Environment Committee on May 15th, 2006

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

I want to come back to the whole issue of implementation, because you're the experts on that. You're the people who actually have to live with the consequences of this act. If you can't tell us what the problems with implementation are, I don't know how we're supposed to find out--in other words, if we're supposed to go for brown envelopes, or I don't know what.

So I'd ask you as the implementers, are there obvious things that should be changed from a legislative point of view, from a resources point of view, or from a common sense point of view, to make your task easier? Is there low-hanging fruit here? Are there things where, if you could have a drink with me, you'd say, “Oh, for God's sake, if you'd only do this, you'd make it a whole lot easier,” or “That's impossible; you're asking us to do the impossible”?

I'm just trying to figure out how we can usefully find out from you, the implementers, what changes, of whatever sort, would really make your lives easier, whether it's regulation or timelines, or “Gee, just do this.” If we don't, I don't know what other source of information we can have to find that out. We can't do a good job if we don't understand how the legislative part interacts with the administrative and implementation part.

So go ahead. Break all the rules. Go crazy here.

[Cécile Cléroux]

It would be better, Minister...former Minister, I'm sorry.

You see the lapses that happen. This gentleman was my minister a few months ago. So I apologize to all the members.

When the minister comes in front of you, she will be able to answer those questions for you, with great pleasure, I'm sure.

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

I know what the rules are, but Mr. Moffet says continuous improvement and experience are part of the answer. But surely there must be things--without betraying the secrets of the ministry--common sense things, that you could point us towards. Or perhaps you could put it in the words of other people.

You've done the review, according to page 17, of what stakeholders have said. In your judgment, what useful suggestions about implementation have stakeholders made?

[Paul Glover]

May I go back to your comment about the drink and ask if you are buying?

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

I'll buy, you bet.

[Paul Glover]

Let's go with some things that are on the public record. I think there have been numerous articles and views about the levels at which the department has been resourced. There is concern from both industry and NGOs that the pace at which we are able to do the work that is necessary is frustrating. Industry would like more certainty, and NGOs would like more action. That is the view of partners.

As bureaucrats, you tell us how much, and we'll tell you how much we can get done. But that is certainly something you will hear quite a bit about as this moves forward.

From a health point of view, I think it's fair to say that our understanding of these issues is evolving. When it comes to implementation, one of the challenges we're facing is the human dimension to this. We're exposed to these things in the products we use, the air we breathe, the water we drink, food, soil, etc. So how do we deal with those multiple exposures? How do we deal with the cumulative effects--and there's new science--and make sure we're taking action that responds to health concerns?

It's fair to say that if the environment is better, health gets better. But there are certain things that are more important to do from a human health point of view than from an environmental point of view, and the science is evolving there. We need to make sure that our understanding under CEPA and our ability to implement CEPA keep pace, and that means different information. You'll hear a lot from NGOs and industry about bio-monitoring. The inability of this government to do that kind of work under CEPA is a problem...and the transparency that creates.

Those are some of the things you will hear, if you haven't already, as this moves forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

[Cécile Cléroux]

If I can, Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

[Cécile Cléroux]

All of the members should have received a binder. In the binder you will find the evaluation that includes the management response--the official position of Environment Canada to all of the elements that were outlined in the evaluation. You will also see all of the diagnostics that were done by Environment Canada prior to the consultations that took place--the ones that were referred to earlier in the discussions, which brought us to six cities. So the basic elements that we know should have been put forward are included in those documents, and they are in the binders you should have in your offices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I liked what my colleague from the New Democratic Party said, which was to propose a comparative analysis of the model developed in Canada and what is done elsewhere.

Mr. Moffet, you said that Canada took part in international conferences and exchanged information with its partners. Indeed, section 75 of the Act insists on the fact that we have to share what we know with other countries.

However, in my view, we have to exchange with countries who have raised the bar as high as possible. In that regard, I would like you to talk about the REACH model, which was developed in Europe and which was presented to us last week by some NGO officials.

Given our geographical situation, do you believe that we can apply this model in Canada? Is that possible under our current legislative framework?

[Cécile Cléroux]

I will answer the first part of the question and Mr. Moffet will answer the second part.

As far as a comparative analysis is concerned, every time we propose creating measures, be they with regard to environmental intervention or regulations, it doesn't matter, we must systematically conduct a comparative analysis to see what other countries are doing. This is done automatically in the course of our work. So it's something we are very familiar with.

We deal with issues on a case-by-case basis to find out what was done by which country, whether it's a country of the European community or any other country, and we then explain why we adopted a certain position with regard to the method in question.

I will let Mr. Moffet respond to your question on the REACH model.

[John Moffet]

As you can imagine, REACH has been the subject of a lot of consideration within both departments for some time now. One important thing to understand about REACH is that it's not yet in effect. Indeed, we don't know yet when it will be in effect or what it will actually contain when it does come into effect. It has been delayed and modified over many years now.

The current version of REACH would do two main things. One, it would enable the European Union to gather information. Second, it would establish a regime for enabling the European Union to manage the risks from certain substances--not all substances, but some substances.

I think what is important for members of the committee to consider is that Canada has already gathered most of that information. We've gone beyond half of REACH. We've already got the information. That's why, when I responded to Mr. Godfrey's question earlier, I said the real issue now is what to do with that information. And in terms of the authorities within CEPA, are the authorities within CEPA adequate to allow us to do what you want us to do with that information?

I come back to the breadth of authority that's provided to us. We can do a lot with that information. Really, what we need to do is to develop an appropriate strategy so that we can use that information and improve the way we manage risks from chemicals in Canada.

So we don't need the REACH authorities. If we were starting from the same place, maybe the REACH information-gathering authorities would be a useful model to look at, but we've gone beyond that. We need to ask, what kind of authorities do we need, and what kind of implementation strategy do we need, to act on the information that we actually already have and that Europe is nowhere near obtaining?

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

Have you received complaints from our southern trade partners, that is, the United States, as far as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is concerned? Have you raised complaints from other quarters under the Free Trade Agreement or under other agreements?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Unfortunately, we don't have that information with us. But we will get it and provide it to you then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to just remind committee members that if they don't have their binders, the binders were sent out today. They should be back in your offices, certainly by tomorrow.

I also want to suggest to Mr. Glover, going back to his response to Mr. Godfrey, that if he is going for a drink, probably the entire committee should come. But each member will pay for their own, just under the new legislation....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Also, when I look at page 9, I guess a couple of things jump out at me. Perhaps committee members would suffer through these with me.

Under areas of intervention, I see “Disposal at sea”. Of course, I immediately look at your chart and say “enforcement”; I'm thinking Bill C-15. Where does CEPA fit with something like that?

Then I look at “International movement of all wastes”, and I think about Toronto.

Then I hear you say that the entire bill should be “citizen friendly”, and I think about the two issues I mentioned as examples of how CEPA could be friendly. You'd be talking about things that people care about--about air, about water, about things that go in our oceans, about the million seabirds that show up dead in Newfoundland every year, about the 416 truckloads of garbage that go across the U.S. border every day. These are the kinds of things, it seems to me, that, put into CEPA and talked about in CEPA, would certainly make it much more user friendly and let Canadians communicate with you much better about that.

That's just something I picked up on as you talked about citizen-friendly legislation.

To our guests, thank you for being here. I'm sure we'll have you back.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.