ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 27, 1998

• 1532

[Translation]

The Chairman (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of the House dated April 28, 1998, the Committee resumes consideration of Bill C-32, an Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

[English]

Before we start, I have two brief announcements. One has to do with the committee's work and the possibility, which is not entirely hypothetical, that the House may adjourn around or on June 12, which would be 10 days before the scheduled adjournment of June 22. If that were to happen—and the chances are only 50-50, but I would like to advance this thought with you—then this committee could not, however, evade its responsibility to sit the week of June 15. Therefore, I'm asking you to keep your minds open and your general spirits in a positive mood so as to include in your plans the sitting of this committee on June 16 in the morning and June 17 in the morning, which is a Wednesday and the House won't be sitting, and then June 18, Thursday in the morning, which would give you ample opportunity in the afternoon to deal with your correspondents and all the heavy items that are waiting on the respective desks.

• 1535

This is only a suggestion as to how we could organize those three days. As an alternative, if you prefer, particularly those who come from far away, we could sit on Tuesday morning and afternoon and then Wednesday morning or afternoon, and then therefore free up the Thursday, if you like. So there could be permutations, but the essence of the whole item would be that you please keep that week in mind as a week in which this committee would hear witnesses who have already been notified and so on and so forth.

Certainly, your cooperation would be extremely appreciated, and I would welcome, privately, not to take up the committee's time, your comments and advice.

The second item, before we proceed with our witnesses, and I apologize to them for these items, is that yesterday in the House the minister indicated during Question Period that the enforcement review by this committee is one that she requested. I will read from Hansard her reply to a question, I believe, by the hon. member from Churchill. She said, and I quote:

I understand that there are some difficulties with enforcement measures being taken in my department. For that reason I requested my department to undergo a review some months ago.

She went on to say

I also requested that the standing committee do a review of enforcement.

So the report of this committee has now a ministerial imprimatur, if you like, which we certainly welcome, and which certainly places on us a responsibility of following it up, perhaps in the fall or in the winter, six months from now, so as to determine what progress has been made with respect to our recommendations.

Having brought this to your attention—and I'm sure you're avid readers of Hansard and it did not escape your attention—may I then call on our witnesses.

Today it is a health day, I understand. We welcome the strong presence of the health department, which is a co-sponsor of this bill, and of course we welcome again the Environment Canada officials. Since you're new to us, could I ask Mr. Raphael perhaps to kindly introduce himself and his colleagues and then to give us the benefit of his views. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Rod Raphael (Acting Director General, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to introduce to you the staff from Health Canada who are here today to speak with you and members of the committee. With me is Dr. Vic Armstrong. He is the chief of the environmental substances division of Health Canada, within the environmental health program. Also here is Dr. Andy Gilman, who is the acting director of the bureau of chemical hazards within the environmental health program; and Ms. Wendy Sexsmith, from the pest management regulatory agency. I am Rod Raphael, the acting director general of the environmental health program within Health Canada.

The Chairman: Can you give us an idea of how strong the directorate is in terms of personnel?

Mr. Rod Raphael: The program employs 450 people in Ottawa and across the country in all provinces and territories of Canada. The size of the entire program budget is approximately $50 million of program spending within the management of risks business line of Health Canada.

• 1540

The Chairman: Great. Please feel free to go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Rod Raphael: Okay. We appreciate the opportunity to speak before the members of the committee to give them an overview of our role under the Act.

Environmental pollution is an issue of public interest. The public very often links the environmental problems to the health problems. According to recent surveys, 60% of Canadians think that their health is already undermined by pollution. Our role is critical since we have to protect the health of the population against the impacts of environmental pollution. The efforts we make to protect health and environment, together with our colleagues from Environment Canada, date back to the 1975 Environmental Contaminants Act. Such legislation led us to proclaim the first act, in 1988, where we indicated very clearly that the protection of life and human health was the cornerstone of regulations. Environment Canada was always responsible for enforcing the act. Health Canada is very proud to co-sponsor this new bill and looks forward to a long and fruitful collaboration.

[English]

In the area of CEPA management, as we move through my presentation and deck, I'd like to discuss the CEPA management structure we have between the departments and within Health Canada for accountability, coordination, and linkages.

Health Canada and Environment Canada are represented on various committees together to operationally perform our work under CEPA. There's a CEPA management committee at the director general level. With respect to coordination, there's an ADM, assistant deputy minister, board of directors. And we have linkages with our provincial colleagues through the federal-provincial advisory committee and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. There are MOUs detailing our work in many of these areas between the two departments.

In particular I'd like to point out the Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health, which is a federal-provincial-territorial body advising Health Canada. It's made up of provincial, federal, and territorial representation from environment departments, occupational health departments, and health departments.

What is the power of this linkage between Health Canada and Environment Canada? We can address the various aspects of an environmental and health issue, and it allows for effective use of resources in this linkage. As you already are aware, many administrative functions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are solely performed by the Department of the Environment, but cooperation and a stronger response to broader issues is possible.

An example is our joint work with the National Air Issues Coordinating Committee, another federal-provincial body, but slightly different in that it incorporates energy and environment representation from the provinces and the federal government, and health as well. We also have extensive linkages with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment through their environmental planning and priorities committee. So there are linkages between our various departments, and these linkages extend out to our colleagues in the provincial sphere.

Specifically on Health Canada and the provinces and territories, I've already mentioned to you our Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. In November 1996 the Principles of Cooperation on Health and the Environment was signed by federal and provincial health and environment ministers. This agreement states that governments in Canada are responsible for ensuring their decisions protect health of the ecosystem. Canadians are responsible for making decisions that create and sustain their own health and the health of the ecosystem. These principles and areas of cooperation, shown on the next four slides and pages, were designed by members of the CCME as well as provincial health and labour ministries.

• 1545

In the area of the principles, all Canadians should have the opportunity to live in healthy environments in harmony with nature. Healthy ecosystems are essential to the health of all life on earth. Prevention strategies are preferred to corrective or remedial measures, or react-and-cure strategies, as we often refer to these measures. Canadians need to be equipped with information to make decisions that create and sustain ecosystem and human health.

Continuing with the principles agreed to by health and environment ministers federally and provincially, development today must not undermine the development and environmental needs of the present and future generations. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Sustainability requires better scientific understanding, necessitating the sharing of knowledge and innovative technologies.

In the area of cooperation, we and the governments are committed to making every effort to improve knowledge and exchange of information about human and ecosystem health and their determinants—and in health parlance, that's often called the determinants of health framework; identify priority areas for Canada-wide coordinated action; support collaboration between Health, Environment, and other related departments, such as the occupational health sector, the labour ministries, and the agriculture ministries with respect to food safety issues; and develop interdisciplinary strategies to promote ecosystem and human health.

Another area of cooperation that is required is to strengthen partnerships between governmental and non-governmental groups and facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation.

I'd like to move now to discuss the role of CEPA in health protection. As you may be aware, our environmental health program rests within the risks management business line of Health Canada, but structurally is found within the Health Protection Branch, which leads me to the use of the term “health protection”.

CEPA can trigger risk management action. Our mission in Health Canada is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Within Health Canada we have a major role in assessment and management of health impacts of toxic substances in many program areas mandated by a variety of statutes, such as the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, the Pest Control Products Act, the Hazardous Products Act, as well as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

CEPA was drafted in a manner that avoided duplication with other acts administered by the department. CEPA complements the statutes in protecting human health, as, for example, in the case of actions on some heavy metals. Although through the FDA and the Hazardous Products Act, the HPA, we were able to control lead in certain products, it was only through CEPA that we could effectively limit exposures to one major remaining environmental source of lead, and that is gasoline.

