Environment Committee on May 15th, 2006

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

What do you think of the agreement that was signed with Alberta? Did this province say it had an agreement and that it applied it? Has it ever happened that the minister in Ottawa has been forced to intervene under his powers, regardless of the existence of an equivalency agreement?

[Cécile Cléroux]

To my knowledge, no.

[John Moffet]

I'd like to add one more point before speaking to the Alberta one.

I think the key point to understand about equivalency agreements is that the act doesn't oblige the federal minister to go out and ask provinces to look for equivalency opportunities. The act enables the minister to negotiate agreements.

The fact of the matter is that very few provinces have come forward and asked for equivalency agreements. The reason for that is that there are in fact very few areas where provincial laws overlap with federal laws. You need an equivalency agreement only where you have a provincial law addressing the same issue as the federal law. If you don't, you have no need for an equivalency agreement.

We have a complex federal-provincial regime of environmental laws in Canada, but there are in fact very few areas where there is direct overlap. Where there is, such as in a case we have in Alberta--and we do have some cases in other jurisdictions, but in Alberta we have direct overlap--the federal law does not apply with respect to the regulation that is the subject of the equivalency agreement, and that has worked out satisfactorily.

Administrative agreements are very different. An administrative agreement is a situation not where the province has a regulation in place, but where the province has expressed an interest in implementing a federal law because they already have folks on the ground who understand the industries or the institutions that are the subject of the regulation and it's more efficient for the inspector who's already going to be in the facility to go in and inspect both for compliance with the provincial law and for compliance with the federal law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

We will move on to Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you.

It is good to see you here today. Thanks for the overview.

I'm just subbing in for my colleague, who's in Bonn. Hopefully, he's doing good work there.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, I'm really pleased to hear you accent the precautionary principle. If people around this table don't understand it by now, then we all need a primer on it, but I'm sure we all do. For that matter, I think it's something that Canadians need to grab on to and understand, because I'm not sure that they do at this point. That's not to fault them, but to suggest that we are dealing with a fairly new conceptual framework when we're looking at the precautionary principle.

The other component, I'm glad to see, in terms of the presentation here, is having health and environment together. That's a positive indication. I think that's one that most Canadians would welcome, and they would want to see further cooperation in making sure that health and environment go hand in hand. In fact, some would suggest that we need to break outside the whole nomenclature of the environment as an external and own it as something that is for everyone a universal concept.

In the brief, in the deck, there was some mention about how we apply the precautionary principle, how jurisdictions sort things out. One area I personally have been involved with in my own community is the area of pesticides. Indeed, you'll probably hear about this tomorrow a bit. And we have provided a bill in the House.

It's an area that's very interesting when you consider that 35% of Canadians presently are protected. I advocate for a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. Indeed, we'll talk in a second about what's federally available. So 35% of Canadians are protected by a bylaw. In fact, we know that the whole province of Quebec is. Sadly, in my city, here in Ottawa, they aren't, notwithstanding the efforts of people locally.

So my question is, and there are a couple of others about other specific examples: how do we wrestle with that? To go back to March 2002, when there were changes to the PCPA—and it's my understanding that it's sitting there waiting to go, yet there are people who are flying on different octanes, if you will, or breathing different air, or different quality air, cleaner octane, perhaps.... So we have a problem in conductivity here, right? We have a problem in that we have bylaws that are enacted and the whole province of Quebec has protections, yet across the river, here in Ottawa, we don't. Could you tell me a little bit about your respective perspectives on that and how we can untangle that?

[Paul Glover]

Okay. First off, obviously, if people aren't aware but want to be clear, part of Health Canada is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. A colleague of mine, Dr. Karen Dodds, heads that up, and I'm sure she'd be happy, if there are specific questions, to come back and answer those.

Generally, though, the department overall, whether it's about drugs or pesticide substances, takes a risk-based approach. I'm very cognizant of what has been outlined in the deck; that is, what is the hazard, what is the exposure, and when you put those two things together, do we have a problem? There isn't a single drug the department approves--sorry, there probably is a single one. Often drugs we approve have side effects, so you have to look at that and weigh those cost-benefits. It's the same when you look at agricultural uses of pesticides for the farming industry and others. What are the benefits versus the downside, and what, overall, is the total risk? That is how, fundamentally, the department approaches this. Are any of those risks acceptable? How do we manage them and make sure that Canadians are never presented with an unacceptable level of risk?

