Sure.
Evidence of meeting #3 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 review.
Evidence of meeting #3 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 review.
3:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
I agree with Kapil that to finish it in less than a couple of months would be aggressive and ambitious at the same time. I think a more substantive review is due. I was around for the CEPA 1999 review. That one took a considerable amount of time, and in my humble opinion, the changes were not adequate to address the needs. So I would encourage you to take that into consideration.
On the issue of which parts of CEPA need more attention, I think Kapil is quite right in that the changes to one section will inadvertently require reviews of other sections. That said, I think increased attention to the pollution prevention clauses and implementation of regulatory backstops would go a huge way to improving the way that CEPA, as it's currently written, is implemented. Similarly, provisions to make stronger ties to international agreements would help consolidate the Government of Canada's approach to toxics management, both domestically and internationally, with our allies.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you both for being here on such short notice.
Generally speaking, would you say that the Act has reached its objectives?
3:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
No, it has not.
It's not meeting its goals or objectives. But some of the biggest failures in the act, in my opinion--and we may differ on this--are not based solely in the text, but in its implementation and the opportunities within the act for decision-makers to opt out of regulatory action.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
I would agree, in the sense that part of what we're looking for in the act is more structure to make sure things get done. I think the ministries will tell you that they've often met the timelines in the act, and it's our sense that the lack of timelines and obligations within the act, to not only get the assessments done but manage the substances and the environmental problems we have, is what needs to be changed.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
More precisely, what would be the most important thing that should be in the Act but is not ?
3:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
We certainly need closer ties to international agreements, and something that would force regulatory action when the voluntary measures have not worked. Right now the act allows for regulatory backstops, but I don't think any regulation--and I'd happily be corrected on this--has resulted from an assessment of the failure of CEPA's voluntary measures.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You have a referred to international commitments and I think it is important. We could include as many amendments as we want in the Act but we all know that the environment has no borders. It does not need a visa or a passport to move from one country to the next. We have many challenges to face, in Canada and elsewhere. Some of the problems with be dealt with through international agreements. We could strengthen the Act and improve its implementation but that will not stop the wind to carry into Canada emissions from coalmining in the US. So, we agree that international agreements are important in addition to the Act.
I read somewhere that there seems to be a problem with access to information. Are there any provisions in the Act that limit the public's access to information?
3:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
I think you might be referring to some of the confidentiality concerns that industry had with some of their data. In some industries that are consolidated or have very small sectors, it's easy to determine which plant is getting which data because there are only a few plants. I'm not sure what your question is to me directly, but you're right that there have been concerns about confidentiality in data.
4 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
There are certainly other models that CEPA can look to, like the new pesticide act that has come into force that allows citizens to be able to look at test data on site. There's the U.S. pesticide legislation and other models in legislation related to the environment that provide better access to information, particularly around health and safety data. We know that Canada has agreed internationally to the idea that health and safety data should be publicly accessible.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think it would be helpful, as we look at the act, to have almost a colour-coded system that says, “This part of the act is great in theory, it's just that you haven't had enough regulation, applied enough resources to it, or put in the timelines”.
So if you could help us over time differentiate between things that work--in theory it's just terrific; it's just that we haven't done one of those three things--that would be very helpful to us. Then we would be able to devote appropriate...because that's not a reform of the act, except for small things--well, regulation or timelines.
I have another question that we may have to get back to, given the shortage of time. Perhaps you could make a distinction between flaws that were inherent at the time, which everybody said would be a problem--and I'm getting beyond the regulation and timelines--versus evolving or new evidence, where we now know a whole lot more about this thing, so this is a good reason to change things. You could actually point those things out.
But I've given you such a general question, I don't know whether you can find a way of dealing with it, at least in the future.
4 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
My history doesn't go back to 1999, unfortunately.
One example of each, for instance, would be that when virtual elimination was put in the act, I think we would have said right at that time that the need for there to be what's called a level of quantification...that you can't do virtual elimination until you figure out what the lowest possible dose is that you can measure.
We knew right from the beginning that that was going to be a barrier to actually getting virtual elimination, and it turned out to be a barrier. We've only had one substance that's ever been listed, and it's only listed because we don't really produce or manufacture it any more in Canada.
