Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 8 - Evidence - November 2, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 2, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:37 a.m. to review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, c. 33) pursuant to section 343(1) of the said act.
Senator Ethel M. Cochrane (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman: I want to begin by apologizing for the chair, who has an unexpected meeting this morning and cannot be here. I am the deputy chair and will fill in for the chair this morning.
I would like to thank senators for being here and in particular our two witnesses, Mr. James Riordan and Mr. Steve Clarkson.
Our two witnesses have been here before and we had to vacate the room as it was booked by another committee. Mr. Riordon and Mr. Clarkson, we appreciate you coming back. I know your visit here will be worthwhile.
You gave your presentation when you appeared before us previously, but you may want to make some additional comments.
James Riordan, Executive Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Environment Canada: As you said, we were here a week or so ago and made a brief presentation outlining the decline in mercury emissions since the 1970s and our continuous work on major sources of mercury. We handed out a presentation that outlined where regulations are being promulgated under various acts of Parliament, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and we answered some questions about that. In the discussion it became obvious that the departments could provide more information regarding the various tools and instruments being used.
This morning we tabled, with the clerk, a piece on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act registry, which defines a regulation, a Canada-wide standard, an environmental performance agreement or voluntary initiative, et cetera. The clerk has agreed to make that available to the senators following this meeting. It is useful information in terms of how each of the different tools and instruments to control mercury and other substances are used.
The Deputy Chairman: It is supplementary, so there is no need for it now; we can have it later.
Mr. Riordan: That is correct. I know, since we were last here, you have had testimony from a number of different sectors of society, and we are open to answer any questions that you and the senators may have.
The Deputy Chairman: We had two groups on Tuesday; officials from Sierra Legal Defence Fund and Pollution Watch. You illustrate on page 2 of your earlier brief the reductions that we have seen in mercury emissions in this country since the 1970s. I am referring to this chart.
In testimony before the committee on Tuesday witnesses suggested that those reductions in mercury emissions since the 1970s are neither a consequence of CEPA coming into force nor the result of any mercury-specific action that Canada has taken. I quote:
The reductions you see from the 1970s were around the shutting of chlor-alkali plants and the regulations that happened then, long before CEPA. The further reductions into the 1990s were for sulphur dioxides and nitrogen dioxides for acid rain, and as a co-benefit the mercury came down, but not because we did something specific around mercury.
Would you agree with this assessment?
Mr. Riordan: I was watching a simulcast of that session from my office, and I did hear that.
After that testimony the chair held this up and said this is what the government presented: Who is right and who is wrong? I thought he was zeroing right in and the witness said we are both right.
As public servants we are guided by a code of practice that requires us to present facts, not opinion. This is a fact. This is the way that mercury emissions to the environment in Canada have decreased over the last 30-plus years. A large part of it is due to the chlor-alkali regulations, which were created before the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and became part of the act. There are other instruments under CEPA that have also had an effect on this.
Does it matter if that is as a result of CEPA or not? Some is and some is not, but the important point is that emissions have gone down by over 90 per cent over the last 30 years.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a safety net. If there are other acts of Parliament, like the Hazardous Products Act, which is maintained by the Minister of Health; or the Fisheries Act, which was also used to reduce mercury emissions, this is all part of the government's legislative agenda. Therefore, when a member from a non-governmental organization says we are both right, we are stating facts. The emissions have gone down through the application of a variety of federal legislation and legislation at other levels of government, some of which is due to CEPA.
When I presented this graph last week, it does not say here that it is due to CEPA, it says this is as a result of efforts over the last 30 years. I will close by saying some of it is CEPA and some is not, but the important point is the dramatic reduction in mercury releases in Canada.
The Deputy Chairman: Can you tell us if there is any data or information available suggesting that this trend toward reducing mercury emissions will continue? Have you any data to present to us?
Mr. Riordan: The trend is continuing downward, particularly as we bring in more legislation and more interventions. A couple of weeks ago, ministers from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, of which our minister is a member, announced that they agreed to a Canada-wide standard for coal-fired electric power plants, which aims for more than a 50 per cent reduction of releases of mercury over the next several years. That will cause a continued downward trend of releases of mercury to the environment. That is not data; it is projected targets that governments have agreed to pursue.
The Deputy Chairman: Our coal plants will be cleaner and more efficient, and they will be behaving well, like great citizens, will they not?
Mr. Riordan: That is what the ministers have publicly agreed to do. They have made that commitment, so I presume that will be an outcome.
