Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 7 - Evidence - October 17, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:58 p.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: This is the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources dealing with the statutory examination of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are joined today by representatives from the Department of Health and Environment Canada; Mr. Steve Clarkson and Mr. James Riordan.
James Riordan, Executive Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Environment Canada: We appreciate the opportunity to make a short presentation. We would then be open to answer any other questions that you might have with regards to mercury and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Both Health Canada and Environment Canada have reviewed the questions that you raised through the committee structure and we would be more than happy to answer those questions at your leisure.
We do have a short presentation that you each have. I will walk through that with you now.
On the first slide you can see that mercury management in Canada has been an issue since the 1970s, and this shows the progress made to reduce domestic releases of mercury into the environment in Canada. Between 1970 and 2000, we have reduced mercury releases to the environment by 90 per cent. In the 1970s Canada emitted 80 tons of mercury to the air per year due to a number of factors, including manufacturing plants called chlor-alkali plants and other sources. We have been regulating those sources over time, focusing on major resources and working through in an orderly fashion to address a number of the sources of mercury across Canada.
Currently, we emit collectively about seven tonnes of mercury to the atmosphere per year; we have reduced from 80 tonnes to seven.
Senator Angus: Seven or 70?
Mr. Riordan: Seven.
Senator Angus: From 80?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. This is a 90 per cent reduction over a 30-year period.
The third slide shows some of the sources that are current. We are down to seven tonnes per year, as I said. The largest remaining sources are currently being addressed with a number of regulatory and non-regulatory measures. For example, last week, in the electricity-generating sector, our minister announced that the provinces are entering into an agreement to significantly reduce releases of mercury from co-powered electric generating stations. Under incineration, there is a Canada-wide standard that addresses incineration across the country. With regards to mining and base metal smelting, we have both a Canada-wide standard and a pollution prevention plan. I know some people have previously made presentations here and have spoken about these issues. I would be more than happy to answer questions about the base metal smelting sector.
With regard to the steel sector, our minister announced in June that she wanted to address the issue of mercury- containing auto switches, the devices that turn the lights on and off in the trunk of a car. We have been working through the summer, and the minister will be announcing legislative action on mercury and auto switches before the end of the month.
The other category relates to issues like crematoria, which we have not yet been able to address under other miscellaneous sources.
The fourth slide speaks to a number of regulations that have been put in place over time, starting in the 1970s and working through areas such as the hazardous waste movement, export control, disposal at sea, base metal smelters, environmental emergency plans and so on. These are all regulatory actions or legislative instruments that have taken place under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, including the National Pollutant Release Inventory, which has a requirement for those sources of mercury to report annually on their emissions.
We have the Canada-wide standards, which I know you have been exposed to in terms of earlier testimony, for mercury-containing lamps, base metal smelting, waste dental amalgam from dental offices and coal-fired electric power generation plants. The legislation that enables the government to enter into these Canada-wide standards can be found in CEPA, Part 1, section 9, which provides the minister with the authority to sign on to these federal-provincial agreements.
We have CEPA-related measures such as a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Dental Association and an environmental performance agreement with automotive parts manufacturers. These are some examples of how we are addressing mercury under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
On the next slide we talk about other legislation. It is not just CEPA we are using; CEPA is considered a safety net. Where there is more appropriate legislation to take action, the government has chosen to do so. For example, the Fisheries Act addressed the water emissions of mercury going back to the 1970s, where CEPA addressed the air emissions from chlor-alkali plants. The Fisheries Act also addresses metal mining effluent regulations where the Minister of the Environment has the authority to create regulations under the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. That is where we have metal mining effluent regulations and pulp and paper effluent regulations, for example.
At this point, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Clarkson to address some other acts of Parliament that we are using to address mercury.
Steve Clarkson, Director, Risk Impact Assessment Bureau, Health Canada: At Health Canada, under the auspices, authority and scope of the Food and Drugs Act we have taken action regarding mercury in terms of licensing medical devices containing mercury such as thermometers, the devices that measure blood pressure, and we have set levels for mercury in cosmetics and vaccines. We have a guideline for levels of mercury in fish sold at retail. There are provisional total daily intakes for mercury for adults, a lower value for children and women of child-bearing age, as well as a guideline for the consumption of fish and game that are high in mercury, such as those that might be caught in the Great Lakes or in the North.
