Evidence of meeting #18 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cepa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
We indicated in our material that fracking is one of the areas that is exempt from reporting under the NPRI. Given the nature of the chemicals that are used in the fracking process, it's our view that fracking as an activity, and the chemicals it uses, have to become part of the NPRI. I think the explanations that the Government of Canada has given for not including fracking, including potential impacts on confidential business information, simply don't—pardon the pun—wash in the circumstances.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just to let everyone know, I have given all sides an extra minute for their questioning to ensure fairness.
I did want to have half an hour for committee business, but I understand that several people would like to ask another quick question. I will give each party three minutes for additional questions, but then I will have to ask everybody to quickly clear the room so that we can go in camera to do our planning.
We will start with Mr. Shields for three minutes.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I just have a couple of quick comments. First, we can't even agree on the adjective to describe our science. We have one saying “true” science and another one saying “sound” science. We can't even agree on what science is here, which I think is a fundamental problem we have. Having read a lot of science history, I know that it's your proven science until the other guy proves you're wrong, and he's the other scientist.
I think one of the things relate to what you said, Ms. Coombs, when you said that “one of the biggest problems we have is outcomes and the science” in terms of communicating with the public. To me, if you could explain that, it would be an important piece. I read every day about one scientist saying something, and then the next day there's another story in the newspaper that says something different. When we talk about what true science is, and what sound science is, it gets irrelevant to the public.
President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
As I had mentioned in my statement, we think there's a real opportunity for the government to provide more information to consumers in a meaningful way to let them know how the substances have been assessed, what it means to them in terms of their own health, and what the outcomes are, or what the government is doing for particular substances that have been assessed.
Mr. Bossio had mentioned earlier about 1,4-dioxane. It was assessed in CMP 1. It was in batch seven. It was deemed to be safe and not to be affecting human health, or that it was not coming into the environment.
When one of those situations comes up where you're raising a valid concern in your riding, sir—and I do appreciate those comments—there might be an opportunity for a mechanism under CEPA that you could use to provide information, if there are concentrations of that substance that are higher than what was assessed, for it to be reassessed under the provisions of CEPA.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Let's go to the other side. When we were talking science, you said “science” a lot and you said “sound science”. What's the difference between sound science and true science?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
Do you want to answer it, Beta?
Director, Environmental Science and Regulation, Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
I would say that science is science, and sound science is ensuring that you use the totality of the evidence before you.
The difference between the two is that you can have one scientist saying one thing and another scientist saying another thing. How do you balance that? From our perspective, we use the concept that it's not only the use of science, but also integrating that within thinking of the weight of evidence. The weight of evidence is really important. You have to take a look at the collective amount of relevant information, and you have to make a balanced determination collectively on all of that information, so that you can come up with a decision.
For me, the difference would be that sound science ensures the application of the weight of evidence in your decision-making matrix.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
The tag line “better is always possible” has been used of late.
I address this to either Darren or Beta. If the legislation can be improved to protect Canadians more, and I think you're probably getting a bit of a sense that there's some interest in achieving that, what can be done? Can we agree the legislation is not perfect, and it could achieve more protective outcomes?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
First of all, I think everyone agrees that no legislation in our system is ever perfect. When I put it in context, it was compared to what's happening in many other jurisdictions. In that context, we've achieved a lot, but one shouldn't rest on one's laurels.
When you pick up on the communication piece, one of the shortcomings is Canadians' understanding about what this process is and their ability to participate in it. This should be a system where we, as stakeholders, and Canadian environmental law protection organizations, and whoever else, should be easily able to submit our data, evidence, and arguments for consideration. Anything that improves the ability to make that debate robust, and open for reconsiderations where warranted, is important.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'd like to follow up on that.
Would you agree that Canadians' ability to participate fully, for example, in an upfront chemical evaluation process can be stifled when proprietary technologies and commercial interests around chemical technology are highlighted as being a reason for not providing all the information that the public might need to participate?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. If you were in a pre-approval process, where you have to bring a new substance forward and you have to go through a process, you would have to bring sufficient evidence to meet the threshold to indicate its safety.
One of the other parts of this discussion is highlighted by this question of definition. I think there is a great difference in the terms that we use and of our understanding of science, risk assessment, and hazard. Rarely do we see any forum convened for our kinds of organizations to sit down and have that kind of discussion to get the nomenclature right. Part of that communication is about whether we are even talking about the same thing in the same way, so—
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I appreciate that communications could be better.
My question is, can the law be strengthened in any way that the chemical industry or the product industry would appreciate? We've had the forestry industry come forward saying, yes, you can strengthen the law in this way.
Liberal
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Okay. I appreciate that. I'll simply say to CELA, then, that if there are any further written representations that they would like to make in regard to any of the testimony they've heard, that would be appreciated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll make that as a general statement at the end.
I want to give Mr. Choquette one chance for three minutes, and then we'll be fairly distributed.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I will continue with questions for the representatives of the Canadian Environmental Law Association because my last three-minute period went by quickly.
In the letter you sent to the committee, you say the following:
Clarifying the Act with respect to what triggers the need for an assessment of a substance (other than the categorization process) because existing provisions of the Act including ss. 70, 71 and 75(3) are not adequate for this purpose;
You say that they are not adequate, or others said that and you added it to your letter. Could you elaborate on that? Why do the triggers seem to be inadequate?
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
The letter of May 12 was a summary of the testimony that was given by the environmental groups that appeared before the committee on March 10. The reasons why sections 70, 71, and subsection 75(3), among others, are not working adequately is probably something that is best provided by us in written form, as it's not a short answer. We would be happy to do that, sir.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
I'm sure that the committee will also benefit from a written response you could send concerning triggers for assessing a substance.
In closing, I see a bit further down in the summary of the testimony that the definition of toxicity under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, does not seem to take into account endocrine disruption. Is that correct? If so, what do you suggest?
Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
I think we have two issues—or at least two—with that.
During the course of the categorization process, endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity were not human end points that were mandatory for evaluation in that process, but if there was data available on those points, it was considered during that process. If there was no data with respect to those end points, the government did not invoke some of the other provisions of the act, such as paragraph 71(1)(c), to require that either the information be provided or tests be performed. In that sense, with respect to the existing substances portion of CEPA and the CMP process, the evaluations that went forward left out neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption.
The same problem essentially applies in the context of new substances under section 80 and subsequent sections. There again, the opportunity to request that information is available to the government, but it often is not invoked, in part because of the language that appears not only in section 71, but also in sections 84 and 85—
