:
I'd like to call the meeting to order.
On behalf of everyone on the committee, I want to extend to everyone a very warm welcome.
Bienvenue à tous.
This morning, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we are dealing with one of the chapters of the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It deals with toxic substances, an issue that all Canadians are concerned about, or if they're not, they should be. This is from the commissioner's fall 2009 report.
We're very pleased to have a large number of witnesses with us this morning.
From the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, we have Mr. Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Mr. Vaughan is accompanied by his principal from that office, Jim McKenzie.
From the Department of the Environment, we have Brian Gray, assistant deputy minister. He's accompanied by Cynthia Wright, acting assistant deputy minister; Margaret Kenny, director general, chemical sectors; and George Enei, director general, science and risk assessment.
Finally, from the Department of Health, we have the deputy minister and accounting officer, Glenda Yeates. Ms. Yeates is accompanied by Karen Lloyd, director general, and Athana Mentzelopoulos, director general.
These are the witnesses before us today.
Again, welcome. We're going to ask for opening statements.
I'll call upon you first, Mr. Vaughan. You have up to five minutes.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be here this morning to discuss the results of chapter 2 of my fall 2009 report entitled “Risks of Toxic Substances”.
In this audit, we examined seven of 85 substances listed as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Some of the seven substances we examined are well-known—for example, lead and mercury. Others are newer and less widely known, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, which can be equally hazardous to the health of Canadians. These toxic substances can be found in a range of products from children toys to consumer electronics.
Overall, we found that Health Canada and Environment Canada have put in place or proposed a range of controls—from regulations to pollution prevention plans—that are designed to manage sources of emissions, as well as mitigate the risks associated with exposure to these toxic substances.
[English]
We also found that the two departments have been measuring the actual levels of mercury, lead, and other substances found in Canadians. We noted that overall levels of lead and mercury in the blood of Canadians are low and that, in the case of lead, have declined significantly in the past three decades.
Nevertheless, these substances continue to pose risks to those individuals exposed to them. This underscores a key observation of the audit. Despite progress, the risks posed by toxic substances such as lead and mercury still require active management.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, let me highlight four particular areas that represent significant challenges to the departments, as they work to manage and mitigate the risks associated with toxic substances.
The first relates to risk management strategies. While these strategies were in place for five of the seven substances we examined, they are still not in place for lead and mercury.
We recommended that integrated strategies be prepared to manage lead and mercury. We expected that such strategies would examine progress to date, set out clear objectives and priorities to achieve them, and take into account the results of ongoing scientific research. For example, the research assessing whether the level of lead that is currently considered acceptable in blood may, in fact, be too high.
[English]
The second issue deals with the capacity of departmental compliance, promotion, and enforcement programs. Environment Canada has put in place an approach to promoting compliance and enforcing policies and regulations that allows it to prioritize its limited resources.
The third point deals with consumer products. The audit notes that, although relatively rare, unacceptable levels of lead in toys and jewellery still pose a risk to those most vulnerable in Canadian society, our children. Other consumer products noted in the chapter include baby soothers and soft vinyl toys that contain phthalates, a substance listed as toxic in 1999 and for which control measures were proposed in 2009.
[Translation]
This chapter addressed the issue of consumer product labelling for chronic hazards. Product labels are required to inform consumers of hazards associated with toxic substances, and to provide information, such as safe handling instructions to avoid poisoning.
One question is whether departments should go further, as do some countries under a UN initiative, to inform consumers about chronic hazards such as possible carcinogenicity.
[English]
Fourth, we recognize that the federal government is undertaking biomonitoring programs to understand the level of toxic substances found in the bodies of Canadians. Health Canada, with other federal partners, has launched several major studies, such as the Canada Health Measures Survey, to assess the presence of toxic substances in Canadians. The scope of the survey is expected to be expanded to include children from the ages of three to five, while efforts are also under way to conduct biomonitoring of first nations. These are important initiatives that will provide important data needed to understand whether departmental control efforts are actually leading to better health.
Environment Canada and Health Canada have agreed with all our recommendations. Your committee may wish to focus its attention on the adequacy of departmental action plans, the overall approach to managing the risks associated with toxic substances in consumer products, departmental compliance promotion and enforcement efforts, including the capacity to sustain those efforts given the expected growth in toxic substances and related control measures, and plans to respond to information coming from the national biomonitoring programs.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statements. We will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
On behalf of Environment Canada, and with my colleagues from Health Canada, I'm pleased to appear before the committee today with the opportunity to address this important chapter.
As you may know, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA 1999, is Canada's key piece of environmental legislation governing the assessment and management of chemical substances. Through CEPA, Environment Canada and Health Canada work with partners in other jurisdictions and various stakeholders to protect the health and environment of Canadians.
The complexities of protecting the environment and health of Canadians call for a sound management process. In CEPA, we call this process a cycle, and it is made up of risk assessment, risk management, compliance promotion and enforcement, and research and monitoring.
In the assessment phase, substances such as those reviewed in the audit are scientifically evaluated to identify the risks they may pose to health and the environment. The risk also helps to identify the sources that should then be informing our actions to manage those sources.