Under the Hazardous Products Act there is a requirement that prohibits toys and similar children's products to which there has been applied a surface coating or paint containing any compound of mercury. There are limits on the quantity of mercury and mercury compounds in paint and other liquid coating materials.
Under the Pest Control Products Act, they have rescinded the registration for fungicides and herbicides that contain mercury, as well as the use of mercury as a preservative in paint.
Moving to the sixth slide, I will turn back to my colleague, Mr. Riordan.
Senator Angus: It was interesting that you broke off, Mr. Riordan, where you did, and Mr. Clarkson came on. Are we to understand that the Food and Drugs Act, Hazardous Products Act and Pest Control Products Act are under the direction of Health Canada and that is why you did that? Are those your laws?
Mr. Clarkson: Under my minister, yes.
The sixth slide demonstrates the effect of the chlor-alkali regulations that I mentioned earlier. This is a broken scale, as you can see. On the left the graph starts going up from 200 kilograms to 400 kilograms. When it reaches 1,000 kilograms it then jumps up to 25,000 kilograms and then 65,000 kilograms. It would be off the scale in terms of the size of the amount that was reduced. It indicates that with the chlor-alkali regulations we have moved down to a 99 per cent reduction of discharges to water and a 95 per cent reduction in emissions to the atmosphere over a period of 13 or 14 years. We have continued that downward trend in releases and reductions to mercury from chlor-alkali plants. Today, atmospheric emissions are less than 1 per cent on our current inventory. That is one example.
The seventh slide shows that much of the mercury that is actually being deposited in Canada comes from offshore. About 70 tonnes per year of mercury comes into Canada from foreign sources. Forty-seven per cent is from Asian sources, chiefly China, and that is not likely to go down. In effect, we emit about seven tonnes domestically ourselves, but we still get about 70 tonnes from other countries. Consequently, Canada is working internationally to reduce the trans-boundary flow of mercury. This includes bilateral relations with the United States and with China, regional work within North America, with Mexico and Canada, under the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, with Maritime premiers and New England governors, with Arctic countries and globally through the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP.
There is a global mercury program under UNEP that is trying to address the global problem of mercury in the atmosphere. It moves through the atmosphere from one country to another.
The eighth slide shows where we are in relation to other countries, which you may find interesting. Canada is the darkened bar on the graph. This is a percentage of emissions reductions. As I mentioned earlier, between 1970 and 2000 we have reduced by 90 per cent.
This is a different time in space; it is reductions since 1990. We are close to 80 per cent, which is a bit less than the U.K. but a bit more than the United States, so we are in good company in terms of how we are continuing to reduce mercury emissions to the environment.
The Chairman: Before you leave that, this is a scale that shows the percentage of reductions, is that right?
Mr. Riordan: That is correct.
The Chairman: The most successful reductions are at the left of the scale.
Mr. Riordan: That is correct. Sweden and the Netherlands are up there; Canada is not that far behind.
The ninth slide is kind of a recap. We are engaged in a number of initiatives domestically and internationally to reduce mercury emissions. We continue to monitor mercury emissions, depositions and impacts. I mentioned the national pollution release inventory; there is also the Canadian atmospheric mercury measurement network, for example.
The Government of Canada has been using a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures, using the appropriate tool for the appropriate action. There is a range of federal legislation, as you have seen, which is complemented by both provincial and municipal actions.
I spoke about the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's Canada-wide standards, but there is also action on the municipal level. For example, in Toronto about three years ago, the city issued a pollution prevention plan for use of sewers. Through that plan, they have reduced mercury content of sewage sludge by 72 per cent, largely by working with the people that release mercury into the sewers — dentists being one of the major sources.
The City of Niagara has a full-blown policy on managing mercury within the city buildings — in procurement, disposal and collection programs for thermometers and so on, and in removal of mercury switches from white goods. Those are refrigerators and such.
For the last couple of years — and this is soon to be announced again by the minister, who talked about this in June — we have been instructed to develop a risk management strategy for mercury in products. This is the next major source that we believe we need to address. There are about 10 tonnes of mercury going into products that are consumed in Canada. We have been developing a strategy that will address this source.