I'm very pleased to say that within CEPA and PMRA there is significant cooperation. We have memorandums of understanding to share information and agreements. So if we're looking at something that's in water, what is it from the CEPA point of view? What is it from the pesticides point of view? Are we coming to similar conclusions on the science?

More fundamentally, we feel that it is our role to regulate, where appropriate, where the risks are unacceptable, and to encourage that the information be made available to all Canadians. So if Canadians wish to do more, give them the information they need so they can also play a role in managing the risk, and allow other jurisdictions, as they see fit and appropriate, to make choices that are relevant and right for them.

We'll continue to be a sound source of science on what those risks are and try as much as possible to make sure that they are integrated across federal statutes, and provide that information as transparently as possible.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Notwithstanding that there is information sharing and providing of risk assessments, if I go back to the idea of the precautionary principle and apply it to pesticides and take a look at other jurisdictions, we have a situation here where not all citizens can avail themselves of the same value of the precautionary principle. That's a sad thing, which I hope Parliament will act on.

I have another question regarding how you work with partners. I'm referring to research, particularly with the universities. Presently, Bill C-2 is in front of committee; in fact, Mr. Poilievre is on the committee. With respect to how we look at access to information when it affects people's health and, in particular, new technologies, new products, is there a window for your respective departments if someone says “Look...”?

There was a case that came before me about Wiarton and some water technologies, where there were two schools of thought. How would CEPA perhaps involve itself if it were to hear concerns about new technologies or new products? Would they wait until they're invited in? If a researcher was working on a project, would they call the ministry and say they have concerns about the work that's being done and some outcomes that aren't being understood? Could they call and presumably someone would show up? How does that work just in terms of the regulation and the policing of it?

[Paul Glover]

First and foremost, there are a number of ways that things get onto the department's work plans. We nominate things that we feel from a science point of view are important. We are working to make those publicly available and accessible. So we consult on that. Regarding the categorization results, we've been working with industry and NGOs to let them know what we think the priorities are.

The other thing is that people can ask the ministers to look at something specifically. Citizens have that right, and that is something that can be incorporated into the work plans. That is another way into CEPA. The ministers have the obligation to look at that and say whether they feel that is more or less important than some of the other things that are already on the work plan. But that is a definite option that is available and has been used.

So whether that's a citizen or a researcher, if somebody has a concern, they can make that concern known to the ministers. They will then determine whether that is applicable under CEPA or another piece of legislation. If CEPA is the right place, we can be asked to look at it. That would apply to any substance that could be regulated under CEPA.

[John Moffet]

There are two other mechanisms worth considering. One is the new substances regime. If the activity you're describing actually results in the use of a substance that is new to Canada, there is a mandatory regime that must be followed to authorize the use of that substance.

The second mechanism is that CEPA contains a provision in section 70 that requires anybody who is importing, manufacturing, transporting, processing, or distributing a substance for commercial purposes and who obtains information that would reasonably lead them to believe the substance might meet the test in section 64—that it may pose a risk to environment or health—to provide that information to the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of questions.

I'll refer back to slide 17, which I think actually capsulizes everything in your presentation quite nicely. It's in line with what we heard from the NGOs last week, that essentially what we have is a fundamentally sound act: it's very encompassing, it covers basically what we needed to cover, and there is nothing really wrong with the act itself. Where it does seem to bog down is in implementation, and more importantly, enforcement.

What I would like to ask first of all is whether you believe there is adequate enforcement legislation within the act so that we can make sure people are conforming with the act itself.

[John Moffet]

Maybe we can respond in a couple of ways.

Could I first ask a clarification question? Are you asking what the authorities are in the act with respect to enforcement?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Right.

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chairman, could I respectfully suggest that the question of adequacy of resources and adequacy of authorities is one that you may want to pose to the minister?

In terms of the breadth of authorities, I would reiterate what I said in the presentation: that the act provides a wide range of authorities with respect to enforcement. What these do is enable our officials to make decisions on a case-by-case basis about the best way to enforce. Those options can range from issuing a ticket--which can be done on the spot, just like a parking ticket--right up to developing a full criminal case and prosecuting a violation. The rationale behind that is it enables appropriate decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis; we don't need to use a sledgehammer where a ticket will do--or a warning, when even less than a ticket will suffice. I would suggest there is a range of authorities and leave the answer there.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Further to that, can you confirm that these types of enforcements are occurring regularly and that there is enforcement of the legislation as it exists?

