Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 21 - Evidence, August 26, 1999 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Thursday, August 26, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-32, respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, met this day at 1:44 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the chair.
[english]
The Chairman: Colleagues, we will now resume our hearings on Bill C-32. Our next witnesses are from the World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
It is a pleasure to have you here, gentlemen. Please proceed.
Mr. Paul Muldoon, Executive Director, Canadian Environmental Law Association: On behalf of myself and Mr. Boljkovac, it is a pleasure to be here with you today to address Bill C-32. Perhaps Mr. Boljkovac could take a few minutes to give an overview of his presentation on the precautionary principle and the concept in the bill dealing with endocrine disrupters, then I will proceed to review the issues dealing mainly with the part of the bill which relates to toxic substances. We will both attempt to be brief in our opening comments to leave lots of time for questions.
Mr. Craig Boljkovac, Policy Officer, Wildlife Toxicology Programme, World Wildlife Fund Canada: Senators, the World Wildlife Fund is the world's largest conservation organization. We have a presence in over 100 countries around the world. You might be familiar with us mainly from our work on conservation of spaces and species. However, what brings us here today to talk about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is our long history and involvement in the issue of toxic chemicals. In fact, we feel strongly that the fundamental underlying biological systems that govern the way life on earth operates need to be as free from contamination as possible in order to have viable species and ecosystems overall. That is the main thrust of our work on toxic chemicals.
We have been involved with the CEPA review along with the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Environmental Network's toxics caucus since its inception in October of 1993. In fact, Mr. Muldoon and I appeared as the second witnesses before the House of Commons standing committee when they commenced their CEPA review in June of 1994.
We had concerns with the way CEPA was written in 1988. In our opinion, it did not provide a viable framework for the management of toxic chemicals in Canada. In our submission to the House of Commons environment committee we made a number of recommendations coming from two complementary directions.
Since 1988 there has been a growing body of evidence that a family of chemicals called endocrine disrupting chemicals do not operate the way that classical toxicology has always thought that chemicals operate in the human body, wildlife, et cetera. This growing body of evidence can relate to Canada quite strongly. The Great Lakes region is probably the best studied area of the world where endocrine disruption was first detected and where the science has proceeded significantly. As well, the Arctic has been very closely studied. Before working with the World Wildlife Fund, I was director of research for the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. I believe you will hear tomorrow from the Inuit about a program that studies chemicals in the Arctic. The World Wildlife Fund has also been very much involved in Arctic toxicology research.
That is the first area I want to discuss because, in a way, it turns classical toxicology on its head. It is more difficult to regulate endocrine disrupters, given the way CEPA was passed originally, than if would be if you took a truly precautionary approach to chemicals, which is the second part of what I would like to discuss today.
In our brief to the House of Commons, we discussed how to operationalize the precautionary principle in the context of CEPA, and we should like to discuss that with you today as well. There have been amendments to CEPA and some steps have been taken to operationalize the precautionary principle. However, some of the amendments made at report stage in the House of Commons turned those on their heads and, in our view, make the bill very much unworkable as an effective tool to deal with those chemicals.
To begin with endocrine disruption, I have here a book by Theo Colborn, a colleague of mine from the World Wildlife Fund U.S. It is entitled Our Stolen Future. Ms Colborn is an eminent research scientist who has spent the bulk of her career gathering evidence on toxic chemicals and their effects. Ironically, she started off studying cancer clusters in the Great Lakes and other regions of North America. She was trying to correlate where cancer was occurring with the presence or absence of chemicals in the environment. Instead of finding just a strong correlation between those two factors, she found that many other subtle effects were coming out in the literature, but that no one had looked at the big picture.
She now has, in our Washington office, a collection of 14,000 scientific studies, most of them peer reviewed, on different aspects of chemicals, the effects of chemicals, and the presence of chemicals in the environment. She was able to discern that chemicals themselves seem to have much more subtle effects than the end point such as cancer that you would see. She was finding things like thyroid dysfunction in birds. She was finding growths or development irregularities in fish, reptiles, turtles and mammals. She even found subtle behavioural abnormalities in birds, for instance. She found female-female pairing or nesting in the wild where it had never been seen before. She also found a demasculinization and feminization of male invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals, and compromised immune systems.
Other work was done on the Great Lakes that showed subtle effects in humans as well. A study was conducted of families that ate Lake Michigan trout. It was found that the offspring of those eating the fish also showed many subtle behavioural effects such as lack of attention span, and even physical effects such as smaller head size and greater susceptibility to infection. Those results have been repeated, in a very preliminary way I must caution, among Inuit children in the Arctic. In northern Quebec, a study is being done with the Quebec public health authorities. Preliminary results have made an association between PCB levels in the blood of people in northern Quebec and some developmental and other problems. These are the subtle problems that endocrine disruption raises.
How does this relates to CEPA? The chemicals in your endocrine system are the chemicals which govern how you develop. They have some influence on your intelligence. Those chemicals all operate within your hormonal system. They operates at levels as low as a trillionth of a gram.
You heard from industry this morning that we are talking about very small levels of many of these chemicals. I submit to you that there is ample evidence that chemicals can mimic, replace and confound natural hormones in the bodies of humans and wildlife, and they can operate at those low levels. Therefore, for some of these chemicals there may be no safe levels. In other cases, a "safe level" may be determined by health authorities, but the actual safe level may be much lower.
Endocrine disrupters are not necessarily persistent. You heard about DDT this morning. It takes about 10 years until it breaks down to some degree. Some of these chemicals are what we call "hit and run" chemicals. If they enter your body at a certain point in your development, they dissipate with no trace except for the altered development path which they have set. From a regulator's point of view, and even from a scientist's point of view, those types of things are very difficult to prove 100 per cent.
I would like to talk now about how we can deal with these chemicals in a precautionary way to try to ensure that CEPA can protect Canadians and the environment in a meaningful way.
The precautionary principle was developed in Germany in the late 1970s. In the way classical risk assessment works and the way the present CEPA works, you need a very high level of proof of the link between a substance and its having an effect on an organism. In the original CEPA, as well as in the bill before you, under the definition of toxicity, one has to prove that a substance is toxic if it was emitted into the environment, if it had effects on human health or the environment, and if it is emitted in such an amount that it has been known to cause those effects. It is that absolute, almost 100 per cent proof, as we term it, that has to be proven.
As a result, the 1988 CEPA contained a priority substances list of 44 different substances. After five years, countless hundreds of thousands of dollars, I would suspect, has been spent to assess these chemicals. It turned out that 25 are toxic since they meet those very strict CEPA requirements for toxicity. Seven of them were declared non-toxic. With regard to 13 of them, there was not enough information to make such a determination.
The precautionary principle calls for preventive anticipatory measures to be taken when an activity raises the threat of harm to the environment. You do not have to fully prove that cause and effect relationship. Much like what Dr. Colborn did when she gathered evidence for endocrine disruption, what you do is look at a wide body of evidence. You would look at the signals that that evidence gives you. You do it in a scientific way, with a policy objective in mind. Once you have that evidence, what will you do? Is the chemical of enough concern that you want to ban it, or do you just want to control it? One has to constantly review that decision making as new evidence becomes available.
Many international initiatives have done a fairly good job at putting certain pieces of those puzzles together. The International Joint Commission, which is a binational body that governs Great Lakes transboundary issues between Canada and the U.S., has a scientific advisory board that gave tremendous advice to both governments in regard to putting all the evidence together in order to make decisions concerning chemicals which would emanate from these substances. I submit those decisions have not been fully implemented in any way, shape or form. In fact, they have been better implemented in other jurisdictions, by other countries.
Under a couple of different laws, the Americans have mandated the screening and testing of over 15,000 chemicals for endocrine disruption potential. That work has been four years in the making. It has been recently endorsed by the National Academy of Scientists in the United States as something that has to happen. No such screening program of chemicals for endocrine disruption as an end point has been put in place in Canada.
There are other international agreements in this regard. There is one in the North-East Atlantic region called the Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Environment. They have a list of substances which will be stringently tested and actions will be taken to eliminate them, ultimately, to the point where they are not detectable in the environment.
A great deal of research is going on in the European Union. In fact, endocrine disruption legislation will be put in place in the EU shortly.
Those are the sorts of precautionary frameworks that we would like to have seen CEPA emulate.
I should now like to address the guts of Bill C-32. We would acknowledge that, under clause 44 of this bill, Environment Canada and the Government of Canada will put in place a program for research which will contain the best definition of endocrine disruption in any legislation anywhere in the world at the present moment. Given the evidence of endocrine disruption which exists in the Canadian environment, we feel there is more than enough evidence to proceed in a regulatory manner. The fact is that the Canadian environment is one of the best studied environments in the world in terms of wildlife.
In the research and information gathering part of the bill, one cannot undertake regulatory action on endocrine disrupters as its own family of chemicals unless it is covered under Part 5 of the bill, which is entitled, "Controlling Toxic Substances." We have some suggested language whereby you could actually include a definition of "endocrine disrupting substance" in that part of the bill. That would enable you to regulate endocrine disrupters as a family, or at least to take steps toward regulation.
There are two other issues around the precautionary principle about which we make key recommendations. Our final recommendation, which has to do with virtual-elimination provisions, will be addressed by Mr. Muldoon.
Under clause 77 of the bill, a regime will be set up to screen the more than 23,000 chemicals listed on the domestic substances list that was put together when CEPA was passed in 1988. As it came out of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, those substances would have to be tested for their persistence, their bioaccumulative capacity and their inherent toxicity. Inherent toxicity is different from CEPA toxicity, which I mentioned earlier, in that it is the inherent or the innate characteristics of that chemical to cause harm that must be considered. A critical part of the precautionary principle is, in my view, that you do not have to make that very strong link of proof between chemical "X" and organism "Y." To reach a conclusion, you simply consider where the evidence is pointing.
Unfortunately, under the terms of this bill, those three factors are no longer the only three factors that have to be taken into consideration. Some language was added to the beginning of clause 77 which, in our interpretation, adds another layer of CEPA toxicity having to be proven. It took over five years to evaluate 44 substances under the 1988 version of CEPA for their toxicity. The bulk of those evaluations were completed just under the wire at the end of that five-year period.
The process to prove that something is toxic under CEPA is incredibly difficult. I submit to you today that to attempt to evaluate 23,000 substances to that level of proof is an exercise in complete futility. I do not think it is possible. The addition of that language in clause 77 puts into great doubt the assessment of those 23,000 chemicals.
I also submit that, if Environment Canada is able to make those assessments -- and I believe under the terms of the bill they have seven years to do it -- their findings will be open to challenge. That is because the level of assessment that industry has come to expect for CEPA toxicity under the original bill would be, by necessity, very different when testing 23,000 chemicals for their toxicity. Thus, we would like to see that language excised from the bill and returned to the form in which it was found when it was at report stage in the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Before you lose us on that important point, you are referring to clause 77(3) on page 49. You would like the present wording retained. You would like to remove from that the reference to "...the substance is determined to be toxic or capable of becoming toxic..."
Mr. Boljkovac: Yes.
The Chairman: It would then be what it was when it came out of committee. Please explain to me a little slower why this is such an imposition.
Mr. Boljkovac: To prove a substance CEPA-toxic is to undertake a very detailed risk assessment. There must be a very difficult-to-prove link between the presence of that chemical in the environment and its effect on an organism. Under the present CEPA, that takes an incredible amount of resources and time and effort on the part of the government for a mere 44 substances. The government, at report stage, added that level of proof to a screening process of over 23,000 substances that can be found in the domestic substances list. I submit that, to be able to do that in a way that cannot be challenged by industry or that is at a level that is roughly equivalent to what was done to those mere 44 substances, would be an exceedingly difficult if not impossible task.
The Chairman: I am sorry to have interrupted you, but I wanted to understand this point. Does that mean that the precautionary principle would still apply?
Mr. Boljkovac: My interpretation is that, by adding that level of proof, the precautionary principle would be thrown out the window. Our organization has done a lot of work on how to operationalize the precautionary principle. One way to put the precautionary principle into action is to be able to gather large bodies of evidence and draw some conclusions from that evidence. Gathering evidence to prove something with 100 per cent certainty, I would suggest, is a much more difficult task. It would probably require the commissioning of new studies. Intensive research would take a long time. It cannot be done as easily, as cost effectively, or as effectively overall by taking a risk-based approach. You would be adding a huge task to those already undertaken by bureaucracy.
Perhaps Environment Canada officials may differ with our interpretation, but we believe that it opens it up to challenge from industry. Over the past six or seven years, under the original CEPA, industry saw evidence, and assessments of that evidence, being applied to individual substances. Some of it was new scientific research and some of it took a long time to pull together, and it required quite a rigorous level of proof to be applied. That order of magnitude of proof, in my opinion, is above the level you would be able to achieve for 23,000 substances.
The Chairman: If it were taken out, then the precautionary principle would apply.
Mr. Boljkovac: You would be much closer to operationalizing the precautionary principle because you would be reaching conclusions in a more general way by considering the existing evidence. Yes, we believe that you would be much truer to the intent of the precautionary principle by taking actions when you do not necessarily have that high level of proof. Where the evidence points to there being a problem caused by certain chemicals, then you can apply the precautionary principle. In a way, you would be changing the onus. The industry could come back to you and say, "This chemical is not a problem, and here is our new evidence." That is fine. That evidence can continue to be gathered. It is a dynamic process.
