to a healthy environment. We talk about the importance of health in Canada and the importance of health outcomes—mortality and morbidity being the most prevalent measurements we have on this—that continue to improve in Canada.
If we're going to leave this open for some kind of interpretation that isn't in Parliament—it is our job here, in my opinion, to get precision on this—and it's going to be left open to the courts, are we opening up a 10-year process in the courts to try to find out the definitions of such things as “healthy environment” and how those balance against social, economic, science and other relevant factors?
Is that something that we need to consider in the next year as far as getting it nailed down ahead of time is concerned?
5:45 p.m.
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
We would prefer the right to be stated as “a right to a healthy environment” without the inclusion or consideration of those factors. We understand the government wants to leave that in. I think it is exactly because of your concern about potential litigation, so that they can balance out the right against other things, but we are concerned that by including factors and so on, you can undermine the right.
In terms of defining the right, we've looked at legislation throughout Canada. There's legislation in Quebec, Ontario, Yukon and the Northwest Territories that recognizes different forms of the right to a healthy environment, and none of them have defined the right, so we don't see there's a need to—
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Yes, if nobody has defined the right and it's in front of the courts repeatedly, are we not leaving it open to somebody's interpretation of what this means?
Let me give you what I think is an example, although I'm making it up on the fly.
When people live in cities, they forgo certain health benefits of living in the country because they actually have other benefits that contribute to their lives as well. Everybody makes these trade-offs on a daily basis. Everything we do is a choice that we make to do what we think makes our life better when we have those choices.
Given that some of these choices are going to require progress on so many issues, some of that progress is going to require new chemicals that actually will lead to a more fulfilling life for 99.9% of Canadians, for instance. Does that necessarily put the 0.1% of Canadians in a position in a court where they can say that this leads to a worse outcome for society because a small percentage of us are affected badly by this?
5:45 p.m.
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
When CEPA regulates chemicals, it doesn't do it writ large for all the uses of the chemicals across the country. It focuses in on the risks. That's why it's a risk-driven piece of legislation. If it's going to regulate a new chemical because of a risk, it might only be one aspect of how that chemical is used.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
We're not talking about CEPA here. We're talking about the definition of a healthy environment and how it applies in a legal perspective for people—
5:50 p.m.
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
Well, you were giving me the example of a chemical, so I was trying to respond in terms of how it works.
I will point you to the language in the bill. It actually does say “subject to any reasonable limits”, which is really how a court would interpret the right anyway, so that is written into the legislation. It does recognize that there are limits to any right, including the right to a healthy environment, and that is right in the duty section of Bill S-5.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. That's a very interesting philosophical discussion. Seriously, it's a very interesting debate.
Mr. Longfield, go ahead.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I think I'll bridge from your comment that it is a very interesting discussion. What I'm listening to throughout today is looking at what this bill can achieve potentially. I'm also thinking that there are other acts where other things are done better than they could be done under this act.
Labelling has come up, and I was thinking about Health Canada and all the work Health Canada does on labelling around food, for example.
Dr. MacDonald, could you maybe talk a little bit about the best act for some of these things to happen under and whether that's a consideration we should be keeping in our minds as we look at CEPA?
5:50 p.m.
Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice
There actually is a concept in CEPA called “the best place to act”, which recognizes that sometimes CEPA is not the best place to take the regulatory action. It might be better under the Food and Drugs Act, the cosmetic regulations, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act or somewhere else.
CEPA might be the piece of legislation that will assess the substance to determine what risk management might need to happen, but that risk management could well happen elsewhere. I think that is what you're speaking about: that it's not always CEPA that needs to be the piece of legislation that's regulating.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you.
I think some of the perspective I was looking for.... This is not to excuse the work that we're doing—because we have a lot of work to do, and we have to roll up our sleeves on it—but, Mr. Thurlow, in listening carefully to your answers, I appreciate that you're giving credit where credit is due while also saying that there's room for improvement.
When we're looking at the implementation framework, at regulatory processes or at the role of provincial governments in these discussions, I worry that we could get too prescriptive with this legislation. Could you maybe comment on the need to have the right principles stated in this legislation without going into other jurisdictions?
5:50 p.m.
Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Canada
That's an incredibly important point, and I'd love to discuss it further with you at Manhattans pizzeria on Gordon Street, one of my favourite places.
You're exactly right. We have officials at Environment Canada and Health Canada who are experts in this space. If we are prescriptive and tell those officials what the definitions of things are, we will tie their hands on both new assessment methodologies and understanding different perspectives on what is or is not a health or environmental risk. That is why the breadth of the statute that we have here in front of us will afford that discretion in the future.
It's interesting. I believe it was my friends at Ecojustice who talked about how the last time this bill was amended, Blockbuster Video was a going concern. Toxicology has changed. The way people are exposed has changed. That is why we need the flexibility built into the act so that the assessors can adopt the new science and accordingly deal with all these new concepts.
It's interesting. All of the aspects of chemistry and chemicals management that have been discussed here today have found their way into existing Health Canada risk assessments, whether it's cumulative effects or vulnerable populations. These are the things that the departments themselves have adopted into their risk assessment models.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Very good.
Manhattans pizza was there 20 years ago too, I think, so some of the good things still survive. We have to maintain that in this study as well.
Thank you.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
This has been a fascinating discussion. I want to thank the panellists, both here and onscreen, and all the members for their very good questions.
We will end there and continue on Friday with our witness testimony as part of this study. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.