Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

Absolutely. Animal Justice has a number of concerns, and I think that the GM salmon case exemplifies the overall problems with part 6. Some of them are very specific in terms of how the assessment was done, and some are more overarching. As you've heard, we did not consider the impact on indigenous peoples. We also did not consider the welfare of the salmon.

CEPA treats genetically modified organisms the same way that it treats chemical substances, so I think that's really alarming, and I think that it really shows the need for a comprehensive overhaul of that part, but also, in the meantime, it shows that we need to make some amendments to improve it while we're waiting for that overhaul.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. McLean now for five minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

Witnesses, thank you for everything you've presented to us here today.

My first question is going to go to Ms. Mitchell.

Ms. Mitchell, thank you very much for your advocacy for animals. We should do everything we can so that they're not suffering in the testing that we do for our own needs.

I have a question for you on part 6 of the CEPA changes, because the way it's worded, CEPA addresses living organisms as defined by “a substance that is an animate product of biotechnology”, and then it gives the minister the authority to examine whether any new animate product of biotechnology is necessary or not.

Is it, in your opinion, in the minister's purview, obviously with his officials, to determine whether a product is necessary or not, or is that something that is naturally evolving as we go through this?

I'd really like your input on it, because I think that it is a gap we have so far. Any suggestion you might have about how to regulate that more appropriately would also be appreciated.

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

What I would say is that when we talk about genetically modified organisms—of course, my interest is in genetically modified animals in particular—it raises a number of issues, some of which are ethical, some of which are environmental, some of which are on human health and some of which have to do with animals, so I think that the question that you've raised really crosses all of those boundaries.

Certainly I think that there is room in CEPA for the minister to take a more comprehensive approach to evaluating these products. We haven't specifically advocated for one approach or another, although I understand that the Senate did pass the amendment that you spoke to.

What I would say about part 6 is that for all of these reasons, I think that most stakeholders agree that we need a comprehensive review of that part. I understand that we are not doing it right now, which is disappointing, and it's also challenging, because we have these specific amendments the Senate put forward, and the question is if we keep those in now or we hold off in terms of a broader view. I think that, for the most part, the Senate's amendments start to move us in the right direction, and, as I mentioned in my brief, we additionally would like to see some regulation-making authority for animals.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

Would you be able to take it upon yourself to provide us with some language, after your testimony here, about how that legislation might be better worded to protect against what we're looking for? Would that be something you could take on?

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

Absolutely. I was involved in the genetically modified salmon litigation, so I have a lot of views on that topic. I'm very happy to do that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

The next question is for Mr. LeRoux.

Mr. LeRoux, one of the issues in here is the issue of confidential business information. We've had input from other actors who are being affected by this and that balance we're going to have in terms of what confidential business information should be provided to the government and what the government should provide it to all the parties at this point in time. That may lead to industry businesses leaving this jurisdiction for more opportunities in other jurisdictions.

Can you tell us how you see that sharing of confidential information blanket would affect your operations here in Canada?

[Gary LeRoux]

Well, it affects us a lot, because it's already happening. Fifty per cent of our products now sold in Canada are shipped to Canada over the border. Manufacturing has been leaving Canada, so their products are being shipped here. Twenty years ago, it was 30%; now it's 50%, and it could be even higher. Some manufacturers don't have facilities in Canada. They're just putting it on a truck and shipping it to Canada from plants in the United States. That's happening across the board. It's consolidation that's doing that. This is going to make that even tougher, because most of the products are coming from companies based in the United States, so they're giving their information to Canadian authorities.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

When those chemicals come into Canada, they're still regulated.

[Gary LeRoux]

They're still regulated, 100% regulated, but—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

They're regulated to the same standard.

[Gary LeRoux]

That's right. You're not going to have all the information—new information, new chemistries, new innovation that we would have here in Canada. We would have to import that or buy it in higher-priced products.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Would we be subject to the regulations and the oversight that would happen in those jurisdictions at that point?

[Gary LeRoux]

Yes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Those jurisdictions have, so far—the United States, for example—much softer oversight mechanisms than we have in CEPA, or even in these ones, so—

[Gary LeRoux]

Well, you don't want to put a sign up at the border saying, “No innovation in Canada”. That impacts your—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

No, it's not the “no innovation”. It's the whole issue about where you do business, because effectively, it's the same consumer at the end of the day.

[Gary LeRoux]

Yes, it's the consumer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have to stop there.

We'll go to Ms. Taylor Roy, please, for five minutes.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I'd like to start my questioning with Ms. Mitchell regarding some of the suggested amendments she made. Thank you very much for your thorough work on this. It's an issue of great concern to me too.

First, there is a difference between something the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods had put forward and something you had put forward on animal testing. I was wondering about the issue of removing or including “refine” in the legislation. I'm asking about this because I know you'd like to have this removed and just put in “replace ” or “reduce”, but there are still certain tests for which there are no alternatives to animal testing. In the interim, when these still have to be unfortunately put forward through animal testing, do you not feel that having that “refine” part in there would help with the animal welfare issue during these tests?

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

Thank you so much for the question.

I appreciate this is a challenging topic, for the reasons you outlined. Our position is that the overall emphasis of the act needs to be on replacing and reducing the use of animals, and not just refining the way they're used, but as you note, they'll still be used in science, and I take that point. What I've proposed in the brief is that at the very least, perhaps what we could do is take that out of the preamble in clause 2, because those are sort of these visionary provisions, and have those focus on the replacement of animals entirely, but allow for refinement to come in in other places, though.

I have great respect for Dr. Charu Chandrasekera. I do also think that the proposal that she put forward around restraining what refinement looks like could also have the same effect.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay, that's very good.

Another question is regarding the fourth recommendation you made, the amendment to the new proposed paragraph 2(1)(k.1). You said, “encourage the development of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, or reduce”—and then you also added at the end—“require the timely incorporation of those methods and strategies.”

Could you elaborate on why you believe that additional wording is necessary and what effect that would have?

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

Yes. Thank you.

The proposal there is really just to try to strengthen the wording a bit. The language that was originally proposed in the Senate would have required government to avoid these animals, and instead we have the word “encourage”, which was introduced because it's less strong. I agree “encourage” is less strong than “avoid”, so my purpose there was to say at least let's require timely incorporation. There's a little bit stronger wording there to make sure we really are moving in the right direction.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I also had a question for Ms. Brown.

You talked about the kind of multi-jurisdictional co-operation insofar as there's an emphasis on a right to a healthy environment that includes explicit language to align the act with UNDRIP. The proposed Senate amendments also make reference to the need to consult and engage with indigenous peoples on environmental protection. In your view, does this provide sufficient opportunity to have these multi-jurisdictional conversations, or do you think there are other things that have to be added to strengthen it?

[Joan Brown]

To consult and engage is really just the surface. For us, it's really when to take a lead and make sure that it's taking an indigenous approach. For us, it's key in terms of having a high impact, and I think that's one of the missing ingredients for everything that we're doing in terms of the environment. That understanding of how things are interconnected and how things play out is really key. You can't talk about the estuary without talking about the river and the seaway, and so on and so forth. That's really a whole system.

Again, I'm repeating myself, but that siloed approach is really problematic, so it's not enough to engage as a consultant. Really ask us to take the lead, because we're the ones who know the land and who really can help each of us understand where the core of the problem is. It's really taking its own life, its own energy, and we have to react in a much different way.