Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Mark Butler]

If we're talking about protecting nature, a huge chunk of nature is not vertebrates. Think insects, crustaceans, mollusks, etc. If we're talking about protecting the environment, we need to protect all of it. Vertebrates make up a very small part of it. We want to ensure, whether it's a genetically modified crab, shrimp or mussel, that it gets the extra scrutiny that's necessary.

Yes, there are some problems with it.

[Hugh Benevides]

In order not to interfere with, for example, vaccine production and what I understand is a very high volume of assessments of micro-organisms, the relevant provisions could refer to a living organism having a wild counterpart that is not a micro-organism. We could carve that group out, but catch everything else.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

You mentioned in your opening statement the issue of inherent treaty rights. This has come up from a number of witnesses when it comes to genetically modified organisms. We have heard from witnesses and first nations leaders who have expressed concerns about genetically modified organisms.

I'm curious. Could you expand on some of your comments?

[Mark Butler]

I can start.

In the situation in Prince Edward Island with Atlantic salmon, it's a hugely important animal in the lives of the Mi'kmaq. There is nothing more invasive than changing the genome, the DNA of the species, and there was absolutely no consultation engagement and no effort to involve indigenous knowledge.

If you want to put a bridge or a pipeline across a river, or impact salmon habitat, there's some level of consultation required, yet when you change the very blueprint of that animal, there's no consultation or request for consent. It's an issue.

[Hugh Benevides]

Our suggestion that demonstrable need be shown in relation to a new species is directly related to the government's UNDRIP obligations, including the language in UNDRIP, which was also added to the preamble, that free, prior and informed consent be obtained before a new organism is introduced. That's the flip side of need.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you speak about the importance of that language of demonstrable need?

[Hugh Benevides]

Absolutely. Our amendments, as I said, would allow the public to find out whether there is a proposal, but we would also be able to scrutinize whether there's a need for this new animal. This would allow us to prevent pollution, in keeping with the principles of CEPA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

As I said, you can jump in with those ideas in response to the questions.

Mr. Kurek, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Dr. Vandelac, in your opening statement and in some of your questions, you referenced CEPA, but you also referenced pesticides, specifically. I understand it's your area of expertise.

I want to get some clarity. We're talking about CEPA. I know there are other acts related to Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and the PMRA. When it comes to CEPA, which is here before us, do you agree that when we're talking about environmental protection, we need to make sure that the application of the different acts remains within the appropriate jurisdictions—whether it be chemicals or pesticides—in the case of the wide variety of classifications that exist under CEPA?

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Kurek.

Historically, there has been a separation between the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which has taken over other aspects.

As the science evolves, we now understand that many products that pose very serious health problems and that are pesticides should gradually be considered differently, particularly because of their effects on the environment and biodiversity. That's the case in many countries, which are dealing with these issues together.

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

Thank you very much. I apologize, but time is a precious resource here at the committee.

I'm a little bit concerned that we're conflating some different areas of jurisdiction.

Dr. Boyd, I'd like to continue on a bit with where Mr. McLean left off, on Norway. You made a really interesting comparison. I would suggest—certainly I've read a whole host of information—that it's really Canada and Norway that lead the global pack, if you will, when it comes to environmental protection. Interestingly enough, we're both resource-producing countries. In fact, when I was in Europe fairly recently, there was a celebration surrounding the fact that a pipeline had just been built from Norway to the Republic of Poland.

When it comes to the 153 countries you referenced that have codified this within either legislation or the constitution, there are certainly a few outliers that have an exceptional record. Among those, Canada may not be the top—I'm sure there's debate to be had around that—but it certainly lends one of the best reputations around the planet. Would you agree?

[Dr. David Boyd]

Actually, I've done quite a bit of comparative research looking at the environmental records of various countries. Unfortunately, Canada is not among the top performers. In some categories we are, but in many we are not.

I could give you many examples. In terms of the percentage of Canada that is in protected areas, we're nowhere near the top countries, which already have over 30% or 40% of their national territories protected. When it comes to pesticides, there are many pesticides approved for use in Canada that are not approved for use in Norway—

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

If I could jump in there—again, time is a precious resource here—I'll push back a little bit.

