Environment Committee on May 19th, 2016

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have 10 seconds. Nice try, though.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Ed would sit out. I think he'd be willing to sacrifice his time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Never.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Fast, you're up next.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

A casual observer of today's proceedings could conclude that we're dealing with two solitudes here. It's not only risk-based versus hazard-based approaches to assessment. It's also the conclusions of the various witnesses here as to whether our current system is working.

I listened to Mr. Castrilli, who listed a host of problems and changes that he would like to see.

Beyond moving to a hazard-based assessment process, he also highlighted the four principles that he would love to see incorporated in the legislation, including greater mandatory obligations on the government, especially with respect to pollution prevention; accentuating the role of the public, which I believe Ms. Coombs also referenced; establishing in the act unmistakably clear terms that the burden of proof rests with industry to establish the safety of existing or new chemicals; and then finally, a fundamental principle that because the law already requires application of the precautionary principle, in erring on the side of caution in its decision-making on the availability of chemicals, government must require an examination of alternatives as well as require substitution of safer substances.

Beyond those principles, Mr. Castrilli of course listed many different things that he feels are weaknesses in the current process and things that he wants to change.

Your opportunity here, as consumer product associations, is that we're doing this study in advance of what may be some legislation that comes down the pike. We're not doing it after the fact, where we're reviewing drafted legislation, so I have a question for both consumer products organizations. You've heard Mr. Castrilli's interventions here. Are there any items on his list of changes or improvements that your industries could actually support? That would be helpful for us as this study moves forward and we have to prepare a report on this.

Let's start with Mr. Praznik.

[Darren Praznik]

I think what it boils down to, in setting up a system, is that it should be about three things: science, science, science. At the end of the day, we all want to make sure that we're doing the right thing. That article I referenced said that suspicion should lead to investigation. Regulation has to be based on science. What's really important here is not that we have little rules that predetermine the outcome. We need to have a system that is robust and that allows experts with good knowledge to be able to make assessments on the basis of sound science. We, as industry and suppliers, can make our case. People like CELA can make their case. We can submit data; we can submit information. Then we need people to make a decision who are not influenced by industry or environmental groups, but are scientists who can make an honest decision on the basis of science. Then we all need to live with it.

Additionally, if science changes, if we get new information that says something that we thought was safe isn't, or something we thought wasn't safe is, that system should also be robust enough that you can revisit it and look at that new science.

We think the more open that process is in making it a science-based system, the better it will serve everyone's interest. These should be debates about science with adjudicators who understand science and risk assessment and can make those determinations. If that's the case, I think everyone can live with it.

Where you get into the battles on either side is when you're trying to put in little provisions here or there that tip the balance so that it isn't a science-based decision. I think that's where we lose. We've seen that in other jurisdictions from time to time, and that's where the criticisms of them are coming from. The more we can keep this to a science-based system and have these robust debates, the better it will be for Canadians and our environment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'll just ask the question again. I'm assuming, then, that there's nothing in Mr. Castrilli's suggestions that would be attractive to you for improving the current legislation, which is in fact risk based?

[Darren Praznik]

I would love to have an opportunity for us to sit down and chat, because we're in a position where we're putting out principles. We may not be understanding each other, so we probably have to do some work today. I'm not going to dismiss anything out of hand; but again, if you're making decisions on the basis of sound science, and you have a process that's robust, it should produce good, sound, scientific decisions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

My guess is that Mr. Castrilli would welcome that engagement with you. If this meeting actually leads to that, we've achieved something productive, I assume.

Ms. Coombs, could you respond to my specific question? Was there anything in Mr. Castrilli's list of suggested changes that your organization could accept?

[Shannon Coombs]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

I fear that red card.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'll give you 40 seconds.

[Shannon Coombs]

Okay, thank you.

To us, Canadians are confident about the products that they use. They and their ingredients are regulated. They are safe when used according to the product's directions. We have a lot of various laws governing our products, not just CEPA, that are risk based. That's the construct of how we provide safe and effective products to Canadians. I'm not sure I see our moving away to support anything that's not risk based. However, in the discussions going forward about how we look at reassessment—and I know there was discussion in March—I would point out that the Pest Control Products Act is a pre-market-approval process act. All of the assessments are done before those products are brought to market. On our part, we look at the CMP process as, once we effectively finish—

Oh, there's the red card.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, carry on.