In redrafting CEPA, the complementarity of the act with other legislation was a key issue. We'll elaborate on this later.

I'd like to move in the presentation to our risk assessment-risk management framework that we employ within the health area. Health Protection Branch follows this risk determination framework in order to most effectively meet our obligations to protect human health. The framework distinguishes processes for risk assessment—and you see up above the risk analysis and option evaluation stages—from the risk management elements, the decision implementation, and the monitoring, evaluation, and review components. The framework allows for a systematic and rational approach to risk determination across a range of health risk issues with which the branch is involved, such as consumer products, therapeutic products, disease prevention, injury prevention, and environmental protection.

• 1550

The CEPA risk assessment and risk management process for health is consistent with our risk determination framework within Health Protection Branch, and I should say our branch framework is currently under retooling to ensure that the branch continues to meet its mandate in the future. Some of you may have heard reference to this as part of our Health Protection Branch transition initiatives.

In the area of the current CEPA and the powers and responsibilities of the Minister of Health, we are specifically mandated with respect to chemicals and biotechnological products in the following areas: to establish guidelines as in part I, the health-based objectives, codes of practice, and guidelines; to research in terms of information gathering, the assessment of risks to health, and the development and implementation of means to manage these risks effectively; and in the area of international air pollution, to assess the health impacts and to participate in strategies designed to mitigate and reduce these health effects.

CEPA risk assessment is an effort shared equally between Environment Canada and Health Canada. Environment Canada carries out a large proportion of the risk management obligations, with Health Canada presently taking largely an advisory role.

In the determination of toxic, we'd just like to say that although this is more of a legal definition than a scientific one, it does deserve some discussion. It encompasses the concept that harm to the environment or health depends not only on the toxic properties of a substance itself, such as the inherent toxicity or the traditional scientific sense of inherent toxicity, but also on the amount to which humans and other environmental receptors are exposed. Thus, the level of risk depends on the level of exposure, as well as the innate hazard or toxicity of the substance.

The CEPA definition of toxic in essence corresponds to our understanding of the concept of risk, since risk depends on the nature of possible adverse effects and the probability of their occurrence. This in turn depends on the potency of the substance, susceptibility of the individual host or receptor, and the level of exposure, as I've already said.

The assessment of toxicity under CEPA therefore requires an examination of relationships between the amount of a substance in the environment, the pattern of exposure, and the nature and severity of adverse effects.

In a discussion of CEPA-toxic, I think it has to be understood that risk assessments provide the scientific basis for taking action and that the designation of toxic helps to set priorities for action. A determination of non-toxic does not mean no concern or no action. Decisions are based on knowledge and a precautionary approach in order to prevent adverse health impacts. There are many examples of substances that have not been declared toxic in this sense but are controlled by a variety of measures, such as provincial health legislation, product safety legislation, labelling requirements, and so on.

Research is a very important element in support of health protection. Within Health Canada, environmental contaminants research is undertaken in many areas, including food, radiation, reproductive health, drinking water, and many others. Today we will focus on areas of research directly related to delivering on our responsibilities under CEPA.

In the area of air toxics, for which I appeared before this committee a few years ago and discussed some of our research efforts on some elements, particulate matter is of great concern. Particles can worsen effects in sensitive lungs, in particular people suffering from pre-existing illnesses and diseases, such as asthmatics. A compounding of effects between particles and ozone has been demonstrated from our research.

• 1555

In the area of endocrine disruption and disrupters, new methods are being developed in our laboratories to evaluate the effects of environmental chemicals on endocrine and reproductive systems.

In the area of genotoxicity, priority substances are tested for their potential to cause mutations and chromosomal or DNA damage.

In neurotoxity, there is evidence that chemicals in the environment and workplace alter the function of the nervous system.

Our research includes CEPA priority substances and other substances of concern, such as workplace solvents, such as hexane and some alternative fuel elements that we perform research on under the federal panel on energy research and development often referred to as PERD.

Some of our accomplishments under CEPA are listed in the next slide. Within the area of existing substances, PSL assessments were conducted by both Environment and Health Canada. As I'm sure you're well aware, decisions on CEPA toxicity are agreed upon by both ministers. Of the 44 PSL1, the first round of substances, 25 have been designated as CEPA-toxic, 19 on the basis of concern for human health; 6 substances were placed on the schedule 1 list and are prepared for action, and 18 more are proposed for addition to this list in anticipation of control strategies.

In the strategic options process, we have actions that were set up for either industrial sectors emitting a range of CEPA toxics or for individual substances. These SOPs, as we refer to the strategic options processes, covered 16 of the PSL1 toxics; 5 reports have been completed, and 4 are in draft form.

Health Canada, with Environment Canada taking the lead as a department, has participated in all the strategic options processes.

In the area of new substances, our new substance program incorporates a pollution prevention approach in reducing health risks, with controls on import and manufacture being possible if there is evidence warranting a suspicion of toxicity.

Transitional substances are substances introduced into Canadian commerce between 1987 and 1994 and therefore are not covered under the other two programs of new substances or existing substances. There are approximately 5,000 of these chemicals, often referred to as transitionals. Health Canada has received 4,000 notifications from Environment Canada for assessment and has reviewed 96% of these. Final assessments have been completed.

The Chairman: Sorry. You're giving us some very interesting statistics that are not in the slides, the ones that you are reading right now and also some that you read on page 16 when dealing with soon-to-be-completed assessments. These are very interesting figures.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Right.

The Chairman: So what do we do about that?

Mr. Rod Raphael: I'll provide a copy of the complete set of notes to the committee. I was under the impression that you had some of this information.

The Chairman: We have what you have supplied us with, nothing more than that. But you are reading from a text that is not before us.

Mr. Rod Raphael: We have the text in both languages, and we will provide that to the committee. I wish to apologize to the chair and the committee.

The Chairman: Can you do it now?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes.

The Chairman: What's the whole point if we don't have it before us? I'm raising this because at this very moment you are giving the committee some very interesting information.

In the meantime, please go ahead. We don't want to cut into question period.

Mr. Rod Raphael: In the area of air quality guidelines, we have completed work on carbon monoxide and hydrogen fluoride. As well, guidelines are under way in a federal-provincial process for work under particles in terms of PM and smog in terms of ozone.

• 1600

There are other health-based guidelines and values that have been published in a forum to assist in risk assessment and risk management under CEPA, as well as other pieces of legislation, federally and provincially.

It is the intent of the renewed CEPA to support the philosophy, principles, and intent of the government's response. We believe the renewed CEPA meets our red book commitments and is consistent with federal policy, and in particular our strategy on sustainable development. It provides direction for our future work in the area of health protection, specifically with respect to environmental impacts on health protection.

Briefly, the impacts of Bill C-32 on Health Canada will require an expanded role in the assessment and management of toxic substances. In particular, it will accelerate some of the risk assessment and risk management processes and have more accountability in the risk assessment and risk management with respect to timeframes and specific guidance laid out in the bill.

There's also a new role within the area of international water pollution, which we are expecting to have activity on in Health Canada. A more specific and defined role in terms of research on health has been laid out within Bill C-32. If not explicit, there are implicit requirements with respect to health advice and the actions of the Minister of Health with respect to environmental and human health protection.

Health Canada's role in the international arena deserves some discussion. We are a participant in OECD programs. We are also participating in the International Program on Chemical Safety, whereby we share our evaluations on an international scale with other countries and partake in joint evaluations of hazards and risks of certain chemicals internationally.

