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
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
What I've decided to do here, because we have the time, is this. After we finish this round of three minutes, we'll do four minutes each for each of the different parties. That way you'll have four minutes.
I think that's fair. We have the time. It looks like people do have a lot to talk about, so it might be good.
Mr. Cullen, three minutes.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Masterson, what's your greatest concern with the way the act is written right now? Is there anything?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
I think we're back to the question that was raised earlier, about whether a toxic is a toxic is a toxic. I think one thing we've learned through this exercise is that it isn't. Often that label gets applied, and the public's response and the concerns raised aren't always appropriate. In our written comments back to you we have a recommendation around the labelling of toxic and how there might be more nuance in that area.
Senior Scientist, Ecojustice Canada
I was just going to point out that I know that the schedule 1 toxic substances list is not popular with industry because of that label of toxic. One thing to be clear about is that just because a substance ends up on schedule 1, it doesn't mean that any real effective risk management occurs around that substance.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Do you understand the industry's concern that if a substance gets labelled with the word “toxic”, which the average person—
Senior Scientist, Ecojustice Canada
It's toxic because it's been found through a risk assessment to meet the requirements of section 64, which is how toxic is defined.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. I understand that. Just in the common parlance, some of the substances get....
Is there not a risk that things that like endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and things that you never put anywhere near your family also get also lumped in, simply because of the way we've set up the act, with things that would not cause immediate medical concern if you were exposed to them? I'm sure Mr. Masterson can list off a few that get labelled on schedule 1, get labelled toxic, but they're not, on the counter-side—
Senior Scientist, Ecojustice Canada
Just because something doesn't kill you right away doesn't mean it hasn't a long-term effect or a chronic effect on you or on the environment. I think if you think of toxic that way, defined as impacting the environment, impacting human health, or impacting the environment as relied on by human health, it's.... Take things like PBDEs. If I sit on my couch, it won't kill me right away, but the flame retardant is building up in my body. If it affects my children's IQ, that's a toxic effect.
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Part of it comes down to education and responsible communication around toxic substances, and the message is that we need to reduce our exposure. It's not 95% of products made of chemicals, it's 100%, because everything is made of chemical material.
It's about reducing exposure where something is toxic, but also being very cautious with those long-term, low-grade exposures, such as Elaine mentioned, sitting on her couch. It's not just a matter of something killing a person right away, but with the slow, additive, cumulative effects and combinatorial effects of being exposed to multiple types of chemicals at the same time, we need to take that into consideration and be quite cautious about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to step into our last round. We're going to do a third round of four minutes each.
We'll start with Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like to continue that discussion on toxins.
Maggie, you suggested that we have to redefine toxicity within the act. Can you be a little more specific as to what that would look like?
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
In terms of how “toxic” is defined under the act, I believe it's section 5. We need to revisit that bit about it “entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration”, or under conditions that may have long-term and harmful effects.
We need to revisit that question of it “entering or may enter the environment” and put more emphasis on the inherent properties of the substance. Listing a substance on schedule 1 has many barriers. It's often a very cautious process.
You can look at it two ways. I've complained that risk management needs to be tighter and stricter and we need more enthusiastic bans to eliminate certain chemicals from the marketplace. But, as we see, because that process of risk management is so cautious, if we were to expand the definition of toxic and expand risk management, we wouldn't suddenly see thousands of substances being unuseable in an appropriate manner.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I think it would be helpful for this committee to have a draft definition that you feel would move us forward, if you could provide that to us.
Mr. Masterson, you said your concern is that a toxin is a toxin is a toxin. I think what you're saying is that some products that are designated as toxic may actually be acceptable for use, depending on the application.
Is that what you're saying?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Very good, and I can't think of a better example than the decision made by the House of Commons to directly list plastic microbeads as toxic, and then the subsequent discussion and process around that.
Think about that. What is a plastic microbead? Well, every piece of plastic is made out of a resin that is by definition a plastic microbead. Those do not pose any threat to human health and the environment in of all the plastics that are around us today. The particular risk to human health and the environment is when those microbeads are used in wash-off consumer products, personal care products.
That's when you run into this issue of hazard versus risk approach. Do we really want to say that plastic microbeads are toxics and therefore all plastic microbeads would be banned? We would have nothing left made of plastic.
What we really want to do is focus our attention, society's resources, on those activities that use those and present the harm to the human health and the environment. In this case, it is only environment, which is very important, but you're looking at personal care products. That's a very good example of risk management and action versus a hazard-based approach to managing chemicals.
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I actually think it's a little more complex, because listing something as toxic under schedule 1 doesn't necessarily mean it will be banned, as we have seen. You can list it on schedule 1 with a more cautious, hazard-based approach, and still have risk management that takes in industry considerations as well as environmental stakeholders.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I think the concern that industry has is that if we redefine toxicity or expand its scope, it may catch applications that shouldn't be caught.
I think that's the point that Mr. Masterson is making.
Toxic Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Even with the cautious scope we have now, we see that many of these substances remain in wide use. We can improve risk management greatly and expand the definition of toxic without harming industry.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
When I look at CEPA, the goals and principles are pollution prevention, virtual elimination, and precautionary principle. The difficulty that I see in its application is the lack of clarity in the act around how we define a toxic substance. Toxic is toxic is toxic. Water is toxic if you have too much of it, so I get where you're coming from on that and maybe it was a poor phrase to use. The essence of what I was trying to get at is that we have highly toxic substances that exist in our society that shouldn't be there. Fire retardants are one, I believe. Look at firemen who are dying of lung cancer because they've been fighting fires and they're dying because they're breathing in these toxic substances in the fires, fire retardants being one of them. There is a lung cancer epidemic in the U.S. as a result of this.
Industry is always saying to government: I want clarity so that I can operate my business in a manner, going forward, because if it's opaque then it makes it very difficult for me to understand what I can and can't do.
If we can apply greater clarity in the definition of what is toxic, and the elimination of that substance once it's been identified as toxic, and then the reporting mechanisms that give everyone the sense that the public interest is being protected, then I think that would benefit industry in trying to go about its business in a responsible way. As you said earlier, I do believe that industry, for the most part, does try to do so. But if you don't give clarity then they will try to use the regulations in order to manage risk rather than pure risk management, as it relates to the public rather than to the corporate and the shareholder interests.
Would you agree with that?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
No.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Risk management is complex. I'm sure you've looked at this. When a substance is listed under CEPA, schedule 1, there is a clock that starts to tick, and the government must introduce a proposed risk management measure. Once that's been consulted on they have another clock that starts to tick, and they must introduce a final risk management measure.
That doesn't say that it's the only risk management measure the government can ever take on that particular substance. They can come back as many times as they see fit, but they're also using their ability to be good economic managers in the public interest. You talked about enforcement the other day. They are asking: where should we be applying controls, and public enforcement to get the most return on our buck?
The question about elimination just because something is listed as a hazard is not an appropriate use of society's resources.
I'll quote here if I have a minute
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I hate to cut you off, but I would like to hear from Maggie and Elaine on this.