Evidence of meeting #7 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 mercury.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
No, I'm asking how long is the extension going to be, because I also have a meeting.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Lussier referred earlier to the presence of carcinogenic substances in water. He was no doubt referring to trihalomethanes, which are created by contact between organic products and chlorine.
You have to wonder whether it's preferable not to use chlorine, and thus to preserve those organic materials and risk contracting other diseases, or simply to treat the water.
5:25 p.m.
Chair, National Committee on Environmental and Occupational Exposures, Prevention Action Group, Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control
It's not a question of whether one treats it or not; it's how you treat it. What can you treat it with? Chlorine is one option. It has its problems, as you've just said. There are other filtration methods, advanced technologies, in use in the world today that are as effective and, some argue, more effective. Those need to be promoted. And we need to use legislative techniques and tax strategies as well in this country to promote those things.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
In that case, we're talking more about nanofiltration or membrane filtration, aren't we?
5:25 p.m.
Chair, National Committee on Environmental and Occupational Exposures, Prevention Action Group, Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control
That's one example, yes.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I recognize that there is a gap between the policy and the concept of precautionary principle and the implementation of it, which is unfortunate. But we have to make sure in no uncertain terms that this concept is not in any way watered down, because we have seen the rise of cancers in our country, at a very alarming rate. We know that many incidents of mercury, for example, as was discussed, have entered our ecosystem and our food chain. Today we're very concerned about the very high levels of mercury, whether they're in salmon or tuna. And there are, quite frankly, too many cancers that we just don't know anything about, and we don't know where they're coming from. So we all have to be very concerned and alarmed by this increasing trend.
If we're going to proceed with the CEPA review, how can we make sure that language is not weakened but strengthened? I think you were getting close to answering that, but I don't think I fully heard the very specific recommendation and how it in fact strengthens the very important principle that needs to be kept there as part of CEPA.
5:30 p.m.
Chair, National Committee on Environmental and Occupational Exposures, Prevention Action Group, Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control
I'm sorry, I don't have a suggestion for wording right here to give to you. But one thing that I've certainly talked about this afternoon is that one could write that when one applies a precautionary principle to the following compounds or classes of compounds with the following inherent hazards associated with them, that there can be no tolerance for allowable intakes. We should enact pollution prevention programming to ensure that those emissions are eliminated. That kind of language would certainly help. And it may already be applied to certain other classes, the bio-persistent toxic and inherently toxic compounds. But the next step--i.e., that restricted status and pollution prevention programming shall be required--is still missing.
The question of jurisdiction is a whole other issue, because you have federal and provincial jurisdiction. Certainly, as a start, you take a look at federal enterprises where there is no clear dispute over who has jurisdiction; you apply the principles and practices of federal enterprises; and you demonstrate, from the federal government perspective, what should be done. If provinces take that on, then that's great. There's a whole issue of how you can strengthen CEPA to address the jurisdictional issues as well. That's a complicated question.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Is there a difference between how the term “precautionary principle” is applied and how it is seen in the provincial legislation and how it is in the federal legislation? Is the language similar but maybe the application different?
5:30 p.m.
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
The context will determine how that might happen. There are some examples of different provincial legislation that have features of precaution within them, even if that word isn't used. That's why I was trying to say that what is less important than the particular meaning is what the points are within the process that we can insert to make the act more precautionary. I have tried to identify some of those.
Certainly while one articulation of the precautionary principle may be stronger than another, and it may be nice to have it in one provincial act and not in another federal act, the real key is that it is not one-stop shopping. There have to be a number of places where precaution is there in a mandatory and a clear way to address, for example, those discretionary points of implementation that we would want to address.
That is what my introductory remarks were intended to make the case for. We would be happy to elaborate on those for all the different stages, particularly part 5 of the act, throughout the process.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to keep this brief.
I would like to get a bit of an international context. We have talked about Europe and some of the states. Hearing what I would suggest is a pretty abysmal application of things like the precautionary principle--a general public health protection--how does Canada rank internationally? Do we tend to be laggards on this front, or does the world look to us for any sort of governance or guidance about the way to do things?
June 5th, 2006 / 5:30 p.m.
President, Ivey Foundation (Toronto)
I forget the exact OECD ranking. In terms of environmental performance, I think Canada is 27 out of 28 on the OECD ranking. I think the UN ranking, as well, has Canada near the bottom of the pack of industrial nations.