Under CEPA 1999, we're fortunate to have a variety of instruments that may be used to take action under risk management to protect the environment and human health in a cost-effective way that takes into account social, economic, and technological factors. Follow-up is then required to ensure that risk management actions are carried out. When non-compliance is a problem, we respond with activities ranging from promoting awareness of the measures required to enforcement, if necessary, and information about compliance is used to help evaluate and in turn improve the CEPA processes and action.
Finally, research, monitoring, and surveillance efforts identify and track the effects of hazards in the environment and associated health implications. This information provides the basis for sound public and environmental health decisions and measures the efficacy of the control measures, thus informing and re-initiating a process in other components of the cycle.
Let me give you the example of mercury, which was addressed in the audit. This is a chemical that has been of concern to the federal government for many years. We have, in fact, been regulating it for over 30 years, now to a point that research and monitoring are showing us that the man-made sources of emissions have been reduced by over 90% since we started taking action.
Risk management started in the late 1960s and focused on mercury levels in fish, as this was, and continues to be, the primary route of Canadians' exposure to mercury. The risk management strategy for mercury concentrations in retail fish was implemented at that period. During the 1970s, our knowledge of the issue advanced, and regulations were put in place under both the Fisheries Act and the Clean Air Act, which is now part of CEPA, to deal with a point source that was related to releases of mercury in water and air from mercury cell plants that manufactured chlorine used to produce PVC.
These steps were only the beginning of our risk management activity on mercury. To date, there are over 20 instruments in place, with a number of other actions planned for the near future, including upcoming new regulations on mercury in products.
We are now at a point at which the real reductions in deposition will require international action, as our research and monitoring programs show that over 95% of mercury deposition in Canada comes from foreign sources. For this reason, Canada is participating actively in the United Nations environmental program to develop a global, legally binding instrument to reduce emissions from all countries.
Our risk management programs continue to evolve. Most recently, the chemicals management plan or CMP was introduced to achieve further goals under CEPA. CMP is jointly administered by Environment Canada and Health Canada and has put Canada in the forefront in assessing and managing the risks associated with substances that are used in many industrial sectors and consumer products brought into commerce prior to our modern regime of assessing new substances.
When the CMP was launched in 2006, we completed a triage of the 23,000 existing chemicals that had not yet been assessed under the more modern regime and identified 4,300 of the substances for further action. Since then, we've published over 120 assessments, which cover nearly 1,300 substances. Final conclusions are being completed for 100 high-priority substances, with action already initiated on 31 of these.
Our commitment to risk management strategies is reflected in the CMP, in which the strategies are central tools for setting meaningful objectives as well as monitoring and reporting progress.
Chemicals management is an ongoing process. As progress is made in assessing, monitoring, and managing substances, we continue to refine our efforts to protect the environment and the health of Canadians from these harmful substances.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
[English]
It's a great pleasure to be here and we'd like to thank the commissioner for his comments with respect to the department.
This is my first opportunity as the Deputy Minister of Health to appear before your committee, and I am very happy that it's on a topic that is of such importance to Canadians.
[Translation]
Health Canada is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians and takes very seriously its responsibility to manage substances that are harmful to human health.
Health Canada and Environment Canada already have extensive risk management policies in place to address the risks from many harmful substances, including lead and mercury. While these strategies were not in the consolidated from we now use, risk management actions for lead and mercury have been developed, implemented and monitored. We also monitor their effectiveness.
[English]
Decades ago, lead was identified as a dangerous substance. Over the last 40 years, the Government of Canada has introduced a number of initiatives to reduce exposure, and we've seen the levels of lead in the blood of Canadians drop dramatically. In fact, this is often cited in the public health field as a major success story. During that time Canada has also reduced its man-made mercury emissions by 90%, as my colleague from the Department of the Environment noted.
But we continue to want to move forward in protecting Canadians by implementing a solid chemicals management plan, one that is based on very sound and thorough science. This is a plan that assesses and manages the risks of chemical substances to human health and the environment.
As part of this plan, we set out to assess 200 of the highest-priority substances by 2011 and introduce whatever risk management would be required. I'm pleased to report to the committee that we are on schedule, having already completed final assessments for 120 of the substances on that list.
Just to put this in some perspective, we have accelerated our risk assessments from roughly 70 substances over 18 years to, rather, 70 substances every year. As I mentioned, we're on schedule, then, to complete the targeted assessments by 2011.
[Translation]
Health Canada continues to conduct research that gives us insight into the hazards associated with other chemicals and guides the way we monitor their impact on human health.
Our own assessments of the risks of Bisphenol A lead to Canada becoming the first country in the world to ban baby bottles made with that chemical. Canada was also the first country in the world to limit lead in children's jewelry, and we have some of the most stringent lead limits in the world.
[English]
We continue to monitor new scientific information on chemicals to determine whether additional action is needed. As recognized in the audit, we are currently doing this for lead. As we revise our risk management strategy, we will implement the commissioner's recommendation to develop a comprehensive and consolidated description of all of our actions and progress to date and outline any remaining actions and timelines.
With respect to the observation in the report about the labelling of consumer products, we were very thoughtful and focused on the fact that one of the three pillars of our approach to regulation is active prevention. This reinforces the notion that an informed consumer is in fact an integral part in the assurance of safety of consumer products. To that end, we recognize that labelling is one of a number of tools in the regulatory tool kit. However, there is still significant debate around the world about how and when to use this tool most effectively.
