Environment Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order.

We have Mr. Benzen here with us again today. He has been made a full member of the committee.

Welcome, Mr. Benzen. This is a great honour. Congratulations. It's good to have the certainty that you'll be with us regularly.

I should mention that the clerk has circulated an invitation from the Royal Norwegian Embassy pertaining to COP15. Please send any questions you have about that invitation to the clerk, or reach out to the embassy using the indicated coordinates.

Because of the relatively high number of requests the translation bureau has to contend with, we cannot distribute paper copies of the opening statements. This will only be temporary, as the bureau cannot provide documents quickly enough.

That said, I confirm that the committee will accept all briefs received before this Friday, December 2, and they will be translated. Additionally, we will start clause by clause study of the bill on December 9. Opening statements and briefs will not be distributed before witnesses' appearance.

Finally, I'd like to highlight that sound checks were successful.

Without further ado, I welcome the witnesses participating in the first hour of the meeting.

We have Kaitlyn Mitchell, staff lawyer for the Animal Justice Canada Legislative Fund. We also have Gary LeRoux, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association. Finally, we have Joan Brown, chief administration officer of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

Without any further ado, we'll start with Ms. Mitchell for three minutes for opening remarks, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Mitchell.

[Kaitlyn Mitchell, Staff Lawyer, Animal Justice Canada Legislative Fund]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss this incredibly important bill.

By amending Canada's toxics law, Canada has an exciting opportunity to phase out the unnecessary use of animals in painful toxicity testing and to position Canada as a global leader when it comes to developing non-animal testing methods.

Testing to determine whether a chemical poses health or environmental risks is one of the most harmful types of animal use in Canadian science. Many experiments fall under the highest category of invasiveness, according to the Canadian Council on Animal Care, causing severe pain at near or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals.

In 2019 alone, more than 90,000 animals were used in toxicity tests falling into this most severe category of harm.

The good news is that in Canada and around the world, scientists are rapidly developing non-animal test methods, and many are better than animal studies at predicting human responses to environmental exposures. They are also more rapid and cost-effective.

Ending the unnecessary use of animals in scientific research is also an objective for which there is strong public support across political lines.

For all of these reasons, when the EU and the U.S. modernized their toxics laws, they included strong requirements to avoid and ultimately phase out toxicity testing on animals.

Here in Canada, the Liberal Party made a commitment during the last federal election to eliminate toxicity testing on animals by 2035, and through Bill S-5, this committee can ensure Canada meets this deadline.

Many of the amendments passed by the Senate will help put Canada on track, but further amendments are needed. I have set out details in my brief, but at a high level, Animal Justice would like to see strengthened language to ensure testing on animals is done only as a last resort; the ability to make regulations to protect certain invertebrates such as octopuses in the future, as the need arises; and a greater focus on replacing and reducing the use of animals in toxicity testing, and not merely refining the ways in which they are being used.

Briefly, with respect to part 6 of the act, it's widely expected that an increasing number of genetically modified animals will be developed for varying uses in the coming years. Part 6 treats genetically modified animals in the same way as it treats chemical substances and ignores entirely the welfare of the animals themselves; yet we know that deliberate attempts to influence the genetic makeup of animals can have significant animal welfare implications, including harmful procedures and unanticipated effects such as developmental abnormalities, skeletal abnormalities or enhanced growth of tumours.

I appreciate that the government has committed to conducting a comprehensive review of part 6 at a future date, but in the meantime we propose at the very least enabling the creation of regulations to protect the welfare of genetically modified animals.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Mitchell.

We will go now to Mr. LeRoux for three minutes.

[Gary LeRoux, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Paint and Coatings Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We believe the elected MPs on the ENVI House of Commons committee are best placed to address real concerns in Bill S-5. We also believe government officials are best placed to determine the validity of the proposed amendments, ultimately. What we absolutely do not support are amendments made in haste and without substantive data supporting those amendments, amendments that go beyond the scope of the government's original bill.

Our industry supports the government's originally proposed amendments in Bill S-5. However, more clarity is needed on certain definitions and implementations. Some are impractical and not aligned with Canada's chemical assessment process as we see it.

For example, there's an unworkable chemical watch-list defaming regulated chemicals in commerce and lessening consumer confidence in all regulated products by the government. The bill limits time for robust chemical assessments that could lead to better outcomes. It identifies chemical substitutes without understanding the many technical challenges required in formulation and reformulation. There's duplicative labelling of consumer products already addressed in multiple and better-placed acts. It removes CBI protection for innovative chemistry, which precludes more sustainable alternatives or substitutes in future.

Based on years of staff working full time with technical committees, and bilateral and multilateral meetings with government on chemicals management, we understand what works. That includes how better data leads to better outcomes, and how industry and government must work together. It is much easier to oppose and condemn a mature and proven regulatory approach without substantive data, yet that is what you're being asked to do in many cases.

