Public Accounts Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Cynthia Wright]

Oh, he does--rest assured.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Young.

Mr. Young, you have five minutes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This is for Mr. Enei or anyone at the Department of the Environment or Department of Health.

Maybe even the brand new deputy minister of Health would like to try to answer this question; I'm sure you can, but it might not be fair because you're brand new.

I'm curious as to why we're using the term “risk management instead of “precautionary principle”. How did we get to risk management?

This process at Health Canada, the chemicals management plan, is in my view perhaps the most significant ever in assessing 200 high-priority substances and being on schedule for the assessments at 170. I also think that 70 assessments a year is an accomplishment. I think you're doing the right thing.

When you started this in 2006, you completed a triage of 23,000 existing chemicals. You identified 4,300 chemical substances for further attention and got it down to your high-priority substances. I've never seen government work this well on an environmental issue. Your accomplishments are very, very considerable.

Congratulations on being the first country in the world to ban bisphenol A in baby bottles. I think that was a gutsy move. I think it was a gutsy move to ban lead in children's toys. I think it will save lives. It will protect the health of infants and children.

My concern is about using the term “managing risk”. I'm wondering how important it is to have lead in consumer products at all. Why don't you use the momentum you now have—in fact, Canada is leading the world on lead and bisphenol A—and declare with some of these chemicals that by the precautionary principle, because the chemical is not proven safe for any use, you're going to ban the substance until the industry can prove it safe? Declare to industry that you are going to operate under the principle of “better safe than sorry”.

Everybody is anxious to try to answer that question.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Cynthia Wright]

I'll start and then allow some of my colleagues to jump in.

You compared the precautionary principle to risk management. The precautionary principle actually guides us throughout that entire cycle, and it guides us through the risk assessment phase. I'm sure my colleagues would be welcome to speak more on that aspect.

But as has been mentioned, many of these substances are quite ubiquitous. They're serving a purpose in society. For instance, we're still using mercury in instrument measurement. What we try to do is avoid future exposures. We try to control existing exposures. In some cases, that will be a ban--it's an appropriate tool--and in other cases, we look for phase-out over time. We also look for the precautionary principle even in terms of where our enforcement efforts come in. I think a precautionary principle applies throughout.

We do try to balance whether or not something is performing a useful purpose, if the risk can be controlled, and if there can be prevention of any releases to the environment and exposure to human health. Whether the substance has a useful value to society is something that we do have to demonstrate in our risk management. We have to compare the benefits and costs to get the appropriate instrument.

The other thing is that some of these substances are naturally occurring. With lead and mercury, you're always going to have some residual levels in the environment from natural sources. It's a matter of managing the exposures and trying to find the most cost-effective way to do that. That's where the precautionary principle does help us choose the appropriate measure.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Does anybody else want to take a stab at that?

[Glenda Yeates]

I would just support what my colleague has said about the precautionary principle. It is something that infuses our work as we go through the risk management set of criteria and as we look to the range of what appropriate tools or measures we should take.

When we look at the impact on human health, we very much include all the possibilities, from banning to mitigating to some other possibilities along that spectrum, as we look at the balance that my colleague has spoken to. From the examples that you raised, we very much err on the side of the precautionary principle informing our thinking, but we do feel that we have a series of tools that can be appropriate and deal with the substances.

I'll pass this on--

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

So my point is not just that you're not prioritizing it; I understand that you're using it, in effect. My concern is that the term has disappeared and I think that's had an effect on the entire process. When you use the industry language, I'm just afraid that we're buying into the industry needs as opposed to public safety.

May I ask you another question, Madam Yeates? This is with regard to the research. Do you ever use research from other countries? I know that you're doing research here on products.

Is there any kind of organization that will come out with a result that you will act on in actually limiting or banning a substance? Or do you feel it's important for you to reinvent or reproduce that research here? It occurs to me that you could save a lot of time and money if you shared research on substances, and you could act faster as well.

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you for the question.

We do in fact work with international partners and colleagues to share information and research findings. We very much appreciate that we are part of an international community and that these are typically questions that other developed countries are dealing with as well.

For example, our scientists sit on OECD task forces and committees to actually share the work, to share the findings and the scientific effort to pool our information. We do very much try to work with international colleagues to assess their findings, to take their findings on board, and to participate in international scientific effort.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

My question was, do you act on that or do you have to reproduce it locally?

[Glenda Yeates]

We certainly can assess the science in any way. We would presumably not just take a finding without doing our own assessment, but that does not in all cases mean redoing the science. We can review the literature, review the information, and use all of the tools and developments across the world that are at our disposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

We're now going to move on to Madame Beaudin, pour cinq minutes.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chairman; I will be using her five minutes.

In paragraph 2.39 of the report, it says: “The Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001, require classification and labelling of consumer chemical products, such as paint strippers.” There are hazards associated with the handling of toxic substances and exposure to such substances increased the risk of developing cancers associated with inappropriate use.

Do you receive requests from the provinces regarding certain substances—requests made with a view to lowering the cost of treating illness?

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not aware of any, but I will ask my colleagues if they've had any dealings with the provinces on this question.

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

Do you share your research with the provinces? Because in your statement, you said that you assess the human costs associated with treating illness related to chemical exposure. Do you share your research with the public?

[Glenda Yeates]

Yes, we do. I'll ask my colleague Karen Lloyd to answer your question more specifically.

[Karen Lloyd]

Certainly, both Environment Canada and Health Canada are active in several different groups with the provinces. We have the committee on health and the environment, which I chair, and I co-chair another one, which is the national advisory committee under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We share the information of our assessments, we consult with the provinces, and we seek their input, so we're actively engaged with them. If we come up with new information that we feel is under their jurisdiction, we share that information with them so they can take the appropriate action.

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

When was the last meeting?

[Karen Lloyd]

For the committee on health and the environment, it's next week or the week after. We have that twice a year. With both committees, it's twice a year, unless there's an issue--

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

So, there are two meetings a year.

[Karen Lloyd]

--that comes up that we specifically need their help on, and then we set up a conference call to deal with it.

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

When was the last time you met with provincial officials to discuss chemicals and developments pertaining to your analysis?

[Karen Lloyd]

It would have been a few months ago, although whenever we come out with new assessments they get notice of it, and we have a conference call with them. That happens every two to three months.