Evidence of meeting #37 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 cepa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to turn our attention to the topic of citizens' participation. Both you and Ms. Tilman brought up that a lot of these chemicals are extremely complex--the processes used in manufacturing.
Ms. Tilman, you have been through the process and are still engaged in it. What specific things need to change? Are there funding issues? Is it a translation question?
Chair, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition
In terms of public participation with regard to assessment and developing the instrument by which to proceed, I think sometimes the public gets involved a little too late, after the fact. It's good to be involved right at the beginning of the process, starting in. A lot of learning has to be done, and a lot of assistance given, but again, as a public representative, it seems to me that the resources, or the will to act in certain ways, are not there.
You have to look at a whole set of instruments. First, what kind of instrument will you use--a regulatory instrument, a pollution prevention instrument, an equivalency agreement? What kind of instrument is appropriate? That decision has to be looked at first.
For some of the substances, it's not too clear whether, when the decision is made, it's political or resource-dependent. In many of these instances in which a number of us felt that regulatory action was definitely necessary--I've alluded to the case of base metal smelters--this was not the one that was pursued, although it may happen later on.
What is happening is that these consultations are going on, and it's important that we are there for this. But somehow the follow-through isn't there, or a decision already seems to be made that this instrument will go. So I'm not sure--
Chair, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition
Well, I hope it's more than that. We do have a chance to respond, but we don't know what effect that really has and how well that brings it in.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Perhaps you can respond to this later, on paper. But before I turn to Mr. Freeman, I'd like to ask you this. We are going to be making recommendations to the government on the act. Are there things we can build in that would strengthen the force and the will of citizens' participation in this and not leave it entirely to government or industry alone?
Chair, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition
Yes, there are. I think you'll be getting some submissions on this to help you in the review.
Environmental Defence Canada, PollutionWatch
If you look at our detailed recommendations, which have already been circulated, there are two areas in which I think citizen participation could be significantly improved in CEPA. One is the citizen action provisions. This allows private citizens to enforce certain provisions of the act.
These have limitations that are so onerous they've never been used. They can only be initiated if the minister has failed to conduct an investigation and report within a reasonable time. They can only be employed where significant harm to the environment has already occurred.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question for Mr. Lloyd in connection to this.
Ms. Tilman commented that only eight pollution prevention planning audits or processes have been done, with none of them implemented. I am referring back to your comments on the leadership role Canada has taken and the certain assuredness Canadians should feel about how we're doing. There has been much testimony and confusion over this.
As a general commentary, a lot of committee members have heard that it's relatively okay, that some pieces need changing. Some of the bottleneck happens around the will--the will within the bureaucracy, the will to implement.
When you hear testimony like that, is that not cause for concern? Only eight done, none implemented, none for new levels of mercury, smelters in Ontario--it all seems problematic somehow.
Vice-President, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
That's very similar I think to the comment and recommendation I made that, as the smart regulation report said, there needs to be more emphasis on using a broader range of instruments. I would count pollution prevention planning as being part of that, just as I would industry responsibility programs like Responsible Care.
Vice-President, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
I agree. That's why one of the recommendations we've made in this wrap-up summary, which I hope the committee will look at, is whether there could be some language put into the legislation that would encourage the government, no matter who's in power, to look at the broad range of instruments and not just focus on regulations per se. I think that has slowed down the process. They should have looked more broadly at pollution prevention planning.
That's something I have said here before, in testimony, that it's unfortunate we don't use that tool more. I think it ties nicely into industry responsibility programs like Responsible Care.
As the smart regulation report says, officials seem to turn to regulation more easily. My testimony--when you were at Mrs. Broadbent's funeral--got into this a bit. There's this false dichotomy of regulation or voluntary. There's a lot of stuff in the middle, which I would put pollution prevention planning into--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, I believe Ms. Tilman wants in.
Make it very brief, please.
Chair, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition
I'll be very brief. You may want to look at the confidentiality provisions under CEPA. Even once the plans themselves come through, it's only ministerial discretion, sometimes, that receives the plans...or the lack of them. So please look at confidentiality.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Vellacott.
