Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, we're out of time, Ms. Taylor Roy, but there will be other opportunities, I'm sure.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. LeRoux, I'd like some clarification: Did you say that imported products are subject to the same standards as Canadian products?

[Gary LeRoux]

No.

Is that with regard to Mr. McLean's question?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Indeed, that was an answer to one of Mr. McLean's questions. So, you aren't the one who said it.

[Gary LeRoux]

No, they have to comply with the law in Canada. In terms of CBI, they need the protection in Canada. When they ship products to Canada and share information with the government, they would like to have confidential business information policy that's strong.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right, thank you.

In your speech, I thought I understood that you are in favour of a prevention-based Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Are you in favour of an approach based on analyzing product families like they do in Europe? Rather than analyze one little sample at a time, we could use product families and speed up the process.

[Gary LeRoux]

Sure. It's already done in Canada. They do it under the CMP with groups of substances. It's already part of the assessment process under the CMP. We've had a number of those.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

To my knowledge, in Canada, analyses are done one substance at a time, and not by product families. So, I am a little—

[Gary LeRoux]

No, we've had cases of groups of substances.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If you have already run into these types of cases, that means it is not done systematically.

Earlier, you said that you worked on product assessment. But some products are brought to market before their assessment is completed, which means risks for human or environmental health.

[Gary LeRoux]

I'm sorry. All of the chemicals that are prioritized now for assessment are in commerce. They're being sold. The whole idea is to look at the inputs in those chemicals to make sure that they are not harmful to human health or the environment. It's an ongoing process under the CMP.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Earlier, you mentioned how long the process was, and that it's impossible to assess many.

Is it possible to work with other countries that have data similar to ours? We could work from that data rather than reinvent the wheel for our own assessments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 10 seconds at most.

[Gary LeRoux]

Canada has a more rigorous process than the EU, for instance, which does some research studies. For example, I mentioned the TiO2 that was just knocked down by the Court of Justice of the European Union. They had very limited data; that's why it didn't proceed. We have much more substantive data, in many cases, and we don't have summary data. They don't use standardized data in Europe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Ms. Collins now, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Ms. Mitchell.

You mentioned octopuses in your opening statement, and I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the use of the language “vertebrate animals”. Cephalopods can solve complex puzzles. They can learn and remember. Octopuses have been known to use tools and recognize individuals outside their species, including human faces. They are an interesting example of advanced cognitive evolution in animals.

I just want to hear more of your thoughts on this.

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

Absolutely. Thank you for that opportunity.

As you recognized, the act right now focuses exclusively on vertebrates, and especially.... Hopefully members of the committee have seen My Octopus Teacher in particular, which recently came out and really showed how highly intelligent those animals are.

What we're proposing right now is that.... We recognize that toxicity testing right now is being done on invertebrates. However, we don't know what direction science is going to go in, and we do know that octopuses are increasingly being used in research around the world. What we propose is really just to create the option to create regulations in the future if needed, not to protect all invertebrates. We're not suggesting to protect very small micro-organisms. We're saying to protect animals that we know to be sentient and complex, like the octopus. We think it's really important to put it in there, because who knows when CEPA will be reviewed again? It could be another 20 years.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

You also mentioned the 2035 timeline for phasing out animal testing. Can you talk a little bit about whether you think Canada is on track? Is there a danger that we won't meet that deadline? What really needs to happen for us to make sure that we meet it?

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

I would say that right now Canada is not on track, but I think we could be. That's the good news. I try to look at these things in an optimistic way. The bad news is that we're behind other jurisdictions. The good news is that, because of that, we can learn from them.

We can look to the United States, for instance. They have a similar 2035 deadline. We can see what works there. Part of it is that is through their TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act, they have requirements to reduce and replace, to the extent practicable and scientifically justified, the use of animals.

There's also a planning requirement. I think that's really important. There's a planning requirement to actually get us on track and make sure we're being thoughtful and strategic and thinking through how to actually achieve the deadline. We're very pleased that's been included by the Senate in proposed section 73. We'd really like to see that stay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Benzen, you have five minutes.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

Mr. LeRoux, earlier submissions by organizations linked to the chemistry association of Canada had concerns with the proposed watch-list—namely, redundancy and a lack of clarity regarding the listing of substances. Does the CPCA share any of those concerns?

[Gary LeRoux]

Yes, we do. Putting substances on a watch-list just signals to Canadians that these chemicals shouldn't be in the products they buy, and that causes them concern. There's no control of how many substances are placed on that watch-list, or any protocols to get them to the watch-list or even get them off. We prefer that there be no watch-list. It's like Hotel California: You can enter, but you can never leave. You're stuck on that list, and we don't know how long it's going to become.

It also sends a signal to consumers that the government's regulations for products now don't work. If they have to do something after regulation to say to consumers that there are also these that are potentially harmful 10 years, 20 years or 40 years out, that doesn't give much confidence in the current regulations of the federal government.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Okay.

Currently, there are over 50,000 CEPA regulations in place. There's no question that there will be more regulations coming. You've hinted or suggested that some of these are going to cause economic harm to the coatings and manufacturing sectors in Canada.

I know that you don't want to be using chemicals that are toxic or unhealthy, but how do we find a balance between having companies that are innovating, introducing new products and solving problems for Canadians but having to deal with all this extra cost that's being put on the industry? Is it possible to find a balance there?

[Gary LeRoux]

Do you mean in terms of new products being developed?

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I just mean that we have 50,000 CEPA regulations. That is a tremendous burden on any company or any industry to have to work with. That brings enormous cost.