Evidence of meeting #32 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cepa.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Boyd  Adjunct Professor, Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Mark Butler  Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre
Gordon Bacon  Chief Executive Officer, Pulse Canada

4:40 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Pulse Canada

Gordon Bacon

For our approach on crop protection products, we actually feel that the Canadian agency is one of the toughest agencies in the world. I could cite examples. Comparisons to other agencies and the approach they take is an important thing to look at. We need to understand the reasons that a product might not be approved for use. Perhaps it's a different environment.

In discussions with Europeans most recently on environmental issues, we were looking at greenhouse gas emissions. One of the key differences between a European study and a western Canadian one is our soils are frozen for three or four months of the year, and theirs aren't.

There can be environmental differences that might be the reason a product might be registered in one jurisdiction and not another. There are also things like cumulative risks from a human health perspective. I can't really comment on that difference.

One thing I would note is that Canadian regulations are two and a half times tougher than the European ones. We have a good system. We stand behind the system. We believe it represents pulses and other crops we grow in Canada as being safe around the world.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

The confusion out there for the consumers is around safety. I was involved in health governance for many years. I heard a news story last night about 10% of patients in hospital being at risk of having something happen to them negatively. Our health system has people asking if they should go to a hospital. There's a one in 10 chance that something negative is going to happen.

The consumer confusion out there is huge. In our world, in a year, 1.5 million people get killed in cars, yet we get into them every day. There's a lot of confusion out there.

In your industry, are you trying to minimize that confusion for health in the sense of food?

4:45 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Pulse Canada

Gordon Bacon

Yes, and in the pulse area specifically, our funding comes primarily from farmers. Over the past 10 years, we have been working very closely at the other end of the stream from a health value proposition perspective in understanding what pulses can contribute.

We're working with the food industry to make sure that we can explore the potential of pulses to play a positive role in looking at non-communicable diseases that affect not only Canadians but people around the world. A strong regulatory system is a key part of providing that assurance to consumers that the foods that are put in front of them have been looked at by science and evidence-based approaches to establishing safety.

All panellists perhaps agree that the regulatory environment is an important part of providing consumers with the confidence that the food put in front of them is safe.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Mr. Amos.

October 27th, 2016 / 4:45 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Thanks to our witnesses. It's a pleasure to have you here. I really appreciate the preparation that has clearly been done.

My first question goes to Mr. Butler. I should disclose to the committee that I was counsel to the Ecology Action Centre prior to being elected. Mr. Butler and his organization have consented for me to ask questions, such that I'm not in any violation of solicitor-client privilege. Dot your Is, cross your Ts in this world.

You spoke to the issue of genetically modified salmon, and the process pursuant to which the previous administration evaluated information around the risks to biodiversity from genetically modified salmon. You spoke to how CEPA is complex regarding the toxicity assessment of said genetically modified species.

What, in your opinion, is necessary in terms of legislative reform to get to a place where genetically modified animals are evaluated in a manner that maintains the confidence of Canadians?

4:45 p.m.

Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre

Mark Butler

Thank you for your question.

Perhaps I can preface my answer by saying that this was a test for the act. This was the first GM food animal in the world. There are many more under development. In my opinion, it failed, so we really need to learn from this. I would look to you and others who are scholars in CEPA to find ways to fix it. I identified, from a layperson's point of view, two of the big failures.

One, I think, was just a complete disregard for the science. When it came to the science, it was like a bait and switch. They assessed a very narrow thing, and then Environment Canada went ahead. DFO did the assessment of a very narrow request, and Environment Canada went ahead and approved something much larger and, I think, destined to result in the genetic contamination of wild salmon, which is an irreversible impact. We're going to see more of this, so we need to figure this out.

Two, I'm familiar with the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and I was, to use a technical term, gobsmacked to discover that there was no opportunity for public engagement, interaction, or any kind of discussion about the pros and cons. You'll notice that the smack, or the approval, came out subsequent to the decision. It could have come out earlier in the Canada Gazette. That could trigger at least some public engagement.

The company got a waiver so that they didn't have to do an invasiveness test. They got it because the product was said to be contained. Environment Canada, for whatever reason, didn't publish that waiver until our court case was under way, at which time they also published hundreds of other waivers dating back almost 10 years, which they had forgotten to publish.

It's a difficult act to understand. It's not very transparent. People such as Dr. Meinhard Doelle at Dalhousie, yourselves, Dr. David Boyd, and others could probably identify ways in which public engagement could be better designed and brought into the act. We've actually asked for a strategic environmental assessment because we think this is going to be a big area for all of us. It may not be now, but it will become so.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Thank you, Mr. Butler.

I'll ask a series of yes-or-no questions out of concern for the time I have left.