Under the UN/ECE protocol and the UNEP programs, we're involved in global agreements and negotiations on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals that may transit through long-range tracking of air pollution. More recently, we have taken a leadership role within the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety with a staff member of Health Canada being named president of this forum.

What are our challenges in the area of CEPA and environmental protection specifically today? It's clear that environmental pollution has health costs and will involve difficult societal choices in preventing these impacts. It's clear that toxics demand an addressing of public concern. With respect to pollution control, an important element has to be within the challenges that face us in Health Canada, the documentation of health benefits within pollution control, and pollution prevention strategies.

I'd like to touch on, as I finish, sustainable development and how Health Canada links sustainable development activities with our work under CEPA. I think the committee has been provided copies of our Health Canada sustainable development strategy, which was tabled by the minister before Parliament in December, in accordance with the environmental commissioner's mandate.

The proposed new CEPA makes health protection central to environmental protection. In our strategy, we clearly have made linkages between health, environment, people, and the ecosystem. You cannot look at protecting one without the other. It's very important to consider holistic strategies that do both.

• 1605

The new CEPA complements the health protection statutes of Health Canada. Health Canada has made strides and taken efforts to ensure our statutes will allow and permit for environmental assessment under those statutes of issues of concern, such as meeting our equivalency provisions under CEPA.

CEPA, we believe, is an essential component of the toolbox needed to implement sustainable development in Canada, in particular from a health protection framework.

You've also been given today a copy of our health and environment report, which is a compilation of our activities and some of our concerns in the area of health and environmental protection. This was also tabled before Parliament by Minister Rock as part of the sustainable development strategy, but as a separate document. I want to focus on the element that is the central theme, which is health and environment, partners for life. Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other statements you wish to make? If not, then I will invite the members of the committee to take full advantage of this opportunity.

There is a team from Health Canada and a team from Environment Canada. When you arrived at your seat you probably found an excellent series of material prepared by Mme. Hébert and Mme. Labelle from the research branch. They are available to you if you wish to make good use of them for questioning.

Finally, before we launch this first round of five minutes each so we can have a second round at least, I would like to thank Mr. Allard for his speedy replies, which are also at your desks, in answer to questions that were asked the last time by Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Gallaway, who also graced us with his presence.

Without further delay we'll start as usual with the Reform representative, Mr. Casson, suivi par M. Bigras.

Mr. Casson, the floor is yours.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 14, you mention that risk assessment provides a scientific basis for taking action. Could you maybe just explain exactly what that means?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Briefly, within the area of risk assessment and detailing the scientific basis for action, we examine information available on the hazard of a substance, as well as its presence, absence or exposure to which Canadians might be facing this substance.

This gives us an assessment around the substance itself in terms of not only knowing its toxicity, as per animal studies and toxicology, but also through the exposure assessment, which allows us to have an understanding of where there may be problems or issues that are confronting Canadians in terms of being exposed to this material. That is the risk assessment portion.

In terms of informing action, it is very important that we understand the sources of the material, how Canadians are being exposed, and to what extent they're being exposed, so we can properly evaluate the options we are facing for either various control strategies or risk reduction or elimination strategies. We need to know the basics, and the basics come within the risk assessment area, in terms of where the material is and how Canadians interact with it. That will inform the process and strategy that will be used to control or reduce the risk.

Mr. Rick Casson: How is a substance brought to your attention? How do you receive information there is a toxic substance that might be dangerous or a substance that needs to be analysed?

• 1610

Mr. Rod Raphael: It's brought to our attention through a variety of routes. The PSL process is one route. It's a more formal process, by which the ministers engaged an advisory committee, a body outside the department, to look at various substances across Canada and to seek information and input by experts at local, provincial, regional and academic levels and institutions. That's one process, the PSL process, by which ministers have become aware of substances that require action.

There are other routes. We have contacts with international agencies where there is a suspicion of something happening with a particular substance or potentially an international evaluation going on.

As well, we have information coming to us from environmental groups and industry groups, academia and so on, on an individual basis as well as through other governmental bodies, through our federal colleagues and through provincial governments.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I will have questions for the witnesses from Environment Canada later on. I will start with questions for those from Health Canada.

Mercury contamination is a very serious problem, especially in northern Quebec. It affects not only some commercial activities, but also public health. You are probably aware of the increase in the concentration of mercury in northern Quebec and of the mercury breaking up process which gives way to what is called methyl mercury, which, when absorbed, has impacts on aquatic life particularly, but also, through the food chain, on public health.

First, I would like to know if you studied the impact of methyl mercury on the health of the population. And secondly, would you by any chance have expressed your concern to the Department of Environment and would you have urged the environment officials to design regulations for the medium, short or long term? If you issued a notification, I would like to know if the committee could get a copy of it.

[English]

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes. Our work in mercury in Health Canada is long-standing. We've done well over 30 to 35 years of work in terms of toxicity, exposure assessment, risk assessment, and looking at risk mitigation and reduction measures. In particular, we have been involved with Environment Canada on the mercury issue. Various assessments have been provided over that time.

The focal point very early on in our mercury work was with respect to our responsibilities to advise on first nations health on the bio-concentration of mercury in certain traditional food sources.

We have done, and are continuing to do, extensive work in this area. With respect to information that's been provided in the past, I can make the commitment to provide that information to you in terms of a follow-up in terms of the specifics—mercury advisories, mercury warnings, and information notices that have been issued by Health Canada.

These are part of a collaborative and cooperative piece of work with our provincial colleagues in terms of not only traditional foods for first nations and others but also sport fisheries warnings, which are given usually through provincial ministries of health or natural resources, fish and game and wildlife ministries. So we can do that.

There is right now a very important piece of work going on with regard to mercury in terms of looking at the status with respect to mercury toxicity, especially the impacts of very low-level exposure to mercury, methyl mercury as well as inorganic mercury. That's going on now in collaboration and cooperation with Environment Canada and our provincial partners. We can bring to the committee's attention some of our work in that area as well.

• 1615

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: So you are going to send us the information confirming what you just told us and I thank you for it. My question is rather straightforward. You know that that kind of contamination cannot be regulated through the CEPA. Did you ask the Department of Environment to include in the new act a regulation for methyl mercury?

[English]

Mr. Rod Raphael: With respect to our request or demand for a new regulation, we are working with the environment department in looking at the application of CEPA and other means and statutes to control, as you've said, mercury, and to reduce the health impacts of mercury.

We have made known the importance of mercury in terms of human health, and the importance of controlling it, reducing it, reducing exposure to it, to our Environment colleagues. They have embarked on strategies to do that.

With respect to specific plans for regulations under CEPA, I might pass that over to my colleagues in Environment Canada to discuss the procedures and processes and priorities for action.

The Chairman: Somebody from Environment, please.

Mr. Glenn Allard (Director General, Special Projects, Department of the Environment): In terms of mercury, yes, mercury can be addressed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The main action that has been taken by Environment Canada with respect to mercury in a regulatory sense was done under the Fisheries Act, with control over mercury discharges from chlor-alkali plants.

I think that has been quite effective. It has resulted in a number of fisheries areas being reopened near these plants.

I think the main concern, and the difficulty with mercury, relates to the fact that it is a naturally occurring substance. One of the things we have found is that when large hydro dam projects are put in, the flooding of large areas has, I guess to our surprise, in many ways, resulted in some large areas in the northern area being contaminated with mercury.

Once that has happened, of course, there is really nothing one can do to control the particular source. It's a natural source, and it's very diverse.

So, yes, I guess the legislation can control mercury. I guess it depends on what particular instance you're concerned with. It's difficult to do once a hydro project has been built and the flooding has in fact resulted in mercury releases from natural sources.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras. Peut-être au deuxième tour.

Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a couple of questions related to the middle part of your docket. I was interested in the aspect related to POPs. I think that's going to be a very topical issue in the coming era.

Could you give me a little bit more background in terms of the work you're doing with respect to POPs in the Arctic right now?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Sure. In fact, I might turn that over to Dr. Gilman, who is part of the Canadian negotiating team on the international agreement.

Dr. Andy Gilman (Acting Director, Bureau of Chemical Hazards, Department of Health): Thank you.

In terms of the Arctic, Health Canada has worked extensively with Environment Canada and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on the production of the Canadian Arctic contaminant assessment report. If the committee doesn't have copies of that, we will get copies for them. There's extensive information on POPs in that document, and a very detailed health chapter.

The first blood studies have been completed in the north, looking at a comprehensive suite of persistent organic contaminants as well as metals. In that report there is information on mercury since 1970, so there's some very good information to provide you with.

The international negotiations that have just been completed under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe are being put forward for ratification shortly by international ministers. They essentially set timeframes for the elimination or control of a wide range of persistent organic substances within Europe, Russia, Canada, and the U.S.A. That's the general area of the UN/ECE region.

• 1620

Health Canada will be working with Environment Canada, Agriculture Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada, and Indian and Northern Affairs on the global negotiations to try to come up with an agreement among all countries in the world on these kinds of substances.

We know that we are dramatically affected in Canada by the long-range transport of persistent organic pollutants. We know that they enter the food chain. We know that they accumulate in every Canadian, north and south. We know that some of the levels of those contaminants in the blood of individuals living in the north who rely on traditional food is too high for our satisfaction and I think for their good health.

We have worked with the native communities specifically to try to provide advice in terms of some food items that they might eat a little less of while still consuming other traditional foods so they can gain the nutritional benefit but still reduce the intake of these persistent organic pollutants as we begin globally to reduce our reliance on these kinds of things.

Mr. John Herron: I might be wrong, but I think I've heard that there is a POPs conference slated for Canada this summer. How prepared are we as a country in terms of being able to take a leadership role at this kind of international conference?

Dr. Andy Gilman: You're right that as for the POPs conference, the international negotiating committee's first meeting is to be in Montreal at the very end of June and early July. It will be a one-week conference. Canada is very well positioned to offer itself as a lead country to chair that activity.

Mr. John Herron: So as for our record in terms of cleaning up our own backyard to be able to challenge the international community about our concerns, do we have our act together?

Dr. Andy Gilman: I think that will be a message that other countries will have. Canada was instrumental in pushing forward the UN/ECE initiative. We contributed with three other countries to the base document to get that started. We saw it through to a successful conclusion. Under NAFTA, as well, Canada has worked extensively with Mexico and the U.S. on some of these POPs issues whereby we have a trinational agreement.

So yes, I think the global community will say that Canada's a good broker and has a good track record, but we do have problems.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Laliberte followed by Mr. Knutson, Mr. Assadourian, and Mr. Pratt.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you.

I recognize the role of the health department in dealing with all this assessment. My questions are on a number of issues. As for the public access and publication of your risk assessments and risk substances, are they available for the media, the community, or local authorities, such as fire, health, or police authorities?

You touched on an area of northern concern. The Arctic is in a certain region, but the boreal forest goes a little bit further south than the 60th parallel, so sometimes the mid-north is missed for some of these assessments.

Does Health Canada look at cumulative effects on industry or with pollutants or delayed effects, such as radioactivity or other sorts of industry development in Canada?

What is your involvement? I know we're reviewing CEPA, but in terms of giving the final okay before CEPA kicks in, is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency involved in environmental assessments? This is before these projects or industries are given the green light. Do you analyse the risks and look at the global human and environmental impacts?

• 1625

Mr. Rod Raphael: I'll deal with the questions as you presented them. The first one was about the availability of our information to a variety of audiences for obviously a variety of purposes.

We produce risk-assessment documents that are published and made publicly available. Also, summaries are prepared and provided on our web site. We also provide fact sheets or summaries of these in hard copy. They're generally available.

The assessment documents and these public information materials are also forwarded through our colleagues in other federal agencies and departments, as well as through our provincial colleagues and contacts and through a public outreach program we have that focuses on Canada in terms of bio-regional concerns, such as that of the Great Lakes area and the St. Lawrence River, as well as our work on the Fraser River basin and the Arctic, which Andy Gilman already told you about. As well, there are some special projects that are under way in Atlantic Canada around the Sydney Tar Ponds. So yes, these materials are available and widely disseminated.

With respect to your second question, which was in terms of cumulative effects, yes, that's a part of our assessment process. To look at cumulative effects, it's often difficult at times in a technical realm to impart a great deal of certainty to some of these effects, but we do access information and develop information to address the issue of cumulative effects.

On your third question, which was about an overall risk analysis around environmental impact assessments, we are part of the federal response under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We do perform evaluations of projects and the like that come to us through that agency and through Environment Canada. We are responsible for health in a very wide sense, not just specific contamination and risk, but also in looking at the entire panoply of health, including socio-economic impacts as well.

The Chairman: This is the last question, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted something a little bit more specific on a region. Because of the atmospheric reality in northern Saskatchewan, we have a concern about the health impacts that are happening in our communities. We had the impact of receiving tar sands emissions and also the radioactivity with the high uranium content from mines in our northern region. Have any specific studies been done in the boreal region in that area?

Mr. Rod Raphael: We do have specific information that we obtained from Environment Canada monitoring in those areas in terms of particulates. That has gone into our particulate and dust assessments in terms of air quality. We access the full range of monitoring information provided provincially and federally to us as part of our assessment that deals with exposure.

I don't have specifics about northern Saskatchewan right now in front of me, but it's a concern when reviewing health impacts in those areas of various projects, such as mining and tar sands development.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for the justice department. I wonder if the Justice representative could join the table.

The Chairman: Do you have a letter?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chairman: Would you please introduce yourself for the record?

Mr. Duncan Cameron (Legal Adviser, Department of the Environment): I'm Duncan Cameron. I'm a legal adviser to the Department of the Environment.

• 1630

Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Cameron, I want to turn your attention to clause 64, which is the clause on virtual elimination. In the briefing notes we've been provided, at the bottom of page 55, it says:

While there is a focus in the definition on releases, [this section] can also be used to justify when generation or use should be prevented.

As I read that clause, it says you can prevent the release of a toxic substance in any measurable quantity. I'm just wondering what in that language would allow me to prevent the use or even the generation of a substance if I weren't releasing it. The briefing note suggests that the clause is more powerful than I see it, just on an initial reading of the words.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: The definition of “virtual elimination” in subclause 64(1) is, as the definition says, in respect of a substance that has been released into the environment. It would therefore follow that virtual elimination is a characteristic that applies to substances that have been released.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate that, but look at the briefing note at the bottom of the first page.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: I see it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's say you have a super-bad substance that you don't want used or generated—substance X or whatever. Unless I've misread this—and I may have—this briefing note is telling me that clause 64 can be used to prevent the use or the generation of a substance. That's the third line from the bottom of the briefing note. Is that...?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: Well, once you have a substance for which virtual elimination is the response or the action identified by the minister, then a virtual elimination plan is developed. Pursuant to the development of a virtual elimination plan....

Mr. Gar Knutson: We would no longer release it in any measurable quantity.

Mr. Duncan Cameron: That's how I read it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: But that's not the same as saying we wouldn't use it or we wouldn't generate it. If we wanted to have “use it” or “generate it”, then we could have put those words in.

Mr. Allard. Well, I'm not the chair, but....

