Evidence of meeting #19 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 elimination.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association, PollutionWatch
Mr. Chair, I'd like to point out that among the list of brominated flame retardants that are not being proposed for elimination, one of them, decaBDE breaks down, I understand, to some of those other flame retardants that are being removed, so we ask, for example, why the deca is not being slated in the same direction as the others are.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
It's an interesting point, Mr. Benevides, because it brings me to this issue of substances being banned by ministerial decision as opposed to a more arm's-length science-based approach.
So the decision to ban--
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mario Silva
Your time is almost up, so could you wrap it up? Do you have the question?
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Well, it brings me to my question, which is this. When the minister decided to ban certain flame retardants and not others, was the science not saying we should ban them all? Did the minister not have to make some kind of political decision at one point?
I think that issue should be explored by subsequent questioners, if they wouldn't mind.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mario Silva
I see that nobody wants to answer that, so we'll move on to Monsieur Harvey.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Earlier, Mr. Lloyd talked of 10-18 as being the end point for finding a molecule or traces of substances. Is that right?
10:30 a.m.
Vice-President, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
I believe so. I wouldn't disagree with that. But someone else used the precise number.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I had a bit of fun writing all that out, 10-18 , and in the end I do not know how to say this number, but if ever I brought this down to a ratio in terms of millimetres or kilometres, I would take the distance between the earth and the moon, and finally every millimetre, to the closest ppm, would be analysed. Is that right?
10:30 a.m.
Environmental Adviser, International Joint Commission
The number comes from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry out of Atlanta, Georgia, from some of their scientists. Actually, the work is maybe not being done so much for health-related reasons as for security reasons over the last few years, to be able to detect molecules or particles that at a certain....
What we were told at the time we visited is that they were able to detect a substance at 10-18 , which I believe is the quintillionth.... I'm not sure. I'd have to go back and look at my notes. No, it's not a quintillionth; that's only 1-5....
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
We are not even talking anymore in terms of nanos, but you are sure of this number. All right.
Heritage stocks in the Great Lakes were mentioned. Could we dredge these lake bottoms? Or would the disadvantages of stirring up the bottom outweigh the advantages of cleaning it?
10:35 a.m.
Environmental Adviser, International Joint Commission
Well, the point being made on the number itself is that we really don't know what the biological end points would be for some chemicals. There are different biological end points for their impact on a biological process.
So whether it's 10-3, 10-5, depending on different chemicals, you will see different effects--also synergistic effects between chemicals. Whether we can dredge to 10-18 I highly doubt, depending on.... In answer to your question, I just don't know.
The point is that although detection limits have come down a long way from what we were able to do back in the early 1970s and 1980s, now that they're able to make these detections, the relationship between that and the effect on wildlife and on humans has not been.... We just haven't got to that point yet, although we can detect.
10:35 a.m.
Senior Adviser, International Joint Commission
Mr. Chairman, may I add something?
I would like to add a few words.
I remarked earlier about the fact that in the Great Lakes, at least, there are designated areas of concern, and in some of these areas of concern, contaminated sediments are the heritage stocks that I think you're referring to.
So, if I understood your question,
these sediments could be factors that contribute to the reason that these are designated as areas of concern. The remedial actions plans that are developed for each one of them can be different in how they address these legacy stocks of contaminated sediments. In some cases the decision is made, based on science and cost, to actually dredge and remove them, and in some cases the decision is made to leave them or cover them. It's almost on a case-by-case basis, depending on what science tells the managers of these remedial action plans and the government agencies is the risk.
Did I answer your question?
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
There is another element that we have not talked about a lot. That is the traces of hormones and antibiotics in untreated waters, which are found in ever greater concentrations.
In this connection, I would like to talk to the department’s representatives to find out whether we are going in that direction with our work or whether we have any reduction goals in this area.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for the representatives of the International Joint Commission. With regard to adjusting the air pollution standards between Canada and the U.S., I am intrigued by your Annex 1 on toxic products and especially the supplement, where you add product lists 1, 2 and 3.
This is my question: how was the list negotiated with the Americans? The 1972 list changed in 1978, then in 1987. Did it change in 1999, with the introduction of the CEPA?
10:35 a.m.
Senior Adviser, International Joint Commission
Personally, I think that that is a question for the government’s staff who were involved in the negotiations. The International Joint Commission made recommendations to the governments, but it was up to the governments to decide what they were going to do with them. To my mind, it would be better to ask this of the government.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Does the government have an answer to that? Has the 1978 list changed?
10:35 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes, it was influenced by the work done by researchers at Environment Canada and Health Canada. Actually two things were affected: the annex on water quality and also the list of substances to be evaluated in the CEPA. So there was always an integration between the two.
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The two governments.
As for the hot spots, Mr. Weiner, was it the International Joint Commission that identified them?
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Are you responsible for handling them or suggesting remedies for these hot spots?
10:40 a.m.
Senior Adviser, International Joint Commission
Yes. Under the agreement, for example, in worrisome sectors for which there are improvement plans, managers have to submit three progress reports to the Commission. We are responsible for evaluating these reports and giving an opinion.