Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 49 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act

Before we begin, I would like to mention that according to our procedures, all amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk, even if the amendment is proposed during the meeting.

If the amendment is proposed during the meeting, it can be submitted in either official language. It may not be distributed to all members, but we need a written text, otherwise we will get lost. I just wanted to say that.

At the end of the last meeting, during the discussion of amendment NDP-31, I think Mr. Longfield had indicated that he intended to submit a subamendment, but I don't think he did. There was a lot of confusion at the time.

Mr. Longfield, it seems that you are no longer keen to move your subamendment; is that the case?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

The legislative clerks have simplified the language and separated it out, so that we wouldn't have to include it in this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you not going to move it?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

After I finish this discussion, I'll move my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're not going to move what you were trying to move on Thursday.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Not right now, but after we have this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We are on amendment NDP-31.1. I think we were at the debate stage, but I don't remember if Ms. Collins had opened that or if she had already spoken.

Are there any other speakers who would like the floor? I will create a new list of speakers.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few notes about this amendment. Some of the concerns that were raised were around administrative burden. I wanted to note that most substances assessed under CEPA are found not to meet the threshold for regulation as a toxic substance under CEPA, so the number of risk assessments or risk management plans published in any year is actually relatively small.

This amendment has a requirement to check back in on implementation two years later, which seems very manageable when you look at the numbers. This is from the CEPA annual reports: From 2020 to 2021, ECCC published “risk management approaches” for five substances. In 2019 to 2020 there were three. In 2018 to 2019 there was one. In 2017 to 2018 there were five. From 2016 to 2017 there were five. In 2015 to 2016 there were zero. You will see that there are a very small number that are published each year.

It's just so that folks know what we're talking about. When we're expressing concern about delays, there are a number of examples of multi-year delays when moving forward with the measures deemed necessary in the risk management plans, which is really what we're talking about right now.

PBDE flame retardants, assessed as toxic in 2006, had a 16-year delay—12-year delays based on 2010—but a 12- to 16-year delay is something that should not be acceptable.

Hydrazine, which is a carcinogenic industrial chemical used to inhibit corrosion in power plant boilers—it's also in tobacco—was assessed as toxic in 2011, and there was a seven-year delay. The pollution prevention planning notice was published in 2018.

TDI is used in polyurethane foam, as well as sealants, coatings, automotive paint and wood varnish. This is carcinogenic, and it also has respiratory effects. It was assessed as toxic in 2008, and pollution prevention planning notices were published in 2019, for an 11-year delay.

This is why it is essential that we address these issues. I hear people's concerns, and I hope that some of my comments have addressed them. My plea would be for the committee to support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Ms. Collins for her intervention. I know Mr. Longfield will be moving an amendment that I think will address some of the concerns that have been mentioned.

I wonder if I could ask the officials to provide some commentary on Ms. Collins' amendment. Perhaps they could provide some response on her intervention and on some of the information she just provided.

[Laura Farquharson, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

Sure. I don't have details on the specific reasons for the delays or the specific ones Ms. Collins mentioned, but as I think I explained before, where there are delays, it's because more information needs to be gathered. The situation of the use of the substance has changed.

I'll be frank and say that sometimes it's capacity issues in the department. Sometimes it's reprioritizing amongst all the risk management instruments. I think the feeling is that if you put hard deadlines in, you will push resources towards that area, and it's not always true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins, is your hand still up, or is it a new hand?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I lowered my hand and then raised it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. McLean will go after you.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just want to remind the committee that this is not a hard deadline. This is just saying that after two years, it would be required to publish the reasons for the delay and new estimated timelines.

I don't want to take up any more time if there isn't support around the committee for this, but I hope that the people around the committee will support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Collins.

Again, we have two seemingly similar amendments that we're looking at here, one put forward by Ms. Collins and one put forward by Mr. Longfield. We're trying to assess which one is going to land on the most accountability with the least diversion of resources.

We'd like to make sure it ties in with the current regulatory system as far as timelines go, so I'm going to ask the officials here to comment on what they were saying on Thursday about this matter, about the 24 months plus 18 months. What we don't want to accomplish here is to push an extra burden after the 24 months, but if the 24 plus 18 is indicative of the process we have to go through here, if there's a time clock that should be reset here but we want that accountability of reporting through the annual report as a result of any delays that might happen here...and the clear establishment of “here's our new timeline on this” if we're missing what you described, Ms. Farquharson, as 24 months before you put it in the Canada Gazette plus 18 months of hearings on that Canada Gazette process....

If there's a better number as far as the accountability time period is concerned, we would like to hear it from you to make sure that it meshes with what we're doing right now. I think that ties into the intent of both Ms. Collins' and Mr. Longfield's motions here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I thought Mr. McLean was directing a question to the officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

[Laura Farquharson]

I think Ms. Collins is right that the two motions before us today are about accountability on those subsequent risk management instruments. The first risk management instrument, which is typically the one that addresses the most important risk, has to happen in 24 months for a proposed one and 18 months for the final.

The timelines for the other risk management instruments will be set out at the time the first risk management instrument is published. Then you have two motions—one that whenever you pass two years, for every risk management instrument you have to report on why, and another one that would say you'll report on the annual report. I think it's probably obvious that the one on the annual report will allow for consolidated reporting and therefore more administrative efficiency.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

If I can interject, Mr. Chair, I need clarification on what Ms. Farquharson said.

There will be timelines defined in the risk management plans that are going to be different from the two years that would be set out. This is what I'm hearing from you. It won't always be 24 months.

Is that correct? Is that what I'm hearing?

[Laura Farquharson]

Yes, it could be less. It could be more.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'm asking you whether, as far as the regulatory accountability mechanisms are concerned, which should be brought from the minister to Parliament through whatever mechanism, those will sometimes be two years, but sometimes three years or four years.

Is that what you're telling us here today?

[Laura Farquharson]

The first one, and the one that addresses the biggest risk, will always be 24 months plus 18. The timelines for the others will be set out according to what the departments think they can do and what needs to be addressed as quickly as possible, considering all the other risk management instruments—