Environment Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Hugh Benevides]

I'll let Mr. Houston.

[Jim Houston, Environmental Adviser, International Joint Commission]

With respect to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, when you come back, it's about restoring the beneficial uses, and there are criteria for doing so. With contaminated sediment, the effects are still showing up in the wildlife. We've gone from gross effects to much more chronic, long-term effects at much lower levels. Arguments can be made--people can detect stuff to 10^-18. What does that mean for a biological end point? No one really can answer that question at this point in time. The effects are still showing up as they are. So the position, really, at the time was virtual elimination in the process--get it before it gets out there--and use the strategies and technologies then to change those processes. That's really what the strategy of virtual elimination was all about with respect to the commission, not the aftermath part. They realized at that time that was not realistically possible.

[Hugh Benevides]

May I add a point on that?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

We'll go to Mr. Benevides, and then go back to you.

[Hugh Benevides]

Very briefly, I think what was just said is certainly correct. Those contaminated sediments are certainly the legacy in the sense as well that they remind us why we need to take those preventive steps. In my breaking down, in what I thought was a helpful way, the talk into retooling and new facilities and then substances in commerce, perhaps I should have added a third, which is how virtual elimination deals with those kinds of sediments. We certainly know from remedial action plans and other instruments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and also issues around dredging of the Lachine Canal, etc., what the costs are and how controversial it is and what a huge difficulty it presents.

[Joel Weiner]

I want to point out, in answer to your question, that with respect to contaminated sediments, the water quality agreement has been a tool in addressing them. That is because the 1987 protocol established what are called lake-wide management plans and remedial action plans. Based on advice from the commission, the parties identified 43 of what Mr. Stack called hotspots, and these are areas of concern. In some cases, contaminated sediments are one of the contributing factors that have led to the listing of an area as an area of concern. So under the water quality agreement, there's an obligation for each of these areas of concern to develop what's called a remedial action plan. Depending on whether contaminated sediments are an issue in that particular area of concern, you have to look at the individual or specific remedial action plan to see the strategy that has been adopted to address it.

By the way, we did bring copies, Mr. Chair, of the water quality agreement in English and French, and we are pleased to make them available to members of the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Godfrey, you have 30 seconds.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This is my last question, quickly.

Political involvement for making these decisions is in the act, taking into account social, economic, and technical matters. Are there other jurisdictions where the possibility of doing that kind of thing is explicitly excluded--I don't know, maybe in Europe or in Sweden? Are there some jurisdictions where politicians don't get to make those sorts of judgments?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Benevides.

[Hugh Benevides]

Again, I'll be very brief.

I don't know of legislation that does that. I think when you look at the way the environmental objective is pitted against economic considerations, one could certainly find examples where the environmental objective is made because of the desire for faster, more effective action, where it outweighs the economic consideration. I have no idea whether we'd find it where the economic consideration is completely absent. That's all I'll say.

Whether they're expressing laws as well as policies that act in the implementation of those laws, or whether those economic considerations are embedded in the processes.... It would be an interesting study.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, for dealing with a complex subject. I think that “complex” is the least we might say. What I understand is that virtual elimination amounts, as Mr. Lloyd’s document indicates, to a reduction of releases below the level of quantification. And, by definition, this level is the lowest concentration that can be accurately measured using precise analytical and sampling methods

Here are my questions. How is this level of quantification set? How can we put in place a model that is scientific and enables us to set a level of concentration?

I am really asking myself the question. Of course this may be written in the act. But what were the parameters used elsewhere, if any, to set this level of concentration?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Would anybody like to answer that question?

Mr. Lloyd.

[Gordon Lloyd]

Sure. I can have a try at that.

That was the point I was trying to make in my presentation. One of the reasons the LOQ is there is because that is as low as you can measure. It doesn't make sense to talk about going any lower; that's the stopping point in terms of the aim that's set out in CEPA. That's very similar to the Stockholm Convention, where they talk about the goal being continuous minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination. I think CEPA is actually a bit stronger than that, because the feasible language isn't incorporated into the goal; it's incorporated into the social, technical, and economic measures of how to get there.

I think that's the reason the LOQ is part of the equation. It provides a stopping point that's necessary because you can't measure any lower.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Mr. Khatter.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter, Director, Health and Environment, PollutionWatch]

One of the keys in deciding what a release limit should be--and Mr. Benevides mentioned this--is to make sure the decision is first based on science. We need to look at what the health effects and environmental impacts are in terms of a chemical or substance based on the research and to try to make our decision as closely linked to the science as possible. Of course, there will always be some subjectivity, and there will always be some practical considerations in making the decision. When governments make those decisions, the best we can do is to be transparent as to how those decisions are made.

Before I finish--just to keep this in mind for all of us--there are two different things we're talking about. There's the level of quantification and there's the release limit. Right now, one of the barriers is this need to figure out a level of quantification. When something is in a product, for instance, it's difficult to do. How do you figure out release limits from products? What we need to do is streamline the process by probably getting rid of the level of quantification and just making good science-based decisions as to what the release limits should be.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

In connection with the REACH approach introduced in Europe, I read that there are regulations saying the opinion is that carcinogenic, persistent and bioaccumulative substances cannot really be controlled by industry and that therefore the regulation provides for and insists on the substitution of substances or the development of less dangerous substances.

Do you feel that these regulations go further than the ones adopted up to now in Canada? Do you think that this approach tends towards the principle of precaution? Would you promote this approach, therefore, in accordance with your position in the debate about virtual elimination?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Lloyd.

[Gordon Lloyd]

Yes, I'll go first again.

I think CEPA already has powers that would allow that. Under section 93, the government can decide it wants to ban something, and if it does, then another substance would have to be used. So effectively we do have the ability to do that.

For products, I think section 93 is a part of the act that more logically fits, rather than using virtual elimination. I agree with what was just said—and I made this point in my remarks—that the LOQ for products is a very difficult thing to do. We're suggesting that it not have to be established for products. I think it isn't so difficult for emissions from plants, and it should remain there. But there is an issue about establishing LOQ in relation to products. It think it probably would make more sense if the government didn't have to do that; it would still retain the power to do so if it felt it were necessary, but it shouldn't be mandatory. And I think in most cases the government would probably choose to use the powers in section 93, which can have the same effect as substitution.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Benevides.

[Hugh Benevides]

Yes, this is why we advocate changing the focus from the individual releases back to that policy goal, and substitution is among the tools you would then use. And certainly that's exactly what REACH will encourage, to a greater or stronger effect, which we'll see in the months to come. I would point out as well that the competitive reality for those companies affected by REACH, including Canadian companies, is that substitution is beginning to have an effect, even though REACH is not yet in effect.

I saw a website yesterday called “www.reachready.co.uk”. It's a business wholly owned by the Chemical Industries Association, I assume, in the United Kingdom, which is now providing the service to companies to give all of the information that we would say should be available publicly. There you have to pay a fee; nevertheless, this is now spurring new business. And it behooves Canada to also take this kind of approach, because it's clearly the direction that the world, led by Europe in this case, is moving.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Here is what I would like to know from the department’s representatives. Has an estimate of the costs been made, should Canada decide to adopt the REACH approach? I gather that in Europe there are contradictory studies, depending on whether the environmental costs are factored in or not. So in Canada has a study been conducted concerning the application of this approach?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Ms. Wright, would you like to say a few words? I just want to let you know there are about two minutes left.