Environment Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[Phil Thomas]

Thank you.

Essentially, the precautionary principle just needs to move beyond the traditional list of substances, simply for one reason, talking about those PAHs.

We've often modelled the bioaccumulation of these compounds based on the 16 U.S. EPA priority substances already on the list. They are not bioaccumulative, and they're readily metabolized. However, we're finding that those alkylated forms of those PAHs do bioaccumulate. If you proceed based on an old list, we see they don't bioaccumulate, so it's not an issue, but if we just expand the list and look beyond those pure parent compounds, we'd see that in fact they do bioaccumulate.

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

You feel that instead of using a risk-based approach, using a threat-based approach would better capture that aspect you were just addressing.

[Phil Thomas]

Definitely.

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

As far as your ability to regulate eliminating these chemicals from the environment is concerned, if you could have them labelled as toxic and therefore have the whole virtual elimination aspect under the act, do you feel that if we incorporated environmental justice into CEPA it would give you an opportunity to address issues like that, issues that aren't being covered today?

[Phil Thomas]

I believe it would, yes.

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

If we found ways to incorporate environmental justice.... I would throw the same question to Gabriel as well. We're dealing with these issues around risk-based versus threat-based versus virtual elimination. If we want to have government move on these things, as far as the elimination of asbestos within our environment is concerned, would you also agree that we need to move towards environmental justice and towards establishing more of a threat-based model for CEPA, rather than the risk-based model that exists today?

[Gabriel Miller]

Yes, I think so. I'm not sure the language is exactly the same as what I'd use, but I think that the underlying point you're trying to make is one we would agree with for sure.

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

Sorry; I meant hazard-based, not threat-based. I apologize. I got that wrong. Sorry. I got my terminology wrong. I've been away from it too long.

That answers a lot of what I was trying to get at, and I'll turn the rest of my time to Will, because I know he had a number of areas he wanted to cover.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have two minutes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

This is when the cameras are rolling and you're—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, it's two minutes and it's running out.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Yes. Why I don't pass to a colleague?

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

I would like to ask the same question of our indigenous representatives here.

On the hazard-based approach versus a risk-based approach when dealing with labelling substances, can you comment as to what method you prefer and why?

[Verna McGregor]

I can't comment. We don't have an answer.

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

In the hazard-based approach, you determine the substance and the hazardous nature that it has. The risk-based approach is coming from the angle of the risk that it poses on the community from a risk perspective. Sometimes you can mitigate through risk assessment.

Does that help or no?

[Lynne Groulx]

It does help, but I think I'm still not going to answer that.

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

Okay. I think the clock has probably run down by now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're close, but we still have time if you have another question. Otherwise we could move over to Mr. Choquette, and I actually have some questions—

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

—for a change, now that we have time.

Go ahead, Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

My first question is for the members of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Earlier, you talked about the greater vulnerability of aboriginal women when it comes to climate change. I want to hear about this issue. In concrete terms, what takes place?

[Verna McGregor]

In terms of vulnerability, it goes back to native women being in rural and remote locations, but a lot of our women are in urban areas as well. For example, there were the recent fires in Fort McMurray.

Again, the socio-economic situation of aboriginal women is that they are the lowest in Canada in terms of income. In addition, they have a tendency to have more dependants, so when they're in a climate change emergency, they're very stretched in terms of resources. As well, for example, in our communities we have a severe housing shortage, and climate change exacerbates the whole issue of mould, let alone fire mitigation. Also, when you're spread out in terms of access to resources in a rural or remote area, it's quite the challenge.

As for how women become vulnerable, you become a climate refugee, which is similar to what we've recently experienced here, and then there's the migration to urban centres and trying to access additional resources. As well, they tend to have a higher proportion of female single-parent households, and as we all know, children cost money. It's not just about aboriginal women. It's about Canadian women.

We also need mitigation strategies and emergency planning, because it's different when you have children and you have limited resources. I think that's the biggest vulnerability in terms of climate change, but there are also the environmental impacts of, for example, the resource industries.

Thank you.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

I want to ask the representatives of the Mikisew Cree first nation a question about the addition of polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Why is it so important to add chemical products in the capacity of hazardous substances that literally ruin your health?

[Phil Thomas]

Thank you for the question.

The main reason why these compounds should be included on the list of priority substances is that the compounds are very bioaccumulative in the waterfowl and animals consumed by the first nations. Once the body absorbs and metabolizes the compounds, they transform into mitogenic compounds that cause cancer. It's simply to promote good health and ensure the traditions of the first nations are protected so that they can continue to hunt, trap and fish.