Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 6 - Evidence - October 5, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 5, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:40 a.m. to review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, c.33) pursuant to section 343(1) of the said act.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. This meeting is in pursuit of our mandated examination of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999.
I will bore you for a moment with an admonition to keep us all on track. In looking at these issues, it is easy to move off track. Sometimes we will move off track, but it is a question of keeping appropriately off track.
The purpose, as I understand it, that we have set out upon is to use mercury, as I have characterized it, as a rail along which to look at the effectiveness, efficacy, usefulness and, if any, the shortcomings of CEPA in doing its ostensible job. We have chosen mercury as our first rail because it is an element. The other two are perfluorocarbons, PFCs, which are made by humans, and smog, which is a combination of all of the above.
As Mr. Lourie will tell us later, if we cannot find a way to deal properly with the restriction of the use of mercury under CEPA — if not by regulation, by some means — then it is unlikely we can deal with any substance under CEPA. I think the example is well-chosen.
Our purpose is to find out whether, and the extent to which, CEPA has thus far been able to deal with mercury and address questions dealing with mercury, and whether there is still a problem with mercury.
If there is still a problem, can that problem be handled by and under CEPA? If so, why is the problem not now being dealt with under CEPA? Is that because of an absence of teeth, regulatory and examination, and restrictions by way of date that are contained in CEPA? If so, can that problem be fixed under the existing statutes? If that is not so, what needs to be done to the existing statutes to make them and the act effective? That, as I understand it, is our objective today.
To begin our examination of that question, we are delighted to have before us people with whom we have dealt before. We welcome back Anna Tilman, co-chair of the Toxics Caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network; and Elaine MacDonald, staff scientist with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. We are delighted to have with us as well, Bruce Lourie, President of the Ivey Foundation.
Senators, you have been given an enormous amount of paper this morning. A lot of it is homework. It is the stuff we need to look at to be able to ask properly and then answer the questions that I have generally outlined. I think we agree those are the questions.
In particular, Mr. Lourie has been kind enough to bring us this material. Since we are looking at mercury, we do not all have this yet, but we will. I have asked him to help us ensure that every member has one of these documents, if they do not already. It is invaluable in pursuing what we are after.
I ask your pardon for starting to talk, but I wanted to make sure that I understood, and that we agree on, where we are going.
Anna Tilman, Co-Chair, Toxics Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network: Thank you very much. We welcome this opportunity. We are pleased that the Senate is looking at this case study. As Senator Banks has indicated, this is a natural- substance kind of dilemma. If we cannot deal with mercury, this is a problem.
First, I want to set some general parameters, and we will be glad to take questions. Ms. MacDonald and I will do a combined presentation. I will present at the start, she will interject and finish, and that will be the nature of our presentation.
I apologize that what might have been sent to you was still in draft form. As a result of the notification, we were not able to polish up our presentations. There are some errors in terms of typos and so on.
I contend that setting regulations under CEPA should be a federal initiative. We are dealing with a global pollutant. The federal government is the logical body to legislate and regulate mercury in products and emissions as well. I want to set that clear.
The initiatives thus far have avoided using CEPA, and that is one of the problems we have come across. I will cite cases where avoidance has led to a problem, and I will cite examples where CEPA has been used and what the problem is with that instrument.
I will be a problem person; I will identify some of the problems, some of the possibilities and some of the evidence of why we need to act on this.
Senator Angus: When you said ``avoidance,'' I missed the first part. You said you will cite instances where the federal government has avoided its responsibility?
Ms. Tilman: I would say that CEPA has not been used where it could have been used and that has created problems.
I believe you are all aware of the nature of mercury, and that it is perhaps the most pervasive multimedia toxin known. It is cited as a natural element, but human activities have resulted in more than tripling the level of mercury in the environment. I think that is important to remember, because this hang-up about mercury being a natural substance has led to inaction: It is natural, what can we do about it?
A lot of natural substances are toxic. Because they are natural does not mean they are benign. In the case of mercury, it is anything but benign, but human activity has exacerbated the levels in the environment.
The Chairman: For clarity — I am sorry for interrupting — is it correct that when you say the ``environment,'' you are talking about places where mercury ought not to be in our interest? The amount of mercury is predetermined and finite. The problem is us moving it around.
Ms. Tilman: That is right. Mercury is a natural element buried in the earth, but the problem is in its migration and release. There are natural releases like volcanoes, earthquakes and forest fires, but the problem is in the intentional uses.
Let us say in fossil fuels, where there is a trace element in fossil fuels, this is taking it out and using it and being unable to capture it. It is like the genie in the bottle; once you release it, it migrates anywhere and everywhere. It has been referred to as the traveller without a passport. It can be changed in forms and become methylated in the water and then revitalized into the atmosphere and it can hop around the universe.
Klaus Toepfer, when he was director of the UN, likened mercury to the traveller without a passport. It has been called a spy and named all kinds of things because of its migratory and irrational behaviour. Scientists continue to be baffled by it.
I was at an international conference on mercury in Wisconsin, and everyone talked about being baffled by the uncertainties. Mercury is one of the hardest things to look at.
Senator Angus: The chairman is right when he says mercury is a finite substance. It is not added to. We hear that these coal-fired power plants are one of the greatest inventions. They do not create new mercury but release trace elements into the environment. It already exists, but it is bottled up. The genie is still in there, and coal-fired power plants let it loose.
Elaine MacDonald, Staff Scientist, Sierra Legal Defence Fund: The issue goes to availability as well. It is moved from a place where it is not available to a place where it is available. When you take it out of a chunk of coal and put it on top of a stack, suddenly it is in a form where it is deposited into soils and into water bodies and then becomes available to bioaccumulate and biomagnify.
Bruce Lourie, President, Ivey Foundation: There is about three times as much mercury now in the global atmosphere as there was prior to the industrial revolution. That is the kind of information people are looking at. There was mercury around, but now there is three times as much.
Senator Angus: There is the same amount; it is just in different forms?
Mr. Lourie: Yes: What used to be locked up in rock is now out.
Ms. Tilman: It has been made available and can go to areas where there are no known industrial sources, such as the Arctic. Ms. MacDonald will talk about studies that have been done on the Arctic. Mercury can travel wherever it likes.
Also, it is difficult to retire mercury. So far no one knows what to do with it. How do we stop it? We have a rising curve. We have a cumulative effect. The total available amount in the world has increased three-fold. The amount of the element has not increased; it has been made available rather than being locked up.
We are all aware of the neurological and developmental effects and the vulnerable populations. Philippe Grandjean from Denmark has done studies in the Faroe Islands there. He has conducted longer studies on human populations and has indicated that there is no threshold. Although you may not see damaging effects immediately, if you follow a population long enough, the effects will come up. This situation is a tragedy. We know about the issues with fish, and Ms. MacDonald will talk about that subject.
The unfair burden of these pollutants for many populations is a travesty. Because all these activities are on a global scale, it seems that the federal government should have a role in this.
I do not know whether you are familiar with the Toxic Substances Management Policy. I have alluded to it in my brief. This policy was completed in 1995. It is to manage toxic substances, but it is not a regulatory instrument. It has designated substances as track 1 or track 2 substances. They are in track 1 if they are persistent, bio-accumulative, toxic and primarily the result of human activity. Track 2 is for substances that do not meet all those criteria, such as naturally occurring substances. Mercury is in track 2, which means life cycle management. No one knows what life cycle management really means.
Under this policy, if a toxic substance is released primarily due to human activity, one should look for means to reduce this substance to naturally occurring levels.
This policy document should be archived and is false in many ways. I got caught in this too. When I started to work on mercury, everyone said that it was a track 2 substance and could not be eliminated. We are talking about eliminating the use and release of mercury through human activity, and that can be done.
It is a false dynamic to say it is track 2 and we cannot reduce it. That is in much of the federal policy and should be looked at. Management policy has no teeth. It should not substitute for law. It has been a false dynamic. That is worth looking at.
