Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Darren's bill is coming in front of us right after we go on the break. You're maybe going to be away that week and the following week. It's that following week. I think it's the 14th. It's the one right after the break week.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I was told it was the 14th or 16th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Right, it's the 14th or 16th, and then we're going back into CEPA.

We didn't have much choice. It was either CEPA or Darren's bill, and you want to be here for both of them.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I know, because that was what everybody agreed to do, and I didn't have a chance to say that I can't do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, but we're not cancelling the meeting. We're doing one or the other, and I think you have an interest in the CEPA—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have an interest in both of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

If I can't be here to discuss Darren's bill, I absolutely need to be here for CEPA, because I'm the only one who has requested additional witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, but that's not true. We have lots of witnesses.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I haven't heard of any additional witnesses.

[An hon. member]

There are dozens of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's what we do in the subcommittee meeting.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I was told there weren't any more, so I'm only saying what I've been told.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, let's end this, then. I think we have our schedule, and that's what we're going to stick to. I was trying to accommodate a request, but I think we're okay.

We're going to have Darren's bill done. The week after that, we're going to carry on with our CEPA study, and we are going to discuss in the subcommittee, which is now next Thursday, what we're going to do. You will need to potentially come to that, because we're going to be discussing witnesses.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. I'll be there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Perfect. I think we're good.

If we're all ready, we'll close that chapter and move on to our very wonderful witnesses, who have been patiently waiting.

I will introduce who's here.

From Pulse Canada, we have Gordon Bacon, chief executive officer. Thank you for being here in the committee room with us.

We have David Boyd, who is adjunct professor, resource and environmental management, at Simon Fraser University. He is on video conference with us. It's nice to see you again. Thank you for being here.

From the Ecology Action Centre, we have Mark Butler, who is the policy director. He is here via video conference from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Thank you very much for being here also.

We usually get started with the video conference people, because that's always the most dicey section. We might lose you, and we don't want to do that.

We'll get started with David Boyd. You have 10 minutes. I think you know the procedure, having been in front of us before. Thank you so much.

[Dr. David Boyd, Adjunct Professor, Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable MPs. It's a pleasure to be joining you here today.

It is now 30 years since the Progressive Conservatives under Prime Minister Mulroney pledged to introduce a comprehensive new environmental law for Canada. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in their words, was to be the world's toughest pollution legislation and include an environmental bill of rights for Canadians. Unfortunately, neither of those visions has come to pass, but I think they offer objectives that are still relevant to Canadians today: to have world-class legislation that protects human health and ecosystem health from pollution and toxic substances.

I am going to start with an overview of the problem we are trying to solve. Much of what I say today is drawn from my most recent book, called Cleaner, Greener, Healthier: A Prescription for Stronger Canadian Environmental Laws and Policies. If any members of the committee are interested, I am happy to provide complimentary copies of that book to you.

Let me start with the big picture. The environmental burden of disease in Canada, which is the proportion of premature deaths and illnesses caused by exposure to environmental hazards, is strikingly high. The best estimates of the number of premature mortalities in Canada every year range between 15,000 and 25,000, and we have millions of preventable illnesses caused by exposure to environmental hazards. The areas of greatest concern are probably cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses caused by exposure to air pollution, and cancer caused by a whole range of toxic substances from air pollution to asbestos, radon, and so on.

To make matters worse, this environmental burden of disease in Canada is not equitably distributed. There are vulnerable and marginalized populations that are currently bearing a disproportionate share of the burden of pollution. Indigenous people in Kitimat, B.C., Fort McKay, Alberta, and Sarnia, Ontario, are exposed to high levels of air pollution. Water contamination faces Grassy Narrows First Nation, and there is extensive pollution in the three northern territories.

It is not just indigenous peoples who bear the brunt of disproportionate pollution in Canada. A striking study revealed that one out of every four low-income Canadians lives within one kilometre of a major source of industrial air pollution, resulting in higher levels of hospitalization for heart disease and lung disease.

