Environment Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay, go head.

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

Thank you.

I'll come back to the Cancer Society. In my riding, we have Queen's University, and they do quite a bit of research that relates to cancer. I'm trying to get a sense of what type of research is happening out there, and I'd be interested to know if, for example, it's predominantly focused on clinical treatment. Do you have any feedback on that?

[Gabriel Miller]

I can tell you that our research is spread fairly evenly across what we call the three ends of cancer—prevention, care, and quality of life and survivorship. I think it's more in the second area. One of the areas where there has been the greatest increase in research in the last, say, decade is prevention, because of the recognition of what we were speaking about earlier—that there is so much potential to save lives simply by stopping people from developing cancer in the first place.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, that's great.

Next up is Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What I want to do is carry on in the same vein and talk about asbestos.

You were asked what kinds of people are presently exposed to asbestos in Canada. You talked about those in the construction industry and those in the auto mechanics industry, and I think you got cut off there. Can you name some other professions where this is still a very serious issue?

[Gabriel Miller]

I actually have the list right here: manufacturing, construction, transportation and storage, and then a collection of other occupations.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

There are also many buildings across Canada that still have asbestos in them.

[Gabriel Miller]

Absolutely. Truthfully—and I think this goes to an earlier point—increasingly that's really where the risk is going to reside. There is no question that there has been a reduction in the active use of products containing asbestos. We feel that it's time to put a period at the end of that and say, “No more”, but the elephant in the room is all of the asbestos that is still out there in buildings. In many cases, we don't know it's there. In the event of a fire or an improperly regulated renovation, people can be exposed to dangerous levels.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Have you seen the bill on asbestos that was just tabled? You may have even had a hand in crafting it. I don't know.

[Gabriel Miller]

It's yes to number one, no to number two.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You may be back someday at either this committee or probably the health committee.

Carry on. It may not be your responsibility as the Canadian Cancer Society, but has there been any work done anywhere to determine what the scope of the remaining asbestos risks in Canada is and the related costs of addressing those risks? All buildings in Canada are eventually going to either be demolished or have the asbestos removed from them. What is the scope of that problem?

[Gabriel Miller]

I don't think I can give you a specific answer.

The way you framed it is interesting. The big project being worked on right now on the economic burden of occupational cancers looks at the associated costs, but it deals only with the costs of cancers from past exposure, and then of course there's the challenge of dealing with the active exposure from continued use of the product now.

One of the things some groups have called for—and I think it's definitely worth considering—is that as part of any plan to, first, ban the use of asbestos, and second, start getting a handle on how much asbestos is out there, there needs to be some kind of advisory group put together to develop an approach to measuring just how big a problem this is. There are actions we can take right now, but there's also a lot of information that still has to be gathered.

I think we're going to find that even though there will be costs, it will be worth it, because the fatality rate of cancers caused by asbestos is very high, as is the treatment cost. Managing this in a responsible way will pay off down the road.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We've had a fair bit of discussion at committee already within the context of the study on the use of alternatives for known toxic substances. I'm assuming that asbestos does have alternatives, even within industrial settings, and that those are being used elsewhere around the world.

[Gabriel Miller]

You're correct.

We've looked particularly into the two most common uses now, brake pads and pipes, and there are absolutely alternatives. Most of those products do not contain asbestos; there are only some that do.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

My colleague asked a question about smoking, and you mentioned that smoking was the number one cause of preventable cancer. Would that apply to the smoking of marijuana as well?

It's an honest question.

[Gabriel Miller]

I know.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's not about the merits of marijuana itself, but rather the health impacts of using marijuana, especially in smoke form.

[Gabriel Miller]

I don't know if you're going to buy what I'm going to tell you right now, but I'll tell you what I've found out, which is that there's no question.... Smoking anything exposes you to carcinogens. The evidence of a relationship between marijuana use and cancer is pretty weak so far, and it's not entirely clear why that is. One plausible explanation is that people tend not to smoke it in anywhere near the volume that they smoke tobacco—depending on the person in question—so the likelihood of its leading to cancer seems to be much lower.

We also have to remind ourselves that research in this area probably hasn't been as extensive as it might have been, because it was an illegal substance. It's something we have to keep a really close eye on, but it certainly isn't a carcinogen that is among our top concerns.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This question is to Melody.

In terms of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, in your recommendations you're suggesting these schedules and lists in the act be updated to reflect the additional PAHs of concern. Have you met with any resistance in doing that, and if so, who has resisted it, and what were the reasons for that resistance?

[Melody Lepine]

Personally, I'm not aware of any resistance to this idea.

I know that when we have asked for an increase in parameters in monitoring, in terms of toxicity and contaminants reaching our community, there has sometimes been some resistance from industry. They don't see that they're impacting us downstream. They may question an increase, in having more contaminants to monitor. That could be a potential source of resistance, but I don't see why.

When it comes to human health and our reliance on a healthy environment, I think monitoring.... Adding to the list of contaminants is important not only for my community, but also for all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Melody, thank you very much.

You're way past time. I'm being very generous here.

Mr. Bossio is next.

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

Melody and Phil, I heard you talking about the precautionary principle, and I'd like to delve a bit into that.

As you know, under CEPA most of the assessments are risk-based assessments rather than threat-based assessments, which take into account more of the precautionary principle and the bioaccumulative aspect of toxic chemicals.

I'd like your thoughts around that and how that might serve you in moving forward with studies around the bioaccumulative effects on your indigenous community in particular.

[Melody Lepine]

Actually, Phil has done some of this research. Maybe I'll get him to speak. He just explained to me some of the lab work he has done and how it really needs to apply out in the field.

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

Great. Thank you.