Evidence of meeting #14 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mark Winfield  Director, Environmental Governance, Pembina Institute
Matthew Bramley  Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute
Shannon Coombs  Executive Director, Representative for Formulated Products Industry Coalition, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Hugh Benevides  Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association, PollutionWatch
Al Hamilton  Chemical Business Manager, Sifto Canada, Salt Institute of Canada
Lynda Collins  Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Michael Teeter  Consultant, Principal, Hillwatch Inc., Salt Institute of Canada
Charles Ethier  Director General, Product Safety Programme, Department of Health

10:30 a.m.

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Lynda Collins

Regarding your first point, I think I did make the point that Hydro-Québec was a five-four decision. I think that's actually a very important point for us to keep in mind because we all need to be aware of the fact that the act nearly fell. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I did mean to point that out.

On the issue of the inclusion of GHGs under CEPA, could it mean that the federal government is dictating provincial building codes? I don't think so. I don't think they would have a constitutional leg to stand on. Obviously it's a complicated area, as has been said already. It's an area of shared jurisdiction. So in other words, the federal government is allowed to go only so far. My point was that CEPA, in the context of toxicity, has been evaluated against the constitutional ruler in Hydro-Québec.

I'd like to pass on that GHG question to our experts in the GHG issue.

10:30 a.m.

Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute

Matthew Bramley

When the government added greenhouse gases to that schedule of the Act last November, it clearly intended to specifically regulate the large emitters of greenhouse gases, which are responsible for almost 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions produced here in Canada.

Based on all the scientific evidence, we know that drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are urgently needed. Between now and 2050, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada must be reduced by 80% For that to happen, we must immediately start addressing the most significant sources. Therefore, regulations targeting large emitters of greenhouse gases are urgently needed.

I think it's unfortunate that the timeline for greenhouse gas regulations, as established by the previous government under CEPA, has been abandoned by the new government.

As for possibly using CEPA to pass other kinds of regulations -- you talked about building codes, for instance -- if some provinces delay making improvements to codes for several years, at one point, the government will be able to say that it has waited long enough and that the time has come to take action. However, by adding substances, the previous government's intent was clearly not to deal with building codes.

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

How do you react to what Mr. Bramley just said? He is not ruling out the possibility of government intervention, if certain provinces don't comply with so-called national standards. In his opinion, that would give the federal government an opening. I realize, of course, that the previous government's intentions were not the same, but governments do change.

Constitutionally speaking, do you think this would allow the federal government to impose codes on the provinces, including possibly building codes, or to prevent a bridge from being built because it could have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions?

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

You may answer very briefly, please, Ms. Collins.

10:35 a.m.

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Lynda Collins

No. I don't think this opens the door to the federal government's imposing of building codes as a constitutional issue. It's not what I actually heard Dr. Bramley saying. What I heard was that it might be a good idea for the federal government to take some action if there are laggard provinces. There are actions that the federal government could take; for example, funding. As they do with health care, they could control provincial actions through the use of federal funding. However, I don't believe there is a constitutional basis for the federal government to intervene in provincial building codes.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate the timely provision of your written briefing. We had access to that over the weekend, and it helped us greatly. So thank you for that.

I'm going to be asking Mr. Ethier from Health Canada a question in a moment, some specifics of how we manage substances once they're on the schedule 1 list, if you could prepare a couple of comments on that.

Mr. Winfield said rightly that the science is clear if the substance is toxic or not, and he said that once it's on schedule 1, where do you go from there? I think that's a good question, and that's where I'd like to go. Mr. Hamilton said if a substance isn't going to be regulated it shouldn't be on the schedule 1 list. So what I'd like is a healthy discussion on approaches to management of substances. Once they're on the schedule 1 list, should they be voluntarily dealt with or should they be regulated? I appreciate the comments from each of you.

I'd like to start with Mr. Ethier from Health Canada and get his perspective, maybe some specific examples of how substances are managed.

September 26th, 2006 / 10:35 a.m.

Charles Ethier Director General, Product Safety Programme, Department of Health

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to start my comments by saying that unfortunately Paul Glover, who is responsible for managing the existing substances program, is not here this morning. The area I'm responsible for deals more with new substances, and the risk management approaches that we take for both new and existing substances differ somewhat.