Senator Carney: We had an emergency caucus meeting on an event that has dominated the news for last few days, so I missed your presentation. I have been in Parliament for so long that I actually remember when CEPA was first introduced.
I do not know if you have answered this because, as I say, I was not present at the beginning of the meeting. CEPA, I know, is very complex and convoluted. It is probably easier for you to understand it than for us. Is there anything in the legislation that prevents the government from taking prompt action to reduce emissions of a substance, such as mercury, that is already on CEPA's list of toxic substances?
Mr. Riordan: We did speak to that. There is nothing in the act that prevents us from taking action. Over the past several years, the governments have been focusing on major sources and moving from one major source to another. In our presentation, we identified that the next major source that will be addressed is mercury in products, such as thermometers, thermostats, electric switches, and so on.
The Minister of the Environment made a public commitment in June, during Environment Week, that she would announce action in the fall to address mercury in auto switches and also a strategy to address mercury-containing products, and those are both in train.
Senator Carney: Those can be covered under CEPA?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. Section 93 of CEPA provides the authority to ministers to address toxic substances in products. There is a broad misconception that CEPA cannot address toxic substances in products. It is unfortunate, because we have been doing so and continue to do so under the act.
Senator Carney: Is there any reason to be worried about consumer products such as thermometers? Is there any evidence that it is harmful to one's health to use a mercury thermometer?
Mr. Riordan: Where there are alternatives, as is the case with thermometers, why use a mercury product when an alternative that is as effective can be used? That would be the proposition in looking at mercury in products.
The product we talked about last time was the little switches that turn the lights on and off in the trunks of cars, which contain mercury. At the end of the useful life of the car, the car is crushed and goes to a steel plant, where the metal is recycled back into steel. In the process, the mercury goes into the atmosphere.
There is an alternative that international car manufacturers have recognized for years, which is to simply replace the mercury with a ball bearing that still turns the light on and off effectively. Through the 1990s, a number of international auto manufacturers moved to remove the mercury, and around 2003, North American automakers took it out. However, there is still a legacy that we need to address, and the minister has committed to do that. It is estimated that we can recover between six to 10 tonnes of mercury through this process over the next 10 years and take it out of the waste stream.
Steve Clarkson, Director, Risk Impact Assessment Bureau, Health Canada: I work at Health Canada, and I do not want an impression left that the use of a mercury thermometer to take temperature poses a threat to humans per se. The risks come, of course, when mercury is released because the thermometer gets broken and the mercury is not treated properly or disposed of properly. I do not imagine you were thinking that, but I raise it just for clarification.
Senator Carney: I have a personal interest in this subject because one of our deepest, darkest secrets in Canada is that there is a lighthouse on the West Coast of Vancouver Island that still has a mercury lamp. It is not being used, but it is still located in the lighthouse. I will defend it from Health Canada or anyone else who might wish to recover it.
There is a general feeling that anything to do with mercury is unhealthy, toxic and bad for us. I am glad you clarified that it is okay to use a thermometer.
I have one final question, which may have been covered. Since this is a review of the existing legislation, are there any gaps that we should be looking at that you would like us to advance?
Mr. Riordan: That was also raised at the last session. It is interesting that when other sectors of society have been interviewed by this committee, they have not identified gaps. Rather, they have said: "We are not using the act as much as we could." That is an opinion that the non-government organizations have espoused. No one seems to be saying that there are gaps in the act.
The position we presented at the last session is that this is a new piece of legislation that has a wide range of instruments available to ministers to protect human health and the environment. We have been using those tools and instruments and are getting better at it as we go. There seems to be a consensus that the act is not broken, but we could use it more.
Senator Carney: Very few pieces of legislation can last as long as this one has and not be improved; or maybe that is just an obsession with lawmakers, that one can improve legislation. Can the act be streamlined, or is there anything that we should be looking at in terms of making it more usable?
Mr. Riordan: I use the act on a daily basis and find it quite useful. I am sure there will be advice from government and from others where it can be more useful, but as far as someone who is a practitioner of the act, it has the required checks and balances and it has the authorities that the ministers can use. We are working more closely together as departments than we have in quite some time.
Senator Carney: That is a tribute to the drafters.
Mr. Riordan: It is the act that Parliament gave us.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, in 2000.
Senator Carney: It took 10 years to get it through in its final form.
The Deputy Chairman: It is a major piece of work, a major document. Sometimes we say "piece of work," literally.
