Environment Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The only reason I asked this was not in response to any interjection from you; it was a response from Mr. Moffet, who said that he couldn't respond to whether they administer the act in this case. That becomes challenging, because any regulation the government chooses to enact or not enact at any point simply becomes.... It's not an advice to a minister situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We can come back.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Great, I hope we do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

All right.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, since we've broken from the cycle of questioning, would this be an okay time to ask, since the Liberals have offered me a question—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, she has no standing to speak at this committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

As a member of Parliament, I'm equal to all other members of Parliament and allowed to sit at this table—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You need consent of this committee, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

—and I'm asking for consent on the record to speak.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. May, could you hold—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Believe it or not, I took this bill through first reading. I worked on it in 1988. Maybe I should ask to be a witness. Perhaps that would be a better solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We were going to potentially give an opportunity, but now is not the time. We have a list of speakers here, and I want to make sure we get through our list. Maybe there's an opportunity, but that has to be agreed to by committee.

Let's get back to the questioning. Mr. Bossio.

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

Thank you once again, Mr. Cooper and Mr Moffet, for being here today and making your presentation. The information you provided has educated us to a certain level.

Under CEPA you are categorizing chemicals as to whether they're toxic or not. How many chemicals have been declared toxic of the 23,000?

[John Moffet]

I should know that. Sorry, we can give you the complete list of toxic substances. It's a few hundred.

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

Maybe I could ask, if you don't know what the list is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I don't think he said he didn't know what the list was. I think what he said was it's an extensive list. I want to make sure we're careful with how we state things on the record.

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

I asked how many chemicals. I didn't ask which chemicals.

[John Moffet]

Yes, fair enough. I do not know the precise number. We'll get you the precise number. There are 132 substances currently listed on the list of toxic substances. If I might mention one caveat in that some of those substances are broad groups of substances and some are individual chemicals.

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

Can you tell me, of those 132 substances, since they've been declared toxic, what has happened with those substances? Are they prohibited from being used in the environment now?

I know we talked about the virtual elimination list and other things in your presentation. In reading the previous report, they talked about how the virtual elimination list wasn't working effectively, and it was a total failure because the Governor in Council was...prohibition, maybe that should be the tool to be used, etc. I'm wondering if anything has happened to eliminate those chemicals from being used in the environment.

[John Moffet]

Yes, action has been taken on each of those substances. The addition of a substance to the list of toxic substances means there is a risk, and the use or creation of the substance will pose a risk to health and the environment.

In some cases, ministers and governments have decided the appropriate response is to restrict emissions of the substance by a certain per cent, or to restrict the composition of products in a certain way. The other extreme is to prohibit. In other words the response, and I'm not going to defend the appropriateness of the response, has been tailored to the perceived gravity of the risk.

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

What I'm getting at is that this was an identified issue back in 2006-07. Based on your report, it seems that it has not really been fully resolved as to the virtual elimination list and prohibitions and the different mechanisms to be used to prohibit toxic chemicals.

[John Moffet]

The challenges with fulfilling the specific legal obligations with respect to substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic remain. The statute hasn't been amended.

However, numerous substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic have been added to the prohibition of various substances regulations, so we have taken action on those substances. We have not, however, done everything that the law required us to do.

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

Okay.

Another key area that was discussed in the last report was under burden of proof. To me, it seemed to make a lot of sense. Right now, the burden of proof is on us to show that the chemical shouldn't exist. All of our resources go towards trying to prove that a chemical is or is not a toxic substance, rather than, in regard to the burden of proof, utilizing industry to prove that it is acceptable.

Has any action been taken on that categorization or on how that's determined?

[John Moffet]

Yes. Let me explain two things.

First of all, the process is quite different for new substances versus existing substances. For new substances, you can't use the substance until you give us information that allows us to make a determination. We make the final determination, but you have to give us the information to show that the substance is safe.

For existing substances, under the chemicals management plan, in the second phase, following the review, we explicitly set up a regime whereby we identified certain substances, basically adopted almost a presumption of risk, and then worked with the users and producers to demonstrate that the substance was safe. It was not a legal change, but a procedural and policy change that—