Environment Committee on March 10th, 2016

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

To pick up where we left off, I started by talking about these windows of vulnerability and then we talked about risk management. From your perspective, I want to know how you practically produce legislation that accomplishes—your example with a cashier always handling receipts....That's a window of vulnerability.

To Mr. Masterson's point, how do you not just deal with that through risk management? How do you practically implement some kind of legislation to capture that?

[Maggie MacDonald]

We've heard alternatives assessment mentioned. I think expanding that, and not making that voluntary; but looking at how we can put alternatives assessment as a strong program under CEPA so that companies go through the process. They know it's happening voluntarily. It's fantastic that there is alternatives assessment.

Bob discussed this earlier. We need to strengthen this under CEPA so it's not just left up to the good actors and those who are showing leadership in this area, but it's consistent across the board that when you are looking at a toxic substance and the best way to replace it, the best chemical you can put in your products instead, there's a really strong program for doing that. There are great examples, like green screen, just to name one.

[Bob Masterson]

Under CEPA there's a very clear division between risk assessment, which is a scientific examination of the risk of the substance that it could pose on human health, and the environment. That is very separate from how the substance is used and how it should be managed and that's intentionally so.

Back to that question of alternatives, when John Moffet and his team look at a particular substance that has been declared toxic and they're trying to determine the best way to manage this, how should we control this? Where should we eliminate its uses?

The question of what alternatives are available enters into that discussion very clearly. Where there aren't very many alternatives, you've got a small suite of tools to rely on until you see other innovations. Where there are multiple alternatives, you've got a big suite of tools to choose from, and you can put a wider range of limitations and management on that substance.

Again, very clearly, assessment is a scientific process. It's the risk management that considers the uses and the alternatives for that product.

[Elaine MacDonald]

I have never seen an alternatives assessment in Environment Canada or Health Canada risk assessments under CEPA. Maybe the industry is doing it. Risk assessments aren't defined in how they're done under CEPA. They're done completely outside the act. It is used to determine whether it meets section 54 toxicity requirements.

They're not laid out in terms of how they're conducted. I'm suggesting that CEPA give you instructions on how to do risk assessments, potentially even set some hazard threshold—

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

Is that true, Mr. Masterson?

[Bob Masterson]

No.

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

Specifically, does CEPA not address how they're supposed to be done?

[Bob Masterson]

The section 71 notices gather a very robust set of information on how those products enter commerce and how they're being used. I assure you that's a key part of decision-making on which risk management tools are used. I hate to use a metaphor like the eighty-twenty rule, but as the government decision-maker trying to use your scarce resources, where do I get 80% of my value for looking at 20% of the resources I dedicate?

You're looking at where this product's being used, the way this substance is being used, in a way that could impact human health and environment the most. Those are the ones you're going to go after.

Yes, that might mean individual light bulbs are left and have to be managed through other processes. Think of how mercury has been managed. Mercury has been very well examined by regulators across Canada. We had a whole program. We talk about a federated state in Canada. There's nothing more than the environment that's federally regulated between the provinces and the feds. They've had a detailed CCME, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, program on mercury. They've gone a long way to eliminate mercury—

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

I don't want to interrupt you, but I'm limited for time.

Mr. Masterson, part of what it says on your organization's website is that your responsibility is to “improve the public’s confidence in chemicals management”. Explain to me how that's not just selling chemicals to Canadians.

[Bob Masterson]

I think it's the work. One of the first things I said in this discussion was that from day one, our industry and our industry association has been a full partner in the development of CEPA and a chemicals management plan.

Sure, there are issues where we share different views from Maggie, but none of us disagree on the objectives, which is to protect human health and the environment. We'll work with anybody to accomplish that. I think that's the benefit of the Canadian landscape; we can work from multiple perspectives to come to shared objectives. We have reduced our CEPA toxics by over 90% in the last 25 years.

We've talked about the IARC carcinogens. I can tell you a very similar story there. We list them all. We record them all. We don't use thresholds with the emissions releases. We collect data on them all, and we publish it. We do that with all our stakeholders.

