Environment Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Hugh Benevides]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, neither Dr. Khatter nor I have our finger on the precise numbers today, but fortunately our website, pollutionwatch.org, and our reports--and I say this because the information is there, not to do a commercial--on air emissions and water emissions to the Great Lakes and across the country make those available.

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

As a general narrative, though, how does Canada stack up against the U.S.? Are we doing better? Do we tend to do better as a nation state, or is this a wrong comparison?

[Hugh Benevides]

I think it's a very difficult comparison, because for every one comparison you have a competing one.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Dr. Khatter, did you want to say a few words?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

I would like to give you some examples. If you think about air emissions in Canada or air standards, air quality in terms of air pollution, if you look at the EU, if you look at Australia, if you look at the United States, Canada is the only country that has guidelines rather than standards. Although three of our guidelines are stronger than the ones in the U.S. in terms of the core air pollutants, and two of theirs are stronger than ours, theirs are actually standards and ours are guidelines. Our guidelines are weaker than the World Health Organization's standards across the board, than Australia's, and than the EU's.

The question becomes more complicated when we're talking about chemicals. It really depends on which chemical you're talking about. In some places we're definitely behind in some of the newer persistent and biocumulative chemicals that we're finding now. In some places, at times, CEPA can be stronger.

Some of the Great Lakes statistics that we presented before in briefs and submissions have shown that in the Great Lakes Basin in particular, per facility, we are doing worse than the U.S. in terms of the written amount of reproductive and developmental toxins and the number of carcinogens we put out of smoke stacks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Vellacott, so please let me know when five minutes are up.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I found the information helpful. As was pointed out, we aren't scientists and we're relying on your expertise and advice.

I have a comment to PollutionWatch on that.

I've been very happy that you've been part of this CEPA review process. Each meeting, you have representatives either presenting or listening and participating. I think this is your fourth or fifth time actually as a witness at the committee. Having a written brief prepared and presented, as we receive from some of the other witnesses, is very helpful to me and I think to the majority of the committee. It gives us an opportunity to read your brief ahead of time and prepare some questions and get our minds around a very scientific and complex issue. You've identified the different topics you want to be part of; you have indicated you want to be here. If in the future you could provide briefs—because you know it's coming—it is very helpful. But I do appreciate your comments.

Mr. Cullen brought up some interesting discussions regarding the assessments. I think there's a confusion about how the assessments are done. They are done on a risk base rather than a hazard base. That question came up at a previous meeting, how we base them. Apparently, internationally it's based on risk. You can have a substance that may be persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic, but that does not present a risk to the environment because it's not being used.

Mr. Cullen has brought the issue before Parliament of phthalates. There are different types of phthalates, but some are deemed by science not to present a risk, based on a risk assessment for the uses they are being put to. Again, we have to be careful that it's based on the international standard, which is risk-based, not hazard-based. I'd appreciate some comment on that.

The primary focus of my question is virtual elimination. To this point, we have no substances that have been targeted to be virtually eliminated. My question is for the department and for others who want to comment. Why, to this point, do we have no substances that have been targeted to be virtually eliminated? Is there a problem, then, with—as we heard Mr. Stack saying—having the minister able to make the determination whether or not it creates a hazard or a risk?

We have no substances that are virtually eliminated, so what is the problem? Maybe the department could comment.

[Cynthia Wright]

I'll make three points. Somebody referred to the dirty dozen. There were 12 substances for which I think the departments pioneered in the concept of virtual elimination. They were acted on under the toxic substances management policy of 1995. Some actions were taken under CEPA, some actions were taken by provinces, and there were other types of actions.

Most of them were pesticides. For those, we were satisfied that there would be no additional benefit from putting them on the virtual elimination list, and it would also create an obligation, if they were on the list, to prescribe the release limits that you've heard and the limit of quantification. We believed there was no benefit to be added by that work. In other words, the releases were all being managed. To add them to the list and create those burdens of doing the limit of quantification and the release limit would not achieve any environmental protection or human health protection.

The third point to make is that there is the issue of a problem with the limit of quantification concept when the substance is actually a contaminant in products. I think you heard PollutionWatch and the Chemical Producers' Association raise that point. That's an additional challenge that the departments have been struggling with. When the substance is a contaminant in product, the whole concept laid out in the regime in the act for the limit of quantification and the release limit just doesn't appear to make a lot of good sense.

In other words, we would use a section 93 regulation, under the powers of the Governor in Council, to add it to the prohibition list, and that would be a stronger tool than the release limit and a more necessary tool to protect human health and the environment.

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

My first question I want to direct to Dr. Khatter, Hugh, Derek, and then Gordon. It's on the issue of the Stockholm Convention, which was referenced a few times here today. It talks about trace contaminants. They suggest in the annex of the Stockholm Convention that “quantities of a chemical occurring as unintentional trace contaminants in products and articles shall not be considered to be listed...”.

What do you see as the benefits or risks of the approach suggested in the Stockholm Convention?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

If we go through this discussion, we will probably come to a consensus that the idea of chasing down the last molecule, of working too hard at trying to find levels of quantification, is bogging us down, and that we need to streamline virtual elimination. I'm not clear on how the wording in the Stockholm Convention would transfer to CEPA, but we ought to make it clear in the act that we aren't worried about every last molecule. We're trying to move upstream.

