Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Karen Wristen]

I have heard witnesses speak very profoundly about those issues, and what struck me most was how aghast they were at the thought that a fish that has not only sustained them by way of providing food directly but sustained their entire ecosystem could possibly now be owned by a corporation somewhere. For millennia they have counted on the salmon returning to create all of the foods and medicines that their culture is founded on, and now it is no longer public property. That was quite a surprise.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

I want to thank you for all of the work that your organization has been doing to protect wild salmon on the west coast as well.

I will turn to Mr. Affleck.

You mentioned that you focus mainly on plant GMOs. When I was doing a bit of research, I noticed GMO Answers, which is a website of CropLife International. They had a page on AquaBounty with responses to some of the concerns. The question of first nations and indigenous concerns wasn't mentioned there. I'm wondering if you could speak to that at all.

[Ian Affleck]

Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with that specific page.

You are correct that GMO Answers is part of our global group's effort to get more information about GMOs out there. I think the GMO salmon became such a big question that they were trying to fill that gap, but I'm not familiar with the details of that piece, unfortunately.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you speak to the two amendments by the Senate that you said you do support?

[Ian Affleck]

Yes. The one on reducing animal testing is, I think, important. Our sector has come a long way and agrees with some of the statements that were made in testimony earlier in the week about there being computer models and complex extrapolations that can be done now and that can fit that space, and our industry is ready to go there. I think CEPA can provide the space for departments to figure out how quickly they can get to where the industry is trying to go to remove those requirements.

That's one general element of thinking of this as a legislative discussion. At times some of these amendments feel like regulations within legislation rather than being enabling so that the departments can figure the regulation out.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

What was the other? You said there were two amendments.

[Ian Affleck]

The other was indigenous engagement.

In that element, we have no objection to all the pieces of the preamble that were there and the importance of engagement of the indigenous community.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I think the engagement with first nations and indigenous communities is so critical, especially when it comes to part 6, which is the section that treats animals as substances.

Ms. Wristen, can you speak to some of the larger...? I know Nature Canada is going to be submitting some amendments, but in the future, we need to really overhaul this section. I'm curious if you can speak a bit more about the big-picture changes that are needed.

[Karen Wristen]

I think the Senate addressed a number of them.

The main concern we had was, of course, the ability of citizens to participate in the process, to provide evidence, to review evidence and to know how these living organisms are being assessed. I think the Senate amendments have gone a long way toward addressing that.

The “demonstrable need for the living organism” is the way that we would like to introduce the conversation about the ethical, cultural and social implications of genetically modifying animals when there are wild counterparts and the danger exists that those wild counterparts could be damaged by the genetically modified organism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We are now at the second round, and we have to keep to four minutes and two minutes, respectively, if we want to adjourn the meeting at 5:50 p.m.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the witness panel, thank you very much for being here.

My question is for Madame Coombs of the Canadian Consumer Speciality Products Association.

Madame, I want to hear about the impact you see for your group about the watch-list. Is that a big concern for you with the amendment made by the—

[Shannon Coombs]

Yes, I think I had mentioned in my testimony that the watch-list has been somewhat misnamed. We currently have what I would consider to be a watch-list, which is the SNAc—the significant new activity list. What we're looking at is the list of ingredients that have been put on notice that they can only be used for certain uses.

I think the challenge we have is that it's not necessarily named correctly. The watch-list isn't named correctly, nor is the SNAc. Another challenge, of course, is being able to try to find it on the website and understand it. There's no context around what it is and what it means to Canadians. There are definitely some areas for improvement there.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You consider the watch-list, as it is done right now, to not be available or very efficient.

If the government addressed it correctly with more clarity, do you think it would be more acceptable for you?

[Shannon Coombs]

I think it's around the context, so that it's meaningful to Canadians about what a SNAc list is and how it's being used by industry and by government. Then it is being able to find it more easily on the website.

I think calling it a watch-list is problematic in the way it's currently framed. I don't necessarily believe that we need to have it in the act as it is written.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much.

Now I will ask some questions of Dr. Taylor.

Welcome to the House of Commons committee, Madame.

Based on your experience, I think you will recognize that Bill S-5 is not exactly the same now as when it was tabled two years ago, with so many amendments made by the senators. I would like to hear your thoughts about this and about the amendments. Are there amendments we should keep or some others that we should erase?

What are your thoughts on that?

[Dr. Justine Taylor, Director, Stewardship and Sustainability, CropLife Canada]

I think my colleague has already addressed the issues that we have concerns with and the amendments that we support. I don't really have anything further to add to that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay.

Do the Senate amendments address CropLife Canada's substantive advances with respect to pesticides and modern plant breeding, and the plant science industry's economic and environmental contribution, or do you think they are redundant?

[Ian Affleck]

Could you repeat the question, please?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes.

Did the Senate amendments address CropLife Canada's substantive advances with respect to pesticides and modern plant breeding, and the plant science industry's economic and environmental contribution, or are they redundant?

[Ian Affleck]

I think the best-placed act and best-placed minister manage these products very well through PMRA, CFIA and Health Canada. Much of what was in that Senate amendment was redundant and would create confusion within the marketplace.

I think that science, risk and predictable regulatory structures are what allow innovation to flourish. I think we have that now.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay, so....

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds left, Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Very well.

There's not any time to ask him another question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

Ms. Thompson, you have four minutes.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'd like to begin with Ms. Coombs.

Would you be able to share your opinion on how strong protections for human and environmental health support good business?