Would you agree that entities seeking to engage in a toxicity risk assessment pursuant to CEPA for a genetically modified animal should not be able to avoid the disclosure of documents that involve public interest aspects out of concern for their commercial interests? Would you agree that the public interest ought to predominate in questions of mixed commercial and public interest when you're dealing with genetically modified animals?

4:50 p.m.

Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre

Mark Butler

That's easy. Yes. The impacts are irreversible.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Thank you. That's not the case right now, of course—

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

That's a leading question.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Well, it—

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Don't tell me you haven't done the same from time to time.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

No, never. Why would you do that? I don't know what a leading question is.

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

All right. Carry on.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC

Would you agree, Mr. Butler, that there should be stricter provisions and a requirement for a rationale when waivers are provided by governments that enable corporations that were looking to have toxicity risk assessment information not to provide that risk information? Would you agree that it should be tightened up so that waivers can't be so easily provided without a detailed explanation?

4:50 p.m.

Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre

Mark Butler

Yes, definitely, and I think particularly here, where there was this bait and switch, this may have been the only opportunity to assess the impact. The waiver was given for something very narrow, a research facility, but that would have been the only opportunity to assess invasiveness.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

That's it, Mr. Amos. Sorry.

We are going to allow for another round of six minutes each because we are doing so well on efficiency.

Mr. Fast.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Witnesses, thank you for being here.

Mr. Boyd, thank you for being here again. I do have a question for you.

You've suggested that we need nationally binding air quality standards, but it's my understanding from the World Health Organization that Canada's air quality across the country is considered among the very best in the world, up there with Australia and some of the Nordic countries. Certainly there's much more that needs to be done, but we do rank quite high in the world for the quality of our air. You pointed to Sarnia. That's probably our worst case, but many parts of the country have top-notch air quality, so I'm wondering, why are you proposing to change a system that right now already develops among the best air quality regimes in the world?

4:50 p.m.

Adjunct Professor, Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual

Dr. David Boyd

There are two reasons, Mr. Fast.

The first is that if you look at the environmental burden of disease in Canada, which I mentioned at the outset, leading experts estimate that between 9,000 and 15,000 premature deaths per year in Canada are the result of exposure to air pollution. I think that the statistics you're mentioning about Canada being a world leader, in part that's because we're a huge country. If you take an average air quality assessment for Canada, we come out looking pretty rosy. The problem is that we have—not just Sarnia, but northern Alberta, northwestern British Columbia—many areas in Canada where there are significant air quality problems, and I would include some of the major cities as well.

What national air quality standards would do for us would be to provide a level playing field for all Canadians, and a system whereby if a particular region or city was in non-attainment, there would be a mandatory remedial process. There would have to be actions taken to bring air quality up to that national standard in those regions. That's the way the system works in the European Union and the United States, as well as Australia.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Thank you for that explanation.

Mr. Bacon, you've heard Mr. Boyd talk a lot about his preference for a hazard-based approach, which is an approach that essentially requires companies to make the case that their product doesn't represent a risk. Presumably those companies use their own scientists to make that case, scientists who are beholden to them. Under a risk-based system, of course, it's the government that undertakes these assessments. In my mind, I would prefer to have the security and safety of knowing we have a government that is independent of the companies that are looking to come forward with specific products that may or may not be toxic, and have them do the assessments.

What are your thoughts?

4:55 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Pulse Canada

Gordon Bacon

In the risk-based approach that is in place for crop protection products, it is the company, it is the technology developer, that undertakes the studies that are mandated by government, and then government evaluators will take a look at that data and make the assessment. It's still the technology provider that is making the investment to provide the data, and then an independent body of scientists, PMRA, and under global joint review, this workload is shared with the EPA and other agencies that are part of the global joint review will take a look at that. In areas where it is unique to Canada, such as environmental, then clearly Canadian regulatory officials need to take a look at it.

How I would differentiate between a risk-based approach and a hazard-based approach is that the key difference is this exposure, as we talked about earlier. Many substances can be a potential or known hazard, but what is key is to understand the exposure to that hazard to understand its risk.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

All right. That's very helpful as well.

I have a question for Mr. Butler.

You're disappointed that the CEPA process failed with respect to the GM salmon. Are you, in principle, opposed to genetically modified animals, or is it this particular case that you have concerns about?

4:55 p.m.

Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre

Mark Butler

As I mentioned, we hadn't done a lot of work on GM organisms before this particular situation arose in our backyard. I would say we have concerns, but we're not de facto or a priori opposed to all GM organisms. It depends on the use and the containment. Again, I do think, and even among some of my colleagues, we don't appreciate what is coming at us. What is it going to mean for trees, fish, birds, insects, that we are now moving genetic material so easily across species boundaries, and what does that mean for biodiversity? What does it mean for the functioning of what we would call a natural ecosystem?

We've a little bit of what this can look like with zebra mussels, and these are just a species arriving versus the movement of genetic material between species. Nonetheless, we see what impact invasive species can have on our native ecosystems.