It is theoretical to try to visualize how such a process would work, but I think if you retained the screening provisions as they were before the report stage, it would be much more achievable given the task of having to screen such a huge number of substances. It is necessary to screen the chemicals that are being used in the Canadian environment.
The Chairman: Clause 76.1 states that:
...the Ministers shall apply a weight of evidence approach and the precautionary principle.
I questioned the department on this, and I still do not know what is meant by "weight of evidence." That approach is a whole new concept, and I may propose an amendment to remove that so that we just deal with the precautionary principle.
Mr. Boljkovac: We would actually counsel you not to do that. "Weight of evidence" is part of the gathering of evidence.
The Chairman: It says "...and the precautionary principle."
Mr. Boljkovac: It is a component of the precautionary principle. It is a mechanism for doing this.
The Chairman: Where does that come from?
Mr. Boljkovac: It comes from the international joint commission's work that has been done on the Great Lakes over the past 20 years.
The Chairman: Is "weight of evidence" part of the precautionary principle?
Mr. Boljkovac: It is a way to operationalize the precautionary principle. It is a gathering of evidence. I apologize for not having used that term when I was describing how you gather evidence and consider whether that evidence indicates harm being done to organisms from toxic chemicals. "Preponderance of evidence" is another phrase that I think you could use. I am not a lawyer, and Mr. Muldoon would probably be able to give you a different interpretation from a more legalistic perspective. If the preponderance of that evidence shows that there is harm being done by these chemicals, even if there is not 100 per cent proof, it is considered to be almost like circumstantial evidence. There need not necessarily be 100 per cent proof. For example, you may not have seen a particular chemical causing a certain effect, but you may have seen studies showing a lower IQ in infants where those infants have been exposed to certain levels of, say, PCBs. They are present at levels where you suspect there may be effects, but you do not have 100 per cent proof of the link.
The Chairman: I do not want to debate that point. I just raise it because I find it confusing.
You are saying that if you deleted that from 77(3), then the minister on the assessment would just apply the precautionary principle, the weight of evidence approach, which is how the legislation reads currently, and that that would be acceptable to you. That would deal with these endocrine disrupters.
Mr. Boljkovac: Yes. It would deal with all kinds of chemicals. You could gather evidence related to any type of chemical problem.
Senator Spivak: Is the seven years just a categorization? There is no limit on the screening.
Mr. Boljkovac: That is to determine which chemicals are of concern and should be tested further.
Senator Spivak: It could take until the year 3000 to do the screening.
Mr. Boljkovac: Absolutely.
Senator Cochrane: Did you recommend this to the House of Commons committee? Did you appear before them?
Mr. Boljkovac: Yes. We appeared twice before them.
Senator Cochrane: Did you recommend that this precautionary principle be added?
Mr. Boljkovac: No. The precautionary principle was already in the bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons. We recommended a testing regime that would also look at endocrine disruption as an effect as well, and that recommendation was not put into the language of the bill. Nevertheless, we are still pleased with the screening regime that was set up in clause 77. We think that it is a great improvement over what was previously in CEPA.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Chairman, I see little hope of this committee complying with this gentleman's request because the majority of the committee -- we voted against it on this side -- voted that the bill would be reported without amendment.
Mr. Boljkovac: I understand the minister appeared before you yesterday. We are here to give you suggestions on how to improve this proposed legislation. That is my understanding of the role of the Senate. We have come forward with some key recommendations. We have cut our recommendations down to the bone from the 100-some recommendations in the brief presented by Mr. Muldoon in the House. My own organization came forward with about 13 at that time. We are here to discuss the problems with the bill and how to improve it. I cannot say more.
The Chairman: We appreciate that and we are listening.
Senator Taylor: Just for the record, the motion was not to refuse to hear any amendments; the motion was to vote on and dispose of the bill by a certain date. The bill can be amended 100 times if the committee can be convinced to do that.
Senator Spivak: But will you vote for the bill then?
Senator Taylor: The point of all committee hearings is to convince the majority that an amendment is good.
Senator Buchanan: Will you vote for a reasonable amendment?
Senator Taylor: Of course, I will vote for a reasonable amendment, but I have not heard one yet.
I do want to ask a question. It seems you are hanging your hat on the precautionary principle. "Precautionary principle" can be defined in two or three ways. One definition includes cost-effectiveness.
Mr. Boljkovac: That is my next point.
Senator Taylor: How do you define "precautionary principle"? I know it is not found in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary but I understand from environmentalists that "precautionary principle" can be defined using the word "cost-effectiveness" in the formula. In your opinion, that term is not in the formula, and you are against it being in the bill. The whole thing rides then on whether cost-effectiveness is within the precautionary principle.
In this argument about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, I am just wondering if you have left out one of the angels?
Mr. Boljkovac: If you will persevere with me, senators, I was not quite finished my presentation. I wanted to deal with cost-effectiveness later.
Senator Taylor: I apologize.
The Chairman: Before you move on, Senator Chalifoux has a comment on this area.
Senator Chalifoux: Under clause 76(1) the minister is compelled to apply a weight-of-evidence approach and the precautionary principle. The bill contains that directive. Did you want to strengthen it, or what do you want?
Mr. Boljkovac: You can leave that phrase as it is. I am talking about the addition of words which refer to having to prove that a substance is toxic under CEPA. That requirement negates the inherent toxicity screening requirement. The wording in clause 77 is actually inconsistent with that which is set out in the weight of evidence approach and the precautionary principle in clause 76.
Senator Chalifoux: Thank you. That is helpful.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr. Boljkovac: My last point involves the addition of the term "cost-effective" to the precautionary principle. My explanation about operationalizing the precautionary principle is a related issue. How does one figure out how to make the precautionary principle work? How does one gather evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence that certain chemicals are causing harm, or that very little or no evidence exists that certain chemicals are causing harm?
There are many definitions of "precautionary principle." One is found in Nova Scotia's environment act and the wording is exactly the same as found in this bill except for the use of the term "cost-effective."
I can give you the reference later, Senator Buchanan, if you are interested.
The 1987 UN protocol on ozone depletion defines the precautionary approach without talking about cost-effectiveness. One can also look to the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development from 1990. As well, there is the convention on hazardous wastes in Africa which contains some of the best language you could apply to taking a truly precautionary approach. African countries do not want the waste problems of other countries dumped on their lands. Other conventions contain this definition. Agenda 21 and the Rio convention wording do contain "cost-effective" but many other versions of the principle, including our own domestic law, do not.
The addition of the word "cost-effective" to this bill was inappropriate and unnecessary. Canada has a regulatory policy which guides regulators in how to make decisions when spending government money on government programs. Regulators should always have an eye to ensuring that the programs they put into place are cost-effective. Adding "cost-effective" to our cornerstone environmental law -- that is how it was described when introduced in 1988 -- sends the wrong message to industry and to Canadians. The message gets mixed between environmental and economic considerations.
Economic considerations will always come into account at the end of the day. I think you should separate the science of putting together evidence, based on the precautionary principle that these chemicals cause harm, from the economic considerations that say how to deal with the substances and how slowly the process will move. You may not be able to ban something overnight or even take action on it right away, but if it is causing harm to the Canadian environment or to Canadians, then that should take precedence over economic considerations.
I do not like the way "cost-effective" has been inserted into the part of the bill covering administrative duties. Those who interpret the legislation in future will be hamstrung by that term, and I strongly urge to you to remove that term.
The Chairman: Industry told us this morning that it is not just science; it is a direction to the minister when making the determination under the precautionary principle that cost-effectiveness must be considered. It is not a matter of his interpretation of the science; it is a matter of an instruction to the minister.
Mr. Boljkovac: Mr. Muldoon will deal with the virtual-elimination provisions, but you have interim steps under those provisions where socio-economic considerations are taken into account. Those are already embedded in the bill. They do not need to be placed into what I think is one of the core principles of an environmental bill.
Senator Spivak: The departmental officials said that assessment of a substance involves no consideration of cost-effectiveness. In my mind, this term is detrimental because it is placed next to the word "measures." That means, when you are assessing a substance, you do not assess any cost-effectiveness, but then when you take measures, those measures must be cost-effective. In effect, the inclusion of this term prevents action. That is the point.
Mr. Boljkovac: I agree.
The Chairman: Why did it happen? You have inside tracks. All of a sudden the term is inserted. The bill came out of the committee without that term and suddenly it appears.
Mr. Boljkovac: I am afraid my inside tracks are not that good. There was a lot of industry pressure to make some key changes to the bill. Many of those changes were made, although not all.
Some of this discussion can take place in the context of Mr. Muldoon's presentation so I would urge we move on.
Mr. Muldoon: The Canadian Environmental Law Association is a legal aid clinic in the province which works on provincial issues and also issues of a federal nature that are of interest to Ontarians.
We have five lawyers at the clinic and our mandate is to represent, on environmental matters only, poor people and low-income and disadvantaged communities. Therefore, I do not come here to present lofty principles and abstract thoughts. I am here representing the constituency of people at the other end of the toxics problem; the receiving end. We represent farmers who live beside leaky landfills whose cattle are harmed by them. We represent people in rural communities with contaminated water. I represent First Nations mothers whose children are sick due to contaminated land. Those are my clients. The Canadian Environmental Law Association feels some constituency with those people because that is who we represent.
Our mandate, however, is also law reform. I have not only a statutory mandate to help these people in their individual problems, but a mandate to try to improve laws and policies generally to avoid those problem, to try to foresee solutions before harm happens. Today I am wearing my law reform hat. I will give you suggestions of things we can do to help these people in the long term.
I am chair of the toxics caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network. The network is comprised of public interest groups of all kinds from across Canada, and the toxics caucus is comprised of those groups interested in issues dealing with toxic substances. Those groups have genuine interests. They range from large national groups to small grassroots groups from every corner of Canada. Since 1993, we have been focusing on this bill. Many of us, including myself, were involved in the early 1980s with the original CEPA. I attended all the consultations and appeared before the standing committee at that time. Therefore, we have had a long history, individually and collectively, with the drafting of the existing CEPA, the implementation of the existing CEPA, and with the development of this bill.
The caucus first started in the review by appearing at the consultations sponsored by the department. It also undertook some research. We produced 500 pages of research on various aspects of toxics, citizens' rights, and other pertinent issues. That research was summarized in our original submission to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in a document called "An Agenda For Reform." This represents the views of the 30 to 60 groups that contributed to it.
We then appeared at various times before the standing committee studying the bill once it was drafted. We prepared a 220-page submission for the committee's review. Again, we appeared and did much additional research in response to questions of the committee.
When the bill left committee, we realized that it had many problems, but we believed that the bill moved the yardstick forward in dealing with some very important issues. However, when some of the key amendments made by the committee were undone at report stage, we had profound problems supporting the bill. At this time, our association and many of the groups within the caucus do not support the bill emanating from those changes. One of the hardest things I can do in my career is to come here before you as an environmentalist and public interest lawyer and not support an environmental bill.
Our presentation refers mostly to technical aspects of the bill, but I would like to put it in context. You heard this morning that there is no existing problem that we are attempting to resolve. I want to put on the record information which shows that there is a problem.
Each year the National Pollutant Release Inventory issues a report outlining the release and transfers of pollutants in the Canadian environment. The latest data suggest that 82 million kilograms of pollutants are released into the environment every year. That is about 142,000 tonnes. There are 41 million kilograms transferred off site, or 70 million tonnes. That totals 124 million kilograms of pollutants being released and transferred into the Canadian environment every year. Thirteen thousand tonnes of those substances are CEPA toxic and carcinogenic. That is not my data. That is industry data reported to a national database.
The trend is not from very high levels nose-diving to lower levels. It is basically a steady line. There have been improvements in some areas and no improvements in others. There has not been a dramatic decrease over the years in these pollutants. In fact, the trend is to a reduction in releases to the environment but an increase in transfers. That means that we are doing a better job of stopping releases to the environment, but capturing them and either burying them or burning them. The net difference is that we are still generating these tens of thousands of tonnes of pollutants. In other words, industry is not preventing the release and generation of pollutants; it is just shuffling them around.
The Commission on Environmental Cooperation issued its report last month. This is something that every Canadian ought to think about. Ontario was the second largest polluter in North America. Canada now has jurisdictions which are moving up the scale of most polluting jurisdictions in North America.
I know that industry will respond by saying that Ontario's numbers actually went down. That is correct, but some jurisdictions in the United States are doing a better job of arresting the problem, and that is why Ontario moved from the third worst polluter last year to the second worst polluter this year. Those jurisdictions are succeeding through aggressive regulatory programs for pollution prevention.
The Commission on Environmental Cooperation also noted that, in addition to Ontario having a worse record, in the year being reported upon the national pollutant release facilities averaged 228,881 kilograms of releases and transfers per reporting form, one and one-half times the average per form of the toxic release inventory of the United States. The implication of that is that, on a per-facility basis, the U.S. is doing better by one and one-half times.
What is going wrong? Is it just the mix of industry? Is it that there is some sort of profound difference in the industrial make-up? Is it also because Canadian laws and policies are falling behind those of our neighbour, causing better performance in other jurisdictions? If you read the report of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, you will see that it does not discount that theory. In fact, it supports it.
