Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[Dr. David Boyd]

The reasons for that would really deal with political opposition to pollution taxes. The fact that other countries have been able to move forward with pollution taxes suggests to me that we need to find the political will to put those in place.

You could even compare us to the United States. In the United States, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, both of which are federal environmental laws, impose requirements on the states to collect taxes on air pollution and water pollution respectively. You can't find a more hostile country in the world to new taxes than the U.S. They've been able to put in place these pollution taxes, and I think it behooves us to do the same.

One of the problems that I've heard from speaking with officials at Environment Canada is that there's no explicit authorization for environmental taxes in CEPA as it stands today. There's reference to permit-trading systems and other economic instruments, but you won't find that specific authorization. I think it's really important to put that in there to enable us to move forward.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

You also talked about the hazard-based approach to substances, as opposed to the risk based approach. We have heard this a couple of times. Why do you support the hazard-based approach? What evidence do you have to support that it is a much better model or tool to use?

[Dr. David Boyd]

The basic difference is that for toxic substances for which we have information that they're carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction, or very persistent and very bioaccumulative, the European Union takes that subset of all toxic substances and says, “For these cases, we're not going to put the burden on government to demonstrate that there's a harm to human health and the environment.” It says to industry, “Look, we know that these substances have these toxic properties. What we want you to do is to provide evidence to us that these substances can be used safely, and that there are no feasible alternatives.”

It's really reversing the burden of proof for those substances. What that has enabled the European Union to do is to move more expeditiously in getting these toxic substances out of our economy, out of our society, out of our environment, and out of our bodies. I would like to clarify—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

A lot of people will argue that a risk-based approach could equally mitigate risk and could be just as effective.

What's your response to that? I understand the difference between the two. What do you have to support your claim that the hazard-based approach is a more solid approach?

[Dr. David Boyd]

CEPA has been on Canada's books since 1988. It was overhauled in 1999. With the risk-based approach we are taking years, and in some cases decades, to put in place the risk management measures that we would have put in place much more quickly with a hazard-based approach.

One example is asbestos. Asbestos was added to the list of toxic substances in Canada more than 25 years ago. We continue to allow its export, its import, and its use in a variety of products in Canada because we're taking a risk management approach. It's taking us decades. The same can be said for other substances, including PBDEs, phthalates, triclosan, and the list goes on and on.

Really, in the European Union, what they did was say, “Look, we know that all types of asbestos are carcinogenic; boom, they're all banned.” There are more than 50 countries around the world that have banned asbestos.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I noticed that you used that example in your list under legislated timelines and what happened with asbestos. Are you saying that in Europe, for example, asbestos is no longer used in brake pads?

[Dr. David Boyd]

That's correct. All uses were banned in Europe as of 2005. There were some exceptions allowed to continue, but all of those exceptions have now expired. The European Union has found substitutes for asbestos in brake pads.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That's very encouraging to know; I didn't know that.

The other thing you talked about was enforcement. I like your comparison that there have been more fines in one year from the Toronto Public Library than there have been under CEPA in 25 years.

Can you expand a little as to how you see that apparatus being set up? What's reasonable? Why aren't more fines being imposed? What can we do to strengthen the whole idea of enforcement?

[Dr. David Boyd]

Initially, the problem in Canada was that we didn't have enough resources for adequate enforcement. There weren't enough boots on the ground and in the field.

There's also a question of willingness to prosecute. That's why places like the United States, dating back to the Clean Air Act in 1970, have allowed citizens to step into government's boots, with appropriate safeguards in place, and enforce those critical environmental laws. Those safeguards are really important. In the United states, before a citizen can enforce the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, they have to provide the government and the alleged violating party with 60 days' notice. That 60-day period allows the government to take appropriate enforcement action or the alleged violator to come into compliance. Citizens cannot file enforcement actions in the U.S. if the government is already proceeding with enforcement, so that avoids the fear of double prosecutions.

By putting those safeguards in place, you can have a system where citizens are spurring government to increase enforcement. It results in higher levels of deterrence and higher levels of compliance.

