Environment committee  There are a couple of themes that I would highlight again. One is the need for action once we declare things toxic. The other is the theme of the residualization of CEPA, which was introduced in the last stages of the 1999 process. I think it needs to be looked at very carefully

Environment committee  Keep in mind that one of the dimensions is, of course, that the definition of toxicity in the existing act is quite broad and was actually drafted for the specific purpose of being able to capture something that doesn't have a direct toxic effect at the level of individuals or pe

Environment committee  I think the short answer is yes on both fronts. What needs to happen within the act is there needs to be much more specific criteria about when the Government of Canada can enter into an equivalency agreement with a province. They need to ask not just is there a legislative or

Environment committee  Indeed, you get a pre-emptive offer of equivalency from the federal government the moment it says, “Well, we might do something about this, but there will be an offer of equivalency on the table immediately.” I think that needs to be approached in a much more robust way. If the s

Environment committee  I think the scope is potentially quite broad, given that most of the air pollutants of concern, both the smog precursors and the hazardous air pollutants, are already on the list of toxic substances, so the potential scope of federal regulatory actions is already quite wide. I

Environment committee  As much as I agree it would be very useful for some of the new substance assessment processes to be much more in the character of an environmental assessment and to take a broader perspective on things, the challenge, of course, becomes what the basis is for that on the part of t

Environment committee  I think part of the distinction around environmental risks in particular is this question of voluntary versus involuntary risk.

Environment committee  The question in particular is that the contaminants we're talking about here under CEPA are things to which we are involuntarily exposed. We have no choice at all about the exposure pathway, precisely because they're in the ambient environment. Indeed, with certain vulnerable pop

Environment committee  I think the substitution notion is a very interesting one to embed in the risk management process of CEPA. We've had lots of precedents with other jurisdiction moving in that direction, so we would not be moving anywhere that radical. It opens some interesting possibilities, when

Environment committee  I think the short answer is no. There would be no statutory basis at this stage for that.

Environment committee  There are two dimensions to this. This largely would actually fall under provincial jurisdiction, under provincial legislation. The exceptions would be if it involved a CEPA toxic substance and there were some specific regulatory requirement around that. The other dimension o

Environment committee  I approach this from two minds. The risk assessment side of me strongly favours the hazard-based approach. I was one of the authors of the notion of inherent toxicity in the existing act. The other side of me was one of the contributors to the ultimately successful factum in the

Environment committee  I think the stick really comes down to.... Once there is determination of toxicity, this has to trigger a series of statutory duties on the part of the Government of Canada. There have to be requirements for action. This is typically the way U.S. environmental legislation works,

Environment committee  Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. My name is Mark Winfield and I'm a professor of environmental studies at York University. I'm also a coordinator of the joint program in environmental studies and law that we offer with Osgoode Hall Law