Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I think everyone is very familiar with the procedure for hybrid meetings, so I won't repeat it.

We have the pleasure of welcoming Minister Guilbeault this afternoon. He will have 10 minutes to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill S-5, the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, which proposes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

To begin, I'd like to acknowledge that we are on the ancestral lands of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, either physically or virtually. These aren't just words; it's an essential recognition as we work every day to build new relationships with indigenous peoples.

The bill you have before you strengthens the act in two key areas: It recognizes a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA, and it strengthens the management of chemicals and other substances.

When I presented my opening remarks to the Senate committee this past spring, I invited senators to study and seek ways to improve the bill. I thank the Senate for its important work and repeat this offer to members of the House of Commons.

The government supports many of the Senate's amendments and will propose that some be modified so they are more workable. There are a few, which I will return to later, that are not in keeping with the principles of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or are premature, in light of ongoing consultations.

Let's begin with the issue of recognizing a right to a healthy environment as provided under CEPA.

This bill is the first time that a right to a healthy environment will be recognized in a federal statute.

The bill also includes a number of requirements to ensure this right is meaningful and taken into account when decisions are made under CEPA. It requires the government to develop, within two years, an implementation framework describing how this right will be considered in the administration of the act. This framework will explain, among other things, how principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity will be considered under CEPA.

Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in the development of the framework. The minister must report annually to Parliament on the framework's implementation.

The framework will define a thoughtful, meaningful and evolving approach to the right to a healthy environment. The implementation framework will clarify the right to a healthy environment lens for all programs under CEPA, including the clean air agenda and the chemicals management program.

Amendments related to the right include confirmation of the government's commitment to implement the United Nations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the importance of considering vulnerable populations and cumulative effects in risk assessment.

The bill will also require research, studies or monitoring to support the protection of this right. These new research requirements could help address, for example, the need for information about how pollution affects some groups of people or communities more than others.

These changes build on a robust regime of procedural rights in CEPA that provide for public participation, investigation of offences and environmental protection actions. CEPA has requirements to publish information and maintain the CEPA online registry, which we continuously improve. It allows anyone to ask for the investigation of an alleged offence.

If the request is not dealt with in a reasonable manner, the person can bring an environmental protection action in the courts to enforce compliance. As well, any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of a contravention of CEPA can bring a civil action to recover those damages.

The bill provides the public with more ways to participate in the decision-making process, making it more transparent and accessible. For instance, there will be opportunities to participate in developing the implementation framework and the Plan of Chemicals Management Priorities. The bill adds a mechanism for the public to request an assessment and strengthens the list of substances that can reasonably be considered toxic if their use changes.

The second set of key changes proposed in this bill relates to the modernization of chemicals—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me, Mr. Minister, but I'm told that the interpreters are having a little difficulty hearing you. Perhaps the microphone is too high.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Is it better now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, not yet.

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

I have a point of order.

There was no translation on your French. I'm not sure if it goes both ways.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So there's a second problem: the French interpretation isn't working at the moment.

I'm told the problem is now resolved.

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

It's good now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

As for the minister's microphone, could someone let me know if everything is okay?

Okay, everything seems to be working fine.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Do I need to repeat part of my remarks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I don't think so. You may continue, Mr. Minister.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you.

The second set of key changes proposed in this bill relates to the modernization of chemicals management. Canada is recognized as a world leader, being the first and only country to have categorized and prioritized for assessment all of the substances that were in commerce in our economy at the time the original CEPA was enacted in 1988. By the end of 2022, the government will have completed the assessments for almost all—98.5%—of the 4,636 substances that were identified as priorities when the chemicals management plan was launched in 2006. This is progress.

Now we need a new process.

Bill S-5 requires the government to consult and to produce a new plan for chemicals management priorities. This will show Canadians a multi-year plan for assessing substances in the future. It would also describe the activities, such as research and monitoring, to better support that effort.

The bill sets out a new regime for substances of highest risk. These include persistent and bioaccumulative substances, as well as certain carcinogens, mutagens and substances that are toxic to reproduction. When considering how to manage such substances, the bill requires that priority be given to prohibiting them. The Senate made improvements to these provisions; in my view, modest changes to the Senate amendments would make this regime even more effective.

I think we can all agree on the importance of acting quickly in assessing and managing those risks. CEPA already prescribes timelines, often referred to as the CEPA “time clock”. The government must propose a risk management instrument for addition to schedule 1 within two years after the substance has been proposed and finalize that instrument within a further 18 months. Bill S-5 proposes to go further and adds a requirement for the government to communicate the timelines for subsequent risk management instruments.

The bill also adds a watch-list as a tool to improve transparency by consolidating a list of substances whose inherent properties are of concern, but whose current use does not pose a risk that needs to be managed. There will be consultation on the criteria for adding and removing substances. This work will begin once the bill is in force.

