Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Dr. David Boyd]

Sure. As you know, honourable member, the previous version of this bill, which was amended by the Senate, included specific references to balancing this right with social, cultural and economic factors. That provision was unprecedented in the world, actually, in terms of limiting the scope of this right. I've read every constitutional provision, every legislative provision and every human rights treaty provision related to the right to have a healthy environment. That provision was an unprecedentedly narrow circumscribing of the right. I give credit to the Senate for removing that phrase from Bill S-5.

The phrase “reasonable limits prescribed by law” comes directly from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and represents something that we do with all human rights. Human rights are not absolute. There's always a balancing involved.

I think that's perfectly legitimate wording for the right.

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

Thank you.

Earlier this year, there was a UN General Assembly resolution that expanded it from a right to a healthy environment to a right to “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment”. You've recommended that it be adopted as part of this legislation.

I was hoping you could explain to this committee how that would differ from simply saying it's a right to a healthy environment.

[Dr. David Boyd]

It simply provides a bit of additional clarity and a bit of additional breadth in terms of the right. As I've provided in my written brief, these words have clear and widely accepted definitions. All three of these adjectives—“clean”, “healthy” and “sustainable”—have been used by different nations around the world in their articulation of the right to a healthy environment. As well, those adjectives have been in use by the United Nations in its work on human rights and the environment over the course of the past decade.

I feel that it just provides a consistent and clear articulation of what we are actually trying to protect in this case.

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

Thank you.

Bill S-5 outlines new principles to be considered in the implementation of the act, including environmental justice, vulnerable populations, non-regression, and intergenerational equity.

Based on the line of questioning from my colleague, Mr. McLean, in your opinion, should this committee seek to define these different areas or are they better left untouched to have evergreen definitions or to be articulated and interpreted by the courts?

[Dr. David Boyd]

I think it would be useful to have definitions for phrases like “environmental justice” and “intergenerational equity”. Certainly that's something that would be useful in terms of being included in the definition section of CEPA.

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

Thank you.

You were also mentioning in your opening—you ran out of time—that for the right to be effective, it must have a remedy. I'd just like to give you the opportunity to expand on that thought.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Thanks very much.

I was just going to say that in sections 17 through 22 of CEPA there is an enforcement action provision. It has never been used, so clearly it's not working. In 2016, the standing committee took a close look at those sections and, in recommendations 30 through 34 of their 2017 report, recommended some steps that could be taken to actually make it workable.

There are countries around the world that are similar to Canada, like Australia and the United States, that have workable citizen suit provisions. I think that some changes definitely need to be made to CEPA to provide an accountability mechanism that is actually not just on paper, but is functional.

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

Unfortunately, certain parts of this bill haven't been opened up. There are limits on what we can do with things being in and out of order, but one thing that is going to be open is the creation of a new implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment.

You mentioned in your opening the challenge when we don't have mandatory ambient air quality standards across the country. I was hoping you could maybe comment on that.

Should that be included as part of this implementation framework? Perhaps you might have other ideas for how we can strengthen the implementation framework as part of this legislation.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Thank you.

It's quite striking that Canada is one of the few industrialized nations in the world that do not have legally binding and enforceable ambient air quality standards. The U.S. has had them for more than 50 years, and they've contributed greatly to improvements in air quality in the United States.

I think it's also important for this committee to recognize that Health Canada estimates that air pollution kills over 15,000 Canadians each year, causes millions of asthma symptom days and tens of millions of acute respiratory symptom days, and inflicts over $120 billion in socio-economic costs on the Canadian economy.

Air pollution is a major problem for Canada. It was recommended by the committee back in 2017 that Canada develop legally binding ambient air quality standards. That hasn't happened since then, and it's not in the current bill.

I did note a submission by a coalition of environmental organizations, which I thought was quite creative. It said that the implementation strategy should be amended to include a requirement for action when air quality standards are being exceeded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Boyd.

I'm being told that Ms. Vandelac is now online. We'll hear her opening remarks, and then, we'll continue with Ms. Pauzé.

Welcome, Ms. Vandelac. You have three minutes.

[Dr. Louise Vandelac, Founder and Director, Collectif de recherche écosanté sur les pesticides, les politiques et les alternatives]

Good afternoon.

I want to start by thanking the committee for having me. I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief comments on Bill S‑5.

This bill interests me in more ways than one. First and foremost, I am a research professor in overall environmental health, and I work under the “one health” model. I am also an environmental sciences professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal's institute of environmental sciences. It was established in 1972 and was the first-ever program in environmental sciences in Canada, if not North America. I have also been researching the bio-technosciences for more than 30 years. I've been involved in plant, animal and fish transgenesis, including genetically modified salmon beginning in 1987‑88 and genetically modified pork, as well as nanotechnology research. Right now, we have research projects focused on agriculture 4.0. Lastly, I head up a team of about 40 researchers working on pesticides, policies and pesticide alternatives.

The COP 15 conference on biodiversity is getting under way today in Montreal. With that in mind, I think it's important to examine Bill S‑5 through the lens of accelerating climate and biodiversity degradation. The issue now goes beyond a single organism or toxic ingredient. It's broader than that. It has to do with how our policies and economic models push us across the planetary boundaries, bringing us closer to the dreaded tipping point.

In a December 2 report, the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development, or OECD, says that crossing the earth's tipping points will have severe impacts on the earth. The OECD, which usually adopts a more moderate tone, is calling for unprecedented, immediate and ambitious action. In other words, it's time to look at issues more broadly than we do now.

A number of the earth's nine planetary boundaries involve our intensive food system, which is responsible for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. Those boundaries have already been crossed, including nitrogen and phosphorus flows. We are on our way to crossing others, including the release of novel entities such as pesticides, plastics and new living organisms. This reality requires much more careful examination.

