Public Accounts Committee on May 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

On behalf of everyone on the committee, I want to extend to everyone a very warm welcome.

Bienvenue à tous.

This morning, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we are dealing with one of the chapters of the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It deals with toxic substances, an issue that all Canadians are concerned about, or if they're not, they should be. This is from the commissioner's fall 2009 report.

We're very pleased to have a large number of witnesses with us this morning.

From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, we have Mr. Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Mr. Vaughan is accompanied by his principal from that office, Jim McKenzie.

From the Department of the Environment, we have Brian Gray, assistant deputy minister. He's accompanied by Cynthia Wright, acting assistant deputy minister; Margaret Kenny, director general, chemical sectors; and George Enei, director general, science and risk assessment.

Finally, from the Department of Health, we have the deputy minister and accounting officer, Glenda Yeates. Ms. Yeates is accompanied by Karen Lloyd, director general, and Athana Mentzelopoulos, director general.

These are the witnesses before us today.

Again, welcome. We're going to ask for opening statements.

I'll call upon you first, Mr. Vaughan. You have up to five minutes.

[Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be here this morning to discuss the results of chapter 2 of my fall 2009 report entitled “Risks of Toxic Substances”.

In this audit, we examined seven of 85 substances listed as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Some of the seven substances we examined are well-known—for example, lead and mercury. Others are newer and less widely known, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, which can be equally hazardous to the health of Canadians. These toxic substances can be found in a range of products from children toys to consumer electronics.

Overall, we found that Health Canada and Environment Canada have put in place or proposed a range of controls—from regulations to pollution prevention plans—that are designed to manage sources of emissions, as well as mitigate the risks associated with exposure to these toxic substances.

We also found that the two departments have been measuring the actual levels of mercury, lead, and other substances found in Canadians. We noted that overall levels of lead and mercury in the blood of Canadians are low and that, in the case of lead, have declined significantly in the past three decades.

Nevertheless, these substances continue to pose risks to those individuals exposed to them. This underscores a key observation of the audit. Despite progress, the risks posed by toxic substances such as lead and mercury still require active management.

Mr. Chairman, let me highlight four particular areas that represent significant challenges to the departments, as they work to manage and mitigate the risks associated with toxic substances.

The first relates to risk management strategies. While these strategies were in place for five of the seven substances we examined, they are still not in place for lead and mercury.

We recommended that integrated strategies be prepared to manage lead and mercury. We expected that such strategies would examine progress to date, set out clear objectives and priorities to achieve them, and take into account the results of ongoing scientific research. For example, the research assessing whether the level of lead that is currently considered acceptable in blood may, in fact, be too high.

The second issue deals with the capacity of departmental compliance, promotion, and enforcement programs. Environment Canada has put in place an approach to promoting compliance and enforcing policies and regulations that allows it to prioritize its limited resources.

The third point deals with consumer products. The audit notes that, although relatively rare, unacceptable levels of lead in toys and jewellery still pose a risk to those most vulnerable in Canadian society, our children. Other consumer products noted in the chapter include baby soothers and soft vinyl toys that contain phthalates, a substance listed as toxic in 1999 and for which control measures were proposed in 2009.

This chapter addressed the issue of consumer product labelling for chronic hazards. Product labels are required to inform consumers of hazards associated with toxic substances, and to provide information, such as safe handling instructions to avoid poisoning.

One question is whether departments should go further, as do some countries under a UN initiative, to inform consumers about chronic hazards such as possible carcinogenicity.

Fourth, we recognize that the federal government is undertaking biomonitoring programs to understand the level of toxic substances found in the bodies of Canadians. Health Canada, with other federal partners, has launched several major studies, such as the Canada Health Measures Survey, to assess the presence of toxic substances in Canadians. The scope of the survey is expected to be expanded to include children from the ages of three to five, while efforts are also under way to conduct biomonitoring of first nations. These are important initiatives that will provide important data needed to understand whether departmental control efforts are actually leading to better health.

Environment Canada and Health Canada have agreed with all our recommendations. Your committee may wish to focus its attention on the adequacy of departmental action plans, the overall approach to managing the risks associated with toxic substances in consumer products, departmental compliance promotion and enforcement efforts, including the capacity to sustain those efforts given the expected growth in toxic substances and related control measures, and plans to respond to information coming from the national biomonitoring programs.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statements. We will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vaughan. Thanks to all the members of your office for the great work.

We will now hear from Brian Gray, the assistant deputy from the Department of the Environment.