Continuing with the theme of transparency, note that confidential business information was discussed a great deal. Bill S‑5 includes more requirements to improve transparency. I would, however, insist on the need to maintain the right balance between transparency and protection of Canadian business interests, which the bill delivers.

Finally, the bill now includes substantive requirements to accelerate efforts to replace, reduce and refine animal testing. The three Rs are ordered to reflect that the priority is to replace animal testing, with the aim of eliminating it as soon as feasible and scientifically justified alternative methods are available. The government is committed to promoting non-animal test methods and will engage with stakeholders and experts to provide advice on this issue.

CEPA hasn’t been significantly updated for 20 years. I say again that this is not our final effort to modernize CEPA.

While the legislative reform takes place, the government is undertaking several activities to tackle several issues linked to CEPA.

Over the last year, we held two consultations on labelling. The first sought to determine which measures could improve supply chain transparency. Consultations ended earlier this fall, which led to last month’s publication of a notice of intent for labelling toxic substances in consumer products. The results of both initiatives support a broader strategy, which we will publish in 2023.

The Senate also commented on the transparency of assessments of new living organisms. As such, the Government of Canada launched consultations in October 2022. These consultations will examine how the new substances notification regulations could make the risk assessment and regulatory decision-making process more transparent, while encouraging the development of biotechnology innovations that benefit Canadians.

The Senate made amendments creating a requirement to determine the need for new organisms. This proposed approach would be near impossible to implement.

The results of these consultations will feed into our improvement to the regime for new organisms and our government's approach to labelling. Nevertheless, I understand that these are matters of interest to you, and I will listen to your deliberations to inform the regulatory actions that will follow our consultations. I call on you to maintain the enabling and risk-based nature of the legislation that has made Canada a leader in chemicals management in the world.

Fellow members, I am counting on your support to enact this bill and ensure that the government has all the required tools to better protect all Canadians’ health and environment.

The work doesn’t stop here. Once the bill passes, we will launch regulatory and implementation initiatives, which include developing the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, the priority substances plan and regulations on high-risk substances. Furthermore, we will proceed with a review of other potential legislative changes to CEPA to ensure it remains relevant in the context of today’s challenges.

Thank you very much.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Minister.

I want to highlight that we also have Mr. Greg Carreau, from the Department of Health, as well as three representatives from the Department of the Environment, Mr. John Moffet, Ms. Laura Farquharson and Ms. Jacqueline Gonçalves. Welcome to the committee meeting.

We will start with the first round of questions.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of my colleagues, as well as everyone currently listening to the debate. I’d like to seize the opportunity to apologize profusely for delaying the start of the meeting by a few minutes because I had some technical difficulties.

First and foremost, I want to welcome you, Minister. This is the first time we have had the opportunity for a direct conversation on the subject, which is very important for the future of Canada and the future of the planet, that is to say the environment. I had the opportunity and privilege to be appointed as a minister of the shadow cabinet. In other words, I am the Official Opposition Critic for Environment and Climate Change. I am very honoured to have my party leader’s trust in this.

I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to debate with the minister. In Quebec, he is a well known figure, and for good reason. He was very active in the environmental movement. That makes him an activist, and I am not using the word pejoratively. Quite the contrary, it is a word that suits him well. When a person as active as he is in civil society decides to leap into active politics, everyone wins, but the walk has to follow the talk.

Over the last few months, we found ourselves in a situation where the minister greenlighted the Bay du Nord development project, which put him directly at odds with his former activist friends. However, we considered it the right thing to do for Canada and welcomed the decision.

Of course, other decisions raise concerns for us, and we will have the opportunity to debate them over the coming months.

For the next few minutes, let’s focus on Bill S‑5.

I want to reassure the minister and everyone else: Conservatives support the principle of living in a healthy environment. We noted, however, like many others, that senators submitted a large number of amendments. In general, they consist of minor amendments that we can deal with. However, there are nine amendments which are of serious concern to us, and that is what I would like to talk to the minister about.

Essentially, we worry that in certain cases, the amendments could duplicate responsibilities, efforts and bureaucracy. Moreover, we think that some situations lack clarity.

I’d like to draw the minister’s attention to amendment No. 10, passed by the Senate, which introduces a new designation, that of a vulnerable environment. In our view, it is very difficult to define what is vulnerable and what is not. Some think that everything is vulnerable, and others think that nothing or very little is vulnerable. Adding this designation in amendment No. 10 adds a layer of confusion, because it’s not fully explained.

I’d like to hear the minister’s opinion on the matter.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

First of all, thank you for your kind words, sir. It is a pleasure to work with you and to have you as minister of the shadow cabinet, or rather, opposition critic, as you so eloquently put it.

