Environment Committee on Nov. 25th, 2022

[Bob Masterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for dedicating your Friday afternoon to this very important bill.

I am very pleased to be here today with my colleague Danielle Morrison. Ms. Morrison worked closely with your colleagues in the Senate as this bill moved through that chamber, and she will answer some of your questions about the specific amendments.

As a responsible care organization, CIAC, along with our chemistry industry, is committed to continuous improvement. We welcomed the original Bill S-5 as introduced. We felt it represented an appropriate update to CEPA and followed years of comprehensive study by parliamentary committees, as well as input from stakeholders and officials.

Overall, we're pleased to see how that bill and, generally, this bill, as amended, preserve the very important risk-based approach at the heart of this act. Through that risk-based approach, we have CEPA's chemicals management plan, which has had tremendous success. We've been a strong partner with that, all along the way. It has received international acceptance. It has a robust stakeholder process. That goes right through from initial risk assessment to risk management instruments.

Given that the original purpose of the chemicals management plan was to inform Canadians and create improved confidence in the chemistries that are in commerce, we support the amendments that reinforce principles of transparency and public participation. This includes the legislative recognition of a right to a healthy environment, the new provisions that allow any person to request the minister to assess a substance, and the creation of a searchable electronic database for domestically used substances.

At Tuesday's meeting, we were also pleased to hear that Dr. MacDonald didn't have any strong concerns about the renaming of schedule 1.

With the chemicals management plan nearing the end of its third phase, this bill will make important changes that will continue to guide decision-making over the next decade and allow for innovations, such as those talked about by the previous presenter, in terms of testing methods. That is one of the questions at the heart of this. We have to make sure we have enabled and preserved the ability to introduce innovation into the Canadian economy.

Unfortunately, there are a few aspects of the amendments to this bill that, we would say, unduly hinder the ability to be innovative and seek to impose a hazard-based approach on what is fundamentally a risk-based instrument. I'll highlight two of those: the creation of the redundant hazard-based watch list, and the provisions on how confidential business information will be eroded, seek to stifle innovation, and benefit competitors.

We look forward to the discussion and to answering the wide range of questions you have. As mentioned throughout today, this is indeed a very complex bill and set of amendments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Ms. Fast from the Manitoba Eco-Network.

[Heather Fast, Director, Policy Advocacy, Manitoba Eco-Network]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

The Manitoba Eco-Network's work with vulnerable community members in Winnipeg has indicated why it is so important for the federal government to play a strong and effective role in the regulation of toxic substances in industrial activities.

Currently, Manitobans do not have the same procedural and substantive environmental rights as Canadians in other jurisdictions. Weaknesses in provincial and municipal legal requirements prevent community members from participating in the investigation and cleanup of toxic substances.

Manitobans are excluded from enforcement activities, and lack access to a range of important information. This puts environmental advocates, impacted citizens and vulnerable populations at a huge disadvantage when seeking protection of their health and surrounding environment. It also limits access to environmental justice for Manitobans.

As a result, we have focused on potential amendments to Bill S-5 that could strengthen the protection of vulnerable populations and ensure that all Canadians have access to the legal tools needed to facilitate access to environmental justice.

The recognition of environmental human rights at the federal level for the first time is an exciting outcome of Bill S-5. However, there's a need to amend the bill to ensure that the environmental rights of Canadians are able to be effectively used and protected under CEPA.

Bill S-5 should better align with Canada's international commitments and use terminology that better clarifies the scope of environmental rights. For example, the UN General Assembly recognized the right to “a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” in a resolution this past July, which Canada supported. Similar clarifying language could be used in Bill S-5.

Proposed limitations on recognized environmental human rights in Bill S-5 should also be removed. The recognition of environmental human rights in other jurisdictions in Canada and 193 countries around the world does not include limitations on the right, so it's unclear why we need them in CEPA.

Corresponding public funding provisions should also be included in CEPA to reduce the financial barriers that often limit community engagement in core processes and independent testing procedures needed to protect environmental rights.

Finally, in order for Canadians to effectively leverage their environmental rights under CEPA, there's a need to address long-standing problems with section 22. It's disappointing this significant barrier has not yet been addressed in Bill S-5, but there's still time.

We recommend the committee adopt proposed recommendations from organizations, like the Canadian Environmental Law Association, that would operationalize section 22, and improve public access to environmental justice at the federal level.

Bill S-5 is an important opportunity to improve access to environmental justice for Manitobans, and help fill legal gaps in our provincial regime by regulating the use and cleanup of toxic substances. To achieve this outcome, the purpose of Bill S-5 and CEPA should be to protect the environment and people from harm.

We ask that you reform Bill S-5 to improve environmental protection and access to environmental justice for all Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Rehn from Vigilance OGM.

[Thibault Rehn, Coordinator, Vigilance OGM]

Good afternoon.

Let me start up by saying thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak before you today on behalf of Vigilance OGM. We will be concentrating on Part 6 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, which deals about animate products of biotechnology.

