Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll get moving now on to the second panel.

We have Ms. Shannon Coombs from the Canadian Consumers Specialty Products Association. From CropLife Canada, we have Ian Affleck and Dr. Justine Taylor. From Living Oceans Society, we have Karen Wristen, who may be joining a bit later. There's an issue with the time change.

We'll start for three minutes with Ms. Coombs, please.

Ms. Coombs, go ahead.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Good day, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here to provide our perspective on the committee's review of Bill S-5.

My name is Shannon Coombs. I am the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association. For 24 years I have proudly represented the many accomplishments of this proactive and responsible industry. For 19 of those years, I have been president. The last two years of my tenure at CCSPA have been a very challenging yet rewarding time for industry and government. We have collectively delivered disinfectants, sanitizers and hand sanitizers plus general cleaners to ensure that Canadians had the products they needed to keep them safe, whether it be in their homes, their workplaces or their schools.

I would like to thank all the members of the committee who follow us on Twitter and have retweeted us in the last 32 months as we promoted handwashing and numerous important COVID advisories, most recently on monkeypox, during this unprecedented time. Getting good, factual and useful information to Canadians during the pandemic was and is a key priority for the association.

Today I would like to offer a quick outline of how the act works for our industry, the success of the world-leading CMP program, and our support for moving forward.

Why is CEPA important to CCSPA and our members? It's a sophisticated 400-page piece of legislation. In 1999, after an exhaustive review by your predecessors in this very forum—my first few months in the industry—the environment committee reviewed over 550 proposed amendments, 150 of which were included in the final bill after 93 hours of review. As a result, it has led to some significant outcomes for Canadians.

One such outcome is the chemicals management plan, referred to as the CMP, which is a science-based risk assessment program for chemicals and their management. In short, CEPA governs our ingredients, both existing and new.

CCSPA has supported this world-leading government program since 2006. We have strived to ensure that our pillars of sound science, due process and effective communications have been embraced in the program. Canadians should be proud of this program. Our country is a global leader in how substances are assessed and managed regardless of where that chemical is used.

We were very pleased to see Bill S-5 tabled on February 9 in the Senate. The package at the time was a thoughtful proposal of many views, including the 2006 and 2016 parliamentary reviews. Current policies are being codified, with some bold thinking to modernize the act.

What does it codify? It codifies a right to a healthy environment, vulnerable populations and cumulative effects, and information regarding the risks of toxic substances, including labelling.

What are some of the new amendments? They are the use of the “best placed” act and “best placed” minister, and the list of substances...of becoming toxic, unfortunately misnamed as the watch-list.

In the Senate, two additional amendments were included. In our opinion, one is outside the scope of Bill S-5 and one adds some regulatory red tape. CCSPA would ask ENVI to consider removing the following: clause 67.1, which is the requirement for ISED to test imported products to ensure that they meet Canadian regulations and to prepare a report to Parliament; and subclause 13(1), requiring a database of all actions related to 30,000 chemicals.

In closing, I'd like to state that the CCSPA has been, and remains committed to, working with this government on supporting an efficient and effective piece of legislation and regulatory framework. The bill continues to strike an important balance of codifying important principles. The health and safety of Canadians and the environment remains paramount.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

It's nice to see you again. I know that you've been with the organization for a number of years. We've interacted before on other related issues.

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

From CropLife, who will be speaking?

It will be Mr. Affleck. Mr. Affleck, you have three minutes.

[Ian Affleck, Vice-President, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today.

My name is Ian Affleck. I'm the vice-president of plant biotechnology at CropLife Canada. I'm joined today by my colleague Justine Taylor, director of stewardship and sustainability.

CropLife Canada is the association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science innovations, including pest control products and plant biotechnology, for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings. We are committed to protecting human health and the environment, and we believe in driving innovation through continuous research.

Our members bring innovation to Canadian farmers, and those innovations help drive improved productivity and sustainability. For example, these innovations supported farmers in reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of Canadian agriculture by 50% since 1997.

The average Canadian farm is now producing twice as much food as it did 50 years ago, while using the same amounts of inputs. Simply put, these technologies allow farmers to grow more food on less land using fewer resources, all while making agriculture more sustainable, keeping food more affordable and growing the economy.

