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.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Sorry, we have to stop there.
We'll go to Mr. Duguid for four minutes, please.
November 25th, 2022 / 2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all of our excellent witnesses today.
I have two questions, one for Mr. Masterson and Ms. Morrison, and the other for the Manitoba Eco-Network, Ms. Fast. If you could just keep to a couple of minutes, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to get to my Manitoba colleagues. I have a little bit of a bias there.
Mr. Kurek mentioned that you had a joint submission with some of the environmental groups, which, frankly, was very heartening to see. I'm aware of some of the behind-the-scenes activities on Bill C-28, which, for the most part, I think everyone involved in the debate was pretty happy with. We're dealing right now with amendments that have come from the Senate.
I wonder if you have made the same kinds of efforts, and environmental groups have made the same kinds of efforts, to come together on issues like confidential business information to see what might be possible. There's obviously a confidence gap. On the other hand, we want innovation. We want to protect IP. We want those goals. We want public confidence. We want innovation.
Is there a third way, as I was suggesting the other day, or full stop are you...?
2:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Perhaps there is space. If we go back to the original report to committee, there were a lot of actions. We worked with others to identify where we could make progress jointly and to park those issues where we couldn't make progress. That would be one that we probably could do.
I would also say again, confidential business information is treated under the Privacy Act, the protection of private information. This is not the place to change Canada's architecture for treatment of confidential business information. You have other officials and you have other acts where that should be addressed. You do not want to do that in the case of just CEPA. It's not appropriate.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Okay, thank you.
I go over to Ms. Fast.
Ms. Fast, I may pick up where Ms. Collins left off. I understand your situation very well. I live in Winnipeg. Of course, we've talked about vulnerable populations and cumulative impacts. Maybe you could just reinforce what you feel that you need to be active participants in your own community in order to ensure that pollution is not negatively impacting these vulnerable communities.
I've heard you talk about financial resources. I've heard you talk about data. Maybe just give us a little more flavour and colour of the particular situation and how CEPA could help protect your communities—our communities. I say “our communities”, because I live in Manitoba.
2:50 p.m.
Director, Policy Advocacy, Manitoba Eco-Network
Thank you very much.
As I discussed in my presentation earlier, we have been working with lots of vulnerable community members in mature neighbourhoods in their city who have been facing exposures from toxic substances from nearby industrial activities over many decades. There have been many efforts at the community level to try to engage with government at all levels to collect data to help them evidence their concerns and also to engage in other legal processes that would help them advance the changes they'd like to see—and again, protect their health and surrounding environment.
What we've been seeking in our engagement with Bill S-5 is more legal tools that would help empower our local community members to engage at all levels.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. We'll have to stop there.
Ms. Pauzé now has the floor for two minutes.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Rehn, I can't let you answer because we don't have much time, but from what I understand, Canada is leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to putting us at risk, but in terms of labelling, it is lagging behind 63 countries.
Mr. Masterson, your association oversees all lobbying activities on behalf of the industry that pertain to Bill S‑5. During COP27, you launched a campaign called “Save Plastic,” the main message of which was that we should continue to produce plastic because it is not toxic.
For example, we are finding microplastics in the environment and floating in the oceans. When microplastics are very light, they break down and become what is called nanoplastic which is even smaller and can be found in the human body, the placenta, the liver, etc.
Are you able to state here that microplastics are not toxic?
2:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
No. Microplastics are listed on the schedule 1 list of CEPA toxics, and we're promptly prohibited under certain regulations that follow from that for certain applications.
That is, I would say, an unfortunate mischaracterization of the campaign. It doesn't say that plastics don't cause problems. It says that we're putting a valuable resource in Canada, an incredibly valuable resource—nearly $8 billion a year—into landfill and there is an opportunity to recover that material and reintroduce it into the economy.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I am going to stop you right there, Mr. Masterson, because I have another question and my time is very limited.
Europe has its REACH regulation and the European Chemicals Agency, which determines how the regulation is enforced in member states. The REACH regulation sets out that chemical analyses must be done by grouping chemicals into families, rather than one substance at a time.
Would you be open to this type of assessment?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Under the current chemicals management plan, there are already group assessments that are being conducted, and risk management actions follow appropriately.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Rehn.
