Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

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

That's pretty interesting.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

Ms. Taylor Roy is next.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to start with Franny and Rupert, if I may call you that. We've heard your testimony. Thank you for your work and for being here today.

You mentioned the importance of a right to a healthy environment. Clearly, it's something that we want to introduce in this bill. Do you feel that the way it's being proposed in this bill gives you hope? Is this adequate? Is it a good start? Do you have any specific recommendations or concerns around this?

[Rupert Yakelashek]

I can take that question.

As we said in our speech, we're not lawyers or anything. We're just people who care about the environment and who want Canada to have the level of environmental protection that we need. I think the amendments proposed are what we need for this to be what we need it to be.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Beeman, I'd like to go to you now, if I may. I've heard a lot of concerns from women's health groups in particular regarding carcinogenic agents. We've been talking about labelling. I know that some people have argued against mandatory labelling of toxic substances because it would impose prohibitive costs for little clear benefit. We've also heard the arguments that we don't need to put it into CEPA because of the “best-placed act” concept.

I just want to understand this from you: If we have these labelling requirements in other places, why are you suggesting that we have greater labelling requirements in CEPA? Do you think it would provide any additional benefits?

[Jennifer Beeman]

I can't say that.... Our experience comes from women's health, and much less in terms of the interaction of different acts.

The most important principle is for mandatory labelling to be at the top of the chain, in terms of sectors that are covered and what's required. I can't speak to the question of the best-placed act, but it can't be used as a reason not to move forward with mandatory labelling. “It would provide little good” is, I think, a very pernicious argument.

There's a whole ingredient transparency movement happening, particularly in the United States. We need to be part of this and work out the best place to put it. From our analysis, working with colleagues, that's in CEPA.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

We heard from Dr. Meg Sears from Prevent Cancer Now. She argued that we need certain language and definitions around toxic substances to be updated, in order to provide end points that offer clarity on the idea of adverse effects, particularly around endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A.

Can you elaborate on whether such language is necessary and why it's of particular import, through a women's health and feminist policy-making lens?

[Jennifer Beeman]

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are major issues regarding toxic regulations. They defy the risk-based management of toxic chemicals.

My colleague, Lise Parent, is better equipped to explain why you can't establish a safe threshold of exposure. That's the key element. I would ask Lise to explain why this is such a problem.

[Dr. Lise Parent, Full Professor, Breast Cancer Action Quebec]

Endocrine disruptors, such as bisphenol A, phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and perfluorooctanoic acid, among others, are substances that don't behave in the same way as the old substances we were working on.

These substances mimic hormones and can have effects, even if they are found at very low doses. Their effects also depend on what we call the window of vulnerability. For example, if someone my age is exposed to these substances, the effects won't be the same for them as for a young person or a child still in the womb.

What's important to remember is that, when we want to manage these substances and do risk assessment or risk management, we can't take into account all the exposure. This can be done for the use of cosmetics, for example, as was mentioned earlier. We can indeed have standards or restrictions for a use, but these substances are used in so many different products that they are part of our everyday objects. In other words, they are everywhere.

It's important to know that most of these substances didn't exist 40, 50 or 60 years ago. Now every being on the planet, including polar bears, has them in their blood and urine, which isn't normal. We must ensure that we're protected from global exposure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for giving us that fine explanation.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

First of all, I would like to congratulate Ms. Ladell Yakelashek and Mr. Yakelashek for their commitment. I would also encourage them to get involved in making sure that there are courses on the healthy environment on the school curriculum. Having said that, I don't have a question for them.

Ms. Beeman and Ms. Parent, thank you for being with us.

In your brief, you want the burden of proof to maintain the so-called corporate confidentiality to be on the requesting company. You also talk about mandatory disclosure or non-disclosure of substances under the Access to Information Act. I'd like you to talk about corporate accountability and transparency, or lack thereof.

[Jennifer Beeman]

Thank you for your question, which raises a challenge that we are very familiar with: you can't do anything to protect yourself from toxic substances if you don't have information about them.

When a company asks to have its product information declared commercially confidential, which is granted without asking for justification and assuming that the request is legitimate, that is very problematic. As other groups have said, according to audits by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, this is not legitimate in one third of cases.

In order to successfully reverse the burden of proof, the request for confidentiality must be justified. In that regard, it would be more prudent not to assume that the request will be automatically granted.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

They say that pollution prevention is discretionary and not mandatory. What do you have to say about the fact that the government decided in 1999, in Part 4 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to take a pollution reduction approach? This industry-led approach has kept substances in commerce and the environment.