The legislative framework in Canada being discussed today plays a critical role in fostering innovation and directly impacts whether these solutions make it into the hands of Canadian farmers.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a critical piece of that framework, which has historically delivered world-leading environmental protection while also delivering a predictable, science-based and risk-based approach to regulatory oversight.

While CropLife Canada member products are primarily regulated under CEPA-equivalent acts and regulations, such as the Pest Control Products Act, the Feeds Act and the Seeds Act, amendments to CEPA have the potential to impact those regulatory programs.

CropLife Canada and its members are supportive of the amendments to CEPA as tabled on February 9, 2022. However, we're only supportive of two of the amendments that were proposed following the clause-by-clause review through the Senate committee, specifically those related to “replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals” in testing procedures and to the engagement of indigenous communities.

With that in mind, the original Bill S-5 offered a well-balanced and pragmatic approach to addressing identified shortcomings in CEPA while preserving the essential, science-based and risk-based approach to regulation for which Canada is known.

CropLife Canada, on behalf of its members, respectfully requests that the bill be returned to its original state, other than those two Senate amendments noted above. This will help ensure the safety of Canadians and their environment while providing a predictable, science-based and risk-based legislative foundation for the regulation of new and innovative products like those delivered by our member companies.

Thank you very much for the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Affleck.

We'll go to Mr. Kurek.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Would you mind letting the committee know what time Karen Wristen is expected?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do we have that answer? There was confusion around time zones.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm wondering if we could potentially switch the order so that I ask my questions later in the meeting, as I have a number of questions for that witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I'll do my best. Sure.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Kurek, you have six minutes.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses who are appearing here today.

Let me preface my questions by simply saying that time is something we are in short supply of, so if there is further information needed, please feel free to follow up with this committee, whether that be specific amendments or further information regarding your comments.

As somebody who is very involved in agriculture, I have a lot of questions related to that. However, I'll keep it directly associated with Bill S-5.

You talked about the need to find the right balance. Chemicals are an important part of agriculture in Canada, and you talked about needing that balance and how CEPA and other related acts have a significant effect on that.

I invite you to expand on the specifics of what that balance should look like and how important it is that we start that balance here today.

[Ian Affleck]

Thank you.

I think the key to that is the risk-based approach. When we allow and provide the support for the departments to complete risk-based oversight of new products when they deem necessary, that's what creates that balance of ensuring that it's a robust, science-based decision that determines whether a product is or is not suitable and how, and the limitations to which it's used.

As a short answer, I really think that maintaining a very risk-based approach and avoiding a hazard-based approach is critical to having that balance.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

We've heard quite a bit about that, especially from stakeholders who have suggested that that move is problematic. However, as is the case in agriculture, with a lot of misunderstanding, sometimes, associated with the use of chemicals or, in the case of agriculture, fertilizers and what not, I'm wondering....

You're talking about a risk-based approach. How does that encompass ensuring that products are, in fact, safe when being applied to agricultural products and processes and some things that ultimately end up in the Canadian food supply chain?

[Ian Affleck]

When we look at the history of our food supply chain, we see that it has been incredibly safe. Those risk-based approaches have done a great job of ensuring that the food on Canadian shelves is safe for the consumer, as well as safe for the environment when it's being produced.

With regard to that difference between hazard-based and risk-based, I think a good example would be wood dust. Wood dust is a class 1 carcinogen, so it's a hazard, but I don't think we would see the need for wood dust to fall under a complicated regulatory scheme for how it's used on a farm or how it's managed.

If you move to hazard-based, you're going to capture a lot of things that could be a hazard, but that's the key to risk. The exposure is what matters—how you are exposed to that hazard—and then allowing the flexibility for the departments to draw that line for when they need to see a product because they live in that space. They understand when they need to capture something for review and when a hazard is benign and can move freely into the marketplace.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

You addressed the two Senate amendments that you support. I know we have heard a lot of the conversations around that.

In terms of the other subject matter of the bill, is there anything you would like to highlight for the committee to ensure that we have a better understanding of some of the impacts that might have on you and the agriculture industry in general?

[Ian Affleck]

There are many that have been well addressed by previous witnesses, but if I were to pick two that, I think, are highlighted for us that are primarily managed under equivalent acts, one would be demonstrable need. Again, looping back to the risk-based approach, demonstrable need would not be embedded in a risk-based approach. That would be a nebulous and undefined space of what is demonstrable need, so that would move us away from a global risk-based approach.