These are the problems we are trying to solve. The environmental burden of disease in Canada carries a major economic cost, ranging between $3 billion and $7 billion a year in direct health care costs, and between $3 billion and $8 billion a year in terms of lost productivity. When we try to put a dollar figure on the pain, suffering, and premature loss of life, we get a figure exceeding $70 billion.

What I hope to do in my 10 minutes with you today is lay out eight principled approaches that will enable you to strengthen CEPA, prevent these premature deaths, prevent these preventable and unnecessary illnesses, and save the Canadian economy billions of dollars.

With no further introduction, let me turn to my first recommendation.

Number one is the polluter pays principle, something that I'm sure all of us agree is an important principle of environmental law. Everyone, from economists on one side to environmentalists on the other, agrees that the most efficient way to implement the polluter pays principle is through pollution taxes, yet Canada ranks dead last among wealthy industrialized countries in the use of pollution taxes, according to a 2013 study from KPMG.

My book compares pollution taxes on fuel, energy, pesticides, air pollution, and water pollution and finds that in each of these categories, we lag behind our industrialized peers. My first recommendation for you is to amend CEPA to explicitly authorize the use of pollution taxes, which is not currently in the law, and to mandate the creation of a national pollutant tax, using the data provided to the Government of Canada through the National Pollutant Release Inventory. That's number one.

The second principle is substitution, which is a very simple principle. It just means we should eliminate and phase out toxic substances and replace them with safer alternatives. This was a principle pioneered by Swedish legislation in the 1990s. It's now the bedrock of the European Union's REACH chemicals legislation, but it is not found at all in CEPA.

My second recommendation is that CEPA should be amended to include the substitution principle, and that in part 5 of CEPA, every time we list a toxic substance, we should go through a rigorous assessment of the alternatives and mandatory substitution of safer substances.

My third principle that I would like to share with you is the precautionary principle. Again, the precautionary principle is already found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; it's the implementation that's been lacking. For example, when I compared drinking water rules and regulations across the OECD for 65 different chemical contaminants, Canada's voluntary guideline for those contaminants is weaker than that of another jurisdiction for over 80% of those chemical contaminants. It's not only that: most countries have legally binding standards for drinking water quality, whereas Canada only has voluntary guidelines.

To really ensure that we are applying the precautionary principle, I have two recommendations. One is that CEPA be amended to require the suspension of the manufacturing, import, export, or use of any toxic substance that has been banned by another OECD nation. The second is to use a hazards-based approach for substances of very high concern.

This is emulating the European Union. The assumption would be that we would prohibit those substances unless industry can provide evidence that they can be safely used and that there are no feasible alternatives.

My fourth principle is world-class standards. I believe all Canadians should be protected by world-class standards. In my book I review Canadian rules governing both indoor and outdoor air quality, drinking water, pesticides, and toxic substances, and we consistently lag behind other countries. I'll give you just one very important example: air pollution and air quality. Canada is the only western industrialized nation that does not have legally binding national standards for air quality. We have voluntary guidelines. We call them standards, but let me be clear: they are not.

Even our voluntary guidelines are much weaker than those in other countries. For example, Canada's guideline for sulphur dioxide is more than four times weaker than the corresponding American standard.

My recommendations in terms of world-class standards are that CEPA should be amended to require Canada to put in place standards that are as strong as or better than any other OECD nation and to mandate the development of national standards that are legally binding for air quality and for drinking water safety.

The fifth principle I came to talk to you today about is the right to live in a healthy environment. This was intended to be included in the original CEPA back in the 1980s. That didn't happen. The right to a healthy environment is a right to clear air, to safe drinking water, to a non-toxic environment, and to flourishing biodiversity. It's accompanied by procedural rights, including access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice.

This right is found in the environmental laws of more than 100 countries around the world, such as France, Finland, Norway, Costa Rica, and Brazil. It's also found in the environmental laws of five Canadian jurisdictions: Ontario, Quebec, and the three northern territories. In the past two years, more than 150 Canadian municipalities have passed resolutions recognizing their citizens' right to a healthy environment and calling upon the federal government to do the same, so my fifth recommendation is that CEPA be amended in part 2 to include environmental rights and responsibilities.

