Environment Committee on June 9th, 2016

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

So that is another aspect that could be added to incentivize industry, such that after a given period of time, that's it. Would you agree that that would be another great addition to have? Okay.

Nalaine, I'm concerned to make sure that indigenous people are consulted on CEPA moving forward. One of the biggest and most difficult aspects of that is the collection and use of the traditional knowledge in indigenous communities. Can you give us a recommendation on how you think we could create and utilize a database for that?

[Nalaine Morin]

That process would be very much site-specific or region-specific. One of the things we've been working with is looking at current standards for the collection of western science, and looking for opportunities to develop something similar for the collection of traditional knowledge. These options would help to ensure that we have similar backgrounds with regard to these different bodies of knowledge.

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

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have 30 seconds.

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

Can you expand once again, from a traditional knowledge standpoint, on how that can be incorporated into CEPA and add value to the legislation?

[Nalaine Morin]

I would expand the definition of traditional knowledge within CEPA to include the development of a specific framework that provides some general principles on how to collect what you're collecting and some further definition.

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

Okay, thank you very much.

Could you please add any written submission that you think would help to expand upon that? That would be very much appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thanks, Mike.

I should recognize Mr. McDonald, who's joined us at the table for the questions as well. Mr. Long had to go, so Mr. McDonald's here. He's heard what a great committee we have and here he is.

All right, Mr. Fast, you're up.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much, and how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have six minutes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Wonderful.

I'm going to spend most of my time directing questions to Ms. Morin.

Thank you for being part of this discussion. I appreciate the fact that you emphasized both science and traditional knowledge as being critical to making informed decisions. I took note of your comments as you were discussing the environmental review process, and I think I have your quote right, “the information that is being presented by the first nations gets limited consideration”.

You didn't get a chance to expand on that too much, and I invite you to do that.

What is that a function of? Is it the fact that due consideration isn't being given to first nations' input? Is it related to an unwillingness or an inability by the regulator to receive that information? Is it a function of traditional knowledge not being properly defined within the act itself? When I say the act, I mean CEPA. Could you expand a little on what you meant?

[Nalaine Morin]

I think it's a combination of a number of those factors that you've defined, things like not having an understanding of what the full breadth and depth of traditional knowledge is compared to what we have established with western science in terms of some of the science-based decision-making tools, as well as how western science information is collected and how it's interpreted.

A number of those things are not available or don't exist for traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge in itself is also very much site specific and region specific, so the interpretation of those values can be different for these regions.

Let me take a step back. When we think about things like fish contamination or water quality issues, there may be regions where people don't eat as much fish or those types of fish are not available. Some of the general values that we apply through regulation may not work in certain situations.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Just to follow up on another comment you made, you mentioned that projects like run-of-the river hydro and, of course, mining on traditional lands have adversely impacted those lands and the first nations who live there.

Do you have examples of projects that you personally have been involved in as an engineer and as a consultant where the collaboration and consultation process was one that could be held up as a model that should be followed?

[Nalaine Morin]

I'm seeking a point of clarification on that. The examples of projects that I have spoken about in Tahltan territory changed the landscape, but one of the things we're also seeing is increases in health matters like instances of cancer and dementia.

There are a number of good project examples like the run-of-the river hydro project in Tahltan territory with the company known as AltaGas in the northwest projects. I believe that, in itself, is a good example of a working relationship between a first nation and a company.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'll direct a question to Ms. Scott.

You suggested that the distinction between risk-based assessments and hazard-based assessments wasn't necessarily helpful. I think you were suggesting, and I want you to clarify this, that in fact what is more important are the salient pieces of the act, as it may be amended in the future, that drive actions that achieve the desired results.

Did I get that right?

[Dr. Dayna Scott]

Exactly right.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Do you want to expand on that a bit more?

I will tell you, quite frankly, that there's been a fair bit of debate here at the committee. We have parties that have come forward and said the risk-based process is sufficient and is serving Canada well, and there are those who will say it's been a disaster and that we need to have a hazard-based approach. I'm trying to get my brain around the difference between the two.

[Dr. Dayna Scott]

Sure.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It would be helpful for you to flesh out exactly how you see this committee and government moving forward as we address some of the recommendations that may flow out of this committee.

[Dr. Dayna Scott]

I would say that the approach we have now, whether you want to call it a risk-based approach or not, is not working. It's not effective.

To give you an example, we can look at the CMP, the chemicals management plan, which identified 200 of the highest priority substances in Canada. These were substances already in use that raise the biggest flags with respect to persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity.

Out of those highest 200 from a list of 4,300 high priority substances, you would expect that a fairly high proportion of them would be designated toxic. When they launched the CMP, the government stated there was a predisposition toward finding toxicity for those 200. Over the course of the past decade, about a quarter of those have been found to be toxic, and of those, as I mentioned, a number of the most dangerous ones aren't even subject to regulatory actions to decrease their presence in our environment and our bodies.

In looking at that, I think we have to say there's something broken with the way we're doing assessments of toxicity and the way we're acting in response to those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I let that run over because that question is probably one that's in all of our minds, and it's the one we're most trying to get our heads wrapped around, namely how we're going to tackle that. Thank you very much for that answer. There's a lot more under all of that, I think, that we probably need to address, too.

Over to Mr. Fisher, and we'll see where you're going with your questions.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

As Mr. Amos said, there's a lot of stuff coming at us here.

Nalaine, you mentioned that remote regions in Canada are suffering. We hear in the news all the time about mercury in the north and mercury in remote areas. We know that mercury is listed as toxic under CEPA, and yet it's showing up in larger amounts in the north and in remote areas. Maybe it's because we're disposing of it incorrectly and it's being transported long range, maybe it's because CEPA is failing.

First nations' traditional knowledge is an amazing history of record. How do you feel we can better work with first nations groups and communities to strengthen CEPA?

That's why we're here to try and make this an act with more teeth.

[Nalaine Morin]

One good example of that would be to understand from local indigenous groups if there are changes to things like wildlife migrations, or wildlife health, and what that means.

One of the things I often hear from a number of traditional hunters is that they're seeing changes or effects within the deer, the elk, and the moose they're hunting. All of this information can only come from the people who are living on the land and doing the activity.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You spoke of the implementation of CEPA and kind of inferred that maybe there would be an enforcement issue. Ms. Duncan also mentioned enforcement, I believe. Maybe what I'll do is go to you, Dayna, and ask for your thoughts on the implementation of CEPA.

[Dr. Dayna Scott]

I address that in my brief in places where I think both the act as it stands is adequate to achieve precautionary outcomes and in places where the implementation of the act has fallen short. I also acknowledge places where I think the departmental officials doing the screening assessments right now are going above and beyond what's required in CEPA to try to account for, as an example, endocrine disrupting effects in a couple of the assessments.

I think it's both. We need new and stronger provisions that will give precautionary outcomes, and we have to make sure that the implementation follows those provisions more tightly than it has in the past.