We had discussions on what we were going to do about the stuff in the sediment. Virtual elimination doesn't mean cleaning the environment of everything. It means coming as close to zero discharge as we can. Let's move upstream. Let's get rid of the use in addition to the release of the substance, so that we don't have to worry about the amount coming out of the smokestack. We should use the substitution principle. This way, whenever we get rid of the use of something and replace it with something else that's economically feasible, we don't have to worry anymore about trying to measure the exact quantities of the substance.

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

So you don't have a major problem with the statement in the Stockholm Convention. You just have concerns about how it would apply with respect to CEPA.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Yes. We haven't had a problem with this part of the Stockholm Convention. I've seen the language the CCPA has offered to CEPA. It's not clear to me whether it's an accurate transition. They propose that the quantities of the substance would not be under schedule 1—I can't give the exact wording.

We wouldn't be happy with the idea that trace contaminants that come out only in small quantities but could still be harmful, such as dioxins, wouldn't be eligible for schedule 1. Some things are harmful in small amounts, and we still need to deal with those.

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

Derek.

[Derek Stack]

I would echo a lot of what Dr. Khatter has said. It makes sense not to focus on the trace elements, but we would want to exclude those elements that we know are highly toxic. At a minimum, we might want to look at upstream pollution prevention, at using different chemicals and precursors.

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

Dr. Khatter, to what degree should the availability of alternative substances influence whether or not the virtual elimination principle should be applied?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

It's a difficult question and it has to be looked at in two different ways. There's a double edge to it. On the one hand, the availability of alternatives should allow us to move more quickly to get rid of substances we don't need to use. On the other hand, we can't be stuck in a place where, if there is no alternative, we can't do anything at all. We also need to realize that when the science is strong enough to identify something that's causing a considerable risk, we need to do something about it. This will be a driver for the development of substitution or alternatives.

[Gordon Lloyd]

There seems to be consensus that the thinking in the Stockholm Convention should be incorporated in CEPA in terms of the LOQ issue and trace contaminants. Our language may not be the proper drafting language, and I wouldn't be surprised if it could be better written, but I think it's important that there be consensus on this issue. The department has also noted that there is a difficulty in establishing LOQs in the product area. I don't think there's often consensus in this area, but it would be worth picking up on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

We will now begin round two, which is for five minutes.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting that, at least the way I understand it, both Mr. Lloyd and Dr. Khatter believe that we shouldn't be chasing the last molecule. Is that correct?

Where do you differ in your approach, Dr. Khatter and Mr. Benevides? You suggest that we should be stricter on the issue of release upstream. Is that correct?

[Hugh Benevides]

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of different areas. One is that, for different reasons perhaps, there is a reluctance to dedicate resources to chasing down the last molecule even in the sense of determining what is an unsafe level. We also expressed that we weren't in favour of the specific wording that Mr. Lloyd's organization had proposed, so that's sort of a sub-issue. Certainly our emphasis today and indeed throughout, quite apart from the release focus, is how we can act upstream to prevent pollution in the first place. Our primary way of doing that is through the act, to force that kind of technology change, to force substitution, as we think will happen with REACH. The act is the core of that.

We may let Mr. Lloyd respond, to clarify his part of that.

[Gordon Lloyd]

It's similar to the response I gave before, on which Mr. Clarkson corrected me. My understanding is under section 93 the government can decide that something should be banned, and if they do decide that, it will be banned. I thought they were able to put that on schedule 1. Maybe it goes on a different schedule. If there is a need to do that for a substance after a risk assessment, fair enough. The industry involved may provide information saying they are not all that keen on it, but the government will ultimately make a decision, and then we will have to find a substitute. The substance in question would have been banned or limited, whatever the limitations were.

That's similar to the Stockholm Convention. Annex A is for things that are going to be completely banned, with no more use at all. Then under annex B there is room for banning in some areas but restricting in others. I think we have the powers to do that under section 93 right now. The pollution prevention powers that are separate allow the government, before they develop regulations, to direct industry to the effect that this is something they would like them to look at and respond to, as far as what they can do on it goes, to see what industry can do on its own. If industry doesn't do a good job, then the threat--I guess that's the right term--is that they will come back with the regulation under section 93.

[Hugh Benevides]

Very briefly, I'd point to the fact that, as Mr. Lloyd correctly says, we have the powers, but then we look at the emergence of chemicals that come up that turn out to have these harmful properties. We look at brominated flame retardants and other examples. How is it that our legislation has failed to prevent pollution by those? That's the approach. We're looking for ways to ensure that substances like that are dealt with not after the fact but in advance.

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

Did the government not announce recently that it was going to act on flame retardants?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Clarkson, do you want comment on that?

[Steve Clarkson]

Yes. There was a publication in Canada Gazette Part 1 on July 1 that had the ministerial recommendations to the Governor in Council for action on seven polybrominated diphenyl ethers fire retardants, six of which were going to be slated for prohibition in Canada.