That is the big question.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:35 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Big question. I think we need more time to go back and take a look at that.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. This is one of those challenging moments, Chair.
I hear the impassioned and succinct pitch of Ms. May. We have raised some concerns that we're just unable to qualify, frankly, and quantify here, and if the officials aren't either.... We've moved a number of motions through the House to ban asbestos—though I think we still have it in these walls here, Chair, not to give anybody any concerns—yet still have it as Canadian trade policy to export and promote it.
It's the cross-concerns, and I say this to Ms. May. I wonder if she might be able to clarify for me if the officials can't, and I know we're under these restrictions, Chair.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Well, okay, but again, I'm guided by the committee and members know that. So members have indicated to me how much time should be allocated to Ms. May. So it's not—
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Order.
I don't want to keep dealing with this, so does the committee want to allocate more time to Ms. May?
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That's what I want. I want clarification from the committee. Do we have unanimous consent to grant more time to Ms. May?
6:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
Yes.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, so it's a no from the committee.
Okay, I'm going to go to Mr. Keddy.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll ask the officials, just to try to drill down into this a little deeper, if we could. If you look at the workplace hazardous materials information system, WHMIS, it really doesn't restrict access to products. What it actually does is provide information through the Hazardous Products Act, so workers can use these products safely and without danger to their own health.
If we look at the amendment, we see it really runs contrary to the very nature of WHMIS and how that dovetails, if you will, with the Hazardous Products Act.
Is that correct?
6:35 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
That is correct.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
All those in favour of amendment PV-7?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 114 agreed to)
(On clause 115)
We have two amendments on clause 115, PV-8 and PV-9.
Ms. May, you can speak to them separately or you can group them together, as you wish.
May 29th, 2014 / 6:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I think I'll speak to each separately, Mr. Chair, because they do speak to different issues, unlike the last ones that dealt with FATCA more or less at once.
This is what I'm proposing to do here, Mr. Chair. At clause 115 on page 97, there's an opportunity to do something that's a lacuna in Canadian regulatory practice. It's been identified by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that we are not regulating the hazardous products used in what's colloquially called fracking, hydraulic fracturing operations for the extraction of oil and gas.
What is proposed by the Green Party, for subparagraph (l.1) in subclause 115(3), is to add to the list of other kinds of hazardous materials that are used in Canada and regulated:
(l.1) requiring any supplier who sells or imports a product, mixture, material or substance injected into the ground in hydraulic fracturing operations for the extraction of oil and gas to make its complete chemical composition and toxicity publicly available;
It's a transparency clause. Unlike my attempt to ban asbestos, this measure is not an attempt at anything more than regulatory transparency. As some of you may recall, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported that he was surprised to find that Environment Canada didn't know the chemical composition of these substances.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Let me ask the department officials this. Are we aware of what's in fracking fluids right now? Does the department keep a registry, or are companies obligated to report the composition of those fluids?
6:40 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
As we stated earlier, the WHMIS program really sets out the requirements for the safe use of hazardous products in the workplace and how those are provided to workers. So information around what's included in fracking fluids, etc., falls outside of the scope of the WHMIS program.
6:40 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
A registry of what that information is does not fall within the scope of my program within the department—
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's not within the what? Sorry, I wasn't able to hear you.
6:40 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
It's not within the scope of my program for, as Ms. May was speaking about earlier, a registry of information or the composition of those products. If those products are being supplied to workers, there's a requirement to have a safety data sheet and a label. But there's no registry of information specific to fracking fluids.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. The reason this came up is that this comes from another committee's study of this operation and this drilling technique. At the time, the government was resistant to having these disclosed; up until a certain point they weren't disclosed at all. We brought companies forward that are in the business and asked them if they would disclose their chemicals. The government argued there were privacy issues and corporate secrecy and all sorts of competitiveness issues. The companies themselves had no problem. This is going back two to three years, and more and more are disclosing what's in there, but not fully.
The idea is that the role of government would be to have a full disclosure and registry of these, especially as we can all admit this is a controversial issue and it involves water and that's always controversial, the water table. So we'll be supporting this.
I essentially get from your testimony that you're saying this isn't a role for WHMIS. This is not caught up in the program that Health Canada runs. Is that right?
6:40 p.m.
Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Our system is about hazards and identifying hazards so that workers understand how to safely use those products. That's essentially the scope of what we deal with.
6:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We would deem these to be hazards. Many of these chemicals are quite hazardous and they would have WHMIS labelling.