Senator Adams: Mr. Clarkson, you work for Health Canada. The witnesses from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund said that in the Arctic, the Inuit people had as much as 6 to 8 per cent mercury in their blood. Now, we hear it is reduced 5 per cent or 10 per cent in the rest of Canada. I know you are not a scientist; you work for Health Canada. We have more people affected by mercury in the Arctic because it comes down from the air when it gets cold. Why do you believe the mercury count is so high in the North?
Mr. Clarkson: Senator, there is a deposit of mercury in the North because of the climate conditions. As I mentioned the last time I was here, there is the Northern Contaminants Program. This is a program involving a number of departments, including Mr. Riordon's, but also Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which has been attempting to investigate the impacts of not only mercury, but also other contaminants because of the deposition that occurs.
There is concern about the levels of mercury that are being ingested by a certain segment of the population in the North. Those people that we have noted are primarily people who depend on country foods, the mammals of the North; not so much fish, because there are apparently species of fish that do not have a large accumulation of mercury, such as Arctic char; but beluga whales and seals have much higher concentrations because of the bioaccumulation effect in those upper species.
There are apparently, from our studies, segments of the population that do have levels of mercury in their systems that exceed the recommended doses. Some people are ingesting mercury at levels above the tolerable daily intake we have set. There have been attempts to have those parts of the population, who are more sensitive — for instance, children or expectant mothers — take advantage of a program that exists to promote the use of foods that are lower in mercury; during pregnancy, for example.
Senator Adams: The mammals are getting the pollution because so much mercury is accumulating in the water and on the land. Is that what is happening? The mammals, such as belugas, automatically have mercury because of the amount of toxin around. Mammals have to eat, too; and the foods they eat contain mercury. Therefore, country food that we eat contains mercury from many sources. As you said, Arctic char does not have these high levels of mercury; perhaps because they only eat in the sea in the summertime. Yet, Arctic char is affected by the mercury too.
Mr. Clarkson: I am not quite sure I understood your question.
Senator Adams: Any country food or any mammals we eat contain mercury. When we eat it, we get the mercury from them. As some witnesses said, mercury floats in the water and it gets into the ground, and the caribou or other mammals in the marsh eat the plants. That is what is happening to affect us. There is over 60 per cent mercury in the Arctic. We want to find out more. The witnesses say it is not really affecting your body very much. It does not seem to matter where people live; they still have mercury in their blood and their body.
Mr. Clarkson: No one wants mercury in their body. However, we are an industrialized society and that is an unfortunate consequence, but the concern is that some levels are too high. There are risks, particularly in children, for neurotoxic effects that affect learning and development. The deposition in the North comes from other parts, primarily; it is not from local sources.
In our previous appearance here, we talked about efforts that have been made to reduce emissions of mercury in Canada, and bilateral discussions with other countries to try to reduce mercury emissions from other sources. Mr. Riordan mentioned discussions with China. There is an international protocol under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which is called the long-range transport on air pollutants. There are a number of sub- protocols, one of which deals with metals. Three metals are targeted by that particular protocol: lead, mercury and cadmium.
I am not sure I am answering your question, but there are apparently lower levels of mercury in caribou and, as I mentioned, Arctic char. The sources of high levels come from foods that are favourites in part of the population, such as seals and beluga whales.
Mr. Riordan: When we were last here, there were questions raised by some of your colleagues with regard to the graph on page 7. It shows the proportion of emission by country that land in Canada. One of your colleagues asked about how that relates to the North, because it shows 17 per cent Canada and so on. We looked at that and how it relates to the North. I can make these available to the clerk.
We looked not just at Canada's North, but the whole Arctic. The sources of mercury in the Arctic from Asia go up to 49 per cent; from Europe they go up to 40 per cent; from Canada they go down to 3 per cent; and the U.S.A. 8 per cent. This indicates that we need to continue to do work in Canada to control our releases of mercury to the environment, but we also need to work internationally, as Mr. Clarkson has said. There are opportunities through the United Nations; there are opportunities for bilateral agreements. Working with China and the European Union on a shared approach to controlling mercury releases from all sources would help the Arctic.
We promised we would come back with that information. I hope you find it useful.
That is outside the realm of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That moves into other ways that governments operate. CEPA is active inside the boundaries of Canada. There are other instruments that have to be used to engage with China and with Europe in addressing mercury releases.
Senator Adams: When we were working on CEPA, I suggested to Allan Rock and David Anderson that every year or two there should be laboratory testing on the mammals or country food we eat in the North. In the South, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tests beef, pork and fish. We want the same thing. We go out nearly every weekend on the land. We do not have big supermarkets like you have in the South; we go out and get our food.