When the labelling issue was debated by a committee of the House of Commons when it was examining the former Bill , the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, it was agreed that there was no simple solution. But the bill was then consequently amended to include the creation of an advisory committee which, among other things, would provide advice on issues such as labelling. Having an advisory committee that would consider and give us expert advice on labelling could supplement the work that we are already doing within the department with respect to chemicals that are used by consumers and chemicals that are used in the workplace.
[Translation]
Finally, I can assure the Committee that Health Canada collaborates effectively with Environment Canada. Scientists and managers from both departments jointly develop risk-management strategies to protect both human health and the environment.
[English]
As such, we are implementing the recommendations found in the report of the Commissioner of the Environment, and I would like to assure all members of the committee that Health Canada is committed to continuing to work with Environment Canada to enhance our risk management strategies and to monitor their performance.
Thank you very much.
Merci.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to all our witnesses. Thank you for being with us today.
The subject of today's meeting is extremely important in terms of the health of Canadians and of our environment—namely, the toxic substances that are released into the air and which may affect us in all kinds of ways.
Over the decades, the news has been fairly positive. According to the report, in the 1970s—when we were all still wearing short pants—one quarter of Canadians had lead levels that were too high. Now, that has been reduced to 1%. You mentioned that human-caused mercury emissions had declined by 90%. I suppose you are referring there to human activities in Canada, and mercury sources from abroad are on the rise. You can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think so.
That is very positive; at the same time, we must not be complacent. We have to look at that report very carefully. This is too important an issue. I am certain my colleagues have lots of questions, so I will ask mine right away.
The report is critical of the two departments with respects to the lack of a comprehensive report on lead and mercury. In your presentations, you did not respond to that criticism. However, on page 16 of the French version of the report, it says that Health Canada has announced a comprehensive lead assessment by means of consultations expected to take place in mid-2010—and we are almost there. Environment Canada was also planning to publish an integrated mercury study by the winter of 2009-2010—which has already gone by.
Could I ask officials from those two departments what the status of that is? Have they filled the gaps mentioned in the Commissioner's report?
:
Thank you for your question. Just to give you an idea of the context, I think it's important to mention that risk management strategies are a new tool that we now use every time we evaluate a substance.
[English]
So it's a new procedure that we have in place and we're very proud that it's in place. It's now becoming a model for the government that when a risk is assessed, a strategy is put in place to measure progress. That's something that we do systematically for all substances now.
For mercury, we have many strategies already in place. As the commissioner noted, though, we didn't have one document that knitted them altogether. So the first thing we did was to look at our website, which is where Canadians often go for information. I'm now very pleased to say that on our website you can enter “mercury” and see the existing 20 measures that are in place; you can see the context of what the sources are and how they're being managed; and it also describes the measures that we have under way, including international action, because, as we noted, international action is now an extremely important factor in reducing Canadians' exposure to mercury.
Our next step is to knit all of these together in a document that would be publicly available, both on the web and in hard copy. So we, too, feel that we're on track to address this gap that the commissioner noted in terms of being able to communicate effectively to Canadians what's in place and what's still to come.
:
Thank you for the question.
First of all, as you underscore and as the witnesses have said, the issue of labelling has long been discussed, and we've noted where we thought the state of debate is at the moment. Part of that, as one of the witnesses said, is that there's still an outstanding debate between the issue of chronic and acute and how effective they are.
It would seem to us that we did not and would not enter into what seems a policy discussion on where that will finally land. However, we did also note at the international level some countries have adopted labelling under a UN initiative and that the evidence we had on that particular issue was that Canada wanted to harmonize its efforts with those of the United States.
On the specific issue of lead in toys and lead in products more generally, from our understanding of the history, there were various attempts to enter into voluntary agreements with industry, including with partners from outside Canada, from the import side, and that the label then was one of the options the departments had looked at. In the end, they decided to settle on an acceptable threshold, after which any product which exceeded that threshold would be an unacceptable or illegal product, essentially.
Finally, on why we did not make the recommendation, when were doing this audit, Bill was still very much in discussion, and we didn't move forward given the context of the Bill C-6 discussions.
To respond, concerning the 200 high-priority chemicals we're currently assessing, the way the process works is that we do the risk assessment, we consult on it, and we conclude on the risk assessment. When the assessments come out, we then start the conversations with stakeholders on steps we would take to manage the risks. Now that the final assessments are coming out, we're getting into serious discussions of what to do with most of them. The only one that action has been firmly taken on so far is the bisphenol A, with a ban of the baby bottles. All of the others are still under discussion.
Many of them, if they are used in cosmetic products, will be added to the cosmetic ingredient hot list, so that they'll be prohibited, or certain uses of that substance will be prohibited, in cosmetics. In the case of others, we're using a control that would mean the substance could not come back into Canada for any future uses or in any greater volumes without informing us of that, so that we can assess the use so that exposure to the chemicals does not increase over time. In other cases, regulations will be developed to decrease releases into the environment.
:
I appreciate that. That's the reason I'm raising it. It's not your issue; it's for us as parliamentarians to deal with.
