ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, September 17, 1998

• 1334

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Welcome to our afternoon session. We are continuing our examination and study of this bill, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, otherwise known as the glorious C-32.

This morning we had a session with the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress. This afternoon is devoted to health. We welcome you as witnesses on behalf of the health community.

• 1335

Dr. Carter, if you would introduce your organization and the others and indicate the order in which you would like to speak, we would invite you to summarize your statement within ten minutes so there will be plenty of time for questions and answers. Again, welcome to each one of you.

Dr. Peter D. Carter (Secretary, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Dr. Peter Carter. I'm here representing CAPE, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. I understand that each of us on the panel has ten minutes to make their presentation. Is that right?

The Chairman: No, that would make a total of 40 minutes, or even 50, which would be far too much.

Dr. Peter Carter: Yes, that's what I was asking.

The Chairman: We would like you to compress your statements so in totality they would take up, at the most, 15 minutes. Could you allocate the time amongst yourselves, please; otherwise it would be at the expense of questions and answers.

I know from past experience that if we have to listen to an hour-long presentation we all fall asleep. We'd rather avoid that. If you want the attention of this committee, keep it to three or four minutes each—tight, short, crisp. Then we can go into the subject matter by way of questions and answers.

Dr. Peter Carter: Okay, in order to do that, I'll dive into the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment submission and compress it to a couple of minutes.

CAPE supports the guiding principles of Bill C-32. We'd like to say we have a lot of respect for this standing committee. We've been watching its reports and operations over many years, and we strongly support those principles, though there are a couple of exceptions we feel are missing.

We believe there are major items not explicitly required by Bill C-32. We believe these items are so important that, without them, the bill may be unworkable as a Canadian Environmental Protection Act, particularly at this time of environmental pollution and degradation. We feel it's very important to link the bill with the cuts in funding and programs of Environment Canada and, more recently, Health Canada, particularly the Health Protection Branch. We feel these cuts, together with the discretionary and somewhat vague and ambiguous terms of Bill C-32, remove responsibility for environmental protection from the federal Government of Canada, and the ability to protect the environmental health of all Canadians.

On human health, Bill C-32 makes no reference to susceptible subpopulations, including particularly children. There are no references to additive effects on individual or community health. We don't really feel the health risk assessment procedure adequately incorporates the precautionary principle.

CAPE is recommending an alternative to Bill C-32. We want all the revised CEPA principles, including those we recommend adding, to be policy for Environment Canada and Health Canada. We recommend that these principles be fully and clearly defined in the bill; we don't feel they are. We recommend adding the principles of access to, and availability of, information; environmental justice; and the susceptible subpopulations that I've mentioned.

On public participation, we think it's essential that a public advisory board is formed, that this starts working within CEPA and it starts working on a community right-to-know legislation, which we don't see in the bill. We also want to see an immediate focus for children's environmental health to be front and centre of any Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Children are not mentioned in this bill.

Those are the essential parts of the CAPE recommendation, Mr. Chair.

• 1340

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Carter.

Who would like to be next? Dr. Chance?

Dr. Graham W. Chance (Chair, Canadian Institute of Child Health): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to introduce Ms. Sandra Schwartz, director of the environmental program of the Canadian Institute of Child Health.

I'd like to thank you for inviting the Canadian Institute of Child Health to make this presentation, which we understood was to be a ten-minute presentation and it was prepared on that basis.

The goal of our environmental contaminants and child health program is to promote a safe environment for fetus and child. We do not presume to address the finer points of this proposed act, but to highlight the special needs of children. Throughout this presentation we will define the child as all stages, beginning with the fetus through to pubescent youth.

We have problems with Bill C-32 in many aspects, particularly in the title of the bill. We would propose that it be rewritten “An Act which respects pollution prevention, the quality of the environment and the health of all populations and which holds the precautionary principle at its core”.

My colleague has just referred to the need to focus on children. Why focus on children? The vulnerability of children is not adequately recognized in current environmental legislation. Children are not small adults; they are a population with heightened vulnerability and susceptibility to the action of environmental toxicants. They are placed at increased risk because of their physiological characteristics, small stature, and behaviours.