To quickly answer your question, I would say that the concept of a vulnerable environment would indeed be difficult to define. However, the concept of a vulnerable population is much easier to define, in our opinion. There is a vast body of scientific literature on the issue of pollution exposure. A great deal of data demonstrates that certain populations, be they in Canada or elsewhere, are more exposed to pollution than the rest of the population, for all kinds of reasons, some geographic, some socioeconomic.

There is therefore a distinction to be made between the concepts of a vulnerable environment and a vulnerable population. I agree with you to say that one of these concepts is harder to define. But the other can be defined a great deal more easily.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The problem that we see is that industry will be struggling with this reality. When a company tries to set up in a location, some will say that the environment is vulnerable and others will say the opposite. At the end of the day, the company is the one who will try to find what constitutes a good location. This problem crops up when we introduce a term without a precise definition to guide us. When a company wants to set up somewhere, but we’re unable to define what is vulnerable and what isn’t, they are left to struggle with it, which delays investments and development.

Don’t forget that Canada is a world leader when it comes to development. We have to maintain very high standards. If the process gets slowed down by these kinds of vague concepts, then what is not done in Canada could be done in other countries, which are a great deal less concerned about determining whether certain situations are vulnerable or not.

So why not accelerate the process?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As I was saying, the concept of a vulnerable population is increasingly shaped by scientific literature on environmental health and environmental impact assessments.

Over the last several years, we have reformed the environmental assessment process in Canada to make it both more transparent and more predictable. Earlier, you mentioned the Bay du Nord project. The decision about the project was not easy for me, especially on a personal level, but also on a professional level. Nevertheless, this decision was made within legislated timelines.

I think that we can chew gum, walk and maybe even text at the same time. We then have to make sure that introducing the concept of a vulnerable population does not slow down the environmental assessment process and, ultimately, the approval of certain projects.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I’d like to talk about Senate amendments No. 17 and No. 18, which focus on living organisms. According to these amendments, both the minister—meaning you—and industry have to hold consultations. If that’s not duplication, I don’t know what is. If people say something to you, in theory, wouldn’t they say the same thing to industry?

Why do the work twice?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As I said, we’re still reviewing many amendments passed in the Senate. In several cases, they are not a problem for us. In other cases, we will probably want to change the proposals to make them easier to implement. We certainly want to be sure that nothing is duplicated and that the process doesn’t lead to excessively burdensome administration. However, as you said so well, it will have to remain a rigorous process. That is the balance we are trying to strike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will have to stop you there. I found the conversation so interesting that I let Mr. Deltell go over his time. I’m sorry.

It is not your fault, Mr. Deltell. You unexpectedly gained a little time.

Ms. Thompson, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Minister.

I will begin by asking you a very broad question: What is the “right to a healthy environment”?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, MP Thompson.

As I said earlier, it is the first time that we would include this under Canadian statutes, specifically in CEPA. We're not the first jurisdiction in the world to do that. It's not something that has been done a lot around the world. We're not the first, but we're certainly among the first to do that.

The meaning of the “right to a healthy environment” will be elaborated through the implementation framework. This framework will be developed within two years from the date of royal assent, based on consultation with Canadians: Canadian experts, non-governmental organizations, provinces and territories and indigenous partners, as well as the private sector. The implementation framework would set up how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of the act.

The framework would also elaborate on principles such as environmental justice, meaning avoiding adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, and issues of “non-regression”, for continuous improvement of environmental protection.

The Senate amendment on Bill S-5 requires that the implementation framework also elaborate on the principle of intergenerational equity, the reasonable limits to which the right is subject and mechanisms to support the protection of this right.

Basically, applying the lens of a right to a healthy environment would support and encourage strong environmental and health standards now and going into the future, robust engagement with Canadians and new thinking about how to protect populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks.

As I was telling your colleague MP Deltell earlier, and as you well know, the scientific knowledge on these issues is in constant evolution, so I think what we're trying to do is build in a process whereby our regulations can evolve as well.

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

Thank you.

Could you provide more detail on how you enforce this right to a healthy environment?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

We already have existing mechanisms under CEPA, which would continue to be available to individuals to address concerns regarding environmental harm. CEPA, under part 2, has a robust regime relating to public participation, investigation of offences and environmental protection actions. There are also actions to prevent or compensate loss that could arise from conduct that contravenes the act—for example, against a defendant causing environmental harm.

The recognition of a right to a healthy environment will establish a new lens for decision-making under CEPA, which will ensure there is a continual progressive improvement in protecting all Canadians and the environment.

The meaning of the right and how it will be considered in the administration of the act will be developed through the consultation, as I said earlier, but we will continue using the mechanisms under CEPA to enforce this right.

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

How will CEPA reform help to protect vulnerable populations, including racialized communities?