[John Moffet]

Let me suggest that we could provide you with a written summary of the types of enforcement activities that have occurred, broken down by type of enforcement mechanism--warnings, tickets, etc.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That would be great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You could send that to the clerk. I think all members would be interested.

Mr. Glover.

[Paul Glover]

Mr. Chair, may I respond to that question from a health point of view? It's somewhat different, but I hope this information is beneficial.

Part of being able to enforce is understanding if the actions we've taken have been effective. One of the things Canada struggles with, compared to other jurisdictions, is programs like biomonitoring, which tell how much of something is still in the blood. We take lead out of gas; we know how much is still in the environment, but we don't know how much is in people.

The act does call for the Minister of the Environment to maintain a national pollutant release inventory. It does not call for a similar requirement for the Minister of Health in terms of biomonitoring and understanding, so our ability to support enforcement is somewhat challenged by that lack of information. That doesn't mean we couldn't do it if we wanted to. There would be resource questions associated with that, obviously.

That is one area where there is a subtle difference that might help us in the information base we have.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Great.

I had one question with respect to the domestic substances list you mentioned. You also mentioned that substances in use in the 1980s and so forth were actually required to be reclassified, which I understand from talking to some industy officials was a fairly painful process for some of them. My question pertains to the use of the word “toxic”, and how we're attributing “toxic” to certain substances, and in fact how that may be misconstrued. Is there another term we could be using in classifying substances, a term that might not be as misleading and potentially damaging in referring to substances that may be toxic in given uses, but are not inherently toxic by nature, such as carbon dioxide?

[Cécile Cléroux]

It's clearly one of the elements of the act that has probably had the most coverage in the consultation and comments we've had all over the place. The implementation of the act itself, for sure, uses the term “toxic”, as some of you will see in the act--it's used in part 5. We refer to the list of toxic substances, but everybody refers to the toxics.

In reality, that's exactly what it was intended to do. It's clear it has, in some discussions, completely mixed the messages around what it is exactly. One of the things that could be considered through the CEPA review is to have another objective to refer to those substances.

For us, the important thing is the process included in part 5. Everybody at the Parliamentary committee might find that the word or term we give it should be replaced; for us, it's more the principle that we are guided by assessing the risk and making sure we have the right information and the right science before we make a judgment call, so that when we need to make a judgment call, the minister can act.

Don't worry, we're not trying to prevent acting when it's required, but we want to be sure the process is very organized and that by the time we have substances that need more, I would say, presence management--I'm looking for the right expression--management that is a lot more structured, if you want--we are looking at each of the potential releases, we are making sure everything that needs to be regulated is regulated, and we are making sure it will be done under a very strict regime. That, for us, is the important thing.

We agree that the term “toxic” could be misleading in some cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

That ends our first round.

Mr. Glover, could you be sure to send us a copy of the report you mentioned?

[Paul Glover]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll go to the second round now. It will be five minutes, back and forth.

Mr. Silva, go ahead, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've mentioned before at this committee, this is very far-reaching legislation. It's very encompassing legislation that deals with so many different issues that affect our country and of course the environment policies that we're trying to put forward.

I've always indicated that even though some of the legislation in the act is on the ball and we're very satisfied with it, there are many things of which I wonder whether we're meeting targets. For example, I'm not sure how we're meeting the objectives of consulting with native people and people in general.

I feel very strongly that these are things that we, as parliamentarians and members of this committee, have to discuss and about which we must also have a dialogue with our partisan stakeholders across the country. It's one of the reasons I've always felt that if we're going to put forward and review this massive piece of legislation, as we have no choice but to do under the statutes, we should make sure that we are in fact doing so properly and doing the legislation justice.

You've come before us and given us a good presentation, but there are, I think, many questions that are still outstanding and that haven't been fully addressed. Some of our targets are not being met, and that concerns me. I want to know exactly why, particularly with regard to the consultation process.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that if we are to do justice to this piece of legislation, I think we have to have you before the committee this time, but probably several other times. I think it's very important that we have this proper consultation. So I would ask you what you see as some of the deficiencies and as things we should be working on, particularly regarding consultation with the communities.