We have developed, for example, a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Border Services Agency, which has informed us about all the products that contain mercury that are imported into Canada. With this risk management strategy, we will initiate the public dialogue on the most appropriate legislative actions to take. It is anticipated that that will be under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The eleventh slide contains a few websites. We have had a website in place through Environment Canada explicitly on mercury, which you might find interesting. There are a couple here that look quite complicated but they bring you to specific mercury-related publications, which would probably be of interest to you.
The Chairman: Thank you for the information on the last page of your brief. That will come in very handy.
Senator Angus: You have given us very interesting information. At least on the face of what you are telling us, you are doing a lot better than we have been heretofore led to believe. I hope that impression is accurate.
The fact blew me away the most was the 47 per cent coming from Asia. When you gave us the figure of the seven tonnes of emissions for Canada as opposed to 80 tonnes in 1970, I took that to mean that that was all the mercury emissions left. Then you got to your chart, which showed there are still 70 tonnes but only 10 per cent is from Canada. In passing, you mentioned that 47 per cent of that 70 tonnes comes in the atmosphere from Asia.
How do you measure that? How do you know what comes from Asia and what comes from somewhere else?
Mr. Riordan: Some of it is done by modeling. We have the Atmospheric Environment Service within Environment Canada, which historically has done a significant amount of work in this area of trying to track the movement of mercury, particularly into Canada, but also around the world. It seems to travel across the poles. The model has been internationally accepted and validated.
The flow of mercury is not coming from the Arctic because there are no coal-fired power plants; there is no source. It is moving from various places in the world such as Eastern Europe and China, which has a booming economy. That is where the sources are.
The Chairman: With respect to Asian mercury, are you measuring it on the way to Canada through the Arctic?
Mr. Riordan: Yes.
Senator Angus: That is what I figured he would say, which begs this question. I know how closely you follow our deliberations, this leading edge committee that is so interested in these matters. We have a member who lives in the Arctic. Many of us have derived the impression that the mercury that is affecting people in Rankin Inlet and similar places in the Canadian Arctic is coming from the border towns of Detroit, Windsor and so on. However, I guess that is wrong, is it? Is it dropping down as it comes over from Asia? Does it have to do with the jet streams and the wind patterns and such?
Mr. Clarkson: I am not an expert, but it is my understanding that mercury and some other persistent organic pollutants have what they call a grasshopper effect. They migrate by going a little bit and a bit more. Because of the climate in the North, it will all end up there eventually because once it gets there, there is very little to drive it away as the temperatures are cold.
That chart shows that there are other sources than Asia. There is clearly a lot of thermal generation of electricity in the Ohio Valley, which burns coal, and that pattern of wind distribution does bring that into Canada somewhere. As you see, however, much of it is coming from Asia. Most of what we deposit comes from outside the country.
Senator Angus: I am impressed at the way you are able to measure it. You have these models and I am sure you have been studying levels carefully up in the Arctic. Given X amount of mercury pollution in the Canadian Arctic, are you able to make one of those pie charts to show where it all comes from?
Mr. Clarkson: I cannot answer your question today. We could verify with the people that we rely on for the modeling and the measuring to see if that question can be answered.
Senator Angus: Does it have a colour? Can you see this stuff?
Mr. Clarkson: Usually the particles are small; you do not see them. They are dissolved.
Senator Angus: Does it not have a hue to it, like green or blue or purple?
Mr. Clarkson: We are talking about low levels, senator; they are not visible.
Senator Angus: I am asking because we are getting calls this afternoon about Lake Memphrémagog, which is a 33- mile-long international lake on which I have a home as do many other folks and senators; we have been told that this blue-green algae has gotten drastic there. I do not know if that has mercury in it, which is why I asked that question.
Mr. Clarkson: As far as I know, there is no mercury in blue-green algae.
Senator Angus: What is that?
Mr. Clarkson: It is a biological system that grows in the lakes because of the temperature and the nutrients. It has organic toxins in it, not inorganic like mercury or methyl mercury.
The Chairman: It is probably phosphates.
