Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 27th, 2007

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, Chair.

This amendment came directly from some witness testimony we had in terms of the principle of substitution that exists in other acts and bills within Parliament.

I'm very curious to hear what committee members think about bringing in that same principle of substitution.

This is something we often, very conversantly, use with toxics and the need for industry to look for substitutions, where those may be deemed suitable. There's a balance that says there should not be an inordinate economic burden placed upon the company in seeking that substitution. It's connected to some of the other things, and as I said, it's more familiar there.

We think there's some application to bringing that same principle in line with the concepts around climate change in this government's bill, and probably more specifically to the air quality aspects of Bill C-30.

If there's a contaminant being released in Canada's atmosphere and it is affecting Canadians in a harmful way—which I know the government has claimed great concern over—then if there's a substitution available to that company, the company seeks to substitute it. It's one of those things where you catch the pollution before it even starts. It's much more cost-effective, rather then trying to catch it once it has been released out of the stack.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I have to say, Mr. Cullen, I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree with the intent, but I have some concerns about the relevance of the substitution aspect to what's actually in Bill C-30.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We've been predominantly spending our time on the issues of climate change and target setting, but there are other issues within Bill C-30—air quality, air contaminants, air pollution of different varieties—that have real health effects.

What we've seen is one of the most effective ways for government—and it's not often applied. That's part of the problem. Rather than waiting for Canadians to get sick because of a certain chemical that's being released, they seek substitutions. So a company has the onus when something is listed as toxic to seek out a substitution without even permitting it in its industrial process, thereby not having the negative health affects.

While a lot of our conversation has been on the effects of climate change and the targets, this talks about air pollution in the more traditional sense—that which is causing respiratory illnesses or any other illnesses that can be felt within the Canadian population, usually as a result of industrial processes.

The relevance is that the government has suggested some things to clean up the air. Well, this would go to the heart of it and prevent the pollution from even being released in the first place, because it's not used in the industrial process. The companies are given the onus. Rather than trying to catch up years later with various toxicology studies on Canadians and their health, this just seems like a more intelligent way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'd like to hear a couple more points of debate on that.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the intent of what Mr. Cullen has presented here. It seems quite extreme, though, and I don't think it's realistic.

In proposed subsection 68.1(1), they're asking for this to be amended to read:

68.1(1) Within five years after the coming into force of Canada's Clean Air Act, the Minister shall require an assessment of the following substances and an action plan for achieving their substitution:

(a) the substances listed in Schedule 1;

He's asking that we get rid of every substance in Schedule 1. I don't think that is even realistic.

My question for Mr. Moffet is, what would be the consequence of this being part of the Clean Air Act?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

This amendment would have very broad implications for the management of substances under CEPA. We have a number of concerns about the wording of the provision. First of all, the provision starts with “the Minister shall require”, so it's not clear who would be required to do the assessment.

It's also not clear to me whether there would be a requirement for an action plan for substitution for every one of these substances. If that's the intention, then you need to start going down the list. Every substance on schedule 1 has already been subjected to a detailed scientific assessment, so another assessment would be — If the assessment is intended to be of a scientific nature or of the risk posed by the substance, then I would suggest that it would be redundant.

Another concern I would like to raise to the committee is that, yes, each substance on schedule 1 has been assessed and has been determined to pose a risk to Canadians' health or to their environment. But that is not to suggest that it would necessarily be appropriate to eliminate every substance on schedule 1. Some substances on schedule 1 are naturally occurring and cannot be eliminated. Some substances on schedule 1 are used in commercial processes in a manner in which no release is possible. For example, they may be either used or created as transitional products and then taken out of the process.

The risk management analysis the government undertakes typically has to focus on where the risk actually manifests itself, and in some cases the risk is so broad that elimination and substitution is the appropriate solution. In other cases, there may be appropriate uses, or the environment or the human body may be able to tolerate certain loads, and therefore eliminating the substance would be overkill from a risk management perspective.

Another issue is that proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(c) refers to the government challenge, and it lists a new schedule 1.1, which I understand would be created through NDP-38. That amendment would list all the substances that have been identified by the government as substances that were identified as a result of the categorization exercise.

We need to be clear. That categorization exercise identified substances based on their intrinsic characteristics. We have put these substances in a challenge process because we're relatively confident that these substances pose concerns to human health and the environment and therefore require some type of risk management. The challenge exercise has been designed to give industry, users, and producers an opportunity to return to government and the public and explain how they're managing those substances. If they can convince government that the substance is being used or managed in a way that poses no risk, then the premise of the challenge program is that formal risk management would not be necessary. As I read this provision, that would preclude us from making that judgment and would simply require us to address each of these substances.