For all of these recommendations I'm putting forward today, I will submit a much more detailed brief, because obviously I can't cover them in 10 minutes.

My sixth recommendation has to do with environmental justice. I mentioned at the outset that a disproportionate burden of pollution is being borne by vulnerable and marginalized populations. This principle needs to be added to part 2 of CEPA, and in all decisions and actions taken by the federal government, special consideration for these populations needs to be included.

Canada should also follow the urging of the World Health Organization, so CEPA should require a national environmental health equity assessment to be done on a regular basis, every five or 10 years, to define the scope of the problem and outline potential solutions.

My seventh recommendation has to do with the effective enforcement of CEPA. I can tell you that the enforcement of this law has been a disaster from the get-go. For my book I calculated that the first 23 years of enforcement under CEPA resulted in a smaller number of fines than one year of enforcement of an overdue book in the Toronto Public Library.

CEPA 1999 includes an environmental protection action that citizens can use to enforce CEPA. It has never been used.

My recommendation here is to provide citizens with the opportunity to bring civil actions to enforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are successful models in the United States and Australia that we can build on that will help ensure greater compliance with this very important law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You're almost out of time, so I just want you to wrap it up, if you can.

Thanks.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My eighth and final recommendation is that we need to have more mandatory timelines in CEPA. Health Canada and Environment Canada have just finished an amazing job of categorizing thousands of substances. That was because the law required them to do it by a certain day. There are a variety of timelines that need to be added to CEPA in order for it to function effectively.

Thank you very much for your time and attention today, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for your statement. I'm sorry to have to cut you off, but I know there will be more coming, and there will be lots coming out in the questions.

Next up is Mark Butler.

Thank you very much, and we look forward to what you have to tell us today.

[Mark Butler, Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre]

Madam Chair, co-chairs, and members, thank you for this opportunity to present and for turning your attention to the application of the act to the first GM food animal in the world to receive approval for human consumption.

At the end of my presentation, I will also briefly address a couple of other CEPA-related issues.

I am the policy director at the Ecology Action Centre, which is a Nova Scotia-based environmental organization founded in 1971. We endeavour to ground our work in science, and we also try to find solutions that integrate the economy and the environment. Our preference is to be solutions-based, and I will endeavour to take that approach today.

I am not a CEPA scholar, and CEPA is not an easy act, or at least part 6 is not. There are others, such as my co-presenters Dr. David Boyd or Dr. Meinhard Doelle at Dalhousie University, or some of the lawyers at Ecojustice, who are better equipped to craft amendments to the act that will address some of the problems that I will discuss today.

Prior to EAC's engagement on GM salmon in 2014, we did relatively little work on the interactions of genetically modified organisms with natural systems. We became involved because of a threat in our backyard to wild Atlantic salmon.

AquaBounty is an international company with a research facility in Prince Edward Island. The company has developed a salmon that contains the genetic material from two other species: chinook salmon and ocean pout, which is an eel-like marine fish. The company claims that the fish can grow faster than conventionally farmed salmon. They also claim they have established barriers to their reproducing with wild salmon, principally through the use of land-based facilities and triploid induction, which is the creation of organisms with three chromosomes, effectively making them infertile.

We are concerned about the risk to wild salmon should GM salmon escape. First, GM salmon could outcompete wild salmon for the resources of food, habitat, or mates. Second, and more importantly, fertile GM salmon could breed with wild salmon, changing the genetic makeup of wild salmon forever. This would have unknown ecological consequences and economic consequences for recreational and food fisheries in Atlantic Canada.

We do have concerns about the research facility in P.E.I., but our main concern is with commercialization. At that point, you are talking about hundreds of millions of fish being grown in numerous facilities, and potentially close to some of our famous salmon rivers in New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.

