Environment Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

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

I'll try to be brief, Chair.

The main question I wanted to go at, Mr. Weiner, is with respect to the substitution. Part of the question when we raised the spectre of eliminating a chemical was that the cost will be onerous and burdensome; we're going to lose jobs. The economic balance ticks out of whack. You mentioned a study that you folks have engaged in, I believe; was it around substitutions?

[Joel Weiner]

We looked at a variety of economic instruments that could be used to encourage substitution. In fact, we did four case studies of how our proposed virtual elimination framework could actually be applied, so there are some case studies.

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

This seems to be a critical component. What we're hearing now, perhaps, about virtual elimination is that things are not getting to the list in Canada, and that maybe it's not the most effective tool. I'm hearing different things. If we go back to the intention to have harmful chemicals removed and one of the blocks is that the companies involved in producing those chemicals say the costs are prohibitive, a sound understanding of the options available to the government seems extremely important.

[Joel Weiner]

That was certainly the commission's view at the time. That is why there was a special report, which I tabled before the committee with the chair. Most of the documents I brought today are in English and French. I believe the one on the use of economic instruments was in English only, but it's worth reading through, Mr. Cullen, if I may say suggest.

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

There's the concept of the balance. We've touched on this topic about the politics and the science with a few witnesses. There's this ideal of having science make the decisions on things that are harmful for human health and then having those decisions implemented. The challenge for the politicians becomes balancing out what the cost to society and the economy might be. It seems to me that as CEPA is written right now, section 77 and others allow so much room for interpretation as to what those costs may or may not be that it allows the minister and the government not to act.

Here's an identified chemical. The scientists--Health Canada, Environment Canada, whoever--have come forward and said it is harmful and causes health detriments and costs and pain, but the minister has a get-out-of-jail card on this one because there may be some cost to industry or society at large. By the act as defined right now, it's too loose.

Is that a fair assessment, or am I exaggerating the case?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Benevides is first, and then Mr. Stack.

[Hugh Benevides]

Mr. Chair, in answer to that question, I believe it's a fair assessment.

Going back very quickly to the previous question, I believe that substitution prevents an opportunity, not a threat, to proponents. I'm not sure if Mr. Stack mentioned a study by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute. There are two studies I want to mention quickly on the subject of the feasibility of substitution and how it's being done in other jurisdictions. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute in Massachusetts published a report this summer called Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study, and another is on the Greenpeace International website called Safer Chemicals Within Reach, clearly involving the REACH legislation in Europe.

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

I'd ask, through the chair to the clerk, if we could pull some of those studies up. I think this is an integral part of our conversation that we haven't had yet.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Stack, Mr. Lloyd, and then we have to wrap it up.

[Derek Stack]

I would agree also with the assessment. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the minister shouldn't consider the politics or the socio-economics at play, but rather that those politics not trump human health and the environment at every turn.

In addition to the fact that when we go looking for substitutes they seem to be easily enough found, the report that Mr. Weiner referred to actually--and I think I quoted it in my submission--says that the costs for virtual elimination are overstated.

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

Who are they overstated by?

[Derek Stack]

By those who would claim.... I forget the actual name. I would have to turn to it.

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

By the companies themselves.

[Derek Stack]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Lloyd.

[Gordon Lloyd]

In this section that we've been talking about here a lot, subsection 77(3), for virtual elimination, the intention of Parliament was to make this mandatory. That's why they used the word “shall”. There are conditions that the ministers have to be satisfied about beforehand, and I guess there is some degree of subjectivity there. But if those conditions are satisfied, then the action is mandatory. I would partly agree with your statement, but there is an element of mandatoriness that was intended for virtual elimination. I think that is reflected in the legislation.

As for the preconditions, though, you do have to be satisfied they're met. Again, that's similar to the Stockholm Convention. I keep going back to that analogy, but I think there are a lot of parallels between it and virtual elimination.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Just for your information, if you wish to look at the reports, the reports will be in the clerk's office because they have not been translated. So you can get them in there, if you like.

We won't have the next five minutes to discuss the next meeting because it's not on the agenda and I've been challenged not to in fact have a discussion on that. Given that's the case, we'll go now to Mr. Harvey.

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

Mr. Clarkson told me yes, earlier. What then?

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

I have a point of order on our process. A number of things have been presented to the committee in terms of priorities and order. The government has consternations, as does the opposition.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

I agree it would be good if we could discuss what we're going to be discussing next Thursday. But I would need to have at least the consensus of the committee that in fact they wish to proceed over the next five minutes in discussing what we're going to do next Thursday.

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

I would make that suggestion then, because I've had members from all sides express concern over the agenda for the committee over the number of weeks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

I've been told by the clerk we need consent. What's on the agenda is what's on the agenda, and that's what we'll be discussing this far.

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

So just to understand--sorry, Mr. Harvey, about the time--as the agenda stands right now, we have bookings for next Tuesday and Thursday already?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

No, we have a meeting next Thursday. At that meeting we will discuss what we're going to be doing at that meeting--this coming Thursday.

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

This coming Thursday we're going to have time set aside to plan--