A final concern I would note is that it's not entirely clear what the phrase “slated for safe substitution” means. Does this refer back to the action plan, or does this refer to a conclusion that would be drawn from the assessment of the substances in proposed paragraphs (a) through (c)? A little bit more clarity may be required in order for us to provide further analysis. Let me stop there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Jean, you were next on the list.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I had the same or a similar question to the department, but I should probably wait until they are ready to take the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

While we're waiting for that, we do have food at the back of the room--sorry, it's coming. When it comes, I'll ask folks in the back to indulge members first so that they can go back and grab a bun and come back.

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if we could get the department's attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Moffet.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's an ongoing exercise. I just wanted to make sure.

How many substances are—? Let's say we ignored proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(a) for a second and went with just proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(b). Aren't there 170 substances, or somewhere around there? How many substances are there in schedule 1?

[John Moffet]

There are approximately 80 substances on schedule 1 so far, and growing.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

This, Mr. Chair, seems to smack of irrelevance in relation to Bill C-30, and I'm wondering—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen, go ahead.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think we might be wasting time talking about the wrong thing.

I have two things.

In terms of the specifics and getting to the pollution talked about in Bill C-30, we're willing to make that very clear and articulate that specifically in this amendment.

Second, we're not talking about eliminating these substances. The assessment that Mr. Moffet has made is correct. They have gone through a toxicology assessment, but they've never gone through a substitution assessment. It is important for committee members to realize that when we're looking at the ability to substitute something, there are a bunch of measures taken in. The predetermined conclusion is not that we're going to eliminate it; we're seeking to substitute it. We're chasing the wrong rabbit on this one.

If proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(c) is too broad and too extensive in terms of the Government of Canada's challenge to industry, then we're willing to remove it, but the concept of substitution to be built into this act when we're talking about air contaminants is actually quite important. It allows the government to do an assessment to ask if another substitution is available for this chemical. If there is, then the encouragement is to send industry down that path. If there is no substitution in existence—if it just doesn't exist—or if the substitution is deemed to be far too outside of the economic reach of the company, then it's also deemed not to be an option. But for heaven's sake, why, if we're talking about improving air quality for Canadians, wouldn't we seek a substitution analysis of the very chemicals we're talking about, rather than just saying there's a limit on the chemical you're producing? We know it's dangerous; we know it's harmful; that's the cap on what you can do. Why not ask the more fundamental question of whether there is anything else you can be using? Then you don't have to worry about a cap one way or the other.

Because I think there's some conversation going on, I'm going to suggest to the committee that we hold on this particular amendment and see if committee members want proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(c) out, and we're willing to do that. If they want a clear delineation of the scope of the chemicals we're talking about that relate directly to the Bill C-30 listing, that's fine, but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

The concept of substitution is being used in REACH in Europe. It's being applied in many U.S. states. It puts us in line with many of our industrial competitors, and it's something we should consider.

Please do not confuse the concepts of substitution and elimination. This is not a game in which we go about trying to eliminate a whole series of chemicals willy-nilly; we're seeking out better alternatives to be used in the Canadian industrial process. That just seems intelligent to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa, did you have a final word on that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intent of the amendment, but I'm wondering how relevant it is to the Clean Air Act, Bill C-30.

We have the CEPA review. I would think it would be more appropriate to deal with this through the CEPA review. Unfortunately, we were supposed to be at the environment committee, which was supposed to be meeting right now doing the CEPA, but by decision of Mr. Cullen we are continuing here.

The question is whether it is appropriate to have this. We dealt previously with the Liberal motion trying to deal with the commissioner; now we're dealing with a CEPA review issue. To move forward, we need to make sure each topic is relevant, and I question whether this amendment is relevant to our discussions.

Could I have a ruling from you, Mr. Chair, on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Warawa, you may have been conferring and not heard my point. We're willing to stand this and delineate specifically that it deals with the chemicals talked about in Bill C-30 to ensure relevance. We're completely comfortable with that. So I put the suggestion back to committee members. Let's stand this one down, have those conversations, make sure it's relevant, and then proceed, because there is an element in here that the principle, we think, is still correct. If we want to make if more specific, then fine, let's talk about it, but let's move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I would give Mr. Cullen the benefit of the doubt or the leeway to do that. So we're going to stand this amendment, Mr. Cullen, with your concurrence and with the committee's concurrence, obviously, to get the clarification and so on that was discussed.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'll move on to L-19.1.

I'll turn to Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to move this amendment briefly and then ask my colleague, Mr. Godfrey, to speak to it in more detail, Mr. Chair.

It is an amendment that we believe speaks to an incredibly creative approach to our climate change and greenhouse gas challenges.

Having so moved it, I would like, if I could, Mr. Chair, to turn it over to Mr. Godfrey.