Over 200,000 tonnes of pollutants are being released or transferred into the environment in Canada every year. We know that is only a fraction of the actual pollutants.
There are human health consequences of this problem. The Canadian Environmental Law Association, along with other organizations, held a conference in March entitled, "Everyday Carcinogens." World renowned speakers highlighted the fact that cancer rates show an alarming increase over the last 30 years, specifically, breast cancer, prostate cancer and testicular cancer -- cancers which cannot be explained simply by genetics or other issues. In other words, the role of the environment in this disease is clearly a growing and major factor.
These statistics relate only to cancer. We have not talked about the more subtle behavioural and developmental issues Mr. Boljkovac was talking about.
The importance of this issue today is not related to some abstract law and dealing with some specific clauses in a bill; the importance of this issue is related to Canada's reputation, about industry performance, and about the health of Canadians.
What you will hear from my colleagues in the environmental movement in the next few days is how this bill will not measure up to protect the public interest. When you retire for your deliberations on whether or not to make amendments to the bill, I urge you to think about those factors.
My submission will not duplicate our 220-page submission to the House committee. This is on the record and is available to you. I am happy to give you copies of it.
What I want to concentrate on is the issues dealing with toxic substances and, more particularly, those issues which, by and large, were reversed or changed at report stage. It is not unusual why one should focus on that because, obviously, those are the most controversial issues. The most controversial issues rose to the top and these are they. I do not want to give you the impression that these are the only issues which concern me.
I wish to talk about virtual elimination because it is, more or less, the hallmark of the bill, as well as the lightning rod for debate. Why are environmentalists so gung-ho on virtual elimination? The most important thing is the profound difference in thinking between industry and environmentalists about toxic substances. The profound difference is this -- industry thinks there is a safe level for every substance, and what we have to do is find that magical, mystical number of what is safe, what is the acceptable amount. Environmentalists think that some substances are just inherently problematic because of their molecular structure, because of the evidence of harm in the past or for some other reason. That difference in thinking causes a "fork in the road" in writing regulatory policy. Do you try to find, through complex notions, that magical, mystical number for those very small number of substances which are bad; or do you just deal with those small number of substances which have that either inherent problem or track record? That is the issue.
When dealing with inherent toxicity it has been stated that you cannot deal with all pollutants in the same way. Some are much worse than others. It has been suggested that, for those really problematic substances, we should create a regime to deal with them. The way to deal with them is to phase them out. That is certainty. If industry wants certainty, we can give them certainty.
We are not talking about 1,000 substances. We are not talking about 500 substances. We are not even talking about 100. We are talking about less than two dozen substances in total.
One of the major debates at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and in the public had to do with the definition of virtual elimination. The definition in Bill C-32 now is not the one the environmental community had hoped for. In fact, we fought vigorously against this definition because it is only focused on what is released into the environment. Environmentalists have not a lot of concern about what is released in the environment. The focus has been shifting towards figuring out what is used in the plant and what is being generated. If we can move toward processes and products which do not generate or use these nasty substances, then what comes out of the end of the pipe is not an issue. Use and generation is what virtual elimination ought to be about.
Industry opposes the concept, and I understand why. It is because when you talk about the use of a substance, you are talking about the use of something that they make. You are talking about their products. Society has to come to grips with whether to allow these products, which will lead invariably to certain pollutants, to be used a lot. We welcome a debate on chemical use. That is why virtual elimination is a lightning rod.
We think that the release-based definition is problematic for three reasons, and I will not belabour them. The first is that it is inconsistent with pollution prevention, which means: "Before we talk about what comes out the end of the pipe, let us figure out how to avoid or not to use these substances in the first place." The virtual elimination definition counts molecules.
Second, we have already signed a treaty with the concept of virtual elimination in it. It is called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The watchdog of that agreement, the International Joint Commission, has already stated that a released-based definition is inappropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Bill C-32 is inconsistent with the treaty we already have on the books.
Third, the definition is problematic because, in two weeks, Canada will be in Geneva at the third international negotiating session on the POPs Treaty, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty, debating this issue. If Bill C-32 passes, our fear is that it will set the high-water mark globally for the treatment of toxic substances.
What is before you is not only a national policy; ironically, what is before you is a global policy about to be debated. You can either accept this as the high-water mark for the globe in terms of how toxic substances ought to be dealt with, or you can say, "We want some more thinking on this."
Our recommendation in this regard is simply to change the definition of virtual elimination to at least recognize that the use and generation of substances ought to be understood. Otherwise, companies will be allowed to continue to use and generate substances and only worry about what releases are permissible. In other words, they will be only forced to look at those magical, mystical release limits.
Our second recommendation deals with something already been this committee, but I want to briefly review our position on it. This deals with how to implement virtual elimination. The bill was supposed to work in such a way that virtual elimination would be aimed at those really nasty substances. In other words, we would get rid of them. We all know, in the real world, we cannot do that immediately. Therefore although clause 61(1) states that we should get rid of them because they are bad, clause 65(3), in effect, takes the approach that: "Look, we live in the real world; we do not want to displace workers or communities. We want an orderly transition from those technologies which either use, generate or release those substances to ones that are cleaner. So let us set interim targets to get there in an orderly fashion." We agreed. It makes sense. You must take into account technical, social and economic factors.
That is the way the bill left the House. I thought it was a pretty good compromise. However, at report stage, something happened, and those are the changes which are outlined on page 5 and page 6 of my submission. A number of clauses were changed. Originally, it stated that, under virtual elimination, although we would set interim targets to get rid of these substances, we would get rid of them. That was the goal. As the bill reads now, after report stage and after those amendments, interim targets must be set. That is all that must be done. You never have to look at the ultimate target of virtual elimination. Legislatively, the term "virtual elimination" has been orphaned. If you removed clause 65(1), which is the definition of "virtual elimination", it has no impact on the bill whatsoever. The best you can do for one of these worst substances is to meet those interim targets.
I would suggest to you that we can do better under existing legislation than that. That is why the memo which has come to the attention of the committee from government bureaucrats suggesting that the attainment of virtual elimination is impossible is exactly correct. Those subtle changes in the implementing clauses of the term "virtual elimination" undermined the concept. That is why our association cannot support the bill.
Also removed at report stage was the notion of "phasing out the use and generation of" in the preamble, and clearly that was there to clarify what the bill was not about rather than what it should be about.
You talked with Mr. Boljkovac about the concept of inherent toxicity in clause 77. My submission details the need for the concept, but the bottom line is this: We can spend a lot of time going through assessments of these substances, or we can simply look at other characteristics of those substances to see if they should be prioritized. New science is now quickly emerging. For instance, if a substance is highly persistent and accumulative in the fat cells of fish, wildlife and humans, and if it is otherwise toxic, few people would disagree that we should prioritize that substance. That was the intent of inherent toxicity. We believe that science can tell us which are going to be the problematic substances and that we can get on with it. This bill does not allow us to do that. We must go through the whole regime that Mr. Boljkovac mentioned.
The last issues I would bring to your attention are the powers of the minister, the international air and water provisions, and a number of other provisions which I mention on page 11 and 12 of my text. Clearly these amendments take away power from the minister to make important decisions and relay them to cabinet. In my view, this is simply an attempt to slow the process down and to frustrate strong environmental action. It seems to me that these amendments are uncalled for.
Those are my submissions, although there is more detail in my formal submission. I recognize that you are interested in many other aspects of the bill. I would very much like to discuss the citizens' rights provisions and the right to sue, so I would welcome questions on that.
The Chairman: That was a very interesting, incisive and important submission to the committee.
Senator Cochrane: I appreciated your presentation. Some of the things you are saying are rather alarming, to say the least.
I have a few questions on the testing of these new pesticides and toxics. Do you feel that we need to do our own testing of new pesticides, or should we be willing to accept health and safety reviews conducted by other countries?
Mr. Boljkovac: Credible scientific work goes on outside of Canada, and I have fairly high confidence in officials' ability to know a good study or test versus a bad test. You should take it on a case-by-case basis. The Canadian environment is different from the environments of America and Europe. Chemicals do not always act the same way in one ecosystem as they do in another ecosystem. The Arctic is a case in point. I do not think you can make a blanket endorsement of other jurisdictions' work in testing and approvals of certain chemicals. For instance if a pesticide is approved in the United States, it may be approved for a different use than it would be put to in Canada. However, I would point out that pesticide approval comes under another act.
Senator Cochrane: You would accept their scientific assessment of it, would you not?
Mr. Boljkovac: It depends on how the assessment is done. There is enough expertise within the Canadian government to make that determination. I have quite a bit of confidence that, yes, that should be done.
I do not think we should do that to the detriment of our own testing and approval processes in Canada that are designed for the Canadian environment and Canadian situations.
Senator Cochrane: In some cases, yes.
Mr. Boljkovac: I would not make a blanket endorsement of anyone else's testing or approval regime, no.
Senator Cochrane: What relationship do you have with Environment Canada? Have you suggested to them that some of the substances that you mention here, under a dozen, be eliminated immediately? Is it possible that Environment Canada may already have those substances on their list to be eliminated now or this year?
Mr. Boljkovac: Some of these substances on the list are pesticides, so the decisions to end their production and use are made under other acts. On the list of 12 that has come up time and again before this committee, nine of the intentionally produced products, most of which are pesticides, have been eliminated from production and use. I am not an Environment Canada official, but the government's position is to virtually eliminate dioxins and furans, which are also very dangerous. In our opinion, they are among the most harmful chemicals known. However, it remains to be seen in terms of how CEPA is implemented as to whether the virtual elimination provisions are restored to the way they were, or whether there will be a political will on the part of the government to act decisively to eliminate those persistent toxics as well.
Senator Cochrane: Have you discussed it with them?
Mr. Boljkovac: We have had endless discussions over the years in many different fora with Environment Canada officials and with Industry Canada officials. The toxics caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network in fact is constantly debating this. We also debate this, as Mr. Muldoon mentioned and as you will hear from other witnesses in the next few days, in international fora.
Senator Cochrane: Am I correct that, with regard to those remaining three substances, you are still waiting to see if they will be eliminated?
Mr. Boljkovac: The jury is out. We are always trying. We will have to wait and see.
Senator Taylor: We heard this morning about virtual elimination. Essentially, industry was complaining by saying that the definition of the level is as low as can be measured. However, because science and the physics of measurement is constantly improving, the level has become a moving target. Industry prefers to have an absolute minimum. However, from your point of view, unless I am missing something, you say that you do not want that minimum level, you want the target to be zero. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Muldoon: What we do agree on is the need for certainty and a clear path forward. However, we disagree with the approach. We consider dioxins to be a problem. The bill infers that we can measure dioxin releases at a certain amount now, but it is feared that, over time, that measurable amount will be lowered. In my experience, these laws and regulations take years to put in place because they are controversial. Nevertheless, we have two conceptual concerns.
The first is that an allowable release level for dioxin implies that dioxin can enter the environment and industry can still generate this substance. That means harm will occur to the environment over time because dioxin is persistent and it accumulates. Dioxin is one of the most dangerous substances. This bill says it is okay to release that substance in small amounts. Conceptually, we have a problem with that.
The second conceptual concern is the declaration within this bill that Canada has a policy for pollution prevention, and that begs the question: Why are we generating dioxin at all? Is there some way to avoid its generation altogether? Can we find a cleaner process?
The European Community is moving in that direction, as is the United States. Countries will be more competitive using cleaner production processes.
Senator Taylor: Industry pointed out that some refining methods being used today, such as electrolytic methods, can reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides to almost "zilch" but the same process minutely increase furan production. What is your comment on such a trade-off? Are you a strictly a furan man and do you not worry about SO2?
Mr. Muldoon: It is hard to talk in the abstract on these issues.
Senator Taylor: That is all we have been doing.
Mr. Muldoon: I cannot support any position which allows for increased discharges of dioxins and furans. I have seen the evidence of the impacts. For future generations of children and wildlife, that is unacceptable.
Senator Taylor: We are thankful for organizations like yours in the community, pointing out dangers down the road. We often depend on you for information.
Bill C-32 has another element which has not been mentioned here. This bill extends whistle-blower protection to employees. They can be a source of information, too. Was that a positive move forward which will help you to get more information about what is going on?
Mr. Muldoon: Yes, that is a positive thing. I am not an expert in whistle-blower law but it is a positive element, yes.
Senator Taylor: I had a little trouble understanding your last recommendation to amend Bill C-32 to reverse the changes made at report stage which removed the powers of the minister in favour of the cabinet. You seem to feel that the public would get a better shake-out from the minister as opposed to from the whole cabinet. Perhaps the political and economic pressures of big business would be higher on the cabinet than on one cabinet minister?
I have been around government for some years and around opposition even longer. I do not think that is a valid comment. I do not think many ministers thumb their noses at cabinet. As a matter of fact, having the whole cabinet to hear the case may be better than having one minister because there could be a crackpot minister. I know that happens in other parties.
Mr. Muldoon: Granted, it can cut both ways. In terms of speed, dealing with one minister is beneficial when there is a declared problem of trans-boundary pollution. At times the minister will need to take fairly swift action to curb that pollution. One of the assumptions, rightly or wrongly, is that it is quicker to go through one minister than through cabinet.
Senator Spivak: I would like to return to the question of virtual elimination. In this morning's presentation, the main industry arguments were those reiterated by Senator Taylor. Industry asked how we can talk about generation and use when, in the process of some chemical production, dioxins are produced.
