Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Dr. David Boyd]

There has been that tension, as there is on every issue in Canada between the provinces and the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Understood.

[Dr. David Boyd]

In some provinces, there are legally binding air quality standards. The problem is that those standards are not consistently legally binding across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Dr. Boyd. It's always a pleasure to listen to you.

It's been wonderful to listen to all the witnesses. You've prepared us well for the clause-by-clause segment of this study of the bill, which will begin on Friday. Thank you for being here.

We'll take a brief pause, and we'll continue with our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Welcome to our second panel.

We have with us Franny Ladell Yakelashek and Rupert Yakelashek. I take it you're related. They are youth environmental rights activists.

From Breast Cancer Action Quebec, we have Jennifer Beeman and Dr. Lise Parent; and from Cosmetics Alliance Canada, we have Darren Thomas Praznik.

We'll start with Franny Yakelashek, for three minutes, please.

[Franny Ladell Yakelashek, As an Individual]

Hello. It is an honour to be speaking to you today from the Lekwungen-speaking peoples' homelands in the city of Victoria.

Our names are Franny and Rupert, and we're 15 and 18 years old. We are not climate scientists, industry leaders or policy experts, but we are engaged citizens who care about the environment and environmental rights.

[Rupert Yakelashek, As an Individual]

When I was 10 and my sister was 7, we learned that more than 100 countries around the world have recognized their citizens' right to live in a healthy environment, but Canada is not one of them. Having grown up believing that Canada was an environmental and human rights leader, we believed our rights were protected. We were confused and disappointed.

Although we were young, we felt it was our responsibility to work to help create the country we wanted, needed and deserved, so we began our journey raising awareness about environmental rights and making social and political change wherever we could.

For the last nine years, we have been working with all levels of Canadian government to encourage them to formally recognize environmental rights. We helped support 23 municipal declarations in our region, and I've been working with local and provincial political leaders around provincial and federal recognition of environmental rights.

When we were young, we thought we were so lucky growing up in Victoria, where there is so much natural beauty and we felt so safe. As we grew older, we realized that we weren't immune to feeling or experiencing the impacts of unsafe environmental conditions.

It's overwhelming thinking about all of the problems in the world, or even in our own country, so we like to focus on solutions. We believe that adding environmental rights to Canadian law will give individuals, vulnerable populations, communities and their local environment the ability to be healthier and more secure, and we believe it would benefit Canada by adding to its global reputation.

[Franny Ladell Yakelashek]

Times have changed since we first learned about environmental rights. Environmental rights awareness has increased. People are talking about it and we hear about it in the news, but during this time, the environmental situation has become more dire. Most people in Canada have been touched by some kind of environmental disaster in recent years. It only makes sense why so many young people feel overwhelmed and powerless or have lost hope. Like many of my peers, I suffer from eco-anxiety. Every day I worry about pollution, plastics, species loss, the climate crisis, flooding, wildfires, our air, our water and more.

Working toward a healthier and more sustainable future gives me hope. Having the Canadian government consider taking the historic step of adding environmental rights to Canadian law for the first time gives me hope too. It is important to us that the next generation of Canadians grows up in a country where the rights to clean water, clean air and healthy food are protected by Canadian law, and where the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been modernized.

Finally, the world is ruled by adults, but it will be the youth who inherit the consequences of the decisions made here. We sit here before you, asking you to take steps for a safer and healthier future.

Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. That's right on time at three minutes.

We'll go now to Ms. Beeman.

[Jennifer Beeman, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action Quebec]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We thank the committee for this invitation and for your important deliberations.

Breast Cancer Action works in collaboration with a wide range of groups across Canada but particularly with the women’s health and environmental groups in Quebec. Our 11 organizations think it is vital to put the specific relationship of women to toxics into these deliberations.

Women as a gender carry a heavy load in trying to negotiate how to reduce toxic exposures for our own health and that of our families, particularly our children, but this heavy load is much heavier for racialized women.