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the witnesses for being here as we wrap up the CEPA. Many of you have been here before.
CEPA 1999 has a legislative requirement to be reviewed every five years. The previous government had a responsibility to do that review, and unfortunately, it didn't happen. It was a high priority for our government. So thank you for helping to make this happen. It could have been done a little bit sooner, but unfortunately, the Liberal Party and the Bloc tried to shelve the CEPA review; they voted against continuing. Yet we're able to complete this. So we're very happy. The health of Canadians and the health of our environment is very important.
We've also been able to look at, as many of you made comment on, our chemical management plan and our Clean Air Act, to try to clean the environment and deal with issues that will protect the health of the environment and the health of Canadians. We've heard from a number of different groups--parents with autistic children, the growing problem of juvenile diabetes, AIDS, and cancer--all concerned about the causes of these increasing health problems in Canada. It's another reason why our chemical management plan has been announced and is very important.
I do have some questions. My first question is regarding information. Industry has shared a concern about making that information public, whereas, on the other hand, the public would like that information so they know what is harmful and what is not for the health of Canadians. Could I have some comments on that, and with the limited time that I have, could you make your comments short? Should that information be made public, or should it be protected to protect industry?
I would particularly like to hear again from Professor Schwarcz. I found your comments very interesting. Your PowerPoint was very interesting. There are fears of the unknown, but also there are some genuine things that the government needs to do to take leadership, which I believe we are doing. So could you make some comments on the practical aspects of what we need to do?
McGill University, As an Individual
You're absolutely right, communicating to the public is extremely challenging. I think it is a specialty within science. The same way that you have specialties in medicine or in chemistry, there's a specialty in science communication. It's not easy to make things apparent to the public, since they are not white or black issues. There are many shades of grey. That's one of the things I tried to point out. Even when you look at one specific class of chemicals, within that class there are dramatic differences. There are differences in the application and in what the compounds can do in the amounts that are used. It's the molecular structure that really determines what is going on.
I think as CEPA is implemented, one of the features has to be to communicate to the public just what this is all about. It takes a lot of thought to know just what kind of language to use in order to give the appropriate level of comfort to the public. It has to be such that you communicate to the public that things are being done. But no matter what, there are inherent risks. We do not live in a world in which you can ever guarantee that things are risk free. There's a certain level of risk that has to be accepted because it is part of our lifestyle. It's a question of risk versus benefit.
It's very easy to talk about the precautionary principle. It's motherhood and apple pie. How do you communicate to the public what this precautionary principle really is? How can you have a degree of satisfaction that the public will accept? You can tell industry to prove that something is safe. How do you do this? How can you prove that something is safe? You cannot prove a negative in science, unfortunately. You can't prove that something cannot happen. I could not prove to you that reindeer cannot fly, right? I think most people would agree that they can't, but I couldn't prove that to you.
Conservative
McGill University, As an Individual
The message is that it's going to take a lot of effort to communicate to the public what the act really means and what the level of risk is.
I'd be very happy to give further comments and advice on how that can be done, practically, but I can't do it in one minute.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I think I can talk to the other witnesses individually.
I'm sorry, my time is up.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I want to direct the first question to Mr. Teeter. You mentioned this matter of risk management and risk assessment taking place at the same time, if I understood correctly. Normally you would do risk assessment first, I would have thought, and then the risk management. What do you mean when you say “both at the same time”?
I have a few other questions that I want to move to as well.
Consultant, Salt Institute of Canada
The structure of the act is such that it requires risk assessment first, before actions are taken. There is a conclusion of harm, or toxicity in this case, under the section 64 definition of “toxic substances”.
What I'm recommending--and you might be able to do this simply with an attitudinal change in Environment Canada--is that as the substance is being assessed, you also ask what is happening with risk management. What is happening out there in the real world, not in Ottawa but in the real world, to manage how this substance is actually being used in the environment? You might be surprised with the answers you get. If the answers tell you there are actually some positive environmental actions taking place now, you start working with the stakeholders on those at the same time as you're assessing. It seems to me to be common sense. The resources would then be deployed in a way that quickly stimulates positive environmental actions.
Conservative