Environment Committee on May 19th, 2016

[Beta Montemayor]

You have to take a look at, in context, what those releases really mean and what they represent. I think it's important to understand that materials are going to be released, and I think you have to look at how those releases are going to impact Canadians. I think making that assessment, hopefully one that uses the application of risk assessment and science, will inform the best placed risk management strategy that you can move forward to ensure that those substances are managed.

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

But that's failed at so many levels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mike, I have to cut you off.

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

How can you keep going back to the same type of assessment when you keep failing time and again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mike, I have to cut you off. I'm really sorry. We're at seven minutes, so I have to be fair with everybody.

We'll go to Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

That was a very interesting question. I'd like you to follow up with a little bit more of your answer on that. Please, take my time and answer.

[Beta Montemayor]

I was interrupted and I can't even remember what I was saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You were talking about....

[Beta Montemayor]

I think you have to come up with an understanding of what metrics you are using to evaluate whether or not those controls are accomplishing the risk management objectives they are outlined and identified to accomplish. I think CEPA has an inherent process that allows the government and Canadians to look back and evaluate the strength of those risk management options you've identified. I think we've done that in numerous cases. You've actually been able to demonstrate, and the government has been able to demonstrate, that there have been effective reductions. Sometimes those might not necessarily be to the degree that one might want, but I think there is evidence out there that CEPA demonstrates that you have the ability to assess whether or not that risk management activity is in fact accomplishing what it was designed to do, or whether a pollution prevention plan is working the way you intended it to. You have metrics in the system that allow you to make those determinations and to make a risk-based decision as to whether or not you have to continue with that course of action, change action, or implement another control if you find that the risk mitigation measures are not accomplishing the objective they were intended to.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I wonder if I could get a comment from Ms. Coombs on that, please.

[Shannon Coombs]

The way the act is constructed, there is virtual elimination and then there is prohibition. Virtual elimination is about limiting contaminants in an effluent, as an example, whereas prohibition is about banning the manufacture. That is what, I think, you're trying to get at. I'm not sure if maybe we need some explanation from the officials on what the difference is and how you get on the list. I think there is some concern about VE and that there have only been a few substances. It was mentioned that there is one, but I believe there are two that have been on the list since 2005. Perhaps that could help clarify what the criteria are, because maybe we could have some discussion on how we could manage that better.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Montemayor, Mr. Bossio cited a bunch of figures comparing out GDP with that of Massachusetts and other things. He was pointing out that we had such higher numbers than the United States did, yet the population of the United States is much greater than ours. In your experience, at the science level, can you give me an answer for why the numbers would be so different? We're saying that we are further ahead than the United States in many areas in our science and research, yet the numbers seem to say that we are very different. I wonder if you could clarify that a little, please, from the scientific end of it.

[Beta Montemayor]

I'm not sure if I can off the cuff, because I'm not aware of the specific data that was referenced. What I could probably do is to conceptualize the issue of the focus being simply on releases and measuring those. Releases are an important part of the equation, as we've talked about today, but those releases should be put into the context of whether or not we can identify a need to manage those releases. From our perspective, if you have a science and risk-based determination as to what controls make sense, where do you put your dollars to be able to control those releases? The difference is that the onus is on trying to understand the actual impact, the real-life impact of those controls, and whether or not there is a necessary requirement to in fact manage a risk associated with those releases.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I would just invite your responses to the more general question. I think the suggestion from Mr. Bossio, and certainly from Mr. Castrilli, is that what we have right now is a mess, something that is not working in any way to protect Canadians.

Your testimony table was that we have a system that's risk-based, that it is world leading and is recognized as such and should be maintained, with perhaps some minor improvements along the way. Is it still your assessment that CEPA, as it presently stands, should remain—not only the risk-based element of it, but the act as it presently stands? And if not, what elements of it would you specifically change to enhance the protection of human health and safety?

[Shannon Coombs]

As it currently stands, CEPA is doing a very good job. There were a lot of recommendations put forward by this committee in 2006. There was an interim government response in 2007, and there are a lot of things that the government has acted upon, some of which include cumulative assessments; taking account of cancer end-points in the risk assessment; dealing with vulnerable populations in the risk assessment; and making sure there are adequate funds for the CMP process.

There are a lot of things that we talk about today that have been implemented but they're just not in the act. So, no, I don't see any amendments at this time.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, could I just ask that the witnesses, the two consumer products associations, provide us with a response to Mr. Bossio's statistics and his assessment of those statistics so that we will have a fair evaluation at this table of what those statistics might mean?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

A balance of the two. Sure, that's fine. That will be good.

The last questioner is Mr. Choquette. You have three minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Since I have only three minutes left, I will get right to the point.

I have questions for the representatives of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

You may know that Linda Duncan, my NDP colleague from Edmonton, introduced a bill to establish rights to a healthy environment. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act does not really contain that environmental justice principle. Would you agree with adding it?

[Joseph Castrilli]

My apologies. I missed the very last portion of that. I missed the question.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I was actually asking what your point of view is on the environmental justice principle in the legislation. What is your point of view and what are your recommendations in relation to environmental justice in the CEPA?

[Joseph Castrilli]

In our written material, we indicated that we support the recommendations made by the witnesses for the non-governmental environmental organizations that appeared before the committee on, I believe, March 10. One of those recommendations included environmental justice principles.

I should tell you that the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which was founded in 1970, was premised on the assumption that existing laws to protect the environment then—and, I would add, now, 50 years later—are not self-regulating; that governments can only do so much; and that where the effectiveness of government regulation ends, it must be enhanced by members of the public having the ability to use various instruments, whether it's information-gathering, appeals, or civil actions, to supplement what government is either not able to do or not willing to do.

Environmental justice is a modern version of the principle that CELA was established on 50 years ago, so we obviously support it. We think it's past due that it appear in CEPA.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

My last question is about the National Pollutant Release Inventory. I spent hours and even years working on the issue of shale gas, and that industry is extremely complicated to understand. Many secrets and difficulties are stemming from a lack of transparency. As you know, certain sectors are exempted from participating in the National Pollutant Release Inventory, including the oil and gas sector. Could you tell me what you recommend for achieving a healthy environment? I think that all companies should be on a level playing field.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's a bit longer than I was hoping for.