Mr. Glen Allard: Is that all right?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Glen Allard: I've given away my copy of the book, so I don't have it in front of me, but basically clause 64 is defining “virtual elimination”. The actual regulatory requirements that would deal with virtual elimination are found further on, in clause 93.

In clause 93 there are powers that would allow us—and we have used them in the past—to ban the production of a substance, of a chemical, such as halons and CFCs in the case of the stratospheric ozone issue. Also, when you are talking about something that is contained in an industrial effluent, for example—and I'll use the specific example of dioxins from the pulp and paper industry—there are authorities within clause 93 that allow us to put that down to the lowest level we can measure it at, which is what we have done in the case of the pulp and paper industry.

So the operation.... You move from the definition of “virtual elimination” into the regulation-making authorities to actually implement or take the intervention you are going to take in a particular circumstance.

• 1635

Mr. Gar Knutson: Could you just show me what words you refer to? Because again, I go back to my original question. In clause 64 it says, “release below any measurable quantity”. The briefing note says “generation or use”, which is for me different. What words in clause 93 should I be reading to see where it does apply to using and generating?

Mr. Glen Allard: In terms of generation or use, there are a number of subclauses and paragraphs in clause 93. It's a very lengthy list, as you can see, of regulatory authorities. Paragraph 93(1)(e), for example, says: “the quantity of the substance that may be manufactured, processed, used, offered for sale or sold in Canada”. That quantity could be zero, and in some instances is.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, you have virtually eliminated yourself from questioning—

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: —but ask a final question, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So should the briefing note make reference to clause 93 then?

Mr. Glen Allard: Well, I'm going to have to read the briefing note now.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Just the third-last line.

Mr. Glen Allard: Actually the way the definition is written, it is dealing with the virtual elimination of releases, and probably the briefing note is not 100% correct in this case.

There are two situations you would deal with in terms of virtual elimination. When you get into virtual elimination, you are talking about a persistent, bio-accumulative, inherently toxic substance, and there are two situations.

One is where it is being discharged through a pipe into the air or through a pipe into the water. In those cases, it is where you reduce it to a measurable quantity, as per the example I gave with the pulp and paper industry.

If it is a product in trade and commerce, then the concept is that you would ban that product in trade and commerce, and you would use the regulatory authorities in clause 93.

I'll go through the briefing note, and if some changes are needed in it to clarify that, I will provide a new page for people.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Am I out of time?

The Chairman: We'll come back in the second round.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Allard, thank you.

Mr. Assadourian, followed by Mr. Pratt.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

My question has to do with health, the environment, National Defence, and the U.S. army. If you recall, last year or the year before, there was a documentary on TV about the U.S. base being closed on the east coast, I believe it was. Massive pollution was left behind, and a deal was worked out between Environment Canada, National Defence, and the U.S. government. Can you update that situation for us? Is the job done yet or not? That's my first question.

Second, what kind of relationship did we have with National Defence when we closed down a few bases in the east and what have you? Was there any environmental problem? Was there any cooperation between National Defence and Environment or not?

Mr. Rod Raphael: On your first question about updating on the specific base, is Argentia the one you're talking about?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I don't remember the name. It was an American base used for many years.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes, it was an American base in Newfoundland. I would probably defer that to my Environment colleagues, who were involved, as you said, with National Defence in the negotiations.

Your second question is more as to how we are involved as these processes unfold. We're involved basically in two ways.

One, as the principal health adviser to the federal government, we do cooperate with National Defence generally around contamination and toxics issues. Specifically in the area of base closures and National Defence operations, we have ongoing linkages through two routes. One is the environmental assessment route. Such closures or changes of ownership, or changes with respect to the base and base operations, require appropriate assessment via environmental assessment statute. And that information would come into our hands as a health assessment group, and we do those assessments as they are demanded by statutes and so on.

• 1640

The other route is one of assistance to DND in terms of emergency response and giving advice. For example, should there be a spill or some type of contamination, lets say, of jet fuel or what not, we do provide assistance to them in terms of health and safety advice on an emergency basis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: All right.

Mr. Rod Raphael: On your first question, in terms of a specific update on the Argentia file, I think I'd have to pass it to my colleagues.

Mr. Glen Allard: I guess when you're asking such a specific question I will have to give you that answer in writing, because I am just not up to date on where that particular base stands. I know there has been a lot of work done, but I'm just not up to date on it.

In terms of the overall relationship with National Defence, I think it's a strong and healthy one now. I think there have been improvements over the years and I think we have a good working relationship with National Defence at the moment.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So then I will receive the report on the base?

Mr. Glen Allard: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Pratt, please.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question relates to the whole issue of air quality and the problem that exists with what I would describe as environmental illnesses like asthma, for instance. I note from the executive summary of your report that you talk about air quality improving as a result of reductions in levels of most common air pollutants between 1979 and 1993. It says that concentrations of several major air pollutants, etc., have declined.

However, my own experience in representing a riding that has a high proportion of young families is that there seems to be a growing number of children who are developing lung problems, and specifically asthma. Your report also notes in this regard that the rate of hospitalization for asthma has increased by 27% for boys and 18% for girls in the last decade. Those are pretty astounding figures, in my view, and it confirms what I picked up intuitively, that there's a serious problem out there. How do you square the fact that air quality seems to be improving, at least over the last couple of decades, while the level of environmental illnesses like asthma seems to be increasing?

Mr. Rod Raphael: I think to answer your question appropriately we'd have to look at the information surrounding the two aspects. One, the improvements in air quality that are quoted in there are improvements that have been noted through environmental monitoring, but at the same time we have been learning more about people and how they react to air pollutants, in particular certain air pollutants that have not been monitored extensively during that period and that may have changed their levels resulting in what we're seeing today in a sense of exacerbation of existing illnesses such as asthma and maybe even a relationship to the root cause.

In terms of particulates and fine particulates, the knowledge we have today about the health effects of fine particulates didn't exist 20 years ago when that first period you're talking about in terms of the improvement of air quality was being noted in the report. In fact, it wasn't even there 10 years ago. It's only within the last, I'd say, three to five years that we've really begun to see on a population-wide basis the effects of some of these pollutants such as the fine particulates. We now have databases and assessment tools that are powerful enough to take some of what we might see as very small changes but on a population-wide basis might result in those statistics you're seeing.

• 1645

Asthma, as you've quoted from the book, has a particular set of data around it with its increase in incidence and so on. Asthma and the treatment of asthma is very complex. I think it's fair to say that the data we have show a relationship on an epidemiological basis between exacerbation and levels of certain air pollutants.

But what we do understand from our information is that there are many elements to the asthma puzzle that are sometimes unrelated to air pollutants. Sometimes they're more related to socio-economic status, exactly the other types of pollutants that may be in the environment that the individual is living in, or within their indoor environment as well.

As well, the treatment of asthma has changed and our approach through public health has changed. I think there is now a greater sensitivity to the use of medications and specifically the knowledge that improper use of medications can make things sometimes worse, irrespective of a pollutant situation.

So I think asthma is an indicator for us that there's something going on with respect to some of these pollutants that we know more about now than we did 20 or 25 years ago, and in particular fine particulates and the exacerbation of illness. As well—and this is the most disturbing part—we're beginning to find an association potentially between the onset of illness, which is different from exacerbation.... The statistics are not necessarily in discord.

Yes, the monitoring is showing that the things we were monitoring have gone down. We have also been learning about more things we need to monitor over the last 10 or 15 years and, in the last few years, some things that are in urgent need of monitoring, such as the fine particulates.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I have just a quick supplementary on that. In terms of the research Health Canada is doing, would you say you're taking the lead on research in this area, or is quite a bit of research being done at the university level?