It's hard to comment on how we would manage anything that would end up on the schedule 1 list without the benefit of a very thorough risk assessment that identifies for us what the risk is that needs to be managed or controlled. Once we've managed to do that, then the appropriate risk management mechanism is put in place. That could be regulation. It could be voluntary. It could be just an issue of public awareness and restricted use of a particular substance. It's very difficult to comment on what the mechanism would be without the full benefit of the very thorough risk analysis.

10:35 a.m.

Consultant, Principal, Hillwatch Inc., Salt Institute of Canada

Michael Teeter

I'll just explain the structure of the act, and I'm sure some of the experts here can do it as well or better. Once a risk assessment is complete, and one of the two ministers or both ministers make a recommendation to list, it starts a clock in the act that says you have two years to develop a risk management instrument, which might be voluntary, it might be regulatory, and then you have an additional three years to implement that.

You don't even have to be on the list before it triggers the development of a risk management instrument, so to some extent that is certainly the situation we are in with road salts. I agree with lots of people in saying it was helpful to some extent in triggering a process, but I'll also say this: as an assessment is being done, usually among the people involved, whether it's Environment Canada, industry, environmental groups, there's a consensus on what the risk management instruments should be, believe it or not--not always, but frequently there is. To some extent what we're saying is that the sooner we can get to what we agree on, the better. The sooner we can actually deal with risk management, which is about setting up plans and programs and procedures to more effectively manage substances, that should be our objective--always. Take action. Don't argue; take action.

So this is where our recommendations are coming from.

10:40 a.m.

Executive Director, Representative for Formulated Products Industry Coalition, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association

Shannon Coombs

Regarding Mr. Warawa's question, I think the proposal that was put forward to Parliament--section 15 of Bill C-43, where it looks at changing the name to “Assessment and Management of Substances”--may address some of those concerns that the witnesses have raised here as well as the issue you raised in your question. It would be prudent to have some of the lawyers who devised that piece of legislation come forward to the committee and give their views on what the intent of government was--and is, possibly--and put that forward to the committee for consideration.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Benevides.

10:40 a.m.

Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association, PollutionWatch

Hugh Benevides

Thank you.

It's true, as Mr. Teeter points out, that once the ministers responsible for CEPA announce their intention to list a substance on the list of toxic substances they have two years, and then there's a further one and a half years to develop and implement. So it really is a three-and-a-half-year timeline to develop and implement a regulation or other control instrument, which he also correctly says could be voluntary as well as regulatory.

Mr. Hamilton suggested that part of the scheme whereby a new list is created would somehow make it easier to have a voluntary approach. In fact, the existing act already allows for a voluntary approach to be taken as the sole control instrument. Our position--for three reasons--is that the act should be modified so that regulation is a mandatory centrepiece of what's developed in that plan. In other words, a voluntary measure alone cannot stand.

Those reasons are: first, it's been shown that a regulation provides the greatest motivation for change; second, it provides the certainty that industry always seeks; and third, it's the most effective. We would add, as we have advocated, that there be a requirement for substitution of a substance that's been found to be potentially harmful, and in respect of which a regulation is in place. So a substitution, as is the case in other jurisdictions like Massachusetts and California, is part of the process. It's a spur of industrial innovation that has economic benefits as well as the obvious environmental ones.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Warawa.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Mr. Winfield, I didn't get a comment from you. I believe you alluded to that briefly.

10:40 a.m.

Director, Environmental Governance, Pembina Institute

Mark Winfield

There are a number of things one could do to accelerate the process that I've hinted at. I've been told by Environment Canada officials that it involves something like 13 trips to cabinet to get to the point of regulating something under CEPA. So some thought could be given to removing some of the structural barriers to getting to action that are embedded in the act.

I'm quite certain that changing the word “toxic” or adding another list wouldn't help that process at all. It doesn't deal with the structural barriers embedded in the act between when we identify something as a potential problem, to actually getting to the stage of action. I think it would be far more fruitful to focus attention on removing some of those barriers.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Watson.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start with the existing substances, toxic and non-toxic, and the whole question of stigma. Of the 23,000 or so chemicals there, how many are we talking about having a stigma attached to them?

10:45 a.m.

Director, Environmental Governance, Pembina Institute

Mark Winfield

Usually there are around 78 or 80 toxic substances at this stage, a few EA classes, and a few, like road salt, that are sort of in limbo.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

I want to bring this question of stigma down to the public's perception. Presumably on that list of 23,000, if you take away the 78 or 80, there will be many substances that are truly harmful, and if you remove the toxic stigma it could be misinterpreted by the public.