They mentioned another issue, and I could not get my head around it. They said that the bill was totally unworkable when it came out of committee because it tied the hands of the minister and that, under clause 93, the minister always has the power to phase out chemicals.
I totally agree that this does not send the right message if the bill mentions quantification but does not mention anywhere generation and use or the goal of virtual elimination.
What weight to you give to their argument that the minister had no discretion in the bill as it came out of committee and that the bill was totally unworkable then?
Mr. Muldoon: I cannot comment on the notion that it was unworkable. I do not understand that.
Senator Spivak: I do not either.
Mr. Muldoon: The notion was that once a substance has met all the criteria and has been designated for virtual elimination, the minister still has discretion under the old way, before report stage, to set interim targets based on social and economic factors. There is no discretion over the eventual virtual elimination of that substance.
Industry does not like the fact that the substance is slated for eventual virtual elimination. The substance has been blacklisted and there would be an orderly transition to that stage, toward that ultimate goal. Now they say that the discretion exists so the substance may not be virtually eliminated after all. If that is the case, why have these provisions?
Senator Spivak: That is why the memo was written which claimed that these subtle changes would make virtual elimination impossible.
Mr. Muldoon: That is exactly it. Also, there is no regulatory mechanism to get to virtual elimination because the best we can do under clause 65(3) and the amendments is to reach the interim targets.
Senator Spivak: What about clause 93?
Mr. Muldoon: I have heard the argument many times. In future I will ask industry if they really believed that.
This is a basic case of statutory interpretation. If you have a specific regime to deal with the nasty substances, you cannot go back to the regulation-making powers and apply a general regime. The courts will have to resolve that problem; I cannot. I anticipate the industry will be fighting very hard in the courts to disallow any backtracking to a general regime.
Senator Chalifoux: Mr. Muldoon, you say you represent farmers and other people who are very concerned with the environment.
Mr. Muldoon: In our positions as lawyers, we have farmers who are clients. We do not represent all farmers, just our clients.
Senator Chalifoux: Did you say that Ontario has the worst record for pollution?
Mr. Muldoon: The Commission on Environmental Cooperation looked at all the releases and transfers in all jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, and Ontario came out as number two.
Senator Chalifoux: In the United States, do the states have more jurisdiction than the federal government in the area of environment?
Mr. Muldoon: In the United States, the federal government has much more power than in Canada. They developed a comprehensive legislative regime including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, and then formally delegated parts of that to the states. If the states do not do what they ought to under law, the federal government takes jurisdiction back. That is why you might get a state permit to do something, but if the state permitting system does not meet the federal criteria, the federal government will take away that process and issue the permits itself.
Senator Chalifoux: North Carolina or South Carolina, I am not sure which, but one of the two has been entirely polluted by the pork industry. I have seen two or three documentary programs on television about the terrible conditions the state is facing with water pollution, air pollution, et cetera. They do not seem to be able to do anything about it.
I have also seen documentaries about acid rain in the United States and Southern Ontario that indicate that the United States is not doing as much as we in Canada are doing about the that problem. How does this bill improve that situation?
An environmental assessment was done in Southern Alberta to determine whether a hog business would be allowed there, and it was denied. That business was set up in Manitoba. We will have a situation similar to that in North Carolina unless we do something about it.
How can this bill address that situation?
Mr. Muldoon: First, my comments on performance in the United States are meant in no way to suggest that the United States has the best track record on protecting the environment. We all know that every country has its problems and challenges.
You raise an interesting point. In this bill, environmentalists wanted the federal government to have the ability to set federal standards. I am using the word "federal" very clearly; I do not mean national, I mean federal. In other words, when the provinces will not take the action needed to protect the environment, the federal government should and ought to have the responsibility to step in and do it. That is one of the most controversial issues in the bill.
Some amendments were made by the standing committee that improved the situation. I would have liked the residual sections and the intergovernmental clauses to have been changed even more to give the federal government more power to step in. In the 1997 Hydro-Québec decision by the Supreme Court of Canada it was said that both levels of government ought to use their full constitutional powers to protect the environment. It is still an issue and I wish the bill would go further towards ensuring that the federal government has the power to step in and protect the environment, but certainly there have been improvements compared to earlier drafts of the bill.
Senator Chalifoux: What part of the bill are you referring to?
Mr. Muldoon: There are six or seven places in the bill that deal with the notion of when and how the federal government must consult with the provinces. The original problem was that the federal government had to consult the provinces before acting. The issue there was whether they could take independent federal action. I can look those parts up and give them to you later.
The Chairman: I am perplexed by what is happening with this legislation. Everything I have read and everything that has come before us now leads me to the conclusion that this is a bill that no one wants. I gather from what I read in the paper this morning that the minister is prepared to live with the old bill. Industry and the Mining Association of Canada basically have said that without improvements they are not sure that this bill will be of any benefit to the environment or the cost to the economy. The people from the chemical industry hedged a little bit but nevertheless said that without these amendments they question the workability of the bill. You, as environmentalists, are speaking against the bill, which must be very difficult for you to do, as you expressed to us.
Somewhere along the way this bill has been terribly bungled. Not one of the stakeholders is happy. In fact, none of the stakeholders wants it. Even the minister does not want it. Who is bringing this together? What has gone wrong that no one wants a piece of legislation that has been five years in the making and has spent eight months before a committee? That is an incredible situation. What is going on here?
Mr. Muldoon: The legislative process has gone awry. In my introduction I told you about our involvement to demonstrate the fact that we did the research. We got our colleagues together from across Canada and tried to put together a reasonable public-interest agenda. We simply did not have access to the people who made the decisions on the bill. There was enormous intractability between different departments and enormous intractability between the stakeholders; as a result the wording in the legislation pleases no one.
At the end of the day I have to attribute that to lack of leadership by the government in the area of the environment and the failure to make hard decisions. I don't know how else to summarize it. We realize that in the legislative process you don't always get everything you want. There must be a balancing of interests. At one time the minister said that it must be a good bill because no one liked it. Our view is that that is not good enough. We are not saying that everything in the bill must be to our liking. If we could reverse some of the amendments made at report stage, I would work very hard to convince my colleagues to support the bill. Not all public interest groups will agree to it, but many of them will.
We realize that this is a very difficult bill. Many hours were spent by all stakeholders to move the bill closer to their interests. We are not that far apart, but someone has to make some tough decisions on key issues.
The Chairman: We have seen a leaked memo that suggests that even the department finds some clauses unworkable. I would like to think that this committee of the Senate could bridge the gap. I would like to think that we could bring parties together in the hope of saving this legislation. Even if it passes, it will not be accepted by anyone, so what good will we have done in a public policy sense? It does not make sense to pass legislation that no one wants.
Do you have any recommendations for how this committee could respond to bridge this gap? In fairness to industry, they have valid concerns, as you do. What is necessary to bring the parties together so that they may feel that they have a workable piece of legislation? Obviously, no one will be totally happy, but at the least it has to be accepted as workable, because we all have the same objective in mind, and that is to create a better environment. No one around this table has any problems with our desire to make that happen. What do we have to do? Is there anything we can do as a committee to make that happen?
Mr. Muldoon: That is a very fair question, but it is a bit difficult to respond to because I am not exactly sure what else industry wants. Going through their list of demands over the years, I kind of put check marks all the way down, and I do not see anything that is really obvious that they did not get already.
Having said that, there are a number of very difficult issues. There is probably wording -- and I do not have it in front of me -- that would close the gap and I would hope that this committee can find some wording that would close the gap and at least not foreclose some of the debates that have been heard. One of the issues you heard me talk about was pollution prevention and virtual elimination. Is there wording that we can put in the bill that, on the one hand, does not foreclose the ability to phase-out substances and, on the other hand, gives industry the assurance that it wants that it will not close down? I think there is.
On the one hand, I do not want to go to international negotiations and say that my country will not phase-out substances no matter what the science says. On the other hand, I do not want a piece of legislation that is not workable either. That does not serve anyone's interests.
There will have to be some thought put into how to do that. I am confident this committee has the competence and ability to do that, and I would like to contribute to that.
The Chairman: I agree with most of that. I am confident the abilities are here, but I am not sure the will is.
Senator Chalifoux: I take exception to that. As a committee, we all have the will to do what is best.
The Chairman: Then, Senator Chalifoux, I will look forward to how you react when some of the amendments come forward.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, you have raised an interesting strategy or option. I don't know whether this is in the actual records of the committee, so I want to put on the record that, in conversation, the industry representatives agreed that substances have to be phased out. They said it should be in clause 93. There might be a glimmer of hope there.
Could we get on to the subject of residualization? In other words, how much of this bill is exempted under other acts? I know that another group really deals with the biotechnology issue, so I do not want to get too far into that.
There is an amendment in this bill that gives statutory authority to the Canada Food and Drugs Act so that the Canada Food Inspection Agency, which is under the Department of Agriculture, can do environmental assessments that should be done by the Department of the Environment on biotechnology. I do not want to get into that particular subject. However, did you consider at all the kinds of exemptions that are in this bill that are to be administered under other acts?
I have one question which I think comes up in another brief. The suggestion was that, in the existing bill, that is the 1988 CEPA, the environment and health ministers would decide not only whether regulation under other acts was sufficient but also whether those acts had to meet the same stringent notification and assessment. I was told by the officials that it was not an accurate observation that the regulations had to meet that standard. What is your view of the problem of all of these other acts -- the Seeds Act, Pest Control Products Act, the Fertilizers Act -- allowing a great majority of products to be approved without the right kind of testing, given that there is conflict of interest and there are not very many enforcement officers, and so on and so forth?
Mr. Boljkovac: I will answer that briefly in the context of pesticides. Right now we have the Pest Control Products Act, which is 30 years old, having been passed in 1969. It has not been significantly amended since that time. The World Wildlife Fund has been pushing hard to have it reformed.
There is a case study that we bring up in our brief to the House of Commons committee, which I will provide to you, about a substance called tributyl tin, which was tested and was supposed to be assessed as one of the 44 substances under the priority substances list of the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was certainly tested, but under CEPA it was only allowed to be tested for its non-pesticidal applications.
I would say that 99 per cent of its use, in terms of production, is as a pesticide. It is to keep barnacles off ships. It is an incredibly powerful endocrine disrupting chemical. They could not prove it was CEPA toxic because there was not enough evidence that that tiny percentage of uses was coming into contact with organisms or people. This chemical changes the sex of marine organisms. We are talking about a very powerful endocrine disrupter. At the end of the day, they were not able to make a determination about it.
That is the type of example that explains why I think CEPA, in terms of its residualization, should be supreme. All the uses of that pesticide or of that chemical or substance should have been tested, and yet they basically held back.
Senator Spivak: CEPA does not apply to anything under the Pest Control Products Act.
Mr. Boljkovac: That is the most stark example. Why did we go through a long assessment process for a tiny percentage of all the uses in the total volume of that chemical use in Canada?
Senator Spivak: There are things, such as "nutrisicles," that are foods but are listed as drugs, and the issue is very confused.
Mr. Muldoon: Dealing with enforcement, senator, no matter what bill is used, there is the broader issue of whether or not Environment Canada will have the capacity to implement the bill, in terms of the screenings, in terms of standard setting, and in terms of enforcement. That is an issue that will pervade the environmental debate for years to come.
I think the 30 some odd per cent cut at Environment Canada since 1995 has really affected its ability to deliver its core services. Certainly, the groups with whom I deal are still trying to convince the decision-makers that the budget of Environment Canada ought to be enhanced to deliver its services.
The Chairman: I think, Mr. Muldoon, you had some concerns about citizen protection. We heard about it this morning. Industry is concerned. I am not sure all of the members of the committee are as concerned about it as industry is, but are you in favour of those clauses or are you concerned about them?
Mr. Muldoon: My brief to the House of Commons committee deals with this issue in depth. I want to make a few points of clarification first.
Part 2 of Bill C-32 is modelled on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. I sat on the committee with the Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other industry representatives drafting that bill. I spent 52 days in a room with those people drafting the bill. I know something about the Environmental Bill of Rights. It was a bill that was designed for Ontario. It was a bill very carefully crafted to take into account the concerns of industry, environmentalists, municipalities, agriculture, and labour, and parts of that bill have worked quite well. It is a bill of general application. It applies to a great number of laws in Ontario. I was quite confused by the industry presentation. Let me set the record straight on a few things.
The provisions in Bill C-32 are far more stringent than they are in the Environmental Bill of Rights. In other words, not only are there the same protections and safeguards as in the Environmental Bill of Rights of Ontario, but there are additional ones in Bill C-32, despite the fact that they will only apply to Bill C-32. In Ontario, they apply to a number of laws. It is a much narrower application in this bill than in Ontario, yet there are more safeguards.
There was this whole notion of litigation. I think the word "litigation" was used to scare you about what it meant. The intent of those provisions is to allow citizens to enforce the law when something is going wrong. It is an enforcement measure. If someone is breaking the law, we can have an opportunity to enforce the law. Our association is blessed with five competent lawyers, and we are one of the few organizations around that can do something like this. I cannot stress how seriously we take anything before we go to court. It is the most expensive way of doing business. No one wants to go to court to resolve environmental problems or to set policy. It is a forum of last resort. That is the way the bill is designed. It is the last measure. Even when you do go to court, you can only get the environmental problem resolved. You do not get damages. There is no other opportunity. It is a limited notion.
