Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

I'm not sure if I understand the question about the risk.

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

The first part of my question, which is what I was more interested in, is whether your communities currently have a way for dealing with the exposure to toxic substances.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

That's what I was getting at. I think if you're able to look at this question and say we're in quite a dilemma because people are getting affected. Climate change is occurring. It's real. We're all affected. We're all in this together. There are jurisdictions out there that need to be recognized and implemented.

The problem today is the authority we have is not recognized by Canada. We know there are things wrong. We know there are contaminants in the system. Linda Duncan brought it up. People in northern Alberta are calling for health studies and they have been for years, yet these health studies have not occurred.

The problem is that we have to go to someone else. We don't go to our own government and say, this is the problem, please fix it, and then our legislators go forward.

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

Right. Okay.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

We're having to rely on someone else. That's the dilemma we're in.

Again, we can say, yes, do the studies, but then it's up to you at this level to see that as a priority.

In terms of risk, we're all at risk. For example, if you look at the watersheds, just look at North America; the water system works in a particular way. We have over 100 boil advisory communities, and many of us say it's not by accident. Many of those waters are flowing away from urban areas.

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

Okay.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

If you look at the watersheds, for example, you can figure out where the contaminants are coming from because, for example—no one take offence to this—but we all know over the years on the Prairies—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm going to run out of time.

I guess my question is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You did run out of time. Sorry, Mark. My apologies, I was just letting him finish his thought.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I told you she was a hard-liner.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

That's good. We need to follow the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You were just about to say something. Finish that thought, and then we'll.....

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

Yes. On the Prairies, over the years there were retardants and different chemicals used, and our people are telling us they are still seeping into the water, the aquifers underneath. Those go out into the water system and we're affected, so there's responsibility that has to take place.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Our next up would be Mr. Bossio.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all very much for being here today.

I would like to direct my question to Ms. Ariya. I found your presentation fascinating. We've dealt so much with the chemicals in the environment aspect of it, not as much—a bit the other day—on the air pollution piece of it and the lack of enforcement in dealing with air pollution.

Part of the discussion the other day was around the Tox21 report that came out, the advancements of technology to be able to rapidly test and to determine the toxicity or the impact on the environment, whether it's persistent, biologically accumulative, or whether it's where it is in the environment from an air pollution or water pollution standpoint.

Do you agree, given the technological advancements we have, that it is actually much more cost-effective to take a more hazardous-based approach to assessment rather than the risk assessment-based approach we take today?

[Prof. Parisa A. Ariya]

I think your question has two aspects. First of all, in order to know the hazard, you have to observe it and you have to experiment. Then in order to make an assessment, you have to integrate it, and then numerically assess it and make it simple to write the risk assessment.

In that case, you have to do it properly, but you can decrease the cost by going to a pilot study first in several targeted areas, and then do the more comprehensive study, in the same way as Germany and some of the other European countries are doing. By doing that, they actually don't increase the cost necessarily, but they increase the quality of the data.

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

Right.

[Prof. Parisa A. Ariya]

That is what I suggest, and please note that the particles that I'm looking at, for example, are chemicals. Many of the contaminants in the air we are talking about are actually in the soil and the water, but because of the wind and the atmospheric processes, they have a chance to have an affect, not only locally but at a longer distance. Those are also chemicals.

One thing you mentioned that I would like to point out is that the contaminant you start with is not necessarily the contaminant you end up with. It undergoes chemical, physical, and photochemical transformation. Sometimes it's a deposit. Sometimes it's a nucleate, and so forth.

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

I apologize for cutting you off, but that's part of what I was looking at. Today we test a chemical in isolation in a particular application. We don't test the combination of chemicals and the impact that has on the environment.

[Prof. Parisa A. Ariya]

Absolutely, and that was what was written in my report. We have to do life-cycle analysis—

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

Exactly.

[Prof. Parisa A. Ariya]

—physical, chemical, and biological, not a life-cycle analysis that is limited to carbon. The reason scientists started to bring in carbon was that it was a very easy commodity to talk to politicians and policy-makers about. The question is much more in-depth.

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

To take it to the next level, when we look at what you were talking about around aerosols, the impact they are having on both human health and on the environment has been clearly identified, yet from an enforcement standpoint nothing has been done.

[Prof. Parisa A. Ariya]

It was recommended but not enforced.

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

Yes. Would you agree that one of the capabilities that we could implement within CEPA is an environmental bill of rights or a right to a healthy environment type of legislative addition to CEPA.