Evidence of meeting #41 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 substances.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Laura Farquharson  Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
John Moffet  Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Jacqueline Gonçalves  Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Greg Carreau  Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you. We'll stop on that clarification.

Mr. Weiler is next for six minutes.

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the officials for being here and for their vital work.

The first question I'd like to ask is related to timelines, so this question might be for Ms. Gonçalves.

I understand from speaking with many stakeholders that they are concerned about the delta between when preliminary risk assessments are completed and when final risk assessments are completed.

I am hoping you could explain to this committee what some reasons are, typically, for these risk assessments to be delayed. What would it take to ensure that these final assessments are done in a consistently timely way?

December 2nd, 2022 / 2:15 p.m.

Jacqueline Gonçalves Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment

Thank you for the question.

As many of you know, the development of risk assessments is a very data-intensive type of process, and of course we do all assessments in collaboration with our colleagues at Health Canada.

Examining health and environmental data to determine risk takes time. When we do publish a draft, there are times when the public consultation period on those draft assessments delivers new information to us. It's sometimes new data or new studies. It's information we need to consider. Depending on the feedback we receive from the public, there may be times when we have to re-examine how we've conducted our exposure models and things of that nature.

Sometimes other jurisdictions are also conducting similar studies or assessments on similar substances, and sometimes we need to consider the new information that is being generated in those other jurisdictions before we can finalize our assessments to ensure that we've done a complete enough study of the subject before we conclude. There are a number of different reasons that the time frame between the draft and the final assessment can sometimes take some time.

I hope that answered your question.

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Definitely. Thank you very much for the answer. That certainly answers the first part of the question. Maybe you could explain from your experience and expertise in this space what you would expect a reasonable time would be from a preliminary assessment being completed to when a final risk assessment is completed.

2:15 p.m.

Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment

Jacqueline Gonçalves

Generally, when there are very few comments between the draft and the final, the period can be reasonable. It may take 18 months to two years to finalize something. When we do receive additional information and we have to conduct additional information gathering, it can take quite a bit of time. It really is dependent on the particular situation.

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Great. Thank you very much. That's quite helpful.

The next question I have will be to Ms. Farquharson.

Clause 58 of Bill S-5 removes the list of toxic substances from the title of schedule 1. We have heard conflicting testimony on the impact of this. I'm curious whether Environment and Climate Change Canada is confident, based on the legal advice it has received, that the removal of the title, the list of toxic substances, will not impact the constitutionality of CEPA as a criminal law power.

2:15 p.m.

Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

Laura Farquharson

Yes. The quick answer is the government is satisfied that the bill is constitutional.

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Great. Thank you very much.

On my next question, Bill S-5 proposes changes to the planning process for priority substances to assess whether or not they're going to be toxic. Again, this may be a question for Ms. Gonçalves. There is an interest to ensure that this is done in a timely way. I'm wondering if introducing timelines for these chemicals to be assessed would pose a significant challenge for the ministry.

2:15 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

Maybe I can jump in—sorry, Jackie—and then we can turn to Jackie and Greg.

First of all, it's probably important to recognize the context here. I described in response to a previous question that close to 15 years ago we developed a plan to look at the many thousands of substances that had been in commerce in the 1980s and that had not gone through the new substances regime. That plan was strictly a policy-based one we put together. We published timelines five years out, and then repeated those every five years.

What we're now saying in this bill is that because we're moving forward into a different regime and looking at different substances from different perspectives, let's have a provision in the law that requires ministers to publish a plan. They will be required to publish that plan within two years of the bill being passed, and then they'll be required to report on its implementation and to renew it from time to time. There will be a very clear obligation to have a plan. That plan will need to include expectations and timelines.

That said, coming back to Ms. Gonçalves's earlier point, it is the government's view that it would not be appropriate to prescribe timelines that would apply to every risk assessment, given the wide range of complexity associated with each different assessment.

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We're going to have to stop there and go to Madame Pauzé.

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like my colleagues, I want to thank all the officials who are here with us this Friday afternoon.

This is not for anyone in particular, but I would like to go back to my earlier question to the minister.

There is already a consultation on substances that would be included in the animate products of biotechnology, covered in part 6 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That consultation ends on December 5.

I would like to return in particular to the notice of intent on the labelling of toxic substances in certain products. This notice states that “Canadians deserve to know what substances are in the products they purchase and use in their everyday lives, whether at home or at work, especially if these substances can have impacts on the environment or human health.” The public has until January 12 to provide input.

What follows is even more interesting, in my opinion. It states that after the consultation has ended, a strategy will be published on transparency in the supply chain and in the labelling of products containing toxic substances. This strategy will include measures to improve access to information on chemical substances, in the interest of consumers, companies and government. Those measures could include legislation or regulations, as well as voluntary and collaborative measures.

