Environment Committee on March 10th, 2016

[Bob Masterson]

We believe so. The public has many sets of interests. Certainly protection of human health and the environment is part of them, but also, as I mentioned, effective use of public resources.

I know Mr. Moffet was here yesterday. You will probably have questions about REACH. That is a different model. It is, in our view at least, and I think you heard this from Mr. Moffet, a much less effective use of public resources.

Think of the task in 1999. There were 23,000 substances on the TSL. Who would have ever thought we'd be sitting here, four or five years out from 2020, saying: yes, we're pretty much on track, we have this in hand, we can do this. Is there more to do? There is for sure, but it has been a monumental undertaking, and a lot of credit goes to all the people who have been involved.

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

Thank you. I can't help but imagine this type of model moving over to other industries—to the resource sector, where there's often so much conflict and public concern.

I want to ask about the public in this respect, Ms. MacDonald, concerning air quality. I attempted to ask Mr. Moffet, as was mentioned, just a couple of days ago, for an example. I need examples to understand how this act applies well and doesn't apply well.

We have a community in my region in northern B.C., in Kitimat, that has a large, new smelter that was just built by Rio Tinto. Already the air quality readings exceed what is allowable. Kitimat has a 60% higher rate of respiratory illness than anywhere else in the province. The province waits for the feds to intervene—I imagine through this type of process—yet they won't. I asked why not, and he said that's not for him to explain.

Is this a failure of CEPA? Is it a failure of the civil servants applying CEPA? Is it a political question? I'm still trying to figure out, when you have clear case in which consumers are put at risk through exposure to something such as SO2, why no action is taken and everyone just stands back.

[Maggie MacDonald]

I think it meets all those dimensions. I think there needs to be swifter work on risk management by the civil servants, in some cases. We've seen several examples in which there have been inappropriate delays on setting risk management plans for certain substances, in recent years specifically. That's an area that needs to be tightened up in practice.

Also, under CEPA we need a national standard for air quality. Right now we have a patchwork across Canada. There are some provincial standards, but—

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

Is it provincial jurisdiction or is it federal?

[Maggie MacDonald]

It could be either.

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

It could be either; it's the patchwork quilt.

[Maggie MacDonald]

Yes. Sometimes there is overlap between the provincial and federal jurisdiction when it comes to managing toxics. This is a case in which it would be better if there were a national standard, but not just for outdoor air. Indoor air quality is a big concern in Canada because we spend so much time indoors.

I know you've asked about your region, which is experiencing outdoor air pollution, but there's risk management for which we're still waiting for VOCs indoors in Canadian homes, for example. That's another dimension that has to be considered.

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

I know we don't have time today, but some examples of where more surgically we could apply CEPA better or make changes to the act that would allow such things as air quality indoors and outdoors to be done better....

A second question I have to you is around the precautionary principle. I moved a private member's bill, in one of my first years here, around phthalates, a chemical that had replacement options, which was a softener for plastics and ended up in children's toys and we knew was an endocrine disrupter.

It passed through the House unanimously. The Senate didn't see its way to passing it through the Senate, but, you know.... They were busy, I suppose.

Do we apply the precautionary principle right now through CEPA?

[Maggie MacDonald]

Thank you so much for asking, because it is in the preamble. In my view, if we look at how risk management has been failing to meet an appropriate pace, we are not meeting the precautionary principle.

In many cases there's a duty to act to prevent harm when evidence is mounting that a substance is harmful but there might still be some debate among scientists. We all know how long it took that debate about tobacco causing lung cancer to go on, and there are reasons for that.

The precautionary principle is what we do to protect human health while those conversations that are sometimes political conversations about the data are happening. Currently, because we take so long to make decisions to get rid of some of these substances, we're not actually applying the precautionary principle.

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

Very quickly, Mr. Masterson, would you have a problem with—?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have two seconds.

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

I'd like to move a motion that we have seven minutes to ask questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll consider that, based on the way things are going.

Mr. Bossio.

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

So many questions, so little time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We may have time to continue the questioning. Let's see how we do in this round and see whether we have some time to carry on with questions.

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

Great.

I'm trying to frame this so that it can be answered easily, but it can't be. I've been involved in fighting landfills and such stuff in my past. There are some inherently toxic chemicals that keep coming up again and again, and nothing seems to ever be done about them. We identify these chemicals, and then what? There's no reporting; there's no elimination.

I'm hearing about alternatives assessment. I need to study it more, but would alternatives assessment do a better job of bringing about the virtual elimination of these chemicals, and why?

[Elaine MacDonald]

Say your company wanted to bring a new chemical into Canada; you want to manufacture or import it. An alternatives assessment would require the company to consider whether there is a safer, better option—safer for human health and safer for the environment—than this particular chemical. Right now, that doesn't exist under CEPA. It would force the individual or that company to turn its mind to other options that might be better overall.

Yes, then, it would be a faster and more efficient way than what we have now, which is that a chemical is assessed, they decide what the risks are, and then there's some management of the risks that come out of it.

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

There's also a concern about the timelines around risk assessment, in that they're taking far too long and are not being fully reported, etc. Would it also help to alleviate that aspect as well as tighten the timelines of risk assessment?

[Elaine MacDonald]

Yes, if a safer alternative is found, then there isn't necessarily a reason to continue with a full risk assessment for that substance.

It also would be fairly efficient for Canada to adopt this now, because so many countries are ahead of Canada already, and we can learn from those other countries. The OECD has collected a wealth of information from other jurisdictions that are doing alternatives assessments.

We can learn from what others have already gone through by adopting alternatives assessments. We don't have to build it from scratch. It could be a very quick and efficient way to bring in something that could be revolutionary with respect to managing toxicity.

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

Mr. Masterson, I see you shaking your head. You seem to have some concerns about this.

[Bob Masterson]

Well, I believe that we have a process. There's a list of substances there and we know what's of concern. We have a process to examine, at industry's cost, new substances that come into commerce.

The question of alternatives comes up very fully every time a risk management is done for a substance that's considered toxic. You're looking at what the alternatives to that are, at how far you can push this to remove it from commerce today, and at the most effective means to do that. Again, depending on where that is in the hierarchy, when you get to persistent bioaccumulative substances—

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

I'm sorry to cut you off, but I'm trying to get through a number of things here. If a substance is toxic, it's toxic. It's toxic. There are no ifs, ands, or buts around that.

[Bob Masterson]

No, but—

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

I guess we have a debate—I think on many parts—about how to define what a toxic chemical is and if it is a probable carcinogen or an actual carcinogen, etc. But once it's been identified as such, once again, what are we doing to eliminate that chemical and getting by all the exemptions that exist within—

[Maggie MacDonald]

Can I talk about that?