The second issue is the Canada-wide Standards, CWS. Mr. Lourie and I were both involved in this. That has been the major activity in Canada on mercury. That is a tragedy, because the CWS have no teeth. They are not regulatory; they are not standards. Provinces can withdraw from these. They are reached by consensus, which can mean the lowest common denominator.
The lack of appetite for regulation is a serious concern. When this process started in 1998-99, the idea was that we could do something about mercury. I am speaking about releases into the air. Canada-Wide Standards deal only with air issues. Mercury is a multi-pollutant media. We thought these standards would be faster than regulation. They have not been.
Two sectors were chosen: coal-fired power plants and smelters. We have been involved with the standards for over seven years and nothing has happened with coal-fired plants.
One wonders whether this was ever meant to happen. It has been a terrific waste of resources and effort. It has been a big learning experience, but that has not helped. In the time they have delayed action on mercury, the use of coal plants has increased. Heavily laden mercury and coal is used in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan rather than low- mercury coal because it is indigenous and jobs are associated with it. The individual provincial interests are dominating.
The CWS would not look at what to do with coal that you capture. It will not disappear. You still have to deal with the captured coal. Just because it does not go out the stack, it has not gone away. It will be in the ash. What are the plans there?
In that time, another 14,000 kilograms of coal has been used. That is a travesty. I have sent you documentation on this.
To point out the fallacy, Ontario promised it would stop using coal and the province would have zero mercury emissions. That will not happen because Ontario has not discontined the use of coal yet. Had there been an enforceable standard, it would have had to do something. With no standard it does not have to do anything.
The second phase of CWS regarding mercury had to do with switches in cars. That was another attempt under CWS that failed. It was only this past summer that Environment Canada used a CEPA instrument of pollution prevention planning for switches. I contend that CEPA is a far better mechanism.
Senator Angus: What do you mean by switches in cars?
Ms. Tilman: Until 1999, switches in many cars contained roughly a gram of mercury.
Mr. Lourie: These switches are used primarily for lighting. They are tilt switches. Mercury switches are found in many products. A little ball of mercury floats back and forth inside the switch, and when the mercury hits one end it makes an electrical contact which turns on the light. They are also used in anti-lock braking systems, ABS, for cars. The Europeans and Japanese stopped using them about 15 years ago. The North Americans stopped putting them in only three or four years ago. There are many thousands of grams of mercury in cars right now on the road in North America.
Ms. Tilman: The problem is that these cars are supposed to be sent to shredders at the end of their lives. Theoretically, the switches should be removed, but there was no program for removing them. We were having discussions on that issue. As a result, the switches go into electric arc furnaces in the steel mills and are released into the atmosphere. When you think of how many cars reach the end of life over a long period of time, a fair amount of mercury is being released.
Mr. Louie and I worked on various aspects of the switch program. They tried through CWS. It shows, again, the failure of CWS to resolve it. It did not happen. The car manufacturers did not go along with a bounty or any system like this.
Frankly, the government did not stand up to industry. Industry's attitude was: We do not agree, let us not do it. That is my personal thing. We need a strong hand to deal with all these special interests. The political will to do that was not there.
The Chairman: What part of CEPA would have been usable to achieve what you say was not achieved? I am trying to find out whether CEPA can do that job and did not, or whether CEPA cannot do that job.
Ms. Tilman: I believe CEPA can do the job. There are two ways. Mr. Louie may suggest several. One is pollution prevention planning, which is supposedly the cornerstone of CEPA. It is not a full regulatory system but in the case of switches it has some promise. The second thing is that there is nothing in CEPA to stop it from regulating mercury in products.
Mr. Lourie: We deal with the issues; we do not deal with the legislation directly on a daily basis. I cannot quote which section, but maybe Ms. MacDonald can. She is the lawyer in the crowd.
Ms. MacDonald: I am not actually, but I work with many of them.
The Chairman: We all do, unfortunately.
Ms. MacDonald: Section 90 of CEPA allows you to regulate toxic substances.
Mr. Lourie: Generally, and we will get into this in a moment, the issue is not so much the legislation and how it is written. The legislation is well written but it is not being used. I have used the line about your kid having the best manners in town — they have never been used.
The legislation is comprehensive. Recently, this past summer, the government issued a regulation that requires the steel companies and the auto companies to contribute to pollution prevention planning to ensure the switches do go into those electric arc furnaces. CEPA can provide for labelling regulations. It has been done in the United States. In Vermont, they used it as a tactic specifically with the auto industry, requiring them to put a label on every car saying ``warning: mercury.'' The auto industry went crazy and sued the State of Vermont, but the point was that the auto industry was not doing anything in North America.
CEPA could regulate an emissions standard for the electric arc furnaces themselves. That was not done. There are probably six or seven different things that could have been done under CEPA to address this particular issue. None of them was ever an option on the table throughout the entire Canada-wide Standards process.
Ms. Tilman: I drew up a petition in 2000 that went across the country calling for regulation under CEPA. Groups such as the Sierra Legal Defence Fund and Pollution Probe signed on to it. We called for regulation. There was no appetite to do this.
Another example of regulation and products is volatile organic compounds, VOCs. The federal government under CEPA is regulating VOC limits in consumer products, to give you an example of another toxic substance; so it can be done.
The final example I will cite here is a big one, so I will make it short, because it is to the point. It is the CEPA instrument of pollution planning. I have mentioned that it is quasi-regulatory — even the federal bureaucrats will attest to that — because the pollution prevention, P2, plan is made of factors to consider, and those factors may contain release limits and so on, but they do not need to be followed; they do not need to be met.
That might be okay with regard to the switches, but they are applied to base metal smelters. There have been 20 years of things going on with base metal smelters, with a lack of regulatory action, and it is the biggest source of pollution from industrial sources in Canada.
I believe you have heard me talk about Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Flin Flon as the single largest source of mercury emissions in North America. Within pollution prevention planning, the Canada-wide Standards for base metal smelters is invoked. That tool is useless because facilities need only to make a determined effort to meet that level.
I have some detail about the faulty Canada-wide Standards and base metal smelters, but when talking about a facility of that size, emitting as much mercury as it does, you can imagine not only the local damage — and Ms. MacDonald will tell you about mercury deposition in that area — but the result to the atmosphere and to the community. Because I want to move on and let others have a chance, I can answer any questions about that particular sector. Basically, these emissions should have been regulated and could have been regulated, as Mr. Lourie has said, and not rely on Canada-wide Standards.
When you begin that regulation, it forces innovation. Emitters have to change. My final comment about CEPA at this point is that it can be used, it should be used, and it must be enforced and implemented.
I will leave this chart with you. With all this P2 planning, in the case of smelters, it will be 2015 before anything — and they do not have to do this — is effectively implemented. That is several years down the road; and then what? I contend that the P2 planning for a facility such as this is not the appropriate instrument. P2 planning is the cornerstone of CEPA. Why is there not a more rigorous element put into CEPA to make it a regulatory element? This is the question I will pose.
The Chairman: The Minister of the Environment announced about three weeks ago new tough regulatory requirements for emissions from base metal smelters, to which you have referred. Does that not answer the question?
Ms. Tilman: They are not tough new regulations.
The Chairman: What are they? That is how they were characterized.
Ms. Tilman: They are P2 planning. I have the Canada Gazette notice with me and I have analyzed them, which I can share with you. It said that it would improve smog. The reductions are fairly minimal compared to what is required. Reductions are not mandatory, unless the provinces implement an emission limit. Let us say Ontario has done something on the sulphur levels for smelters. Manitoba, with the two smelters, emits over 400,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide. The limits in the province of Manitoba are larger than the actual emissions occurring. Manitoba fought the federal government on even doing anything that was lower than the province's regulated limit. I have the background for all of this. I probably sent it to you in a swamp of materials. I have it with me, so you can see that these are not tough. The mercury is a Canada-wide Standard, and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting is the biggest culprit there. The particulate matter release limits are maybe a little less than 50 per cent. There are no release limits specified for CEPA toxic metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead and nickel. The facilities are supposed to design their own limits. That is not a tough legislation.
