Evidence of meeting #37 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.
4:50 p.m.
Prof. Lynda Collins
It does spur innovation. It does feed the economy. We know that.
4:50 p.m.
Prof. Lynda Collins
Okay, pricing.
This has been well established in Massachusetts, which has actually done the data gathering on what happened with their toxics reduction. They found it saved business millions of dollars and saved the environment many tonnes of toxic substances.
I think the substitution principle should be in section 2 as a mandatory obligation for the government. I also think that these presumptive bans are very powerful in pushing forward substitution. When you have a substance of very high concern that is carcinogenic, mutagenic, whatever, you have a presumptive ban. The onus shifts to industry, and then industry has to prove either that it's safe or that there's no safer substitute and that it's absolutely necessary.
In the case where there is a safer substitute, they're out of luck. Their substance is banned, and the market will move to the safer substitute.
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, As an Individual
I think the substitution notion is a very interesting one to embed in the risk management process of CEPA. We've had lots of precedents with other jurisdiction moving in that direction, so we would not be moving anywhere that radical. It opens some interesting possibilities, when you think about what alternatives exist out there.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
This may be a rhetorical or redundant question as well. Today no one touched too much on vulnerable populations in Canada. It has been touched on a little bit. We've heard a lot of testimony previous to yours on vulnerable populations.
What specifically can we strengthen within CEPA to adequately respond to the needs of marginalized and vulnerable communities?
I'll start with Lynda again, and then, maybe I would like to go to Dr. Doelle.
4:50 p.m.
Prof. Lynda Collins
Yes, great idea.
I think that the requirement to protect vulnerable populations should go into subsection 2(1) so that it becomes a mandatory duty on the government, and specifically, some of the submissions have suggested that the susceptibility of vulnerable populations should be a mandatory consideration under toxicity assessment under section 64 and under risk management under section 74, I think. It's late in the day.
4:50 p.m.
Prof. Lynda Collins
Professor Doelle, do you want to elaborate?
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes, I'll just add to that. I think as a starting point the recognition of the problem is critical because in many jurisdictions we have been fighting over environmental justice issues in a whole variety of contexts, and it's difficult to even get the issue taken seriously. To have a piece of legislation that clearly recognizes that environmental justice is an issue, that it needs to be considered through the life cycle of the regulatory process and then implements, it will make a tremendous difference in this country.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm just going to wrap up on this.
All four of you provided some amazingly solid recommendations and suggestions to consider. I'm hoping that if you have things that you didn't get a chance to say today during your testimony, you'll feel comfortable submitting them to us.
Dan, you spoke about a report. I don't know how big that report is.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Daniel Krewski
The report on Tox21?
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Daniel Krewski
I can send you lots of material, some shorter, some longer. I'd be pleased to send in several things on that, but I do have one point—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Perhaps I could just make one point. If you're going to send in something, is it possible to send it translated? Is it available in both official languages? If it is only in one language, it becomes a bit of a problem, a challenge for us.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Daniel Krewski
These would be publicly available published documents in English.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You've referenced them already in the back of your presentation. Yes, give us a listing of what you want us to look at.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Daniel Krewski
There are a couple more specifically in response to this question. It's basically the scientific literature which would describe the Tox21 concept.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Daniel Krewski
I do have one little point I'd like to make. It is a response to how we manage risks. I'll be very brief, Madam Chairman.
One of the things I liked about the previous version of CEPA is that once you're on the PSL, you go into a risk management phase which is supposed to have a finite timeline. I like the multi-stakeholder issue tables where you would give different members of those discussion groups opportunities to be creative. That's very consistent with what I've been promoting as five ways to manage risks.
We call this the REACT approach: regulatory approaches, that's the “R”; economic incentives and disincentives, that's the “E”; advisory approaches, that's the “A“, tell people how to avoid risk; “C” is community-based grassroots action; and “T” is technological. If we want to think about continuing the broad spectrum of risk management options, the REACT framework, which is in some of the references that I provided, might be helpful to you.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I really appreciate the witnesses we have today and the expertise they bring to this study.
I loved the discussion on precautionary and risk, having spent a career with junior high school kids. Obviously, precautionary is irrelevant to them.
We do have some issues when you talk about it, and it came up in our last session. Nicotine would be one. Cancer is still caused, with the highest rate of death in this country, by cigarette smoking, and it's legal. For a vulnerable population, it's fetal alcohol syndrome. I have seen a lot of that with children. We believe children should have a safe environment, but they don't because of adults' actions that are legal. We tried prohibition. That didn't work.
We have chemicals in our society that are precluding what you're saying because people are willing to risk. We now have an opiate crisis where people are risking their lives. How do you take that risk and precautionary, with chemicals in our society, when children.... There's nicotine, alcohol, fetal alcohol syndrome.... Teenagers and young adults are just doing whatever with the risk. Precautionary is irrelevant.
How do we as a state regulate that? Prohibition didn't work.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Lynda Collins
I love this question so much.