We have so much mercury in Canada that it is affecting country food with diseases. In the future, it will be affecting us. What is it doing to us?
Mr. Clarkson: I do not know that I can say other than that parts of the department, in which I do not work, are concerned. Our actions in government are to try to put in solutions that will eventually, hopefully, lead to mercury not being a concern for consumption of country food. Unfortunately, the end results of what we are seeing are many years off.
Senator Adams: We used to say that we were living in the Arctic and that we had clean air. Now, however, we are finding out that our air in the North is being affected from the people in the South.
Mr. Clarkson: Mr. Riordan pointed out to me that we have looked at consumption rates and we believe, as do the territorial governments, that we are not trying to discourage people from consuming the country foods. We are trying to bring to their attention that some of them do have higher levels, and perhaps they ought to be looking at balancing more caribou with less seal, for example. Expectant mothers should be more concerned than others. There are appreciations that I believe you were trying to tell us about. These foods are important from a socio-economic, spiritual and traditional sense. No one has tried to discourage, completely, the consumption of these foods, but it is necessary to recognize the dangers. Mercury is not the only contaminant, unfortunately; there are other things. It is an attempt to try to keep people informed. We monitor, through part of the department, country foods so we can provide data.
Senator Carney: I wanted to expand on Senator Adams' questions.
The working paper we have points out that, overwhelmingly, the atmospheric mercury is external to Canada; 47 per cent is from Asia.
I have just returned from southern China where the air and the water pollution are overwhelming. It is very challenging to try to breathe in that area, and the Chinese say it will be a major effort in their next five-year plan to clean up the delta areas. Could you give us some details on the initiatives the Government of Canada is engaged in with other countries to reduce global emissions outside of CEPA? We would like to have some clear and specific details about what countries, what issues and what instruments are being used to develop a bilateral relationship on the environmental issues. In addition, could you tell us exactly what UN opportunities and other initiatives there are to reduce global emissions and with what countries, so that we can follow up on them?
Mr. Riordan: We can do that. I will not attempt to capture them all, but the United Nations is one body. It is something that is not a Canadian issue; it is a global issue.
Senator Carney: It is very slow working. If you say that Canada is engaged in a number of initiatives, we would like to know specifically what avenues are open to us to work with the Asian countries like China to reduce atmospheric mercury and other pollutants without going through cumbersome years taking United Nations channels.
Mr. Riordan: We can answer that in writing, because it would be detailed.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, and pass it to the clerk, as well as the first document that you mentioned.
Mr. Riordan: There are formal and informal channels. This afternoon, I am meeting with 40 representatives from China on a variety of issues, one of which is mercury. They genuinely want to understand how legislation like CEPA works. This is something that we have been doing in various departments across government. I personally feel like I am being introduced to the entire Chinese population, 20 at a time.
Senator Carney: That is good.
Mr. Riordan: It is good. The environmental agency in China actually translated parts of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to bring it into law in China. There are the long processes that are United Nations- bound, there are bilateral formal processes, and then there are informal processes that are continuous.
This group was brought over to meet with the University of Ottawa and they asked if they could come and spend some time with us. We always say, yes, because it is the driving force in the world economy and they can learn from our experiences.
Senator Carney: That is very encouraging. The Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, is also doing some work. I do not know if your jurisdiction extends to informing us of CIDA initiatives, but probably the most important part of our bilateral relationship with China is exactly that kind of informal sharing of law making and technology that is outside the formal channels. I am very pleased to hear that you are doing that.
The Deputy Chairman: We are as well. That is why it is important that you are here again this morning. It is important because Pollution Watch was concerned about that, too. They said that China was looking at us to see what we are doing, so maybe they can do the same thing. This is important for world affairs.
Senator Tardif: Some of the groups indicated to us that part of the problem with CEPA is the fact that it relied a lot on voluntary agreements rather than regulatory agreements.
They felt that CEPA would be much more effective if more regulatory approaches were used, and especially more flexible regulatory approaches. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Riordan: When CEPA was being reviewed by Parliament in the late 1990s, there was discussion in front of the parliamentary committee led then by Charles Caccia, the member of Parliament. He was adamant that a voluntary initiative should not be included in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That was the outcome. The act does not include or refer to voluntary initiatives. There are some misconceptions with regard to what the action allows. The act speaks to regulations, environmental emergency plans, pollution prevention plans, codes of practice and so on, but does not specifically speak to voluntary initiatives. Those words cannot be found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
There are many examples of where voluntary initiatives are being used to achieve objectives that would be complementary to work being undertaken under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We had been using Memorandum of Understanding and, sometimes referred to as, environmental performance agreements over the years. The understanding was that these could — and I say could — be faster and less expensive than the formal regulatory approach.