If any toxic exposure occurs during critical growth stages, the system affected can sustain permanent damage. For additional evidence we are submitting a paper I published recently in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.

In our brief we detail the increasing incidence of morbidity and the wide array of children's health problems that can be brought on and/or exacerbated by environmental exposures. They include nutritional problems and many developmental defects.

The convention on the rights of the child mentions the need to protect children from danger and risk of environmental pollution.

The demonstration of direct causal relationship of detrimental human effects attributed to environmental hazards is often difficult or impossible, for several reasons. We also detailed in our brief that this commonly applies to physical and neural behavioural disorders of childhood except when high-dose accidental exposures are involved.

The potential for long periods of latency, for example effects from the fetus that may not manifest until adult life, is not adequately recognized and adds to the difficulty of ascribing scientific certainty. Furthermore, permanent effects of newly identified hazards, often at surprisingly low doses, while irrefutable in animals, may as yet only be suspect in humans through lack of sufficient scientific evidence. Scientific certainty under such circumstances, while desirable, is often unattainable. Despite the undoubted need for further research in the association between toxicants and child health, we submit that scientific uncertainty should not be taken as a reason for inaction.

The increased risk of affects of environmental contaminants resulting from increased vulnerability of the fetus and child must be taken into account in all environmental policy making. To ensure this, we urge the Government of Canada, as in some other countries now, to consider the adoption of the precautionary principle in the new legislation. This concept was endorsed at the UN conference of the environment and sustainable development in Rio and is already implemented in European and U.S. regulatory systems. It recognizes that we must act proactively in the face of uncertainty, erring on the side of caution. In addition to political courage and conviction, application of the principle requires education of the public, government, and industry.

The precautionary principle makes it possible to deal with the gap that exists between scientific uncertainty and political decision-making. As the Bergen Ministerial Declaration stated in 1990:

Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainly should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

And we would add, “particularly in circumstances where children's health and well-being may be impacted”.

According to the precautionary principle, when substantial evidence of any kind gives good reason to believe an activity, technology, or substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm.

Often we must rely on the total weight of evidence from a variety of sources in order to hypothesize potential health risks. If we always wait for scientific certainty, effects on the fetus and child with long-term consequential outcomes for child and adult health occur. Likewise, damage to the natural world may be irreversible.

• 1345

As it is written at present, Bill C-32 assists in continuing to establish “acceptable” levels of harm from environmental pollutants and emissions or ambient concentration standards. Under these circumstances, industry becomes less likely to voluntarily invest in further improvements and the general public less likely to question this “acceptable” level. Clearly, this process is the inverse of the precautionary principle and the preventive approach. By setting a standard of acceptable exposure to pollutants, Bill C-32 erects an administrative barrier that delays or may even block further improvement in environmental quality.

Furthermore, while the bill is based upon the concept of pollution prevention enforcement, prevention in the bill is in fact very weak. A strong, less discretionary enforcement strategy is needed that does not refer to voluntary measures of compliance.

To better protect the health of children, we strongly urge you to include in this bill, or to create in it, an equivalent legislation to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: the Canadian Child Environmental Protection Act. In addition to its other features, the establishment of a CCEPA would facilitate the development of a public advisory board to the ministers with special emphasis on children's health to back up the legislation.

Child health protection from environmental hazards requires strong political commitment and legislation similar to several endorsements coming out of the U.S. during recent years. These have included a presidential order to reduce environmental health and safety risks to children, which certainly exist in parallel in this country; creation of an office of the EPA especially for environmental child health protection; and community right-to-know laws. We urge you to include similar policies in all new environmental legislation, thereby addressing protection of Canada's most vulnerable population—children.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the new environmental health protection policy must be formulated to recognize the heightened vulnerability of children. Where definite scientific evidence of cause and effect is not available, regulatory action must be taken based on estimations of health impact from modelling, extrapolation, prediction, and estimation of worst-case scenarios. Despite existing uncertainties, in order to protect the health and well-being of children, action on developing environmental targets through enforceable legislation is needed.