The other would be our approach to confidential business information and ensuring that we are internationally aligned in how we do that so that we don't put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. With that, I would say that often the drive for additional transparency on CBI is around a belief that that'll create public trust. I think what's important is not the raw data but the explanation of our regulatory processes by our government to our citizens, explaining how the government came to its decision and summarizing what it reviewed, because most people won't know what to do with 700 pages of toxicology data. They want to understand what it meant, how it was well reviewed and what the outcome of that was.

You can still get to transparency and trust without damaging competitiveness in the marketplace. There's a balance there.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Especially when it comes to things like competitiveness, we have heard from a number of witnesses that if we don't get this right, we will see capital flight. We will see industry and manufacturing leave Canada.

Do you have any comments about the possible impact to the Canadian economy and your industry in particular if we don't get that balance right?

[Ian Affleck]

I think there would be a clear detriment to the Canadian economy. Right now, we're working through equivalent acts on plant breeding innovation guidance, which is central to how gene editing will be managed by the government. We are eight years behind Argentina in figuring that out; it has seen significant increases in its R and D from small and large companies. We're four years behind the U.S. We're three years behind Australia.

It's important that we get it right, but others have gotten it right before us. We're seeing that the proof's in the pudding, in that they are getting the investment.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that.

Just to wrap up my time, I would say that you highlighted very well the value of agriculture, especially when we have incredible innovations that have taken place over the last century or so, the inputs versus yields, and the absolutely massive potential that exists within the space in Canada.

With that, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before giving the floor to Mr. Weiler, I see that Ms. Wristen has now connected to the meeting by videoconference. I therefore invite her to give us her opening statement for three minutes.

Ms. Wristen, before starting, I'd like to ask you a question.

If you could push the microphone up a bit so that it's not.... Yes. Push it up a little bit more. I think that's pretty good.

Excellent. Thank you.

Go ahead for three minutes, please.

[Karen Wristen, Executive Director, Living Oceans Society]

Thank you for the opportunity to address you on CEPA.

Living Oceans Society is a non-profit dedicated to ecosystem-based management of Canada's oceans. I serve as its executive director.

It's been 22 years since the act came into force, and during that time genetic engineering has developed with very little public consultation or oversight. The introduction of GM animals into the food supply and into the environment raises questions of ethics, health and safety that are matters of profound public interest, yet part 6 of CEPA suffers from a lack of transparency and opportunity for public input that's striking when it is compared to other Canadian legislation.

I'd like to illustrate that point by describing our experience of trying to participate in the approval of the world's first genetically modified food animal, AquaBounty's AquAdvantage salmon, or AAS. We have concerns with respect to the damage to the habitat and the genetic integrity of endangered wild Atlantic salmon should AAS eggs or the brood fish from which they were produced escape into the environment. Our concerns are shared by fishermen, first nations, social justice groups and conservation groups.

Requests made to health and environment ministries for information were refused point-blank. Everything we learned about the Canadian government's process for approving the manufacture and sale of AAS we learned through the U.S. government, through filings made by the company in the U.S. Health Canada's reply acknowledged that this matter is one of significant public interest but advised, “As you may know, the Department is not legally permitted to release information that companies submit and consider confidential.... This includes even the mere fact that a submission to the Department has been made.” The letter went on to suggest that media coverage of the issue was adequate notice to Canadians.

We filed for judicial review and we filed an access to information request to see the risk assessment that had been done. The document that was ultimately produced was very long, but there wasn't much to read in it. It was mostly redacted.

It transpired that Health Canada had waived the requirement for toxicity assessment with no notice to the public. The risk assessment confirmed that the environmental hazard of a release from the facility was high but found that the activity was “CEPA non-toxic” provided that the activity was confined to the quantities assessed, to be produced in the P.E.I. facility, and that the manufactured eggs were exported to Panama for grow out where the environmental risk of release was considered low.

All of those conditions were dropped when the government issued its significant new activity notice. This opened the door to AAS being manufactured in any contained facility, in any quantity, for grow out anywhere without a risk assessment that justified the finding of “not CEPA toxic” in all of those eventualities.

As it stands today, CEPA permits all of the aforementioned process to take place in absolute secrecy with no opportunity for citizens to have input—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We'll have to stop there, but there will be time for questions and answers.

We'll go to Mr. Weiler now for six minutes.