Mr. Lourie: I think the confusion in the regulatory part is that they are required to produce a plan, but they are not required to meet any limit reductions. The limit reductions are what they produce in their plan.
Ms. MacDonald: My understanding is that they need to plan for a reduction from over 1,000 kilograms per year to about 370 kilograms, but a lot of loopholes allow them to not meet that reduction. There are waivers for different aspects and they can also request extensions. How enforceable is this reduction, given that it is based on the Canada- wide Standards, which is really just an objective? Manitoba, in its implementation plan of the Canada-wide Standards, said that it will continue to negotiate with HudBay and not push them on the issue.
Ms. Tilman: The standard says that you are required only to make a determined effort. I have been involved in talks between the Province of Manitoba and the federal government. I have the data on HudBay's mercury levels. By 2005 data, the level is the same. The CWS is supposed to kick in for 2008. Manitoba is still emitting 1.5 tonnes. This facility used to emit 20 tonnes. There is no faith. Based on everything I have seen politically, there is no guarantee and there is no will to do something about the mercury. There has also been a miscalculation in the Canada-Wide Standards, but I will not go into detail unless you ask for that.
Senator Angus: You have said, Ms. Tilman, that despite the fact that you have brought all this information to the government's attention, over and over again, there is no appetite to do the right thing. That is the phrase you used. Then you used another phrase with which we are more familiar: that there is no political will.
These people are intelligent and well educated, as far as we can see, and they have all the science. Why is there no appetite? Let us find out what is happening. Is it because there is a big lobby and large commercial interests? Why is it not happening? They are not dumb. I do not understand why there is no appetite.
Ms. MacDonald: It is a one-industry town. That is part of it.
Mr. Lourie: That is a particular example. We apologize for perhaps overwhelming you with materials, but one thing I submitted is a case study that I have prepared that looks at federal government spending on mercury science. In particular, the study looks at the role of Natural Resources Canada in actively promoting the mandate of Natural Resources Canada, which, as the department states on its website, is to promote the use of metals. Mercury is a metal, and so the idea of restricting the use of mercury contradicts the fundamental mission of Natural Resources Canada, which is to promote the use of metals. In the department's view, metals are metals, and toxicity does not seem to be an issue. The department promotes lead, asbestos and mercury.
The fundamental issue, from my perspective, is that a department such as Natural Resources Canada is able to set the stage for the direction that the federal government takes on managing or regulating a metal such as mercury. In fact, the department was involved in a large research effort — this is documented in the case study — to raise questions and to inject uncertainty around mercury in the environment, contrary to what the international academic consensus was on mercury.
It is not only a lack of will. If you go through the documentation, you will see that there is an active effort to prevent any regulatory action on metals in Canada through Natural Resources Canada.
Senator Angus: I am confused. We are laypeople trying to understand the science and to advise the government how to have better public policy. The government already knows. There is nothing new. You have been telling the government this information for years. All these documents are clear. See Dick, see Jane. I keep saying: Why do they not have the appetite? It sounds as if they do not believe you.
Ms. Tilman: I think it is short-term thinking. Mr. Lourie brought up an important point. Mercury is a commodity. I am part of the UN working group on metals — mercury, cadmium and lead — and I recently had meetings regarding two of these metals. Natural Resources Canada is stringent. In the case of Manitoba, the province was supportive of not doing anything because of the metals market there.
When you treat a metal such as mercury as a commodity on the market and the price is low, you allow for the circulation to continue in trade. It is a huge trade issue, and we do trade in mercury. Sometimes if they can collect mercury, they can send it off, so it is being done.
The appetite issue comes from the one-industry town issue. Flin Flon and Thompson in Manitoba revolve around mercury. Trail, B.C. is another location with erratic mercury levels and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has taken them to court over historic metal contamination in the Columbia River.
Let us not forget the lakes that are affected by all this. The dynamics are politically charged and involve such short- term thinking in terms of not wanting to upset things now. However, the upset has occurred since the industrial age, to the level where putting one's head in the sand to keep the profits and the margins going is detrimental.
Senator Angus: Is there an inherent conflict? The Minister of the Environment and all the people involved with the environment are supposedly dedicated to a mission to clean up the environment or prevent pollution of the environment. On the other hand, the Department of Natural Resources, you are saying, has a mission to promote the use of metals and to help the commodity markets. Again, as a layperson, it sounds as though there is a natural conflict of missions in the government. One hand is trying to fix it and the other is making it worse. Is that an oversimplification?
Mr. Lourie: No: That is exactly the issue. If you look at the history of the constitutional development of Canada, the early role of the federal government was to assist in the extraction and development of the resource sector: for example, Harold Innes' work on the fur trade, as well as work on fish, metals, wood and timber. The whole concept of ``hewers of wood and drawers of water'' fundamentally characterizes Canada and the role of the federal government for over 100 years. Then they stuck this little thing called Environment Canada on the side, saying: ``Whoa, wait a minute.'' My analysis is that the momentum, inertia and systemic structures of the federal government are still primarily about resource extraction and promotion.
I feel sorry for the Environment Canada people. We work with them. They are well-meaning and they understand the issues, but at the end of the day, where does all this effort go? In my view, it goes to the centre of government. How does the centre of government weigh decisions: resource extraction, jobs and industry. Environment, frankly, is the last thing on the list.
Ms. Tilman referred to the smelter in Flin Flon. If that smelter shuts down, so does Flin Flon. That is a tough issue. The fact that we still put mercury in thermometers and sell them makes no sense. Most countries in the world ban them. Why can we not? That I cannot answer.
There is no economic interest involved and there are no easy alternatives. Yet, Canada, unlike Denmark, Maine, California, Wisconsin and Sweden, does not ban these products. I cannot understand why Canada cannot take a simple decision that every other industrialized country has taken. That is beyond me.
The Chairman: Senator Cochrane has a question.
Senator Cochrane: You mentioned a Catch-22 situation such that you are dammed if you do and dammed if you do not. I do not understand about those thermometers. Is it the government's decision to ban those thermometers?
Mr. Lourie: Yes, a long time ago in about 1980 the government set out to phase out the use of mercury. Here we are, 25 years later, unable to do the simplest thing, which most other countries have done.
The Chairman: Is CEPA an effective vehicle by which to do that?
Mr. Lourie: Yes.
Ms. MacDonald: Mercury is number eight on the list of toxic substances under the CEPA so it was listed early on. There are more than 70 substances listed today, not nearly enough, I would say. It goes to show that early on the government caught on to the fact that mercury needed to be regulated, but it failed to follow up the listing with tough regulations.
Senator Tardif: I want to follow up. You said that the federal government should ban and regulate, but what role do the provinces play? You mentioned Manitoba only. Are any provinces pushing for tighter regulations or are they all lacking in the same way?
Ms. Tilman: You can see the looks on our faces when you ask that question because I do not see a leader in this area.
Mr. Lourie: There needs to be federal leadership on this issue. A paper that I submitted to the committee includes a number of reasons why the federal government can play a role. Mercury is a global air pollutant so the federal government automatically plays a role. It is an interprovincial pollution issue and an interprovincial trade issue, which invokes a federal role. Much of the mercury in Canada is imported from other countries. We actively import and export mercury in Canada.
Canada has signed global treaties to deal with mercury: the, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, CEC, and other global agreements.
Senator Tardif: Is Canada in compliance with those treaties?
Ms. Tilman: The problem with some treaties, such as the Protocol on Heavy Metals, is that the reductions we signed onto were easy to meet at the time. The year for the base level for rapidly solidified, RS, metals was 1990 when it was 50 per cent reduction. The sign on was easy. However, as Mr. Lourie mentioned, dental amalgam is approximately 50 per cent mercury. This issue is another large one that other countries have dealt with. I question one department that we seldom hear much from: Health Canada. It is a co-signatory with CEPA and has a role to play but I do not see much attention paid to Health Canada on this issue.
