Environment Committee on May 17th, 2006

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Toxic...it's a good word.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We should make it clear to our witnesses that our mandate is to review and recommend. This is not a legislative process. It is the government that would come up with legislative changes, which would then put us into a whole new process. This is a review-and-recommend process.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Processes within processes...so we're on salary, not paid by the hour here.

On the success of the act itself and its implementation, how many products have been listed on schedule 1 for virtual elimination? Do you folks know?

[Gordon Lloyd]

I don't really know. I don't think very many have, and I have found that confusing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have an answer here from the Library of Parliament.

Tim.

[Tim Williams, Committee Researcher]

As far as I understand it, none have actually made it, finally, onto the virtual elimination list. Only hexachlorobutadiene has been proposed.

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

Thank you. That helps focus my question.

This act has had some life and experience with industry, new products being introduced to the market, processes going on, and money invested. What do you think about no chemicals actually having been listed for virtual elimination? Is there a presupposition that there aren't any chemicals in the Canadian manufacturing cycle that should be listed, or that the act hasn't been effectively applied? Sections 64, 65, and 66 of the act are designed so if a chemical is deemed toxic and should be eliminated--of that seriousness--we can in fact do it. That's part of the assurances.

With the act being this many years old and nothing having made the list, is this a paper tiger?

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

My understanding is there is a list of prohibited substances, which is quite different from virtual elimination. So where it is a product that is prohibited from entering into commerce, it is a different list from the virtual elimination list.

But I was trying to say that a lot of the parts of the act haven't been interpreted and implemented, and there isn't a track record where we can say how it works.

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

So the parliamentary secretary properly focused this conversation around us being able to do an effective and precise study. When I hear that nothing's been on the virtual elimination list, my question goes as much to the act--and this is for review by this committee--as to the implementation. We're not doing a clause-by-clause review. We're not legislative. We're looking for the cost or benefit of this act upon Canadian society and industry.

It is perplexing to me, with the gradual increase in chemicals being introduced into the Canadian marketplace, and with new and different chemicals all the time, that not one has been required to be virtually eliminated.

[Gordon Lloyd]

I don't think it should be perplexing that new chemicals aren't on the virtual elimination list. I think it would be very surprising if a new chemical were on the virtual elimination list.

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

Or old chemicals.

[Gordon Lloyd]

The fact that we are a signatory to the POPs treaty and it has 12 chemicals that are in the same kind of ballpark is a question worth asking of Environment Canada--why those aren't on the list. But I can't answer that.

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

From industry's perspective--the dirty dozen, as they're referred to--this is an interesting question. It seems as if they would be the most obvious, or the beginning point that industry would also support, if we had signed a treaty to this effect.

[Gordon Lloyd]

I participated personally in the development of the POPs treaty, and industry certainly had no objections to any of those chemicals being listed in the POPs treaty. As I said in my brief, there's an element of practicality in the POPs treaty. You don't have to worry about trace contaminants of things that are being emitted in levels that you should worry about, but don't worry about it when they're in irrelevant trace contaminants. I think that's an element of practicality that everybody agreed to in the POPs treaty that isn't in CEPA and should be built in.

I don't know if that's one of the barriers standing in the way of using those provisions or not. That's a question you'd have to ask Environment Canada. One of the reasons isn't because industry has been fighting against this. We did not push against this in the POPs treaty at all, and it's not here.

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

There's no suggestion of that. The question is more about CEPA's process of listing chemicals. It seems to me that according to the evidence in terms of even when it comes to the 12 that were listed under POPs, we can't find our way to list them. I can't read something buried in the act suggesting that virtual elimination means all trace elements must be removed. My understanding of “virtual elimination” is virtual, but not complete, elimination. Please connect the dots for me on this.

[Gordon Lloyd]

As I've understood Environment Canada, they feel that when something is put on the virtual elimination list, they have to have limits of quantification for it for all circumstances, and that would appropriately include emission releases from plant operations. I think they also feel—at least, as it's been explained to me—that they have to have limits of quantification for these substances as trace contaminant levels in products. That might make sense sometimes, if there were problematic contaminant levels. But as I understand it, they feel they need to have an LOQ, a limit of quanitification, even if they're not problematic. We suggested a fix modeled on the POPs, and I think that would help.

But I can't answer your question; it is puzzling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen, your time is up. Can we come back around?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I have a very quick question. I've been trying to make some notes here and bring it together. To repeat, the recommendations are that we do not do clause-by-clause, but look at what's working, and I think you suggested seven different parts of CEPA we could focus on.

I'm looking at your brief, Mr. Lloyd, and you provided seven points here. The first deals with the management of climate change. Then you dealt with the term “toxic” and the stigma it carries, the requirement to establish so-called “limits of quantification”, state of the environment reporting, and so on. Are those your recommended points that we need to review in our CEPA review?

[Gordon Lloyd]

Yes, and in the additional submission we'll send you, there will be two more. One is a very simple issue, I hope, that we should do what Australia did and have an ability to recognize assessments of other jurisdictions in the legislation. Secondly, particularly as we get into clean-air issues, we should try to make sure there's not going to be overlap and duplication if those issues are dealt with outside, as opposed to inside, CEPA.

As a corollary to more cooperation with the provinces, there's the equivalency issue that I've talked about at length.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[Shannon Coombs]

If I may add to your list, he's right about the in-commerce list and that it be treated as existing substances. If the committee could take a look at making a recommendation to provide a provision in CEPA, it would be appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To state your words, it is true that we're basically reviewing and recommending to the government at this time. But when the CEPA legislation was first introduced back in 1999—and it went for extensive review and consultation—there was quite a lot of discussion about what should be toxic and non-toxic. That came about to make sense of what took place.

In briefly listening to the comments of the deputants who came before us, I know they have some issues around this, whether it's ammonia or even salt for that matter, but we do know that in fact it can be very harmful for your health. Exposure to it can also be quite dangerous.

What I'm trying to understand from the people present today is whether they want us to start weakening the legislation, which took us so long to put into place and which ensures we have protection for our citizens, especially around the issue of toxicity. Are they asking us to weaken our legislation? Is that what they're actually recommending to this committee?

[Shannon Coombs]

If I may, Mr. Chair, FPIC is simply advocating that the term “toxic” be removed from the legislation. We're not asking for any processes with respect to how risk assessments are being done or to how they arrive at their decisions. And we're not asking that schedule 1 be deleted. We're asking that it be left there, but that the term of schedule 1 be changed, so that there's clarity in the act and no misinterpretation of the substances on the list and of what risks are being managed under that list. That's what we're asking for.

[Gordon Lloyd]

From our perspective, I think removing the confusion that's inherent right now in the use of the term “toxic” and applying it broad-based--it applies sometimes inappropriately--removing that confusion would make the act more effective and thereby strengthen it. We're certainly not looking to weaken the act.

As I said earlier, in response to a question from one of the other members, there does need to be a legal review to make sure there's no constitutional issue around that, but that's a question you need to ask Environment Canada lawyers.