Environment Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2022

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

Thank you.

As I said earlier, vulnerable populations, and including racialized communities, may be disproportionately exposed to or negatively impacted by harmful substances due to factors such as health status, socio-economic status, geography and cultural practices.

In order to address these issues, it is important to understand actual exposure from multiple substances from different sources, to which Canadians are exposed daily. As introduced, Bill S-5 proposed amendments to CEPA that would require the government to consider vulnerable populations and cumulative effects when assessing risks where information is available.

Senate amendments added a requirement to consider vulnerable environments. Gathering authorities under CEPA would allow the government to obtain information on vulnerable populations and cumulative effects if additional information is needed to inform risk assessment.

Amendments to CEPA would also require the government to conduct research in biomonitoring, which may relate to vulnerable populations. Research in biomonitoring would facilitate generating additional data on how exposure to harmful substances impacts vulnerable populations.

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

Thank you.

I think I have a couple of minutes left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. You have just about 15 seconds, unfortunately.

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

I'll pass. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry about that.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here, as the COP15 is getting underway and you surely have a lot to do.

My questions are on the right to a healthy environment.

As you certainly know already, the UN called on all states to take bold measures and recognize the legal right to a healthy environment. The bill we are studying today introduces this right, to a certain extent, in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. However, the bill includes it in the legislation’s preamble, which does not carry the same weight as including it in the body of the text. For example, in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, this right is specifically included in one of the articles.

Do you think that adding this right to the legislation’s preamble corresponds to what the international community is currently calling for?

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

Thank you very much for the question, Ms. Pauzé.

I’m very happy to be here with you today, even though COP15 is imminent.

As I said in my opening remarks, including this right in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a first. I think the fact that it’s included in the preamble takes nothing away from the scope of this right. As I was saying to your colleague, Ms. Thompson, all of the tools available under the Act will serve to implement this right.

Once the bill passes, we will allow a two-year period to really hammer out its implementation. That’s not at all unusual. The bill defines the scope, and then regulations define its implementation or execution. It’s not unusual to proceed this way.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Minister, not only the Bloc Quebecois, but also many other organizations think that this right will have a great deal less weight if it’s included in the preamble. Furthermore, in a 1991 study, the Library of Parliament proposed an idea to make this right quasi-constitutional. Ms. Paule Halley, an environmental law expert, also raised this idea more specifically, suggesting that this right have quasi-constitutional scope. However, Bill S‑5 proposes a different approach.

Don’t you think that it would have been much more worthwhile for the public to have a meaningful right to a healthy environment?

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

Ms. Pauzé, the public will truly have the right to a healthy environment once Bill S‑5 is passed. Let me reiterate that all the tools currently in the CEPA will serve to implement the right to a healthy environment.

In my opinion, the amendments you and, in some cases, the Senate, proposed allow for a number of significant improvements. Earlier, we talked about vulnerable populations with your colleague Ms. Thompson. That is an extremely important improvement to environmental law in Canada.

I said it earlier and let me reiterate it now: we are entirely prepared to examine all the amendments that you and your colleagues propose to make the bill as effective as possible.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We will indeed have a few amendments to propose.

I was very pleased to hear you say in your opening remarks earlier that teams were already at work reforming the law and that some things were in progress. We also talked about this at a meeting in December 2021.

You also explained why this had to come from the Senate, and that was very relevant. Senators started reviewing the bill in February and I believe they finished in June. After weeks of study, testimony and reflection, the Senators were nonetheless unhappy with how quickly they had to work. While a rigorous process is what is needed, a number of observers have trouble understanding the committee's timelines right now.

Before me I have written communications from Prevent Cancer Now, from Mr. Castrilli, who appeared before your committee, and from the head of Canadian Educators for Safe Technology. They urge us to take the time needed, 20 years later, to make sure the process is rigorous. Right now, though, we are being pushed to work fast.

What do you have to say to all the people calling us and sending us emails to say the process is moving too quickly?

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

I think the Senate has heard from a number of those organizations. I imagine that you have before you, as do I, the list of all the organizations and individuals heard by the Senate. It appears the timelines are different for the House, for procedural reasons. Honestly, I think the Senate took its time making these amendments...

