Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You made a comment about product coming in via Internet purchases. I understand the criticism of Health Canada for that, but realistically, if you're ordering something, quite often you don't even know if you're ordering it from China or from wherever it's being shipped.

What's the realistic expectation that we can get some kind of handle on that with the globalization of individual retail purchases now?

[Julie Gelfand]

You need to know that Health Canada is working with other OECD partners on a project to try to figure that out, because it's not just Canada that's dealing with this risk, it's around the world. Luckily Health Canada is working with other partners in the OECD to try to figure out how to get a handle on the risks.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I appreciate being here today. The reason I am here is that I took great interest in the gas tax. I've been a former mayor and city councillor and worked with the FCM on the mayors' caucus for the implementation of this tax. In 2005 it was brought in under Paul Martin.

I want to put some context to this. I was at the table when we were developing this and advocating for it. In 2007, it was doubled and we worked with the FCM and all of the municipal organizations across the country. It was stimulus funding. We were in a global recession. We wanted to make sure there were shovel-ready projects.

The environment was part of it, but looking at it from a climate change perspective was not. Of course, we wanted to make sure that it was good for the environment. There were communities, however, especially in the north, that had to build roads. With the permafrost, the roads were sinking. Looking at what happened in 2014, especially to the northern communities, I can tell you that we broadened the possibilities .

I have seen some comments that Canadians don't know what results have been achieved for the money spent. With respect, the Minister of Infrastructure was out in B.C. announcing 57 projects under the gas tax. Let's look at what came out of that. Halifax was able to improve public transit and buses. In B.C., we had a wastewater supply upgrade, a new water treatment facility, a bioenergy district heating system, a recycling plant, improved asset management, sanitary sewer, environmental flow, stormwater management, and closing a landfill. I don't know how these things aren't seen as positive.

I don't know that we're looking at this through the proper lens. There were significant environmental elements in these projects. It was never supposed to be the role of the federal government to oversee every single project. That's why we had the provincial organizations. That's why we worked very closely with the FCM, which was monitoring all of these things. All projects went through an environmental assessment by the province, the city, and the region. So there's every single layer. These are the facts—this is how it happened.

I'm wondering why none of this was included in your audit.

[Julie Gelfand]

I'll try to answer your question as well as Mr. Fast's. In the infrastructure audit, we looked at the objectives and whether or not you could report them to Canadians and to Parliament.

In the first round of the gas tax fund, it was said that there would be cleaner air, cleaner water, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Do we have cleaner air? Do we have cleaner water? We don't really know, because there was no set of performance indicators. For 2014, yes, the objectives were broader, but there were still no performance indicators that could be used to wrap up the outcomes coming in from the provinces and report back to Parliament, to Canadians, on the impacts of this money.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I think closing a landfill is pretty significant.

[Julie Gelfand]

We know that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities provides funding to municipalities and can trace the environmental benefits, reduced greenhouse gases. We're suggesting that if you set out an objective for your fund, set out criteria so that you can report on your performance. That's all we were looking for.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Yes, and I think that as municipalities and mayors and councils, we didn't want the federal government.... That's why it was set up the way it was, as I stated earlier, through the FCM, and all of those things were undertaken.

With regard to the waste water and sewage treatment and all of those things, it's not rocket science that it's environmentally better for where we're going.

I want to make one more comment in terms of flood-plain mapping. I'm curious about this, because I know that in every city it's mandated under the official community plan, the OCP, that you have a flood-plain management plan. I wonder if you are connecting or would connect with all of the cities that have that, because everybody has an OCP; all the flood plains are identified, and usually there's flood- plain mitigation and you can't build on the flood plain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, but we don't have time for the answer.

Thank you very much.

The next round goes to Mr. Bossio.

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

The whole issue around cosmetics and consumer products really gets to the heart of the multiple discussions we've been having around CEPA with regard to the chemicals management plan and the virtual elimination of toxic chemicals, these bioaccumulative chemicals. One of the key aspects of that is this whole notion we have today that everything is based on risk-based analysis rather than hazard-based analysis.

I couldn't agree more that as a government we can't afford to test every single product out there that comes onto the market, but if we took a hazard-based approach, then we would put it on the industry to do that, whether it was the chemical industry that is creating these chemicals that the consumer products companies are then utilizing or the consumer products companies did it themselves or ensured that it was being done.