In 1999, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who reports to the Auditor General, did a review of our toxics programs and said, "You are using voluntary initiatives, but there does not seem to be any specific criteria for these. How does the public know that you are applying a standard to how these voluntary initiatives work?" The government was compelled to put together exactly that.
I am holding up a policy framework for environmental performance agreements which outlines criteria and principles by which the Minister of Environment would or would not enter into a voluntary agreement. It talks about stating clear objectives, public participation, verification of results and so on, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We do have guidelines and criteria that we are required to use when we enter into voluntary agreements. That would be my first answer with regard to voluntary agreements.
When implementing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we use a variety of instruments and tools. That is why that paper I referred to earlier, which I provided to the clerk, is important for you; because you can see which tools are in the CEPA and which are outside the CEPA, like Canada-wide standards. That was referred to by a few of the people who brought testimony.
Canada-wide standards is interesting, because it is a consensus agreement by Ministers of the Environment across the country. With electric power, for example, we are dealing with federal-provincial jurisdiction. We are dealing with facilities that are actually owned by provincial governments. The government made a decision that it would be more effective to get all the Ministers of the Environment to agree to a particular approach to protecting the environment related to coal-fired power plants. There is a variety of other Canada-wide standards. The expectation is that this will be more effective than federal regulation for all of these facilities across the country, but it does not prevent the minister, at any future date, from instituting a regulation. As a matter of fact, the coal-fired power plants are on the regulatory agenda for the department right now.
Often, when there is a voluntary initiative, there is also a regulatory backstop. In the voluntary initiative, it would say, "We want you to do this, or the industry agrees to do this, but the government has an intention to reach a regulation by a certain date." We have used those recently with regard to off-road vehicles, where the government made its intentions clear. The government, we, wanted to move to a certain standard that is in place in the United States. We knew it would take three years or so to get a regulation in place, so we entered into an agreement with the manufacturers of these off-road vehicles to move toward the U.S. standard, knowing that it would take us a number of years to get there. The option is not to do anything and to wait until the regulation is in place. In this case, industry formally agreed to move toward that standard while we were developing the regulation.
I do not believe government can or wants to regulate everything, nor do I believe government needs to regulate everything. However, I do believe government needs to be clear about what it wants to do: It wants to protect the environment from releases of mercury, and you can see that is, in effect, happening. Where the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has to be used, it is being used and it will continue to be used. Where it does not need to be used, where there are other acts of Parliament in play, whether under Health Canada or the Fisheries Act, CEPA is the safety net. However, if those are not happening, CEPA can move in.
An extreme position is not always the most effective position. If we could regulate everything, would that be an ideal world? To some, it would. We would have to enforce all those regulations and report on all of them. If we can achieve the same results through a code of practice, a Canada-wide standard or a voluntary initiative that works, that is monitored and is publicly reported on, then that is another option governments consider and do use. When it is audited by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and he or she says, "You are doing this. Maybe it is not a bad thing, but maybe you need certain criteria and guidelines for implementing this." The government responds with, "Here are the guidelines and codes of practice we use when applying these non-regulatory initiatives."
Senator Tardif: Thank you for that detailed answer. You have said, "If we can achieve the same results...." The question then follows, are we really achieving the desired results? Many groups before us have said there is progress, but the results are not sufficient.
Mr. Riordan: I can give an example. We established a voluntary agreement with the people that make pressure- treated wood. Sixty-five companies across Canada produce pressure-treated wood. We wanted to move to safer handling, safer management and fewer emissions. Of the 65 companies, 60 voluntarily met the code of practice, five did not. Consequently, we moved to a legislative approach to get the other five. That says to industry that if they are willing to achieve an objective voluntarily, so be it; but if some of them are not, we will move to the next step, which is a legislative approach using CEPA.
The other alternative is to do a regulation, which now penalizes all 65, because we cannot selectively point at five with a regulation — we get the whole sector. In this case, we managed to get the sector to a standard and address the laggards with a legislative instrument under CEPA. It depends on the substance and it depends on the sector. Where it works, it can work well; where it does not work, regulation is a better option.