[Jennifer Beeman]

Unfortunately, I don't know what you're referring to.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was referring to the 1999 act and trying to see if there is a way to change it so that it doesn't favour a pollution reduction approach.

I'm going to ask you another question related to what you sent us. You talked a lot about endocrine disrupters. This is in addition to the hundreds of studies that have been published on this.

What do you think should be the priority in the bill to protect human health, particularly that of women? I am talking about the risk of carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxins to the fertility of men and women.

[Jennifer Beeman]

Legislation's effectiveness depends on how it's applied.

We're very concerned about the department not meeting the timelines. Sometimes there are gaps between the preliminary and final assessments that make no sense, where the public is exposed to these substances. For triclosan, for example, eight years elapsed between the preliminary assessment and the publication of the final assessment.

So we need much more rigour and clear requirements. The government must be accountable for the work it has to do and make the information public. Canadians should have the right to know where assessments are at and how the government is working. This is a major concern right now.

It's somewhat as a result of your very interesting deliberations that we've seen the extent to which the department seems to be denying any responsibility for the information to be made public and the need for clear timelines.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In your brief, you talk about the importance of the right to a healthy environment, enshrined in the preamble of the bill. The proposed new section 5.1 of the bill states that “the Ministers shall, within two years … develop an implementation framework …”.

How do you think these famous principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity should be taken into account? Should we let the minister decide?

[Jennifer Beeman]

Our focus is a little more specific, and we are not the expert group on the right to a healthy environment.

However, I can tell you what we're concerned about. We need to be very clear that the right to a healthy environment includes the entire program of management, assessment and control of toxic substances. The implementation framework proposed in the bill would be critical to understanding that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.

My first few questions are for Franny and Rupert.

First of all, thank you so much for coming to the committee, and thank you for your years of advocacy for a right to a healthy environment.

You had only three minutes in your opening remarks, so I want to give you an opportunity to tell the committee a little more about your background, the work you have done, and anything that you weren't able to include in your opening statement.

[Franny Ladell Yakelashek]

Thank you so much for the question.

We started this journey many years ago at the municipal level when we learned that Canada does not recognize our right to a healthy environment. We wrote letters to the municipal candidates of the local municipal election to ask them to become champions for environmental rights. Many of them were elected and, at the first council meeting, Rupert and I made speeches, and they unanimously passed a declaration of environmental rights. We followed up by helping 23 more municipalities also make declarations of environmental rights.

After that, we turned our attention to the provincial and federal levels of government. We had countless meetings and wrote many letters to raise awareness about environmental rights. We also, around that time, had the opportunity to travel to Toronto and San Francisco to speak to business leaders and international youth leaders about environmental rights.

Also, over the years, we've been able to connect with the community over environmental rights on many occasions. We have done presentations to youth, community groups and schools. We've hosted Victoria Earth Day events. We've co-hosted environmental film screenings and done projects with the Victoria art gallery and the Royal BC Museum. As well as that, we've created materials to teach young people about environmental rights.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Franny, thank you so much.

Because we have only six minutes here, I want to ask you a couple more questions.

We've heard from a number of witnesses about the need to strengthen the right to a healthy environment. A couple of examples have been given. We have heard from indigenous leaders, who were asking to expand the right to future generations. We heard, in our last panel, Dr. Boyd talking about the need to ensure that the right isn't limited unduly by social and economic factors.

Would you support amendments to strengthen the right to a healthy environment to include future generations and to ensure that it's not limited in those ways?

[Franny Ladell Yakelashek]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I definitely would. It would give youth the message that our political leaders care about us and future generations. Having these laws updated to keep people healthy and to protect our air, water and food would give youth something to be hopeful about. To be honest, youth need to be hopeful right now because the future is looking pretty bleak, and youth need to feel security about their future. We need political leaders to step forward to show their support for youth, their health, their mental health and their future.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

I feel as though we need to take those words with us as we move forward.

Do you want to expand at all—you talked about eco-anxiety in your opening statement—on why it's so important to include youth's voices in these conversations?

[Franny Ladell Yakelashek]

Thank you for the question.

It's very important, because this is our future, and bringing youth to the table and addressing youth in regard to this is a very important part of the process.

Rupert, would you like to add anything?