Oh, Cynthia Wright is going to give the presentation. Please go ahead, Ms. Wright.

[Cynthia Wright, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of Environment Canada, and with my colleagues from Health Canada, I'm pleased to appear before the committee today with the opportunity to address this important chapter.

As you may know, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA 1999, is Canada's key piece of environmental legislation governing the assessment and management of chemical substances. Through CEPA, Environment Canada and Health Canada work with partners in other jurisdictions and various stakeholders to protect the health and environment of Canadians.

The complexities of protecting the environment and health of Canadians call for a sound management process. In CEPA, we call this process a cycle, and it is made up of risk assessment, risk management, compliance promotion and enforcement, and research and monitoring.

In the assessment phase, substances such as those reviewed in the audit are scientifically evaluated to identify the risks they may pose to health and the environment. The risk also helps to identify the sources that should then be informing our actions to manage those sources.

Under CEPA 1999, we're fortunate to have a variety of instruments that may be used to take action under risk management to protect the environment and human health in a cost-effective way that takes into account social, economic, and technological factors. Follow-up is then required to ensure that risk management actions are carried out. When non-compliance is a problem, we respond with activities ranging from promoting awareness of the measures required to enforcement, if necessary, and information about compliance is used to help evaluate and in turn improve the CEPA processes and action.

Finally, research, monitoring, and surveillance efforts identify and track the effects of hazards in the environment and associated health implications. This information provides the basis for sound public and environmental health decisions and measures the efficacy of the control measures, thus informing and re-initiating a process in other components of the cycle.

Let me give you the example of mercury, which was addressed in the audit. This is a chemical that has been of concern to the federal government for many years. We have, in fact, been regulating it for over 30 years, now to a point that research and monitoring are showing us that the man-made sources of emissions have been reduced by over 90% since we started taking action.

Risk management started in the late 1960s and focused on mercury levels in fish, as this was, and continues to be, the primary route of Canadians' exposure to mercury. The risk management strategy for mercury concentrations in retail fish was implemented at that period. During the 1970s, our knowledge of the issue advanced, and regulations were put in place under both the Fisheries Act and the Clean Air Act, which is now part of CEPA, to deal with a point source that was related to releases of mercury in water and air from mercury cell plants that manufactured chlorine used to produce PVC.

These steps were only the beginning of our risk management activity on mercury. To date, there are over 20 instruments in place, with a number of other actions planned for the near future, including upcoming new regulations on mercury in products.

We are now at a point at which the real reductions in deposition will require international action, as our research and monitoring programs show that over 95% of mercury deposition in Canada comes from foreign sources. For this reason, Canada is participating actively in the United Nations environmental program to develop a global, legally binding instrument to reduce emissions from all countries.

Our risk management programs continue to evolve. Most recently, the chemicals management plan or CMP was introduced to achieve further goals under CEPA. CMP is jointly administered by Environment Canada and Health Canada and has put Canada in the forefront in assessing and managing the risks associated with substances that are used in many industrial sectors and consumer products brought into commerce prior to our modern regime of assessing new substances.

When the CMP was launched in 2006, we completed a triage of the 23,000 existing chemicals that had not yet been assessed under the more modern regime and identified 4,300 of the substances for further action. Since then, we've published over 120 assessments, which cover nearly 1,300 substances. Final conclusions are being completed for 100 high-priority substances, with action already initiated on 31 of these.

Our commitment to risk management strategies is reflected in the CMP, in which the strategies are central tools for setting meaningful objectives as well as monitoring and reporting progress.

Chemicals management is an ongoing process. As progress is made in assessing, monitoring, and managing substances, we continue to refine our efforts to protect the environment and the health of Canadians from these harmful substances.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Wright.

We're now going to hear from the Department of Health, and Ms. Yeates, the deputy minister.

[Glenda Yeates, Deputy Minister, Department of Health]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

It's a great pleasure to be here and we'd like to thank the commissioner for his comments with respect to the department.

This is my first opportunity as the Deputy Minister of Health to appear before your committee, and I am very happy that it's on a topic that is of such importance to Canadians.

Health Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians and takes very seriously its responsibility to manage substances that are harmful to human health.

Health Canada and Environment Canada already have extensive risk management policies in place to address the risks from many harmful substances, including lead and mercury. While these strategies were not in the consolidated from we now use, risk management actions for lead and mercury have been developed, implemented and monitored. We also monitor their effectiveness.

