Environment Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Hugh Benevides]

I can do some; I can try.

You have heard, I know, that there's more of a hazard-based approach in the EU. I looked at it in an earlier decade when it was introduced, but I haven't kept up as much as our colleagues from CELA and elsewhere have.

I can point, however, as has already been mentioned, to how Norway has dealt with looking at a broader range of considerations. Under its Gene Technology Act, it's required to assess the sustainability, ethical and societal impacts. I have a paper I can provide to the committee where the authors show that the record under that act is that doing so is feasible and it's justified.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much. I would indeed like to receive this document.

I want to come back to genetically modified living organisms. Why do you think it's important to put the foundations of the precautionary principle at the forefront of this part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Hugh Benevides]

It's important to apply the precautionary principle at the start, because we have to look before we leap. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. We can't put the chemicals back in the bottle. The long title of this act is “an act respecting pollution prevention”. It also talks about principles. The minister mentioned principles, but he didn't identify them.

In addition to precaution, there's pollution prevention and polluter pays. I'm most interested in the first two, because we don't want the polluter to have to pay. We don't want there to be polluters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Collins, go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk a little bit more about why we need the language of demonstrable need and that principle itself.

[Hugh Benevides]

Thank you. I would be happy to do that.

The minister said last week that it would be “nearly impossible to implement.” That was the first we've heard of that. I would suggest that not only can we do so, but we must, and it's doable.

I referred to the Norwegian Gene Technology Act for Madame Pauzé. I was referring to the assessment of GE organisms, not chemicals. I apologize if I changed lanes inadvertently. I talked about UNDRIP and how that's related.

The world conservation union, IUCN, the world's largest conservation group—no radical environmental fringe group—has another paper I can provide. It talks about what it calls “synthetic biology”, which applies to what we're talking about here, and how it's “fraught with uncertainty”. It has “negative socio-economic effects” and “may affect the cultures [and] rights” of indigenous peoples.

We would also suggest that looking at the need for and alternatives to projects is something that's long been required in Canada, for decades now, and in most other countries that have impact assessment legislation. This is not a foreign concept.

Finally, socio-economic considerations in relation to the import of what are called living modified organisms are also the same under the Cartagena Protocol. That protocol was made under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and it is apt that we talk about that today. There are 173 countries that are parties to that protocol. Those countries do not include Canada, but we could be party and we could do it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

In my last minute, I will turn to Mr. Boyd.

Thank you for your testimony today. You mentioned the crucial Senate amendment that fixed the problematic language and the government's original formulation of the right to a healthy environment. Some environmental groups and witnesses to this committee have argued there's a corresponding change that needs to be made to the requirements for the implementation framework, that the legislation should not presuppose the condition of social health, scientific and economic factors, and that those will always justify limiting the right.

Would you agree with that, or do you have comments on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please give a yes or no, because we're out of time.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Yes, I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone, to your House of Commons.

I'd like to begin by thanking Ms. Pauzé for giving up her time so that we could hear the end of Dr. Vandelac's opening remarks. I appreciate it and thank her.

Dr. Vandelac, when you talked about the three elements you wanted to share with us, you started by giving the example of France. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you were saying that it was a kind of body independent of the government that managed the problem we are facing.

Could you tell us more about that?

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

Yes.

There are many different systems in many countries. I mentioned the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail in France, which requires independent scientists to conduct assessments. These are either requested by the agency or suggested by its scientists. This independence is a very timely and important element, since it makes it possible to restore public confidence, but also to ask the questions much more broadly.

I spoke very briefly about the importance of having a comprehensive perspective, particularly with respect to issues that affect Bill S-5 and that may remain for 20 years. The situation is evolving at such a pace that it is imperative to do forward-looking, interdisciplinary work in order to understand these issues without condemning ourselves at the outset to being extremely late. The very principles of these schemes are independence and reliance on independent scientific literature, not primarily on industry literature.

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

Let's continue thinking about this.

Do you think this organization should be more focused on the immediate needs and analyses that need to be done on current products, or should it be more focused on those that will be around 20 years from now, because, as you say, the science is evolving so quickly?

Does this require an immediate or long-term perspective?