Mr. Rod Raphael: In some aspects of this research, we have taken the lead and have actually developed unique assessment tools. In particular, there is our hospital admissions and mortality database work, which is quoted at the outset of this document. We have unique expertise in the country in this area of database linkage and morbidity/mortality analysis.

But we also have cooperation with academic institutions, and as well, on an international basis, with research programs that are run through the U.S. EPA and the Health Effects Institute in the U.S. But I see us in Canada as leaders. We have unique expertise. In fact, in some aspects of these studies, we're the only ones doing the studies.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

Mr. Jackson followed by Madame Sloan, followed by the chair, and then we'll have a second round.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Some of the contaminants, large percentages, are known to come from automobiles, and I guess over the years, in order for the engines to perform properly, they added lead or MMT for high compression ratios to get more power production. The cars have become better. They've sealed the gas tanks. They have charcoal canisters. They have closed positive ventilation systems.

But coming out of the tailpipe is carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen. There's talk of sulphur, and of course the NO_x and VOCs is what causes temperature inversions and creates atmospheric smog.

In California and places like that, they're a little more sensitive than we are, and the cars are very strictly regulated. Cars have stickers on them and they have to go in for check-ups to make sure the standards are met.

• 1650

Do we have a universal standard right across our country to try to cut down on this? Because a lot of those parts.... You can see it whenever there are rush hours in big metropolitan areas. The thing builds up and it does drift around. Are we doing anything at all about that, in any departments?

Mr. Rod Raphael: I'll lead off in answering that question, but I think our colleagues at Environment Canada should speak to some of the specific vehicle standards and technical issues.

Yes, we are involved in the development, the modification, and the bringing forward of health-based air quality standards nationally, in cooperation with the provinces. This work—and I should say that it's under CEPA—is very important.

In the area of ozone that you mentioned, smog, we will shortly be bringing forward a national standard. There have been many processes involving stakeholders and consultative frameworks over the years to elucidate scientific information as well as potential control strategies, but the answer is yes.

For particles, controls and standards are being developed now. Shortly we will be heading to an open consultation process on ozone. Work is under way through the NO_x/VOCs, the smog program, a smog management plan over many years.

We've already brought forward carbon monoxide updates and hydrogen fluoride updates, which were gazetted in the last fiscal year. Activity and action are under way. We are involved in looking at fuel additives and emissions as well as the other aspects of motor vehicles that will influence or change air quality and thus potentially have a health effect.

There is work under way, and probably at this point it would be best to turn it over to Glenn, who will talk about the automobile standards, the gas standards, and so on.

The Chairman: Mr. Allard, be brief.

Mr. Glenn Allard: I'll be very brief. There is a relationship, of course, between the fuel used in the vehicle, the actual emission controls, and the emission exhaust that results from a vehicle. Certainly, we're looking at both the fuel quality and the technology used on cars.

The vehicle emission controls are now, as a part of this legislation, being transferred to Environment Canada from the Department of Transport, and we certainly would expect to see improvements there in terms of the exhaust emissions. It will also be connected, over time, with the climate change issue. There are some new engine technologies coming in that will result in much less consumption of fuel. That will have an equal effect in terms of the exhaust gases from automobiles.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: There's just one small thing I want to add. Also coming out of the cars, although we don't talk about it, is the tire dust, the things coming off the tires, and the brakes, as to whether they have asbestos and so on. That gets into the atmosphere as well. Maybe you can't answer that now, but those are also sources of contaminants coming from cars.

Mr. Glenn Allard: Certainly in terms of particulate matter, yes, we are looking at that. I don't have the information right at my fingertips, but we are concerned about that aspect and that contribution to particulates.

The asbestos-in-brakes question has been looked into, but I'm afraid I just don't know the results of that review.

Mr. Ovid Jackson: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Raphael, on page 10 of your presentation you talked about how CEPA provides a safety net. Could you elaborate on CEPA as a safety net?

Mr. Rod Raphael: We see CEPA providing that safety net in terms of the strong presence within CEPA of risk analysis. The safety-net concept refers to the ability to catch things that may fall through the cracks in terms of other legislative mandates or other policies and actions. As such, CEPA provides that supportive framework around toxic substances management.

• 1655

I think in a more practical sense, as a program person, because of the strong risk assessment and risk management component within it, CEPA also offers a chance to inform other programs and activities that have responsibility for the management of toxic substances, maybe in products or in other aspects or endeavours. That's how we tend to see CEPA acting as a safety net.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you believe that the biotechnology section of CEPA acts as a safety net?

Mr. Rod Raphael: I believe the biotechnology section can do that by informing a certain standard of assessment as a hoop through which others must jump in terms of equivalency. I think it can do that. Maybe I'll ask Vic Armstrong for more comment on some of the specifics, if you wish, and to discuss the biotechnology aspect in more detail.

Dr. Vic Armstrong (Chief, Environmental Substances Division, Bureau of Chemical Hazards, Department of Health): Thank you. I think the recommendation and other reports from this committee advocated that there be a safety-net provision within CEPA—this is the current 26—and the new CEPA has been drafted to retain the provision, whereby if an environmental assessment of a new biotechnological substance is not going to be carried out under other legislation, then CEPA would in fact provide what we call the “safety net”.

Products that fall under other legislation would be exempted only if the provisions for pre-import and pre-manufacture of that substance were assessed with the same equivalency, as Rod Raphael mentioned, as provided under Bill C-32.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. I have another short question. What is Health Canada doing in regard to the study, investigation, and impact of endocrine disrupters?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Within Health Canada, the approach to the issue of endocrine disrupters has several foci. There is strong research activity within the Health Protection Branch, involving researchers and scientists from throughout, not just from the environmental health program but also from the food program, the therapeutics program, and the laboratory centres for disease control as well. There is a strong interest and activity in terms of research programming.

In terms of addressing issues in the area, we're also involved with our colleagues in the U.S. and with other international agencies in looking at where the research is guiding us on endocrine disruption. This week, I think, here in Ottawa, we have a conference, co-sponsored with Health Canada, on the scientific information surrounding endocrine disruption. We believe it's important to have this sound science; it's through that and through a thorough assessment of that that we will be looking at options or strategies surrounding some of these molecules or substances.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you feel that the current CEPA has provision in it to deal with endocrine disrupters or to regulate endocrine disrupters if the science is there to suggest that they are a problem, as some people are indicating?

Mr. Rod Raphael: I believe the provisions are there within existing substances as well as in new substances elements. I think the approach will be different, depending on how we will interact with some of these substances. If they are existing substances, they can be assessed as a priority substance and a determination of toxic can be made or not made, depending on the risk paradigm.

• 1700

The key element for us, I think, is to use CEPA to gather information as well. That's a major element within CEPA in terms of addressing issues such as endocrine disruption and in terms of having this scientific information inform the assessment and the management of these substances. I think CEPA does allow us to do that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Allard, in your letter to us dated May 26, you are putting on paper an alternative suggested by the Department of Justice. In your view, is that preferable? And if so, why?

Mr. Glenn Allard: It is very much our position, I think, that we want to have a clause in the administrative agreement that basically signals the fact that we do support intergovernmental arrangements, but we do not want to make those legally binding obligations.

As a result of the question Mr. Knutson had asked previously, I guess, we went back and looked at that particular wording in Bill C-32. We felt that it might be in fact interpreted as turning what we consider a political agreement—and I'm talking about the federal-provincial agreements on the harmonization accord—into a legally binding document. Certainly that was never the intent. The intent was that they should be political agreements.

