Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2022

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You already spoke a bit about timelines. We've heard from witnesses, specifically around priority planning under proposed section 19, that it's very similar to the chemicals management plan, but that there is no requirement within priority planning to set timelines and to update the plan.

Can you speak to why that's the case? Would it be beneficial to require timelines and plan updates to ensure that the plan remains current and is updated, ideally, at least every five years?

[John Moffet]

I think we see a benefit in having a plan outline and expected timelines for broad categories of activities, but also in providing an expected time frame within which the overall plan might need to be revisited and renewed.

The main concern we have is with respect to any obligation to specify timelines for discrete activities, such as an individual risk assessment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I also asked the minister about confidential business information, the idea of the presumption of non-confidentiality and the potential of having audits to ensure that the requests companies are putting in have a justifiable rationale for making this information confidential.

I'd love to hear from the witnesses.

[John Moffet]

Laura, can you address that, please?

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes, for sure.

Under CEPA, if there's a need to release confidential business information, the claim is scrutinized. If it needs to be released, it will be released, if it's in the public interest to do so.

In terms of requiring scrutiny and reversing the presumption, I think we have to separate.... It wouldn't make sense in a lot of situations. The department receives a lot of confidential business information, but not all of it is published right away. We wouldn't want a process that, at the beginning, requires us to set up some kind of bureaucracy to examine every single claim.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

What about the idea of auditing a certain portion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your time is up. I'm sorry.

If we could all stay back from the microphones, it would be appreciated by the interpreters.

We're out of time.

We'll go to Mr. Deltell for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hello to all the departmental officials appearing before this parliamentary committee.

From the outset, let me say that I have always had tremendous respect for all the officials who appear before parliamentary committees. They are asked to provide neutral and objective explanations in a forum that is ultra-partisan, since it brings together people of all political stripes.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute all the public servants who serve our country and the federal government with dignity and honour, regardless of the party in power.

Earlier, during the testimony by the minister, I highlighted some concerns we have about the duplication, the red tape and the lack of clarity of certain amendments tabled by the senators.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to repeat the questions I asked the minister earlier about certain amendments proposed by the Senate.

First of all, let us consider amendment 10, which refers to a vulnerable environment.

To your knowledge, does this term require further explanation, with details and figures, to clarify its meaning, rather than leaving it vague and open to interpretation?

[John Moffet]

Thank you for raising that question.

You'll see that we are on record in the Senate as explaining that this term would be a novel term and that it would require definition. If not, it's our view that it would be difficult to define in a.... Because it's a new term, it might be difficult to define in legislation. It may be a term that needs to evolve over time.

It would certainly need some policy work so that Canadians and companies affected by the legislation and activities undertaken under the act have some certainty and predictability about how we would use the term.

Again, I think the easy answer is that we look forward to further discussion of the term and the appropriateness of including that term in the bill.

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

When you talk about further discussion, you're talking about adopting or not adopting this bill as soon as possible, as the minister said. Do you think we have the time frame necessary to clarify it, or is it too late and we shall put it aside?

[John Moffet]

I think I need to defer to the chair on questions about timing that the committee has available to it. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think that was maybe more of a rhetorical question, Mr. Deltell.

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

I quote the minister, who said he would like to see it sooner, that sooner is better. That's my thought on his testimony.

I would like to address another issue now and talk about amendments 17 and 18.

In accordance with those amendments adopted by the senators, consultations will be conducted by the department and by industry. In our view, that is duplication.

What do you think?

[John Moffet]

I apologize. I did not understand the question.

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

In adopting amendments 17 and 18, the senators created new obligations: public consultations will have to be held for each new living organism developed in Canada. They will have to be conducted first by the department, and then by industry. In our view, that is one consultation too many. Why not just do one?

In your opinion, are two consultations necessary, as stipulated in these amendments? Could we not just do one in order to save time and improve efficiency?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 25 seconds.

[John Moffet]

Our overall view on the approach to living organisms is that we have just launched a broad-reaching discussion on the overall approach to assessing and managing living organisms. We have broad authority in CEPA, so let's not jump straight to legislative fixes. Let's talk to Canadians and experts about the current regime: whether there are improvements or changes to the current regime and what those are and whether they're policy, regulatory or legislative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have Ms. Thompson for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you to the officials.

Mr. Moffet, if I could begin with you, how does strengthening CEPA address the recommendations of past parliamentary committees?

[John Moffet]

That's a very important question.

This bill clearly addresses some of the recommendations of previous committees. As the minister explained, it has two focuses: one, introducing the right to a healthy environment and, two, improvements to the provisions related to the management of chemicals in Canada.

We fully acknowledge that committees identified areas for improvement in other parts of the bill. The government has been clear from the first introduction of the bill that this bill does not address those, not because the government is disinterested in those but because the government chose to introduce a relatively small, manageable package.

The government has also expressed its intention to follow up this package with additional sets of amendments in the future. I think it will be incumbent on us to package those so that they're thematically based and can be discussed, debated and considered as such. There is no pretense that this is the full sum of amendments that the government supports or that are needed, but these are important and can be addressed now.

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

Thank you.

I'm not sure, Mr. Moffet, if you're the best one to answer this or if Mr. Carreau is, but could you briefly speak to the Food and Drugs Act—to what it is and then to why is it being amended—to capture that for the record?

Thank you.

[John Moffet]

I'll turn to Greg.

[Greg Carreau, Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you very much for the question.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-5 around the Food and Drugs Act reconcile the current regime, wherein assessments are being done under both the Food and Drugs Act for pharmaceuticals and certain chemicals and also under CEPA for the environmental assessment.

The proposal is to reconcile the potential duplication to enable the full assessment, both from human health and environmental considerations, under the Food and Drugs Act, and that will result in efficiencies for both industry and the government.

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

Thank you.

This is a question for both Mr. Carreau at Health Canada and Environment Canada.

We have heard at the committee some concerns from witnesses on whether there are sufficient internal resources to be able to implement what's in this bill.

Could you speak to that from your departmental lens, the ability around staffing and triaging resources needed to be able to ensure that what is contained in this bill can be implemented in a timely, efficient and effective manner?

[John Moffet]

This is an ongoing issue for the management of all departments, including environment and health.

The amendments in the act are largely—not exclusively, but largely—enabling. There are some new mandatory requirements, such as the requirement to develop a plan for chemicals management and an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment.

Essentially what happens is that once legislation is passed, we look internally at our existing resources and develop an assessment of the adequacy of resources. Then, if needed, we make an approach to the Department of Finance for new resources.

That's something that happens on an ongoing basis, and it's certainly something that will happen once this bill gets implemented. At the moment, I don't think we're in a position to give a formal opinion about the need for new resources.