Environment Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

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

Once again, showing the incredible ability of this committee to work together, I appreciate it, folks. I have to go soon.

I have a few questions. I'm not sure any other committee members suspected we'd be dealing with a single word quite so much this session, but here we are on “toxic” again, and it's obviously of importance.

First of all, I have a question for Mr. Winfield and Mr. Bramley. The case is made by the product advocacy groups that the intuitive Canadian will look at the word “toxic” and the examples that Ms. Coombs and Mr. Hamilton raised and say there's a disjunction.

Why would you name something toxic in the common parlance that isn't by any measure what we generally define as the word “toxic”? Why would you say a certain vitamin, or road salt, or the products listed are toxic? Wouldn't simply offering a different definition or a different word enable Canadians to better understand what this is and prevent all those harassing phone calls to Mr. Hamilton about his toxic salt?

[Mark Winfield]

I think it's somewhat more complex than that. Indeed, if one reads the PSL assessments, one finds in fact that the substances do have toxic properties. There are a number of different things that have been classified as toxic through the different definitions in the act, some of which do have what you could consider inherently toxic properties.

When one looks at the assessment of road salt, there are various discussions. The application of road salt can result in deleterious effects on the physical and chemical properties of soil, especially in areas that suffer from poor salt-soil-vegetation management. I have documented damage to vegetation, shifts in plant community structure, behavioural and toxicological impacts, and the associated exposure of mammalian and avian wildlife to road salts.

In that case, in a sense it's perhaps even less complex than the greenhouse gas case. We're dealing with something where the effect is, again, not in its individual organism acute toxicity kind of model, but rather its impact on the global environment.

Indeed, when one looks at Justice La Forest's comments and the majority decision in Hydro-Québec, they're quite clear about the need to be able to accommodate that kind of threat within the definition of toxic. In effect, it attaches a level of warning or a level of concern to these substances, I would argue, in the sense that the consumer response in that context is not necessarily completely unwarranted. It signals the need for caution. It signals that there is a potential for harm here. It signals that there is a need to think about how we're using these substances and how that use might have an impact on the environment and human health.

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

Ms. Coombs, on the point Ms. Collins raised about the potential change of the act and the opening up of litigation, you represent a number of different companies. We would assume that some are more progressive than others, and there's a scale. As an example, for the 4,000 listed substances, how long has that process taken?

[Shannon Coombs]

On the 4,000?

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

Yes.

[Shannon Coombs]

Seven years.

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

Seven years. Did the government announce the 4,000 substances with any mitigation effects or any plan of action?

[Shannon Coombs]

They haven't announced the final results.

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

After having seven years to document and classify certain substances, we now have an unknown period of time before anything will actually be done about that. Is not going after this particular angle in CEPA the wrong place to spend time, if the prospect remains that some of the companies down the less progressive end of the scale wish delay and do not wish to have anything affect their business practices? Why go down that route if the intention, as you stated earlier, is to remove some of these substances from the ecosystem environment in general? Why spend time on that route when we've obviously seen a process that, by most accounts, has not been all that speedy?

[Shannon Coombs]

The government process of science-based categorization and screening of domestic substances is a mandated program under CEPA. The CEPA toxic designation is a different issue with respect to.... We're talking about what's been going on with substances that have been added to schedule 1 and how they're being stigmatized.

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

Let me ask you about those substances that you raised, those products that would seem to be innocuous to most people. What is the effect of those being listed as toxic on the people making those products? As for the vitamin manufacturers, have they seen any detriment to their business practice?

[Shannon Coombs]

The example that I raised, ammonia, is on schedule 1, and it has a risk assessment that was completed. The risk assessment said that ammonia was CEPA toxic because it was found in the aqueous environment due to waste water effluent. What has been happening is that it's being posted on some people's websites that say that it is CEPA toxic, that it should not be used, that it is used in cleaning products, and that cleaning products should not be used altogether. So our products are being stigmatized.

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

As the chair mentioned earlier, the nature of the reason we have you all together is so that you can dispute each other.

Mr. Winfield.