Senator Angus: Exactly. This framework legislation of which we are doing a statutory review is complicated. There are 37 other laws interwoven with it, many regulations and so forth, with an overall goal of preventing ``pollution'' generically. That seems simple enough.
Is there anything in this CEPA legislation that prevents the government from taking prompt action to reduce emissions of an element such as mercury that is already on CEPA's list of toxic substances? We are trying to get to the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation. Is there anything preventative that you could highlight for us?
Mr. Riordan: We have demonstrated that we have been consistently using both CEPA and other acts of Parliament as well as other regulations in other jurisdictions to address the issue of mercury. You can see the list of legislative actions that have been taken. The intention is to continue to work under CEPA and other acts to continue to address mercury and other chemicals.
The act, as it is written, obviously does not impede the government from taking action on mercury.
Senator Angus: I am tempted to say that we are here from the government and we are here to help. You are part of the government and we are here to help you. If there is any deficiency in this legislation or in these regulations that you have to administer, then it could be a product of our deliberations that we recommend amendments to the law or new regulations to help you do your job.
In regard to the mercury problem, it would be helpful if you could share with us if there are problems or if everything is great and you have all the legislative tools you need to do this job. Can you think of anything that could help to streamline it, for example?
Mr. Riordan: CEPA 99 is still a relatively new piece of legislation. We are learning how to use it as we work with it.
You heard testimony earlier about using pollution prevention planning. This is Part 5 of CEPA, which is not in any other federal legislation in the world. That being new, we are still learning how to use it and benefiting from time and experience. It is an act that most sectors of society would say is a good piece of legislation. It is how we use it and continually learn to use it that will improve as we go along.
Senator Angus: That is encouraging to know. I believe you are saying that it is a little too soon to tell, but so far, it seems to be very effective.
Mr. Riordan: With regard to mercury, I feel we have made a case that it looks good.
Senator Angus: You have made an amazing case, but that 30 years before 2000 was under other legislation. As I say, this particular question I am asking you is not complicated. If everything is great, then it is great and we will not recommend any amendments to it.
Mr. Clarkson, I know that CEPA 99 overlaps with other bills or acts that you have talked about with a focus on mercury. May I ask you the same question?
Mr. Clarkson: I will respond similarly to what Mr. Riordan said. My experience with CEPA is that it seems to be doing the job. It presents a framework under which Mr. Riordan and his crew, along with our support, have been working. Not all actions that have been taken have been regulatory. There have been some voluntary actions. We interface with Mr. Riordan and his group and, as you can see, I believe we have fairly good success on what we can attack.
Senator Angus: You heard what I said at the outset. On the face of the documentation, you have given us an encouraging story that I am pleased to have heard. We have a practice in my profession where we tell our colleagues that it is very human to make a mistake and to tell us when it happens so we can manage the problem, risk management. There is nothing wrong in telling us if there is a problem with this; it is not your fault. It would just be us reporting back that we could streamline it and make it even better. I am not hearing that from you two with regard to mercury, so that is fine. I do not have further questions.
The Chairman: To finish on that question. Mercury is listed as a toxic substance in Schedule 1 under CEPA. Is that correct? Is that where it needs to be?
Mr. Riordan: If it were not on the list we would not be able to take regulatory action. Yes, it is where it needs to be.
Senator Sibbeston: I live in the Northwest Territories and not in the far Arctic. We who live in the North believe we live in a very pristine wilderness and clean area of the country. We are far away from any development and we enjoy the country, as it were, free from a great deal of people. It is interesting to know that while we are far away from any industrial development, there is a certain amount of pollution that occurs, not necessarily from mercury from the south of our own country, but from abroad and from other countries.
Is mercury the most harmful pollutant that there is, or are there others that are just as harmful or worse to the North?
Mr. Clarkson: I believe there are others that we are concerned about at Health Canada and Environment Canada as well as at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sure you are probably aware of the Northern Contaminants Program, which has been running for a number of years and carrying out research on deposition from other places. We, at Health Canada, have all been trying to determine health impacts.
I am sure you are also aware of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, which lists 12 different chemicals including PCBs, DDT and a number of pesticides. Some of that mix is in our North and it poses a concern because that grasshopper effect I mentioned earlier is applicable to many of these POPs as well.