Moreover, the provisions, which were duplicated from the Environmental Bill of Rights in the bill that is before you, have yet to be used in Ontario.
The Chairman: How long has it been in place?
Mr. Muldoon: Since 1993.
The Chairman: What is industry worried about?
Mr. Muldoon: That is my concern. Frankly, as a lawyer, I do not think I would use these provisions at all. In the House of Commons, someone asked one of my colleagues, "Why have them if they have not been used and are more restrictive than in the Environmental Bill of Rights?" We said, "You are right. Do we need them?"
Once again, I have this horrible problem of arguing against legislative rights. I believe in environmental rights, but the words in here are so complicated, so convoluted and so qualified that I question their value. Quite honestly, you will hear from some groups that will suggest that you take them out.
That is why I am confused. You have industry representatives saying they want them to be more qualified. I am perplexed as to how they could be qualified more.
At the end of the day, I think that if this committee had the time and energy, it would be interesting to look at those sections of the bill, but I realize your time is limited.
Senator Taylor: Mr. Chairman, speaking of time, I think it is unfair for us to keep the next witnesses waiting while we are on our third round of questions with this set of witnesses. Perhaps we could hear the others and then come back to these witnesses.
The Chairman: I think we are finished in that sense. Thank you, Senator Taylor. It was my intention to bring this now to a close. We started 15 minutes late.
I thank both of you for your presentations and your commitment to the environment and for the work you are doing. It is important to have people of your skills and commitment in our communities doing the work you are doing. Thank you.
Colleagues, we will now hear from the Sierra Club of Canada, represented by Elizabeth May, their executive director.
Ms Elizabeth May, Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada: I am joined this afternoon by Angela Rickman, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, and by my daughter as well.
The Chairman: Also before us this afternoon, colleagues, we have the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, represented by Paul George and Adriane Carr, both of whom are directors of the committee.
We are pleased to have all of you with us. would you please proceed.
Ms May: Thank you very much for inviting us here and giving us the opportunity to present our views on this important issue.
As I mentioned previously to the Chair, I also wear another hat. In my new work, I am a Professor at Dalhousie University in the subject of women's health and environment. I work out of the Maritime Centre of Excellence for Women's Health. They have asked that I also put forward the concerns of the Maritime Centre of Excellence for Women's Health about the increasing problem of the effect of the environment on our health.
If I may, I will circulate some material from the centre by way of background and read briefly from the focus of the work I am doing at Dalhousie.
While environmental contamination has been linked to a myriad of health effects in wildlife, as pointed out by our predecessor from the World Wildlife Fund, the linkage of the environment to human health is constrained by political and societal barriers. The notion that humans are outside the natural environment or even above it militates against recognizing interconnections between what humans eat, drink, breathe and are otherwise exposed to and the state of human health. To what extent is the increased incidence of cancer, asthma, MS and other ills related to human-generated pollutants?
I heard yesterday's evidence and the important questions from Senator Adams and Senator Chalifoux that pointed to the ways in which we have seen pollutants affect the Arctic and the way we have seen pollutants affect our own lives.
The incidence of breast cancer has increased substantially. It used to be that a Canadian woman had a one-in-thirty chance in her lifetime of contracting breast cancer. Today, it is either one in eight or one in nine, depending upon whose statistics you use.
I was deeply moved by Senator Chalifoux's personal experience. I cannot pass over that without saying that this is an environmental issue, too. We know that 10 per cent of breast cancer is caused by genetic factors. The other 90 per cent is environmental. That is not to say that toxic chemicals is alone responsible for that 90 percent. It is environmental in the sense of everything to which we are exposed, diet, cigarette smoke, et cetera.
We are also seeing increases in brain cancer in children and they are not smoking. We are seeing substantial increases in testicular cancer in very young men. The likely hypothesis here it is what they have been exposed to in utero which is acting upon them as young men. We used to only see it in chimney sweeps.
There are other things we are seeing in our society on a population-wide basis to which we ought to be paying attention. Attention deficit disorder and behavioural problems are on the increase. We treat them with Ritalin. Lower IQ and increased aggression are also signs of exposure to certain types of chemicals.
Yesterday, the Environment Minister tried to defend the bill. Where was the Minister of Health? This is not just an environmental bill. It is an environment and health bill, one that should be attempting to integrate our concerns about the way the environment affects our health.
I am speaking on behalf of the Maritimes Centre for Excellence in Women's Health when I say that it is important for this committee to find ways to shine light on this issue. I sense from many members of the committee a personal commitment, which cannot be satisfied in the time that you have available to you now.
Obviously, we will beg you to fix this bill; beyond that, perhaps you might think of a special session of Senate hearings. Medical experts will come before you. The televising of your hearings can help the Canadian public and help policymakers. I agreed to bring forward that one brief plea from an entity that was not able to get on the list of speakers.
I will now switch hats, as I will do all year long, to my role as executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada.
First, I promised my daughter that I would pass around this little drawing that she has made for you. There is only one copy. I do not know how I will ever decide on whether to eventually give it to the chair or to the deputy chair.
The Sierra Club of Canada is a national, environmental organization, membership-based. I think you are familiar with our work so I will save some time by not going into that. We are members of the Canadian Environmental Network's Toxics Caucus, which has been so very ably represented by Paul Muldoon through all the processes before this.
I have to tell you that Sierra Club of Canada did not present before the House of Commons committee. We knew what was going on there. It was a bitter and difficult struggle, but the Toxics Caucus was well represented by a number of groups. Because we are stretched so think, we all work on different things. However, I regret now that we did not present before the committee of the House of Commons. There was some deal-cutting. The chair asked if we knew what really happened. I do not really know, but I suspect there was some counting of heads. There were 30 industry groups and how many environmentalists? I regret that we were not there then.
The bill before you, of course, is called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It really never has been that. I recall its origins because, at the time, I was on the staff of the Minister of Environment who brought in the bill, Tom MacMillan. I spent many hours reading the English and French texts and trying to find out if the bill would ever make sense in its first iteration in 1988. The bill was a cobbling together of various bits: the Ocean Dumping Act, pre-existing regulations to control nutrients in waters, and, its primary basis, the Commercial Chemicals Act.
I recall with some affection that, like many politicians, my minister wanted to make this bill sound bigger and better that it really was, so it got the title "Canadian Environmental Protection Act," but it really is predominantly about toxic chemical regulation.
The bill had more problems along the way. Of course, it did not cover all toxic chemicals, as you have heard from other witnesses. If anything is so toxic that its primary purpose is to kill things, then CEPA only operated if the poisons were left lying around. As long as they were being widely disbursed over the environment on purpose, the Pest Control Products Act would cover them instead. If the toxic material also happened to be radioactive, the bill was not to operate.
On top of that wobbly start, CEPA was further crippled by equivalency provisions with the provinces. At the time, the additional resources that were promised never materialized. It is encouraging to hear from the minister that there will be new resources. I trust that those new resources would go to whatever bill comes out of this committee or to a reversion to the 1988 version.
Here we are at a five-year review of CEPA, more than 10 years after it originally passed. Your review of this legislation should be based on this question: What is the problem and does this bill fix it?
The problem statement is found in the recent report of the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development, Brian Emmett. My colleague Mr. Muldoon referred you to the Pollution Release Inventory. However, I think Brian Emmett's report is particularly pertinent because he examines the current regulatory framework in Canada and whether or not it works on toxic chemicals.
His conclusion was sobering. He found the system to be so flawed that the health of Canadians is at risk. Of the 23,000 toxic substances in Canada, only 31 have been subjected to a conclusive review process.
The priority substances list, which was intended to fast-track the operation of CEPA, has been an exercise in slow motion. Commissioner Emmett's report also highlighted the lack of information-sharing between departments and that the shared role of environment and health ministers should have worked to integrate concepts of our life-support systems, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and our state of health.
CEPA has failed as an integrative mechanism. There are so many key provisions of this bill where both ministers must act together. You would not think that that would be difficult; however, but Health Canada sometimes has stayed outside of the issue of environmental health to the point that, when Environment Canada has wanted to remove a substance because, in their view, it is CEPA-toxic, Health Canada has refused to do so.
There has been good news in the last 10 years, but it has primarily been through the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Hydro-Québec challenge. That case clearly confirmed that the federal government has not only the power but the duty to act to protect the Canadian public from poisonous substances.
Given that brief review of the problem statement, if Parliament had a blank state and an opportunity to respond to the crisis in toxic chemicals management in Canada today, no one would have dreamed up what is now before you. A bill really designed to protect public health and the environment from human-source contamination would have to cover pesticides and radionuclides as well as commercial chemicals and would be expanded to regulate the new and dangerously, rapidly commercialized products of biotechnology as well as identifying and restricting exposure to the so-called gender-benders, the endocrine-disrupting substances.
The law would be clear and predictable, allowing ministers to take action in a precautionary fashion to protect human health and the natural environment. It would provide consistent national standards for clean air and water, allowing provinces and territories to adopt higher standards but not lower ones.
While it is true that the perfect should not be allowed to be an enemy of the good, we must ask: Is this bill even good or is this bill good enough?
After heroic efforts by the House of Commons committee to focus the government's attention on these larger issues in a report, "It is About Our Health," which preceded clause-by-clause study and even the tabling of the first bill, the process of amending CEPA ignored seeking real change.
As all of you must realize, the process of amending CEPA was the worst, most protracted, unpleasant -- I think I am putting it mildly -- process of any bill in memory. The quote attributed to Otto von Bismarck applies in spades in this case: Laws are like sausages. It is better not to watch them being made.
This process through the House of Commons was truly unpleasant at a level that politics should never be. I believe in the collegial spirit that I see around the table here. Regardless of party or discipline or anything else, public interest should come first. That process in the House of Commons was very unpleasant.
The result is equally awful. Key sections are unintelligible. The government that could come up with drafting as mind numbingly convoluted and incomprehensible as this bill is a government that must simply believe that the subject matter of the legislation is too trivial with which to concern itself.
I just cannot believe that what you have before you is supposed to be pushed through in a hurry. It does not even read well, regardless of its intent.
Here are some real-life situations on which we work in Canada. It is shocking that, in Canada, we act like a Third World country when it comes to protecting the public from dangerous substances. It is easy to believe when we sit here that we are in a modern, environmentally advanced country. We think we are. We have good values. Sometimes the real world looks different.
The first example is that of Anne Ross and her 13-year-old daughter who live on Laurier Street in Sydney. Their basement floor routinely pools with yellowy ooze. Government tests confirm high levels of arsenic; 49.9 milligrams per kilogram. The province has told her that it is fine to live there as long as she and her daughter do not eat or drink the stuff on the basement floor. That is what they were told. The federal regional director of health does not think there is anything he can do and is disinclined to try.
Second, the people of the village of Delene in the Northwest Territories had nearly two tonnes of radioactive and toxic material dumped into their lake. Now known as the "Village of the Widows," they have watched a generation of husbands and fathers die as a result of lugging uranium ore, like coolies, on their backs. Of course, they were never warned that it was dangerous. The work was done for a federal Crown corporation. Who is responsible? Who will clean up their environment and compensate them, inadequate as any compensation could be?
Farmers in northern Alberta, as well as the Lubicon First Nation, have seen serious health problems increase in themselves and their livestock. The likely cause, sour gas emissions from an ever-encroaching oil and gas industry, has not faced any regulatory hurdle. Only recently has the province started working on clean air standards.
Fourth, not far from where we sit, a courageous woman, Tanya Marder, a career scientist with Agriculture Canada, has advanced cancer. She has documented that every time her neighbours spray pesticide, her health worsens dramatically. She cannot stop them. When, in desperation, she placed her car across the driveway to block the spray truck, the police were called. Now when she sees ChemLawn pull up she calls an ambulance. This happened the day before yesterday, and she called our office in tears. No one will help her.
Fifth, the Royal Oak Mine has left tonnes of poisonous tailings that threaten one of Canada's largest freshwater lakes. Will CEPA help here?
Sixth, Canada still has registered uses for lindane, one of the world's most persistent bioaccumulative toxic pesticides, one of that handful to which previous witnesses referred. Will CEPA achieve virtual elimination?
Seventh, mercury is already a listed substance under CEPA, yet mercury emissions are increasing across Eastern Canada due to increased burning of coal to generate electricity in areas upwind, like Ohio and Ontario. The loons of Kejimkujik National Park now have the highest mercury concentrations ever documented in wildlife. The levels are sufficiently high to place the loons' ability to reproduce at risk. We do not know how this is affecting humans.
Eighth, PCBs are already a regulated substance under CEPA. So is benzene. Both are found in the tens of thousands of tonnes sitting in the Muggah Creek estuary in Sydney, know as the tar ponds. Both are daily moving from the estuary to the harbour and the ocean beyond through tidal action. The PAHs such as benzene are volatile and migrate on the air to the surroundings neighbourhood. Not only are the families not being moved away, not only has no clean-up started -- unless one counts the extremely brave Don Gillespie whom you may have seen in the news this week attacking the ooze with a bucket and shovel -- but the provincial government has approved a new school for the bluff immediately overlooking the country's largest toxic waste site. They plan to bus in children from uncontaminated areas to attend school on top of the tar ponds.
