Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Shannon Coombs]

That's an interesting question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to how my member companies operate, all of our ingredients are regulated under CEPA—the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—and then many of our products are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Act and the Hazardous Product Act.

We're highly regulated, but we are able to provide Canadians safe and beneficial products when used according to the label. Of course, we're able to be competitive in this environment.

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

Thank you.

Could you discuss the risk of duplicating regulatory regimes for product labelling that already exists under the Canada Consumer Protection Act, if labelling measures were pursued by Bill S-5? I'm somewhat coming off of your last statement.

[Shannon Coombs]

I think what we see right now in Canada is that we have a wide range of laws. We have CEPA, the Food and Drugs Act, Pest Control Products Act, the Hazardous Product Act and the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Act. They all have respective regulations that govern labelling in a very scientific way. They provide and ensure that Canadians have the right information on the product to use the product properly, first aid statements and, in most cases, disposal statements.

Where you see this coming forward and complementing all of those other acts through CEPA is that Bill S-5 has added labelling to the preamble as well as to section 68, highlighting that. It's really bringing to light what currently exists, which is section 93(1)(q), which allows the departments to create regulations through risk management processes.

We're seeing that manifest itself through, for example, MEKO, which is an ingredient used in paint. It actually has a statement on the products now that says to use it in a well-ventilated area. We're also seeing that labelling statements have been provided for MDI, which is an ingredient used in foam sprays. Through that, additional labelling has been created to ensure that we have protective eyewear or PPE.

I think that in Canada, what we do really well is assess the risk, and then the products and uses are labelled accordingly, so it protects consumers and workers.

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

Thank you.

I'll get a quick question in to Ms. Wristen.

I come from the east coast of Canada, and you referenced Atlantic salmon. I'm well aware that ocean health is often an early indicator of environmental health. Certainly we see that in Atlantic salmon and what has occurred to the stocks over the last number of years.

You also referenced containment. I'm really interested in your thoughts on how to create the balance between containment with GMO, and also understanding changes in sea levels and the environmental realities. On the east coast of Canada recently, what we saw with an extreme weather event was the severity of the storm, and also, in Newfoundland and Labrador, there was the severity of the sea surge.

How are you able to balance the reality of the environment with the concept of containment with modified organisms?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 10 seconds. I'm sorry that it's so short, but that's what the clock is telling me.

[Karen Wristen]

I doubt I can answer that question in 10 seconds.

The facility must be located so that there is no possibility of effluent from the facility entering public waters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perfect. Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Affleck, I told you earlier that I lost my trust in certain regulatory bodies. I'll explain why with two examples. First, in Quebec, Mr. Louis Robert, a farmer, blew the whistle on undue pressure that the pesticide and fertilizer industry were putting on officials of the ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation.

I'll move on to my second example. In September, we discovered that a discussion paper, shared by the Canada Food Inspection Agency, relied on documents created by representatives from pesticide and GMO industries. The author was an employee from CropLife Canada.

Do you think it's normal for private businesses to prioritize their financial interests over that of planetary and human health?

[Ian Affleck]

Politely, I would challenge the assertion made there. Our industry is very committed to safety. Individual opinions on the happenings in individual provinces is their opinion, but the regulators in Quebec are independent regulators, as are the ones that regulate the nation. I think we can trust in those institutions, specifically on the document writing.

CropLife Canada did not write any documents for the Government of Canada. That was clarified by theminister and the department. A large number of organizations had that document shared with them. It was a technical error in which our name was recorded as the author, but we were not the originators. We were being consulted on that with various other parties.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like for Ms. Wristen to explain to us the cumulative effects of everything that can end up in the ocean, but I don't think there is enough time left for an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is indeed a big question, but there is not enough time left.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'll just give Ms. Wristen an opportunity on Ms. Thompson's question. You have more than 10 seconds. I'd love to hear the answer.

[Karen Wristen]

When we're looking at containment facilities, one of the most important things is how the effluent cleaning process is designed.