Stimulated by that question, we have suggested some softer wording for that proposed section, wording that we feel would in fact still signal that we want to work under these agreements but would not tie our hands, in some circumstance, in a manner that might allow us not to use our legislative authorities in CEPA.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's very helpful, only I wonder whether stimulation is also required for other paragraphs, and if so, for which paragraphs.

This is quite an important bill, a pretty large one, and we cannot expect Mr. Knutson to do the job day and night.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Glenn Allard: When we get into clause-by-clause review, I'm certain that we in the department will receive all sorts of stimulation from the committee.

The Chairman: Can you envisage other paragraphs that require alternative wording by the Department of Justice at the present time?

Mr. Glenn Allard: I don't know of any at the moment.

The Chairman: Could I ask you, then, about page 3, where you make a reference to the regulatory policy of the Government of Canada, 1995? When that policy was drafted, was Environment Canada involved, particularly when it came to the cost-benefit analysis? Whose product is it? Which department was the lead department in the production of that particular regulatory policy report?

Mr. Glenn Allard: The regulatory policy was led by the staff of Treasury Board.

The Chairman: That's bad news, you know. It deals heavily with cost-benefit, judging from what you're telling us, and cost-benefit, as you know, can be manipulated in so many ways.

Mr. Glenn Allard: I think it's a balanced policy. Yes, there was consultation throughout the government with different departments in the development of this policy. In my view, it's balanced. It puts in some checks and balances between what is needed to deliver on social programs and what economic development needs are.

We feel it is a policy that all our regulations developed over the last 20-some years are consistent with. I guess we also feel that our ability to do some of the regulatory impact analysis and the cost-benefit analysis has improved significantly over that time. I don't think it's an unreasonable hurdle for us to deal with.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Was Health Canada involved, Mr. Raphael?

• 1705

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes, Health Canada was involved in that policy development process in a similar fashion to Environment and many other departments in terms of interdepartmental working groups and steering committees and so on. We do use and abide by the federal government regulatory policy to guide our regulatory policy development.

The Chairman: The clerk has kindly undertaken to provide a copy of that report to each member of this committee, possibly tomorrow.

I know members of the committee are overburdened with reading material. Nevertheless, I would urge you to find the time necessary to go through that particular study, because it has very serious implications on what we are doing through this bill.

Mr. Raphael, when you went over slide 16, you made reference in your verbal presentation to 18 more proposed substances placed on schedule 1 in addition to the 25, right?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes.

The Chairman: Could you please give us a list of the substances so that we know name by name what they are? Not now; perhaps later. It would be of benefit to committee members to know that.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes.

The Chairman: Could you also give us an indication, when it comes to strategic options processes, what is covered by those sixteen SOPs? As well, what do the five strategic options reports deal with. And the four that are in draft, what do they cover? Possibly you could include the completion date, if that is not asking too much.

Mr. Rod Raphael: No, I think we can try to provide this information to the committee.

Vic, did you want to mention anything around that process?

Dr. Vic Armstrong: No, although I can mention that what's being referred to in terms of the additional substances was published in the Canada Gazette.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, but we don't spend the evening reading the Canada Gazette, I can assure you.

Finally, my question has to do with smog. At what point does Health Canada decide that the smog condition is affecting human health? What are the indicators? Who is the lead department? How does that process work, particularly in such border locations as Windsor, where at the present time there are frequent complaints by citizens on the Canadian side about a smog condition generated by both Canadian stationary sources as well as Detroit? How does it work? Does it work reasonably effectively, and if not, do you have any comments to offer, particularly in relation to Bill C-32?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Maybe I'll ask Dr. Gilman to respond to that in terms of the smog.

Dr. Andy Gilman: The smog advisory system, Mr. Chair, is a partnership activity between Health Canada and Environment Canada. The assessment of health impacts at various levels takes place in Health Canada. That is discussed with Environment Canada, and I believe it's the Atmospheric Environment Service that then puts out the warnings on the radio based on the monitoring data for various urban centres. So smog alerts, just as we now have UV alerts, go out at several times during the day in major urban centres across Canada.

Data sets constantly change as science moves on. Fifteen years ago, there was very little information to suggest that ozone affected lung tissue at all. We are currently re-evaluating ozone impacts.

As I think Mr. Raphael mentioned, this is one of the air quality assessments that is now out for public consultation. The public consultation will be complete in May, and then we will be rolling the information together and working with the provinces to complete that. That may lead to a revision of the smog advisories that come out.

• 1710

The Chairman: In a border town such as Windsor, what is the procedure for getting an intervention by Environment Canada, and what is the intervention when you decide that the level of smog is damaging to human health? What happens?

Dr. Andy Gilman: Can I answer that?

The Chairman: Please.

Dr. Andy Gilman: The intervention is in terms of a recommendation to various actions that people should take. It's a very difficult kind of intervention for those of us in Health to have to deal with, because the magnitude of the reality of people living in the Windsor corridor is very hard to put in perspective.

A large amount of material does cross the border from Detroit. They are dominated by that source of pollution. There have been significant discussions with the U.S. EPA to try to get Detroit to move into a compliance mode. Those discussions are still going on, and we're working with our colleagues in Environment Canada, Ontario region, who are very active on that file through the binational agreement between the U.S. and Canada.

The kind of advice provided for the smog alerts includes recommendations that children play indoors when it's a severe smog warning, and I think I mentioned that's not something we take lightly. It's most unacceptable, in a country like Canada, that we have to put those kinds of alerts out.

One of the major initiatives of Health and Environment, the two departments, will be to reduce air pollution. It is probably one of our largest sources of ill health from an environmental cause.

The Chairman: Finally, Dr. Gilman, would you be so kind as to perhaps put in a short memo for the members of this committee the status of the binational agreement you referred to?

Dr. Andy Gilman: With pleasure, Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Second round, Monsieur Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order to do with the main estimates that I'd like to bring up. Do you want me to do it now or later?

The Chairman: Possibly later.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay.

I have a question to do with the enforceability of putting away a toxic substance and going after the people who are using it. We've talked a lot this last little while about enforcement. Once you establish that an item is toxic, what's the process and where are the teeth in this bill to allow you to go after the people who are using it?

Mr. Rod Raphael: With respect to enforcement and compliance under the bill, our role within Health Canada has not been one of compliance and enforcement in terms of enforceability or in terms of the administrative arrangements under the bill. But I believe the bill does allow us—and when I say “us”, I mean maybe on the government side, through consultation with Environment Canada—to look at specific control actions that need to be taken to reduce exposure or control emissions. And part of the question surrounding virtual elimination was in that area.

We also have, and we take very seriously, the responsibility to move the process forward on several fronts, not just in terms of the bill allowing us to bring forward codes of practice, guidelines, and so on, but also to participate in the risk management process in terms of the control of toxic substances.

From another perspective, in the area of new substances, taking the cradle-to-grave approach, we also have the ability to, on the basis of health grounds, put conditions of use on substances that are being brought into Canada or into commerce for the first time, to prevent their release into the environment.

So we look at it in terms of two streams: existing pollutants and the activities through risk management on those existing pollutants, as well as in new substances, the prevention of something from becoming an environmental or health issue, by placing conditions on its use or outright refusing its use under the regulations pursuant to the legislation.

• 1715

Mr. Rick Casson: But if you establish that you refuse the use of this and it continues to be used, what recourse do we have as a government or country to go after people who continue to violate your mandate? Can you not prosecute?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes, and in terms of those arrangements in terms of prosecution and penalties, I might to turn it over to Glenn.