Mr. Lourie: That is an issue. Health Canada has a role in CEPA, as senators know. Health Canada becomes involved in any issues related to human health and toxic substances. When we worked on the thermometer issue a number of years ago, we talked to people at Environment Canada. People at Environment Canada have said that they cannot use CEPA for a product. We do not know the background of that comment but according to the legislation, CEPA can be used for products. For example, the Environment Canada people say that thermometers fall under the Hazardous Products Act. The HPA falls under Health Canada. I met with the person that deals with the Hazardous Products Act under Health Canada and the person said they could not do anything about thermometers and mercury because the product is not hazardous but the mercury inside the product is hazardous. Therefore, the HPA does not apply. The official implied that it falls under Environment Canada because the toxic substance inside is hazardous.
We observe our international peers and see how easy it seems for them to meet their goals. It makes us wonder why we have these problems that make it so difficult. When you ask us whether CEPA allows us to do this, the lawyers look at the act and tell us yes but the government tells us another story. It is difficult to answer those questions because we do not understand what level or what motivation is leading us to the difficulties presented in Canada.
The Chairman: That would be our job.
Mr. Lourie: We are most excited about the committee taking that on.
Ms. Tilman: The track 2 category is a naturally occurring substance and is an outdated policy. It is not a legislated policy that needs to be looked at.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Lourie, I am glad you are giving us specifics that we can sink our teeth into. You mentioned the thermometer and dental amalgam. Do you have information on any others?
Ms. Tilman: Yes.
The Chairman: You do not know what you just did by saying that.
Ms. Tilman: Yes, we have opened up Pandora's box of products. Vaccines that contain a mercury preservative called merisol are still available on the Canadian market.
Senator Cochrane: What are these vaccines for?
Ms. Tilman: The flu vaccine, for example, has merisol in it. Mercury was used as a biocide when vaccines were started, before the days of autoclaving to sterilize. Today, mercury is not needed in vaccines so it should be banned.
Senator Cochrane: Is that Health Canada's concern?
Ms. Tilman: I hope so. There are so many measurement products — barometers, thermometers, fluorescent lamps, et cetera. We came out with energy efficient lamps because the old ones contained much more mercury but the new ones still contain some. This issue could be provincial but there is no means of collecting or disposing of the mercury.
Mr. Lourie: That is where it becomes frustrating. Ms. Tillman referred to this concept of life cycle management that Environment Canada talks about. The department basically says it cannot regulate mercury but it can manage mercury through its life cycle to prevent releases. That would imply that no product containing mercury would ever get into the waste stream and that all the mercury would be captured and recycled in some way. However, the department has not implemented one single program to do that in Canada. The department says that it cannot regulate so it will manage mercury's life cycle instead, which would cost so much as to make it not feasible. The reason they provided for not collecting and disposing is not even backed up with any program initiatives.
Senator Cochrane: Who are ``they?''
Mr. Lourie: The federal government.
Senator Cochrane: Okay, I want to be sure.
Mr. Lourie: Environment Canada, specifically.
Ms. MacDonald: It is better to avoid the use of mercury — to have never used mercury in any product. Then, you do not need to manage the life cycle because you have eliminated the problem.
Ms. Tilman: The prohibition or the ban of substances is under CEPA. You may have trouble with saying we prohibit mercury, but you do not have any trouble saying we prohibit products containing mercury. In that ban act itself, I think there is only one substance at present affected by the ban.
The other issue is the timelines under CEPA.
Senator Cochrane: If the federal government asks a company to reduce its output of mercury, you say that information goes to the companies. At the same time, you said the provincial government has a part to play, because the companies can go to the provinces, make a case and then the reduction does not happen. The province, too, has a major role, according to this example.
Mr. Lourie: The province does have a role. The federal government, in some areas in Canada, can regulate unilaterally. That is what CEPA was set up to do. In most countries that have effective legislation — the U.S. may be the exception, but in the European countries — it is all led by the federal governments of those countries.
While the provinces would be a party to developing regulations, there really is not any point in having a Canadian Environmental Protection Act if the federal government does not use it.
Ms. MacDonald: Most industry spokespersons agree that they would rather have an equal playing field across the country, so that no one province has a competitive advantage over another. A national standard of regulation can do that, whereas a provincial regulation cannot.
Senator Cochrane: We have the CWS.
Ms. MacDonald: I will be brief, because much of what I was planning to say has already been said. I thank you for focusing on mercury. The evidence is unequivocal on the impacts of mercury on the environment. Mercury affects all people, wildlife and ecosystems. Nothing is untouched by its impact.
I wanted to focus on a slow-motion tragedy that we are witnessing — the destruction of one of the world's best food sources, which is fish. Most mercury in fish is methyl mercury, which biomagnifies and bioaccumulates in the food chain. It is highly toxic to the nervous system, particularly the brain, which is the principal target of methyl mercury; there is likely no threshold for which there are not effects.
Health officials working in lower levels of government, such as municipal government, are faced with a complex dilemma. They must try to ensure citizens make heart-healthy food choices such as fish, but at the same time, they must be aware of the levels of mercury in certain species of fish and realize that consuming too much of certain species of fish can put them at risk.
This concern is particularly with respect to some ethnic cultures that eat more fish than others, or with our First Nations and Inuit citizens of Canada.
In addition, the most susceptible members of the population are women of child-bearing age — because the impacts of methyl mercury are so profound in an unborn children — and young children, because their nervous systems and brains are still developing.
The City of Toronto's public health department recently released a powerful report on the consumption of fish. Most of the report counsels individuals on what fish they should and should not consume. In that report, the last recommendation in the executive summary is:
Lastly, federal and provincial governments are called upon to improve efforts to reduce the release and cycling of mercury in the environment, and to examine and implement best practices in fisheries and aquaculture to restore the safety and availability of this important food source.
Studies have shown that increased incidence of cerebral palsy among male infants in the Great Lakes Basin has been associated with mercury exposure. In southwest Quebec, a strong dose relationship was observed in a study that examined the frequency of fish consumption before and during pregnancy, and methyl mercury concentrations in maternal hair.
In populations that consume little fish, blood mercury values are generally less than two micrograms per litre and hair values are generally less than two micrograms per gram. In Canadian Aboriginal people, blood mercury levels have ranged from one to 660 micrograms per litre and correlate well to fish consumption habits. A study of Inuit babies in northern Quebec detected subtle nervous system and behavioural changes that appear to be due to mercury and PCB contamination.
I recognize that the mercury Canadians are being exposed to through the consumption of fish is not all coming from Canadian sources, but a large proportion is. In 2005, according to the National Pollutant Release Inventory, Canadian sources released six tons of mercury into the environment. That figure does not include the things Mr. Lourie talked about, switches and so on; that figure includes only industrial sources.
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment tests over 6,000 sport fish a year for mercury levels to inform their citizens of which fish are safe to consume, which are not and how much they can consume, lake by lake. It is a major undertaking.
When you asked earlier about what provincial governments are doing, they are dealing with the exposure end of things. The problem has become so acute that provincial governments now have to warn their citizens about eating fish that they catch in their local lakes.
Ninety-three per cent of the warnings for inland lakes in Ontario relate to mercury, not other contaminants. The Great Lakes have other contaminants generally because they are more industrially developed; but for the lakes in the inland area of Ontario, the warnings are mostly for mercury contamination.
I apologize; I have visual aids but I do not have enough copies to pass around to everyone. The top graph is CEPA toxic substances. This graph comes from the PollutionWatch website, which is an excellent website for understanding pollutant releases in Canada. These substances have been designated as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As you can see, even though these substances have now been listed under the regulation, the discharges have increased steadily. CEPA has not managed to decrease or even flatten out the discharges.
The bottom graph is for mercury only. I went from 2000 to 2005, because the reporting requirements for mercury changed in 2000; therefore, it is hard to look at discharges before 2000. As you can see, mercury has been relatively flat. There have been no decreases in mercury discharges in Canada, according to the National Pollutant Release Inventory.
