Evidence of meeting #39 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.
1:40 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
That can be made worse by sloppy drafting, which is what I think Bill S-5 is engaged in.
I don't think it was a wise decision to eliminate, for example, the title of schedule 1, “List of Toxic Substances”. Number two—
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
With respect, I'm not a lawyer—I think a few of my colleagues around the table are—but other environmental organizations have provided us with testimony that directly contradicts what you're saying there about the title, so we're being led in two different directions by different environmental organizations here.
Can you address the confusion?
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're done on this segment. I'm sorry.
As I said, it doesn't prohibit the witness from answering in another context.
Ms. Thompson, you have four minutes, please.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Ms. Plain, I'd like to begin with you, if I could, please.
You have stated in some documents that I've read, I believe, that you would like to see improved enforcement tools in CEPA to support the proposal for the right to a healthy environment.
The right to a healthy environment is provided for under section 2 of the act, and furthermore, the bill proposes that within two years of the amendments coming into force, the minister must develop an implementation framework and this framework must be published with an annual report.
Does this satisfy your concerns, and if so, how does it? If not, what would you like to see happen?
1:45 p.m.
Environmental Consultant, As an Individual
We'll take whatever we can get. I know that environmental NGOs.... I haven't added anything in here because I've seen their intentions, so I trust what's there.
I guess for us—for Aamjiwnaang—we can't add anything specific in there. It's just so bad. The data can't just come to us and then just be sitting there. We're ingesting things.
If there is some sort of action plan in place, we want to be notified. We want to be included. We need to be prepared. We're just in a...reactive approach right now. We're not even warned, really. Most of the time we don't even know.
I don't have anything specific on that portion of it. I'm just really pleading that it's bad. If you can strengthen any section of it to make things move.... We don't want to be sacrificed. We want to be a part of that, to be cared for, to be thought of and to be protected, if that's the intention. We want to see our future generations continue to fight, but not have to fight as much.
That's all I can really offer. We're going to ask for whatever we can just to strengthen that and hopefully, through what I've shared today, you're hearing where different parts can be strengthened and the implications of what is not currently working in CEPA for us. It's a failure. Otherwise, I feel like we wouldn't be coming here with these issues.
I'm sorry, I can't answer that in a full capacity. It's really just a plea. We're ground zero. This is not protecting us.
Not only that—we're not thinking about ourselves only. There are specific groups like widows of the plant workers. There are the workers that work there. There are people in Canada and the United States. There are people downriver. We're coming here thinking about all of these people because Aamjiwnaang is a much bigger.... We signed the Treaty of Detroit. When we think about Aamjiwnaang, it's so much bigger.
That's what we have in mind when we come and do this work. Thank you.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you. I really appreciate that you're here today.
I realize that this has been a very lengthy process. Have you been engaged in consultations during the number of years that CEPA has been working through the government, from committee to the House and then the Senate?
1:45 p.m.
Environmental Consultant, As an Individual
I have not. I'm in different meetings with the chiefs of Ontario or Aamjiwnaang. Officially no, I have not participated in a consultation process.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Castrilli, I'm going to repeat the question that I asked earlier.
Consultations will end mid-January, but we will not be able to take the results of the consultations into account, because we are being pressurized to wrap up our study right now.
Do you have something to say on the subject?
1:45 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
This is a statute that gets amended once every 20 years. It's most likely that this statute will, in a material way, not be back before Parliament until some time in the 2040s.
We've identified nine areas of concern with this statute, some of which go back to the early 2000s. I think it's incumbent upon Parliament to get right what's wrong with CEPA right now, because we may not have an opportunity to do so in 20 years. Therefore, I think Parliament needs to take all the time it needs to get this right.
1:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
I heartily agree with you. We should have the time we need to get this right.
Mr. Piette, I have in my hand a letter from two of your colleagues, Ms. Lauzon and Mr. Dulude. The letter talks about the possibility that the bill is encroaching on provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Do you think such an encroachment could have a negative impact on Quebec's businesses in terms of the environment?
1:50 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Quebec Business Council on the Environment
That is indeed the case.
I was a legislative drafter for nearly 20 years. When you draft laws, you always have to be careful to avoid any encroachment, because this sends the wrong message to stakeholders who are targeted by an act. Lawsuits can ensue.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Unfortunately, we have to stop there.
Mr. Kurek, you have the floor.
I'm sorry.
Ms. Collins, it's your turn for two minutes. I'm sorry about that.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I apologize. Because of the delay with the translation, I didn't hear what you said. I just assumed it was me.
My question is for Mr. Castrilli. Can you talk a bit more about the suggestion you made that the government impose mandatory chemical testing obligations on the private sector, where information isn't available to determine if a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic?
In particular, I'm wondering if industry is best placed to provide this information. Do you have any concerns about industry providing information on chemicals in their own products, which the government is trying to regulate?
1:50 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thank you for the question, Ms. Collins.
There is already an obligation in section 71 of CEPA. It's an authorization whereby the minister may impose a testing obligation in particular circumstances. There's a second section, section 72, which provides an impediment to the minister requesting the testing.
That's part of the statutory problem that needs to be corrected. It's not corrected by Bill S-5. It is corrected by our proposed amendments, and they can be found at tab five of our proposed amendments.
The long and short of it is that the minister has the discretion to do so now, but rarely does, in part because of section 72. These two sections need to be amended so that whenever the minister is uncertain as to whether a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic in the circumstances that are described in Bill S-5, there is a mandatory obligation on the minister to require the testing. That can happen one of two ways. Either require industry to do the testing, or else require that industry pay for testing that's conducted, either by the government or by an outside, independent laboratory.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
How do you feel we could prevent the shift in chemical and toxic pollution from air release to land release?
1:50 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
The short answer is, you need to make part 4, which is the pollution prevention regime, more robust than it is now. To do that, you should adopt our proposed amendments in tab three of our proposed amendments document.
November 25th, 2022 / 1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to try to accomplish a few things in my statement here.
First, I would invite all of the witnesses, if you haven't had a chance to get all of your points across—I know some of you already have submitted briefs—to please feel free to follow up with this committee.
Mr. Chair, I distributed a motion on Wednesday morning. I would like to move that motion. I understand there's a friendly amendment coming.
Hopefully, we can get this out of the way here shortly, and then if I can, I'll get a couple more questions in.
The motion is as follows:
That the committee undertake a study of the supplementary estimates (B), 2022-23, referred to the committee on Thursday, November 17, 2022, that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change appear before the committee on the supplementary estimates (B), 2022-23, for two hours, and that this meeting be held as soon as possible and televised.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Kurek's motion. I have a friendly amendment, as he mentioned, to have the minister come for the first hour and officials come for the second hour, as is our usual practice.