I am placing these specific examples before you in hopes that you can get the government officials here to explain how this new and improved CEPA is going to help.
Please think up any hypothetical and try to figure out how CEPA will work. I defy anyone to explain clauses 65 and 77. I cannot figure out how implementation of virtual elimination under clause 63(3) is supposed to work. I keep reading it and my head hurts. It is circular.
I will ask Ms Rickman to complete the brief.
Ms Angela Rickman, Deputy Director, Sierra Club of Canada: This is essentially a bill that discusses virtual elimination and then only goes far enough to require industry to reach interim targets. It essentially asks industry to voluntarily move toward measures that will allow them to take steps to advance toward thinking about possibly eliminating some chemicals eventually. Incredibly, it gets worse.
The bill makes CEPA residual. It only legislates where all other legislation fails. That means that all other legislation essentially supersedes CEPA's authority.
Pentachlorophenol is a persistent bioaccumulative wood preservative that is inevitably contaminated with dioxins and furans, which have also been mentioned here. These contaminants are CEPA toxic and are slated for virtual elimination in international negotiations that Canada participates in. However, Pentachlorophenol is registered as a pesticide under the Pest Control Products Act and it is protected under the trade secrecy sections of that act. Telephone poles impregnated with this poisonous chemical, which are ubiquitous, are protected by the Pest Control Products Act when erect but are considered toxic waste when they are taken out of use.
The decision on the toxicity of chemicals is also being taken out of the hands of the two ministers best equipped to make the decision and is being put in the hands of cabinet as a whole. Given the success of lobbying efforts by industry so far, we have no confidence that such decisions will be made on the basis of the scientific expertise of the health and environment ministries. It politicizes health and environmental protection and tips the scale in favour of industry.
In Denver, at the summit of the G-8 in June 1997, the government committed itself to explicitly recognizing the unique considerations of children vis-à-vis toxic substances in legislation. They reaffirmed this commitment in writing at the World Health Organization summit this past June in the U.K. Bill C-32 does not reflect this in any way. In fact, children, as well as the elderly, developing foetuses, and the chemically sensitive, among other people and other species, will be considerably worse off if this legislation passes. It will allow continued generation and discharge of some of the most toxic chemicals known, despite the fact that the vast majority has never been adequately tested and despite the fact that what testing has been done does not consider children.
Then there is biotechnology, which Ms May and others have touched on. The original CEPA specifically included products of biotechnology under the act, primarily with concern to testing prior to introduction into the environment. Bill C-32, however, excludes these products from CEPA and relegates the decision on toxicity of these products again to cabinet. Instead of listing biotechnology as the threat to biodiversity, the committee of the House of Commons proposed in the preamble that Bill C-32 is now the promoter of "safe" use of biotech products. Other departments govern the products, with primary concerns other than the protection of human health, wildlife and the environment.
We urge the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to consider the long-term effects on all of us of this piece of legislation that so inadequately protects Canadian health and the environment. It is time for you to show Canada what the Senate really does and exercise sober second thought.
Senator Chalifoux: If this bill is so bad, what was the last bill like? I know that you are talking about the worst scenarios, but have the federal and provincial governments done nothing to address these issues?
Ms May: The bill that was passed in 1988 primarily dealt with commercial chemicals. As a result, we have huge gaps in the basic framework. We have not changed that basic framework. The five-year review tried to bring the bill up to date by looking at endocrine disruption and biotechnology and recognizing that some of these substances should head for virtual elimination, which are terms that are not new in Canadian policy. As you know, they were in the Great Lakes water quality court and others.
There were efforts to improve the bill, but they were hobbled by the protracted and unpleasant debate. After it emerged from the all-party committee in the House of Commons, there were new amendments that no committee ever dealt with. There is language in the bill that has never before been heard in a committee such as this.
The wording in clause 65(3) with regard to virtual elimination creates a loop from section to section and never arrives at the goal of virtual elimination.
The first bill was limited, but a big improvement over what existed before. The second bill is the result of very difficult and unpleasant positioning that did not want to make fundamental improvements. The Commons committee made only marginal improvements, and I do not understand why those marginal improvements were too much for the chemical industry.
We do know from the leaked memo that it was clear that industry was lobbying from at least a year ago to see the words "virtual elimination" removed. I can see that what has happened in this bill is a result of that language that industry wanted. It is not exactly what industry wanted but it comes out as unintelligible in the end.
The first bill was not a complete disaster but was a disappointment. The thing that was put in the first bill to make it better -- because I remember at the moment it happened -- was that the Canadian Environmental Advisory Committee, which no longer exists, which was advisory to the Minister of the Environment, said, "We have got a big problem out there of toxic substances. Let us kick-start the bill, have a priority substances list, and attach to the bill when we pass it in 1988 the ones we know are toxic." More than 10 years later, we still have not got the complete list that the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council thought the minister should put on the list at Royal Assent. The science was there to know they were toxic 11 years ago. We have tried to take a step forward with the bill and, regrettably, the government has taken a step backward.
Senator Chalifoux: What you are saying is that you would rather live with the previous bill than this one?
Ms May: Obviously, the first choice of us all -- after the amount of blood, sweat, and tears. And I should stress that it was the blood, sweat, and tears of others. What they have gone through has been incredible to get the bill. In any event, the first choice would be for you to return to the bill as it was when it left the House of Commons Environment Committee. It would not be a bill that addressed all the problems that Canada faces relating to health and the environment, but what you have here in front of you, I think any minister would regret having to try to implement. If it went to court, the courts would not be able to decipher it. It would be a big mistake to pass the bill as is. If the choice is this bill or the 1988 act, we would take the 1988 act.
I am wondering if there are not creative possibilities to get around this problem. The Pest Control Products Act has to be reviewed soon. The Minister of Health has that on his plate. He is also a co-minister under this bill. There are problems in Canada. It is not a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It is "broke," but this bill does not fix it.
Senator Spivak: I am most worried about the biotechnology products. I am worried about all of the substances that are precluded from being looked at by this bill, are all under other acts, because those other acts do not have much to do with environmental assessment. They were designed primarily for reasons other than looking at the health and environmental issues. For instance, some were designed to avoid fraud.
In clause 347, we find an example. The Canada Food and Drugs Act says nothing about environmental assessment. Regulations were published on July 3 making it possible for the Canada Food Inspection Agency, which is under the Department of Agriculture as well as the Department of Health for some reason, to do environmental assessment.
In clause 347, sneaked into this bill, is the statutory authority that will make those regulations legitimate and will prevent the claim that could be made in court that this is legislation by regulation.
You say you would like the bill to return to what it was when it came out of committee. I do not know whether the committee dealt with all the residualization issues. I know they said that the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment, rather than the cabinet, should decide whether all those regulations are stringent enough. When it comes to the biotechnology aspect, I do not know whether they dealt with it. There will be huge numbers of biotechnological products coming up. I am not the only one saying this; the Deputy Minister of Health told us this. There will perhaps be an increase of 400 per cent. The problem they have is to process them through quickly enough. What is contained in those regulations in the Canada Food Inspection Agency is a system of processing where you look at the research that the companies have, and you say "Is that okay?" I guess you flip a coin and it goes through. Actually, there is no independent evaluation capacity there.
What would you suggest we do here in order to get the health and environmental assessment of the biotechnology products out of an agency that is primarily a promotion agency, that is, the Canada Food Inspection Agency, into where they should be, that is, the Departments of Health and Environment?
I think the Department of Health deals with them in terms of assessing health, but it certainly does not deal with them in terms of the environment, and that has to do with the biological diversity issue.
Ms May: I would say I do not think the Department of Health deals with them in terms of protecting health either. Products of biotechnology and new biotech foods and crops and so on are registered on the basis of a rather novel concept of substantial equivalence or similarity. If a potato is constantly emitting a natural pesticide, but in every other respect looks like a potato, cooks like one, and peels like one, then it is a potato, and they do not do long-term feeding studies. I think that is extraordinary. That is why I refer in the brief to the dangerous level of the rapid commercialization.
The British Medical Association has recommended that biotech products stop being commercialized until there is long-term testing. We have the reverse of the precautionary principle operating on biotech, which is to say that unless someone waves a red flag that proves something is dreadfully wrong with a product -- and there is no testing to look for problems, and if you do not look you will not find any -- it will be registered.
About this bill, clause 347 was a surprise when we found it in this version of the bill because it appears to do something by the back door. It does not actually mention biotech, but it speaks of the release in the environment of any food, drug, cosmetic, or device. It appears to be a clause that is turning the environmental assessment and health issues over biotech to Agriculture and now to what is the latest vogue in Ottawa as part of downsizing, an agency. The Canada Food Inspection Agency has that separate, stand-alone quality that we now also have for our parks service with Parks Canada Agency.
That is another issue, but this now allows them to have the environmental assessments. I like the idea that they have the capacity to do environmental assessments; however, coupled with weakening every other reference to biotech in this bill, it creates cause for concern that this bill will not operate effectively to screen in advance or to control products of biotechnology.
The preamble was changed where biotechnology was referenced. Wherever biotechnology was referenced in the bill, there were changes so that it no longer refers to the products of biotechnology in a sequence, in a list of a class of things one is concerned about. The way it originally read, the various clauses referred to toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants, and other wastes, et cetera. It was removed from that category, and the argument from Environment Canada is that it was sufficiently different that it should not be listed with the others. However, the language surrounding it is interesting. The reference now is to ensuring the safe and effective use of biotechnology, with the presumption that biotechnology has safe and effective uses, but without granting in this bill the precautionary, preventive actions to screen and ensure that, before commercialization, we have some level of confidence that these products are safe.
That is not included in this bill; nor is it included anywhere else in the current regulatory structure. I should here thank members of this committee who also happened to be on the committee that dealt with rBST, because I think if it were not for the actions of the Senate Canadians would be drinking hormone-treated milk, which the evidence at the breast cancer conference suggested has enough insulin-like growth factor one, IGF-1, to increase human breast cancer. The Senate played a remarkable role there, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Spivak and others for their work on that.
Senator Spivak: And Senator Taylor.
Ms May: And Senator Whelan, whom we will miss.
Senator Spivak: As well as Senator Chalifoux.
Ms May: There are so many.
Senator Hays: Welcome, Ms May. It is always a pleasure to hear your presentations because of the passion with which you give them. We are all the beneficiaries of your good work. I noticed that my name did not come up, even though I am on the committee.
Ms May: I knew I should not have started thanking people. Canadians so underrate the Senate. I am one of your biggest fans.
Senator Hays: I wish to ask a fairly general question prompted by the thrust of your presentation. It is all about health and people getting sick because we are not doing a good enough job of controlling what goes into our environment.
You say that there is epidemiological evidence that certain things in our environment are causing sickness. I believe Senator Spivak and I are the only ones here that were involved when the Agriculture Committee did a study on health in the agricultural context. We did quite a bit of work looking at the relationship between the incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and the use of certain kinds of chemicals and groundwater, the chemicals being used as pesticides and going into groundwater, but you could never find a definitive link. It was frustrating. It would have been nice to know that "this" caused "this." It turned out not to be that simple.
We rely on our suspicion, I think, in some cases, and in other cases we do know. Where we do know, it is easier to do something about it. Our health is diminished, and our lives are at risk and shortened because of not adequately controlling what goes into the environment.The question is: "How do we know?" To the extent that we do not have a good answer to that question, what should we be doing about it?
Ms May: This is a good question. The work around non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a malignant lymphoma, was a whole series, and the evidence continues to mount around this and phenoxy herbicides. The world arbiter of whether something is carcinogenic or not based on epidemiological work put 2,4,5-T on the list of probable human carcinogens along with 2,4-D many years ago, and yet 2,4-D is still registered. Again, that being a pesticide, it is outside the ambit of this act.
How do we know? There certainly is strong evidence for certain illnesses and certain environmental contaminants. The minister himself made reference to a number yesterday. The number of childhood cases of asthma has seen a 400 per cent increase. We know that air pollution is responsible. We know it is particulate. We cannot say with any one child, but on a population-wide basis, you can say something is going on here.
Cancer treatments get better, and there is a great deal of goods news, but this increase in testicular cancer in young men is a significant thing and quite a surprise, if you will. It points to an environmental contaminant more than a lifestyle factor or looking at other issues.
One of the concepts that we need to look at is human-made chemicals and compounds that we are carrying around in our bodies that were not even in existence at the time that my mother was born. All of us can talk about having banned PCBs, for instance. We have not virtually eliminated them. I am carrying around a good load. It does not matter how much I would like to get rid of them. The only way I have ever reduced my load was by nursing my daughter. We have to look at the concept of total load. It is not just one substance and one illness. This is a bigger issue. I am trying to answer your question. We have to look at the fact that we are in a chemical soup. All of us are being exposed to multiple exposures of multiple chemicals from not cradle to grave but from conception to grave. That issue is a hard one for regulators to grasp because our system is grounded in concepts of liabilities and proof and one substance-one illness.
I saw a brilliant presentation on this recently at the national round table session on health and environment. I am also vice-chair of the national round table on environment and economy. Dr. Donna Mergler, from the University of Quebec at Montreal, presented a different concept of the regulatory response to environment and health based on the concept of a pyramid, where death was what was happening at the top to a fewer number of people but it considered population-wide effects at the bottom. Perhaps we should be looking at early signs of society-wide problems, such as attention deficit disorder, behavioural problems, and aggression, because those are earlier indicators across a larger part of population, rather than just trying to count dead bodies when you get to the top of the pyramid.
