Environment committee   prior to being an MP and then as part of this committee. My first question goes to Dr. MacDonald. In their study, the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources noted a concern coming out of their work that the right to a healthy environment cannot

Environment committee  That's a tough one. We did have recommendations that we had put forward pre-bill with respect to section 22—sections 17 to 22—in case the bill did open up those sections. That's where my focus has been. I think there may be opportunity through the implementation framework to lo

Environment committee  Yes. We see Canada as being behind, in terms of not reviewing these. These are accepted. Bill S-5 adds the requirement to provide reasons, but there's no requirement in Bill S-5 for a minister—or a minister's delegate—to actually look at these and determine whether they truly mee

Environment committee  This is done in Europe and the U.S. We just want Canada to start doing it, too, because there is evidence showing that there are frivolous CBI requests out there, or requests that do not meet the bar of CBI.

Environment committee  There's nothing published publicly. There is no information at all, in terms of how CBI claims are handled internally, within the department. There's no public information.

Environment committee  Yes, for sure. I think it's in clause 19 that Bill S-5 sets out a new priority planning process. Once the bill comes into force, they'll have two years to set out a new plan that's going to identify the priorities under CEPA for the assessment and management of substances. Consu

Environment committee  I think it would continue the 20-year legacy of Canada's extremely advanced position on chemicals management. That's why the part of the bill that Dr. MacDonald just referred to needs to advance as quickly as possible. It's so we know what the future of chemicals management

Environment committee  You can't ask for things you don't know about.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. My first set of questions are for Dr. MacDonald. Thank you for your comments on the need for clearer timelines and accountability in order to prevent multi-year delays and provide certainty. I

Environment committee  This is what we see the watch-list doing and why we think it is so important. The watch-list is an early-warning system to warn us that these substances are, potentially, ones you want to avoid substituting if another substance is banned or restricted. We call it “regrettable sub

Environment committee  Yes. Bill S-5 adds a new section where a member of the public can ask the ministers to assess a substance and determine whether or not it is toxic. It adopts language from the existing CEPA that is now used for something called the “priority substance list”, which is a part of CE

Environment committee  To explain the timelines recommendation, the timeline that we're frustrated by right now is the lack of a timeline between the proposed risk assessment being published—most of the work has been done at that point and there's a proposed risk assessment that's public comment—and th

Environment committee  I just want to note that TSCA does require auditing of a certain proportion of confidential business information claims, and the audits that the U.S. EPA has done have found that up to a quarter of them don't meet the bar partially or fully. I've shared that information; I think

Environment committee  We'll now go to Dr. MacDonald.

Environment committee  Good evening, and thank you for inviting me to testify to this important bill. I appeared before this committee six years ago, I think, when it first began its review of CEPA, so I'm very pleased to be here to speak to Bill S‑5 after all of this work. It has not been quite as l