I want to make three quick points, seeing as I don't have much time.

First, it is entirely appropriate that Bill S‑5 seeks to “recognize that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment” and to “provide that the Government of Canada must protect that right”. However, that means putting in place independent and interdisciplinary mechanisms for scientific evaluation. France did that with its agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Vandelac. Unfortunately, I have to stop you there. You will have an opportunity to share more of your thoughts and views when you're answering questions.

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

Very good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Now we go to Ms. Pauzé for questions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Vandelac. It's an honour to have you as a witness.

You said there were three things we needed to take into account. You mentioned one, but I'm going to give you some time to discuss the other two.

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

The second point has to do with living organisms, referred to as animate products of biotechnology, which departments assess to determine whether they are or could be toxic. Given the pace of change in the agriculture 4.0 world and the proliferation of living novel entities and the risks they pose, it's time to examine these issues at a much broader level.

Disclosure and confidentiality is something that has come up a lot in the committee's discussions. I think those sections have more to do with protecting companies than with ensuring transparency, which is vital in order to protect public and environmental health. Profound changes are needed to shift the burden of proof in the public's favour and uphold the rule of law more effectively.

It is ironic, to say the least, that the bill places so much emphasis on confidentiality, when—as I'm sure you know—millions of pages of internal documents like the Monsanto papers have been declassified in the United States, where sensational trials have revealed very troubling manoeuvres to hide how toxic certain products are. The Monsanto case culminated in a $10.9‑billion out-of-court settlement.

One thing is certain: in Canada, the current situation around access to information is problematic. As researchers, we bear the brunt of that. We submit access to information requests to obtain basic information on available pesticides, only to receive documents that are completely redacted. That is totally inappropriate considering that these pesticides have been linked to health problems such as Parkinson's disease.

My third and final point has to do with carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins and substances that pose other risks, which should raise the highest level of concern.

In reading all the provisions on toxicity, I was struck by the irony of it all. Even though the bill was meant as a response to a very specific context, the bill, in its current form, does nothing to address that context. It is wrong that numerous pesticides, recognized as being carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive and other types of toxins—pesticides with recognized links to occupational diseases—do not appear in Bill S‑5.

Pesticide use has doubled since 1988, increasing from 2.3 million to 4 million tonnes. Nearly 80 million tonnes of highly toxic pesticides are still exported to many countries around the world, where 385 million incidents of poisoning a year kill 11,000 people annually.

Those are troubling facts, and Canada needs to act. Canada is way behind many other countries when it comes to pesticides authorized for use.

I will conclude with target 7 of the COP 15 convention on biodiversity: to reduce pesticide use by 60%. This bill may not deal with the issue, but parliamentarians will have to eventually. Thank you.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Vandelac.

Pesticides are precisely what I want to discuss. Critics of stricter environmental protection legislation argue that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency will be the one subject to scrutiny when the time comes to talk pesticides. The Department of Health, however, is directly involved in Bill S‑5 and the entire act.

Pesticides are directly linked to the loss of global biodiversity, in addition to causing serious health problems. COP 15 is taking place, and Canada doesn't look good.

Why do we need to put the precautionary principle front and centre when it comes to this aspect of the act?

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

Not only is it important for the act to capture the precautionary principle, but it's also important to undertake a comparative analysis that takes into account a number of other countries.

A total of 460 pesticide active ingredients are prohibited in 162 countries, but only 29 of them are prohibited in Canada. Out of 144 pesticide active ingredients deemed highly hazardous, only 23 are prohibited in Canada. The European Union has banned 175 pesticide active ingredients, and has not approved 208 others. Of those 383 pesticide active ingredients, 355 are still authorized for use in Canada.

A look at the data as a whole shows how behind Canada is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Vandelac. I gave you a bit more time to make up for the technical difficulties you had.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first questions are for Nature Canada.

In our last committee with the minister and his officials, I raised the issue of the inadequacy of public participation when it comes to new genetically modified organisms that have wild counterparts. The minister and the officials argued that the review of regulations could address this.

I'm curious about your thoughts on that.

[Mark Butler]

Thank you for your question.

As you heard, when GE salmon was first approved, the public knew almost nothing about it. There was no notification and very little transparency.

After this committee reviewed that, as a case study, there was a recommendation for improved consultation. The department introduced an initiative called the “voluntary public engagement initiative”, but it's entirely voluntary, and that's the problem.

I don't know whether you want to add to that, Hugh.

[Hugh Benevides, Legislative Advisor, Nature Canada]

Thanks, Mark.

At Nature Canada's recommendation, in the Senate, the amendment to section 114 was passed, which would allow the government to prescribe “processes for meaningful public participation”. If that clause stands, we can include those rules when the regulations are reviewed, and we'll be ready for the next GE animal.

If we eliminate that clause, we won't be ready and we'll have to wait for the next CEPA bill to come forward. We need that clause in there, and we need rules to lay out how public participation will take place in the act.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you describe for the committee why, without that important proposed section 114, these regulations wouldn't be able to address the problem of inadequate public participation?

[Hugh Benevides]

Without our amendments, including those, we won't be able to prevent pollution through the means of greater scrutiny, which, as Dr. Vandelac suggested, is sorely needed.

The public needs notice in advance that an animal is being proposed. They need access to all the relevant information, including the fact that waivers were requested. The rules need to spell out how participation will occur. They need to broadly include the public. A parallel process for indigenous peoples needs to be in place.

I have to point out that the timelines in play, under the relevant regulations, will be a real problem. I think it's up to 120 days. Now, we're going to add public participation, which must still fall within that. That's not going to be adequate.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Previous witnesses have expressed concern about the language of “vertebrate animals”. Where does Nature Canada stand on the use of that language in the act?