Senator Hays: I am not sure whether this will happen or not, but Bill C-32 does provide for an examination of some tens of thousands of chemicals that we think need to be reviewed. I am not sure how that review will be carried out. I will seek a comment on that in terms of the kind of thing we have just been talking about, which is the cumulative effect of exposure to a chemical.
Again, I use my example of being on a farm and applying a chemical pesticide every season, or dairy farmer who uses an insecticide for a period of time. Everyone is different; our genetic make-up and immune systems are not the same. If there is some way of identifying the cause, in a epidemiological sense, of some harm, then I think a great deal of good can come from what I see Bill C-32 doing. However, I am not sure that that is what is envisaged by the examination.
We will have more people talking about it, and we will hear about it, but your presentation has prompted me to inquire into this area. I would be interested in how you think that should be carried out.
We make choices about some of these things. For example, people may choose to smoke. One might choose to have his teeth x-rayed. There are many things that we know to be harmful but that we do any way. The problem is when you do not know that something is harmful. Knowing would give people choices that would make them healthier.
Ms May: There are several things to consider. One is getting back to the point made in our brief.
Canada has already committed on several international fronts to specifically and explicitly consider the different exposure patterns and vulnerabilities of children. If our whole regulatory approach to toxic chemicals put children first, we would protect the rest of us, too. It is not just whether we are exposed to a whole range of chemicals during our lives; the moments of greatest vulnerability to these chemicals is in utero, so the child in the womb is the most vulnerable.
They will obviously have to prioritize. I do not think anyone thinks they will give equal attention to 23,000 chemicals in seven years. The chemical compositions will give clues to which ones are likely the bad actors and what you ought to do first.
It is a major weakness and failing of the bill that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are given attention at the information-gathering phase and not included where you can take action with respect to them. That is a significant weakness, and that was pointed out. I should mention for the record that I completely and wholeheartedly support all the specific amendments and changes in the briefs of our colleagues from CELA and WWF, but the WWF brief made reference to the fact that we should get this reference to hormone-disrupting substances. Yes, it is good progress to collect the information, but it is not progress if we collect the information and do not do anything about it.
In the health and environment field, this bill does not begin to get at the complexities; however, if we could get the changes made and focus on children, I think we would have a much stronger regulatory scheme.
Senator Buchanan: I congratulate Ms May on her appointment, last October, as chair of women's health and the environment at Dalhousie University. I know she will do an exemplary job.
Ms May, in your brief you talk about the equivalency sections of the bill. The industry people today talked about the intrusion in this bill into provincial jurisdiction on civil matters. I have not checked that area carefully but I agree. I am still a protector of provincial rights.
In Hydro-Québec, there were opinions about the intrusion by the federal government into the control aspects of toxic substances and provincial jurisdiction. Now the CEPA bill is talking about civil actions under this proposed act. There were suggestions about some changes but I did not understand what the industry really wanted. What is your opinion?
Ms May: The Supreme Court of Canada said clearly in Hydro-Québec that the federal government has all the authority it needs. The question of intrusion into provincial affairs by creating limited rights for civil action is not valid. This is not that unusual. As Paul Muldoon said, this provides very limited opportunities, which may never be used by people who see the laws being broken.
I was not here for the industry presentation this morning, so I am not in a good position to explain their problem with it. The federal government has all the jurisdiction it needs to do absolutely everything that is in this bill. My problem with this bill is that they have left key sections unintelligible.
Senator Buchanan: There is no question that the loons are in trouble, not only on Kedjimicujik Lake but on other lakes around the province. Prevailing winds are west to east. We always argued, as you may recall, that acid rain coming from Ontario and the U.S. mid-west was causing a lot of problems in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Senator Cochrane, I once made a statement that I lived to regret. I said that coal burning causes acid rain -- which is no longer true because Point Aconi eliminated SO2 -- and we simply waft our SO2 over to Newfoundland.
As someone mentioned yesterday, Ontario Hydro does burn a lot of coal, even more now than in the recent past. Unfortunately, the wind does move west to east and goes right over that western part of the province in areas like Kedjimicujik. I am glad you mentioned that, Ms May.
Let us talk about the tar ponds. As you know, I signed an agreement with the federal government back in 1988 to clean up the tar ponds. We thought at that time that $40 million would do the job, with the cost split 80-20 between federal and provincial governments. It did not do the job. In fact, it may have made things even worse, because the tar ponds were stirred up, which caused more problems than were there before. For 70 years, the tar ponds area was an inert mass. Perhaps it always was a problem but we did not know it.
You mentioned Don Daleskie. He has not only a bucket and a shovel but a big oil barrel, too. What will he do when the oil barrel is full? He cannot carry it out of there.
There is something in your brief that I think must be corrected. I am no champion of the P3 schools. I think they were wrong, but I do not want to get into that argument. You state that the new P-3 school is on top of the tar ponds, but it is actually under construction now some distance from the tar ponds.
Ms May: I know.
Senator Buchanan: It is being built on the site of the old Whitney school on Victoria Road down in the pier. That is quite a distance from the tar ponds.
Ms May: I would invite any senator or the whole committee to come and tour the tar ponds sometime. It would be an eye-opener for you. Of course, Senator Buchanan has been there, and we both know the topography.
The new school is being built on a bluff overlooking the tar ponds. I saw it under construction the other day. The actual height of the bluff is higher than the incinerator stack, which they could not use on the first wasted project you mentioned.
Senator Buchanan: Hold on. The school is on the far side of the steel plant.
Ms May: That is true, but what happens in the process of any kind of clean-up? I am convinced that the school site has contaminated soil.
Senator Buchanan: It is contaminated with what?
Ms May: The soil contains cadmium, lead, PCBs.
Senator Buchanan: That comes from where?
Ms May: That stuff was dumped by the prevailing winds when the plant was in operation.
The joint action group is saying that, as they clean up the tar ponds, they will need a separation zone during active remediation. While the stuff is being stirred up, they will move people further away from certain areas. That site will likely be one such area. There is no question that the school is very proximate to the country's largest toxic waste site. Why are they building a school there?
We may have to disagree on this. There is no way they should be putting a school within such proximity.
Senator Buchanan: That school is quite a way from the tar ponds.
Ms Rickman: It might be the same sort of process as Ontario dumping mercury.
Senator Buchanan: You must go uphill to get to the tar ponds. I am not saying that there is no problem; there is an oozing mass.
Senator Chalifoux: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with Bill C-32. Although the information is very interesting and good fodder for debate, I would like to have enough time to hear the other witnesses.
The Chairman: The chair agrees with you.
Senator Buchanan: I take issue with that. We are talking about toxic substances.
The Chairman: The chairman has ruled. If you have other questions, we would be pleased to hear them.
If there are no other questions of Ms May, we will move to the other presentations.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Earlier you said to Senator Hays that this bill is listing some substances with information related to their composition and their effects, et cetera.
However, we are not bound to take any action in order, for instance, to clean them up. So because those substances are listed, don't you think that the association or other people monitoring this kind of thing, could one day decide to wave the flag and signal that it is about time to do something, and that an action could follow up?
[English]
Ms May: The problem is that without the endocrine-disrupting substances being included, not only in the information-gathering stage but in the sections regarding how to derive action under the priority substances list, you will not necessarily find that it meets the definition of toxic as written, because the action of endocrine-disrupting substances is somewhat different. Therefore, I do not think we will be able to raise that flag and take action even with the information sections under Part 3 of the bill.
Ms Rickman: They are not necessarily bioaccumulative, which designates them as CEPA toxic and which would put them on a priority list.
Senator Robichaud: Surely, given the constant monitoring of the effects of those substances on the environment and ourselves, sufficient information will come out that politicians will have to act. You play a very important role in that, and I do not think the public will let that just slip by and say that we cannot do anything.
Ms May: I wish I had as much faith. Our system has enshrined in toxic chemicals constitutional rights. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The problem is even greater with hormone-disrupting substances because quite often they can be virtually benign in every other respect. For instance, the materials that come off the plastics that line our tin cans are fine in every respect except that they provide an artificial estrogen effect to us, which is increasingly linked in evidence of human health problems and environmental problems in wildlife. As Ms Rickman has pointed out, this bill fails to give us the tools to deal with that problem.
When we plead with authorities to act, they list the chemicals that have been banned. We need a more comprehensive approach. We need tools that deal with hormone-disrupting chemicals, and this bill does not give us that.
Senator Robichaud: I understand you would like to have the tools now. My point is that this may be a step in the right direction.
Ms May: We were extremely encouraged when the definition of "hormone disrupting substance" was included in the bill by amendment in committee. We were saddened when we realized that it was stalled in Part 3 information and would not make it into Part 5. With all the other things that are wrong with the bill, simply defining hormone-disrupting substances and collecting information about them does not tip the balance enough for us to be excited about the change. It is progress to recognize that it is a problem; but the failure to do something about it is quite disturbing.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms May and Ms Rickman. We appreciate your contribution.
Mr. George and Ms Carr, welcome. You have been patient observers. Please proceed.
Ms Adriane Carr, Director, Western Canada Wilderness Committee: Thank you very much for inviting us to present to you as a committee on this very important subject. I am going to give a very brief introduction and then turn the floor over to Mr. George, one of the founding directors of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, and a biologist who has studied this bill for the presentation of our brief.
There are three things I want to emphasize in my introduction. First, why would the Western Canada Wilderness Committee want to appear before you as you consider this bill? Second, we want to give you a flavour of what we believe is the public support for very strong legislation on this topic. Third, I would like to make a personal plea regarding the urgency to do something quickly on this matter.
Mr. George and I represent Western Canada Wilderness Committee. We are both on the board of directors and part of the executive team and campaign team for the committee. We have about 27,000 members Canada-wide and an additional 40,000 supporters. Although those members and supporters are largely based in the West, there are a large number in southern Ontario and throughout the rest of Canada.
Our group believes very much in the democratic process. It is our belief that, if we educate Canadian citizens on issues, provide them with information, and urge them to take action on those issues, they will write to members of government and through that democratic process our governments will act in accordance with the public will.
In the 20 years of the Wilderness Committee's history, we have spent a great deal of time producing educational materials. We send it to every member of the Senate. I know that you receive our calendars, posters, and newspapers. We have produced over 10 million copies of these kinds of newspapers, covering more than 130 different issues. They are mostly on wilderness topics, but some are about related issues.
Our prime mandate of working toward protecting enough of Canada's wilderness and wild ecosystems to sustain biodiversity for future generations has led us to become involved in other issues. Forestry practices is one. The level of toxicity and the health of the environment in general is another.
We can work very hard to create a national marine park in the Saguenay to protect the habitat of the St. Lawrence belugas, but when the pollutant and toxic levels of contamination in the bodies of beluga whales are so high that their bodies after death are considered toxic waste, you must realize that it is not enough to protect the habitat. Although we spend our working life doing that, there are times when we feel compelled to do whatever else we can to try to strengthen legislation and the ability of our governments to create a safe and healthy environment for people as well as for the wildlife species with which we share this earth.
To give you an idea of how strongly we believe the public feels on these kind of issues, I will quote to you from a number of recent polls conducted in British Columbia.
I am happy to provide the chair with the samples of these polls at the end of my presentation, and you may choose to distribute them as you wish.
Last fall there was quite a flurry of polls conducted by private organizations, environmental groups, and the provincial government. One of the most outstanding polls found that 98 per cent of British Columbians agree with the following statement: We have a responsibility, all of us, to protect B.C.'s unique natural environment for future generations. In addition, 86 per cent said that it was very important to them that the candidates they vote for in a political election are strongly committed to protecting the environment.
They also went on to state that they felt that the government should endeavour to limit pollution and try to create a healthy environment, despite the impact of that on economic considerations. Some 70 per cent of British Columbians support the provincial government bringing in tough new laws to limit pollution from pulp mills. Only one in five, 19 per cent, oppose it because it might jeopardize jobs in communities dependent upon that industry. That is a remarkable figure in a province where the forest industry has been dominant.
Citizens polled also said that they would be willing to pay more for products that would not have polluting aspects to them.
This is a question from a poll last fall: Chlorine is a chemical often used to bleach paper products white. However, chlorine has been found to cause cancer in humans and genetic damage in animals. Would you be willing to purchase unbleached paper products, like paper towels and toilet paper, if they are more expensive and less attractive? To that, 85.3 per cent responded, yes, they would be willing to pay more for products that are not polluting.
In a poll conducted by the provincial government, the results of which apparently caused an epiphany in our premier's office -- although probably not enough of one -- there was a question asked: Should companies in B.C. pay higher taxes on activities that hurt the environment, like emissions that cause pollution? To that, 87.7 per cent of British Columbians responded yes.
I read those to give you the context of the fact that the bill in front of you is one that, as my colleague will explain, has been largely weakened through the efforts of industrial lobbyists. We urge you to consider what the public, the citizens of Canada, want, the quality of environment they want to live in, and their willingness to pay more for an environment that is not polluted.
It is with that urgency that I wish you to consider one of two choices: Strengthen this bill, at a minimum, to the level at which it emerged from the House of Commons committee; or, if you cannot do that, simply do not pass it and allow it to die.
