Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2022

[John Moffet]

For the substances of highest concern, the regime we are proposing is that specific actions would have to be taken for those substances. In order to define what those substances are, the bill provides authority for the government to develop a regulation to define those.

At the moment, the bill says essentially, at a minimum or for example, that group needs to include virtual elimination, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc. That isn't a problem so long as the actual definition and criteria can be further explicated in a regulation, which in turn can be amended from time to time as science evolves.

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

Thank you.

I have a quick final question. I'd asked the minister about how CEPA provides pretty significant guidance to some other periphery acts, including things like pharmaceuticals and acts pertaining to agriculture and food safety.

Could you quickly outline if work has been done to make sure that, although this is very much an ECCC issue, there has been consultation across the whole of government?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 20 seconds.

[Greg Carreau]

Thanks for the question.

Indeed, there has been a lot of consultation and engagement across the federal family.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act and more particularly the chemicals management plan are billed as the federal approach to chemicals management. There is an active dialogue across the health portfolio, including the PMRA in terms of intersections of pesticides, the Food and Drugs Act, as well as the intersection of other federal families such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Weiler for the last round.

Is it Mr. Weiler?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I'll end up splitting time with Mr. Duguid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Clause 5 of Bill S-5 lays out the implementation framework for a right to a healthy environment. Originally, this would just elaborate on things such as the principles to be considered in the act, research studies and monitoring activities. The Senate, I think, made a very important change, which would include mechanisms to support the protection of that right.

Could the officials speak to what some of those mechanisms would be to support the protection of that right? Why it is important to have that in the implementation framework?

[John Moffet]

Laura could comment.

[Laura Farquharson]

I think the minister outlined some of them in his speech.

In part 2 of CEPA, there are already opportunities for the public to bring actions and ask for investigations, so it would be asking the minister for an investigation when someone thinks that an offence has been committed under the act. If the person can say that the minister has not answered reasonably, then they can basically go forward to pursue that contravention of the act.

There are other provisions in that part that would let someone bring a civil action for damages if they have suffered damages as a result of the contravention, or an injunction, as well.

Those are some of the mechanisms that exist to enforce the act and thus the right to a healthy environment.

I want to add that in addition to what we think of as those court-like mechanisms, there are also transparency and other accountability mechanisms. The fact that the implementation framework is public and that its implementation has to be reported on are what really help to encourage compliance and get the shift in thinking and decision-making.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I agree. That's a very important part of it.

I'll turn the remainder of my time over to Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

I've asked a number of questions of our delegation on the confidential business information provisions of the act and on increasing public confidence. Do any of the officials have any suggestions on improving that?

Ms. Collins didn't get a complete answer to her question on select auditing. Would there be a role for the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development?

How can we increase confidence that it is indeed confidential business information? I think we all agree that this is very important for protecting innovation and IP and to ensure societal progress.

[Laura Farquharson]

It is an important issue.

I would say there are some amendments that were brought in Bill S-5 to make the regime run more smoothly and balance that transparency with the protection of the confidentiality. Now, if the bill is adopted, suppliers of information who claim confidentiality would be required to provide reasons for that confidentiality. Having those will make it easier for departments to determine the validity and release the information.

There are also changes to the provisions that allow for masked names. Sometimes even the name of the substance is masked to allow for innovation and to protect competitive advantage. Now with the amendments, there will be a presumption, which could be rebutted, that after 10 years the name could be unmasked. If it goes on schedule 1 and if it's found to be toxic, it could be unmasked, or if it's being risk-managed, it could be unmasked.

Those are the examples.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have about 40 seconds for one last question.

The department is doing consultations on part 6 and labelling. What happens after those reviews? Could the actions that would potentially come out of those reviews be defined in regulation? Do you have to wait until the next round of CEPA?

What happens after those reviews?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Be brief, please.

Are we pleading the fifth here?

[John Moffet]

This is a standard process whereby we identify issues that various stakeholders have addressed and that officials have addressed. We then go out and talk to Canadians and we commit to follow up.

Exactly what the follow-up will be will depend on what we hear and what decisions the government makes. At a minimum, there will be a follow-up explaining what the next steps will be. As I said in response to an earlier question, those could be procedures, policies or regulatory amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you to everyone.

Thank you to the officials for allowing us to benefit once again from your expertise.

We look forward to seeing you at the committee often in the future.

Thank you, colleagues. Have a very good weekend. Stay safe. Be good. We'll see you next week.

The meeting is adjourned.