Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now move on to amendment G-14.2.

Mr. Weiler, are you going to be moving the amendment?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Again, I apologize for the confusion about the order.

I won't reiterate what I said before, other than to say this is to buttress the consultations that will be done on new living organisms. Of course, there are consultations being done on the regulations associated with this. This is to ensure that interested persons will be consulted when these consultations are going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I would like to tell you that if amendment G-14.2 passes, amendment BQ-12 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Mr. Kurek, you have the floor.

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

Thank you. I have a question for the officials.

I know the Senate added a fair amount around this subject. I'm curious about this amendment, which brings—according to what I've read of the amendment and Mr. Weiler's intervention—a bit of certainty around and consistency with what the Senate added to Bill S-5.

Am I interpreting that correctly? Is there anything you can expand on, in terms of why some clarity is needed around what's proposed in G-14.2?

[Laura Farquharson]

There are two major issues being discussed around new living organisms. One is about adding a requirement to determine whether there is a demonstrable need. The other is about transparency and participation in the process.

On the first issue, I think the act and the program assess for risk. That's clearly set out under clause 64 of the bill. They're assessing for harm to the environment and danger to public health, or danger to the environment on which health depends. That's the risk assessment. It takes into account hazard plus exposure to determine what the risk is.

Demonstrable need doesn't really fit into that rubric. Demonstrable need is perhaps more of a value judgment and is not something the departments do right now, so the implications of the Senate amendments are to add a completely new element of evaluation.

The other part, on participation in this process, is about providing more opportunity for participation.

You were asking about this amendment. It amends the Senate amendments. It does not include demonstrable need, but it codifies what is now a voluntary practice for participation on risk assessments within the risk assessment process for new living organisms.

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

To follow up, Mr. Weiler mentioned ongoing consultations. Is that just part of the department's process specifically related to Bill S-5, or was this something that predated it and is part of the evaluation process regarding these types of organisms and their impact?

[Laura Farquharson]

It predates the bill, but Jackie is in a good position to explain that voluntary initiative.

[Jacqueline Gonçalves, Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

All right. What's included in this amendment focuses on the type of consultation that will take place during the period of a risk assessment. When a new organism is notified to the department for risk assessment for health and environmental risk, there would be a commitment to undertake a public consultation with regard to that risk assessment.

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

I have one follow-up question, specifically related to some of the advancements and the technology around genetically engineered products in relation to agriculture.

Can you share whether there's a parallel between what's being proposed here and...whether there would be any impact in the ag industry? Can you share some of the research that's being done around that, or would that be...?

I know this is one of those areas where it falls under a couple of different acts. I'm wanting some clarity as to what exactly this would include versus what might fall under Health Canada, etc.

[Laura Farquharson]

Well, these assessments of new living organisms are done by Environment and Health, and they're evaluating the risk to the environment and to health. The assessments that are done by other departments are probably more in relation to it as a food, and seeds.

I see that Greg is putting his finger on the button, so I'll let him expand.

[Greg Carreau]

Yes. Thank you.

Indeed, that's a good question, in the sense that biotechnology does span beyond the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There are lots of applications, as you mentioned, including the Feeds Act, the Pest Control Products Act and the Food and Drugs Act.

The amendment we're talking about today would not impact grain or applications under the CFIA in the agriculture space.

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

Okay. Can you provide a couple of examples of organisms or things that might be impacted? Is that possible? If not, that's fine.

[Greg Carreau]

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act applies to.... There are equivalent acts that would apply outside of the scope of CEPA. For example, pesticides would be done under the constraints of the Pest Control Products Act. That assessment would be done through that piece of legislation. The amendments we're talking about today would be those that aren't covered by other pieces of legislation.

However, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act does apply to certain applications under the Food and Drugs Act, including important products of biotechnology that are used to improve the health of Canadians. That includes gene therapies, vaccine development, such as those that were developed under the COVID-19 pandemic, and the annual flu shot. Those would be covered by the scope of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That is why, from a program perspective, we've identified some of the challenges that my colleagues mentioned with respect to some of the amendments previously undertaken to Bill S-5.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will start by asking several questions.

First, if amendment G-14.2 passes, can I still move item (b) of amendment BQ-12? Can that be done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. According to my notes, if the committee adopts amendment G-14.2, amendment BQ-12 cannot be introduced.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

This is because the text of the bill as amended by amendment G-14.2 stops at line 14 on page 32, whereas the new subclause (1.3) proposed in amendment BQ-12 would begin after that line 14.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If I understand correctly, if the committee adopts amendment G-14.2, you would like to propose another amendment to add item (b) only.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I would propose item (b) and all that follows, starting with new paragraph (1.3).

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You can do that, yes, but you won't be able to move what is above that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I see.

I'll go back to amendment G‑14.2. Usually we read about the "wild equivalent" of an animal, but here it says “is native to Canada”. This is the first time I have seen this description used in place of “wild counterpart”. What does this mean? Are there any differences?

[Laura Farquharson]

I can't find what you are referring to.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It's new subclause 108.1(1) that amendment G-14.2 would add to the act. The words “is native to Canada” are in the fourth line. This is the first time I've seen that. We're always seen “wild counterpart” instead.

[Laura Farquharson]

Is this about the French version?