But that's the reason you're in here with us doing this. It was our understanding that it was not being done at the other committee, which I think is surprising. Hopefully they'll start the process, because really, the other half of the work you do when you do an audit is to pick it up, analyze it, and say, “Where do we go from here?” That's the role of our committee.
It seems to me that the environment committee ought to be doing the same. Anyway, that's for internal matters, and we'll deal with that later.
I want to say that I was very struck by the fact that we seem to be in a world where, if somebody mentions national security, that can lead us all the way to a potential constitutional crisis in terms of its importance. And if we're dealing with the police or our firefighters and all of our front line emergency response folks, there's never enough we can do, but when it comes to the slow poisoning of Canadians, we don't take that with the same seriousness at all.
I have to say to the deputies who are represented here today that I am not impressed at all. I am not in the least bit impressed with the track record of your ministries on these issues and with your statements today. In particular, in the one from the deputy Minister of Environment, there was nothing in there that really spoke to these issues, as far as I'm concerned. It was just a piece of fluff.
Here's why I'm so upset. We're talking about our kids in many cases and their exposure to toxic substances. So we're going to prevent bombs going off in their schoolyard, but it's okay to let them get poisoned.
And this is not new. This is when I really get cranked. We can go back to 1999 to an audit that was done. I'm quoting from the commissioner's audit report in front of us, the 1999 report, which found, “The chapters raised concerns regarding the federal government's lack of progress in developing and implementing risk management strategies”. In 2002, a follow-up report was done, and it said in part, concluding, “Although the federal government had made some progress...its ability to detect, understand, and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances was still limited”.
So we had an audit that found the problem, then we had another audit that came three years later and said there was still an ongoing problem, and now, today, we have the Commissioner of the Environment in front of us and he's saying in his opening remarks today, in part, “This underscores a key observation of the audit...”--meaning this one, the third one--“the risks posed by toxic substances such as lead and mercury still require active management.” Further, in paragraph 8, he says, “The first relates to risk management strategies”.
So I want to know what's going on. It has been raised now in three audits that risk management, in terms of the exposure of our citizens to these substances, is still not being managed adequately. I didn't hear answers from these two deputies, Chair, that gave me any satisfaction that these matters are in hand.
I'm going to give the two deputies an opportunity to respond. But I really am very disappointed and worried, and that's why I'm so upset. It's because it's about our kids, in large part.
Anyway, that's my bit. I want to try to be as fair as I can and give you a chance to respond.
:
Thank you for the observation. At Health Canada, we certainly share the passion and concern for protecting Canadians.
We feel that we have made significant progress. We actually believe that there are a number of steps that have been taken and appreciate the commissioner's comments about the progress that has been made since the last audits that you referenced.
With the investments that we've had to move forward on the risk assessments in a much more methodical, and paced, and deadline sort of way, the pace has augmented significantly, as I mentioned. There has been a significant investment of dollars and we have moved through the list of chemicals in this triaged way very significantly. We recognize that there is much more to be done, but we have been working to work through along the schedule that has been outlined.
With regard to the lack of a risk management strategy for lead and mercury, I think the commissioner noted that in fact there are many individual strategies that have been taken, and in fact there have been steps taken to monitor the efficacy of these strategies. I think we are gratified that we in fact can see some of the positive results from the biomonitoring and other methods that we've taken to actually measure our 20 regulatory regimes, for example, in lead or mercury, to ask if they are producing results.
I think the commissioner makes a very good point, in that in fact it would be advantageous--and we agree with this recommendation--to pull together all of those individual mechanisms, or individual regulatory steps that have been taken over the years, into one risk management strategy. In a sense, because lead and mercury have been known challenges for such a long time and we've been going through the process of addressing those, over decades essentially, they were not brought together in the same way that we're using for the modern chemicals, in a coordinated risk-assessment way.
So there are two points I would make. One is that on the newer chemicals, we are doing this in a consolidated risk-assessment way, and for the older chemicals, lead and mercury, we believe there is a series of very effective measures, but we also agree with the recommendation to pull those together.
The last point I would make is that we continue to want to move forward with updated legislation, for example, such as the proposed Canada Consumer Products Safety Act. We continue to want to push the envelope to update the tools that we have to keep Canadians safe and we're very dedicated to that. Thank you.
:
Yes, and I'm sorry my remarks didn't give you enough information in terms of explaining what we are doing today. My colleague mentioned that we do have a significant investment that the government has made in accelerating the assessment and management of substances that came into commerce before the modern regime.
The modern regime started in 1994, so since that time, no chemical is manufactured, imported, or put into use in Canada without a risk assessment and appropriate control instruments as needed--or in fact banned and prevented from coming into Canada.
So under this audit, we're dealing mostly with the legacy of the past. Canada is the first country to deal with this. It's just starting in Europe. It is under discussion in the United States. In 2007, the government invested $300 million over four years to start this process. We're expecting it to be completed by 2020. We'll be the first to complete it if we make that target objective.
We're well on track, as my colleague mentioned. This is a large volume of work, but I have some happy news. For many of these substances we're finding in fact.... Our list that we're working from, the 23,000 that we assessed and found that 4,300 needed further work, in fact, of that 4,300, many are no longer in commerce. Industry is getting the message and they've been getting the message since 1994 with the regulations that prevent these kinds of substances coming into the market.