CEPA's chemicals management plan, or CMP, is one that is arguably better than others in the world. It is, in fact, copied in large measure by the United States, Australia, Mexico and Brazil. Brazil just announced last week that they're largely following the CMP process.

Canada's chemical assessment process is not easy. It has a very high standard for critical data required for chemicals management. It is complex, costly and very onerous. At times, it is frustrating when you lose a chemical used in hundreds of products in commerce in Canada. The process has taxed our sector greatly, with more than 1,500 substances assessed in the first three phases of the CMP of 4,200 substances. There were 525 of 1,500 in the most recent phase of CMP3.

However, we believe it is necessary. Our members support it because it is a risk-based approach to chemicals management that ensures that consumer products are safe. Our members in Canada and those exporting to Canada are mandated to provide substantive data collected over many years in sophisticated R and D facilities, countless studies, trial formulations and reformulations, etc.

It is impossible to suggest a hard stop for such a complex process that always seeks new data and better sources. It sometimes comes together at the 11th hour or past the designated timeline, but industry and government get to the assessment, get it done and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're going to have to stop there, Mr. LeRoux. We're over three minutes.

We'll go now to Ms. Brown.

[Joan Brown, Chief Administration Officer, Snuneymuxw First Nation]

[Witness spoke in Hul'q'umin'um']

Hello. My name is Joan Brown, from Snuneymuxw First Nation. I'm very humbled and honoured to join this sacred circle to talk about such an important topic.

Institutions claim that indigenous people are a vulnerable people, but we are not inherently vulnerable. We are only vulnerable people because of the multiple man-made industrial stresses that our vulnerable land has been subjected to. We know that the stresses on the environment do not stop at our communities. These stresses know no boundaries.

We are seeing increased rates of cancer and chronic disease in our families. When we look around our neighbourhoods, we see the many economic drivers of the environmental stresses, including historic coal mines, industrial ports, logging, pulp mills, tanker traffic, farming operations, air traffic and waste management. Our question remains, what happens when all these toxins merge onto each other? What is the cumulative impact?

These man-made stresses have interrupted our way of being. Food security, clean water and access to medicines and seafood are all critical to our wellness and ceremonial way of life. We are experiencing the impacts, including increased morbidity and cancer rates. We know that within a single neighbourhood, 25% of our residents have either died of or are living with cancer.

We know that the world is made up of vital connections of profound interconnectedness. The existing, mainstream, siloed approach used to address vulnerable lands does not work. We need to investigate the cumulative impacts with a balanced approach whereby an indigenous and a scientific approach walk hand in hand.

We know that this work is generational, but we can't knowingly sacrifice a generation while we begin this investigation. There is important work, and there is urgent work.

Snuneymuxw chief and council and our elders have deemed this work to be urgent. Because we have forgotten how to hear the voice of the land, the land is showing her sickness in the form of cancer and disease throughout our community. We understand that she is on her last breath.

Since the beginning of time, the old people learned from the land and understood how to work together with the land and with each other in the face of the harsh natural terrain. Today the landscape is harsh, but it is man-made: poverty, addiction, family violence and the climate crisis. Now, more than ever, we need to remove the false boundaries and work together, or we won't survive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.

We'll go now to the first round and Mr. Deltell for six minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

A big thank you to the witnesses for agreeing to participate in our study of Bill S‑5.

My first question will go to Mr. LeRoux of the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association.

Mr. LeRoux, in your testimony, you talk about the amendment made by the senators being beyond the scope of the bill. You said that you did support the essence of Bill S-5, but that now you are a bit concerned.

Can you raise specifically which amendment makes you feel uncomfortable with this bill now?

[Gary LeRoux]

I'll go to the heart of what we're doing with respect to labelling. There are a number of acts that seek to have more labelling. When you look at what we're faced with now in terms of labelling, we have the Hazardous Products Act and we have the consumer chemicals and containers regulations that protect consumers from hazards posed by consumer chemical products that are manufactured, imported, sold or advertised in Canada under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

Those kinds of increased labelling requirements will cost millions of dollars and not really produce any direct benefit in terms of human health or the environment. That's one of our concerns.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Is there any other amendment that is alarming to you?

[Gary LeRoux]

There are 60 amendments. There is the cumulative effects proposal in terms of ensuring that all the cumulative effects are looked at in the assessment of chemicals. There are attempts to do that right now under the framework that exists. The government has the ability to invoke the precautionary principle based on certain parameters, so that framework already exists, and we don't need to really codify any further in the bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

In your testimony, you talked about how the government and your companies are working hand in hand to address some issues. Do you feel that it's the same situation now after the senators have made some amendments?

Now that senators have proposed amendments, do you think that the government is still working with you to the same extent?

