Environment Committee on June 19th, 2006

[Steve Clarkson]

Mr. Chair, if I might add, to some degree the amendments made to CEPA in 1999 did impose the requirement that if a substance were added to the list of toxic substances, there would be a two-year time period for a preliminary statement of the risk management practice, or instrument, that would be used, and a further 18 months after that for it to be implemented in the government's requirements. So there has been an improvement, if you like, in terms of the timeline. Mr. Moffet may be able to add to this, but it's my impression that we've met all the timelines for those 24 months, with one possible exception, and it was a matter of weeks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the presenters today. It's nice to see you again, Commissioner.

I'm interested in one of the obstacles to progress, which has been touched on somewhat, and that is the inadequate tracking of releases. I would like to hear from you suggestions for solutions to this to make it more adequate.

[John Reed]

As we mentioned earlier, in the 1999 audit, we did indeed identify the fact that tracking wasn't in place for many of the substances. As Mr. Moffet has said, by the time the 2002 audit came around, they had in fact added a number of substances to the national pollutant release inventory. How comprehensive that is today, I really don't know.

I think it's almost as if...again, without trying to sound like a broken record, if you request from the departments on a substance by substance basis whether it is being tracked under the NPRI and under what conditions, you'll find out pretty quickly which of the releases are being tracked through that mechanism.

At the time of the 1999 audit, many were being reported through the voluntary ARET program.

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

My interest is more on a solution base. What do you see as a proper solution to fix this problem? It appears that many of the health concerns Canadians have may be attributable to this without their even knowing it.

[John Reed]

Of the problems identified in the two reports, I don't think there were very many that didn't have solutions at hand. Most of the time policy choices are made because of resources. But do we have the ability to ask enterprises that release toxics to report them? Yes, we have the authority.

In some cases there are limitations or good reasons why it doesn't make sense to do so, but in many ways the answer is to use the abilities you have, to resource the abilities and the authorities you have. They're there in the act and in the affiliated mechanisms.

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

Do you see it more as voluntary reporting with subsequent costs or penalties if they don't voluntarily report it? How do you foresee that working?

[John Reed]

I think the departments are having difficulty coping with the mandated obligations under the act, and I don't think they have the resources to be putting into what would be seen as stuff outside of the act. I think even though it may be an efficient way to go, they're probably putting their effort where it's mandated under the act.

There are other jurisdictions--and I think the departments could speak to this--that do a better job of tracking releases than is done federally through this act.

[John Moffet]

I would just remind the committee that I've committed to come back with a comprehensive report of it, substance by substance, and what's been tracked and how and what the tracking shows. Four years have passed since Ms. Gélinas' last audit, and most substances are being tracked at the moment, not just by NPRI but through various mechanisms.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

I want to thank the members of the committee and I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

The meeting is adjourned until Wednesday at 3:30.