I want to thank you for your testimony on genetically modified salmon. I'm particularly concerned about the impact on first nations communities. Wild salmon populations have been declining, and their survival is threatened by a variety of environmental factors.
Many first nations on the west coast, and in particular in the area where I live, on the Salish Sea, have expressed strong opposition to genetically engineered salmon and deep concerns about the threat it poses to their food systems, their culture and the ecosystems that these nations have stewarded for millennia.
You spoke a bit about the importance in many first nations cultures. I also wanted to hear your thoughts on some of the intellectual property and cultural concerns.
There's a quote by Valerie Segrest, who is an indigenous food nutritionist, as follows:
Perhaps the most disturbing part of it all came when I was sharing my thoughts on this with a colleague of mine, and he pointed out that a corporation now owns the DNA of wild Chinook salmon. Someone now owns my ancestral foods' DNA. I remember that as a spirit-shaking moment and thinking, “How dare you?”
She talks a lot about the way in which colonization and genocidal policies work and the actions being carried out by agribusiness—in particular, AquaBounty, when it comes to genetically modified salmon—on intellectual property.
Other nations have expressed concerns about the lack of consultation. Can you talk a bit more about this?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
All right.
We're also concerned by the fact that certain companies are claiming ownership of living beings, whether it be genetically modified animals or plants, such as canola. You know that canola is one of the main crops produced here in Canada, along with wheat. We are seeing that the best way not to be contaminated and not to be sued by the companies that own this seed is to plant genetically modified canola. That's why there is almost no non-genetically modified canola being produced anymore.
Once these companies become the owners of living organisms, it becomes extremely difficult to get them out of the system, so we should set up better protection right now.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Ms. Chandrasekera.
I am really curious. When you speak about testing the animals, you're talking about it being more economical and having better outcomes with more targeted results for what we're after here as far as applications for human sources are concerned.
Can you give us, for our education here, an indication of how much is being spent on animal testing in Canada right now and how much you think we'd save with the changes we're talking about that would be part of this?
2:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods
In terms of the actual numbers, they are not available. In Canada, we do not know.
We know how many animals are used in toxicity testing, based on the Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines, but those do not include some of the private companies that are not part of this accreditation organization.
I can give you some numbers on what these tests cost. I have them right in front of me.
One of the tests, the rat cancer bioassay, takes two years to look at carcinogenicity. It costs about $700,000 to do this test. When it comes to looking at sex hormone interactions—the estrogen hormone interactions and male androgen ones—these range from $30,000 to $40,000 to do the animal tests, but the non-animal methods are around $7,000. When you're talking about this, it's also the time that it takes, right? That also translates into money. Some of these tests can be done in a matter of a few days, whereas the animal tests take weeks and months and even two years for reproductive testing and for cancer bioassays and things like that.
In terms of exactly how much money is being spent in Canada, I'm not really sure that's ever been calculated. Some of these are being provided by.... It's the companies that are spending the money. If you are a chemical company and you're trying to get a new chemical approved, you're doing all of these tests and submitting the data to federal agencies.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Tell me, what's the holdback now? If it is more effective and more economical, what is the holdback in making the change immediately as opposed to having legislation help make the change?
3 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods
I don't think there is enough of an incentive for everyone to adopt these technologies. That's where legislation comes into play.
This is what happened with the cosmetics industry in the European Union. When the EU government said that they were no longer going to be able to test on animals within a certain period of time, the innovators, the companies, the researchers and the government came up with a plan on how to accommodate that.
Right now, we have issues with “validation”. All of the new data that are generated from these new methods are constantly being compared to the old animal methods. That's hindering our progress. Even the ones that are far advanced are not being adopted by regulatory agencies around the world at the pace and scale that they should be, so that is holding us back.
With legislation, we could enforce that and give them an option to do it quickly.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Okay. Thank you.
I have one question, because I am curious.... I went through Ms. Fast's submission here. I'm not clear about the difference between Manitobans and the rest of Canadians as far as the application of this law is concerned, and why you think the current law doesn't serve Manitobans as well as it serves other Canadians.
Give a quick explanation, if you could, please.
3 p.m.
Director, Policy Advocacy, Manitoba Eco-Network
I was referring to the fact that at the provincial level, some jurisdictions have recognized environmental human rights. In Manitoba, at the provincial level, we do not.
That is what I was referring to.
3 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am going to be ceding my time to Ms. Taylor Roy.