Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We'll have to stop there.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Before I begin my questions, I wish to say something.

I have not been working on this issue for seven years, but I have devoted a lot of energy to it. I have spoken to Mr. Weiler and the minister about it. I even took part in two meetings with public servants, via Zoom, as well as meetings with the organizations in order to properly understand Bill S‑5. The motion adopted last week shows disregard for all the work that my assistant, Célia Grimard, and I have done. I wanted to say that. I wanted to say that I do not approve of this situation at all. I wanted to use this first meeting on Bill S‑5 to make everyone listening know that time for debate has been limited and the process has been accelerated. If we end up with a law that is not clear enough to protect the environment and public health, that will in my opinion be the result of the decision to limit democratic debate and public consultation.

Thank you, that is what I wanted to say.

Now I have a question for Ms. Gue.

Your organization is calling for an accountability framework for the implementation of management plans. You stated that, since there are no mandatory timeframes in the current act, the implementation of control measures is many years if not decades behind. During all those years, these delays have resulted in unnecessary risks to human health and the environment.

What would you recommend to improve Bill S‑5 to bring us up to date, to remain current on scientific advances and thereby avoid the type of situation you highlight?

[Lisa Gue]

Yes, that is indeed a big weakness in the current bill. All the measures proposed in the bill, such as the obligation to uphold the right to a healthy environment, are actually contingent on the decision to declare a substance as being toxic and to set up a risk management program for that substance. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the current act or in the bill that guarantees that such a program will indeed be set up. Those are some of the improvements that I mentioned. I believe that my colleague who will be testifying during the second part of the meeting will talk about this more.

We are recommending that Bill S‑5 set clear deadlines for risk assessments, as well as timelines for the publication of proposed recommendations in order to manage the risks associated with these toxic substances. There should also be an obligation for the minister to be responsible for setting up such a risk management program.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gue.

My next question is for Dr. Pétrin‑Desrosiers.

You are one of the co‑authors of “Policy Brief for Canada,” which is a document that you worked on in conjunction with the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change.

You are also one of the co-signatories of a letter, which was sent to members of our committee and MPs, highlighting the need to reinforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This letter states that “chemicals go onto the market and into use before their effects on human health and the environment are fully understood.” You gave cosmetics as an example.

Do you know any countries whose legislation on chemicals would be good models to follow? If so, what are the best practices that we should concentrate on?

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers]

That is a complex question. These substances act in different ways and it's not always possible to establish a direct correlation. Often, the cumulative risks associated with various substances can make an assessment very difficult. The truth remains, however, that we are regularly exposed to many toxic substances.

When the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed at the end of the 1990s, we knew very little about endocrine‑disrupting chemicals and their various combinations. Our knowledge of the subject has greatly increased over the past few years, however.

France has been one of the leaders in this field with its proactive and stringent regulations on endocrine‑disrupting chemicals. This is a field that is very close to my area of expertise, which is health. France has made regulations that target certain risks such as exposure to endocrine‑disrupting chemicals in certain healthcare settings. Let me give you an example for clarity. In the hospital, we sometimes have to rehydrate patients with saline solutions. The solutions come in plastic bags, and the tubes connected to these bags contain a lot of endocrine‑disrupting chemicals. France has taken measures to reduce exposure to these chemicals. I would say that France has made important strides in its legislation over the past few years.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you so much for that. When we have a concrete example, it helps us to move forward better.

My next question is for Ms. Gue.

The old version of the act was aimed at eliminating pollution; now, the act is about controlling and managing pollution. Do you get the impression that we are going backwards rather than forwards?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Gue, you have 15 seconds to answer the question. You can always provide more details during another exchange.

[Lisa Gue]

I will answer very quickly.

The bill is presenting the requirements in a different way. We see what is being proposed here as a good thing, because priority is being given to banning certain toxic substances, including carcinogenic and mutagenic substances, as well as toxic substances that cause reproductive problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, over to you.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Gue. I appreciated your comments on the right to a healthy environment. I think many Canadians are worried about the limitations the government put on the right to a healthy environment in the bill. That's part of why the amendments made by the Senate are so crucial.

You're proposing other amendments to strengthen it. You raised concerns about how the bill sets out consideration of relevant factors in the right to a healthy environment. Can you talk a little about the importance of the recommendation you're suggesting?

In addition to that, you also put forward a recommendation for an amendment establishing principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity. Can you also explain to the committee the crucial nature of these principles?

[Lisa Gue]

Thank you for the questions.

In the section related to the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, Bill S-5 requires that the framework elaborate on “the reasonable limits to which that right is subject, resulting from the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors.”

We're proposing an amendment to this section, because it's a mistake to consider that relevant factors would be relevant only in terms of limiting the right. If these factors are relevant, it should be acknowledged that they are relevant more broadly. The law needs to allow for consideration of those factors in order to justify, in some cases, the full application of the right or even expansion of the right—not only its limitations.

