Environment Committee on June 5th, 2006

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for this.

This is one of those days I wish we were televised. Those initial presentations that I heard in terms of the faith that parliamentarians and Canadians in a broader context place in something like the precautionary principle, the general feeling of safety Canadians have about the tests and rigours being carried out over some of these elements, even your depiction of mercury and the unbelievable fact that we can't seem to get it listed or just take some basic action--all were striking.

There is one thing I would like the committee to consider before we go on. I am disappointed today because the original intent of these forums was to be able to have an interchange of ideas, pro and con, on certain things. We have heard a very strong case in terms of the ineffective use of the precautionary principle to this point; looking over the documentation from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, I see they have taken an opposing view and I am disappointed they are not here today. I will be trying to petition committee members individually, but I think they need to be here. I think the chamber needs more than just some papers making suggestions contrary to what we have heard today. I will be respectfully lobbying committee members to see if we can't more strongly encourage the chamber to bring those views.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If I may interrupt, allow me to say that they were invited--

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

Yes, I know--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

--and they did decline.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just so you know, they were invited.

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

This is one of those moments. I put this to the members: how critical is the notion of precautionary principle as a foundation piece to CEPA, as a foundation piece to the way that we approach what we do with chemicals? Mr. Stoffman, could you start us off?

[Larry Stoffman]

How critical is it? I think, as I said before, it's the basis of public policy in public and environmental health. If you don't address it and don't commit to it with respect to very significantly harmful toxins, I don't think you have a foundation at all. I'd say that you can't have effective environmental protective legislation without having the precautionary principle as its foundation.

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

Before we hear another piece, this notion of sound science seems to be placed...not in opposition, but seeking to have a criteria level that seems almost impossible to meet. Could people explain that a little more?

A lot of business groups will say they're all for the precautionary principle; it sounds great. Just use science--number one--and cost effectiveness--number two--in your application. In the Canadian experience, I would suggest that has been an abject failure in terms of protecting Canadians from some of the most critical harmful substances. Could I get a comment?

[Bruce Lourie]

What I have highlighted around sound science, and what has contributed to that failure, is the fact that there is such an expectation for certainty and clarity in the science that doesn't exist in the world of science. It only exists in the world of policy, or how industry would like to see policy.

It's almost as though it's contrary to be talking about sound science in the CEPA scoping paper, while at the same time asking us to comment on precaution; they are almost contrary.

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

If sound science had been applied to second-hand smoking, or smoking in general, would we be where we are today?

[Larry Stoffman]

Absolutely not. We'd be allowing smoking in all sorts of places--for example, in this room.

I shouldn't say “sound science”; it's unsound science. It's like Alice in Wonderland, right?

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

Yes, of course.

[Larry Stoffman]

Because those who argue that sound science means that we have to have absolute unequivocal evidence, with no contrary evidence, aren't scientists; they're politicians or lobbyists.

I work with scientists every day. The people on our committee include, for example, Dr. Paul Demers, who was one of the leading epidemiologists in Canada and is on the IARC panels in Geneva at the World Health Organization that classify the carcinogens we're talking about, and Paul is a well-known classifier. So Canada references these same classifications in this legislation right across the country. Paul wrote the piece on best practices about that, saying that in fact if we want to talk about identifying risk.... In our world today, it is not science at all to say the risk is x or the risk is y. It depends on who you're talking about.

We didn't talk today about vulnerable populations or people who are more exposed and people who are less exposed. We're worried about protecting people from a reproductive hazard or a carcinogen. If they have no exposure, then we don't really have to worry about it. But we know that across the country there are pockets and elements in communities, or whole groups of people, that are at higher risk because they are exposed, and that's where you take action and that's why you use precaution.

So if somebody wants to argue with me, or with the health scientists we work with, about sound science, not only would we not have moved on secondary tobacco smoke, but also not on tobacco legislation at all, because the industry always claimed there wasn't enough sound science to even label it. We wouldn't even have moved on pesticides, to which there was reference made earlier.

If you use the term “sound science” to mean there has to be unequivocal evidence that people using cosmetic pesticides on their lawns are going to cause X, Y, and Z, we wouldn't have a municipality in the country that would have banned cosmetic use of pesticides.

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

It's an impossible-to-meet criterion, essentially.

[Larry Stoffman]

Yes.

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

If I can change our direction just for a moment, Chair, how much time—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. Moffet wanted to comment, so you are at six minutes.

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

Thank you.

[John Moffet]

I'll try to be brief.

I wanted to clarify for the committee that the term “sound science” doesn't appear in CEPA. So to a certain extent, we're setting up a straw dog. There's no obligation, and there's absolutely not an interpretation in the act or in either of the departments..... Well, there's no requirement in law or in policy for unequivocal certainty. I think any scientist—within the departments anyway—would agree that all of the risk management actions taken under CEPA were taken on the basis of uncertainty.

So we can debate about whether or not more should have been done, but I want to be clear that the departments are very transparent about the fact that they do not seek certainty, and they acknowledge that they cannot seek certainty. That's a recipe for inaction, and everybody agrees with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Benevides.

[Hugh Benevides]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sure John is right that the words “sound science” don't occur in the act. However, what Mr. Lourie was identifying was the reality of the kinds of activities and discussions going on in a swirling range of activity around the law. The law is just the centrepiece, of course.

In my presentation I made reference to barriers within CEPA, which this committee at least has the ability to make strong recommendations on. However, another place where this kind of language can be used is in the policies, directives, and guidelines that officials also make reference to—the set of the rules they have to follow. For example, there's a federal framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision-making, one that emplaces precaution—at industries' and governments' insistence—in the context of a risk management framework, whereas there's a fundamental disagreement that precaution is about doing things differently.

Now, that argument isn't so important, so much as how do we place more precautionary measures into processes.

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

I'm going to interrupt, if I may, just because I'm going to be running out of time. We'll talk afterwards. I want to get one more question in, but I know Mr. Lourie has a question as well.

[Bruce Lourie]

Very quickly, I think John was referencing the CEPA scoping paper, which does reference sound science. One of the headings is “Sound Science and Informed Decision-Making”, under CEPA on the scoping paper.

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

What's important for committee members to be considering, whether or not it's being officially popped around in Environment Canada, is that this is one of the debates that industry certainly brings to the table and it has to be explored by this group to understand what it means.

In the application the smoking debate or analogy is important. Carbon dioxide is coming into our debate in this forum and committee. I wonder if any of the panellists have any comment on the use of the proper application of the precautionary principle when applied to carbon dioxide, which is named as a toxin, quite controversially, under CEPA.