Senator Tardif: I know that the Canada-wide standards are very complex as well, because of the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments and the interests of the many provinces. Some of these interests are not necessarily environmental, but economic or social; all that has to be melded together.
In putting together the Canada-wide standards, it could be that the lowest common denominator of agreement is being used, and that is not the level it should be in order to fully protect the environment.
Mr. Riordan: Moving to the lowest common denominator is always a concern of people who work in Environment Canada. The negotiations that have taken place at the Canada-wide standards have been to move toward the highest standard, not toward the lowest standard. It is actually stated in the agreement between governments.
There are also examples where the Canada-wide standards does not work. Here is a mercury example: The Canada- wide standards process had a committee examining mercury, and one area they were not successful at addressing was the mercury in auto switches. They said, "We cannot do this." They wrote a letter to the Minister of the Environment of the day and said, "We cannot achieve this. Can you show leadership on this?" That is what we have done. We used CEPA to backstop a Canada-wide standard.
It is complex, and it is not. We have a variety of options, one of which is called a qualitative selection of management tools. This is government, and we have a process. The process evaluates each of the options that we would present to ministers. In some cases, the voluntary approach is not even considered. If it is something that is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to humans, we are not talking about a voluntary approach, but a regulatory approach; because the act requires us to move toward a regulatory approach. That is clear.
In cases where a code of practice or a voluntary initiative may work because the sector has a good track record and has achieved objectives voluntarily in the past that would be a consideration. It would be less expensive and more timely to move to a voluntary approach. If it does not work, then we would move to a regulation.
Senator Tardif: Mercury is considered a toxic substance, so in that sense, it would be regulated.
Mr. Riordan: We can regulate what we can regulate. The mercury coming out of our fillings is something that was identified as a source of mercury under the Canada-wide standards. I personally had conversations with the dental association. They said, "Look, we are not polluters. We are not steel plants. We are dentists." Do we do a regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for dentists, or do we enter into a voluntary agreement that requires reporting and training and so on? Ministers chose to have a voluntary arrangement through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian Dental Association, and it appears to be working. My experience is that everything does not need to be regulated. We say, regulation if necessary, but not necessarily regulation.
Senator Tardif: I understand, though, that the dental associations have been regulated in Ontario and Manitoba.
Mr. Riordan: This is where Canada-wide standards work. I am sorry for my long answer, but it is important. The Canada-wide standards sets a voluntary standard, but the provinces underneath that voluntary standard often — you just gave two examples — set a regulation. It is not a CEPA regulation, but it is a regulation. I expect there are other cases besides dentists that have done that.
The term used is "best placed." Who is best placed to regulate a dentist? Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it seemed like we were using a hammer whereas maybe it required a screwdriver or a level or something like that.
Senator Tardif: A dental drill.
Mr. Riordan: A drill, yes.
Senator Milne: I read here that you are planning to release a strategy outlining plans to manage releases of mercury from mercury-containing product sources this fall. Has that been done?
Mr. Riordan: Not yet, senator. It is drafted, and it is the minister's decision when that will be released. The minister is on record from June of this year saying that this is her intention. We followed that direction from the minister and have done our part to make that available.
Senator Milne: As far as the department is concerned, it is ready to go and is in the hands of the minister?
Mr. Riordan: That is correct.
Senator Milne: Following up on one of Senator Adams' questions about the much higher accumulation of mercury in human systems in the North, have any studies or tests been done anywhere in the world on potential methods of reducing mercury in a person once they have been diagnosed as having overly high levels?
Mr. Clarkson: I am not aware of any, senator, but I would not claim to be all-knowledgeable here. There could be and I am just not aware of them. I would have thought in my preparation that this information might have been provided to me, but since that was not quite the focus we were on, I may have missed something.
Senator Milne: If there is anything, perhaps you can do a search for us?
Mr. Clarkson: Are you looking at, for instance, if a person has high lead levels, there are medical treatments to try to remove it?
Senator Milne: Precisely.
Mr. Clarkson: It may be similar methodology used for mercury, but I do not know. I will have to get back to the clerk.
Senator Milne: Will you?
Mr. Clarkson: Yes.
Senator Milne: Thank you. Senator Carney spoke about lighthouses. The only historic lighthouse where I have ever been up beside the lens was actually in Australia. It had enormous six-foot lenses. The lamp itself was gas, although it had originally been kerosene. These enormous, six-foot round lenses, which are four, five and six inches thick, rotated on an eight-foot bed of mercury and had done so for over 100 years. Do you know if the historic lighthouses in Canada operate on the same system?