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have to stop you there, unfortunately.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the minister for being here.

I would argue that your comments about the robustness of the current enforcement mechanisms in CEPA are incorrect. We clearly need to update CEPA enforcement.

I did want to ask you specifically about labelling hazardous substances and consumer products. In my opinion, we need mandatory labelling, something that provides information on hazardous substances and products and ensures greater transparency for the right to know for consumers.

I also want to note that I spoke to the executive director of the Women's Healthy Environments Network, who spoke very persuasively about the need to have specific labelling when products have a disproportionate impact on women and other vulnerable populations.

Talcum powder has been linked to ovarian cancer, yet there's no label warning consumers, especially women and people with ovaries, about the potential and disproportionate harm.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we could improve this bill to ensure mandatory labelling in order to protect consumers.

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

As I said earlier to MP Pauzé, this is a first iteration in the modernization of CEPA that we want to do, but there are other amendments we would want to bring forward further down the road. I thought that trying to change everything that needed to be changed after 20 years in one bill would be a very perilous operation. Proceeding in stages is more prudent.

As you know, we are in that process. We've held joint consultations on labelling with Health Canada—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a short amount of time, and I did want to ask you about safer substitution.

Many Canadians are worried about risk management actions that simply replace one harmful substance with another. Risk management actions should lead to the use of safer or more sustainable alternatives.

Don't you think that this bill should prompt a shift from a reactive chemicals management regime to a more proactive model of protection?

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

We're doing just that, but if you have specific amendments you would like to see brought forward on this particular element, my team and I, and Environment and Climate Change Canada, will be happy to consider them.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I also want to ask about ambient air quality. You mentioned it in your statement, but in the legislation.... Ambient air quality is one of the things that impact vulnerable populations the most. We've heard from first nations leaders and folks in Chemical Valley about the horrific impacts of excessive levels of toxic substances in our air.

Can you speak to the reason it wasn't included in this bill?

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

I would disagree with your characterization of the amendments we're proposing.

We're proposing, for the first time ever, to look at vulnerable populations. We're proposing to look at cumulative effects. As you know, the air quality management system is a collaborative system that was set up in 2012 under which federal, provincial, and territorial governments all agreed to specific roles and responsibilities.

We are operating within this framework, but I think that the amendments proposed by either the government or the Senate will represent significant progress on the issue of air quality and air quality management.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Reading through it, it isn't very clear, in my mind, whether that is the case. I hope the implementation framework will clarify that, but I don't see this in the bill itself.

I also want to ask about subclause 2(6).

Nature Canada has been adamant that unless we change the current rules—that is, both the act and the regulations under it—we're going to see more genetically engineered organisms escaping into the wild. In their words, “With nature already on the ropes, wild species do not need this new threat to their survival.”

They have proposed a number of amendments. I want to highlight a couple of these. One of them is around consultation with indigenous communities.

Given that Canada was the first country to have genetically modified salmon eaten by consumers, sometimes without their knowledge, and the importance of salmon to so many first nations—especially where I live, on the west coast of the Salish Sea—do you agree we need to update subclause 2(6) to ensure that this kind of consultation is happening and that there is an opportunity for the public to participate in these assessments more broadly?

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

In fact, consultations are already under way on the regulatory update regarding this, so we're not waiting for the—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Just so the minister knows, the new substance notification regulations do not provide for regulations respecting public involvement in these assessments or decisions that allow the manufacture, use or import of new living organisms. That review won't actually address these concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 15 seconds.

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

I disagree with your characterization.

As I said, we are holding consultations, including with indigenous people, on this issue and others. I was talking about labelling a few minutes ago. We are looking at many aspects to improve this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

The minister has a hard stop.

I'm going to what I'll call the 20% discount on the second round, which is four minutes and two minutes.

We'll start with Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, Minister Guilbeault.

This is the first time you have appeared before the committee since the recent change in membership among my Conservative colleagues. We are here to acknowledge your efforts and to see if we agree with what you are saying.

First, I want to talk about what you addressed in your opening comments.

You talked about the amendments made in the Senate and how they don't fulfill what's required in the bill. Can you quickly give us some examples of what you think we might need to change in order to make sure this bill works well?