So we have a program to deal with the legacy of the past. We're well on track to meet it. I would just mention we've also invested in enforcement. The penalties are much higher as well, as a result of the new enforcement bill that was passed last year and further investments in compliance and enforcement.
With respect to mercury, as I said, we have over 20 instruments in place that we're monitoring just to make sure they're working. We also have a number of instruments that were under development, including those dealing with products. We have further work that is being assessed as our research and monitoring continue to identify problems. We're actively working with other countries, recognizing that 95% of the source in Canada is not from Canada. It's coming largely from Asia, the United States, and other countries.
:
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. It's just to point out that in 2008 we noted that there has been satisfactory progress on the risk assessment side. I think, as the honourable member had noted, in previous audits we had noted that there were delays, that things weren't moving forward as quickly as they should.
I think the assessment process, which we didn't look at in this audit, partly because of the findings from 2008, found that not only was there satisfactory progress, but that the chemical management plan represents, not only for stakeholders within Canada but for many international partners, a model of how to undertake thousands of complex assessments, do that in an expeditious way, and then be able to move to the control mechanisms that are needed once they are determined to be toxic.
On the assessment side, I think, Chair, that there are some important and positive findings on what Health Canada and Environment Canada have been doing.
:
Chair, thank you very much.
The member is right. There was a fifth substance for which the department considered there to be something comparable to a risk management strategy, and that is why we increased it to five.
I think there have been lessons learned. I think our colleagues from the departments would be better placed to discuss this, but what we have said, and I think what your committee looks at, is that in all federal management practices,we have to set out a coherent strategy on what we want to do, when we're going to get there, what the means are to get there, and how we know whether or not we're succeeding. That then builds some internal synergies and internal logic in order to build success, to measure success, to figure out if there are gaps, and to close the gaps.
As a point of general management practices, we have repeatedly found, through the Office of the Auditor General, that taking these basic management approaches is helpful to get better results.
I'll ask my colleague, Jim McKenzie, to go into more detail. But essentially what we noted in those paragraphs between 2.8 and 2.11 are sort of the basic foundations on managing. The beginning part is what we just discussed: the assessment or evaluation process. What is the process by which you can determine whether a given substance falls within a toxic categorization?
Then, from that--and this is very much what this audit is about--once that evaluation has taken place and a substance has or has not been determined to be toxic, the second point is whether a risk management strategy should be put in place to provide some internal logic on the management practices.
The third one is implementation. By then, you learn by doing what is working in the implementation. Finally, there is evaluation. After all these mechanisms are in place, do you know if they're working?
Finally, on that last point, just to underscore the opening statement, I think the national biomonitoring programs are an absolutely critical and important part of that evaluation loop to see whether or not these are working and measuring the levels in Canadians.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
I think it is part of the overall management approach, which the commissioner just spoke to, of setting out a very specific schedule of how we are going to address this very long list of thousands of chemicals. It was also made possible with the investment that was made in the chemicals management plan: the $300,000 million over four years, of which $193 million is allocated to Health Canada and the remainder to Environment Canada.
That has given us additional funding to target towards these risk assessments. Part of that funding is also for the other components of the life cycle approach, which the commissioner and my colleague from Environment Canada spoke about: for the risk management part of the process and the research, which is needed to make sure we are keeping abreast of the latest information worldwide, and for monitoring and surveillance, which are ongoing and important parts, including the biomonitoring, which we think is critical.
Then there is the money for the overall pulling together of those strategies. Those investments have made this significant acceleration possible.
:
I'll start trying to answer your question by addressing that we've identified essentially seven mechanisms for informing our risk assessment process. The seven mechanisms are the categorization process we've already discussed that was taking a look at the 23,000 substances in commerce and screening that down to the 4,300 we believe might pose a risk to humans or the environment.
As my colleagues have already mentioned, for any new substance that would enter the marketplace we already have a very good process in place under the new substance notification. A new substance cannot enter into commerce in Canada without the risk assessment process.
In addition to the categorization I just mentioned, we have industry submissions through CEPA. We have provincial and international decisions that we monitor to keep abreast of what other countries are doing, not only in their assessments but in their management plans. We have public nominations under CEPA; if anybody from the public has a concern about a substance in commerce, there is a process to bring that to our attention, and we must respond to that.
I've mentioned the new substances notification process. Also, we have emerging science and international assessments, which I partially touched on, whereby our scientists, risk assessors, and risk managers are constantly keeping abreast of what other countries are doing, both on the science side and on the management side.
Finally, and very important--at least for my branch in science and technology--we do data collection; that is, we have biomonitoring programs whereby we're looking at water, wildlife, and fish, but we also have research programs. Under chemical management plans, we have a very good process in place to identify substances that we think might be of concern, and we conduct research on those to try to better understand the fate of these substances in the environment or their actual harm to animal life or environmental conditions.
:
Certainly. As we mentioned, the risk management strategy pulls together the risks and sources of a problem and how we should deal with them.
