Evidence of meeting #21 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.
12:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
That's a complicated question. I would not be able to fit it into one little period.
There are reasons for that provision being in the regulations, if only because in very many parts of Canada where mining occurs, there is a lot of water, so to place your mine and material safely, you have to move that water out of the way. That requires schedule 2 listing in some circumstances.
I would propose that I could either follow that up in writing or follow up with you directly outside of the meeting.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think it would great if you could submit that so that everyone can get it, if you wouldn't mind. I'd appreciate it for all of the committee members.
We'll go over to Mr. Eglinski.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the presenters.
My first question will go to Ms. Sian.
Earlier in your discussion you talked about the heavily regulated burden on industry in regard to the CEPA regulations. Partway through your discussion, you talked about automated data information—federal, provincial, and territorial. I wonder if you can tell me how CEPA could possibly be changed to make the legislation more comprehensive for industry, and how it could work better.
12:05 p.m.
Manager, Environment, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
It may require a bit of work and research in terms of understanding where current data sets reside and which portions could be used and integrated under the CEPA umbrella. I think that would probably be the starting point.
We do have reporting, as I said, that occurs by virtue of some of the associated terms and conditions for authorizations and permits and which elements of those may support broader management in terms of air quality, and particularly other substances listed under CEPA, but I think there's some work that would have to be done.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Okay.
I have a question on the regulatory regime, and I do have a third question I want to ask.
You have some large corporations within CAPP. In terms of Canada versus the United States, can you tell me briefly whether one regulatory body is more cumbersome than the other?
12:10 p.m.
Manager, Environment, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
In terms of Canada versus the U.S.?
12:10 p.m.
Manager, Environment, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
They're different.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
I know they're different. Can you tell me if one's more cumbersome than the other? Are we better, or are we more demanding?
12:10 p.m.
Manager, Environment, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
In some ways, yes. We've actually provided some analysis on regulations in Canada and those in comparable jurisdictions in the U.S. We'd be happy to provide that as follow-up, if that would be helpful.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Could we see a copy of that, please, so we can make a comparison? Thank you.
I worked in the oil patch for a number of years doing health and safety auditing in different companies. This relates to all three of our people here. Most corporations now have people working out in the field or in the cities, and they need to have training in first aid, dangerous goods, WHMIS, confined spaces, etc. There is all this different training that companies require their employees to have. A lot of companies require the employee to take this training before they'll even hire them.
WHMIS comes to mind. It deals with the everyday movement of chemical products within Canada. They have them listed. You have to understand the manual, which is about six inches thick. In whatever job or role you're doing for that particular company, you need to know what you are moving in or out and make sure that the movement is regulated within the company environment.
Ms. Laurie-Lean, you were talking about the term “toxic”, and I know one of the things that stands out in everything when you deal with WHMIS is that when something has “toxic” written on the label, people pay attention. How important do you feel it is—and Andrea might want to answer this too—to ensure that the people dealing with these materials, whether it's in industry or the general public, have that labelling?
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
Workplace hazardous materials information and labelling are not under CEPA.
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
It's under a separate law, and the terminology is very different. They attempt to convey information on safe use and handling and alert people to the type kind of danger. Some things you don't want to breathe, some things you don't want to put on fire, and some things you don't want to spill on yourself. That's the primary purpose of WHMIS. As far as I know, the GHS update does not incorporate environmental considerations.
12:10 p.m.
National Representative, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Labour Congress
I don't believe that to be accurate. The new GHS—WHMIS 2015—as it will be called in Canada, does include environmental protections—
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
Does it?
12:10 p.m.
National Representative, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Labour Congress
Canada implemented the system bilaterally with the U.S. and chose to make those environmental things optional so companies can choose to provide them or not. Most chemical companies as well as quite a lot of global companies are based outside Canada, and they're providing that information. The WHMIS 2015 is being implemented as we speak in a staged process. Many provinces are at different levels at this time. It's asymmetrical, but regardless, there are environmental protections under WHMIS 2015.
I would like to mention that only in Canada is there an exemption for consumer products under WHMIS 2015. An example is asbestos brake pads. A worker in the U.S. would receive a safety data sheet telling them they're working with asbestos. A worker in the EU would receive a safety data sheet telling them what they're working with asbestos. A worker in Canada would get nothing.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
June 7th, 2016 / 12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the presenters.
It's late in the game, so it's probably going to be hard to ask something that hasn't been asked before.
Andrea, you talked about BPA—bisphenol A—remaining in workplaces, and that their products are still out there, even after being deemed CEPA-toxic. Excuse me for not totally understanding the whole alternatives assessment thought. It seems to me, with my relatively low knowledge of it, that this could be a boost to our green economy. Can you elaborate a little on alternatives assessment?
12:15 p.m.
National Representative, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Labour Congress
I think it would be a boost to our green economy and our economy as a whole.
Exposure is high for women working with automotive plastics. We have five major companies manufacturing in Canada, and they're all going to do research simultaneously to look at alternatives, when there could be some guidance. Rather than that happening in parallel five times, there could be support for alternatives. BPA is present in a number of consumer products, and that is where some of the alternatives at the household level would be a real boost to a green economy and green economic growth in Canada, which is the fastest-growing sector of our economy right now.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes. I think that is interesting.
I will go to Justyna, if I could, for a couple of quick questions.
I am always interested in balance when we talk about environmental groups meeting with industry and looking for a happy medium. Can we clarify the act so that it would still ensure environmental protection, yet provide some efficiency for industry? Do you think it is possible that there can be a happy balance?
12:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
Yes, of course.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
It doesn't seem that you are pushing too far to the left and environmental groups are pushing too far to the right. It seems that there is the ability to work together. Do you have some suggestions on ways things need to be improved so that you can have that balance?
12:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
We are working with, or talking with, environmental groups, but the discussion is on other acts where we are much more impacted, such as the Environmental Assessment Act.
On something like CEPA, which is a many-headed beast and is more of an enabling act, there are conversations between industry and civil society, but they are of a different order. CEPA is much more an enabling piece of legislation, so a lot depends on how government discharges those obligations and what it does with the tools that are made available to it.