Mr. Paul George, Director, Western Canada Wilderness Committee: I am no lawyer, and it is hard to follow these two women, one of whom happens to be my wife.
I could read my brief to you, but I will let you read it yourselves. I want to make a few comments straight from the hip. When I was only 15 years old, I worked on my uncle's potato farm. The common thing to do was to kill every single insect. They had this wonderful pesticide called Parathion, and this stuff was in a big barrel in the barn. They told me: "You really ought to watch out. The guy puts on a rubber glove, and if he drops one drop on his leather boots, he will not be able to get his boot off fast enough before he is dead." I worked there two summers. The next summer, two kids came home from the school, did not know the field next door had been sprayed that afternoon, walked through the field, and before they got home, they were dead.
These are nerve poisons, and there is a whole class of them. I taught high school chemistry, and while my chemistry is pretty rusty, I do follow it. There are classes of chemicals about which you can tell right now, just by the make-up of their molecules, how toxic they will be without waiting to see people get sick. Originally, the intent of this bill was to start eliminating them.
Let me jump into the future. The biggest polluter in Canada, you should all know, is the pulp and paper industry. There are technologies to eliminate that. There is oxygen bleaching. There are safe ways to do it. It can be done. It costs a bit more. Industry fights it tooth and nail. In B.C., quite a few years ago, the government said that by the year 2001 or 2002 toxic pollution must be eliminated. Industry did not do a thing. They moved from chlorine to chlorine dioxin, and reduced their organochlorines down to a lower level and said, "Good enough." Now they are burning it instead of putting it into the water. They do not really check the air pollution. God knows what it will be like in the future.
We live just north of Vancouver, on Howe Sound. There are two pulp mills there. One is the most modern, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper at Port Mellon, actually can produce, and has produced, some oxygen-bleached material. However, they really use chlorine. They cleaned up enough of the sulphur dioxide that you do not smell it as much. They recently received a permit to triple the amount.
The other one mill is near Squamish. A few years ago, we published a newspaper, which we mailed to every house, that said, "Stop killing Howe Sound." We took a picture of that pulp mill. That paper, which carried a survey of all the pulp mill towns in B.C., showed that Squamish had the highest lung cancer rates, for both male and female, of any town. There was enough innuendo to conclude that the pulp mill pollution caused this higher lung cancer rate, but we did not say that. The facts are there, however.
I will take one more step to get my point across, and then I will conclude. I came from the U.S. when I was 28. I was taught when I first came here that the Senate was really useless; hence, we never sent a thing to the Senate. Then one day, about three or four years ago, someone said, "The Senate really is powerful. They can do things. You are really ignoring a great chance if you do not send your educational material to them." Hence, for the last three years, we have been religiously sending these things to you. However, I still do not know personally how powerful the Senate is. Could it stop this bill? Listen to these statistics about people in Canada. Can it stop it? Can it use its force to make a better and more solid bill? That is my question to you. If you can, then for God's sake, do it.
Senator Buchanan: The answer is absolutely, yes, we can.
Senator Spivak: We can.
Mr. George: My next question is: Has the chemical lobby got to you?
Senator Spivak: Right.
Senator Buchanan: You mean it has?
Senator Spivak: Sure.
Senator Chalifoux: They have not talked to me.
The Chairman: Mr. George, we have every opportunity to amend bills or to veto bills. That is within the power of the Senate if the Senate so determines to do so. Whether it will or not is, of course, up to the individual senators and the way they wish to deal with the subject matter.
Senator Spivak: The Senate treats this power in a very restrained way. We are not elected and to compete with the will of the house is a very rare occurrence.
It has happened a few times since I have been here; for example, the abortion bill. In a matter of extreme importance and a matter that touches the conscience of people, the Senate has indeed voted to defeat bills.
Senator Taylor: The Senate can also kill bills. If you had a choice between a dead bill, going back to the way things were a few years ago, or this bill not being as good as what you want, which would you choose?
Mr. George: I would like to see you go through it point by point, clause by clause, listen to the experts, improve it, and send it back. You can say, "These are the amendments that would make this into a decent, strong environment bill, one that we can be proud of in Canada." Are you allowed to do that?
Senator Buchanan: Yes.
Senator Taylor: I was trying to get a between-this-and-that answer out of you. If that does not get done, is the bill as it is still better than nothing?
Ms Carr: No. The bill in its current form is not worth allowing to be passed.
Mr. George: It makes things worse, and it sets a bad trend. I would say you should kill it.
Ms Carr: It is important. When you work as a public advocacy group, as an environmental group, frequently you work hard to achieve new legislation. If that legislation gets watered down to the point where it really is ineffective yet permits government and industry to promulgate the myth that there has been improvement it really sets back the democratic process. It is difficult for citizens to understand what has happened. If you do not choose to improve this bill, then I believe you ought to let it die and let process take over to create something. I believe you need to pass legislation that you can feel good about standing behind.
The Chairman: I was smiling because I was looking at this book, entitled Environmental Progress Report, that the Mining Association of Canada gave us this morning. Of course, it tells about all sorts of things they are doing, but they are using this highly bleached-out paper and cover. On the back, it says "Printed on paper containing recycled fibre." I thought they would be wiser to use a little less ostentatious and expensive paper.
Senator Chalifoux: In your brief, I found it interesting that you talked about the previous environment minister and that you state that under our new Environment Minister, Mr. Anderson, Bill C-32 will become a law that will protect Canadians and the health of our environments. I would like a comment on that statement.
Mr. George: I say this because he is a committed environmentalist. He has said it all along. He took very strong and difficult measures to stop the coho fishing, which was courageous. I do not know if it will be enough, given that they were so much on brink, especially the runs in the Stewart and the Fraser. He has the ability to be tough and to stand up to strong lobbies.
I think if you nudged him and he had to stamp this bill with his agreement, it would not be like this. That is the faith I have. Perhaps they will get to him. I do not know.
The Chairman: If we amended the bill on the basis that has been explained, do you have confidence that the minister would accept those amendments?
Mr. George: I would rather go that way, because that seems to be taking a step forward, rather than saying "no." Many environmentalists are accused of being nay-sayers. They are accused of pointing out problems, saying how bad it is out there, giving everyone terrible complexes, and offering no solutions. Many environmental groups have tried to be a little bit more solution-oriented. It is difficult. Solutions are tough solutions now. The environment slowly degrades, and you do not see it. Cancer slowly increases, and you can never pin it down. If you let it slip, one day you wake up and it is really bad. You cannot turn the corner to get back to where you were.
Senator Adams: Ms Carr, you mentioned beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River. I asked a question of the minister yesterday about this subject. I spoke about the mammals that we eat affecting us in terms of the chemicals they contain. In this bill, there is nothing said about that damage.
I was up in Rankin a few of weeks ago, and people were catching whales for food for their families. Do you have any idea of how many chemicals are in the blubber around the skin? Where I come from, we hunt it and eat it. Do you know how much affect that will have on the human body in the future?
These are whales in the Arctic and in the St. Lawrence River. Some scientists say that the whales crossed over to Europe and came back again. What is the effect on humans?
Mr. George: The St. Lawrence belugas are of course a separate population and hardly intermix with the northern populations. Many studies have looked at the food stuffs in the North. Because so many prevailing winds are taking chemical pollution up there, I would not eat them. They say you can eat so much, but if it is your steady diet, you bioaccumulate it. It is bound to hurt next generations. It is not necessarily something that crops up right away. Some are mutogenic and actually attack future children. It is a chemical soup up there. Thousands of different chemicals are being intermixed. This is a colossal human experiment global wide. In the North and in places where the prevailing winds tend to go, those who live there are the ones who are the guinea pigs.
Senator Adams: Three or four years ago, Sheila Copps was the Minister of the Environment. It was at that time that we discovered the problem with eating the fat and feeding it to the children. Since then, I do not know what happened. The government has never said anything about the effect of that on the people.
I am concerned not only about the belugas, but also the caribou, the fish, and other mammals. Unlike the South, we do not have a hunting season. We hunt 12 months a year; we live off the land. What can the Minister of Health do in terms of the powers that are contained in this bill?
Mr. George: A study should be made up there, because you are human guinea pigs or canaries in a cage up there. What you live on used to be the purest food in the world, but no longer.
Senator Spivak: I am curious about what you say. I know how terrible the situation was with the pulp mills before the new effluent regulations were put in place.
A number of fisheries on the B.C. coast were closed because the fish were not safe to eat. I thought they had re-opened those fisheries and that a much lower level of effluent was coming out.
I know about the oxygen treatment in Finland, which they have been using for 15 years. It is unfortunate that the billions of dollars spent by the pulp mill companies to switch from chlorine to some other substance were not spent switching to oxygen. That was a huge mistake. However, it was a courageous step at that point and it cost the pulp mills billions of dollars. It had to be done.
I thought the worst part of forestry was the cutting of so many trees and that the effluent problem had lessened.
Mr. George: Port Mellon mill reduced the percentage amount of contaminated effluent going out, but then they tripled the overall output of the plant. Every litre of air coming out of the stacks is less concentrated, but there is a larger total volume. They have also moved to burning instead of dumping in the water. No one is monitoring that output.
Senator Spivak: Are you telling me there are no regulations in place to monitor the pulp mill emissions into the air?
Mr. George: There is nothing vis-à-vis the dioxins and other outputs.
Ms May: One of our concerns regarding dioxins and furans is the big increase in municipal incineration. I hate to mention another Sydney issue, but the municipal incinerator there is burning all the biomedical waste for the whole province. There are dioxin and furan issues.
Paul Muldoon put it best at beginning of his evidence earlier today. While we may see reductions in releases, we are also seeing transfers. We are seeing more burning; we are seeing more dilution issues. We are not seeing absolute reductions of the problem.
Ms Carr: This bill has moved back from the point of virtual elimination and talks instead about cost-effectiveness. If you give an industry the opportunity to do something that is cost-effective, rather than demanding elimination, they will choose to do something less than achieving the real solution.
We do not do "true cost" accounting. We do not add in the health costs and the loss of wildlife and the environmental contamination and clean-ups. We just see the cost of industry modifications.
I think we are running out of time in this country and on our planet. It is far better that we say, no, these toxics do not belong in our world. We want elimination. It may cost an industry a certain amount more to go with oxygen bleaching rather than a modification to its chlorine system, but if you add in the reduction in health costs and the long-term costs to the environment, such a choice is better for everyone.
Senator Spivak: One of the reasons that the industry did not like virtual elimination was precisely because of dioxins. They said that they cannot eliminate dioxins because they occur naturally within the process, that they are not intentionally generated.
The same is probably true with the pulp mills. Dioxins probably arise from the processes there, too, but that is not a reason for not totally eliminating them. The industry witnesses were very sensitive on the issue of dioxins. They did not want to have total elimination. That is what they said.
Ms Carr: I do not think our society should modify its goal of having a world where it is safe for our children to grow up. I do not think it is okay to say that an industry can pollute because otherwise it would not be able to operate. We must take stronger stands with industry. There are alternative industrial technologies which allow us to produce products that are safe for our children, for wildlife, and for the environment. We must to be tough about it.
Senator Taylor: I am not sure about your definition of cost-effectiveness. You want sulphur emissions from car exhaust to be reduced by 50 per cent. Cost-effectiveness for that change requires either getting the refinery to turn out gasoline that cuts the sulphur or putting an improved catalytic converters on the car. Making that choice is where cost-effectiveness comes into play. We are not saying that industry can go ahead and pollute the environment because changes may be too expensive. We are saying that we should pick the best point in the chain between the producer and the consumer to make those changes.
Mr. George: Sulphur must be taken out at the source, especially at the flaring of gas wells. Sulphur is a chemical. It cannot be taken out with a catalytic converter. You will burn that sulphur and get sulphur dioxide.
Senator Taylor: Let us consider nitrogen.
Mr. George: Addressing nitrogen means tuning your car and setting the temperature of the combustion.
I would suggest that you start with the biggest polluter and the one that is easiest to convert. All changes will cost money. The flaring of gas wells in Alberta can be reduced relatively cheaply but the industry refuses to pay that cost. Consumers must pay for clean gasoline and see it as the proper cost of doing things. Total elimination is not reasonable, but we can get it down to parts per quadrillions. There is a pre-determined point but we are nowhere near that point. Industry goes the other way, sayings that dropping emissions to what I would consider safe levels is too costly.
Ms May: It is an odd area in which to insert cost-effectiveness, considering the history of environmental regulation. Senator Buchanan mentioned earlier the days of acid rain. Some industries said they could not possibly afford to bring down their sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent. Yet, when they did it, they made money rather than going bankrupt.
Necessity is the mother of invention. That is a truism. When an industry is told it must meet a certain target, it will be very innovative. I have a lot of confidence in the chemical industry's ability to deal with challenges and to continue to make money. If you ask them ahead of time if it is cost-effective, they will tell you it cannot be done.
Senator Taylor: This bill carries within it, though the previous bill did not, the possibility of setting up emission trading and pollution credits, et cetera. That is one positive aspect, I suppose?
I thought perhaps this dog would have one spot that you would like?
Ms May: This dog will not hunt.
The Chairman: Thank you, witnesses, for your presence and for your commitment, which is very important to Canada.
The committee adjourned.