In addition, there is a vast range of sex-specific effects from toxic exposures that include increased risk for early-onset puberty, fibroids, endometriosis and hormone-dependent cancers, particularly breast cancer, to name just a few.

The issue of toxic exposures during pregnancy is one of the worst vulnerabilities that women and people with ovaries have to manage as the people responsible for the health of the developing fetus. Pregnancy is an absolutely critical window of vulnerability for the fetus to toxic chemicals with potentially lifelong effects. These include serious neurological disorders, malformations to the reproductive system for both sexes, important effects on metabolism and much else.

Finally, for all these health risks, endocrine-disrupting chemicals are of particular concern because they can cause harm at infinitesimally small doses, meaning that no safe threshold can be established for risk management.

There is an inherent problem in our risk-based system in that it requires there be exposure to toxic chemicals before risk management actions are assessed and implemented. The system requires people in Canada and the environment to be exposed to toxics before action is taken.

The question of confidence in our chemicals management in Canada has rightfully been identified as a major issue. People, particularly women, are always shocked when they learn that substances go into use before they are fully assessed for their health and environmental impacts.

Transparency is the first step to re-establishing confidence in our chemicals management. To be clear, women do not want transparency so that we can choose to not buy products with toxic chemicals. We need transparency so that companies assume responsibility for the substances they use, so that government is accountable to citizens for the actions it takes or doesn’t take, and so that scientists and independent advocacy groups can study the data and make recommendations to government. Right now, we are in the dark on all these issues.

In terms of Bill S-5, we understand there will be more to do to modernize CEPA, but there are appreciable steps forward for the sections it addresses, and, with strengthening amendments, it would move CEPA forward with a significant update. These amendments would include, among others, mandatory labelling of harmful substances, mandatory timelines for assessments, as well as a strong implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I was remiss in forgetting to mention that Dr. Lise Parent, professor, is with us also from Breast Cancer Action Quebec.

We'll go now to Mr. Praznik for three minutes.

[Darren Praznik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Darren Praznik and I'm president and CEO of Cosmetics Alliance Canada. We represent the cosmetics and personal care products industry in Canada.

After listening to so many of the other presenters here today, I can tell you I'm not here today to speak on many of the very important issues that they addressed. I'm here to deal with something much more mundane, which is how the act is actually implemented and carried through to encourage compliance.

I want to start off, first of all, by saying that we have been actively engaged in the CEPA process for well over a decade, since its inception. We are fully supportive of CEPA and the kind of evaluation of substances that have been in commerce and are new, which go into the products we make and others make. As other presenters have indicated, certainly a substance should be safe for both human health and the environment.

We support CEPA. We support the reform under this act. We supported it when it was introduced in the principle. Some amendments have been made that you'll be considering.

Of the amendments coming out of the Senate, the one that specifically gave us concern was clause 67.1, which calls for review of products on the basis of whether or not there was compliance with imports versus manufactured. I think it was premised on an erroneous bit of information. Products have to meet the same standard whether they're imported or manufactured in Canada. We don't think clause 67.1 really does anything, and the department of trade is not the appropriate mechanism. I've included some comments in my brief on how to make it more effective, if you choose not to eliminate it but to amend it.

The other issue I wanted to flag in my comments with respect to implementation and the encouragement of compliance—which I think everyone agrees is important—is that there are some fundamental principles and one of them is “best placed act”. I can't argue that enough, simply because when you create regulations under two sets of acts that apply to a product, whether they be on labelling or others, you create confusion. You're going to get contradictory requirements. We're already seeing some of that now. The environment department has started to create almost a second set of regulations over the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. It's leading to certain circumstances where things are just not working well and they're not supporting good compliance practices.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the committee, in my remaining time, that under CUSMA, these principles are recognized for cosmetics. I would flag, on page 3 of my document, four particular articles in CUSMA. One recognizes that each party under CUSMA “shall avoid adopting or maintaining unnecessarily duplicative...requirements with respect to cosmetic products”. The second is that each party shall use “a risk-based approach” for cosmetics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we're out of time.