We would suggest an amendment to reword that section to require relevant factors to be considered in interpreting and applying that right, and in determining any reasonable limits to which it is subject.

In terms of the key principle of the right to a healthy environment, I'll first highlight the principle of environmental justice, which is something this committee recently examined in its study of Bill C-226. I'll read for you, again, a definition the U.S. Office of Environmental Justice offers:

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This goal will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

In our view, again, this key principle needs to be established as a duty to be upheld throughout the administration of the whole act, not just considered in relation to the implementation framework—which, at the end of the day, will live as a policy document outside the act. This is the opportunity for you, the legislators, to anchor these essential principles in the law and ensure their applications throughout CEPA.

Very quickly, the principle of non-regression is borrowed from international human rights law and prohibits backsliding or the weakening of environmental protections, once granted, in the absence of a scientific basis.

The principle of intergenerational equity simply requires fairness among generations in the use and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

It seems very clear that these three principles need to be put into the legislation as duties.

You talked a bit about how the principle of environmental justice, as a duty, is especially complementary to Bill C-226 on environmental racism. I think both of these bills also speak to the need for a separate office of environmental justice to help carry out this work. I'm curious about your opinions on that.

[Lisa Gue]

Thank you very much for the question.

I would refer the committee members to the recommendation of the Green Budget Coalition to fund a high-level office of environmental justice, modelled after that which exists in the U.S. and has existed for several decades. In fact, it was launched by former president Bush, Sr. and has stood the test of time across multiple administrations from both parties in the U.S.

Getting CEPA modernization right is the task in front of you today. After this bill passes—hopefully before my son's next birthday—it will also be essential to ensure capacity to fully implement these requirements.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

When it comes to the enforceability of the right to a healthy environment.... We know that section 22 hasn't been opened up, but if a citizen enforcement mechanism isn't fixed, what do you see as the barriers to implementing this right?

[Lisa Gue]

Thank you.

In brief, another huge gap in Bill S-5 is the failure to strengthen citizen enforcement provisions in CEPA. We would urge the committee to look at that at the earliest opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll go to the second round. I'm going to chop off 20% for everybody so that we can have enough time for the next panel. We're talking four minutes, four minutes, two minutes, two minutes, four minutes and four minutes.

We'll start with Mr. Kurek.

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

I will cede my time to Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Dr. Pétrin‑Desrosiers, in your work, you study climate change and its impact on health. Sadly, things are not getting any better.

Why is it essential to shore up the weaknesses in CEPA right now, and I stress right now?

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers]

Actually, it is never too late to act in favour of the environment in order to reduce mortality rates and health problems. We have been waiting for the reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for 23 years. It has to get done sometime, and the act states that there must be regular reforms. Over the past few years, this requirement has not been followed.

We know that when we fail to act for the environment, whether it be in the fight against climate change, habitat fragmentation or the decline in biodiversity, there are disastrous consequences in terms of people's health.

Conversely, we also know that when we act to protect the environment, there are health benefits. When we look at economic factors and worry, for example, that there might be revenue losses or costs associated with certain policies, it is important to look at the health benefits that these positive and ambitious climate policies can have. Generally speaking, when we act decisively to protect the environment, economic gains follow.

At the risk of repeating myself, you should know that here in Canada, air pollution costs us $120 billion per year. In Quebec, that works out to $30 billion a year. Better air quality standards would allow us to reduce these costs and invest the money elsewhere. Moreover, our citizens would enjoy better health and could be more involved in their communities. We have to seize this opportunity right now.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Do you have an example of more stringent clauses that could be put into the bill?

[Dr. Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers]

We could include much stricter air quality standards. Our knowledge of air pollution has increased greatly over the past few years, as well as our understanding of various pollutants and the interactions between them. We could set high Canada-wide standards that are in keeping with the best standards, such as those suggested by the World Health Organization.

In addition to having standards, you also have to make sure that they are being met. It is therefore important that the act contains ways of ensuring that the standards are being met and that we have the means to check this. There also has to be a way of following up with consequences if ever the standards are not met by certain stakeholders.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gue, the lawyers who work with the Canadian Environmental Law Association have suggested that Bill S‑5 should be strengthened by including definitions so that the notions contained therein are better understood, which would also reduce the likelihood of any semantic debate that could follow.

Are you of the opinion that such a change would be useful?

[Lisa Gue]

Yes, that is an interesting suggestion. Details are obviously important. We could define certain key terms to make them clear to all. However, if the definition of a term is too restrictive, that can limit enforcement of the act. The devil is in the details.

I would also say that some of these terms are commonly used, and I'm not sure whether there is really any uncertainty as to their meaning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, shall I give you two extra minutes right now, which would allow you to continue?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Barker, I have a question for you. You said Canada is lagging in terms of labelling. You spoke of a solution that would take citizens' rights into account.

Is there a solution or a way to proceed that would allow us to uphold the rights of citizens who want to know what they are buying, and the rights of businesses, that have confidentiality concerns?