Canada is a very unique country, just in terms of our pure and simple land mass. When it comes to protection, I've looked at some of the numbers. Your point is well taken that we do not fall among the most protected in terms of a percentage of land mass, but I'll tell you that there's a tremendous amount of land that is under significant protection here in Canada.

You specifically mentioned that there had to be enforcement mechanisms. In the 20 seconds I have left, what would you suggest would be appropriate enforcement mechanisms regarding the protection of a healthy environment for Canadians?

[Dr. David Boyd]

As I said, I think that if you adopt the recommendations that were made by this committee back in 2017, you'd be well ahead.

Dr. Vandelac was talking about pesticides, and there's separate legislation, the Pest Control Products Act. When we talk about a right to a healthy environment, if we use the narrow language in Bill S-5, it doesn't apply to pesticides. So the problem is that a Canadian's right to a healthy environment doesn't apply.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Thompson, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

If I could, I'll begin with you, Mr. Butler.

I understand that one of the concerns of Nature Canada is the current lack of mechanisms for any significant predecision transparency on the approval of living modified organisms under clause 6.

If there was a mechanism for the public to comment on such approvals, what information do you think could reasonably be provided by the public to enhance the decision-making process, given the relative lack of predictable and feasible ways to assess the impact of some living modified organisms on the environment?

[Mark Butler]

As I previously mentioned, there was no consideration of indigenous knowledge. I think that's a huge gap.

I think there are some serious flaws in how we assess. We assess on a project-by-project basis. We need to assess the possibility that.... I mean, presumably, this company in P.E.I. is not planning to have just one facility and that's it; they want to see this fish used in the industry. We should take a look at the risk of the expansion of that industry. There was a judge's decision in the U.S. on this.

I've talked to a lot of biologist people who work in fish production. That's partly my background. I could say with some confidence—you can question whether the growth rates this company is claiming are real or not—that we could probably get similar growth rates from selective breeding without using genetic engineering.

I think there are a range of issues we could consider that weren't considered.

[Hugh Benevides]

I've outlined precisely how that would happen. I'm happy to elaborate on any of those stages. Our amendments would really raise the bar for public participation. I can also speak to how demonstrable need would be determined, because that goes together with participation.

Someone said that this was impossible to implement, but, concerning our proposed section 104.1, we think that, in 90% of the cases, give or take, you would know the answer to that articulation of demonstrable need. You would know whether it poses a hazard to the wild counterpart or to biological diversity, or whether it does not. You would know whether it is benefiting biological diversity and bringing other social or environmental benefits or not. You don't need a lot of process to determine that in most cases. Where it doesn't, you have the public to weigh in, interrogate the evidence and help to make that determination.

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

Thank you.

I'll move to you, Mr. Boyd, because of the limited time.

How do you anticipate courts will use the reasonable limits articulated by government when interpreting the scope of the right to a healthy environment?

[Dr. David Boyd]

Of course, this right has been considered by courts in more than 60 countries over the past four decades. Basically, they will look at the environmental standards that a government has set.

For example, if we're talking about an air pollution case, they will look at the Canadian ambient air quality standards, although they are voluntary. They will determine whether the government is meeting its obligations by comparing levels of air pollution in communities to the standards. Those standards should really be consistent with the latest guidance from the World Health Organization or other international bodies in order to ensure that we're making use of the best available scientific evidence.

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

Thank you.

I'll just move around the room now to Dr. Vandelac.

Would you be able to speak to the need to adhere to a risk-based assessment process when we're assessing chemicals or pesticides?

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

Yes. Thank you very much for your question.

This involves extremely rigorous work, but it's based first and foremost on independent scientific literature. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Canada. We looked very carefully at the renewal of glyphosate herbicides in 2017, and less than 1% of the independent scientific literature was reviewed.

We know very well that this is a real problem when doing an evaluation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt you, Dr. Vandelac, because time is up.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Dr. Vandelac, this isn't really a question, but I'd like you to send us as soon as possible all the figures you gave us earlier comparing what is being done internationally and what is being done in Canada. That would demonstrate what's wrong with Canada.

Mr. Butler, as I just did in my request to Dr. Vandelac, I'd like to ask you to take a few seconds to explain the difference between the European approach to managing toxic substances and the Canadian approach in 2022.

[Mark Butler]

Hugh, do you think you would be better equipped to answer that question? Is that fair?