Decades ago, lead was identified as a dangerous substance. Over the last 40 years, the Government of Canada has introduced a number of initiatives to reduce exposure, and we've seen the levels of lead in the blood of Canadians drop dramatically. In fact, this is often cited in the public health field as a major success story. During that time Canada has also reduced its man-made mercury emissions by 90%, as my colleague from the Department of the Environment noted.

But we continue to want to move forward in protecting Canadians by implementing a solid chemicals management plan, one that is based on very sound and thorough science. This is a plan that assesses and manages the risks of chemical substances to human health and the environment.

As part of this plan, we set out to assess 200 of the highest-priority substances by 2011 and introduce whatever risk management would be required. I'm pleased to report to the committee that we are on schedule, having already completed final assessments for 120 of the substances on that list.

Just to put this in some perspective, we have accelerated our risk assessments from roughly 70 substances over 18 years to, rather, 70 substances every year. As I mentioned, we're on schedule, then, to complete the targeted assessments by 2011.

Health Canada continues to conduct research that gives us insight into the hazards associated with other chemicals and guides the way we monitor their impact on human health.

Our own assessments of the risks of Bisphenol A lead to Canada becoming the first country in the world to ban baby bottles made with that chemical. Canada was also the first country in the world to limit lead in children's jewelry, and we have some of the most stringent lead limits in the world.

We continue to monitor new scientific information on chemicals to determine whether additional action is needed. As recognized in the audit, we are currently doing this for lead. As we revise our risk management strategy, we will implement the commissioner's recommendation to develop a comprehensive and consolidated description of all of our actions and progress to date and outline any remaining actions and timelines.

With respect to the observation in the report about the labelling of consumer products, we were very thoughtful and focused on the fact that one of the three pillars of our approach to regulation is active prevention. This reinforces the notion that an informed consumer is in fact an integral part in the assurance of safety of consumer products. To that end, we recognize that labelling is one of a number of tools in the regulatory tool kit. However, there is still significant debate around the world about how and when to use this tool most effectively.

When the labelling issue was debated by a committee of the House of Commons when it was examining the former Bill C-6, the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, it was agreed that there was no simple solution. But the bill was then consequently amended to include the creation of an advisory committee which, among other things, would provide advice on issues such as labelling. Having an advisory committee that would consider and give us expert advice on labelling could supplement the work that we are already doing within the department with respect to chemicals that are used by consumers and chemicals that are used in the workplace.

Finally, I can assure the Committee that Health Canada collaborates effectively with Environment Canada. Scientists and managers from both departments jointly develop risk-management strategies to protect both human health and the environment.

As such, we are implementing the recommendations found in the report of the Commissioner of the Environment, and I would like to assure all members of the committee that Health Canada is committed to continuing to work with Environment Canada to enhance our risk management strategies and to monitor their performance.

Thank you very much.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Yeates.

We're now going to start the first round of questions of seven minutes each.

Monsieur Dion, pour sept minutes.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to all our witnesses. Thank you for being with us today.

The subject of today's meeting is extremely important in terms of the health of Canadians and of our environment—namely, the toxic substances that are released into the air and which may affect us in all kinds of ways.

Over the decades, the news has been fairly positive. According to the report, in the 1970s—when we were all still wearing short pants—one quarter of Canadians had lead levels that were too high. Now, that has been reduced to 1%. You mentioned that human-caused mercury emissions had declined by 90%. I suppose you are referring there to human activities in Canada, and mercury sources from abroad are on the rise. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think so.

That is very positive; at the same time, we must not be complacent. We have to look at that report very carefully. This is too important an issue. I am certain my colleagues have lots of questions, so I will ask mine right away.

The report is critical of the two departments with respects to the lack of a comprehensive report on lead and mercury. In your presentations, you did not respond to that criticism. However, on page 16 of the French version of the report, it says that Health Canada has announced a comprehensive lead assessment by means of consultations expected to take place in mid-2010—and we are almost there. Environment Canada was also planning to publish an integrated mercury study by the winter of 2009-2010—which has already gone by.

Could I ask officials from those two departments what the status of that is? Have they filled the gaps mentioned in the Commissioner's report?

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you very much for the question.

We are currently conducting a toxicological assessment for lead.

We have been working on this for approximately 18 months. We are anticipating that it will be released this current year, 2010, so we are on schedule to release it in that timeframe. Once we've released the toxicological assessment, the reassessment, which takes into account all of the latest scientific information from around the world on lead, we will be in a position to take the appropriate measures that follow from that assessment.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

So you think that at that time you will be able to say you are responding adequately to what the report is asking you to do?

