Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[Gary LeRoux]

Yes.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

That cost has to eventually be passed on to consumers—

[Gary LeRoux]

Right.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

—or we don't have the product, or else we're looking to other jurisdictions to create the product. In a Canadian environment, how do we deal with all these regulations and still try to have a healthy industry that's profitable but also healthy from the point of view of the environment? How do we find the balance between all of that in terms of how we're dealing with Bill S-5?

[Gary LeRoux]

Many of the chemical regulations are redundant. The Treasury Board study talked about those a few years ago, I think. They came out with a study that said a lot of them were being removed because they weren't even being used anymore.

With regard to the ones we have to comply with, I mean, I don't think our industry is complaining about complying with regulations. We want fair regulations. We want an understanding of how they're going to help the environment and human health. We're all supportive of that. As I said previously, we've had a huge amount of engagement with the government on 500 substances just in the last five years. We're not saying that these are not necessary. We're saying that they need to be done in a fair process, that's evidence-based, based on the science, and that encourages compliance with our members in Canada and the U.S. to provide the data that government needs to do the assessment. Once that is done, we're ensuring that the compliance is maintained with our members who operate in this country.

I don't think we're saying that there are too many regulations per se, although because of their preponderance, it is the straw that broke the camel's back: We have companies that have moved production out of Canada. That's a fact. They only have distribution centres. Their jobs are not here, but their sales volume is going up. That's not a good sign for Canada, ultimately, for the long run.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 20 seconds, Mr. Benzen.

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

I have a quick question for Ms. Mitchell.

You said that these alternative testing methods are less expensive and that they are quicker. However, we still had 90,000 animals being used last year for live testing. Obviously, the results aren't quite there in terms of what organizations are looking for.

What is the timeline or estimated timeline for when these alternative testing methods' results will equal or match or exceed the results we're getting from using live animals?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we have really gone over time.

Maybe Mr. Longfield will ask the same question. I'm not putting words in your mouth, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Anyway, you're next, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

At this stage of the meeting, a lot of the questions have been asked.

Maybe I would like to extend on the question that Ms. Mitchell just got from Mr. Benzen, but my question at the end of that would be this: What's slowing down the conversion from animal-based testing to the testing that Dr. Chandrasekera gave us?

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

It's a complicated question, and I'm not sure I have the answer, as a lawyer.

What I would say is that this is a system-based problem. We have systems in place that rely on these historic animal tests, so it just takes time to move away from them.

In part, it also requires upfront investment in developing those non-animal methods. Once they're developed, as I said, I think they have tremendous benefits. However, it's also that upfront investment piece that I think Canada needs to get serious about, because other jurisdictions like the EU and the U.S. are serious about it, and they're putting the money there. I think Canada needs to do that, in addition to strengthening the law itself, to move us in that direction.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Quite often, it does come down to resources.

I did have a conversation with one of my constituents today for about half an hour on this topic. She was very well briefed on Bill S-5.

One area we talked about that I was pushing back on a bit is in terms of CRISPR technology and in terms of genetics as a way to combat antimicrobial resistance, to use less chemicals when you're caring for animals by using gene modification. It gets into a very grey zone in a hurry when you get into the kind of research that is going on with animals.

Do you have any comment on that?

[Kaitlyn Mitchell]

Absolutely.

Our position on part 6 at this time is that at the very least, what we need are regulations to protect animals.

We know that attempts to modify the genetic makeup of animals—including through CRISPR—can actually have very serious, unexpected and unpredictable negative implications for their welfare.

At this point, you know, we're not suggesting that we can't do those types of things if and when they're needed, and if and when they've been fully assessed. Our point is merely that if we're going to start to modify animals' genetic makeup, let's make sure that that's not actually going to cause them health and welfare implications.

Again, because of other jurisdictions' being ahead, we can look to the EU, for instance, as a really good example of how to do that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, thank you.

Just looking at time clicking by quickly, I'd like to go over to Mr. LeRoux.

When the senate committee looked at subclause 15(2) of the bill, they replaced the phrase “poses the highest risk” with the phrase “is carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction or poses other risks of highest concern.” By focusing on “concern” rather than “risk”, the amendment is actually looking at putting at risk, or undermining, the risk-based approach to chemicals management under CEPA.

Could you comment on the importance of ensuring that we're careful with the language we use so that we don't undermine the risk-based approach that we are going for?

[Gary LeRoux]

I think the whole chemical assessment process is risk-based in Canada, and I think we should stay with that. They have a hazard-based approach in the EU, and they have not assessed as many chemicals as Canada has since 2006.

We still have substantive data, and we want to ensure that we deal with the risk. Theirs is a much longer and more involved process to do a hazard-based assessment, and so far we haven't done that here. We hope that Canada will stay with a risk-based approach going forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I notice even in my question how much I was using the word “risk”. Any change involves risk, and we're trying to improve our own environmental performance, but we're doing that through risk analysis. We found that we have been successful in the past because of that. Is that a paraphrase?

[Gary LeRoux]

I would agree with that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Brown, in less than a minute, I am concerned about our—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is a five-minute round, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

—going against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by introducing another type of review that CEPA would use with indigenous people.

You mentioned taking the lead in your previous comments. How would a meaningful review process look from your community?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're out of time.

Answer very quickly, Ms. Brown, like in 15 seconds.

[Joan Brown]

The accumulative impact, like assessing it from a whole system approach, is really key in looking at all of the toxins that are coming in from numerous industries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's very good, succinct answer. Thank you.

I thank the witnesses for being with us.

I thank members of the committee for their excellent questions. We had a fruitful discussion.

We will stop here and take a little break before welcoming our next panel of witnesses.

The meeting is suspended.