In the area of mercury, the original sources dealt with were large industrial emitters. Since that time, having many of those sources closed off, we are now looking at other sources, and many of those are in products. We have a pollution prevention plan dealing with mercury in lamps. We have measures coming into place--sorry, that's on switches. We have measures with provinces on lamps, and we're doing work on dental amalgam, which is another source that can get directly into the water. It's a very easy solution to deal with.
The risk management strategy sets out what you're trying to achieve and what are the major sources. We're using a mix of regulations, codes of practice, instruments with the provinces, pollution prevention plans--a number of different tools to deal with those.
The monitoring and release information informs us of whether there are ongoing sources that we need to deal with. In this case, it's the research is pointed to sources outside Canada, largely from Asia and other countries like the United States as well.
That is what has taken us into dealing with the United Nations Environment Programme to work on a legally binding instrument that would deal with sources from all countries. It would also help to deal with the fact that products may be manufactured offshore, not in Canada, and imported into Canada. It's very difficult to deal with it once it comes into Canada. It's sometimes difficult to know what the content is.
So it's very important to deal with countries, particularly in Asia, with its big manufacturers, to send the signal that mercury has to be eliminated except for essential products and that in those essential products it needs to be controlled to a certain limit, with labels as to what that limit is.
I'd like to focus my questioning on filing complaints. I believe this was referred to in chapter 1 of the environment commissioner's report. My questioning is directed to the Department of the Environment, whichever one of the witnesses wishes to speak for it.
Under section 342 of the statute, the department is required to make a report annually to Parliament on both administration and enforcement on the one hand, and on research on the other. That's a very clear, unambiguous reporting requirement. It's an annual report.
It looks as though the department has failed to file annually since the beginning. This reaches back four or five years. There hasn't been a report filed for the fiscal year that ended in March 2009. There's no report for that year. That's a whole year gone by without a report. I'd just like to ask either of the witnesses who wanted to speak to this where the report for that particular fiscal year is.
:
One thing I wanted to emphasize--and I'm not someone who chases statutory deadlines for the fun of it--is that these reporting mechanisms are there to assist Parliament in its work. The report isn't filed anywhere else. The report is for Parliament. In not filing on a timely basis, departments would handicap Parliament.
I'll ratchet that up just a little bit further. Failure to file in accordance with the statutory requirements would likely lead to a contempt of Parliament, and it would be your minister who would face this. If it's any help, I'll refer you to the rulings of Speaker Fraser in 1992 and 1993. They're pretty clear.
At some point, if your department is going to continue to be late--I'll be kind and say late, but it has actually never filed an annual report, and it tried to cover off two years with one report--your minister, your department, is going to be looking at something on the floor of the House of Commons, because some opposition member is going to decide that it's time to ring the bell. It might be me. I don't know. I've done it before.
I just wanted to get your comments. I wanted to get a commitment that the report you referred to is really on the conveyor belt, that it's going to be done soon, and that there will be good compliance in the future.
This is for Mr. Enei or anyone at the Department of the Environment or Department of Health.
Maybe even the brand new deputy minister of Health would like to try to answer this question; I'm sure you can, but it might not be fair because you're brand new.
I'm curious as to why we're using the term “risk management instead of “precautionary principle”. How did we get to risk management?
This process at Health Canada, the chemicals management plan, is in my view perhaps the most significant ever in assessing 200 high-priority substances and being on schedule for the assessments at 170. I also think that 70 assessments a year is an accomplishment. I think you're doing the right thing.
When you started this in 2006, you completed a triage of 23,000 existing chemicals. You identified 4,300 chemical substances for further attention and got it down to your high-priority substances. I've never seen government work this well on an environmental issue. Your accomplishments are very, very considerable.
Congratulations on being the first country in the world to ban bisphenol A in baby bottles. I think that was a gutsy move. I think it was a gutsy move to ban lead in children's toys. I think it will save lives. It will protect the health of infants and children.
My concern is about using the term “managing risk”. I'm wondering how important it is to have lead in consumer products at all. Why don't you use the momentum you now have—in fact, Canada is leading the world on lead and bisphenol A—and declare with some of these chemicals that by the precautionary principle, because the chemical is not proven safe for any use, you're going to ban the substance until the industry can prove it safe? Declare to industry that you are going to operate under the principle of “better safe than sorry”.
Everybody is anxious to try to answer that question.
Voices: Oh, oh!
:
I'll start and then allow some of my colleagues to jump in.
You compared the precautionary principle to risk management. The precautionary principle actually guides us throughout that entire cycle, and it guides us through the risk assessment phase. I'm sure my colleagues would be welcome to speak more on that aspect.
But as has been mentioned, many of these substances are quite ubiquitous. They're serving a purpose in society. For instance, we're still using mercury in instrument measurement. What we try to do is avoid future exposures. We try to control existing exposures. In some cases, that will be a ban--it's an appropriate tool--and in other cases, we look for phase-out over time. We also look for the precautionary principle even in terms of where our enforcement efforts come in. I think a precautionary principle applies throughout.
We do try to balance whether or not something is performing a useful purpose, if the risk can be controlled, and if there can be prevention of any releases to the environment and exposure to human health. Whether the substance has a useful value to society is something that we do have to demonstrate in our risk management. We have to compare the benefits and costs to get the appropriate instrument.