We have a terrific example of a good way to do that in the Kuterra closed-containment facility built by Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island. In that case, there is no possibility of any release to the wild because of the number of screenings that the effluent goes through, followed by settling in a pond—essentially a reverse well—so that before any liquid effluent ever reaches a natural water body, it has already been cleaned three different ways.

The location of the facility is also critically important, particularly as was observed in the context of rising sea levels and increasing storm surge. You need to be sure that the facility is going to be impervious to storm events that could damage it and cause an unscheduled release of the living organisms.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much.

Earlier this year, or potentially late last year, Brazil documented the first case of a genetically engineered animal—a transgenic aquarium fish, as you mentioned—breeding in the wild.

Can you talk about the real risk and the impact? What would happen if that were to happen with the Atlantic salmon that are now being consumed here in Canada? If this is expanded, what is the danger to our dwindling Pacific wild salmon stocks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we're out of time.

We'll go to Mr. McLean and see if his questions relate.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask Ms. Coombs a question.

In your testimony, you talked about repealing section 67.1, which relies on the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to make sure that foreign imported goods meet Canadian standards. You want that portion repealed.

Can you tell us what backs up your recommendation there and what effect that would have?

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you.

When I appeared before the Senate, I had confirmed to the senators that all the products, both domestically manufactured and imported, have to meet the requirements of CEPA and its various regulations. There is the new substance identification; there are three sets of regulations for volatile organic compounds; and of course there are the various chemicals management plan risk management regulations.

Those products, of course, all have to meet the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Act and its regulations, the Pest Control Products Act and its regulations, the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, the Competition Bureau's guidelines, and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

I think there was a kind of baseline of information provided during the development of that amendment, so what we're seeing is that this particular requirement is going to be asking Industry Canada—which, in our opinion, does not have the scientific expertise or legislative tools on consumer products around post-market reporting and policies, etc.—to address the intent of the amendment. We think that if there are unsafe products, Environment Canada and Health Canada, which currently have very robust compliance programs, should manage those.

We don't see the need to have section 67.1 in this particular piece of legislation.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

You are saying that it is excess of its—

[Shannon Coombs]

We're covered.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

It's already covered in other regulations.

[Shannon Coombs]

We're covered, yes, and by a very robust compliance program.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

I've heard a lot from you and other witnesses here that if we go through the different legislation we have here that all need to be covered by regulation—the Pest Control Products Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and I think a few others that were mentioned here—this is robust regulatory oversight.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Affleck. Is there some way of streamlining this so that we can have the same regulatory outcomes without the regulatory burden of going through several channels? If so, what would you recommend streamlining in this bill so that you don't have another costly and burdensome regulatory requirement?

[Ian Affleck]

I think going back to the originally tabled version of the bill was quite effective at strengthening CEPA, but appropriately so, in such a way that it didn't duplicate what was happening elsewhere. What we really want to avoid is duplication or confusion. I think we just finished a government a regulatory road map strategy through the Treasury Board Secretariat that was designed to disentangle some of these, so to re-tangle them would be dangerous.

I think the idea is that when you look at any amendments, you really analyze them: Are they redundant to existing procedures? When we look at plant-based biotechnology, we have a 30-year history of success in Canada and around the world on the benefits it can provide. The robust regulatory program has been working quite well to date.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

To put a number on that, you talked about this regulatory burden, which obviously has a fiscal drag on your industry and the whole country. Would you be able to put a pin in how much that would cost your industry and therefore Canadians?

[Ian Affleck]

A good example would be that a conventionally bred wheat variety would cost roughly a million dollars to bring to market in seven to 10 years. To bring a genetically modified version of that to market, it would cost $150 million and take 16 to 19 years. The regulatory burden is quite significant. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some, to have the appropriate level that's on the risk basis we have how, but continuing to move to streamline that would be important. I think the departments themselves and the appropriate acts are always working towards that streamlining. We wouldn't want to undo that.