At the commercial scale, the barriers to reproduction with wild fish are subject to the laws of probability. Research papers have documented the escape of non-GM fish from land-based hatcheries in Atlantic Canada. We also know that triploid induction is not 100% effective. When you are talking about hundreds of millions of fish, a 1%, or 3%, or 5% failure rate is a lot of fish.

We are not looking for problems or windmills to tilt at. Atlantic salmon has enough problems without us inventing more for them. It's an endangered species, and there are probably fewer than 700,000 fish left in Atlantic Canada.

This approval has implications beyond salmon. The approval issued by Environment Canada is precedent-setting. It's the first commercial production of a GM food animal in Canada and the world. The biotech industry knows this. What Canada decides, what you decide, will have implications for the many other species with wild counterparts that are candidates for genetic engineering.

For these reasons, in 2014 we challenged Environment Canada's and Health Canada's approval in Federal Court. In 2015, the court ruled against us, and we appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. We just heard this week that we lost our appeal. The court's main reason was deference to ministerial discretion.

Our principal argument in court was that Environment Canada gave approval for commercial production without assessing it. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducted a scientific assessment of AquaBounty's request to export 100,000 eggs to Panama for commercial grow-out and declared this transaction non-CEPA toxic, but made it clear that their conclusions were specific to this request. Export of eggs from one research facility is a very different matter than the production of millions of fish at numerous facilities.

We also raised concerns around the issuance of waivers and the long delays in the publications of waivers, which I can address if you have questions.

During this process we were stunned to realize that CEPA, at least in this case, provided no opportunity for public consultation, nor has there been any consultation with stakeholders, be it the agriculture industry, the commercial fishing industry, the tourism and recreational fishery, or even the provinces. The Province of Nova Scotia has publicly opposed GM salmon, saying it's not necessary to the development of the industry. There has been no consultation with first nations and indigenous peoples. Atlantic salmon was and is a very important species for first nations in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Altering the genome of this fish should trigger consultations.

Based on our experience over the last couple of years, we have some recommendations. They centre around public consultation, the transferability of the right to introduce a new substance from one company to another, and the issue of caution and the precautionary approach. I certainly agree with Dr. Boyd that while it's in the act, the act is certainly not being applied like that, at least with respect to GM salmon.

We also would like to see included in the act an expansion of what is considered to go toward sustainability benefit, including a broader definition of risk.

I mentioned that we work on other issues that have implications for CEPA, and I'll briefly address those.

We also work on the regulation of the conventional aquaculture industry. We are concerned about the Aquaculture Activities Regulations, which came into force in August 2015 but were an initiative of the previous government and, in our opinion, were part of the lost protections expressed through regulatory changes. Specifically, we would like the government to look closely to see if the disposal-at-sea provisions of CEPA are effectively violated by pesticide use in the aquaculture industry, and the reporting requirements under the AARs.

We are also concerned that these regulatory changes are counter to the intent of the London convention. The cuts to toxicology research on this issue will also impact science-based decision-making, and we know that the AAR changes were in direct response to the charges against Cooke Aquaculture for using an illegal pesticide in New Brunswick.

Finally, environmental justice, raised by David Boyd and other presenters, is important for our organization, and we work with impact to communities. We appreciate that the committee is considering this dimension in its review and that some presenters have raised it, and while we haven't focused on CEPA in our work on environmental justice, we are happy to answer questions on that matter.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Butler.

We're going to hear from Mr. Bacon, then we'll open the floor to questions.

You have 10 minutes, please. Thank you.

[Gordon Bacon, Chief Executive Officer, Pulse Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, and good afternoon to all the committee members. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear in front of you today.

I want to start with a very brief introduction of our organization. Pulse Canada is the national industry group representing farmers and processors and exporters of pulse crops in Canada.

You may not know that Canada is the world's largest exporter of pulse crops, accounting for some 37% of global trade. Canada exports pulse crops like peas, beans, lentils, and chick peas to more than 150 countries around the world. While Canada's pulse crop industry might not be front of mind with all Canadians, the global pulse community does recognize Canada as a global pulse superpower, and we continue to grow.