Mr. Clarkson: I know some lighthouses were reported, and Senator Carney told us of one example. There are others, but I am not sure that they all use that system. The lenses came from different places. They were not always from the same source. That particular application is more into Transport Canada's and Public Works and Government Services Canada's area.
Senator Milne: I am just wondering if there are eight-foot beds of mercury out there.
Mr. Clarkson: I have read reports that in some lighthouses there are mercury beds. I do not know whether that represented 10 per cent of the lighthouse stock. Many of the lighthouses are no longer manned; they have gone to automated ones. I am not sure what they have done with the old ones.
Senator Milne: They still operate them the same way, but from 150 miles away.
Mr. Riordan: The strategy we are considering for mercury-containing products is for lamps, switches, batteries, thermostats, measuring devices and fungicides, not lighthouses.
Senator Milne: I know that. I thought you might have some knowledge to share with us.
Senator Carney: I am only aware of the one lighthouse that still has some elements of mercury, and it is in the process of being preserved as a sort of a heritage relic. The lenses used in operational lighthouses, to my knowledge, under federal jurisdiction do not use mercury. They use much different lenses.
Senator Milne: It is the same lens, but how it turns is different.
Senator Carney: It is an entirely different mechanism, in defence of human health of lightkeepers.
Senator Milne: I am a member of the public, and I have thermostats in my home that I am sure operate on a mercury switch. They are highly sensitive thermostats regulating an electrical heating system. How would I, as a member of the public, dispose of those if I wanted to replace them?
Mr. Riordan: There are often programs established by retailers — smoke detectors and even lawn mowers, for example — where you can bring your old thermostat in at the end of its useful life and replace it with a new thermostat. Those are the types of programs that could evolve from a strategy to address mercury in products.
Senator Milne: Are they in the process of evolving? Is there some program afoot to alert the public to these?
Mr. Riordan: One pilot project was done on mercury in thermometers. If consumers took in the mercury-containing thermometer when they were buying a new alternative one, then they would get a percentage off the price. Those types of programs are often popular with the public.
Senator Milne: People do not usually take them in. They usually break them and that is the problem. Until they are broken, there is no problem.
Mr. Riordan: The thermostat that you have in your house is not a problem unless it is broken.
Senator Milne: Until it stops working.
Mr. Clarkson: I do not have the answer, but mercury in thermometers is a potential source of mercury exposure, as is mercury in thermostats. There are other sources. I do not know the relativity of the contribution from thermometers versus thermostats versus mercury switches in cars versus other products. Mr. Riordan reported they are targeting mercury switches in cars because it seemed to be significant.
My department has approved temperature measuring devices that do not include mercury as a way of encouraging options to be selected, but if we are able to get people to switch, I do not know how we would get them to dispose of their mercury thermometers. The City of Ottawa has the Trail Road facility where people can take hazardous household substances. They collect them at periodic times during the year, but it is a matter of knowing when.
Senator Milne: This is what I mean. We need a public information program to educate people about hazardous products that might be in their homes. I do not see any evidence of that happening whatsoever. When most people break a thermometer they throw it out and buy a new one. They do not save the bits of the broken thermometer or its contents and carry it off to some safe disposal site. This will be an increasing factor as more people convert to energy efficient light bulbs, which contain mercury. When the bulbs blow, people will throw them in the garbage. They will not think about it. There should be something on the package and a public education system to inform people as to the correct way to dispose of them. It will be an increasing factor.
Mr. Riordan: You are probably getting ahead of us, senator. It is good advice. This type of thinking has gone into the development of this strategy for mercury-containing products and, as that rolls out, these types of initiatives would likely follow.
The Deputy Chairman: I have the same concern with the light bulbs. My husband is very conscious now about the environment. We have also changed our light bulbs to be more energy efficient, but I have been told that within these new bulbs there is mercury. Am I right?
Mr. Riordan: Yes. There are small amounts, which makes the bulbs more efficient. The more efficient the bulbs are, the less electricity is used; and the less electricity we use, the less coal is burned; and the less coal is burned, the less mercury goes into the environment.
The Deputy Chairman: It sounds like a cycle.
Mr. Riordan: It is significant.
The Deputy Chairman: What happens when these burn out? I know they are long lasting, but there will come the time when they do burn out. There is mercury in them, so what do we do with them? Do we throw them in the garbage? No, you cannot do that.
Mr. Riordan: You can bring them to the disposal sites.