[Shannon Coombs]

Once we see the assessments being completed in 2020, we will effectively be in a reassessment phase. The two departments have done a really good job of identifying what that evaluation process is and all the triggers they have for reassessment, some of which are legislated, like sections 70 and 75 of the bill, and also other feeders as well. I would encourage you to ask the departments to provide that information to you so that you can look at how they do that process without having anything formal in the act, because we think it's being done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's a good suggestion. Thank you very much.

We now have Mr. Bossio again.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I hear Darren's comments around science, but science isn't just the science of the day. It is also the historical evidence that suggests that biocumulative impacts are occurring in the environment.

If CEPA is working, then the numbers don't indicate that it is. When you look at some of the data points, you will see, for example, that California has the number one GDP out there, but has less than half of Ontario's onsite air releases of carcinogens. Massachusetts has a GDP similar to Ontario's, but has one-twentieth of those same releases.

There are similar numbers as well from the standpoint of pollution levels overall: almost 209 million kilograms are being released in North America, and Canada contributes 66 million of that. Releases into the air are 75 million kilograms in North America, with 31 million kilograms coming from Canadian facilities. When you look at the size of our economy and population, we are very overrepresented in the amount of pollution we're releasing into our environment and its impact on human health.

We're using risk-based assessments, yet microbeads got into the market and wreaked havoc. There are far more other new substances are coming down the pipe through the nano materials. We've been going down this risk assessment path, yet it doesn't stop these chemicals from being introduced. Even when the science comes along to say they should be virtually eliminated, they're not being eliminated.

Mr. Castrilli, they gave the industry side an opportunity to say what they would accept or to answer this whole question of the hazard- versus risk-based approaches, and I would like to give you that opportunity once again to talk about the hazard approach versus the risk-based approach to assessment.

[Fe de Leon]

I'll provide some insight into that.

There is a role for the hazard-based approach, which can be incorporated into CEPA. A heavily weighted priority is given to science when it comes to a risk-based approach. Often, the science doesn't always keep pace with the problems we're finding with chemicals on the market, so there's a delay in responding to those challenges.

From a hazard perspective, one of the things you can consider in the context of CEPA is being able to prioritize the opportunities for shifting from chemicals that demonstrate some sort of impacts on the environment and human health from a hazard perspective. I don't think you would get that in the context of solely relying on a risk-based approach.

That said, given that there are gaps in the science in the context of the risk assessments that are being conducted, one of the issues that does not seem to come into play as much as it should is the role of the precautionary principle. Where do you incorporate that when decisions are being made in the context of science gaps?

I'll leave it at that, and if Joe wants to add to it, that would be great.

[Joseph Castrilli]

Mr. Bossio, the summary that you gave of the levels of emissions that we're seeing, which we had set out in our material, I think constitutes an indictment of the risk-based approach. If the risk-based approach were effective, we wouldn't be seeing the kinds of increases in toxic substances that we saw in the six-year period since the CMP came into effect. There are two tables at the end of our speaking notes that talk about the data for carcinogens; reproductive toxicants and developmental contaminants; and persistent, bioaccummulative and toxic chemicals both on-site releases and off-site releases. But the CEC also allows you to evaluate data even more finely than that.

There's a further table that we didn't have enough time to complete but that we wanted to present to the committee. It's similar in format to the tables we did provide. That table is with respect to on-site and off-site releases of substances that are designated CEPA-toxic and are listed in schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The levels of releases and the percentage increases from 2006 to 2012 are comparable to what you're looking at on the tables we did provide. So, even in respect of the substances that have gone through the risk assessment process, have been deemed to be CEPA-toxic, and have been placed in schedule 1, we continue to see major increases in levels of omissions from year to year. In my view, the only way the risk-based assessment process can survive this kind of challenge is to reduce those levels to zero. If it can't do it, it's time to get rid of the risk-based approach.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'd like to throw it out to industry on that count. Here we have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mike, we're really almost out of time. So, be really quick.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

—massive increases in toxic chemicals. And even for chemicals that are on the virtual elimination list, no substitution planning has gone into that. These things have gone on for decades. So how does the industry respond to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have 30 seconds.