Canadian farmers grew more than 4.6 million tonnes of peas in 2016, an increase of 44% from the previous year, and 3.2 million tonnes of lentils in 2016, which is a 36% increase from 2015. I believe this alone is a great story on environmental and sustainable development.

You might have heard that the United Nations has declared 2016 as the International Year of Pulses. To date, we've had more than 2.8 billion media impressions generated as consumers in the food industry look to the nutritional value of pulses, their contribution to important health issues like diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and increasingly the important role that pulses can play to improve the environmental footprint associated with food.

Pulses have clearly become much more than a trend. Consumer interest is continuing to grow, and the food industry is already acting, with new product launches and launches of reformulated foods that boost higher protein and fibre levels. The reformulation of food with ingredients with a small footprint will become increasingly important, and can be a cornerstone of Canadian and global approaches to reducing the footprint from food. When reformulation also improves nutritional content, it's a real win-win.

CEPA, along with other acts, is part of the regulatory framework in Canada that ensures protection of the health of Canadians and protection of the environment. Since Canada exports to more than 150 countries, the Canadian regulatory framework also provides assurances to consumers and governments around the world. Canada's export of food items like pulses is seen as a trusted source of food, in part because of our recognition as being a global leader in our regulatory approach.

Canada plays a very important role globally in ensuring that people have access to sufficient food, affordable food, and safe food. We are one of only a handful of countries in the world that regularly produces enough food to be a reliable supplier to world markets. Canada therefore plays an important role in global food security.

Our work in the pulse industry is aligned with some broad global priorities: affordable food, food that improves human health, and a food system that is environmentally sustainable. When we add in the national goals of economic growth, competitiveness, and fostering of innovation, we have a multifaceted framework within which we can build a Canadian approach to regulation with a focus on environmental protection and sustainable development.

The sustainability of all sections of the food value chain depends upon its ability to assure the other links, including the consumer, that our food is safe. Farmers have a particularly close and personal link to both human and environmental health. Regulations provide the framework and safeguards to build on this assurance. As part of a global food system, it's important for Canada to play a leading role in ensuring there are global approaches to both human and environmental health.

The PCP Act, Pest Control Products Act in Canada is an important part of the regulatory framework that's working to protect human and environmental health. There's a strong alignment between the approaches taken by Canada's PMRA and the approach taken by the EPA in the U.S., the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, and similar bodies in Australia and elsewhere. Their rigorous science-based approach to risk assessment with new and existing crop protection products not only keeps Canada's food system safe but also makes an important contribution to establishing a global framework for food safety. Canada is an important resource at Codex, which is the global food safety standards body.

Risk-based assessments recognize the importance of exposure in determining societal risk. Canada's current regulatory approach for pesticides recognizes vulnerable populations and occupational exposure as part of the comprehensive pre-market assessment.

Recognizing that we have a world-leading approach in CEPA, as well as in Canada's PCP Act and in the Seeds Act, is not to say that we wouldn't suggest or support changes. What does make sense is that we avoid overlap between agencies and acts so that Canadians have a clear process and a streamlined approach. Having dedicated departments, adequately resourced, avoids the duplication of efforts and aligns well with the need to ensure that regulatory approaches are structured to deal with the rapid pace of innovation.

As part of a global food system, we need to ensure that the uniqueness of Canada's environment and farming systems is fully considered and at the same time work to ensure the ongoing alignment of scientific approaches with other esteemed regulatory authorities around the world.

Consumer preferences can be met with differentiation in the marketplace. Regulatory approaches in human and environmental safety must remain focused on the weight of scientific evidence. Canada's regulatory approaches can continue to be science-driven and evidence-based and can look to how other governments and science bodies have taken risk-based approaches. This is the way that we can protect people and the planet, and ensure that Canada continues to play an important role in sustainably feeding the world's population with affordable food.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for all of your witness statements.

We'll move to questions, and we'll start with Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The bulk of my questions are for Mr. Boyd.

Mr. Boyd, one of the recommendations that you had was the polluter pays model, and you talked about how Canada was dead last. Can you explain why Canada is dead last?