The next graph illustrates the Ontario fish-testing data — that is the 6,000 points. The line that goes right through all those points is what Health Canada considers to be the safe level for fish to be sold in Canada. Anything above that line, you are not allowed to sell commercially. About 13 per cent of the points are above that line, and that is the fish tested in Ontario in one year. In other words, 13 per cent of the fish that the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario tested could not be sold in Canada.
The story of mercury is a story of tragedy, in my opinion. CEPA gives the Government of Canada legislative authority to regulate mercury in products and mercury emissions. The problem lies not in CEPA, but in the apparent unwillingness of the federal government to act.
The focus on CEPA has been mostly end of pipe, and not toxic substances in products and processes. CEPA needs to prevent the use of toxic substances in products and processes in addition to abating toxic emissions. Governments have failed to prevent use of mercury in products; and although some attempts have been made to reduce the emissions of mercury from pipes and stacks, these attempts have also failed. Ms. Tilman has spoken about that so I will not go into it.
We already talked a lot about Hudson Bay, but the point I want to make is that the evidence of contamination in Hudson Bay and around Flin Flon has been well documented, yet no action was taken. Studies came out in the 1990s that showed elevated levels — one hundred times above background levels — of mercury in the soil up to 80 kilometres from that site.
The Chairman: One hundred times?
Ms. MacDonald: I can give you the studies. Mercury levels in the soil around Flin Flon are 100 times background levels and no action was taken. Now they are talking about pollution planning, but my point is, what does it take to get action?
This picture is of Flin Flon. The red shows the elevated levels of mercury. Going away from the site, you get into the blue, which is more background levels. This picture was produced by the Geological Survey of Canada back in the 1990s and it is on their website to this day, yet no action occurred until only recently.
Senator Cochrane: The mayor was on television and he is up in arms about this whole issue and now he says something will be done. I saw that on TV only last week.
Ms. MacDonald: That is good news. That is only one example.
Senator Cochrane: I do not know how long it will take, mind you.
Ms. MacDonald: I would like to present more evidence, but time is short. I hope that this information will help reinforce the need for action. The action can be taken under CEPA. The tools are available under CEPA. It takes political will to see that happen.
The Chairman: You referred to ``end of the pipe'' solutions. We heard earlier that we were talking about dealing with the results rather than what goes in the top of the pipe. I think I heard you say, it depends on who pays and at what point, but overall it would be cheaper to ban mercury and to ban its use than to try to deal with the results of its use. Is that correct?
Ms. MacDonald: I absolutely believe that. An estimate was done in the United States on the cost of mercury emissions in terms of lost intelligence in young children. They estimated that mercury costs $8.7 billion annually in the loss of intelligence in young children. That is only to give an economic value. That value is from a U.S. perspective; there is no equivalent in Canada. They base their measurements on fetus blood; babies born with elevated levels of mercury.
Mr. Lourie: Right now we import most of our mercury thermometers from India, so there is no reason, no economic penalty for anyone in Canada, not to ban the sale, for example, of mercury thermometers. However, to set up a program to collect all the mercury thermometers in Canada, have them recycled and have the mercury removed, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
I think there are many examples. We have done research where, essentially, there are alternatives to almost every mercury product. There are a few exceptions, but almost everything has an alternative. There is no alternative for mercury in fluorescent lamps although there are lamps, as Ms. Tilman said, that use much less mercury.
Senator Kenny: I have difficulty when someone puts a price tag on the cost of intelligence in babies. How do you get a number like that? It does not make any sense to me from a policy point of view.
Ms. MacDonald: It was a productivity estimate; a loss of productivity.
Senator Kenny: What are the assumptions and why would you give us testimony that does not mean anything? You need to spell it out and explain how you arrive at the number. To throw out a number like that only turns me off. Here is a figure that is pushed out and someone is trying to say that because a kid is not as intelligent, we will estimate how much money the child will earn for the rest of their life and here is a figure that you should all be shocked at. I am sorry. Let us not go there.
Ms. MacDonald: Unfortunately, a lot of environmental decisions are made through cost benefit analysis.
Senator Kenny: You cannot do cost benefit analysis on it. You cannot support it. Explain how you get the number. I do not want to read the paper. If you cannot tell us in 25 words or less how you figure out the lost benefits of a child, why tell us the number? Is it the shock effect? Are we all supposed to say: Oh, boy, $8 billion, let us do something.
Ms. MacDonald: I accept your comments. Sometimes numbers do speak strongly to people and I thought I would add that in since I was asked about the cost. Once mercury is dispersed into the environment, external costs result. This number is the only number I have seen in literature that has tried to estimate what some of the costs might be, so I offered it up.
Senator Kenny: I can count thermometers and that makes sense to me, but I have huge difficulty when someone says —
Ms. MacDonald: Environmental costs are externalities. Governments have not been forced to regulate products, so they externalize these costs on the environment and they do cost society in various ways.
Senator Kenny: I do not need a lecture on that. I am saying if you put out numbers, be able to support them in a way that makes sense to a policy-maker, otherwise we discount them.
The Chairman: Will you give the paper to the clerk on which the number is based?
Ms. MacDonald: I will.
The Chairman: We will ask our people to have a look at it.
Ms. MacDonald: Certainly, I will.
Mr. Lourie: I appreciated the way you framed the discussion and sequence of questions. It is very much the way we have looked at the issue as well, wondering about all those ``ifs.'' I will try to respond to some of those directly.
The other interesting thing is that I started working on mercury around 1995 and did an analysis at the time. We chose mercury as a substance to look at for the very reasons you cited and which I quoted in the paper that you referred to, which is, if we cannot address mercury under CEPA, I am not convinced we can address anything under CEPA. That is a fundamental piece of this analysis and why I think it was wise of you to select mercury as part of your case study. I hope it is helpful for you.
I will give you quickly my immediate responses to the questions you asked.
Your first question is: What actions has the Government of Canada taken under CEPA? In terms of specific regulatory actions that lead to reductions or restrictions in the use of mercury, I do not think anything has been done under CEPA since its inception. There have been a couple of modest regulations around transportation and reporting, and there has been a lot of activity through the Canada-wide Standards process, but this process has not led to any specific regulations under CEPA.
In terms of triggers — your second question was triggers under CEPA to compel action — I think there are many, many triggers. In fact, there is almost nothing that you cannot do under CEPA with respect to mercury. It is a CEPA- toxic substance. The government, if it chose to, could pretty much do anything.
In terms of the process for federal regulations, given that mercury was declared a toxic substance, the government should have come up with a risk management plan. It should have been developed with specific actions. There should have been targets, timelines, and some assessment of cost effectiveness for addressing different sectors. None of that has ever been completed in Canada. I have been a party to many discussions over the years where that idea has come up. Nothing has ever been completed in that way.
You asked about hurdles encountered along the way. I think the primary hurdles, internally, are the issues we talked about in terms of the economics and the role of other departments, such as National Resources Canada, for example, and the role that department has played.
When we have, for example, a process under the commission for environmental co-operation to develop a mercury action plan, which Canada signed on to, representation from the federal government is from both Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. I was part of the committee — two or three from Canada, two from the United States and two from Mexico — that wrote the North American action plan on mercury. I can tell you that the dominating Canadian position on mercury was developed by Natural Resources Canada, not Environment Canada. That is a huge hurdle. I hope that your further inquiries and investigations can focus on that, because I think that is probably the fundamental hurdle.
Why is that a hurdle? Clearly, issues are related to broader economic interest.
Federal-provincial relations are always a hurdle. Senator Cochrane referred to that issue. Federal-provincial relations always come up as a hurdle, but the public has an expectation that if there is federal legislation, the federal government will implement it.
In terms of specific barriers that have prevented action, the idea that mercury is a naturally-occurring substance is, in fact, a loophole in CEPA. That has to be addressed. There is an absolute loophole because mercury is characterized as ``natural,'' and the idea is that we cannot regulate something natural. That is a problem.