Of course, some people fear that the courts will be overwhelmed with citizens trying to enforce these laws, but it's a difficult and expensive process. In the United States, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 environmental citizen suits a year. We're about one-tenth the size, so you could forecast between 10 and 20 of these in Canada a year.

The intention when CEPA was amended in 1999—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to get you to wrap it up. You have so much to share with us, but we have only a limited amount of time. I'm going to end it there.

Go ahead.

[Dr. David Boyd]

The last thing I was going to say is that the environmental protection actions in CEPA have never been used, and so clearly they're not working.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much for that.

We'll move to Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you Madam Chair, and I want to thank all the witnesses who appeared today, in person and on screen.

My first line of questioning will go to Mr. Bacon. I was listening to the last witness, and he talked about a hazard-based system as the correct way. In your presentation, you favoured the risk-based assessment in the food industry. I wonder if you could explain and expand on that a little more so I can get a clear understanding.

[Gordon Bacon]

It's our belief, and the belief of many, that we need a risk-based assessment. I'll speak about it from a crop-protection perspective and what the Pest Control Products Act does, which is very extensive.

Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in pre-market assessments, which brings in a critical component, and that is exposure.

There's a long list of hazards to our health. I have IARC's list of known carcinogens here: coffee, alcoholic beverages, sunshine—

For potential hazards, there is a long list, but you do need to bring into consideration exposure to those hazards to understand that risk. My view would be that we should have a system that takes a look at the toxicity of compounds as well as exposure.

In the case of crop protection products, it makes many assumptions about maximum levels of exposure, high-risk populations, the length of lifetimes, and multiple safety factors are built in. I believe a risk-based approach that looks at exposure is key.

A hazard-based approach can lead to confusion, and I would cite IARC. Some examples are cellphones and brain cancer, and processed meats and exposure. There are more recent headlines coming out of it that I think can confuse people as to what the risk is at a consumer level.

I think risk-based approaches that bring into account actual exposure are an important part of understanding what should be noted as a concern.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I notice that you mentioned the EPA and EFSA, as well as Canada's programs or people who are watching over that. Do you find that it's a benefit to the countries to harmonize their regulatory bodies in this respect, and where do you see Canada in the global picture compared to these two other agencies?

[Gordon Bacon]

PMRA, the Canadian agency, and EPA in the U.S., along with other groups, have taken a global approach to reviews. This does a couple of things. One is that it makes sure that technologies are evaluated quickly and at a cost-effective level, and then, if they pass the rigorous tests, they are made available to be part of the productive chain in the food system. I think there are some cost-effectiveness and time issues, but from a global trade perspective it's also very important that we have harmonized approaches.

As I pointed out, with pulses alone, Canada trades with more than 150 countries around the world, and we need predictable rules and a common approach to understand what products can be traded and under what rules.

In terms of global harmonized approaches, we have many examples in automotive fuel and other areas where we decide how we're going to evaluate a product, and then we can collaborate across borders. Food is a global business, and from our perspective, a harmonized approach is an important part of food security.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have two minutes.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

My third question I'd like to put to Mr. Boyd.

You were talking about a more stringent regulatory and enforcement concept. I read through the environmental protection alternate measures and things such as that, and I went through all their data for the last 25 years. Our agency, CEPA, has basically gone the way of warnings versus the way of charges, and there's a format. In the policy it says they can go by way of warning or through charges, and so on. However, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is practising alternate measures very similar to what we do in the criminal justice program with young offenders and so on, because it's a better way of making people comply than just going out and charging them. In working with the agency to ensure that they change their ways, they become more compliant.

As a policeman for 35 years, I've been very involved in that, and we found it to be very effective, especially with aboriginal communities and in community types of justice.

I wonder if you would comment on that. I thought you were being a little heavy-handed there.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Yes, I agree with you. There is a range of enforcement tools available under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We should, and we do, make use of many of those tools.

However, at the end of the day, when people are breaking the law, my opinion, which is shared by many Canadians, is that those people should be charged for breaking the law—not all the time and not as the exclusive tool, but as part of that range of tools. Failing to use that stick that's in the toolbox is one of the reasons Canada continues to have problems with pollution and toxic substances and why we have such a significant environmental burden of disease.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan is next.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I want to thank all three of the witnesses. I appreciate your making yourselves available.