[Mark Winfield]

I would point out that gaseous ammonia is actually on the list of toxic substances as well. It's not just ammonia in an aquatic environment. Indeed, the reason that gaseous ammonia was put on the TSL is that it's a smog precursor. What underlies that is in fact that one of the major sources of smog, the third major source, is what are referred to as area sources--as opposed to smoke stacks and automobile tail pipes--which are essentially the volatilization of various substances from cleaners, paints, and other applications in both household and industrial applications. In fact, in a sense, cumulatively, the effect of ammonia in cleaners and those kinds of things is a potential contributor to smog. It also presents occupational hazards, and that's well documented as well.

So I'm actually surprised that one would point to ammonia as problematic in this context. I think it actually fits the bill rather tidily on a number of different fronts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's see if Mr. Teeter would like to get in on that.

[Michael Teeter, Consultant, Principal, Hillwatch Inc., Salt Institute of Canada]

I was just going to say that I think it deviates from our debate to get into the issue of smog precursors, because the science on PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 is under debate right now. I think the whole issue of whether atmospheric ammonia should be on the list or not is being debated.

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

With such an arduous and rigorous, but slow, process, Canada has consistently slipped to the bottom of the international list in terms of the amount of harmful chemicals existing in our environment. The concern I have with this issue of toxics is the length of delay that may be incurred if we switch the name.

My question, Ms. Collins--and this will be my last one--is about the number of years it took to define it through the courts. This is typical: legislation is enacted; someone challenges it on some level, pro or con; the courts see through it; it goes all the way to the Supreme Court; it gets defined; and clearly, we now have a definite working definition. How long would it take if we changed the definition now? If we removed the word “toxic” and replaced it with another word or another set of definitions, would we embark on another process soon?

[Lynda Collins]

It can take years. It can take many years.

As you know, for an appeal to make its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada can take years, up to six to ten years in the worst cases, but certainly a few years at a minimum. Then you get that court's decision. That decision is then implemented by the lower courts. As you know, we're just dealing with humans here, so there can be different interpretations at different lower courts, and it can be a long and slow process to work out the meaning of a new term.

[Al Hamilton]

I have just one point. If the real goal is to improve the environment, I think that either removing “toxic” or creating some other category to put things in so you're not arguing about that all the time would definitely speed up the process of getting things done, because then you could get to the issue rather than argue about the label. It may take a little bit of time to shake out what “toxic” means and doesn't mean, but as far as getting improvements made, I think it would improve the process.

[Lynda Collins]

You should also recall, then, the worst case scenario. There is a risk of losing the whole part, because remember, Hydro-Québec was won by one vote; it was a five-four decision. So the act could have fallen. That section of the act could have fallen.

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

Throughout our conversation is the cost-benefit of what it is to go down this path of the removal of “toxic” or not, or to have it remain in.

[Michael Teeter]

Just to clarify, we're not recommending the removal of the word “toxic” at the Salt Institute, we're actually suggesting that there be another definition or another list, which would be easy to implement.

I'd also remind you--and Al said it, but it's true--that if no regulations are expected by the government or by anybody involved, you don't have to be on schedule 1 to implement a code of practice or to implement a voluntary program. Another way to skin this cat very quickly is just to have another list for those things that are voluntarily managed. That's certainly part of our recommendation.

The other thing we're recommending, which I think is also very easy to do and doesn't involve removing the word “toxic” and all the complexities that the lawyers might have with that, is we're saying to the government, when you have a problem with a substance in a particular way it's used--we call it “in context”--focus on that. If it's municipal waste water treatment plants that are the problem, get all your resources dedicated to that. If you have to list something because regulations are expected, list them in context--for instance, ammonia from municipal waste water treatment plants. It is the way the act used to be. It's much more effective at getting remedial actions faster when you focus on the nature of the problems instead of having these large categories and ending up debating over words and that kind of thing. So this is what we're recommending.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would ask the members to come through the chair. That might keep it a one-on-one debate.

Mr. Cullen, you're a little bit over.

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

I appreciate the time from the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

I will now go to Mr. Silva.