Environment Committee on Sept. 21st, 2006

[Hugh Benevides]

On the point about the Department of Justice perhaps being comfortable with a different course of action, I come back to the discussion about the role of members of Parliament—lawyers and non-lawyers alike, so we can treat them equally. This is one of the ultimate roles of MPs, I would suggest; you can't artificially divide and separate the constitutional imperatives from the social imperatives. In this case, the power of the word that has been established through this whole regime over years has been established.

Similarly, if we refer to the question of how using some other language is somehow an administrative role distinct from the constitutional imperative and the need for the government to communicate this to the public, you can't divide those as well.

The role of the members of Parliament is to see that, all things in balance, the best thing is to retain the terminology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to change the focus on the term just slightly. I appreciate the comment. I think there is consensus that there is risk if we change the term. I appreciated the comments on the international perspective on the term “toxic”.

The assessments done here in Canada are based on a risk-based assessment as opposed to a hazard-based assessment. If there is consistency throughout the international approach to assessments, if it's done differently, then you could come up with a different result.

So, again, Mr. Moffet, I'd appreciate your comments, and also those of the witnesses, on the way substances are assessed in Canada, as opposed to how assessments are done internationally.

[John Moffet]

Mr. Glover may want to jump in here, as well.

Essentially, both departments follow internationally standardized protocols for risk assessments. So these processes are worked out among risk assessors throughout the OECD. Techniques are shared and standardized as much as possible.

The reason for the standardization is twofold: one is to ensure good quality, and the other is to enable us to share results back and forth so we're not all having to duplicate efforts.

That being said, there is some work that has to be country-specific. One, we have different use patterns, a different geography in Canada. And two, in Canada, as of last week, we're starting from a different baseline of information from every other country. In other words, the assessments will build on the information provided by categorization. We're sharing that information with other countries, so to the extent that those substances are used in those countries, they'll also be able to build on that baseline. But certainly our assessments are now going to build on that baseline, as opposed to starting from scratch.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Is there a consensus on that from the other witnesses?

[Gordon Lloyd]

Yes. The whole world uses a risk-based approach. The problem is—it's a quote from the University of Ottawa professor that was read—when we talk to other countries about what the Canadian approach is, we have to get beyond the confusion that the word “toxic” causes. Once we explain how it relates to what we do under section 64, then it's clear that we're all using a risk-based approach. But their view of the word “toxic” is exactly what the University of Ottawa professor said: it's a hazard-based approach.

When you get into CEPA, the way it uniquely defines it, and it adds exposure, then they understand that what we are doing under section 64 is risk-based, and is what they're doing. That's where the vagueness comes in. It's because the common person understands “toxic” in the way the University of Ottawa professor phrased it--it's a hazard-based approach. If they understood the complexities of CEPA—that it really isn't a hazard-based approach, it takes into account exposure and risk—then I don't think we would have that problem. But most people, in good common sense, don't understand the complexities of CEPA.

So that's where we have the vagueness, because of that disconnect between the conventional way “toxic” is understood, which is hazard-based, and the way CEPA redefines it to be risk-based.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Freeman.

[Aaron Freeman]

I'd just like to briefly address that point, and then I think my colleagues have other comments on the other points.

With all due respect, I don't actually believe that this is the commonly held view of “toxic”. I think there are different definitions of “toxic” in different regulatory regimes, but if you look at the ordinary dictionary definition, it means poisonous or harmful. That can mean poisonous or harmful to human health; that can also mean poisonous or harmful to the environment. I think to go beyond that and suggest that there is some consensus view around this term “toxic” is a bit spurious.

I think we have defined it in a particular way under CEPA that makes sense in terms of the regulatory regime. Other jurisdictions have defined it differently, but I don't think, in terms of the way the term is commonly understood, that it does violence to that term.

[Hugh Benevides]

I think the issue of the definition of “toxic” is a bit of a red herring in this particular part of the discussion and I'll say why. While the risk-based approach is widely taken, one has to consider that there is also, closer to the hazard-based approach, the emergence, as we all know, of the precautionary principle as a principle of international law, and one that's been upheld domestically in Canada. The reason a hazard-based approach, or one that leans more in that direction, is in line with precaution, is that we're talking about taking earlier action when we have some evidence of possible harm.

I want to make the link here to the categorization exercise. It is that Canada's monumental achievement, which I think we've all agreed has been met, only has meaning if, consistent with the precautionary principle, we accelerate those assessments and take action on the most dangerous substances and have mandatory timelines to achieve. That, to me, is the linkage: that in order to maintain the leadership role, we have to see where the appropriate places are to take a more precautionary approach, in view of what the hazardous properties are of particular substances in certain contexts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa. We're going to our second round now.

I'd remind the witnesses and members that we are now into five-minute segments. Would you try to be as brief as possible so that we can get as many people in as possible.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Every day we hear of new cancers and new diseases that are plaguing our society and people's lives. We are wondering where these diseases and these illnesses come from, and many scientists really don't know all of them. But there's incredible concern about how we are dealing with our own substances within our own countries and how we deal with the labelling of these particular substances. The categorization—how we have managed to define things—is extremely important in establishing the body of environmental law necessary to deal with this. So words do have importance, and categorizations are extremely important and play a major role. That's why I am concerned about whether there's going to be any weakening of this type of categorization and labelling from the exercise we're going through.

