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.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Yes. Thanks.
I want to acknowledge that former environment minister Leona Aglukkaq, in the Harper years, did quite a bit of work, I think, in terms of some of the initial work that both you and your predecessors inherited.
I want to ask something that is—
2 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Okay. She was a great minister. I can assure you of that.
Minister, we heard specifically from stakeholders within the agricultural community about some of the other acts related to pharmaceuticals and agriculture food and safety that take guidance from CEPA.
I'm wondering if you can provide comment as to whether, internally, the work put into the background of this bill has included ensuring that the wide, sweeping effects that are somewhat indirectly related to impacts have been included in the drafting of this legislation.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
One would have to define what you mean by “wide, sweeping effects”, but I can assure you that we've worked on the proposed bill with many different departments, including health, agriculture and a number of government departments. In fact, we have some of those colleagues on the line here with us.
2 p.m.
Liberal
2 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the Minister for being with us and for hanging on for a few minutes with us.
I think it is important that we maintain the risk-based approach to our decision-making and keep science as a foundation of what we're working on.
You mentioned in your comments avoiding the call for a demonstrable need for new living organisms. I think of the work that the University of Guelph does in research using CRISPR technology and other gene-editing platforms to improve life through genetic streams. The antimicrobial CRISPR-Cas9 system they're using is an example of trying to improve the life of animals and defending against antimicrobial resistance in their genes, since we consume animals when we're eating.
Given the complexity of this issue, as well as some of what Ms. Collins brought forward, how is the government addressing the issues relating to genetically modified organisms?
2 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Part 6 of CEPA provides a framework to regulate the assessment and management of new living organisms, including genetically modified organisms. As you know, on October 13 of this year, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada launched consultations to help determine how the new substance notification regulations for organisms can better protect human health and the environment through increased openness and transparency in both risk assessment and the regulatory decision-making process.
In the face of what is clearly a rapidly evolving biotechnology sector, I think that the public engagement process will really help to modernize the regulations and encourage innovation in the biotech sector while we ensure that human health and the environment are protected from harmful substances. That's the balance that we try to strike in section 6 and in the overall CEPA amendments that we're proposing.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks.
It will be interesting to see how that public engagement process rolls out. I know that there will be a lot of attention on that pertaining to CEPA.
We've also heard testimony about creating a second list of items of concern with no actions associated with these items, that so-called watch-list, and how the connections to other parts of the act create some redundancies. I'm wondering about that watch-list. You mentioned it in your speech. Could you expand on how that list is going to be managed?
2 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Currently departments publicly explain findings related to substances of potential concern, hazards associated with a substance, for example, and track any follow-up actions taken on that substance; however, there is no easy-to-access public list of substances of potential concern that consolidates the follow-up actions for these substances.
The watch-list is intended to address this information and transparency gap. The watch-list will increase transparency and facilitate informed substitution by clearly communicating to stakeholders and Canadians, generally speaking, about substances that could meet the CEPA toxic criteria in the future, for example, if new uses of the substance emerge or if the potential for exposure increases. It will allow stakeholders and the public to make informed decisions regarding which substances they may choose to avoid—
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. I think we're going to have to more or less stop there.
Thank you, Minister, for making the time today and even giving us a little bit of extra time. We appreciate that and we'll see you again in the future, no doubt.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Minister Guilbeault.
We will take a short break and then begin the second hour of the meeting, when we will have the opportunity chance to ask departmental officials some questions.
Thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The minister has left, and we have opportunities to question the ministry's representatives.
We'll start with Mr. Benzen for six minutes.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
That was a really good hour with the minister. He answered a lot of the questions that I was going to ask. I think I'll ask them again to see if the witnesses here can elaborate a little bit on them.
Let's start with the watch-list. Can you briefly explain how new substances are put onto the watch-list?
December 2nd, 2022 / 2:05 p.m.
Laura Farquharson Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Perhaps I'll go. Maybe John is not available right now, so I can start.
The watch-list is one of the options at the end of having assessed a substance to determine whether there is a harm to the environment or to human health. There are four options after that.
It can be put on schedule 1, and one of the options in there is that it could be put on the watch-list. The idea there is that this would be one of the ways the watch-list would be used. If after assessment it is determined that the properties of the substance are hazardous but that the exposure is such that there is no risk at this time such that it would be put on schedule 1 to be managed formally, then that could be put on the watch-list. The watch-list is a consolidated list of substances basically giving the notice that these substances are not toxic at this time but may be reassessed and be found to be toxic if, for example, exposure changes.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
In the future, after some research has been done and new data has been collected, is there going to be an off-ramp for some of these substances to be removed from the watch-list when they would not be a concern anymore?
2:10 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, I think that would be the idea. We would keep that list current.
If, for example, the substance was reassessed and was put on schedule 1, you would take it off the watch-list. If it were reassessed and found to not be of concern—although I'm not sure that happens—then yes, it would come off the watch-list too.
Policy will be developed to be clear about the criteria.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
The minister was talking about how we've looked at 98% of the chemical substances and we're almost at 100%. It seems that process has been taking a long time. It's very slow.
With the changes we're making now to have this schedule 1 in two parts, is this new process going to be an improvement over the existing system for we assessment?
2:10 p.m.
John Moffet Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Maybe I can answer that.
I am John Moffet, the ADM at the environmental protection branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
There are two parts to your question. One is with respect to the 98% and the second is with respect to what we are improving.
First of all, in fact we're not slow. We are the fastest country in the world with respect to having assessed all of the substances in commerce in the 1980s. No other country has come close to our record.
We looked at all the substances in commerce and said that we don't have a regime to say that we can't use it until we prove they're safe because they're already here, so what are we going to do? Every country in the world has wrestled with the same issue. As I said, we have moved farther and faster than any other country in reviewing that stock of substances.
Notwithstanding the fact that we are almost all the way through that list, we recognize that the job is not done. It's not just because we have a small number of those substances left but because lots of new substances are being introduced and developed all the time. Some of them are being introduced and used in different manners.
We also know, as a result of evolving science, that substances can have different synergistic impacts when they're used together and when they're combined with other substances in the atmosphere, in the body or in products. We are now moving towards that more complex type of science. We're not just looking at individual substances, but a combination of substances and different uses of substances.
We're also, as the minister explained, putting much more emphasis on not just generic impacts, but on impacts across Canada and across different populations and peoples so that we pay close attention to the most vulnerable members of society.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Benzen Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Thank you for that answer.
I apologize if I meant “slow”. It sounds like we're very fast compared to other countries. I was only sort of thinking about “slow” in the sense that we have a lot of chemicals we're using, and if it takes a long time to assess them, there could be damage done because we haven't assessed them sooner. I just meant that in the general sense that we want to get it—