Besides that, in terms of new information, I don't think there was the same push in 1999 to recognize vulnerable populations that there would be now. For instance, over the last years, when we've looked at studies of lead in children, since we've taken lead out of gasoline, what we have found is that each time someone does a study that looks at children and lead, they figure out that the dose of lead that causes problems in children is actually lower than what we thought it was; it keeps going down tenfold. What we know now is that we need to be regulating, based on vulnerable populations like children, like first nations, who are getting high exposures, for seniors rather than for adults, and the legislation needs to directly reflect that. To a certain degree, it has started to happen without the legislation changing, but the legislation needs to keep up with the kinds of changes that are happening in regulations.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We'll go to Mr. Bigras.
Mr. Stack, if you have some comments, you can come back on the second round.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will share my time with my colleague, Mr. Lussier.
I have a feeling, this afternoon, that we are walking into a lion's den. We are asking our witnesses to come up with recommendations but, for us, CEPA is a somewhat distant memory. I believe it would have been useful to set up a preliminary information meeting with the officials. It could have avoided this situation.
I have a few questions for Mr. Khatter. The situation that you have summarized is quite clear : Canada is 29th out of 29 for volatile organic compounds, 27th out of 28 for sulfur dioxide, and 28th out of 28 for carbon monoxide.
However, we have legislation about this. Since I was first elected, in 1997, we keep passing all manner of legislation, whether it be the Species at Risk Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but their implementation is often than hindered by a lack of resources and money.
If the government had provided the required budgets to implement the Act, what would be the results for Canada in the various categories you have mentioned today? As far as you're concerned, is funding the problem, or the Act itself or both?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
I think to a certain degree it's difficult for us to assess the level of funding. Certainly we get feedback from Environment Canada and Health Canada that they need more resources to get this job done. I think with most of these things, and in this case, it's really a combination; it's a combination of political will and of adequate resources. It's also having a structure to work with, a good act that allows you to get the job done and that pushes you to get the job done, that says, you need to do this in this period of time, and once you've decided that something is toxic, that something needs to be dealt with, there are targets, there are standards that need to be met in terms of dealing with those substances.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I would like to know how you would like to see the Canadian Environmental Protection Act amended?
So far, you have given us some generalities with which it will be very difficult for us to start an amending process. For example, referring to your second point, you state that a special provision should be included in the Act to put more emphasis on pollution in the Great Lakes basin. How would you draft such a clause?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
I would suggest a stronger, tighter Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. That is an international agreement that's been in place for years and it has roots in the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. So simply referencing within the act its commitment to realize those other international obligations would go a long way, I think.
Maybe I'll address your point, Monsieur Bigras, on the generalities of today's presentation. We understood the purpose of today's presentation was simply to provide a general view of whether or not we thought the act required a substantive review at this time. There simply hasn't been enough time to prepare for explicit, detailed recommendations on how the act should be amended.
That said, I'd like to address a question from Mr. Godfrey earlier, which was what specifically is needed. They're similar questions, and I would encourage the committee to review what the committee came up with in 1999. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development came up with recommendations for a hugely amended act, most of which were not implemented. At the same time, I think it may serve to give you a good update on what some of the environmental priorities were at that time, because many of them haven't changed.
Looking back, if I may take this opportunity, at what we saw coming up the pipe in 1999 and we now know to be the case, I think endocrine disrupters would probably be at the top of the list. It was well known at that time they were impacting development. The World Wildlife Fund was leading a huge international campaign and tried to get this committee--well, different members, a different structure of this committee--to review endocrine disrupters. They did not make it into the act adequately and we now know them to be a major source of environmental concern.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Stack, you read very quickly your statement referring to maritime traffic on the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence River.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
No, I did not refer to that. You talking about ships, are you not?
I didn't raise the issue but I'm happy to address the question.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
All right. This is part of an international agreement between Canada and the United States.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
Oui, mais I don't think through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The water quality agreement is focused primarily on toxic pollutants, on sulphurs, for example, nitrates, that kind of thing.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
There are different statutes for that. I'd have to do a quick review to see if it deals with ballast water. Primarily, in the U.S., the ballast water is not addressed by the bilateral act but rather through domestic legislation. The coast guard in the United States--it's called “no ballast on board”--has recently reinterpreted that legislation to discourage boats with empty ballasts from declaring no ballast on board. The way it used to work was if they had no water in their ballast they could say, “We have no ballast”, but of course there's always a little bit of water in the ballast and it's always full of invasive species.
So I think that issue is probably a little bit outside of CEPA at this point, but I'd be happy to make ties to it, if you'd like.