The other thing is that some of these substances are naturally occurring. With lead and mercury, you're always going to have some residual levels in the environment from natural sources. It's a matter of managing the exposures and trying to find the most cost-effective way to do that. That's where the precautionary principle does help us choose the appropriate measure.
I want to follow up a little bit on page 26 and exhibit 2.5: “Toxic substances are present in household dust”. Madame Faille raised an issue. It would appear that there is always a conflict between what consumers demand and what we are actually concerned about.
In this particular exhibit, you talk about the household dust that is present. It comes out of all sorts of things that we use, such as electronics and cellphones. There's been a concern about cellphones, about the transmission of their waves and brain cancer, and yet I think if you were to go around this room you would see that everybody has at least one of them. Yet because it seems to be a consumer demand, we as consumers will set aside--“well, it's not going to happen to me”--whatever the issue is.
One of the things that is not mentioned here is the example of the energy efficient light bulbs that we have. There are all sorts of statistics out there to suggest that the worst things you could actually have in your house are these energy efficient light bulbs, because of what they expel when they're on. And if they break, you don't want to be around them. The question is, are they disposed of in landfill sites? For most of them, there is no specific place for them to go; they get thrown in the trash, and when the trash goes out, that's what happens to many of them.
How are we regulating, in our risk management, the consumer demands that do not always seem to reflect the environmental concerns or the health concerns of Canadians? I guess that question goes certainly to the AG's office and to Health and Environment Canada.
:
I can start, and I'll allow my colleagues to add to it.
You're quite right that many of these things are ubiquitous in products. That's why we are working on this regulation to deal with, for instance, the content of mercury in products. We envision this regulation becoming a standard to which we can add other substances so that we can quickly regulate these other substances that contain hazardous products.
The second thing we are working on--and we are working with the provinces on this--is what we call “extended producer responsibility”. Many of the provinces already have requirements that hazardous substances have take back programs, so that the substances go back to the manufacturer or are disposed of in a specific way.
We are now looking at whether or not there should be national regulations governing extended producer responsibility. There are also initiatives that municipalities and private companies are putting in place.
There are the two ends of the spectrum. One is preventing or reducing the amount of a hazardous substance in a product, and the second is dealing with the disposal of that product in a safe and sound manner. With respect to things like computers, there are now places that do collect and disassemble them in Canada. Sometimes there are actually valuable minerals that can be recycled and reused. That is now happening in Canada.
There are also standards for avoiding shipping offshore without proper assurances that it's going to be disposed of properly. For the Government of Canada, Public Works governs that, but it is in response to the regulations and instruments that we're putting in place.
I want to stay on the issue of lead and mercury. To listen to all of you, including you, Mr. Commissioner, you would think that there may be a problem or two out there, but everything is okay and nobody needs to worry about anything. That's the impression I'm getting from all of you.
I focus on the commissioner. Your rather detailed defence of the ministry actions was noted.
I want to just put on the record here that we're talking about lead and mercury. I'm from the labour movement and we've been dealing with these things for an awfully long time. When I started out, my very first elected position in the whole world was as chair of my little shop's health and safety committee.
Anyway, Commissioner, your chart shows that of seven substances, three of them were listed in 1988 as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Here are the potential hazards of lead listed in the commissioner's document:
High blood pressure, kidney damage, nerve disorders, memory and concentration problems, cognitive impairment and learning disabilities in children, difficulties during pregnancy, digestive problems, pain in the muscles and joints.
Lead poisoning noted in wildlife.
Mercury was listed in 1988 as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Its potential hazards include:
Permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Damage or irritation of the lungs, stomach, intestines, and airways.
Mercury poisoning noted in wildlife.
This is what we're talking about. Again, everything sounds just fine up here, and yet I look at your report and listen to what you said this morning, Commissioner, and it's just not clear to me, because you're the one who said in your prepared remarks, “This”--meaning your audit--“underscores a key observation of the audit: despite progress, the risk posed by toxic substances such as lead and mercury still require active management”. You say, two paragraphs later, “The first relates to risk management strategies”.
I know that you basically said, “I don't know what you are talking about, Mr. MP”, and that I was all wrong and they were all right, but I'm just reading your words, sir. That same paragraph says: “While these strategies were in place for the 5 of the 7 substances we examined, they are still not in place for lead and mercury”.
So, Commissioner, I'm asking you, sir, is there a problem or not?
:
Thank you very much for the question.
The reason we did this report is exactly to underscore that there is a problem. So my previous comment was not on the management, which is what this audit looked at; the previous comment was on the assessment part.
On the management part, the reason we did this report was for exactly the reasons that you've underscored right now. We picked a range of toxic substances that pose health and environmental risks, ranging from cancer to reproductive problems to development problems, particularly in children.
We know that scientists have known for years that children and infants aren't little adults, so exposure of even minute amounts of these substances can create significant, acute problems over the long term. Particularly for children, we pointed out several problems, including what we've discussed this morning: products that can be found on the shelves in Canada which exceed acceptable limits and therefore pose health risks to the most vulnerable segments of the Canadian population--children. That's the first point.
