Environment Committee on May 10th, 2006

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

This is actually through you to Tim.

With respect to the last report that a committee did on CEPA, the report went to the government. The government makes a report back, suggesting what they did or did not do. That's correct, right?

[Tim Williams, Committee Researcher]

There are two reports that I think you have to take into consideration. One is the initial examination review of the 1988 act. That was done in 1995. In that case, yes, there would have been a government response to it.

The second report is a large package of amendments to their tabled bill, Bill C-33 I think it was at the time. Then that goes back to the House, and the government makes changes and it goes to third reading.

So I'm not exactly sure whether there's an official report back to the committee per se.

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

So, to the chair's recommendation, I guess one of the things we'll be looking for is the ability to understand what was done last time, what recommendations were made, but then what the government chose to accept and to ignore. It sounds like those reports might be a bit of a challenge for us to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You'd have to examine the bill, I think, to see just what was in the changes that has been incorporated.

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

Maybe what I'm suggesting is that part of Tim's report back to us be the initial shot at that, because for committee members, particularly those not familiar with the act at all—especially the original configuration of the act—this is going to be tough to do, and Tim is much smarter than we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, you'd be looking at report stage to see what amendments had been voted and accepted in report stage. That would be a pretty big job.

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

Yes. So again, for the purposes of our study, which is trying to understand, whatever analysis we can get from Tim—a little chart saying this is what we started with, and this is recommended—and on some key pieces.... I know there are parts that are more significant for us to look at than others, and there are some niggly piggly bits that we don't need to look at at all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. As has been mentioned by, I believe, two different members, the main purpose today is to get some advice from you on the procedure of the CEPA review. As a government, we recognize that we have a responsibility and a requirement to have a CEPA review. We are over a year late in doing it. The last Parliament, unfortunately, did not do it. It was supposed to have been done effective March of last year.

So there is that requirement. I also want to begin with correcting a comment made, I believe by Mr. Silva, that it could be done in two to three months. Mr. Stack, you commented with respect to that—actually, both of you did—that you did not think that was feasible. I'm not sure where that two-to-three-month idea came from; it did not come from this committee. That's just a clarification.

It is a priority of this government to have as its first order of business the hope that there will be a CEPA review, and I'm very pleased that we are as a committee going down that road to do this CEPA review—for a number of reasons: number one, that it is a requirement; number two, that it's the right thing to do.

As I start off my comments, we're looking for your guidance and recommendation in doing a CEPA review that is effective, thorough, and timely. We have one year to do it. We have to make recommendations within a year now.

Dr. Khatter, you made some comments in the brief you provided to each of us—I think it was during the recommendations—in which you recommended that the committee should travel. I'd like you to comment on that, as to what extent. You made comments that we should inquire into the state of pollution during that travel, I believe, so that we get a complete picture of the situation.

So what is your advice on travel? Where should we be travelling? How much should we be travelling? Again, in the timing of this, if we think we have to have recommendations forwarded to the House in a year, then thinking back, when should the travel happen? What are you recommending?

You also made recommendations, I believe in bullet point number three, that CEPA should mandate virtual elimination of substances meeting the...(PBT) criteria and clarify and strengthen the definition of virtual elimination. As a starting point, Canada should achieve virtual elimination of all releases of carcinogens to the air and water by 2008.

So if we have recommendations that are presented to the House within a year from now, and then the House has 120 days to deal with them, that would give us approximately a year to incorporate those recommended changes. Is one year realistic, or do you believe that in that timeline you'd like to stay with that 2008 date?

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

I've gotten confused now.

I think we're looking for the committee to do the job they feel they need to do, in terms of how long it takes. As you said, there is a one-year legislative timeline.

We think the travelling is important; we think a comprehensive and thorough review is important. But at the same time, we as well want to see a report come out of this Parliament and we want to see you be able to make your timelines and get the job done.

In terms of travel, I think part of travel is being able to go to the people and not have to always bring the people to Ottawa. As well, it is being able to see in this vast geography the kinds of realities that are out there, such as by looking at first nations communities both in the south and in the north, because they are a particularly vulnerable group, and northern first nation communities have very different issues from those some of the southern first nation communities have.

Regionally, going out to Sydney in the Maritimes is going to be an interesting fact-finding exercise--or to Alberta, with the oil and gas industry.

So I think partly it's getting to see the reality on the ground, and part of it is being able to go to the people in various areas to get a sense of how pollution is impacting them, both in terms of their environment and in terms of their health.

Could you go back again to talking about the timeline and the virtual elimination...?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Right. You had recommended that as a starting point Canada should achieve virtual elimination of all releases of carcinogens to the air and water by 2008.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

Well, in terms of that being a quick timeline because of how long it's going to take to get CEPA amended, I think in addition to strengthening CEPA, what we're looking for, for a lot of the chemicals that are going to be coming out of the categorization process that ends this September, and that up until now we already know are persistent or biocumulative, or both, and toxic...I think we're looking for what we might call some quick start moves as well. The minister has discretion under the act to put things on the list and get moving on them. We know for some chemicals, like the flame retardants and the stain repellants, that movement has happened in the U.S., and we already know that in Canada they're a problem; we just have to get something done with them.

The other part of it is that as of September 2006, Health Canada and Environment Canada will be coming out with a list that says these are all the persistent and biocumulative and toxic chemicals that are in use or have been in use in Canada over the last 50 years. I think they will have some suggestions. They would even suggest to you that these are things that we can get rid of quickly if we choose to do that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Stack, could you make comments on the timeline, because you did comment...?