I think I only have time for questions for Dr. Boyd, but I do have a request for Mr. Butler. I really appreciated your concerns about biotech and particularly with aquaculture. When I just quickly look at the act, it looks like the definition of disposal is awfully narrow, so I would certainly welcome—and I'm sure the rest of the committee would—any recommendations you would have for changing that part of the legislation to address your concerns.

I'm sorry to pass the work to you, but I appreciate any input you can provide. Perhaps you could confer with other people on the west coast as well.

Dr. Boyd, thank you very much. I really appreciate your long list. I look forward to getting the details. As probably the only member of the committee who actually was involved in the negotiation of the first act, I'm really discouraged that there are parts of the act that we still haven't improved.

I would appreciate some feedback from you, and possibly from Mr. Butler as well, on any recommendations you have on part 9, which is about the federal and aboriginal lands. It's a huge gap in the law because there are areas, including on Indian reserves, where there are essentially no pollution control laws. It's a bit stunning that for fenced lands, parks, and aboriginal lands, there's a big gap because the provincial laws don't apply. If you could talk to your colleagues, I would welcome any ideas. We've just never improved that part of the legislation.

Dr. Boyd, I would like to ask you questions in two areas.

One is under part 3, where both the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health have obligations of mandatory duties for monitoring.

Interestingly, there are two provisions: sections 45 and 55. Under section 45, the health minister actually has a mandatory duty to conduct research and studies when any of the toxins may cause impacts to health. There are a lot of first nations, including in northern Alberta, who have been putting in a request for the last 20 years for the federal government to initiate a health study. I'm surprised that the minister has not stepped up to the plate and delivered on that, and I'm wondering if you've pursued that.

I'm going to give you a lot of questions, and then you might want to combine it together, because I only have six minutes.

I've actually requested that we get in some leading scientists to talk about cumulative impact. Under the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I think that there's an area where the federal government is really dropping the ball. Even though that's a mandatory duty, we don't seem to have had major federal engagement in cumulative impact.

I'm pleased that you're concerned about health. My final comment is that specifically, when we did the review of emissions from coal-fired power and gas and so forth in Alberta, the team actually agreed to my recommendation that we include a “hot spots” protocol, which the Government of Alberta, to its credit, has implemented. That requires that when you have a concentrated industry—it may be fracking, oil sands, or coal-fired power—there are triggers for a concerned community to request reviews. An example would be if there is new science that suggests further review of these emissions and if there's a poor compliance record.

I welcome any of your feedback on that area of health and a response to those questions regarding the various duties of the minister.

Thank you very much for all your proposals, and of course I welcome all your recommendations on enforcement and environmental rights. Thank you.

[Dr. David Boyd]

Thanks very much. That's quite a handful of questions.

In terms of Health Canada, one of the things that Health Canada has started doing in recent years is a national biomonitoring study, which is a study of which chemicals and in what concentrations are actually being found in our bodies. That's an important step forward, but there's much more that can be done.

In terms of the big picture of environmental health monitoring, what European Union countries and what the United States have done is created what they call national environmental health surveillance systems, which are comprehensive systems for monitoring the emissions and releases of toxic substances into our environment and our communities, the exposure of humans to those toxic substances, the adverse health impacts of those exposures, and finally, the policies that are in place to reduce the emissions, releases, and exposures.

Canada has pieces of that in place. In my brief, I will include a section that draws on the experiences of those other jurisdictions, as well as Quebec, which is a national leader in Canada, to create a national environmental health surveillance system. It's something that's really important, because if you don't have that information, then how do you determine what your priorities are in terms of regulation and enforcement?

I think that the issue raised about pollution hot spots is a really important one. It goes back to the issue of environmental justice, that there are marginalized and vulnerable communities and populations in Canada that are really bearing a disproportionate burden of pollution in society.

This is an area where the words “environmental justice” are not to be found in any federal law, regulation, or policy in Canada; whereas, the United States has been dealing with this for 30 to 40 years, and so have some European countries.

This is a huge opportunity that we have before us now to put environmental justice into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in ways that really make that meaningful and that give government the tools and the mandate to protect those populations and those communities.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is that it for my time?