The Deputy Chairman: We have to ensure there is a disposal unit in that area, which will be very difficult for rural communities. We have to put that information out. That is something we have to work on.
Mr. Riordan: As you will know, the evolution of recycling programs has happened and is happening. I live in a rural area in Quebec, and we are getting curb-side pickup of recyclables. It is beyond the blue box and is even bigger. They also want to install a major composting centre in our part of the world. These systems are coming into place. It is expanding from just paper, glass, tin and aluminum. There are household hazardous days in my rural community.
Senator Milne: To follow up on that, most people realize that fluorescent tube lights should be disposed of safely, but I do not believe the public realizes that these new energy efficient bulbs they screw into every single socket in their homes are the same.
Mr. Riordan: They are far less.
Senator Milne: Yes, I know, because they are smaller. They are more efficient and smaller, but still it is there. A public information program will be essential as more and more people convert.
The Deputy Chairman: Would that be in your realm, Mr. Riordan?
Mr. Riordan: Again, we talked earlier about instruments, and it is not just one department. This is a societal shift, and it needs to take place. Household hazardous waste days are not the federal government's responsibility. The municipality does that. It is not just one federal department that is responsible.
The Deputy Chairman: You people are with Environment Canada and with Health Canada. These important departments have an obligation to tell us about the dangers, do they not?
Mr. Riordan: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: I feel we better try to get something going along that line. I may be out of my bounds here, but I feel it is something we have to consider and discuss with various departments.
Mr. Riordan: With respect, senator, Environment Canada has had in place a program called Environmental Choice, since 1988. The logo is three doves in the shape of a maple leaf. This is a world-renowned product labelling program. It is seen on paper and paints and a variety of products. When this was started in the late 1980s, it was a breakthrough product labelling program; and there are now several thousand products. It is managed by an outside company, licensed to use the logo, which is owned by the Government of Canada. I would be surprised if you have not seen it, and I am sure you will see more of it as companies are moving toward labelling their products for their environmental aspects.
Senator Tardif: I wanted to pick up, as well, on the need for a public information campaign. I understand that mercury is used in cosmetics as a preserving agent. Is that correct? The number of cosmetics being used, both by women and men, is increasing, and so is the amount that is being disposed of. Is it the case that mercury is used as a preserving agent in some cosmetics?
Mr. Clarkson: It may be a valid statement.
Senator Tardif: I have taken it from the Health Canada paper. It must be so.
Mr. Clarkson: As far as mercury use in cosmetics, mercury is on the hot list that the cosmetic regulations have, which is meant to signal that the substance is either not to be used or its use is to be controlled. I would have to verify for accuracy, but mercury as a preservative is an option for cosmetics. The levels would be set out of concern for the purpose versus the risk they would pose. The levels would be restricted.
Senator Tardif: Who is following up on that?
Mr. Clarkson: I do not understand what you mean by that.
Senator Tardif: How are we assured that the cosmetic companies are following those guidelines?
Mr. Clarkson: I am assuming that my colleagues in the Consumer Product Safety Bureau have an enforcement program, but I could verify.
Senator Tardif: That be would appreciated.
The Deputy Chairman: Would you let us know then?
Mr. Clarkson: Certainly.
Senator Carney: I would suggest that the chair write to the Minister of the Environment, who has a report on consumer products coming out this fall.
Mr. Clarkson: The measure to initiate mercury in products work is the Minister of the Environment.
Senator Carney: That report on consumer products is coming out this fall.
Mr. Riordan: It is a strategy to address it, so it would lay out which areas the minister wants to control.
Senator Carney: I suggest the chair writes to the minister to say the strategy should include a communications plan that indicates how the information will be disseminated to the public, because that would permit more than just federal input.
The Deputy Chairman: That is a good idea. We will do that.
Mr. Riordan: To clarify on light bulbs — coming back to the instruments again — the people who manufacture light bulbs in Canada, through a voluntary agreement, have reduced the mercury content in light bulbs by 70 per cent and continue to reduce it.
Certain municipalities have established programs — the municipality of Niagara is an example — where the municipality collects all the light bulbs aggressively, as well as other household hazardous wastes, so we are not just starting here. There are examples of significant activity with regard to mercury in light bulbs.
The Deputy Chairman: Our researcher has informed me that we could also ask the minister about this next week, because the minister is coming before us on Tuesday. Senator Carney, we will send the letter, and thank you for that suggestion.
We are glad we had you back, Mr. Riordan and Mr. Clarkson. I am sure it will not be the last time, either. Thank you so much.
The committee adjourned.