You no doubt know that in 2017, Quebeckers were the first in the world to eat a genetically modified animal, which was genetically modified salmon. It's quite something to be the first in the world, especially when no one informs you of the fact.

The company made no announcement at the time and is still keeping quiet while its factory on Prince Edward Island is churning out tons of product annually that once again, winds up on our plates without warning. You will not be surprised when I tell you that our first request is that there be mandatory labelling for all genetically modified organisms, as is the case in 64 countries around the world, to compensate for the lack of transparency from the biotechnology companies.

Bill S‑5, which was over 23 years in the making, only seeks to make minor administrative changes to Part 6 which do nothing to improve the assessment process provided for in the case of genetically modified organisms. We would like to see three major amendments.

Firstly, there must be mandatory consultations in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent from first nations who might be impacted by genetically modified organisms. As you know, salmon is a highly symbolic species for almost all of Canada's first nations. They were not consulted when genetically modified salmon was approved.

Secondly, we have to shift the onus. As long as a company cannot prove that a living organism which has its equivalent in the wild can be used completely safely, the development, production, import and use of the genetically modified organism should be prohibited. Why take the risk of contaminating our ecosystems when we have non-genetically modified living organisms that do the job?

Thirdly, we need a transparent and independent assessment process. All the studies used by Environment Canada or Health Canada about consuming such products should be made available and peer‑reviewed. We can't say that our assessment system is science‑based if the science is not transparent.

As you perhaps know, there's a lot of talk about genome editing, which is a new set of tools that biotechnology companies can use. These tools will probably speed up the commercialization of genetically modified animals in Canada in the future. It is therefore essential that Canada has a solid regulatory framework in order to prevent any genetic contamination of its ecosystems.

What's more, Canada will be hosting COP15 in Montreal in two weeks. Biotechnology will be one of the issues at the heart of important negotiations. We know that biotechnology companies are heavily lobbying the Government of Canada as well as the governments of many other countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, I have to stop you there, but there will be time to answer questions.

Mr. Kurek, you have six minutes.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

Being that time is a scarce resource, I would invite the witnesses, as I typically do, to feel free to provide further information to this committee in writing afterward if they have further information or did not have a chance to answer a question as fulsomely or as they feel they should have—and please make sure to not take this personally—as it is very helpful in terms of our further discussions and deliberations.

For the CIAC, I found it interesting in the submission you made to this committee that it's not only industry that wants to make sure we get this right. A joint submission was made by a number of environmental groups as well. This bill also came to this committee with broad support across political parties.

There's a question that I would ask Mr. Masterson or Ms. Morrison.

Can you outline the reasons why we need to get this right and how it relates both to the need for the intent of what environmental protection is and also to global competitiveness in terms of striking that right balance?

[Bob Masterson]

Do you want to start with the environmental protection, Danielle, and I'll speak about innovation?

[Danielle Morrison, Policy Manager, Chemical Health and Data Management, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Yes, absolutely.

As part of our responsible care ethic and principles—which I'm sure Bob would be happy to speak to if you have more questions about that—we certainly support environmental protection and all of the things that go along with that, including the right to know and resource conservation.

Through the chemicals management plan, we believe this is extremely key, and it is addressed quite well through very robust risk assessment and risk management instruments, which are really at the discretion of expert assessors within the department who have the tools they need to look at various attributes that should be included within a risk assessment or risk management and to determine how they should be incorporated to include the most up-to-date and relevant science.

[Bob Masterson]

You asked the question about competitiveness, and I mentioned in my introductory remarks confidential business information. It's important to note that we do support the public's right to know. That's absolutely clear. At the same time, many don't know that chemistry is one of the most innovative industries around. One quarter of all patents granted in the U.S. every year are in the business of chemistry. We have to make sure, when we're looking at changes to confidential business information, that we're not creating a condition where Canadians are not getting access to the newest, safest chemistries that will help to solve solutions for clean air; clean water; safe, nutritious and abundant food; and to address climate change. That all depends on innovative chemistries.

We can't create boundaries under CEPA that are inconsistent with the overarching architecture of how the Government of Canada addresses confidential information, and restrict the industry's willingness to introduce those products.

We do see that, as you know, when we look around at the patented medicines area. There's a lot of concern about Canadians not having access to the most recent and best medicines.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Perhaps I'll ask a fairly pointed question. If we don't get it right in this bill and the updates to CEPA, what are the economic consequences of that not only domestically, but also some of the possible environmental challenges that would result from a leak of capital in investment that may go to regimes without as strong a record as Canada has?

[Bob Masterson]

Well, I would go back to some of the concerns expressed by Ms. Plain in the last panel. There are some very legitimate concerns. I have a number of answers to some of the questions she had.

Here's the truth. Industry does not make improvements in environmental protection on a step-by-step basis. We do it a little bit better here and a little bit better there. You make drastic, step-change improvements when you make major, new investments. What we need to do is make sure we have a situation in Canada that encourages and promotes new investment that will lead to improved environmental protection.