[Gary LeRoux]

I'm sorry. I don't understand the premise of the question.

Can you repeat it, please?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

In your testimony, you said that your industry and the government usually work hand in glove to find solutions to current concerns caused by the changes we're experiencing.

Do you think that the senators' amendments undermine your usual cooperation with the government? Are you surprised by the Senate's proposed amendments to the new legislation?

[Gary LeRoux]

There will be a lot more.... Right now, we spend about 80% of our time with our staff, looking at chemical assessments and their requirements. We're compelled to provide all of the data requirements that the government imposes on us under the act.

What the senators are suggesting we do that could cause.... The EU, for instance, has thousands of chemicals assessed annually, and we hear at this committee on a regular basis that it is a better approach. REACH, since 2006, has assessed 2,300 substances, whereas the CMP has assessed 4,230 substances. The TSCA in the U.S. has done just 10.

We don't have the capacity to comply with all of the extra requirements to submit data as some of those proposed amendments imply. In Europe, they have hundreds of millions of dollars that they spend, which is way beyond what Canada can spend, so we're going to be challenged there as well. We don't have that capacity now to get all of the data we need without...and not meeting targets at the same time.

We have very high requirements now, and that would only triple the work we do. We can't keep up now. We're missing deadlines in data submitted, and the assessors are missing deadlines in assessing the data. We are trying to get the data. We think that substantive data is required to do a full and complete assessment.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You also talked about other countries. Can you give us some examples, if this bill is passed as it is with the amendments? You raised that point a few minutes ago.

Can you explain to us the difficulty that your business community will face, based on the experience of other countries, if all of those amendments are adopted?

[Gary LeRoux]

We had an example of that last week in Europe. In 2021, they came forward with an assessment for TiO2, a substance that has been in place for many years. The industry challenged it. It went to the European Court of Justice and it was overturned last week.

That's a substance that's been around and understood, but they moved forward with a category 2 carcinogen designation in the EU, and it was turned down. That was based on only one study, or several very limited studies. Had it been looked at more substantively, maybe it would have proceeded further, but that's a recent example of going too far too quickly, without the data you need. It was turned down by the European Court of Justice.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for their testimony.

My first question is for Ms. Brown.

A number of delegations before us of first nations and inner-city communities have talked about pollution hot spots where vulnerable populations have been exposed to toxic chemicals, often over decades. Those communities have raised the issue of community involvement with us. They want to be involved in biomonitoring. They want more transparency. This is certainly a central theme of the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, that has been introduced.

I wonder if you could please outline how we can better address discrimination, socio-economic disparities and other challenges as part of health protection. Do you have any recommendations for improving the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Joan Brown]

For us, without a doubt, what we mean about removing some of those false boundaries in those jurisdictional issues is that they're problematic. We have industry surrounding all of our communities, and what's been happening here in our communities is that there's been a siloed approach. There's an abandoned mine, and we focus just on the coal mine and try to find resolutions in terms of identifying those toxins and how they impact our community. They don't take into account that there are other industries in the surrounding areas. For us, that silo approach hasn't found any solutions.

That's what I mean about having to work together. How do we bring the municipalities and the province to work with the federal government to find some meaningful solutions? Without them, it's just going to continue to escalate. For us, really without a doubt, we're going to sacrifice a whole generation trying to find a resolution, because we're impacted so intensely that it's really a very frightening time for the Snuneymuxw First Nation. For us, what is it going to take to look at us really meaningfully and come to the table with the same spirit and intent to save mother earth, the natural environment? It's not just Snuneymuxw; people living around our reserves are also highly impacted.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you for that.

My next question is to Mr. LeRoux.

Mr. LeRoux, we only had three minutes for your testimony. I wonder if you could expand on confidential business information and some of your concerns. Certainly what's come up around the committee table is that there is a trust deficit. The reality is that government isn't completely trusted by the people, and neither is business, frankly. It's been brought to our attention that under the TSCA, for instance, audits have shown that 25% to 30% of confidential business information requests have really had no merit.

I'm just wondering if there's some way, and maybe it's through an audit system, to allow more transparency but protect that critical innovation information IP that we know we need to make progress as a society.

[Gary LeRoux]

I think we trust government. If the government were to continue to honour the CBI system, the confidential business information system as it is in place now, I think that would work well.

What we're concerned about is that if you allow more openness, I suppose, sharing that information with competitors—sharing it with some that would decrease competition—would prevent those who do studies and research for even sustainable products from shipping those to Canada, because they would have to disclose information that's confidential. There are approaches now with ATIP and that kind of thing whereby you can access certain data, but I guess CBI would be cleared.

I understood yesterday that they do audits in the United States. I suppose that system, if it were deemed to be fair, would be an approach that we could—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have just a minute left and I want to talk a little bit about timelines.

[Gary LeRoux]

Sure.