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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I wonder if that's something our witnesses could come back on in order to give them a chance to think about it, rather than get into specifics now. I think it's fairly significant that we deal with that.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
My suspicion is yes, and I would certainly volunteer to try to come back.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In your presentation, you've referred to the CEPA review and to two models : the American model and the European model. You said that the European model seems to be more open about the availability of data on safety. Industry is required to demonstrate that its products are safe and there are some obligations relating to the disposal and substitution of certain substances.
Which model do you think Canada should try to emulate as we are reviewing CEPA? Do you believe we should use some parts of the American model -- which was announced in 2005 -- or the European model?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
As environmental and health groups in Canada, we would dream of a REACH-type system. I don't think we could come here and necessarily say we want REACH, because it's taken the Europeans a bit to get there. We want to move us towards REACH.
If you guys are willing to go all the way to REACH, we'd be totally happy with that. It would give us a way of dealing with the whole project of pollution in terms of chemicals especially, and in terms of knowing that everything is out there. REACH doesn't necessarily apply to some parts of CEPA, so we'd still need frameworks in terms of air pollution and greenhouse gases.
In terms of bringing in testimony, looking to where the Europeans have gotten and how we've fallen behind would be a good approach.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a couple of things. You talked earlier about indicators and vulnerable populations: children, first nations, or those with ill health. How strong is CEPA on that right now? Is this a place where we need greater expansion in the use of indicator populations for determining what it is we do with certain chemicals?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
One of the things that the health and environment communities, and even industry, have been pushing for in Canada over the last while has been better biomonitoring, or better testing of populations. What we're doing a lot more of is measuring emissions, and what we're doing a lot less of is actually figuring out how much people are being exposed.
Although body testing isn't perfect, it still gives us an indication. The U.S. is miles ahead of us in terms of having comprehensive testing programs that they do regularly and where they're getting a sense of whether chemicals are going up or down. We're big proponents of that as part of a general environmental health surveillance system that will allow us not only to look at where the emissions are happening, but also to get a sense of how contaminated our house dust, the air we're breathing, and our soil are in terms of people being exposed, and what kinds of chemicals people are being exposed to through food, measured by the way they're accumulating in their bodies.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It seems there are a few reasons one can imagine why we're doing this review. One of them is to improve the act. Another is to kick-start government, so that they actually follow through on some of the things that are based on this act. And then there's the public aspect: the public information, public pressure.
It seems the body testing.... Because the NPRI and other listing mechanisms with respect to the public in particular are an abstract thing--there's a list that happens--you folks or other people try to draw attention to what's going on, but it doesn't mean much. Building this into our review and study, in terms of the effectiveness of what the U.S. or the Europeans have been able to do regarding the development of better and more effective law, seems important.
I'm wondering if I could move to industry for a moment, because I imagine we'll be having a panel from industry as well. They often cite confidentiality, competitiveness, and other factors as barriers to potentially listing or doing something about restricting a chemical. In the terms of the scope of this study, is there anything either of you would suggest in the way we approach the industrial side of how CEPA is used and applied, or not applied, that would make sense?
4:45 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
Offhand, I would say we need to realize that industry is not just one thing. The industries and companies in this country come from many different perspectives, and we need to hear from a range of them, because I think you'll find that they'll have different views.
The comment I made earlier when talking about REACH--and someone else mentioned it as well--is that Canadian companies or companies that are importing into Canada are dealing with other markets as well, fulfilling obligations in other markets, and as harmonization is increasing and improving, we need to be able to say, if you're doing this for Europe and you're doing this for the U.S., it makes sense that you could do it for here, doesn't it?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The reason I raise this is a bit of presupposing what industry is going to say in those same seats. We often get the coalitions or lobbyists who defer to the lowest common denominator, not the exceptional ones in their field--whatever field they come from, not just industry.
I'll leave it at that, but that presupposition is important for us to consider before we hear from industry and they say you can't make CEPA stronger, or you can't do a proper enforcement regime that the environmentalists are talking about because you'll kill our business, or some of our businesses, or threaten jobs in Canada, and so on.
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
Prior to CEPA in 1999, there was a strong lobby to ensure that data was consolidated, that emissions data was not made available on a per facility--
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
That's right, not company-specific, not plant-specific, that CEPA depend wholeheartedly on voluntary approaches to pollution prevention.
What individual industry representatives might tell you over lunch at those meetings, however, is that regulation would have been a lot easier, that it would have saved the department a tremendous amount of resources and they would have known what they were dealing with. Constantly coming back and trying these new voluntary approaches that didn't work was frustrating to them as well as to environmental advocates, who of course wanted to see progress.
You won't get a trade association to say that, because you're quite right: it's the highest common denominator, not the lowest. So that's a reality for you, and there's really not much I can do to help you wade through that. It's just the reality of the situation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
I will blame Eugene here, but of course on the second round we should be alternating back and forth. We discussed that briefly. Anyway, I'm sure that didn't cause any terrible hardship--I hope.
Mr. Blaney.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to talk with the witnesses today. This is the first time I sit on a committee. In my previous life, I worked a lot on environmental issues, especially relating to the disposal of organic matter at the municipal and farm levels.
However, I have the feeling that this is not one of your concerns, especially relating to the Great Lakes where there is a lot of pollution caused by organic matter. Do you believe that the present legislation is adequate to deal with the pollution of the Great Lakes caused by organic matter? That would be my first question.
It would seem that toxic substances are your main concern and that you want the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to deal mainly with toxic substances. You have underlined four major deficiencies of the Act. First, it does not deal with chemicals. Then, there is the issue of the Great Lakes. And, finally, you regret that we do not try to eliminate toxic substances and that industry is not being made responsible for that.
As was mentioned by Mr. Bigras, there is more advanced legislation in Europe and in the United States. Do you think we should try to move in the same direction?
Those are my two questions : the issue of organic compounds in relation to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the issue of toxic substances. Would you recommend that we move squarely towards systems or programs such as REACH?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
I am sorry, I did not understand your comments about organic matter. I did not hear the translation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
It's about BOD, biological oxygen demand. It's all related.
You talk about heavy loads in the Great Lakes. This is not only toxic substances. This is organic matter. This is phosphorous, nitrogen, all those things.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
As I understand it, your question is whether CEPA deals with those. The answer is it probably doesn't have to. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement explicitly deals with nitrates and other biological load issues.
I'm just not equipped to answer that question more broadly in terms of other water bodies.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
All right.
My other question dealt with the way toxic substances are dealt with in the Act. Do you believe we should move towards a system similar to the European or American ones?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
I think we're looking for an act that brings consumer products into CEPA. Right now, consumer products are in the Hazardous Products Act under Health Canada, which means that the environmental and also human health impacts of anything that's in a consumer product isn't necessarily regulated by CEPA. This is a disconnect, because something may be scheduled under CEPA as being something we need to restrict, yet that doesn't necessarily give the authority for it. Substances like a flame retardant, for instance, which is a consumer product, are actually under a different piece of legislation. That's one part of it.
The other part is the move toward the REACH model, where we're looking at the burden of proof. For instance, even the pesticide legislation that is coming out has a new clause that says the burden of proof, in terms of registering a pesticide and showing it is safe, is on the manufacturer. We would be looking for something like that, which at its base is kind of core to the European model.
The third part that's very key is this idea of the substitution principle with the European model. When something exists that can get the same job done safer, we should be moving towards substituting for that, as long as it's cost-effective and doable. We should be thinking about getting the worst actors off the market and fulfilling our purposes using the safest stuff possible.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
According to you, if the Act was clearly focused on controlling toxic substances, would it reach its objective?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
More or less.