Evidence of meeting #7 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 risk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Maggie, I'll give you an opportunity to answer that.
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
It's very interesting. I think alternatives assessment is a really great way forward, but we also need to have the will to ban and restrict substances that are carcinogenic or mutanogenic.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Right, so how do we now do this within CEPA? It doesn't seem like there's a really good vehicle to make this happen from a legislative standpoint—
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
—instead of it just happening, rather than fighting about whether it should happen, when it should happen, and what levels are acceptable or aren't acceptable, etc. Is there a suggestion you can give as to how this can be done in a more expeditious and non-political way?
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I think that taking a hazard approach to these substances and really looking at trying to eliminate them from the environment is appropriate, because now in risk management you can check all the boxes without really removing them from the environment.
I want to clarify something I said about the civil service as well when asked about it. It's not that I lay blame on the individuals working there, but in recent years they were under-resourced in being able to complete some of their work, so that's why that is.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Another huge area that is a difficulty with this is around reporting, right? Once again, I know that in my own case in fighting these battles, the company will always find a way to twist its way out of having to report something that they don't really want to report. They drag it on and drag it on. You wonder sometimes if the staff are complicit, or if it is just, once again, because it's not well defined within the legislative framework to make this happen in an expeditious way.
Senior Scientist, Ecojustice Canada
Yes, in my submission, I had a number of recommendations on improving reporting and transparency, particularly the NPRI, which is really our only source of pollution release information nationally.
Yes, I would say that right now the NPRI is not prescribed in detail in the act. It goes through a Canada Gazette posting every two years in terms of the details of reporting to the NPRI. The act just requires the minister to set up a registry of pollutant releases. I would recommend that in the act there be a much more prescriptive description of what should be in the NPRI.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Once again, there's a chemical that I had to deal with, 1,4-dioxane, which is a recognized carcinogen. There were no drinking water standards around this. Therefore, the company was able to allow this to go into the environment because there's no official drinking water standard around it. Is this, once again, another failure of CEPA in that it's not defining—
Senior Scientist, Ecojustice Canada
We have no drinking water standards, period. We have guidelines nationally, so CEPA has failed us there, for sure.
Senior Scientist, Ecojustice Canada
One of my recommendations is definitely for national standards for drinking water. Also, where we know that there are substances out there that are contaminating drinking water sources, they should have standards. They should have health-based standards.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Because then they don't have to report it either.
Liberal
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
The level of expertise at the table is quite impressive. Thank you for being here.
I want to talk about mercury for a second. Across the country, we are currently allowing mercury light bulbs to essentially be tossed in the garbage. Some provinces are doing some pretty impressive things, but 1,500 kilograms of mercury, essentially, give or take a few hundred kilograms, is going into our landfills every year as we are throwing these light bulbs away.
I was interested in your comments about how we need to define “toxic”. I thought that was really impressive. Also, you talked about bioaccumulation. My limited understanding of mercury is that it's accumulative in the environment.
Of course, my interest is based around a private member's bill that I have before the House right now for the recycling of mercury-bearing light bulbs. They can be completely recycled. In your opinion, how is this is allowed to happen if we know this is toxic? It's listed as toxic and identified as toxic, and we know it's accumulative, so how is it that in 2016 we're still throwing these light bulbs in the garbage?
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
What's interesting about these light bulbs is that if they're used safely, they're safe. The mercury shouldn't get out unless they break or are disposed of improperly—
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Yes, in the landfill. The problem is that very few people know—I know, because I'm passionate about these issues—that you're supposed to dispose of them as toxic waste. I want to indicate that it's what happens when there's a reluctance to regulate or legislate at the federal level. You get a patchwork of regulations and a patchwork of actions that change from municipality to municipality or province to province, and then you have the mass of Canadians who don't understand how to safely use these things.
I want to speak in favour of having a little more enthusiasm to deal with things at a federal level under CEPA, because if we don't regulate federally, then you have hundreds of different measures and nobody knows what the right thing is in their area.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
It sounds like you're suggesting that we're hiding behind a jurisdictional issue. We're suggesting that it's somebody else's jurisdiction.
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Yes. If you follow some of the interviews that followed the decision to bring in these light bulbs, there is some finger pointing in regard to “well, the provinces should do it” and whatnot. In looking back at some of the articles about it, you can trace inter-jurisdictional finger pointing.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
We have a very small factory in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that will take these bulbs, as well as four-foot fluorescents, and 100% recycle absolutely every piece of these.
On your comment about the fact that people just don't know this, maybe it's an education issue as well. Maybe we need to tell that story a little better, because there are these small companies out there that are willing to take these light bulbs and recycle them 100%.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm willing to share some time, Madam Chair, if I have any time left.
