Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[Roger Larson]

—because it almost cost us a half-million-tonne market in Japan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Arseneau.

[John Arseneau]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My point was that it was assessed as a mixture. We didn't do sodium chloride or potassium chloride as unique constituents of that mixture, but we assessed the mixture of road salts themselves, of which potassium chloride is a small part.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be sharing my ten minutes with Mr. Harvey.

I would like to focus on the burden of proof, but I would first like to start off by addressing some of the comments that were made by the witnesses.

Thank you for being here today.

This is relevant, in that Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, proposes amendments to support third party auditing of information before submission, thereby enhancing the authority for the Minister of the Environment to utilize this information for the purpose of maintaining a national pollutant release inventory, NPRI, with a reliable baseline level of information on releases of substances.

It also proposes to extend the current authorities under section 71 of CEPA 1999 to the Minister of Health in order to improve the efficiency of using these authorities. These authorities allow for the collection of information and the requirement to conduct tests in order to determine if a substance is toxic or capable of becoming toxic. I think that's very good news.

I have a question regarding the burden of proof. I would like to hear some discussion, and I'd ask you to keep your answers short.

Regarding the burden of proof, which is more effective, industry or the government? Where should the burden of proof lie? Which is the more cautious? What are the pros and cons of each method? Could you comment on that?

Ms. Coombs said she believes it's a shared responsibility between industry and the government. I believe Ms. Ginsburg said industry should be responsible and should demonstrate the safety of the substance first.

Could all the witnesses provide comments on the pros and cons of both? What are your recommendations?

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you.

As I stated in our opening remarks, first and foremost, our number one priority is the health and safety of Canadians in their environment.

Our member companies provide products that are beneficial to consumers: soaps, detergents, ant traps, as well as disinfectants to clean table tops. These are the types of products our members provide that are beneficial to consumers. Our industry is constantly trying to find innovative ways to bring technology to Canada.

We also want to make sure the ingredients in those products are safe and are not harmful to the environment. Our member companies conduct numerous in-house tests and assessments to ensure that the substances in those products can be used safely and that human health and the environment are not compromised.

But in order to bring that technology to Canada, we have to meet the rigours of the system that's in place. The government sets the tone for the regulations to be met, the science we have to provide, and the information we have to provide. They make the final determination. Hence, it's the reason why our submission is that we believe it's a joint responsibility. At the end of the day, the government makes the final decision with respect to bringing these substances into Canada. They also have a say in how existing substances are put on the DSL. There's still a level of protection where the government will say no, that substance needs to be taken off the DSL because of reason X, Y, or Z.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. Ginsburg.

[Jessica Ginsburg]

Thank you.

In order to speak to the pros and cons, I think we only have to look at what the historical situation has been and the direction in which other countries, such as the European countries, are moving.

Through the priority substance list exercise, we've seen that it is very nearly unworkable for government to continue carrying as much of the burden as it has. It's incredibly slow and it's very expensive.

Industry works with these substances, it knows the substances, and it is able to provide this information when required to. It sometimes means going out to investigate further and conduct further tests. But as long as government continues to bear this burden, there's actually a disincentive for industry to get to know its own substances better. As Ms. Coombs said, if they have that kind of information at their disposal, it will not be a heavy onus on them to simply provide it to government.

Government will always and should always play a role in terms of regulating these substances. I think it would be problematic to remove government from the equation all together. But in terms of providing the information, again, it is industry that benefits financially. It's currently the taxpayers of this country who are paying for a lot of this assessment, and there's no direct financial gain for them.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm sorry to cut you off. I'm sharing my time, and there's only five minutes left, so thank you for your comments.

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

Thank you for being here today.

As my colleague Mark said, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a key piece of legislation for us. I was pleased to have the support of the NDP a few weeks ago so we could continue work on the CEPA. Were it not for our Liberal and Bloc colleagues, we may have not been able to review the CEPA for good year yet. So, I am happy that we are able to move ahead on this file.

We have talked a lot about road salt used for road maintenance. I think back to nearly two years ago, when a family in Quebec was crushed under a truck on a road running along a river. Because of this river, we couldn’t use calcium. As a result, the car that was travelling smoothly on a wet road, suddenly found itself on an icy road.

Our goal today is also to find a balance that allows us to use a chemical in a way that helps us without harming life. It is sometimes hard to strike this balance. That is why you are here today.

Mr. Larson, you said earlier that our actions or policies were perhaps too politicized. I would like you to provide more detail on this, because as a new MP, I am trying to play politics as little as possible. We are here to represent the citizens, move things ahead and achieve concrete results.

Mr. Larson.

[Roger Larson]

Certainly I will try.

When you take a word like “toxic”, it has a tremendous emotional impact on consumers, on the general public, on legislators, on courts, and on customers, and you make it the end goal of a science assessment. Then the entire debate will be around proving whether that substance is toxic or not.