Is there a concern, if you remove “toxic”, about sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here? We're only talking about 78 or 80 substances that have a question about a negative stigma from the word “toxic”. Are we opening the door, in terms of public perception, to looking at truly harmful substances and saying that maybe they're not so harmful anymore?

I'd like some discussion on that.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Ms. Coombs.

10:45 a.m.

Executive Director, Representative for Formulated Products Industry Coalition, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association

Shannon Coombs

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your question.

The proposal we've suggested, of removing the word “toxic” and changing it to “assessment and management”, we really believe is a credible position to put forward for the committee to consider, because that's what the act does. An assessment is done on a particular use, and that assessment reflects the findings. If the findings determine that, yes, it does meet the parameters of section 64 of the legislation, then it goes on to schedule 1 and risk management is undertaken.

The challenge we have is that what the public perceives as being intrinsically toxic, poisonous, or lethal is not necessarily what is being risk-managed on that list. I think ammonia is a very good example, because ammonia is being targeted. We do have some examples--I can certainly provide those to the committee--of websites where it's posted that ammonia, a CEPA toxic, is used in glass cleaner. It doesn't mention anything about the risk assessment with respect to the aqueous environment and the ammonia found in waste water effluent. It simply says it's used in glass cleaner, so don't use it. That's the challenge we're dealing with.

I don't think it's an inconvenience for industry. The challenge we have is that some of the other regulators, such as B.C., have said in their documents on procurement criteria that you must not have any substances that are on schedule 1. Well, if people don't understand the context, the risk assessment of ammonia, then they would just say, “Oh, ammonia is used in glass cleaner, so I can't use glass cleaner.”

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Winfield.

10:45 a.m.

Director, Environmental Governance, Pembina Institute

Mark Winfield

I have a couple of comments on this.

I think it's very important to understand that Environment Canada and Health Canada have actually applied an extremely high standard of proof in their assessment of the toxicity of substances. Indeed, in order for something to be found toxic under CEPA, it would almost certainly have to be causing actual harm to the environment or human health rather than merely presenting a risk. The standard of proof they've employed is very high.

In fact, strong arguments have been made that the current process for assessing substances added to the list is excessively cautious, and things that should have been added to the list haven't been. In that context, I think the label of toxic is entirely appropriate; it sends a signal to the public that this is something to exercise caution around.

It's also, in a sense, relatively mild. I think the degree to which the public actually identifies this is still an open question. Other jurisdictions have in fact been much more aggressive. California, for example, through their proposition 65 actually requires the labelling of all consumer products that contain a number of listed substances, which runs into the hundreds. You actually see consumer products with labels on them--this is a carcinogen, or this is a developmental toxin.

Compared to that, I would say the approach under CEPA is extremely conservative.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

We'll go to the second round now. I remind members and witnesses that each member has five minutes. Let's try to stick to that so that everyone gets their questions in.

Mr. Godfrey.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Ms. Coombs, let's take the case of glass cleaner. It certainly is labelled as toxic in terms of “Don't drink this.” I mean, you have a little skull and crossbones, little things that tell you not to touch the stuff and not to let small children get their mitts on it. I don't understand why, when we put on warnings that it would be a very bad thing to drink this or to leave around small children--we even use the skull and crossbones and other such identifiers--this is less insulting or less misleading than for it to be referred to as toxic. I mean, clearly it's toxic; we do that for consumers all the time.

So I don't understand why suddenly there are these gradations of stigmatization.

10:50 a.m.

Executive Director, Representative for Formulated Products Industry Coalition, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association

Shannon Coombs

On the issue you're raising with respect to labelling of our products, the products are designed for consumers to use, and for them to be effective. The labelling we use comes under the Hazardous Products Act, under the consumer chemical and containers regulations. There are clear warning statements and pictograms, as you were referring to, that industry puts on the label to help the consumer use the product appropriately and effectively, when used according to the directions.

The situation I'm referring to is that people misunderstand the toxic designation. Ammonia's on the list, but there's no context. When people see ammonia on the list, they don't realize that the assessment was done on the aqueous environment and that the results came back saying ammonia was found as a waste water effluent. No context like that is provided. So for people to say that there's a link between ammonia and that risk assessment, that particular use, and the management that goes in and around ammonia and glass cleaner, that is a stigmatization.