The federal government's duty includes protection of the environment and human health through the application of the precautionary principle. Ms. Gelfand once again is highlighting that this is not being done today. From a Health Canada standpoint, what tools do you need to ensure that we are following the precautionary principle?

I'll use the example of 1,4-dioxane. This is a chemical that exists in cosmetics and that has been shown to be a toxic carcinogen. Not only is it on the consumer products side but these products also end up in landfills and contaminate surrounding water that ends up contaminating residential wells.

Many people have heard me talk about this many times, but I've spent the last 20 years fighting the expansion of a landfill, because the old landfill was leaking 1,4-dioxane into the environment. There's no drinking water standard for 1,4-dioxane, and therefore, the company has no need to report that this is actually contaminating people's wells.

What tools do you need to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen and so that we can virtually eliminate these chemicals not just from drinking water but also from consumer products?

[Hilary Geller]

I will give a brief reply and then turn it over to my colleague Christine Norman, who's the director of risk assessment for the chemical standards program.

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

Could you give me a quick response to the question?

[Hilary Geller]

I will be very quick.

I would just say, from the perspective of Health Canada, that the chemicals management plan does, in essence, take a risk-based approach that is by definition precautionary. We do look at not only the health effects of substances but the environmental effects as well, which would capture issues like potential effects on fish, etc.

Because we build in a level of precaution between the level of a substance we allow in a product and the level of effects, there is always a wide protective factor that is built in just by definition, and that's the way the program operates.

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

In reality, it's actually not working that way, because these chemicals still end up in our cosmetics and we don't find out until after the fact that it's happened, and then only because consumers have reported that they have huge problems. Then we rely on the companies to report that back to us.

I would argue that taking the risk-based approach is not solving the problem. Should we be taking a hazard-based approach?

[Hilary Geller]

If they ended up in a cosmetic, legally they would end up only at a level that would not cause concern regarding health effects.

With regard to your more general principle, if you don't mind, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Christine Norman.

[Christine Norman, Director, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

Thank you, Hilary.

Under the chemicals management plan, 1,4–dioxane is a substance we assessed between 2011 and 2016. It is an example of a substance that is high hazard, but the exposure to Canadians is extremely low. So from a risk-based approach, there is not a concern there for Canadians from a health perspective.

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

Is that even though it's been shown that it can actually cause sinus-based cancers? Of course, if women are applying that makeup to their faces on a daily basis, then how do you explain that they have found it is causing one of the cancers?

Also, the concern I have is that these chemicals end up in much greater quantities in our landfills because they're used in solvents, they're used in cosmetics, they're used.... So we're not looking at the bioaccumulative effect that these chemicals can be having.

For example, in other jurisdictions there are drinking water standards that are between 1 and 3 ug per litre, and here in Canada, from a drinking water standard, we don't have one.

[Christine Norman]

Limiting my comments to the CEPA assessment of 1,4–dioxane, I think there are backstops. I think we have demonstrated that there—

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

Okay, I apologize. I hate to cut you off.

But Ms. Gelfand, would you agree that a hazard-based approach versus a risk-based approach would help to alleviate these chemicals coming into our environment? Is that something you can comment on?

[Andrew Ferguson]

I think we have to defer to the department on that.

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

Okay, no problem. I get that.

I'd also like to add that I would invite industry, which is going to be reading this, to comment as to why it shouldn't be doing this kind of testing beforehand, taking a hazard-based approach rather than the risk-based approach that it takes today. The government can't afford to do it but there is no reason that industry can't be called upon, just as we do with our pharmaceutical industry. Once again, it's that kind of exposure that we're all concerned with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, you're right on the button.

Go ahead, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Gerretsen, I appreciate your comment because I well know there are communities that don't do it, and when everything goes to pieces, guess who gets the billions of dollars? It's not those who have done it, so you're absolutely right and I would advise somebody probably in that same mechanism: you were elected and you have a mess, yes, you bet; let it go and somebody will fix it and give you billions.

On your definition for 500 as a base, has that been changed over the 20 years, or was it the same number 20 years ago?

[Lori MacDonald]

No, that's a relatively new number from approximately 1996. What we do is take the requests from the provinces and territories for disaster—