Unfortunately, matters from a health perspective are not quite the same. There is evidence of the compound PFOS, perfluorooctane sulfonate, which is a polyfluorinated chemical that was used as an anti-stain agent or grease repellent, and there is also evidence of PBDEs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, but neither of those have been found in concentrations that are of a concern to human health at this point.
Environment Canada has assessed these two compounds on environmental grounds. There has been action proposed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and we are pleased to be supportive of that from a Health Canada perspective because by these actions we will control the releases and we will never have to worry about these compounds reaching levels that are a concern to human health.
Senator Sibbeston: From hearing you, a person could get the impression that, while we people in the North believe our land is pristine, clean and pure, there are a fair number of pollutants that go into the North in the land, air and water. How does it affect people if they eat the fish or animals up North? Eventually these contaminants can get into their bodies. Is that how pollution happens? Is that how the danger exists to the people of the North?
Mr. Clarkson: Primarily, it is the consumption of the traditional mammals and fish, more in the Eastern Arctic as the diet is more the traditional mammals than in the Western Arctic. Clearly, from the research that was carried out through the Northern Contaminants Program, there is evidence of elevated levels of various pollutants. We were talking about mercury today and that is where my information is more centred. There is evidence that some people are consuming mercury at levels higher than our provisional tolerable daily intake values. However, these foods provide significant nutritional, social, cultural, spiritual and economic benefits to the people in the North. Territorial and regional health authorities, with the support of Health Canada, have decided that the benefits still outweigh the risks posed by the contaminants and they encourage people, with moderation, to continue consuming these foods.
Senator Sibbeston: What is the prognosis? What is the solution to this pollution in the North? Is there a chance that eventually we will have a North that is pure of all these contaminants or are we stuck with the fact that as long as other nations pollute we will be affected by it? What can we do to prevent Asia and other countries from polluting the air?
Mr. Clarkson: Mr. Riordan mentioned a number of bilateral initiatives, one being with China. There is the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, which deals with the likes of PCBs and a number of pesticides, such as DDT, that are no longer registered in Canada. We have reached out to the international arena and encouraged other countries to be aware of their impacts on us, but that is international and CEPA is national.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Riordan, I would like you to be more specific. Since CEPA came into force in 1999, how has it been used to address the environmental and health risks associated with mercury? Have any regulatory actions been taken that have led to reductions or restrictions in the use of mercury? What actions have been taken as a result of CEPA? If any actions have been taken, I would like you to be quite specific in your response.
Mr. Riordan: Since 1999, we have regulations on the export and import of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material and on disposal at sea; pollution prevention plans for base metal smelters, refining and zinc plants; an environmental code of practice for integrated steel mills; and an environmental code of practice for non-integrated steel mills. We are in the process of publishing a pollution prevention planning notice for mercury switches in automobiles, which will be published this month. It takes time to work at these initiatives. It will require automakers and steel makers to remove mercury switches before the steel hulks wind up back in the steel plants. There are several legislative instruments under CEPA.
There were a number of Canada-wide standards, CWSs, that addressed mercury-containing lamps and mercury- containing amalgams from dental fillings. Last week, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME, announced Canada-wide standards for coal-fired power plants, which also addresses a major source of mercury. There are two memorandums of understanding, MOUs, one with the Canadian Dental Association, CDA, which addresses dental amalgam, and the other with the auto parts manufacturers, which addresses mercury in switches.
Senator Cochrane: Have they been agreed upon?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. The regulations that I mentioned have been agreed to, and one or two are on the way with the MOUs in place.
Senator Cochrane: Which MOUs are those?
Mr. Riordan: One MOU is with the CDA and the other is with Canadian auto parts manufacturers.
Senator Cochrane: When do you expect those to be finalized?
Mr. Riordan: They are finalized in the sense that they are being implemented and the work on those is reported on a regular basis.
Senator Cochrane: Is that happening across the country?
Mr. Riordan: Yes, with the exception of the auto parts manufacturers that are primarily in Ontario.
Senator Cochrane: I am asking about the CDA.