[Darren Praznik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada]

They're there for people to read.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to our committee.

Mr. Praznik, you're in the heart of our thinking when we see Bill S-5 because you're in the business where your product is in direct contact with people.

First of all, let's talk about the watch-list. I think you have some concern with that. Can you explain your position on that?

[Darren Praznik]

To some degree, it's been argued that the watch-list is kind of like the whole SNAc process of warning, etc. Some in industry are worried about it.

I speak as a former regulatory minister for Manitoba, where I was responsible for several departments. If a list is flagging a substance for which there may be matters of concern that require further investigation—I'm talking primarily not about new substances that require review, but substances that have been in commerce for some time—flagging it on kind of a yellow-light watch-list tells people that more work may be necessary and that it's being watched for evolving science, etc.

If it's used effectively and appropriately, I think it could be a valuable tool. If, however, it just becomes a way of flagging something for which there hasn't yet been a conclusion and that negatively taints it without evidence, that would be a problem.

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

Your industry obviously is a global industry. Do you have any examples in the world that can be inspiration for us when we talk about watch-lists?

[Darren Praznik]

Pardon me. I wasn't able to hear you.

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

Your business is a global business. My question is, do you know any country that could be inspirational for us about watch-lists? We will have a watch-list, but do you have a country that can be a guide for us?

[Darren Praznik]

No. I'm not necessarily aware of one. I think the issue with the watch-list has been one of fear about how it will be used. As I indicated in my presentation, if it's used as a yellow light for watching existing chemicals, it could be useful. If it's used as a pre-emptive red light or a pre-emptive green light, then it wouldn't be really fulfilling the purpose that I think would be reasonable.

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

Let's talk about what is written in Bill S-5. We raised the issue that there are some duplications in this bill, especially in terms of your concerns as an industry. You raised the fact that there is some confusion right now. Do you think this bill can clear the air, or will it do exactly the reverse?

[Darren Praznik]

To some degree, my comments are pre-emptive. There has been some proposal to do an additional labelling requirement. I'm referencing finished consumer and health products. If you create a second labelling regime, Health Canada already has mandatory ingredient labelling for our products using an international nomenclature. They already have the ability to put warnings, etc., on our products. All the tools are there to represent any concerns that people may have.

We've also been very strong with Health Canada in promoting digital labelling, which allows you to provide a lot more information, some of which has been requested by other presenters here today. You could add that information through a digital label to provide more information to consumers rather than add it to the product label, which would just increase product size and environmental issues.

We've had concerns around some additional labelling requirements that have been proposed that might come through amendment, but if you talk about duplication, I can say this. We worked very strongly under the Harper government with a New Democrat MP, Mr. Masse, to bring about the ban on plastic microbeads. That had the unanimous support of the House of Commons. It was enacted through CEPA. We requested, with Mr. Masse, that it be added to the cosmetic ingredient hot list so that every importer and every manufacturer would know that it's there. Well, the silos, Health Canada and Environment Canada, said they couldn't do that, so it's in two separate places. We've recently had companies, not our members, call us to say that they've been caught with plastic microbeads in their products. They didn't know. They checked the Health Canada list and it wasn't on.

It kind of shows that the act is important, but if you don't focus on the specificity of how you implement it and encourage compliance, you're not going to get the level that I think everyone appearing before this committee wants to see.

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

That's very interesting. At the end of the day, who won this? Was it Health Canada that got it?

[Darren Praznik]

I think what we're looking for is that there wouldn't be duplicative labelling requirements put on finished consumer products. Certainly, under CUSMA, that would be contrary to the commitments of the Government of Canada, endorsed by the Parliament of Canada, for cosmetic products. Most importantly, I think we need to see a commitment from Environment Canada to work with Health Canada and sort this out so that administratively we have one-stop shopping for this information. Every importer and every manufacturer could go to one place and get the information in the ingredient language they're familiar with in order to be able to ensure compliance.