On the second part of this, Mr. Chair, if I may say so, I think the previous member's question on the issue of precaution is exactly at the heart of this question, and it is in the assessment and management process that the precautionary principle, in my understanding.... And these are complicated questions. When does the weight of evidence stop because there are some unknowns? And when you don't know, when do you then say that we can't authorize, license, or let these products or these exposure rates come to the shelves or expose Canadians to them?
That, I think, is an important debate and an important discussion, which the whole idea of the precautionary principle, from the Earth Summit and before, was intended to address. In the face of the risk of irreversible damages, you should err on the side of precaution. We do this in the business world. We do it elsewhere.
Finally, Mr. Chair, if I may, the reason we picked these chemicals, and the range of these chemicals, is that they last for a long time. They're persistent and they're bioaccumulative. On the risks related to long-term, low-dose exposure to many of these chemicals, we simply do not know the answer. But we do know that in Canada today, one to three or one to four adults will be diagnosed with cancer. We know that the Canadian Cancer Society has said there are many reasons for this, but one of them is environmental exposure rates.
That's just to underscore the reason we've done this audit and the reason we've had excellent cooperation, not only with the two departments but with many others, including NGOs we have worked with on this: because these are serious environmental risks and they're serious health risks.
Might I just express a sincere level of thanks to all of you for coming here today? Like many of my colleagues, I don't believe there is a greater service that we as parliamentarians can perform than to advance the role of health and safety and the protection of Canadian citizens.
As such, both the departments and the commissioner play a significant role in bringing that to our attention, because we cannot prepare or propose legislation or resolutions unless—building on Mr. Lee's comment—the information is accurate and timely. We would emphasize that fact, and I think that's very important, but I can tell you that we certainly appreciate the effort you are making. In particular, of course, we certainly appreciate the dramatic improvement that we've seen in the chemicals management plan, both the establishment of that and the results of that. I would echo Mr. Young and say that I'm very, very pleased to see this.
I have a particular concern that I would just like to build upon. It's the comment made by the commissioner when he mentioned long-term, low-dose exposure. I'd like to direct my question to our health officials with just a little bit of history on this.
Twenty-five or more years ago, I was in municipal politics in a municipality that was affected by mercury in the Deloro Smelting situation. There was mercury contamination and arsenic down through the entire river system, and obviously a very abnormally high level of concern for serious illnesses or afflictions due to the toxins, as presented by our medical officer of health at that particular point.
I asked that medical officer of health at an open meeting that was held then what process she had in place, or what studies, that would give us, if we were bringing this under control, the long-term low exposure that was going to stay. At that time, her response was, “We are undertaking that study and we will have answers for you”. It's 25 years later. I still don't have an answer to that.
Are there long-term low exposure studies under way with regard to these toxins? If so, what are the results? And if not, why not?
It is a national initiative, but there are a number of sites across the country. There are pilot sites at various points so we aren't just gathering information in one part of the country, for example. They are distributed across the country.
For example, we also have a program to work with first nations communities, because we know that we have some specific risks. We want to follow up and make sure that we can augment our information from the national study to understand whether there are specific risks in those communities.
We also know that, particularly with mercury, historically there have been some challenges for Inuit people because of some of the exposures in the Arctic. So we have a particular protocol called the northern contaminants program, in which we work with INAC and others in the community, with the territories, and with the aboriginal groups in the Arctic to make sure that we can have an ongoing mechanism to examine and look at that particular population, where we know from the research that there are specific issues.
That's an important question. On PCBs, what we've noted, as Mr. Vaughan has mentioned, is that during our work we talked to various organizations involved in the management of toxic substances and this issue came up. We were speaking to an expert, a researcher in Toronto who has been pursuing this, who also pointed out that research is taking place both in Europe and in the United States regarding this issue.
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has launched new research into the presence of PCBs in caulking in older buildings. They have issued guidance for schools. It's an old substance. It's an emerging issue with respect to an old substance. Again, it's an example of how we may feel that we've made a lot of progress in terms of some of these substances, and then science comes along and says there are still some issues that need to be addressed.
So just in summary, there are researchers in Europe and the United States, as well as Canada.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
We certainly share the view that this is an important emerging issue. As has been noted, this is an issue that has emerged relatively recently. Our scientists are aware of it. We've been in discussions with the U.S. EPA, for example. As they are doing research, we want to be linked to it so we are in touch with them.
As was noted earlier, we try wherever we can to work in partnership with other countries. If any one of us discovers something new, an emergent issue, we will work on it. It's also an issue that we will monitor as the science develops.
But even while it's in the developmental stage, we will make our colleagues in the provinces and territories aware. Because there may be occupational health and safety guidance they would want to follow up on even while the science is developmental.
So this is an issue we are monitoring internationally, and if the science that we discover, or that our partners discover in concert with us...we share this information. If we have new information that additional action is warranted, then we will certainly take it.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Dreeshen.
That concludes the second round. I just have one quick question to Ms. Yeates and perhaps to Mr. Gray.
One of the primary documents that parliamentarians receive on an annual basis is, of course, the departmental performance reports from each of the departments--the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health. The reports are to be used by legislators, the public, and the media. I usually read them before the hearing. I didn't read them in this particular case, but I will, and if I read them, is there a very good, readable summary on this whole issue--because it is an important issue--in your departmental performance reports?