Mr. Riordan: Implementation in the dental area is right across the country. The memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Dental Association was developed by Environment Canada as a result of our commitment to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's Canada-wide standards for mercury. The federal government agreed to enter into this MOU with the CDA. Currently, we are in the process of evaluating the results of that MOU. Many dentists, not all dentists, have been working on reducing the amount of mercury that is going into the atmosphere. In conjunction with the CCME, we are evaluating the results of that activity.
Senator Cochrane: However, not all dentists are participating.
Mr. Riordan: Most dentists are participating, but we will confirm that and if it is the case that we have to move from a MOU to a formal regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we would recommend that to the government. We have done that in the past with auto switches, for example. The mercury in auto switches was an issue that the CCME tried to address but failed. The CCME asked the Ministry of the Environment to take the lead on this. In June, the Minister of the Environment said that it would prepare a legislative instrument for mercury in auto switches that would be published in the Canada Gazette this month.
The Chairman: Could I ask you to expand on that? You said earlier that those requirements mean that people who put car hulks into re-smelting processes are required to remove the mercury from them.
Mr. Riordan: That is right.
The Chairman: Is that not hard to do after the vehicle has been crushed? Would it not make more sense to have the mercury removed by the crusher?
Mr. Riordan: The mercury is removed by the auto recycler.
The Chairman: That is not the case now. Is this new and about to happen?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. We have been doing that as a pilot project for the last three or four years. It is a small bullet-like instrument. We had a voluntary program underway in expectation of the Canada-wide standards reinforcing it. However, it did not work, so CEPA is being used where the CWSs did not work.
The Chairman: The mercury switch in the trunk of an automobile being crushed in Victoria will be removed before the crusher takes it.
Mr. Riordan: Yes, according to this requirement it will do that.
Senator Cochrane: That happens before it goes into the water system.
Mr. Riordan: In this case, it would be into the air because the hulks are put into an electric arc furnace, which is good because it recycles steel. However, if mercury is contained in that hulk, then it is bad because it is being released into the environment. This pollution prevention plan requires the automakers to fund the cost of removing the mercury switch from the auto hulks and requires the steel makers to put in place a mercury-free procurement program that encourages the auto recyclers, in the middle, to remove them from the auto hulks.
The Chairman: Does the plan encourage or require removal?
Mr. Riordan: This is where it becomes a bit tricky. The plan requires the automakers to set up a program to remove the switches and it requires the steel producers to put in place a program of mercury-free scrap. Some persuasion may be needed for the middle man to do it. A number of them are doing it now, but it will take a while to get all of them doing it.
It did not seem fair to require the auto recyclers to do this under law when it was the automakers that installed the switches. There is a concept called the polluter pays principle, or the extended producer responsibility. The legislative instrument is constructed to require automakers to make it happen. In CEPA, with the polluter pays principle, that is where the buck should stop.
Senator Cochrane: And it will.
Mr. Riordan: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Has any jurisdiction in the world banned the use of mercury switches in automobiles?
Mr. Riordan: They have not been using them in Europe for about 10 to 15 years. It was only the North American automakers that continued to use them until about three years ago. They are no longer being installed in automobiles.
Senator Cochrane: Anywhere in the world?
Mr. Riordan: I do not believe so. There is a simple replacement for it, which is a ball bearing in a bullet-sized apparatus. Most of the European automakers removed the mercury switches years ago. The automakers in North America were slow to remove them. It has taken us to move to regulation or legislation to actually require them to do it.
Senator Cochrane: Last week, we heard powerful testimony from environmental groups. In that meeting, they identified specific barriers inherent in CEPA that they felt prevented prompt action.
I would like your response to one of these specific arguments. Mr. Bruce Lourie, who is an environmentalist, said this:
By having a ``loop-hole'' for naturally occurring substances the government has insisted that CEPA cannot regulate use or emissions but only ``manage mercury through its life-cycle'' and yet even with this, few if any management actions have been taken.
I would like your response to that.
Mr. Riordan: I have demonstrated with the presentation this afternoon that management actions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other acts of Parliament in other jurisdictions have been taken collectively to address this issue.