Again, there are opportunities in this act that will work against Canada's objective to have innovative new processes and innovative new chemistries.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Specifically on balancing that right to know, would you have some suggestions to balance that public's right to know versus ensuring that some of the sensitive information that some of your member companies would...?

Would you answer in about 30 seconds, because I have one more question I'd like to get to.

[Bob Masterson]

Certainly, with confidential business information, that information must be turned over to the regulatory authorities. They act in the public's interest. Every citizen still retains the right to petition for the release of that information. That can be considered. We think that's the way to do it.

If there is a desire to go forward, it can be done, as with other consumer products, through labelling. Think about masking...and saying, “Here's the nature of what's in this, the hazards and the risks incorporated.” You do not want to reveal specific formulas that your competitors will have line of sight to.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a quick, final question.

We've heard a number of concerns about having some duplication. I suspect it's well intentioned to have a watch-list, versus some of the previous mechanisms that exist. From your association's perspective, what are the challenges associated with duplication of a watch-list versus already codified mechanisms?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Answer very briefly. You have about 20 seconds.

[Danielle Morrison]

Absolutely.

In terms of the watch-list, this is really moving towards a hazard-based approach, in addition to being redundant with the existing mechanisms in place to control existing substances. They have been determined as acceptable on the market as is, but if new uses come up for these substances, then there are those control mechanisms to address and assess that situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I think we have to stop there. I'm sorry.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. We're doing a very technical study. We really appreciate your giving your technical expertise.

I'd like to draw my questions over to Dr. Chandrasekera around animal testing. Recently I met with the Guelph Humane Society in their new facility. We moved quickly from talking about the new facility and the animal care that's going on there to the topic of CEPA and the provisions around animal testing.

We also have the University of Guelph, which is doing a lot of work around animals—for testing, including using animals for testing cancer drugs. Drugs are being developed for ovarian cancer and other cancers at the University of Guelph.

I'd like to focus on these new approach methods and what role CEPA can play in transitioning us from the dated practices around animal testing and towards the more innovative technological solutions that are out there.

[Dr. Charu Chandrasekera]

Thank you for the question.

The world is burgeoning with these new approach methods right now, and this is our opportunity to really put that into law, to put it int writing, that we need to start using these methods. Until these methods go into regulatory acceptance—and this is one of the bottlenecks in the field, in every country, really.... We have all these amazing technologies being developed that are better predictive of human biology, but they are not being incorporated into regulatory risk assessment as fast as they should.

If we could strengthen our language to solidify that and not leave any space for interpretation or misinterpretation, and use every opportunity we can to replace and reduce the use of animals with practicable and scientifically justified methods and put these into our regulatory risk assessment process, that would get us a long way.

When you're thinking, perhaps, about revisiting this bill 20 years from now, some other countries in the world will have already ended animal testing, and we cannot be following these countries all the time. We need to take a lead and show how we can do that, so there are several different areas where the bill can be strengthened to ensure that we focus on the replacement and reduction of animals using these new methods.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

You mentioned the phrase “scientifically justified”. When I look at the plan for chemicals management priorities addressing testing, those words aren't used. We also don't mention the three Rs of replacing, reducing or refining. The language is inconsistent.

Is that something you can give us testimony on for how the language can be improved in what is in front of us?

[Dr. Charu Chandrasekera]

Yes, absolutely.

Some of my proposed amendments are in the brief that I provided.

This is where we need to be very concrete with our language. Even in proposed subparagraph 68.1(2)( a), it says “is not reasonably possible”. Things like that are too vague.

The language that I am proposing comes from the United States. The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act was amended back in 2016. They went through this process and came up with language that seems to be working very well in the United States with practical and scientifically justified methods to talk about a replacement and reduction and not leaving space to misinterpret refinement.

The way it is written right now, we have “reduce or refine the use of” animals, but refinement could really be just making the cage bigger, one square foot more for dogs, or putting in toys or bedding for mice, but refinement should really be refining procedures to minimize pain and distress. These things need to be written in; otherwise, we will not be making full use of these amendments that we are bringing forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's very helpful indeed.

Proposed section 68.1, in limiting research and investigations, really ties the minister's hands in some cases when we aren't providing the off-ramp to get into the new technologies.

[Dr. Charu Chandrasekera]

Yes, I think the three Rs, honestly, have been around. The three Rs are replacement, reduction and refinement of animals in scientific research and testing. This was written back in 1959, and not much has changed.

If you think about it, if the scientific community were really adhering to these practices, we would not be using this many animals. In Canada we use over four million animals a year. It's over 200 million animals around the globe. The numbers have risen since 1959, so unless we make concrete proposals to replace, first, and then reduce and then refine the procedures.... Because we're going to be using animals for the foreseeable future, and those animals deserve better care to have their pain and suffering minimized, refinement should be in there, but not on an equal footing with replacement, which should be prioritized.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

One caution I would put out is about getting too prescriptive in the act, and it may be through enabling legislation or regulations that these are items that the act can point towards, and then those details can be handled in another way.

Would that be a fair comment?