Thank you.
The constitutional underpinnings are sometimes misunderstood when we say that it draws from a criminal law head of power. I've heard this in debate in the House, as though, for instance, acting to regulate plastics is to create a Criminal Code offence if you use plastics. That's a complete misunderstanding of the notion of where the federal government draws its authorities for regulating toxic chemicals in Canada. In other words, where does the Canadian Environmental Protection Act fit in a federal head of power?
That constitutional question was challenged in the Hydro-Québec case in the mid 1990s. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the constitutional underpinnings of this act are that it's regulating for public health under the criminal law head of power, because it regulates toxic substances.
It seems to me that by accident, we're backing into something that hasn't been properly reviewed or debated. That accident is to say that the plastics lobby doesn't like its product being described as toxic, because in the common-sense understanding of the word “toxic”, plastics aren't toxic. The definition in the act, as we know, is anything that can become accumulated in the environment and a threat to human health or the environment.
That is as brief as I can possibly do it, Greg.
The Canadian environmental law community, particularly the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which has, as an organization, put more work into tracking CEPA than any other NGO over the years, is very concerned about this, as am I.
It's just a complete fluke that I was the senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment when we took this act to first reading. We looked at this. I was long out of government by the time it was challenged in the Hydro-Québec case. If it had not been for the toxic chemical schedule description, the act might not have survived the 1996 challenge by Hydro-Québec in the Supreme Court of Canada.