I believe Mr. Lourie is getting at the whole issue of eliminating a naturally occurring substance. Mercury is an element which occurs naturally in the environment. It is produced from forest fires and volcanoes, for example, which are areas we cannot control.
As far as anthropogenic sources, we are doing our best to address in an orderly way the major sources of mercury in Canada. As well, we are addressing through international fora, international agreements and so on, releases of mercury that are deposited on Canada.
Let the record show that we are taking action as a government and have been for the last 30 years. We will continue to control anthropogenic sources of mercury. We cannot control naturally occurring sources.
Mr. Clarkson: As an element that can form into compounds, mercury is not like a persistent organic pollutant where the POP can be destroyed and turn it into something entirely different. Mercury will be always there either in the elemental form or as a compound. If the compound is destroyed, it will probably go back to the elemental mercury. That is a problem with inorganic elements that are metals. They do not just disappear. They come back in one form or another. Mercury will always be with us.
As Mr. Riordan said, there are anthropogenic releases, but there are also many natural sources. Here in Canada, as we said earlier, much of the mercury that is deposited is not under our control.
Senator Cochrane: Let me ask you about something that they did say in regard to this cop-out issue. Using thermometers as an example, they were saying that if Health Canada decides that it is a hazardous product, then perhaps the Environmental Protection Agency says it is not. There is a problem here between the chemical in the product and the product itself. Is there any sort of conflict between Health Canada and Environment Canada in that regard?
Mr. Clarkson: A thermometer is a medical device. Under the Food and Drugs Act, mercury thermometers are allowed to be used. There is a benefit to measuring temperature. Today, there are alternatives, both for thermometers and for the mercury devices used to measure blood pressure.
Our department does not restrict the substitution. In fact, I believe it has licensed alternatives to mercury devices. There has not been any requirement to make that shift.
Mr. Riordan has alluded to the fact that his minister has asked for the development of an approach for mercury in products under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. He, along with us, will be examining whether CEPA will be an effective tool to implementing the switch to non-mercury-based devices that are available.
Senator Cochrane: How long do you think that will take?
Mr. Riordan: The strategy is due to be published in December.
Whenever governments develop regulations, guidelines or codes of practice, there is always a period of public discussion in which people such as Mr. Lourie and others from the non-governmental organizations, as well as industry, can participate. That would probably take a period of months. We would then move into the possible development of regulations to address some of these products that contain mercury.
If there are alternatives to using mercury, people should be encouraged, some might say required, to move to those alternatives. I feel that is the discussion that we have to have within Canadian society.
Senator Cochrane: In regard to thermometers, we have not had that discussion yet.
Mr. Riordan: People are talking about it. Now is the time to come to closure on it. If there are alternatives to products that contain mercury that do the same job, why not move to such products? I believe that is where we are going.
Senator Cochrane: Do you believe CEPA will bring in a regulation to that effect?
Mr. Riordan: I believe CEPA can. It will be up to ministers in cabinet to decide whether or not they want CEPA to regulate mercury in thermometers.
The current minister has asked us to proceed with a strategy to see how mercury in products can be addressed. That is what we are actively doing.
The Chairman: One of the frustrations that we have, and I am sure you are more than familiar with it, is the fact that other jurisdictions have said that manufacturers of thermometers, for example, and blood pressure devices, must not use mercury and must use the alternatives, which apparently are just as good.
We are sometimes at sea to understand why, since we have recognized mercury as a toxic substance, that prohibition has not been introduced in this country. That is a subject we will address otherwise.
I have been reminded, Mr. Clarkson, that you said that you would be able to give us some information with respect to the percentage of various mercury sources that come from Asia through the Arctic to Canada. To the extent that you can, could you answer that question that Senator Angus asked by sending the information to the clerk?
Mr. Clarkson: I was making a commitment for my colleagues in Environment Canada.
The Chairman: Would you see if you can get that to us?
Senator Tardif: I wanted to come back to a point of discussion that Senator Cochrane raised, that being the question of mercury-containing products.
Last week, or perhaps the week prior, a presentation was made to this committee in which it was claimed that it would be much better to ban mercury products rather than trying to manage the release of mercury once it is in the products. There is a risk-management strategy for mercury-containing products. I understand that, except for fluorescent lamps, there are alternative substances that could be used in all of the products listed here.