Now, I'm not a linguist or a lawyer, but “toxic” has a meaning in the ordinary sense of the word that just about every citizen will have in their mind when they hear the word: “It's poison. Don't touch this. It's bad. Ban it.” And there are many substances, salt being one of them, ammonia another, that are absolutely essential for life, yet they have externalities; there are situations where they need to be managed. And the application of salt to roads for de-icing is one in which I think most reasonable people would say yes, we need to come up with some management protocols so we can balance the benefits with the potential negative outcomes, come up with the optimal solution. That's what we call a risk management situation, where everyone sits down and they do the best they can to define what appropriate risk management is. They use science to guide them, and they use practicality. They use the real-life issues of whether you're going to use a $10 product or a $100 substitute, and what the cost-benefit ratio is.

But all of the meaningful discussions around mismanagement get taken away because we spent five years debating whether or not you could call salt toxic. It just amazes me that we would spend so much political effort.

Now, many lawyers said you have to do this because of the constitutional question as to who has jurisdiction. If you don't label it “toxic”, then there may not be federal jurisdiction. The unfortunate outcome of the jurisdictional debate as to what was required for jurisdiction meant.... For example, in my own industry, which is an export industry, we export 75% of our production. In the case of potash, we export 95% of it. We almost lost one of our largest offshore markets, Japan, because the Japanese government took a look at our exports of potash and they said “Your government is declaring potassium chloride toxic; therefore, we can't use this substance in our holistic organic food production system”, and we almost lost that market.

These are the consequences of trying to stick an inappropriate label on products, on substances, and this is where the situation ends up when we don't focus on risk management.

I'm sorry, that was very long-winded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

I'd like the committee's permission for Mr. Godfrey to take over as chair, as I need to leave early, and then we'll go to Mr. Wilson. Any problems? Okay.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for your testimony.

Listening to what you had to say, I think we can all agree that the government has a role to play and has a large obligation through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that Canadians and their environment are properly protected from the harmful effects of toxic substances.

We have discussed the three main topics of information requirement, disclosure, and burden of proof.

The first question I have is to the directors general of the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment. It's my understanding that through the domestic substance list some 23,000 substances have been analyzed over the last seven years. Is that correct? And what has the cost been to the federal government to analyze those 23,000 substances?

[John Arseneau]

I'm afraid we don't have exact figures here today, but the kinds of resources that we've applied in my program to conduct that research have included a team of about a dozen individuals and also the development, in conjunction with Canadian academia and industry, of computer analysis tools. I would have to do a rough calculation on the overall cost of that.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'd like just a rough estimate, a ballpark over seven years.

[John Arseneau]

I can get back to you on that very quickly.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

What about for the Department of the Environment?

[Paul Glover]

That was for the Department of Health? The answer is ditto.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Suffice it to say that it's probably a fairly high number if you take it over seven years and 23,000 substances. If you could get back to me on that, I would be very much interested.

I have a follow-up question. There are 4,000 substances now to be analyzed, and the departments, working together, are going to be analyzing that. What's your estimate of what the cost is going to be to the federal government to analyze those 4,000 substances?

[Paul Glover]

That is a matter we are still discussing with the ministers at this point in time, as they consider how to respond to that. So it's still an item that is up for some debate internally between the department and the minister's office, about what the appropriate response is as they come forward with their plan.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'm not speaking for industry, but I'm sure that industry in Canada is happy that the federal government has taken it upon themselves to assume this role and responsibility to keep Canadians safe, and that through the taxes the corporations pay to the government they will safeguard Canadians and do the due diligence and review of the substances.

The question I always have is If we talk about burden of proof and about responsibility and about who's going to start paying for the future review of these substances, what's industry's viewpoint on that?

[Shannon Coombs]

Industry has been actively involved for the past six years, so there's been a cost not just to the government to undertake this initiative. There's also a cost to our member companies and other industry associations and their member companies as well, because we want to make sure that we have the appropriate people at the table and the appropriate scientists at the table, and that all of our members are engaged, because there has been an effort by all of our member companies and other association member companies to actively participate in that. There's a cost attached to ensuring that you're proactive in providing the right information at the right time to the departments. We see the future as being the same way. As we move forward, there will also be a cost incurred by our companies to move forward and to proactively provide this information as well.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

What would the effect be on industry if the burden of proof shifted, and if prior to any substances being put out into the communities, industry would have to prove that the substances they were releasing were safe? If the burden of proof shifted, would we be talking about a significant economic cost?

[Shannon Coombs]

It's an interesting argument, because I think we already have this reverse onus. Industry has to provide an information set, a data set, to the government to be reviewed. We are providing that data and that information and the test to support substances being new to the market and also being continued in the market. So I think the burden of proof is on us to provide that, and then ultimately the decision is made by the government to say “Yes, that data does meet the requirements, and yes, we will allow that substance in,” or “Yes, we will continue to allow that substance.”

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Ms. Ginsburg, do you have a comment?