Evidence of meeting #22 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.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just wanted to give you a suggestion from what they've done in Alberta. In Alberta, in the CASA process, we had a whole framework for emissions from the electricity sector. A provision in that overriding framework is that when any new scientific information comes to light about any of the substances being regulated, the government is obligated to open up that process to anybody who wants to participate. It's not so much that the government has the obligation to do all that new work, but they have an obligation—and the industry or whoever's using the chemical—to watch for any new information and to bring that to the attention of the government.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I'll go back to windows of vulnerability and the research that you've done there. Tell me about it, because that's an interesting topic.
12:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
It's pointing out that the approach that toxicology has taken conventionally refers to the average Canadian. What would their exposures be, and at what exposure would we start to see health effects? This research really is pointing out that each of us at different developmental stages in life goes through these windows of vulnerability at which the threshold for health effects for the average person is really irrelevant, because really low doses might affect us. In utero is such a time, as are puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, where there would be these different windows of vulnerability at which a very low dose might have a much bigger effect, either later in that person's life or more immediately.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
One drink of alcohol at a certain stage of pregnancy can result in drastic results. Is that the kind of what you're saying?
12:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
That's right. It's that kind of thing. There's a whole body of research now called FOAD, which is the fetal origins of adult disease, talking about these in utero exposures that might be at extremely low doses, but could be producing diabetes or some other chronic disease much later in life.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
This has been a fantastic discussion so far. Like everyone else, I'm thinking, where do I start?
Once again, CEPA was set up for pollution prevention, the virtual elimination of toxic chemicals, and the precautionary principle. In light of that, please respond to the notion of hazard-based versus risk-based assessment.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
I think it might not be the most helpful distinction. My own assessment is that CEPA as it stands now is more of a risk-based regime, and that we should be moving closer to a hazard-based regime. I don't think there's a stark bright line there that we need to pay attention to. I think we can work towards amendments to provisions in CEPA that will move us closer to a hazard-based regime. It falls short, for example, with respect to low doses that are implicated in endocrine disruption. We want to pay attention to the hazard of endocrine disruptors because we know that very low doses are critical. This more risk-based approach says that there's a threshold below which health effects won't occur and that people can make choices as consumers on whether or not they accept the risk. This is not the right way to go.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Once again, we're talking precautionary, not post-cautionary.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
That's right, yes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Also, with respect to new evidence of toxicity in a product, would you agree that any OECD evidence of an intention to outlaw a toxic chemical should create an automatic re-evaluation of that chemical?
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
Yes.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It should be clear in the law that there is a duty to watch for that new information. There is a provision in CEPA already that people tend to ignore, a section that imposes a mandatory duty on the health minister. It says that where any information comes to her attention of a toxin that might impact health and the environment, she is obligated to initiate a review. You might want to review and supplement that section. It's also important to keep in mind that we're not just talking about chemicals in products. This law that also regulates emissions from energy sources. These are quite different kinds of processes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I agree. CELA came with a very good description of the levels of pollution that Canada is generating compared with the U.S. It just blew me away when I saw the levels.
How do we incentivize industry to create alternatives, because they keep coming back right now and saying there's no alternative? They keep doing that because they already have a very good chemical and they're making high margins or good profits from it. How do we create a regulatory regime that forces compliance? That question is for either of you, but please make it short because I have a further question.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
I think you make it mandatory in the risk-management phase. The safe substitution principle would say that if the substance is toxic, the burden would be on industry to demonstrate that they've investigated the alternatives and that there is nothing that they could use that would achieve the same social purpose.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
There isn't that duty right now.