This notice clearly pertains to the bill before us, and our current study of the bill is in addition to the efforts made by the Department of the Environment.

How can we gather public input until January 12 and complete our study of Bill S‑5 in committee before we even see the results of those consultations? Why exactly was that notice published? It seems rather irresponsible to me that the committee has to study Bill S‑5 quickly, when the notice published on October 29 pertains directly to the provisions of the bill. So I would kindly ask you to clarify the process in writing. In my opinion, that would show respect and consideration for all those who have worked on Bill S‑5.

We have heard from witnesses who were in favour of deregulation. Those were people from industry, of course. They were quick to praise CEPA's strengths and to make somewhat erroneous statements about the REACH regulatory process in Europe. I would point out that the generic approach under the REACH regulation in Europe was described in the spring of 2022 by the newspaper Le Monde, roughly translated, as follows:

A major change that will make it possible to impose bans by substance group, without having to demonstrate an unacceptable risk for each substance, as is now the case. [...]

[...] The European Environmental Bureau (EBB), which brings together more than 140 organizations throughout the [European Union], estimates [...] [that between] 4,000 and 7,000 substances should be banned by 2030.

So there is truly an accelerated process to ban substances that could be harmful to health or the environment.

Why is the same approach not taken here, in Canada?

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Who's going to take that?

2:20 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

Maybe I can start.

There are essentially two questions there. One is with respect to labelling and the other is with respect to what we would call a class approach.

We think there is no contradiction between the consultation process that's under way on labelling and the amendments to the bill, because CEPA already actually authorizes the use of the imposition of labelling requirements. Indeed, we have already imposed labelling requirements with respect to various substances in various products.

The real issue is, in what circumstances should we require labelling going forward? For what substances in what products can we be more—

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Sorry to interrupt you, but time is running out. I would rather you talk to us about what is being done right now in the European Union.

2:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

The basic question there is.... The assertion is that in Europe, under REACH, there will be the ability to take action on broad classes of substances. Again, we already have that authority in CEPA. We've just issued, for example, a description about a proposed approach for perfluoro-carbonated substances. My colleagues can provide you with more detail. We've been very clear that this approach will enable us to address potentially thousands of substances at one time.

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

You are talking about the future. So that is not currently the case, in Canada. That is what I understand.

2:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

No, sorry. That's my mistake. We actually already have that authority and we're taking that action now.

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Can you truly say that, since the 1980s, we have reached the peak in the evaluation of substances? Shouldn't we be talking about how slowly chemical substances are evaluated?

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

You have about 20 seconds, please, Mr. Moffet.

2:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

The traditional approach in Canada has been primarily substance by substance, but that has not always been the case. Some of the earliest assessments were of effluent from pulp and paper and effluent from metal mining, for example, which comprised multiple substances. We've alway had that authority.

As I explained in response to an earlier question, we are now moving from a commitment to look at 4,300 individual substances to increasingly looking at combinations of substances or classes of substances using existing authorities.

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the officials who have been working on this bill. This is a large bill, and it has already gone through the Senate. I know that you folks have been working really hard.

I have a number of questions. The first one is on the right to a healthy environment.

This is a historic and important development in Canada. It's one of the reasons it's so important that we get this right. We've heard from stakeholders. We've heard from a number of witnesses who appreciate the Senate's amendment that fixed some of the problematic language in the original formulation, but a similar change is needed to the requirements for the implementation framework.

I would love to hear your comments. In particular, this is what these witnesses are arguing: “The legislation should not presuppose that consideration of social, health, scientific and economic factors will always justify limiting the right.”

2:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

I'll start, but maybe Laura can jump in.

It's our opinion that the language in the act—and we're certainly looking forward to the discussion in committee—does not specify that those factors must always be taken into account. Indeed, the provision does not stipulate that those factors will always trump—perhaps that's an inappropriate use of a word—or always supersede the right to a healthy environment. The language enables decision-makers to take those factors into account.

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

I asked the minister about ambient air quality. We've heard from witnesses who are recommending an explicit requirement for the implementation framework to specify how the government is going to uphold this right in relation to ambient air quality standards as well as in relation to substance assessments. They argue that this would provide a measure of certainty in the law that the framework will address these two critical pieces that have potentially the greatest potential for saving lives.

2:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment

John Moffet

The bill is very clear that the right applies to the entire act. As written, it currently applies to every decision taken under the act. One of the potential downsides to listing one or two of the many decisions that are taken on a regular basis under the act is the possibility of an unintended legal interpretation that in fact the right or the implementation act applies only in those areas.

Again, we look forward to discussing this further. We absolutely expect and intend the implementation framework to include the discussion of issues, including air pollution, but again, there are some legislative considerations associated with specifically identifying some but not all of the many decisions that need to be addressed in the implementation framework.