[Glenda Yeates]

Yes, we do.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Okay.

[Cynthia Wright]

Thank you for your question. Just to give you an idea of the context, I think it's important to mention that risk management strategies are a new tool that we now use every time we evaluate a substance.

So it's a new procedure that we have in place and we're very proud that it's in place. It's now becoming a model for the government that when a risk is assessed, a strategy is put in place to measure progress. That's something that we do systematically for all substances now.

For mercury, we have many strategies already in place. As the commissioner noted, though, we didn't have one document that knitted them altogether. So the first thing we did was to look at our website, which is where Canadians often go for information. I'm now very pleased to say that on our website you can enter “mercury” and see the existing 20 measures that are in place; you can see the context of what the sources are and how they're being managed; and it also describes the measures that we have under way, including international action, because, as we noted, international action is now an extremely important factor in reducing Canadians' exposure to mercury.

Our next step is to knit all of these together in a document that would be publicly available, both on the web and in hard copy. So we, too, feel that we're on track to address this gap that the commissioner noted in terms of being able to communicate effectively to Canadians what's in place and what's still to come.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

May I ask the commissioner, is it what you had in mind?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you.

Yes, we pointed out.... I think what both witnesses have said is the importance of pulling together into one package a diverse series of control and other measures, as I think the Environment Canada representative said...to knit it together to see in one consolidated picture.... So yes, sir, and I think from that there would be benefits in terms of looking to see if there are gaps and whether or not those gaps could be identified once everything is in a consolidated picture.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Could I now move on to another very important issue that is addressed in the report—labelling. The report says: “While labelling of chemical products in the workplace is required to indicate the hazards of chronic use, no similar requirement exists for certain consumer products where multiple or long-term use may pose chronic hazards.” One may wonder why there would be less stringent requirements to protect consumers than there are to protect workers. Those products even include some children's toys.

Could I ask the Commissioner why no recommendation was made on the important issue of labelling?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, as you underscore and as the witnesses have said, the issue of labelling has long been discussed, and we've noted where we thought the state of debate is at the moment. Part of that, as one of the witnesses said, is that there's still an outstanding debate between the issue of chronic and acute and how effective they are.

It would seem to us that we did not and would not enter into what seems a policy discussion on where that will finally land. However, we did also note at the international level some countries have adopted labelling under a UN initiative and that the evidence we had on that particular issue was that Canada wanted to harmonize its efforts with those of the United States.

On the specific issue of lead in toys and lead in products more generally, from our understanding of the history, there were various attempts to enter into voluntary agreements with industry, including with partners from outside Canada, from the import side, and that the label then was one of the options the departments had looked at. In the end, they decided to settle on an acceptable threshold, after which any product which exceeded that threshold would be an unacceptable or illegal product, essentially.

Finally, on why we did not make the recommendation, when were doing this audit, Bill C-6 was still very much in discussion, and we didn't move forward given the context of the Bill C-6 discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Ms. Faille, you have seven minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

With respect to management of mercury emissions, along the same lines as Mr. Dion's questions, in paragraphs 2.34 and 2.35 of your report, you say that a regulation pertaining to the release of mercury from consumer products was proposed in 2007, but has not yet been implemented.

Can you tell us what is preventing the implementation of this legislation?

[Glenda Yeates]

In terms of risk management actions on mercury, we are working very much with our colleagues in the Department of the Environment on the mercury issues. The updating of the regulations is something we are continuing to work on, and I may ask one of my colleagues to address...I think it will be the Department of the Environment that addresses this issue.

[Cynthia Wright]

We have a number of instruments either in place or under development dealing with mercury in products. We are working on regulations that would prohibit the manufacture, import, and sale of products containing mercury except for essential uses, and in those areas limits would be set. We would envision labelling on those products what the limits are and reporting in terms of their use and manufacture.

There are other areas where we are putting in what we call pollution prevention plans. I mentioned that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has a number of instruments we can use. We have recently published a notice on dealing with mercury in--

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Yes, but my question was: what are the obstacles preventing you from implementing it? This is mentioned in paragraph 2.34 of your report.

[Cynthia Wright]

As I am saying, the regulation is still under development. I don't think there are really obstacles to implementing it. This is one of our first product regulations under CEPA, and the work is going well. It is a new area for us, to be regulating products under CEPA, and we are using other tools as well to complement it.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Do you have a timeline? There is no mention of that in your action plan.

[Cynthia Wright]

We are expecting it later this year, in 2010, probably towards the early fall, I would expect.