Evidence of meeting #42 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 right.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
As Franny said, the decisions made today will impact generations into the future. The main purpose of adopting environmental rights is to protect the environment and the world into the future for future generations.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much.
My next questions are for Jennifer Beeman and Lise Parent.
I really appreciated your comments about mandatory labelling.
I also want to follow up on some of your comments about timelines. We've heard from a number of environmental groups arguing for set timelines on public requests for assessments, priority planning and finalizing substance assessments in CEPA. Can you speak a bit more about strengthening those areas?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action Quebec
Thank you for the question. It's a really important one.
As I said previously, a law is only as good as its application. The process of assessing and getting the risk management plans in place is essential. We're just seeing there have been cases of major lags and not getting things like a proper response to requests for information.
There need to be a series of amendments, particularly around timelines, but also on some other issues, because the government needs to be accountable to citizens for its work.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Our time is up, but I'll follow up in my next round of questions to give you some more time.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We're going into the second round, which is going to have to be a discount round. It's a 20% discount.
5:15 p.m.
A voice
Usually, you get more.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll have four minutes and two minutes.
We'll start with Mr. McLean.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you very much.
My first question will be for Mr. and Ms. Yakelashek again. Thank you very much for your input here today.
We've heard a lot of people suggest that we need to have the right to a healthy environment enshrined. We're debating whether that should be here or somewhere else.
You talked about going to 10 different countries, where you saw there was a right to a healthy environment. Can you tell us which countries those were and which ones you thought had a better environment than Canada as a result?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I, unfortunately, have not been able to travel to different countries to see environmental rights in action. However, I know that there are many countries where environmental rights are making a real difference in the lives of their citizens, such as Costa Rica.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you very much.
This, as I've said, is an important consideration that we have to take here with this bill. It is a right. Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In your opinion, would this be better placed in this single piece of legislation, or would it be better placed in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
5:15 p.m.
As an Individual
As I've said before, we're not environmental lawyers. This might be perhaps a question better asked of David Boyd.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Okay.
Thank you very much. I appreciate that as well.
Let me turn now to Mr. Praznik. I really appreciated your input here about CUSMA. It's the first time we've heard about the overlap that is going to result from this. CUSMA has already identified it as something that has to be streamlined, so that foreign entities don't need to go through two processes in order to get their products certified in Canada.
Interestingly, would you propose an amendment that would label a subsidiarity in Health Canada over the CEPA, or would there be superiority in this bill?
5:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada
Thank you for the question.
Under CUSMA, there's a cosmetics annex in the sectoral annexes that the Parliament of Canada endorsed. There were a number of principles with respect to how cosmetics are to be regulated. We're the only sector that has this provision in CUSMA.
They include not having duplicate regulations. You shouldn't have two sets of labelling requirements. Whatever you want to do in labelling should be under one set, for efficiency.
You should apply a risk-based system.
The parties use INCI, which are international nomenclatures that are known by consumers, importers and manufacturers. Using necessarily chemical codes and what have you to determine a substance isn't an easy way to recognize it for most consumer industries. This recognizes that as the important labelling provision for nomenclature.
It recognizes that cosmetics have a lot in common with drugs and natural health products. Toothpaste can be a drug, a cosmetic or a natural health product, and they should be regulated together.
These are the four guiding principles.
What we've asked is, if there is a provision inserted in this bill with respect to additional labelling requirements, it should exempt those products that already have mandatory ingredient labelling. If you have two sets of requirements, you're going to have different rules for size, font size and where they're located. How does anyone comply?
Again, that's the principle of the “best-placed act”. If you intend to add any of that to the bill, we think that you would want to exempt anybody now who is covered by another consumer product legislation that has labels—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Will you provide some language that would make that clear as to getting that superior legislation so that, once it's complied with, you don't have to jump through any of the hoops?
5:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada
We could, if you are interested.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Please send us some language, Mr. Praznik.
We will go to Mr. Longfield.
December 6th, 2022 / 5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, thanks to the Yakelasheks for being here. I have been a member of Parliament for seven years, and I think, first of all, we don't hear enough from youth. When we do, youth are so well spoken. You guys were just terrific today.
I met with my youth council last Monday night. Their biggest concern was the environment and the anxiety that surrounds environmental issues.
One of the things I want to ask you guys is, as we go forward and implement legislation, how can we bake into the implementation that we consult with youth voices? The second part of that question is, do you speak to other youth across Canada? I would love to have you as guest speakers to my youth council.
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
To quickly answer the second part, we have done various presentations and speaking engagements before.
To answer the first part of your question, we believe that, just because most youth aren't old enough to vote, it doesn't mean that they don't have a say. It doesn't mean that they don't have a say in the decisions that are being made by the governments that are affecting them, their futures and future generations.
I think it would be very good, as you said, to get more input from youth, especially with stuff like environmental rights and the CEPA amendments, which are going to be carried out into the future and have a huge impact on the way future generations live.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes, and youth voices are voices we need to hear. When we're talking about future generations, you're already here.
Thank you for participating today. I would love to spend more time with you, but we're on the short round, and I want to switch over to Mr. Praznik.
You mentioned trade agreements and Canada's competitiveness. We have heard other witnesses talk about confidential business information versus the public's right to know. As we're working in a global innovation sphere, how do we balance the public's right to know with confidential business information, knowing that businesses have a selection of countries they can deal with?
5:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada
Specifically for our industry, very little of the information we have is protected by patents or other copyright.
The real question for us is, if you're bringing a new substance, and you provide data, etc. for the regulator, no one has any problem with.... The regulator should see all of that. The issue comes in if you're getting an approval for a new substance, and your competitor then rides on the information that you have had to undertake and pay for. There's usually a two- or three-year period when they are prohibited from using that data, but they can recreate their own data and submit. That's usually, in the case of our industry, what we're looking for.
5:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Cosmetics Alliance Canada
Yes. It's not to prevent people from seeing the data. The regulator should have it. It's allowing free riders on the work that has been done.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you for clarifying.
The Senate committee also amended clause 10 of the bill to provide the minister with a permissive authority to identify users, manufacturers, importers, etc. of certain substances by publishing a notice in the Canada Gazette.
Do you feel that this is the right place for this? Do you have any concerns around using the gazetting process?