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

We can't do without either. We need both. As for the immediate future, given the number of files that need to be reviewed by the public entities right now, I think it would probably be appropriate to pick the ones that are absolutely necessary to keep on this long list. That's why I gave some figures on the pesticide situation in other countries and in other parts of the world.

In addition, there are types of pesticides that have been banned for years elsewhere, including polyoxyethylene amine, used massively, up to 20%, in glyphosate-based herbicides, which has been banned in France since 2016. There is also atrazine, which has been banned since 2003. In short, we are lagging behind on many products.

We need to be aware that the important thing is to analyze what people are using, that is, the complete product, not just what companies say is the active ingredient. Why? Because people, for example, use glyphosate-based herbicides with all kinds of names, including Roundup, but none of them use only glyphosate. It's essentially glyphosate that's being analyzed right now, which is highly problematic.

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

This shows the importance of having a global vision. I understand you well.

You're talking about committees or independent people. In France, for example, are the people who form these committees only French citizens who live in France and who know their country, or are outsiders also appointed to ensure that they are 100% impartial on local issues?

[Dr. Louise Vandelac]

There are French people, but there is also a Canadian who chairs such a committee. I spoke to him two days ago. So these committees can be made up of people from all over. In any case, to ensure their independence, their members are asked to make a declaration of independence from the outset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for a very interesting testimony today.

I met with our Nature Canada friends the other day, so I'm probably going to focus most of my questions to Dr. Boyd.

Dr. Boyd, I have a couple of quick questions.

You talked about the weakness in the CEPA enforcement mechanisms. I wonder how you think it can be strengthened.

Can you comment briefly on the hazard-based approach versus the risk-based approach that we use here in Canada—which seems to be widely applauded; I've heard the environmental community and industry applaud it—the CMP system versus the REACH system?

I'll start there.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Let me take those questions in reverse order.

The more we learn about the impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment, the more important it actually becomes over time to take a hazard-based approach. A hazard-based approach is more consistent with the precautionary principle, which has been discussed earlier today. That's critically important.

In terms of enforcement, the citizen enforcement provision in CEPA.... The first thing we need to do is understand very clearly that what is in the law today is completely unworkable. It creates obstacles, and the fact that it's never been used is clear proof of that.

We need to rethink that. We need an enforcement mechanism under CEPA that provides access for citizens to justice, whether it's through the courts or through some other type of tribunal that is accessible and affordable and has protective measures in place, so that you cannot, for example, bring frivolous or vexatious claims.

I actually provided extensive detail about what an effective and fair enforcement mechanism would look like in a brief to this committee back in 2016. I'd be happy to forward that brief or portions of that brief to you.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

If you could forward that to this committee, that would be great.

I have another question. I'm intrigued by the testimony surrounding ambient air quality standards in Canada.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know the environment is an area of joint jurisdiction. The jurisdictional complexities here in Canada are different than they are in the U.S. I wonder if you could parse those out for us. The reality we face in this country is that we're a very regional country. As you know, there are some pretty good dust-ups happening as we speak in real time on just where the federal government can and should intervene, and where it shouldn't.

The approach that has been suggested by the government is consultation with the provinces, and then defining this space of ambient air quality standards through the implementation framework.

[Dr. David Boyd]

There are many federal states, all of which have unique circumstances, but many federal states do have legally binding ambient air quality standards, such as the United States. Even if you look at the non-binding Canadian ambient air quality standards—and “standards” is a bit of a misnomer—they are developed through a process of extensive consultation with the provincial, territorial, and indigenous governments.

We have a process in place. It's simply that this process results in voluntary standards, and the result of having voluntary air quality standards is that there's not sufficient action taken when those standards are being violated. Where are those standards being violated? They're not being violated in Rosedale or Forest Hill. They're being violated in communities that are poor, marginalized, or vulnerable.

This is a really important question of environmental justice. The existing voluntary standards that we have are not serving Canadians. That's evidenced by Health Canada's conclusion that air pollution causes over 15,000 premature deaths a year.

We've been doing voluntary guidelines for air quality for decades and decades. They haven't solved the problem, so it's time for stronger medicine.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'd like to follow up on that, because that's something that interests me as well.

If they're voluntary—and I make the analogy with drinking water guidelines—is it because previously the provinces just never indicated that they'd be prepared to do something binding?