I think we have a very good story to tell.

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

I appreciate that.

[Bob Masterson]

If you'd like to see more, we're happy to share it with you.

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

I appreciate that. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise; I just wanted to give you the opportunity to make that comment.

[Bob Masterson]

I would say one last thing to your comment, though. We can't separate chemistry and chemicals from our everyday health.

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

That's fair enough.

[Bob Masterson]

Everything in this room has chemicals in it, and 95% of everything that's manufactured in the world has chemicals.

The point of CEPA exercise and the CMP has been to prove to Canadians that although there are 23,000 chemicals in commerce, you really need to have some concern about less than 2%. We have to have much more caution with those. For us, that's a great example of how to build confidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I'd like to start with Elaine.

You mentioned something here earlier about no national water standard.

I'm a former mayor of the city of Fort St. John. I'm fully aware that the Province of B.C. has a very comprehensive water safety standard for municipalities that supply water to their community and maybe other communities. There are such levels as 1 to 4, 1 to 5, depending on the province. I know the Province of Alberta has exactly the same, because I live there now, and I've checked into it.

The provinces are very conscious of this. I wonder what you meant, why we needed a national water standard. I believe I'm correct in saying that all provinces have water control methods and standards to follow.

[Elaine MacDonald]

We have national guidelines right now. A lot of the provinces will adopt these guidelines as their provincial standards. National standards, if they're health-based, would ensure uniformity across the country.

We know there are gaps. We are working with a family right now in a community outside of Halifax, Harrietsfield. The community has no access to safe water. Their water has been contaminated by a local landfill. The lack of national enforceable drinking water standards means we cannot point to any kind of enforcement mechanism to try to bring them safe water. There are gaps. That's what we see on a day-to-day basis. We see that national enforceable drinking water standards, even if they're done through co-operation with the provinces, and the provinces incorporate them as provincial standards.... At least if they're enforceable, we could see that we could fill in some of the gaps where there are communities without access to safe water.

First nations are another example.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I guess we could argue about that all day, but I don't wish to do that.

Mr. Masterson, there's been talk about alternates to some of the chemicals being used. In your industry, when you and your corporations are reviewing the products they want to bring to the public, are they looking at alternate chemicals to use within that production now?

[Bob Masterson]

While I can't speak for any individual company, the basic answer is yes. I'll come back to CEPA framework; it's expecting you to do that. We deal with our existing substances, those that were in commerce before CEPA provisions went in for new substance notification. We had a list of these substances. If the government says there's a problem here, it has to be managed. Obviously one way to manage that is to look for alternatives. If you can do that, that's great.

When you look at substances on the list and you want to propose a new activity for a substance, you have to request a significant new activity process through the government. The burden is on you to demonstrate again that the substance you're proposing to use in that activity is indeed safe for human health and the environment. Then you have your brand new substances, where you have to go through a whole new substance notification process.

The basis premise is that if you've gone through the significant new activity or the new substance notification process, the decision-making is that the substance is acceptably safe for use for your intended application, and that application only, and poses no significant risk of harm to human health and the environment. The process is there.

I'll say it again: CEPA works incredibly well. I would encourage you, perhaps as part of your examination, to look at some of the studies by the U.S. government and U.S. academics that are influencing the direction they are taking on their Toxic Substances Control Act. You will be very proud of the degree to which you see Canada's CMP approach reflected in there. It works. It manages hazards very effectively, and puts public and private resources directly focused on the areas that pose the highest risk to human health and the environment.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Do they look at the same thing in terms of the recycling of their product later on, once it hits the market? Is there a study being done by your organization, through your companies?

[Bob Masterson]

I'm not sure I quite understand your question.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

It's about the future end of the product. Do you look at how we can get rid of it, or recommend how can we get rid of it, after we use it?

[Bob Masterson]

Certainly part of that, in terms of how you should safety dispose of it, is under hazardous workplace materials information. With regard to your message about different jurisdictions having different requirements, that's true too. The life-cycle approach is increasingly important and the cost of managing is also important.