Environment Committee on June 7th, 2016

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

I don't think, at least at this point, that we would propose changing the definition of “toxic” or “substance”. Someone else may have ideas for how to improve it. It is difficult. You can go to a pure hazard-based one, but that has problems . You can emphasize risk more.

Yes, the word “toxic” does cause confusion, but what you do with it is probably more important than how you define it. It's about making sure that the tool box is appropriate and is used appropriately, given the breadth of that definition. In terms of “substance”, for example, at one time plastic bags were proposed as a substance that should be assessed under CEPA. You could use “refrigerator”.

Yes, it is very broad, for various reasons. You have to keep that in mind when you decide how, within that constraint, you force some actions to occur.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm assuming that both of you support retaining a risk-based approach to assessment rather than a hazard-based approach.

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

Yes.... There—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Sherry? My time is short.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sherry Sian]

Yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

I have one last question. This is for you, Ms. Peart.

The fourth suggestion you made was to modernize triggers for CEPA assessments. You suggested that a decision should perhaps be based on a trigger that goes beyond Canada, so that any trigger that is triggered within the OECD, say, would trigger an assessment in Canada. Are we not actually sacrificing some sovereignty by doing that?

[Andrea Peart]

I certainly don't think so. The point is not to automatically follow suit with an OECD country, but rather that if there's a substantive restriction or regulatory change in an OECD country, it should trigger a CEPA assessment, in which case it would be assessed here.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have 30 seconds. Do you have a short question?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I do, and it's just a comment.

Mr. Cullen suggested somehow our trade deals have always been tied to the trade in asbestos. In the four and a half years that I was trade minister, not one of the trade agreements I was part of negotiating was ever tied to the trade in asbestos. I just want to assure this committee of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

This question is directed towards Ms. Sian.

Back about 10 years ago when CEPA was reviewed, recommendations came from the committee that the law be amended to include recognition of the need to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children. There was direction to consider vulnerable groups in the risk assessment process.

The amendment wasn't made.

Similarly, there was a recommendation that the government amend CEPA to add a paragraph recognizing the need to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

Does CAPP agree that this type of reform would be valuable?

[Sherry Sian]

I think it would have some utility in terms of being introduced in the preamble to the act to serve as a guiding principle for application.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay, so it would be in the form of preambular language only?

[Sherry Sian]

That's not to say that it couldn't be done, and I would probably have to look at a proposal, but I struggle to think how you would write all those elements into regulation.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for that.

If CAPP or the Mining Association of Canada has ideas on how vulnerable populations and vulnerable ecosystems could be better protected through the CEPA architecture, I would welcome any further written submissions.

Moving on, I want to go to a recent report of an Environment Canada study that found that secondary organic aerosols are produced in tremendous quantities by Canada's oil sands. I'm quite happy the science was made public. I think that's important. It's a matter of public interest, of course.

What is the response of CAPP to this study?

[Sherry Sian]

We are encouraged to have new research come into the public realm. Further consideration in terms of further analysis and further monitoring of implications of that study....

Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance is probably better positioned to answer that question, so you may want to consider following up with them.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Sure.

I would also invite CAPP to comment if they have any written submissions they would like to make in terms of how this study's findings ought to cause us to reflect on any aspect of CEPA reform. I'll leave it in that open-ended sense. It's a matter of significant concern of course, and I think this is an issue of great public interest.

I have a question for the Mining Association of Canada. I know the issue of effluent regulations has been a controversial one, and this question is about toxics.

Does the Mining Association of Canada feel there could be changes made to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations with a view to minimizing toxicity in vulnerable ecosystems, particularly aquatic ecosystems?

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

There is a review just being completed, or it has been. The consultative parts have been completed. We're waiting with bated breath to hear where Environment and Climate Change Canada landed.

The current MMER is underpinned by environmental effects monitoring, so the impact on a particular ecosystem is actually.... At least we are gathering data. There is analysis of that data, and compared to a lot of other sources, there is probably a lot more. Hopefully that will inform the next iteration and result in improvements in monitoring as well.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay.

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

But that's under the Fisheries Act.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Of course.

As a follow-up to that question, to the Mining Association of Canada, I know there are a number of organizations that feel that the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations effectively allow the sacrificing of water bodies, that they effectively just enable the writing off of a lake in relation to a mining project.

How do you react to that criticism?

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

Are you referring to schedule 2 of the MMER?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's right.