I was quite interested in hearing all the witnesses who came forward and what they had to say. I thought they provided interesting perspectives. I strongly would encourage the government.

Maybe Mr. Moffet could comment on the fact that the government is going to be taking a very important role in sorting through these different action plans and categorizations, and even on how they're going to prioritize all this. Certainly education awareness needs to be very much in place with the government action plan.

I want to know how the government is going to respond to the concerns all of us have with the emergence of all the new cancers that are coming into our society. I think it's very important that we do not in any way, shape, or form weaken these definitions, but strengthen them.

[John Moffet]

I'm not entirely sure what the question is, I'm afraid. If the question is specifically what our plans are, I'm afraid I'll have to reiterate that the ministers plan to announce their plans shortly. What I would say, though, is that—

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I think I was very clear about whether there is going to be awareness education. Is there going to be a weakening of the legislation? That was the question I think I was trying to ask you. Is that going to be coming forward, yes or no?

[John Moffet]

Public education and trying to explain the results of categorizations and ensure that they are meaningful, make sure that they are understood, is going to be an essential part of whatever plan comes forward.

The work the departments have done to complete categorization and advise ministers on the path forward is premised on the existing statute, subject to the recommendations of this committee.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is there going to be weakening of the legislation?

[John Moffet]

Not to my knowledge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Khatter, do you have a comment?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter, Director, Health and Environment, PollutionWatch]

I haven't spoken yet, so I'll introduce myself. I'm Kapil Khatter. I'm a family physician and I'm also with PollutionWatch.

I only wanted to say two things. One is that we are looking forward to the government's action plan and that we recognize the amazing work that's been done in terms of categorization that has put us as world leaders. But we think it's important to recognize that what we need to be world leaders on is actually controlling harmful substances, and we don't feel we are at this point. If we want to deal with the rising rates of cancer and asthma and other problems, we need to actually be world leaders in dealing with hazardous substances.

Quickly on the topic of how we label things, I wanted to not let Mr. Lloyd's comment stand about the 19,000 substances we're not categorized in being referred to as safe. It kind of makes me giggle, because seven years ago I kind of knew this was coming, that the substances that weren't categorized then would be labelled safe as kind of a new spin. The government has never said that these substances are now safe. They are simply substances that did not meet certain criteria--persistent, bioaccumulation, inherent toxicity, and the highest production volume and potential for exposure.

What we know is that there are other routes within CEPA, and we've been reassured always that there are other routes within CEPA as to where we will get to those other 19,000 substances, where they are potentially toxic, even though they don't fit exactly in the criteria of categorization. And when we talk about reversing the burden of proof, it's important that we eventually have data on those substances to show that they are actually safe, because some of those substances that are in those 19,000 have skull and crossbones on them when they're in a container. They simply didn't happen to meet the specific criteria of categorization.

We need to continue to regard all the substances with some skepticism until we have enough evidence to show that they are safe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

My question is for Mr. Graham but I would also like Mr. Glover to answer.

Mr. Graham, you said that fertilizers are not toxic. However, we are seeing at this time in Québec a problem in our bodies of water, especially on Lake Champlain at Missisquoi Bay and in Lake Archambault. I am talking about the problem of blue algae that Health Canada believes are toxic.

If fertilizers are not toxic but stimulate the growth of blue algae, how do you think we should manage this problem?

[Clyde Graham]

Nutrients--nitrogen, phosphate, potassium--occur naturally in the environment. They're all around us all the time as part of the life cycle.

There are many sources of nutrients that can lead to problems in water. Municipal waste water that's not treated, and even when it is treated, still contains nutrients. Livestock run-off from manure, from large-scale livestock operations, also cause... Phosphorus, for example, occurs in large quantities in the soil. When municipalities and provincial governments take marshes and drain them, create drainage channels to prevent flooding, there is a huge amount of erosion that occurs and the phosphorus that naturally occurs in the soil all goes into lakes and rivers.

Some fertilizer can be lost during application, but there is tremendous economic pressure on farmers when they're applying fertilizer, which they have to buy at large cost to put on their farms, to ensure that that fertilizer stays where it's put. Everyone involved in doing things in the environment, particularly in agriculture, has to be aware that these things need to be managed with best management practices.

Are the products inherently toxic? As the environmental group was saying, referring to the dictionary definition, are they poisons? No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Benevides.

[Hugh Benevides]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As an observation, along with certain toxic substances in the mid-seventies it was the issue of nutrients and the growth of algae and the issue of nutrient pollution that spurred the creation of the Federal Environmental Contaminants Act in the first place. The section of that act that was rolled into CEPA is still in the act, so that issue is covered by the act.

Perhaps the committee will want to look more closely at the adequacy of the nutrient part of CEPA.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I would like to hear a comment from Health Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Glover.