Agreed.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th 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.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th 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.
1:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That was pretty non-controversial.
We'll go back to you, Mr. Kurek. I didn't take any time away from you for that.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for that show of collaboration. I appreciate that greatly.
Ms. Laurie-Lean, we're just finishing up a study on clean tech. Canada's mining sector is uniquely positioned to seize opportunities related to emerging technologies, whether that be the components needed for batteries to do with electric vehicles, critical minerals, small modular reactors and a whole host of other things. I think that's part of the reason it's so important that we get Bill S-5 right. It has to do a lot with not only the chemicals and the designations and whatnot that we've heard a lot about, but this is what will position or hold Canada back from being successful as a leader in the future in green tech and all of the associated things.
I'm wondering if you could expand a little bit on anything that is required to ensure that we do get this right and that we don't hold our nation back from being a successful leader specifically related to the mining industry.
1:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
Well, I'll put two things, one that's very mundane and that probably applies to a lot of others. It would really benefit our sector to have good government, in the sense of officials who are able to provide guidance and who therefore have the resources to provide guidance, reporting systems that work and so on. That was why our concern was around resourcing and taking focus away from the bread and butter.
The other issue is that we're a sector, along with the rest of the economy, in transition. The big things are electrification and digitization. That requires new technology, some of it developed in Canada, hopefully, and some coming in from other countries. We want to make sure that our environmental regulatory system doesn't hamper that innovation. We're not a big enough market. Compared with the EU and the U.S., we're not a big market. We've had experience in the past where a supplier of an innovative product will say that they're sorry, but the hoops for getting something approved in Canada are too big. They won't supply our market.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Perhaps I could ask you a simple and I think yes-or-no follow-up. If we don't get this right, do we risk not being able to provide these resources, in your case minerals and whatnot, to the rest of the world when it comes to ensuring that these technologies can be developed?
1:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
I think it's “one of”. I think CEPA is one of many other factors in project permitting, infrastructure and a whole bunch of things. But yes, it is an important factor.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I have one quick question to do with the online query tool. I know that there have been some discussions before the Senate and whatnot. In as much time as I have left, I'm wondering if you could share your perspective on the idea of an online query tool.
November 25th, 2022 / 1:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
I'll try to do that quickly.
If you look at schedule 1, there are a number of listings that are groups. That is what we expect in the future—not a single compound but a group of things with certain characteristics. The person operating a mill, a plant or a manufacturing facility looking at the materials safety sheet has a compound with a CAS number, and is having to figure out how they correspond and is not knowing. The new tool actually allows you to put in the number for the substance. It tells you whether it was assessed, which will be very helpful to the user.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.
I have listened carefully to the testimony and the submissions regarding ambient air quality problems posed by toxins.
Ms. Plain, your testimony was very compelling on the data you had on what's happening.
Mr. Castrilli, I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about your recommendations [Technical difficulty—Editor] about ambient air quality problems posed by toxins not being addressed currently, what you see being done and how that could help address the concerns Ms. Plain raised in her testimony.
2 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thank you for the question.
I guess the issue originates with the 2017 report of this standing committee, in which it recommended that there be national ambient air quality standards developed under CEPA. The purpose of them, of course, is to address a half a dozen or so substances that are problems nationwide, lead being one of the primary examples.
It's a great equalizer to have ambient air quality standards, because there are parts of the country—and Ms. Plain identified one such place in Sarnia—that have substandard air quality. If we had a set of national standards, we could redress that kind of problem for vulnerable populations like the population she is describing.
One thing we have to do, though, is that we cannot rely on the standards that currently Canada has, which are issued under sections 54 and 55 of CEPA. They're simply non-enforceable objectives, number one, and number two, some of them are as much as four times less stringent than their counterparts in the United States. We need robust standards and we need them to be enforceable, and then we'd begin to address problems like the ones that are being discussed here today in Sarnia.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Okay, thank you.
I also noted that one of the other groups, I think it was the coalition of the ENGOs that brought up the idea of putting in a specific reference to enforcing ambient air quality standards in the right to a healthy environment. Do you think this would be helpful to ensuring that this is done?
2 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Well, I'm looking at their submission, and the way it's framed, I don't think would be very helpful. I understand the intent, but it's not good enough.
