Environment Committee on June 14th, 2016

[Chris Bush]

I think we have to be careful how we do them. If we all go for, as someone said, a soft stick, if it's all about sticks, we're going to get in trouble. I mentioned the industrial symbiosis program. They take a novel approach. They go to businesses. They say, “You have resources that you're not getting full value out of. You have waste streams. You have these various things. Let's find ways to bring value to that, and we'll drive economic sustainability for you, and we'll add up the environmental benefits later.”

That is a very good approach. It's effective. Businesses buy into that. Again, if you suddenly pounce on an industry that has enjoyed this tremendous freedom for a very long time with very strong regulations—our average farmer is 59 or even 60 now in Canada—they may just quit. Then we would have a problem because we need to eat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I have to end that line of questioning. Sorry about that.

We'll go over to Mr. Cullen. You have three minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm going to pick up, I hope, where Mr. Amos left off.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Doyle, I almost want to suggest we call this the myth-buster study because of something that you referred to in terms of where Canada stands vis-à-vis the United States, for example. I think the myth in Canada is that our regulations in all cases at all times are better and at a more elevated level than those of our trading partners. I think, Mr. Doyle, you suggested that weak oversight, that if there were a spill in the U.S., the consequences would look dramatically different than if in Canada, and that some of that regulation with incentive has led to innovations just on the waste management within the agriculture community.

Is what I have said correct so far?

[Michael Burt]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Burt, I have a question around this average person affected as it's viewed in CEPA right now. We've heard testimony at the committee that this does an inadequate job of protecting vulnerable populations. Many colleagues have shared this concern, I think, around the table that if we're not using the right test subject, then we set limits of exposure that are inappropriate. That exposure to infants, newborns, to the elderly, to people who are sick.... If we're not using the appropriate subject, then whatever exposure rates we allow into the environment are inappropriate.

Would Dow be interested and supportive of the committee looking at recommendations to CEPA that would change that test, change that standard from the “average person”?

[Michael Burt]

We'd be very interested in working with the committee to look at the standards you're looking at developing, and how they would be based on a risk assessment. We're never going to be against an opportunity for us to get the science right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Does Dow see any concern at all with the use of that “average person” as CEPA is designed right now?

[Michael Burt]

In CEPA and the chemicals management plan, you do have the opportunity to request more data on specific subpopulations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One standard that we've heard, as compared to the European Union and to the United States, is the standard around bioaccumulation, chemicals that are made that Canadians are exposed to. The threshold in Canada allows for a much higher level of exposure to chemicals that we know bioaccumulate in our system. We have heard this relatively conclusively so far.

Would your company have any concern about at least reaching to the standards that are held by Europe or the United States with respect to bioaccumulation?

[Michael Burt]

I wouldn't declare that we would be in favour of any standard in any other jurisdiction without having a proper look at it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What about elevating Canadian standards?

[Michael Burt]

We'd have to take a look at—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The concern that we run into is that we're looking for specific recommendations on what to do with CEPA.

At the end of the day, the committee is charged with a task of writing a series of recommendations to ask the government to respond to. With regard to the caveats being offered up, I understand your concern that signing on to anything without details is challenging but at the end of the day, we have to make those recommendations. We've heard witnesses suggest that Canada's standards on a couple of these key components in CEPA are weaker. We've heard from the agricultural side, the chemical exposure side. We're going to need some recommendations.

The chemical industry has been hot and cold on this in the past on motions that we've moved through the House. Any specific recommendations you may have, considering what you've heard from MPs today, would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You've heard a couple of questions. You might want to give us more answers in written form to the committee. We'd welcome anything you may want to share with us now that you've heard our lines of questioning, to help inform us as we move forward on this study.

I want to thank all of you very much for coming and spending this time with us, and sharing your wisdom and knowledge with us.

We do have to go into a closed session to do some important report work. We're going to say thank you, and then we're going to go in camera. You'll have to exit the room very quickly.

I will suspend the meeting for just a few seconds and then we'll start again.

[Proceedings continue in camera]