Environment Committee on June 5th, 2006

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

Those are indexes, though. Has there ever been a ranking on specifics with respect to detrimental pollutions?

I am familiar with the UN and the OECD rankings, but they are a composite of a number of different things. Some of them include green spaces; some don't. They can get skewed pretty radically.

With respect to this and the general protection of public health from pollution--

[Bruce Lourie]

I will use mercury as an example--again, I'm sorry if I dwell on mercury, but it is a subject I know well. If we compare the actual restrictions and regulations on products and emissions between Canada and say Asia, Europe, and the United States, we would find that Canada certainly trails far behind those countries.

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

Was there ever a notion within the initial creation of CEPA that was meant to divest the enactment of these policies from the politics of the day and actually rely upon true, sound science in the decisions? Do you find that the act is meant to be more arm's length, in a sense, from the to and fro of political change?

[Larry Stoffman]

When you read it, I think that is the intent. That would certainly be a layperson's understanding if he pulled out the act and read it on the Internet or something.

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

Maybe Mr. Moffet can help with this. Let me understand the minister's discretion and power with respect to pollution. I am trying to get a firm question that the average Canadian, not being familiar with this, can understand.

If there is a known carcinogen, a heavily toxic substance, does the minister have the power to simply not list it, to not cause anything to happen in terms of restrictions or applications? Does the act allow that?

[John Moffet]

Yes. For chemicals, basically the act applies in two areas: new substances and existing substances. If you want to introduce a new substance by importing it or manufacturing something that has not been used in Canada, you have to give the government information that the government prescribes. That information will give us what we need to determine whether there is a risk.

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

But even with the information and a proven risk, can the minister still decide to allow it into the marketplace?

[John Moffet]

We get that information, we make an assessment, and we make a recommendation to the minister.

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

At that point the discretion lies entirely with her or his office as to whether to take up your recommendation or to ignore the findings.

[John Moffet]

Yes.

Then, similarly, on existing substances, the act now says we have to do categorization; we now must do a screening assessment. We have to; there is no discretion there. If the scientists, the risk assessors, conclude that a substance meets section 64, that recommendation goes to the minister. The minister then has discretion to say yes or no, although the science will be public.

Then, the minister also has the discretion as to whether to recommend adding the substance to schedule 1. That's a decision made by cabinet. Once the substance is on schedule 1, there's a decision about what to do about it. Do we do some labelling? Do we ban it?

That's, again, a government decision made by cabinet, with the one exception being the case of persistent biocumulative inherently toxic substances. If the science finds that these are present, ministers must implement virtual elimination and recommend an addition to schedule 1.

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

So the chemicals in that particular class seem to have a little bit more oomph in them, in terms of getting through this political maze of getting listed and actually having something happen.

[John Moffet]

Yes.

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

Canadians get most mystified by the language of the act, the difference between a “may” and a “shall” and a “wherefore”. Is there any cause for this committee to understand what the language would look like as it applies to this...what was the class of chemicals again?

[John Moffet]

Persistant biocumulative and inherently toxic. Those were the substances that the committee that developed CEPA in 1999 focused on as being priorities.

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

The dirty dozen, no?

[John Moffet]

No, there's a lot more than that.

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

A lot more than that.

So, other panellists, this seems to have a little bit more weight than the initial political maze described.

[Larry Stoffman]

I'll be really quick here. We talked about carcinogens and genotoxics and reproductive toxins, and we would like to see those addressed in a similar fashion to how PBITs are being addressed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Benevides, go ahead, please.

[Hugh Benevides]

Mr. Chair, these are the 400 substances that I identified earlier as having those characteristics. Certainly, as a starting point, one would want to consider what kinds of mandatory timelines would we want in an amended act, in terms of proceeding to the next stage of screening, or whether screening is necessary at all, given the information that we have, whether virtual elimination should be proceeded with, and on what timelines. In order to help with the decisions about how to recommend amending the act, I mentioned that it might be useful for the committee to learn from the departments what that list of the 400 looks like, and what smaller categories of substances they may be looking at for even faster action within that 400, so that this committee can have some input into that.

Unfortunately, as I said, the categorization will be complete by September. I know the departments are thinking about how to proceed. Certainly the public would be well served by this committee's learning how that process is going to turn out, in terms of recommending what should happen even before the act is amended. That's why I identified earlier that difficult timeliness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, could you just keep it fairly brief?

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

Maybe it's a yes or no question.

I guess the first question is whether CEPA would be improved and more useful if the precautionary principle were an automatic legal requirement rather than a discretionary power in the act. That's the first question. And I guess the second question is whether the precautionary principle could be usefully incorporated—and I thought I heard maybe a positive answer to this—into some of the specific mechanisms of the act. I'm thinking of virtual elimination of PBITs or the phasing out of known carcinogens. Would something be gained by both of those things?

[John Moffet]

Can I respond to the first and let my fellow panellists respond to the second?

The implementation of the precautionary principle is mandatory under CEPA. It is not discretionary. The government must apply the precautionary principle in every decision that it makes under the act.

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

Okay.

[John Moffet]

So there's no discretion. The discretion is in what we mean by the precautionary principle--