The problem is that it simply indicates that as part of the discussion about the implementation framework, there is a suggestion that there be specification of the actions that the ministers will take when ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Since ambient air quality standards are not legally enforceable now, that phraseology would not get you anywhere, number one. Problem number two, as I said at the outset, is that some of Canada's ambient air quality standards, which are really guidelines, are as much as four times more lenient than the American standards. We need better standards, and they need to be legally enforceable.
While I understand their suggestion, it's not really going to get us where we need to go.
2 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association
What we need to do is what we suggest in tab eight of our submission.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
It's in tab 8. Okay, thank you.
In my remaining time, I want to turn my questions to Ms. Plain.
Is she still here?
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, but there is really only time for a comment, Ms. Taylor Roy.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I am just asking how we could help. Obviously the development of the implementation framework is important in how we move forward. What could we do? Do you see yourself being able to be involved, and what would it take for you to feel like you have participation in that?
If there is not time to answer fully, perhaps you could submit something to us. I feel that your participation is very important.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Unfortunately, we are really over time.
If you could submit a letter of some kind as to how you feel you can be engaged in the framework, it will be circulated to the committee.
2 p.m.
Environmental Consultant, As an Individual
Yes. I plan on submitting a brief that directs to resources, but also some recommendations on how I feel that Aamjiwnaang can contribute.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thanks so much.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for another fascinating discussion. These have been insightful and substantive hearings. This is our second day of hearings, and it augurs well for the rest of the study.
I'm going to pause here because we have to bring in our next panel. We'll proceed with them in a few minutes. Thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Hello to our next panel.
We have with us, from the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, Dr. Charu Chandrasekera, executive director; from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, Bob Masterson and Danielle Morrison; and from the Manitoba Eco-Network, we have Heather Fast; and from Vigilance OGM, we have Thibault Rehn, coordinator of the organization.
Each group will have a total of three minutes to make its presentation.
Our first witness is Ms. Chandrasekera.
2:05 p.m.
Dr. Charu Chandrasekera Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is a pleasure to be here today to speak about the historic legislative changes being made to modernize toxicity testing in Canada. Toxicity testing is the process of determining how chemicals negatively impact our normal biological functions. This is currently done through extensive animal testing, where mice and rats serve as the gold standard, and dogs are the favoured non-rodent species. Many of these legacy animal methods were developed back in the 1950s and 1960s, and they are unreliable. They cannot adequately predict human biological responses. They are costly, time-consuming and ethically questionable.
There is a global shift away from animal testing, with new, 21st-century approaches and methods changing the game. For example, with organ-on-a-chip technology—which I'm holding here—we can emulate human biology on a chip the size of a thumb drive. We can capture toxicity in a petri dish, with 3-D bioprinted tissue models, as we do at my centre.
Such innovation is backed by bold global efforts, and with legislation and strategic road maps to phase out animal testing. The U.S. and the EU have an enviable, almost unbeatable, lead in this race. Needless to say, Canada is lagging far behind those nations, but, with Bill S-5, we have an unprecedented opportunity to usher in a new era of research and innovation to give Canada a competitive edge on the world stage.
As you will see in my brief, it is critical to strengthen the laudable amendments made in the Senate and adopt language that enforces the use of practicable and scientifically justified non-animal methods. This will prioritize animal replacement and the timely incorporation of these methods into regulatory risk assessment, complemented by a national strategic road map and sustainable funding for the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, so as to catalyze our domestic effort—in partnership with Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada—and meet the government's goal of ending toxicity testing by 2035.
I represent Canada's national hub and international interface. I have a seat at the table in international consortia on alternatives to animal testing. The last time I gave a talk at the European Commission, in 2019, I talked about how we select legislation and funding commitments in Canada. The number one question I got was, “Why don't Canadians care?” To this day, I don't have an answer.
Next year, in August 2023, my centre will be co-hosting, along with Health Canada and Environment Canada, the largest and highest-profile international conference in this field. When we welcome regulators, industry, academics and non-profits from around the globe, I want to be able to shout from the rooftops that Canadians do care.
I urge this committee to strengthen Bill S-5 and pave the way for Canada to play a leading role, make a significant leap to join our global counterparts in phasing out animal testing, and create a healthier Canada for generations to come.
Thank you.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We'll now go to Mr. Masterson.
Go ahead, please.