A specific issue at Environment Canada is that their legal department advises the department that it is unable to use CEPA for particular things. I do not understand that legal analysis; I do not know what motivates it. However, that is a barrier.
For the last ten years the federal government has been told that they cannot use the word ``regulate'': that ``regulate'' is not a word that the federal government or Environment Canada is allowed to use. They can talk about voluntary action, they can talk about guidelines, but the people at Environment Canada have been directed that in discussions they are not allowed to talk about regulation. CEPA is an act that invokes regulation. Essentially, there is no purpose to the act.
Senator Angus: This is ridiculous. Where does that come from?
Mr. Lourie: That question is really the fundamental one: where does that comes from?
Ms. Tilman: In so many instances and all these processes that we have been involved in, we are told we will not go down the regulatory path; it takes too long.
The Chairman: I can expand on that at great length later when our witnesses are not here, because we do have a residual understanding, or the arguments about that at least.
Mr. Lourie: Interestingly, we have heard more of the term ``regulate'' from Minister Ambrose than we have in the previous ten years. We will see if anything comes out of that, but the word is used more these days.
Finally, the other barrier is when other departments are required to be consulted — whether it is Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada — their involvement ranges from being disinterested, at best, to being actively opposed to action in the worst cases.
In terms of the Canada-wide Standards process, Ms. Tilman touched on that a fair bit. You asked what the process is. I think the process, clearly, is a facilitated gathering of stakeholders that includes industry, non-government organizations and the provinces. Typically, the process has led to voluntary guidelines that are essentially in the form of the proposals put forward by the industrial or commercial interests that are at the table. That process has been the mechanism of the Canada-wide Standards.
You asked if there is a backstop in any way. I think CEPA, theoretically, is a backstop. I do not think it has ever been used that way.
It always feels like a cop-out when you go back to the term, lack of political will, or lack of leadership, but there is something to that somewhere. From my perspective, if there are institutional barriers within CEPA as an act, or if there are systemic barriers somewhere, the barriers make it much easier for that to be an excuse. The barriers that exist — the institutional barriers, systemic barriers and legal perceptions — need to be tidied up. There needs to be, within CEPA, clear language that Environment Canada has the authority to act.
The problem in the legislation is that the responsibility to implement the act is not clear to the people that have the responsibility. The language is convoluted and complex. There are too many options to do things. I think anything attempted through CEPA has to go to cabinet three times. A great deal of effort is required for the bureaucracy to put things to cabinet, and it also leaves cabinet with a great deal of opportunity to debate, ask for further information or question things put forward. That is a specific barrier to the effective implementation of the act.
Finally, with respect to consumer products, which was one of your questions, the legislation, the way it is written if it is interpreted broadly, can be used for consumer products. The way that Environment Canada interprets it, it cannot be used for consumer products. Again, there needs to be clear language within the legislation that provides the authority and also the authority with respect to other legislation, such as the Hazardous Products Act. Frankly, I think the issue is one of confidence. I do not think Environment Canada confidently uses the legislation because the department feels it will be shot down, either in cabinet or in other places.
There needs to be that clarity in the legislation.
Senator Angus: I wrote down, ``A key barrier to the effective operation of CEPA is that any new regulation thereunder must go three times to cabinet.'' Enabling legislation, I understood, was there. You folks said it is adequate; it has all the powers. It sounds like there are so many checks and balances within the legislation that it is rendered nugatory or useless. That is what you are saying.
Mr. Lourie: Yes.
Senator Angus: All these poor bureaucrats are afraid to use it because they will get egg on their face and look foolish. It almost sounds Draconian. You do not have to go to cabinet three times with the original bill. Is it because there are 37 laws related to CEPA, as you told us one other time?
Mr. Lourie: I think you must go through cabinet initially to declare a substance toxic. That would be the first time. You must go a second time for the actual regulation, if a regulation is proposed. I do not recall the third, but there are three specific steps.
Senator Angus: You could do them all at once.
Mr. Lourie: I do not believe so.
Ms. Tilman: One must be careful with regulation. We mean meaningful regulation.
Senator Angus: As I understand the publication and the Canada Gazette process, cabinet is a euphemism for three people in a room saying, today at government operations or whatever committee of cabinet, this is a toxic and we are off and running and it gets published in the Canada Gazette. This is not gospel. This is really what we were looking for in this study. You say that is a huge barrier. On the one hand, the law is super, but on the other hand, inoperable. That is the headline of our report.
Ms. Tilman: I think we can ask Ms. MacDonald.
Ms. MacDonald: We can provide follow-up detail on those three steps and submit it to you.
Senator Angus: It would be helpful if you could give us one case study. It blows me away.
The Chairman: That would be terrific. I think the third step in the process is the time that cabinet is given to object to placing a substance on the list, similar to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, under the Species at Risk Act, SARA. That is part of the process. What Senator Angus has asked for is, we need to follow the red line and say, here is where CEPA gets into trouble, then it gets into trouble here and then it gets into trouble here, so it will not happen.
Mr. Lourie: One challenge is that the act has been used so infrequently to actually regulate something that it is almost theoretical, even though the act is 10 years old.
As I am sure you are aware, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has commented annually on the lack of effectiveness of CEPA. In 1999, three years after criticizing the government for lack of action on CEPA, the commissioner said:
The processes we observed seemed to defy timely, decisive, and precautionary action. Many of the root causes of problems we found in 1999 continued in 2002....
She went on to say that in her opinion, the current situation, in terms of future prospects, is not environmentally, economically or socially acceptable.
Those remarks were made in 1999 and refer to comments she made three years previously. This is 2006.
The whole scope of the House CEPA review is no different from its last CEPA review. They will not get it again. It is extraordinary to watch the same issues debated and the same things put off the table as not debatable.
Senator Angus: Who puts them off the table, the chairman?
Mr. Lourie: No, I do not think it is the chairman.
Ms. Tilman: You might remember me saying that I was part of the advisory committee for the CEPA review. It seems as if you go somewhere to scope these big issues and direction comes from the ether or somewhere that we sometimes cannot figure out, and it says, ``No, you need to go this way.'' It is almost like a fear — as Mr. Lourie alluded to — to actually doing the things we need to do. I know there is a huge fear of backlash from industry.
Senator Angus: As I suggested earlier, there is big business, big lobby and big interests.
Ms. Tilman: The auto manufacturers lobby heavily. All these major industries lobby. You are part of the group that looks into energy as well. Talk about powerful lobbying.
It was a struggle in 1999 to get CEPA to where it is, to be what looks on paper to us — and none of us are lawyers — to be, ``Well, that is what the act says, what is going on?''
Let us consider the P2 plans, the pollution prevention plans. They are the cornerstone of CEPA. The act has been applied eight times only to include switches and smelters. No one has tested the waters with it. No plans have been finished to know whether it is effective or not. Is it an instrument worth pursuing? Fix the instrument. There are ways of doing it. I put in a ton of recommendations to fix that instrument to put the CEPA regulation backstop right in there. They have done that with the smelters. By 2015, there may be regulation on release limits, but that is by 2015. Until then, over all those years the poisons will keep spilling out.
Senator Cochrane: Anna, Bruce and Elaine — if I may call you by your first names — I am sympathetic when it comes to mercury, or any toxic substance. However, at the same time, we have to be cognizant of the fact that jobs are an important aspect of our Canadian economy. We need to offer solutions to these toxic substances to industry.
Ms. Tilman: The job issue comes up big in Manitoba, as I have mentioned.
Senator Cochrane: Everywhere, dear.
Ms. Tilman: Yes, I know.
Many of us who have put forward this policy to many departments say there are two major issues here. Industries go through transition. Take industries that have been functioning since 1930 without anything really being done to them. Is that proper? They have not spent any money up to now on pollutants. They could fix it or use different ore bodies. There has to be an ability to change the nature of jobs. This is where the federal government has a role as well.
Some of these industries will be sunsetted. This is a natural course of industry. They fade because they are no longer able to function, or their operation is too expensive, or they are out of date.