Why is it not being considered that these products be banned rather than managed? It seems to me that it would be less costly and more efficient to ban these products.
Mr. Riordan: This may be semantic, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act allows us to prohibit certain substances. We have received legal advice not to use the word ``ban'' because the act does not really ban but rather prohibits. That is a fine point, but one I had to make.
The strategy is to address mercury in products, and it may be prohibiting use in a product. We do not want to prohibit thermometers. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act we have not done this before, perhaps with the exception of volatile organic compounds in paint and lead in gasoline. This is a collective effort to look at all the products that are coming into Canada or are produced in Canada that have mercury in them and to determine what we can do about them.
The ultimate outcome could be the prohibition of the use of mercury in products for which there are alternatives. That is the direction in which we appear to be going, but we are not there yet.
It can be done under this act. We can prohibit the content of mercury in products. In the next months, or perhaps a year or so, we will know whether it will be done.
As was stated in the testimony on that discussion as well, the first course of action is to set up a strategy laying out the problem, the issues and the products we are concerned about and determine what we can do about them.
Senator Tardif: Environment Canada is currently looking at ways of prohibiting products that use mercury?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. We have a proposed strategy to consider prohibiting the use of mercury in products.
Senator Tardif: Would that be done by regulation?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. There is a prohibition regulation that we can add to, or we can do a regulation specifically related to mercury. The act would allow us to take action on the content of mercury in products.
The Chairman: Just before we leave that question, you said that we use 10 tonnes of mercury in products that we make in Canada and we are releasing 7 tonnes into the atmosphere, the ground, the water or whatever. Rather than prohibiting the product, we are dealing with the question of when the mercury is released in the dump; are we not?
Mr. Riordan: Or broken in your home, in the case of a thermometer.
The Chairman: It seems that prohibiting it is a much more effective way to get rid of it.
Mr. Riordan: Yes. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act opens with the words ``an act respecting pollution prevention,'' so that is the intention.
Senator Peterson: Is CEPA the overarching jurisdictional authority on all these matters?
Mr. Clarkson: Mr. Riordan said earlier that it is the safety net. When other legislation does not adequately cover, CEPA can step in. We are talking about dealing with products. I mentioned earlier that the Food and Drugs Act allows licensed devices containing mercury for thermometers, but it does not prohibit them. Action under CEPA, because of pollution concerns, is a possibility.
Senator Peterson: Who controls metal mining effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act?
Mr. Riordan: It is controlled by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but the Fisheries Act gives the Minister of the Environment the authority, under its pollution prevention provisions, to develop the regulation.
The Chairman: In consultation?
Mr. Riordan: Yes.
Senator Peterson: Do you quantify the amount or do you only provide guidelines?
Mr. Riordan: There are regulated guidelines as well as an environmental effects monitoring program that is a new part of that metal mining effluent regulation.
The Chairman: You said ``regulated guidelines.'' That is an oxymoron.
Mr. Riordan: In my experience, there can be guidelines in a regulation, and limits can be prescribed. The regulation prescribes limits for releases of a number of different substances. There is an environmental effects monitoring program that the regulation also requires to monitor the effects of mines on receiving waters under the Fisheries Act.
That regulation is managed by Environment Canada. The metal mining effluent regulation is the driving force behind the metal mining effluent regulation, as well as the pulp and paper effluent regulation.
Senator Peterson: That is who industry would have to meet and respond to?
Mr. Riordan: That is correct.
Senator Peterson: It is one master.
Mr. Riordan: That is correct. The Minister of the Environment is responsible for the section of the Fisheries Act that deals with regulating metal mining effluent regulation and pulp and paper effluent regulation.
Senator Peterson: Do the people administering the Fisheries Act understand that?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. They prefer to have us do it, I believe.
The Chairman: I have continued this meeting as long as I possibly can. Senator Fox, Senator Kenny and I have not yet had a chance to question the witnesses.
I will ask Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Riordan to confirm that they can be available to meet with us on Thursday morning at 9:00.
We will therefore continue this meeting with these witnesses on Thursday morning at 9:00 in room 257 East Block.
The committee adjourned.