Mr. Glenn Allard: There are a number of improvements that have been put into the bill in the enforcement section, which is part X of the legislation. I think some increased authorities have been given to investigators and inspectors, and there are some very specific items that give an investigator the authority to stop something that is happening, right on the spot. He can issue legal orders and stop an activity if there is a violation of the legislation. That is contained in clauses 234 to 242 of the legislation. So there are some improvements.

There are also some abilities to bring analysts along, because some of these questions with respect to substances, if maybe illegally used, require somebody with a very skilled analytical expertise. So there are some provisions within the bill to allow analysts to be involved in searches and accompany an inspector or investigator.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I would first like to make one comment on your letter dated May 26 and the advice you requested from the Department of Justice. From what I just saw this afternoon and from the facts raised by Quebec a few months ago for not signing the harmonization accord, you probably understand, after reading that letter, the reasons Quebec had for refusing.

Anyway, I would like to refer you to subparagraph 185(1)(a) of bill C-32, on the control of the transit of wastes, under which Environment Canada will impose fees off for processing requests for notification and waybills, which you call regulatory rights.

I would like to know if you assessed the impact of that section on the companies that favour sustainable development, like Stablex Canada Inc., a small company from Quebec which is a world leader for the processing of hazardous industrial residues through stabilization and solidification, which has 150 customers, among which Canadian and American companies, and which got recently the ISO 14001 certification for its environmental management system.

Environment Canada is proud of saying that Stablex is a world leader and an example in the international arena. However, the provisions contained in that section will directly affect that small enterprise which, in the end, is not a polluter, but in fact a leader and a good environmental corporate citizen. We should not forget that we also are the Committee on Sustainable Development. The impact of such a provision will mean for Stablex expenses in the order of $300,000 per year. The Department of Environment hopes to recover approximately $1.4 million with that provision.

• 1720

My question is quite straightforward. Did you assess the impact of that provision on good environmental corporate citizens, when polluters are moving freely and are not paying for the environmental costs of their actions? This is my first question.

[English]

Mr. Glenn Allard: I will start with one comment in relation to your observations about the letter I have sent to Mr. Knowles. I think the intent of that letter is to demonstrate that the federal government is prepared to cooperate with provincial governments. In many respects we're disappointed that Quebec has not seen fit to sign the environmental accords, and we hope someday that will change.

With respect to the specific comments on clause 185, first of all these provisions deal with the transit of hazardous wastes and hazardous recyclables. Our provisions stem from international obligations that Canada has entered into under the Basel Convention. Furthermore, there are obligations that relate to the Canada-U.S. transboundary movement of wastes.

I believe your specific question, when you started to refer to dollar amounts, relates to the fact that we now have an ability to prescribe a fee related to the transit of that material. Our department, like many other departments, is looking at cost recovery for services we are providing where there are unique beneficiaries for those particular services. What we are looking at here in charging fees, in our view, is completely consistent with overall government policies.

We are involved in consultations in this particular area at the moment. Final decisions have not been made yet. The company in question has made representation to Environment Canada, and there will be further consultations before final decisions are made on what the fees would be for this particular type of notification service.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We have only twenty minutes for—

[Translation]

Be very brief for we only have 20 minutes.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Does the legal counsel from the department think that section 185 is in violation of the free-trade agreements? Is it in violation of sections 408, 409 and 1402 of the Free-Trade Agreement and of sections 319, 316 and 12002 of the Free-trade Agreement with the U.S.?

The Chairman: This is a very complex question given the limited time we have.

[English]

Can you give a brief answer to that, or would you like to take it under advisement?

Mr. Duncan Cameron: My quick answer would simply be that clause 185 is enabling of a fee being charged. Being in an enabling clause, there is of course no NAFTA inconsistency; it's simply an enabling provision.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

We now have just about 18 or 19 minutes. If people ask short questions and people are given short answers, we can accommodate everybody. We'll try that with Mr. Herron first.

Mr. John Herron: I think we have assent on 32 substances or toxins that are categorized within CEPA. The Americans have almost 600. Do you think we have an awful lot of work still to do within the Canadian CEPA versus what our American cousins are doing—from 600 to 32? It seems like we haven't been all that progressive at adding more toxins to the list.

The Chairman: Give a brief answer, please.

• 1725

Mr. Rod Raphael: Well, the first thing I would say very briefly is that a comparison of the list of toxic substances with the U.S. EPA list under TSCA might not be representative of all the activities that are going on in terms of the control of toxic substances. As for the 600 you refer to, I would have to check that.

Maybe I could come back to the committee in a written form to actually show that there are other activities going on outside of our list of toxic substances that address many, in fact, not all, of those other ones you're referring to.

The Chairman: I must now switch to Madam Kraft Sloan because she has a specific request of Health Canada that can only be made while the officials are present here for additional information. Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much. I'm just referring to this booklet that you gave us, “Health and Environment: Partners for Life”. On page 13 it indicates that a number of the health and environment programs are carried out by the Health Protection Branch and the Health Promotion and Programs Branch.

The program has four priorities. For example, one is controlling toxic substances. I'm just wondering if we could have the budget from 1993 to the present time for both of those program areas or branches, any CEPA-related programs within Health Canada, an indication of the impact of program review, and the loss of green plan funding to those programs.

Thank you.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes.

The Chairman: We'll accommodate the question by Mr. Laliberte. Then we'll have Mr. Knutson. Please be very short.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Your department has a pest control management regime. How is that related to CEPA and Environment for controlling?

Also, in sustainable development, I don't know if your terminology of biodiversity comes into play, because if you define “pests” and if you take the food cycle, maybe we humans will be pests at some time in the future in that terminology. So let's be careful about how biodiversity is defined in your terminology of pest management.

Mr. Rod Raphael: I'll be very brief, and then I'll turn it over to Wendy Sexsmith.

The work that we do on pesticides, which Wendy can go into, is governed by the Pest Control Products Act, which is a separate piece of legislation from CEPA. It involves looking at elements of environment, health, and also the economic benefit or non-benefit, if it can be thought of that way, in terms of the regulation of pest control products.

Where we have a very strong connection is in a risk-based framework to do the health and environmental impact assessment. This framework stems from the close collaboration over the years of the various departments that were brought together to form the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. As well, this is reflective of the scientific nature of that health and environmental assessment within health programming or the health portfolio, of which PMRA is a part.

Maybe, Wendy, you can go into some of the other aspects.

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith (Director, Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency): I won't take very long, Mr. Chair.

I think Rod covered pretty much everything, but what I'd like to say is that because we are a part of Health Canada, we have a very close working relationship with the other pieces of Health Canada. Through that, we work with Environment Canada on the CEPA file. We see the CEPA and Pest Control Products Act as being very complementary, and we're very supportive of the approach that's been taken so far.

I have just a quick sort of response to the sustainability/biodiversity issue. When the PMRA was set up, part of its mandate was to look at ways to support movement toward more sustainable pest management strategies and to integrate sustainability into decision-making.

As for the biodiversity issue, clearly we factor that into our assessment process. Because we review information to determine risks to human health and the environment, we're not considering humans to be pests.

• 1730

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, no. I was just—

Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Allard, I'm wondering if you could provide us with the definition of “virtual elimination” as it is written in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

I may be mistaken here, but my understanding is that it's a different definition than what's in CEPA. Could you tell us why or send us a note on why you picked the one you did and not the one that's in the water quality agreement?

Mr. Glen Allard: Yes, we'll do that.

The Chairman: We're brought to a sudden close because of the vote. I don't think there's any point in coming back after the vote because it could take some time.

We thank you for coming. We may call on you again if and when the need arises.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.