Environment Committee on June 12th, 2006

[Paul Glover]

We attempt to make every effort to.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Has that been the case?

[Paul Glover]

It has, more or less. I wouldn't suggest that it's universal, but every effort is made to do that.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I guess the way you monitor and evaluate these things is very critical. Every time there's a possibility of a new government coming in, whether it is this government or another one, future governments, there might be a fear that you might sort of manipulate the data somehow by taking away something from the equation.

Is there a chance of that? Is that something you're concerned about? Do you see any indication of going in that direction?

[Paul Glover]

The International Joint Commission is a signed agreement between the governments involved. It is multi-year, to convince the governments to act on multi-year work plans. Those have sustained the test of changes of governments on both sides of the border through numerous years. Data can always be interpreted, but--

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

There's no fear on your part that somehow that information gathering could change in a little while, is there?

[John Moffet]

I've been an observer, not a member of government, for a long time, and I don't think you see a lot of manipulation. I think the issue with respect to changing governments, if I may--and Mr. Glover has spoken of this in a number of cases--has to do with the level of emphasis given to monitoring and reporting, and that is variable.

There are certain things that must be done under the act. We must assess and respond to the substance notifications. We must work our way through the categorization exercise. We must do PSL assessments in a certain period of time. We may do a bunch of other things, including science monitoring and reporting. Even if we must do reporting, how much do we have to do? If we must do monitoring, how much must we do? That, I think, is where you can see a degree of variability through the years.

[John Wellner]

Perhaps I may make a quick comment and answer that.

On the International Joint Commission and cross-border apples and oranges, it's important to note, with respect to Mr. Glover, that there are certainly greater opportunities than presently being recognized by bodies like the IJC. The International Joint Commission has commissioners assigned, but on something as important as the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement, their only mandate is to report the concerns of stakeholders on progress reports presented by the two governments at hand, the Canadian and U.S. governments.

We don't actually have an opportunity to evaluate the progress reports or to ask questions about them. We don't have a body that comments on the government's report on that progress. And as a measure of health it's certainly, in our view, insufficient.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start off with a comment to Mr. Smith. I found your toxic reports very interesting. I'm from British Columbia. Robert Bateman is very popular in the art world, as you know, and he lives in an area of Canada that you'd expect the chemicals in his body, the toxins in his body, to be minimal. I was quite shocked, as I'm sure he was. So I found the studies very interesting, and thank you for the efforts you've made.

I'd like to ask a question regarding the 93%. I think you used that figure in the Great Lakes area. I think Mr. Wellner also used that statistic. Is there consensus from Health Canada and Stats Canada and Environment Canada? Do we agree with the figure of 93%? I think that was where Mr. Silva was going. Is there consensus that we have 93% more pollutants coming from Canadian industry in the Great Lakes area than from the U.S. side?

[Robert Smith]

Environmental statistics are very much in their infancy in comparison with most other domains of statistics. Economic and social statistics have been around for a hundred years. One of the things that we've achieved in the economic and social statistics to a much greater extent, particularly in economic statistics, than we have in environmental statistics is international comparability, harmonization of concepts, harmonization of methods, and harmonization of data collection activities.

We're a long way away from that kind of harmonization in the world of environmental statistics. So I'm not in any kind of position to say 93% is right or wrong. I am in absolutely no position whatsoever to say that. But I can assure you that the quality of environmental data, as a general rule, in comparison with their economic and social cousins is of a degree of magnitude less.

I'm an environmental statistician. This is what I do for a living. Our view is that the numbers need to be interpreted cautiously and carefully. There's no doubt about it. I don't know whether 93% is the right number or the wrong number, but there are reasons to be careful in the interpretation of the numbers.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Then without using the term “93%”, in the Great Lakes area do we have substantially more pollution from Canadian industry than from the U.S.?

[John Moffet]

If I can refer back to the comment I made earlier, I don't think it's helpful to say there's more pollution or less pollution; the issue is what kinds of pollutants are there. Mr. Smith can correct me, but I think the point was made in the study about comparable types of industries. The idea was to compare the same types of industries; the point was that comparable Canadian industries emit more of certain kinds of pollutants.