Mr. Lourie: I look at the issue of jobs in the context of our international peers. The OECD ranked countries on environmental performance. Canada was ranked 27 out of 29. Clearly, there is an issue in Canada. We are not living up to what I call basic environmental standards. Other countries in the world are living up to those standards. One could say, ``Well, in Canada, we value jobs over everything.'' That is one option for a policy-maker. It does not matter if kids are dying from air pollution or we have excessive mercury levels. I do not think that is the expectation.
Senator Cochrane: That is a bit extreme.
Mr. Lourie: Yes, it is. I do not think that is the expectation or the intent. However, in many cases with mercury, jobs are not the issue. Getting rid of mercury thermometers is not ridding Canada of any jobs. Getting rid of mercury thermostats does not get rid of jobs. That is why I like to separate the two.
The Chairman: Flin Flon is a different story.
Mr. Lourie: Yes: Flin Flon is a tough issue. Frankly, I have a hunch I know what I would do. Many other issues under CEPA are simple issues.
Ms. MacDonald: The situation in Flin Flon is turning around. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting is paying down their debt at a remarkable rate now. That is because the market for base metals is going through a big boom. We have looked at their financial records. They have taken their debt from $200 million to $60 million. Their revenues are way up. Economically, you could argue that there is time for action there. That is only one case study.
What we ask for would not put Canadian industry at an economic disadvantage because Canada needs to catch up with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is already regulating much of this. If we caught up to the rest of the world, we would be on an equal playing field with industries in other countries. Right now, operations in Canada are at an advantage because they externalize many of their environmental costs, costs which other countries are forced to internalize.
Ms. Tilman: I hate to come back to smelters, but that is a big issue. The two smelters in Manitoba are the only ones in the developed world without means of capturing sulphur. Do not tell me we cannot deal with that.
If you look at Flin Flon's record, as Ms. MacDonald said, you will know that the metal markets are skyrocketing. Mining Watch Canada and I did an analysis on some of the economics of the metals industry. We know the money is there; it is the will that is not.
In 1993, for example, Hudson Bay, which is a copper-zinc facility, remedied their zinc facility. Their mercury emissions went well down because of that. It is their copper that is a problem.
The connection with jobs has to do with ore bodies, which they locate easily and cheaply, even if they are more heavily contaminated. That tends to be the source. We are a resource country. The ores near Flin Flon are heavier in mercury. In Saskatchewan, there is lignite coal.
Senator Cochrane: You have so much information.
Ms. Tilman: If I am giving too much I will stop.
Prevention is the key here. Mr. Lourie alludes to it, too. If you do not prevent it, then you do not have to deal with it. If you use fossil fuels — and I say ``if'' — then why are you using the worst kind? Why use high-sulphur ones? Why use high-mercury ones?
The Chairman: Because it is cheap.
Ms. Tilman: Exactly, and it is local and available.
The Chairman: Our committee has already argued in other respects that those costs that are now externalized and are not being dealt with have to be internalized into the product. If we do that, it will save a lot of problems.
Senator Angus: Chairman, I am looking at the empty seats around the table and hearing these statistics about going from fourth or fifth to twenty-seventh, during a certain period, but then I am blown away by this culture of ``do not regulate'' that somehow crept in. I am glad to hear that now, perhaps, with the new government, there is new emphasis on regulation.
However, we try to keep things non-partisan. It is interesting, though, that the chairman, the deputy chairman and I are the only people here, and it is too frequent. It bothers me a lot and I know it bothers you. I wanted to put that on the record. Maybe it shows a lack of interest by certain people.
We brainstormed here the other night about how we could make a difference in this study. Everything is about communication. To develop a political will, or, as you said, the initiative to do something, you need a communication that brings pressure on the legislator. You can cut though these three trips to cabinet in a nanosecond if you suddenly bring 34 Inuit mothers in here with their doctor on national television saying they all have mercury in their mother's milk and every kid will be stunted. I believe that is the evidence.
All this information is fascinating, and I told the chairman the other night I will make a special effort to understand mercury and how it works. I know some of my questions sounded a bit naive, but I am trying to understand it.
All that is great, but we are not taking Chemistry 201 here. We are trying to get action from the guys in the other building. It seems to me that Pollution Watch individuals, Sierra Club individuals and the others — who do this not to make a big profit but to make Canada a better place to live — could focus on a ``grabber,'' if I can use that expression. One of our senators is from Rankin Inlet, and he tells us how the kids are not getting a full life, and their intelligence is affected. That to me is like Walkerton. Even where I live in Magog, Quebec, last week was suddenly the colour season and all the tourists are told not to come to North Hatley and Lake Massawippi because they cannot even touch the water, let alone drink it or wash their hands. They cannot touch the water because there is some kind of algae, a green thing. That attracts everyone's attention. Every mayor in the whole area is up in arms, they are marching on Quebec City and something will be done fast.
Does what I am saying make sense, or am I dreaming?
Mr. Lourie: That makes perfect sense. Ms. MacDonald referred to Pollution Watch, which is a web-based program where you can access toxic pollution information that is managed by two groups, Environmental Defence and Canadian Environmental Law Association. Also, you may have seen something called ``Toxic Nation,'' and the blood testing work done in Canada. The ministers, Jack Layton and others agreed to have their blood tested for toxic substances. It was the lead story on the three national newscasts. It received a lot of attention. That is also a program of Environmental Defence. I chair the board of Environmental Defence, so I am fond of these things, and they are effective.
However, your point around the Arctic is particularly important for mercury. In the past, the argument was always that it does not matter what we do about mercury because it is natural, and the more natural mercury there is, the less we need to do about it. Now they are shifting blame to Asia, so the federal government is saying, ``Why would we do anything about mercury? It is all coming from Asia.'' That is absurd. That is what Environment Canada is actually saying now.
However, this huge vortex is over the Arctic, and the mercury deposits are over the Arctic, which is why Inuit are so affected by mercury. In the spring, a phenomenon has been captured called a ``mercury sunrise.'' Mercury comes off the ground in the spring because of all the deposition through the winter, and the level of mercury in the air in the Arctic can be higher than in a manufacturing plant using mercury. It is extraordinary, and that is federal responsibility.
The reason states such as Wisconsin, Maine and Minnesota have the most aggressive mercury regulation in the world is their tourist industry: people that want to fish in lakes. It makes you wonder what do we not understand in Canada that makes us probably one of the countries that should lead this issue, and yet we trail.
Senator Angus: Do you remember acid rain? It was a buzzword that crossed everyone's lips in the early 1990s. It suddenly became a huge problem so that people decided action had to be taken. Action was taken, I think. I do not hear about acid rain.
Ms. Tilman: It is increasing because of the west, but there is one hook, too, and this came out of the international conference I was at in Wisconsin on mercury. People think only inland lakes have mercury. No, ocean fish are also affected, and Canada, with three oceans, is not interested as a country in dealing with it. There is a lack of understanding with respect to ocean fish, but, certainly, people think ocean fish are safe. That is not the case. That is another hook and we are seeing this in the Arctic.
I put together a little PowerPoint presentation, and I have different versions of this ``mercury toxic legacy'' for when I talk to different groups. One slide has the hot spots in North America, and it talks about what Mr. Lourie said. If you flip to that, you will see the various areas and that is something from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. It gives in lay terms some of the issues around mercury.
You are right. The Arctic is there. Big groups may have a chance. It is hard to get the issue on the radar screen in Canada.
Senator Angus: We are down to the two of us now.
Ms. Tilman said earlier that the poor Department of the Environment is overwhelmed by Natural Resources Canada, but now we hear her saying that Environment Canada says mercury is coming from Japan and from the Far East, which is not entirely true, as she says.
Does it make any sense that we bring some of these people here who are saying that in Environment Canada, have these folks here, have a debate, get things stirred up and get the media in here? We have to bring attention to it.
Mr. Lourie: It is ironic that the CBC called me last week, and they wanted to do a program on this very issue, on The Current.
Senator Angus: Say yes.
