Environment Committee on Sept. 21st, 2006

[Hugh Benevides]

Mr. Chair, I think it's one of the matters that we have to balance or consider against each other. One of those matters is that those other countries we talk about don't have the constitutional framework we have, so first of all--and I know it's only an expression--we don't have a box in which we say this substance is toxic. That's not where the importance of the thing lies, although I know there are issues for customers elsewhere. I think the main issue is really how we best do this in the Canadian framework.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Glover, you have a problem?

[Paul Glover]

It may please the committee to know that Canada is spearheading internationally in many respects a process to implement a globally harmonized system for labelling and classification. We've moved to some diagrams to avoid the types of programs that the member has raised, so we are working quite hard with international partners to make sure there is a globally harmonized system.

I do agree, though, with the comments made that when we talk about CEPA and the term “toxic”, that applies to our domestic situation. On the international level, however, we are working to harmonize so that there isn't the confusion the member suggests might be possible, which does currently exist, and which we're working to correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, go ahead, please.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

We know that labeling a product « toxic » may create serious problems to exporters. This might have significant economic consequences, particularly for potassium which is a widely used product. Furthermore, I believe that there is no substitute. If I'm not mistaken, the problem with potassium is more a management problem than a use problem, is it not?

[Hugh Benevides]

The issue here is particularly salient in the case of a natural substance. The potassium a country is going to import from us is the same potassium they are going to use out of their own supply if they have it, so it seems to me a fairly straightforward matter that potassium is potassium. That's what we would say to our trading partners--that our potassium is no more unsafe than theirs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Moffet, did you have a comment?

Sorry, Mr. Graham, go ahead, please.

[Clyde Graham]

Phytosanitary problems in trade are legendary, and they're the most difficult to face. There is a risk to using the toxic label for our exports in Canada. There are only a few countries that export potassium chloride.

Coming back to the question Mr. Godfrey asked about the onus being on the industry, when I used the term “industry” I meant agriculture in general. Ultimately it is farmers producing food using our products who will face the burden of proving that their system is safe and that the food they're producing is wholesome. That's why the label “toxic” for products that are used in agriculture has to be very carefully and judiciously used. I don't think that the way the act has been applied--and I think this relates to the way the act is drafted and the tools that are there--has been sensitive to the needs of agriculture.

There are people within Canada who are promoting different agricultural systems, and farmers are the ones in the end who are going to face a lot of the burden in explaining to the public why they're using a product that the Government of Canada says is, in the words of the other group there, “toxic” or according to the dictionary “poison”.

I don't think that Canadians want to be told erroneously that the food they're eating has been produced using a toxic substance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would ask Mr. Scarpaleggia and Mr. Vellacott to each ask their questions, and hopefully then we can get the answers and make it in time.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to continue on this point, when you buy a product off the shelf and it says it has potassium in it, based on my recollection, there isn't a parenthesis that says “toxic”. So how would the public even know it's CEPA-toxic in Canada? Secondly, for example, alcohol is toxic if it's in its pure form, but that doesn't stop people from buying beer and scotch, and so on. Anyway, that's just one point that maybe you can respond to.

The second has to do with your suggestion that we target effluents at their source, as opposed to using a broad-based approach like CEPA and CEPA-toxic. I think this could lead to some legal conflicts, because I seem to recall reading that in Victoria, B.C., for example, there are those who say there's no need for sewage treatment, yet others say we have to do something about it. If I recall correctly, a few months ago the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Dion, said, “Well, if you're not going to do something about it, I'm going to regulate it under CEPA.”

I see your approaches as raising some contradictions and some legal conflicts. So maybe you could respond to both of those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could we get Mr. Vellacott's question as well, and then put them together, please?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'd appreciate a bit of an exchange between Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Freeman and a quick review of a comment that the official from Health Canada, Mr. Glover, made.

It goes back to the point Mr. Freeman made, that right now we're synchronized with the international community in terms of terminology that's used, and so on--at least that's what I understood you to say--and that if we remove the word “toxic” and begin to change some of that nomenclature, we will not be synchronized; we won't be in step with them.

On the other hand, Mr. Lloyd, having been at some of these conferences, you've stated very emphatically that right now we have different definitions from the international community--that's what I understood you to say--and that in fact we are right now out of step. So there's a contradiction going on there between what you said, Mr. Lloyd, and what Mr. Freeman said. Maybe you meant something rather different. And then we had Mr. Glover making the point that Canada is taking the lead to harmonize. That seems to incline toward what Mr. Lloyd had attested there. So I need some clarification as to what the discrepancies are about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I might advise the committee as well that we are having an international day later on, when we'll bring in international officials to interpret the meaning of the word “toxic” as well.

Go ahead, panel.

[Clyde Graham]

Again, to respond to your secondary question about municipalities, I'm not here to talk about municipalities but just that we got sideswiped when the federal government found it difficult to manage a problem that was at the municipal level, because municipalities are creatures of the provinces. The federal government can't tell a municipality what to do; only a province can. So CEPA came into play.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

My point was that there could be a legal conflict. Somebody could say, “Well, you don't have the authority to regulate this effluent.”

[Clyde Graham]

Sure, and I understand that, but the thing is, what is the problem? The problem is that I don't think there are people in Victoria who don't want their sewage treated before it goes into the ocean. I think they want that done. The problem is that's very expensive. They don't have the funds. So why doesn't the federal Minister of the Environment talk to the B.C. Minister of the Environment or Minister of Municipal Affairs and say, “How can we fund the sewage treatment plants that are required in this country?” That's tackling the problem.

Telling people to do things, yet they don't have the money to do it, doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Won't industry always say it's too expensive?

[Clyde Graham]

It's not industry; it's people who live in Victoria and pay the bills for municipal waste-water effluent.

In terms of our industry, the converse is true. We don't have a problem with managing our products. We don't have a problem with wanting to step up in terms of stewardship, and farmers are very keen on making sure their products are well managed in terms of the environment. So the “toxic” label has no impact.

We're already working very hard on this with governments in all provinces to make sure that nutrients are managed well, and we recognize the fact that they need to be managed. The toxic stigma that's applied has no impact on that process. It didn't change anything.

I'm just saying that in the legislation there's a disconnect between this process of labelling and what the government is actually trying to achieve. What's needed is a far more pragmatic approach.

That said, the issue for us is that the stigma on our products is negative. It's negative to Canadian agriculture, and I think that needs to be changed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Freeman, I think you wanted to make a comment.

[Aaron Freeman]

Yes. I'll respond to Mr. Vellacott's question and perhaps explore an area where there may be some common ground.

When I suggested that other international conventions and regimes use the term “toxic”, I was not suggesting that their definition of toxic is identical to the definition under CEPA. There are different definitions, because the nature of the word “toxic” is that it deals with things that are harmful or poisonous. So you need to further define that if you're going to use that term in a regulatory regime.

We do indeed have different definitions. The question is whether any of those definitions do violence to the commonly understood definition of toxic and whether it's appropriate to label products toxic that are harmful or poisonous in certain contexts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to call that. The other committee is waiting.

I want to thank our witnesses.

Just before we adjourn, Mr. Warawa has a comment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to announce to the committee that the minister will be attending the committee on October 5. She's looking forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

We're adjourned.