This committee's looking at a wide range of issues. On a large number of specific toxic chemicals, Canada's track record on emissions levels is as good as, or better than, that of any country in the world. On smog-causing pollutants, NOx, SOx, VOCs, particulate matter, Canada's track record, by and large, is not as good as that of the United States. Some provinces are better than others; some industries are better than others. I think the point is that by and large, for smog-emitting, smog-causing pollutants, particularly in the Great Lakes, we're not performing to the same standard.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'll move on to my next topic, because I'm limited on time. It's regarding the substances that are being manufactured outside of Canada, being imported into Canada, and being used in Canada by Canadian purchasers.

Mr. Smith, in your report you said people who use computers--

[Rick Smith]

Yes--and Blackberrys, I regret to say.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a garment bag I picked up my clothes in. There are fumes coming off it. I'm not sure what they are, and I don't know if it was manufactured in Canada or overseas; I don't know where it came from.

We are using products that are imported into Canada. Do they meet the CEPA requirements of assessment or not? I thought I heard no, and then I've also heard yes.

[Rick Smith]

Can I very quickly correct something said earlier? The 93% statistic that I quoted was actually carcinogens. For known carcinogens, trying to compare apples and apples on each side of the Great Lakes, our assessment is that the Canadian facilities pollute 93% more. It is actually a narrower suite of chemicals than Mr. Moffet was talking about.

You referred to the chemicals in consumer products; in this area things have really fallen through the cracks of CEPA. I can go down a list of consumer chemicals that are in everyday products in our house; frankly, Canada is increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world in grappling with these things.

My son has squeaky bath toys--little rubber ducks and various little animals. The chemicals that keep those toys pliable are called phthalates. It's an example of a chemical that Europe is moving to phase out; they're of great concern in other jurisdictions around the world; there's been essentially no action in Canada.

Bromated flame retardants are painted on a lot of upholstery and are in a lot of computers. Again we see jurisdictions around the world taking action; there has been very little activity until recently in Canada.

I can go down a list of chemicals that are in your garments or on the chair you're sitting on. This is a particular area in which the federal government has lagged behind the rest of the world in risk assessment and attention.

In fact, I should tell you that in the last two years, in answer to a question from us directly to the federal government as to whether these things are even covered by CEPA, we've received two entirely different--diametrically different--answers. A couple of years ago we were told no; more recently we've been told yes.

At the very least, I would suggest the committee delve into this a little bit and assess the extent to which these things are covered by CEPA--or not. At the very least, it needs some clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will now go on to Mr. Bigras.

Hopefully, Mr. Khatter, you can get that in in a future question.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two brief questions. My first question is for Mr. Moffet or Mr. Glover.

In terms of the marketing and use of certain chemical products, I would like to know if the ministerial processes include a mechanism for pre-authorization of certain substances or products, a type of pre-authorization to market a product subject to a final assessment on the part of Environment Canada or Health Canada.

Can a product be pre-authorized based on information currently available, but then be withdrawn after the analysis has been conducted? One of the Commissioner of the Environment's reports mentioned pesticides that were registered but that could be withdrawn on the basis of assessments of their impact on health and the environment. Does the same apply to chemical products?

[Paul Glover]

It is not exactly the same procedure for new products. There is a process of notification and assessment.

When we see a product that will take some time for us to evaluate we can indicate that we need more time, and that essentially stops the clock so that we have more time to conduct that analysis. While we're doing that, the government has a number of choices. We can indicate that these are the allowable uses, while we're doing that evaluation, or we can indicate that there are no uses allowed until we conclude on our evaluations. So we have a choice, but there is not a pre-allowed condition. There isn't a pre-authorization that exists.

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

So some products can be used and marketed conditionally and then withdrawn at a later date. They can be used in some cases.

[Paul Glover]

No, we would not do that. There is no pre-authorization. If we have a new product that comes forward, we will assess it. If we find we need more time than is allowed, we'll say “Stop, we need more time. We can do the assessment.” If we are confident that some uses are reasonable, we can condition it for those uses only while further work is done, or we can limit its use to only those. So we have a choice.

The potential you are talking about should not happen.

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

Have you ever, in cases where there have been assessments, told companies that they had to restrict the use of a product? That is what I understood from your statement.

[Paul Glover]

Yes, of course.