Mr. Lourie: I said yes. The trouble they are having is that Environment Canada does not want to do it.
Ms. MacDonald: Marketplace is also doing a program. They called me, and they are doing one in January on methyl mercury in fish in Canada. They will buy fish all over Canada and report on what they find, so it is coming in the media big time.
Mr. Lourie: The CBC will not do it because Environment Canada does not want to show up.
Senator Angus: Let us get that in our report.
The Chairman: You are right, senator, but I hope we first make sure we know where we stand and what we want to say. Then we will figure out how to package and present it. That is when we might well get into some pyrotechnical theatrics.
Senator Angus: That is good.
Ms. Tilman: How long do you anticipate working on this?
The Chairman: We have set out a rough guideline. I would be interested, as we all would, in having your comments on it. We spent five weeks before we began this study looking at how to attack it. We decided along the lines I described at the beginning of our meeting. We have assigned approximately five weeks, which is to say, 10 meetings of witnesses, on the question of mercury CEPA efficacy, at the end of which we will spend a couple more weeks among ourselves looking at how to frame this and what to say. Then we will do the same process with perfluorocarbons, PFCs, et cetera. We think we have allowed ourselves enough time. We may well get to the point that we can deal with these — putting a focus and point on these things — before that time expires. It may not take us that long. We will see. To answer your question, in other words, we have until March 31 to report to the Senate. We have gained that extension. I hope we can do it before then, but if you look at our work schedule and the parliamentary schedule, with breaks built in, there are about five weeks, which is 10 meetings, that we have ascribed to each of those three subjects, with a little left over to try to focus.
Ms. MacDonald: Statistics Canada is launching into a biomonitoring program. This was done in the United States recently. One contaminant they want to monitor in human blood is mercury. That program is scheduled to move forward in 2007-08. The fear is that the department will not do it and it will not be reported. I am not sure if Statistics Canada is one of the organizations or agencies you will talk to, but certainly it will be interesting to find out where they are with their biomonitoring program, how extensive it will be and whether it will move forward. We would love to see that information come out, and it would speak to what you talked about in terms of levels of mercury in Inuit mothers, in their blood and their hair, in children and so on. That information would provide that database, which is badly needed in Canada. There is not a lot of that kind of information.
Senator Angus: We have certain slots on CPAC. If we can plan a little, we could have a real session. Last night, we had the Statistics Canada people at the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. We were studying how much of this elicit money that you see in the headlines in the paper today is in the system from proceeds of crime and money laundering. The people from Statistics Canada have incredible information. It was about interprovincial trade barriers: what are the barriers and how they affect our GDP and all this, and all the time we are wasting on international free trade when trade is so bad within Canada. They had all kinds of stuff, and it never sees the light of day. That is a really good point.
Ms. MacDonald: I believe it is being done in cooperation with Health Canada, so I do not know whether you need to bring them both in, but it definitely should be pursued.
The Chairman: They were not on our list, and we should add them. We will look into that.
Senator Angus: I am president of a salmon club in one of the rivers in the Gaspé. We are in a catch and release program, but we are allowed to keep certain salmon gilts. Perhaps for other reasons the fish is so tired it is bad to put it back. We need to take about four different types of samples for the federal government. Biologists look for this stuff. The research is going on out there, but witnesses are telling us it all ends up in a place that no one knows about, and all these poor kids are stunted, and we are going down to 28 in ranking in the OECD countries.
The Chairman: And there are only 27 of them.
Ms. Tilman: I do not know if your budget allows for experts, but I thought of one person in particular from Denmark, although he has a joint position at Harvard. Philippe Grandjean has conducted studies in the Faroe Islands off Denmark, and he has excellent information and insight into not only health and safety thresholds but also the fish. You talked about the salmon, for instance, the health warnings and the falseness about some of the health warnings and trying to get a balance. I do not know if your budget allows you to bring someone in from another jurisdiction.
The Chairman: In fact, it would. However, you have given an example of one place where we have to be careful, because it is not our job to determine how toxic fish are. That is not the question. The question is, do we accept that fish are toxic. I think we are prepared to accept that fish are toxic. Our question then is, why is CEPA not dealing with that? Sorry, that is not fair: Is CEPA dealing with that? Then there are all the other ``ifs'' I talked about.
Ms. Tilman: I wondered about the depth of study, because it relates specifically to Canada.
The Chairman: It is not a health study; it is a statutory study.
Mr. Lourie: Frankly, that is exactly what the study should be. That is what is needed. I am thrilled to hear that.
Ms. Tilman: We are here now because we all have interest in mercury, and I am glad to hear you are pursuing this and will hear more people. I am sure we all welcome any opportunity to assist you in your studies in any way we can.
Senator Angus: You basically said this morning what we heard from the Commissioner for the Environment, who operates out of Auditor General's office. She comes here two or three times a year and tells us over and over again, in colourful language, ``The government has the tools to do the right things, but it is not using those tools.'' You have given us some reasons this morning as to why they are not using them, and they are funny reasons, such as going to cabinet. Maybe things can be fixed very quickly if we bring the right kind of pressure and attention to them.
The Chairman: We must away. I thank you for suggesting you might be at our disposal in some respects. I promise you that we will be banging on your door. It may well be to put you into the ring with other folks in some situations.
Mr. Lourie: We would happily do that.
Senator Angus: The transcripts are easily obtainable on the Net. If we are barking up the wrong tree, tell us, because we do not want to sit around here and spin our wheels.
Ms. Tilman: Coming from a small organization, the little Canadian kind of thing, it is an honour to have this opportunity.
The Chairman: It would help us most in our quest if you have the time to look at the transcripts when witnesses appear. If you see that we are being snowed, misled or ill-informed, let us know your view and put us in what you think is the right direction. That would be very helpful to us.
Ms. Tilman: Is it possible for the clerk to alert us? We are snowed under with other emails. Could she alert us about these hearings and the topics so we have the link.
The Chairman: We have officials from both Health Canada and Environment Canada appearing before us on Tuesday, October 17. We have invited them; they are not confirmed yet. However, that is the plan.
Ms. Tilman: Anything like that would trigger us.
The Chairman: We will keep you informed.
Senator Angus: What about this lunch with Minister Lunn? You will recall that it has come back at me through another channel, and might be actually one committee member on our side from Vancouver, who said, ``Well, Gary has done this at my suggestion, and he has invited the committee, and only two people accepted the invitation.''
The Chairman: Three, actually.
Senator Angus: You know what I am saying. It was short notice, and we did not know why. Now it turns out he would like to have an informal session with us and tell us what is coming down the government agenda. We have some good ammunition here this morning. It is on for October 18, is it?
The Clerk of the Committee: They have not contacted me. I sent the cancellation with the new date, but it has not been through my office. I only receive a message saying, ``This is when it is happening.''
Keli Hogan, Clerk of the Committee: That was the date they postponed it to, but I do not know who is coordinating it. They only gave me the dates. I can follow up with them.
The Chairman: Should we pursue that?
Senator Angus: Absolutely, because it is the members of this committee he is inviting.
The Chairman: Why does he not invite us then?
Senator Angus: He thinks he has.
The Chairman: We will check that out.
Ms. Tilman: I was at another meeting yesterday, and one of the electrical industry people said, ``Our members had a meeting and wondered why Ms. Tilman was at the Senate over mercury.'' Maybe they are paying attention. I thought, why would I not be here, because they know Mr. Lourie and I have been through these struggles for seven or eight years with them, and they know the positions. They may be interested, and you may have industry coming to you.
Senator Angus: The headlines now are all about pollution. Environmental issues have gone rapidly from nowhere to the top of this government's agenda. We should exploit that, because it is on the top of the agenda, and it will be front and centre. We are waiting with bated breath to see what the plan was. We think we have an idea, but it could be wrong. Now is the chance. There is a window. The Prime Minister and his people are focused. The why does not matter, but the reality is they are focused and they are really doing it, and that makes our committee more relevant at this time.
The Chairman: It does. We must regrettably adjourn now. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.