[Derek Stack]

I probably wouldn't differ from what Kapil has said. I think the road show is important, in terms of optics and the opportunity to reach out to various communities. I certainly wouldn't subjugate progress to the road show. Real change is needed and real attention from this committee is needed. You can find expertise here in Ottawa or bring expertise in, but as far as the more public communication piece is concerned, a road show is a good idea.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The last committee discussed a possible visit to Fort McMurray to see the oil sands. Doctor, you mentioned visiting Sydney.

Mr. Stack, could you recommend, if we were to do a road trip, where we would visit?

[Derek Stack]

Hamilton Harbour would be a good place to start. There are lots of sites all around the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes basin has been North America's industrial home base for probably a couple of hundred years. It's waning now, but the legacy of pollution is all around the shores.

I'd have to give some further thought to exactly where I would recommend you go. It's a big geography in the basin, but certainly the areas of concern identified by the international joint commission would be a good place to start.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you to both of you.

I have two minutes, I believe, Mr. Chair, if I could share that with one of my members.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you both for your presentation today. I find it very informative.

It seems to me that we keep coming back to one common theme under CEPA, which seems to me a complacency of enforcement more so than the act itself. The act may need revision, but I think what we're really talking about is getting rid of the complacency on behalf of government. That may well involve more investment; it may well involve some structuring. But this seems to be what we keep coming back to.

I would like to ask a more pointed question about the act, and hopefully you can help me understand this. How do you consider that CEPA could work with other legislation? I speak to things like the Pest Control Products Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the waters act, and so on. Since this seems to be like a backbone act, how do you think it can work with these other acts that kind of tie in with it, if it was properly enforced?

[Derek Stack]

I think quite well. The way CEPA is written, it explicitly defers to existing legislation with a focus on those other areas, such as the examples you gave. I'm not an expert on at least half of those that you mentioned, and probably all of them. I know CEPA quite well, but I can't see why they wouldn't work well together because the language in CEPA is intended to allow for that to happen.

[Dr. Kapil Khatter]

In terms of your first question, I don't know if enforcement is quite the.... What we are talking about beyond the assessments, beyond discovering what the problems are, is what we are doing about them. We should think of the act as the directions to the bureaucracy and our departmental officials that tell them what they need to do. We can ask them why they haven't done more on pollution or on this chemical, but we really need to look as well at what the act is telling them to do.

There are many other models we need to look at. There's the REACH model in Europe. We could bring in an expert from Europe who would be able to show us a model of how to do this, a model that does move things forward because it says what you have to do--by this date, by this year, manufacturers need to submit safety data so we know that what they have on the market is safe.

Once again it's a combination of the directions given and how well we're fulfilling them. I think there are lots of people. We should go back to 1999 and invite the ex-chair of the committee, Charles Caccia, who's now at the University of Ottawa. There are people we can go back to, to ask what it is about the act--how much of it is the act, and how much of it just using the act properly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will go to our five-minute segments, then, starting with Mr. Godfrey.

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

What we're trying to do is scope things out here. What I'm getting so far, just to repeat a bit, is there's the act versus the enforcement resources, the timelines. It would be very helpful if you would parse that out for us.

There's another set of issues. They are we-told-you-so issues; that is to say, they are things we were told about back in 1999, and without getting into a complete revisitation of second reading and all the rest of it, they are things that, although rejected for a variety of reasons, are either still true or even more true. That's a set of issues; that's different from enforcement. We need to know what those guys are, because we're not actually revising the act as such. We're not doing clause-by-clause study; we're coming up with a general set of directions for the government.

Then there are major issues, as you outline, on which to some degree you suggest--this is in the nature of a question, and I'm thinking particularly of Dr. Khatter--that we look to other jurisdictions. Examples are flame retardants or the REACH provisions of the European Union. In this third category there are presumably well-developed international best practices, so you don't even have to reinvent this thing. These are big markets; they've already done it, and we're behind. For those, again, we need to know which parts of the act apply. I think that'll help us because it'll also give us a level of comfort that we're not sailing off into the great beyond.

Here are my questions. First of all, I know you're interested in our having a Great Lakes focus, but how can a Canada-wide act get geographically specific when the issues raised, whether they have to do with water or air or anything else, really could be found anywhere? That would be my first question.

[Derek Stack]

I'll take that one on. The Great Lakes are different in that they are effectively a border; they require a cooperative stewardship, and in that spirit there are existing international agreements between the two countries. That's why I strategically tried to cast that issue as being part of the international agreements discussion--because those agreements do exist--and if we want to meet those agreements beyond just the Great Lakes, including some of the other agreements in place to regulate toxics, I think that would be the place to do it.

I quite agree with you that no particular region of the country should have a better environmental stewardship than any other region, and certainly that wasn't the intent of trying to address the Great Lakes. Simply put, the Great Lakes are not the canary in the coal mine, if you'll excuse the metaphor--they are the coal mine. We're quickly moving toward a water-short world; to have effective legislation in place to prevent the toxification of that resource is critical to our future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

One last question.

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

Okay. Are there less important things in the act that could be tweaked or groomed? I'm thinking, for example, of animate products, of biotechnology, of nutrients, or something to that effect. In other words, are there things we can just take off the table? We might want to change them a bit, but are there various parts where we can just say let's not waste our firepower on the little stuff or the less important stuff? Have you gone through it from that point of view, establishing what not to bother with, and where we should focus?