As currently written, Bill C-32, as I have said, does not adequately address environmental concerns and does not acknowledge the need for more stringent policies to protect children. In order for Bill C-32 to have potency, then, we believe the bill should read at the outset, “An Act which respects pollution prevention, the quality of the environment and the health of all populations and which holds the precautionary principle at its core”.

In addition, we believe the declaration should be amended to read:

It is hereby declared that protection of the environment is essential to the health as well as the well-being of all Canadians and that the primary purpose of this act is to prevent harm, protect all living things, and promote a healthy, sustainable environment for all through adoption of the precautionary principle.

Mr. Chairman, the approach we are proposing is not nihilistic. We recognize that most chemicals are produced in the hope of benefiting humankind. However, we strongly believe that legislation is needed that enables all Canadians, and especially their children, to live in safe symbiosis with these chemicals. Bill C-32, as currently written, does not fulfil this need.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Chance, for your contribution to our understanding of the precautionary principle.

What you said in the last couple of minutes, beginning with the words “In addition”, is not contained in the text that you have distributed. I wonder whether you could let the clerk have the text of your concluding—

Dr. Graham Chance: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: —paragraphs made available for the benefit of committee members, because those are important conclusions.

Dr. Graham Chance: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Who would like to be next?

Mr. Fred Ruf (Member at Large, Human and Ecosystem Health, Canadian Public Health Association): My name is Fred Ruf. I represent the Canadian Public Health Association. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee.

I would lend support, on behalf of the CPHA, to what you've already heard. On the other hand, I would also like to take a different tack.

The CPHA supports this bill, and we see many aspects of it as being an improvement over the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Having said that, however, I think there are some areas that could be improved. There are areas that could be strengthened, and some of those areas we in fact referenced in our previous submission on the current bill. The areas that I would single out as being improvements—and I want to talk about those very briefly, if I might—are as follows.

• 1350

In our opinion the bill is more proactive than reactive. It provides a more preventive focus on some of the pollution. It talks about enhancement. It talks about restoration. I don't think those themes are reflected in the current legislation.

The bill is also an improvement in the area of aboriginal involvement and aboriginal rights. We think that's a tremendous improvement and a tremendous step in the right direction.

We also see the formation of a federal-provincial advisory committee as an improvement.

We also see that the research monitoring and information clauses of the bill are to be strengthened. The bill proposes to give people more access to more information than the current legislation provides. We see that as a tremendous improvement, and we see that as being consistent with a lot of federal departments today that are making their operations more transparent and involving more stakeholders in the decision-making process. We see that as a very positive step.

I guess in the final analysis the proof will be in the doing for us. Is there the political will to make some of the changes that you've heard about today? Is there the political will to act on the act, to enforce the act as it's written? I guess time will tell.

Having given you some positive comments, let me give you some negative ones as well. Our brief makes seven recommendations, seven areas where we see this committee could make some improvements, and these recommendations deal first and foremost with the question of leadership. We would like to see harmonization of environmental protection legislation and provisions across this country. We have different requirements and different statutes, different acts in different parts of Canada. I don't think that's right. I don't think that's useful. I don't think that's in the best interests of the environment or human health.

The bill also fails to address pollution already in place. I think all of us around this table know that there are many areas of Canada where pollution does exist, where contaminants exist, and these contaminants have an impact on human health. We would like to see that aspect of the bill strengthened, and we'd like to see a commitment to work on those.

The bill lacks clear health objectives, and I think you've heard that from Dr. Chance and I believe Dr. Carter also referenced that. There needs to be a stronger emphasis on human health and the connectiveness between the environment and human health. There are enough eminent people in this country who can help this committee work those objectives out.

We also would like to see more expansion of access to information in the form of registries. You also heard about that today. People need access to information in all aspects of the environment and environmental pollution.

The bill also talks about biotechnology. We'd like to see a strengthening of provisions in that area, including a registry that identifies clearly who is producing what for what purpose and where.

Those are some of the recommendations that we've made. They're all contained in our brief, Mr. Chairman, as are the areas I referenced earlier, and I'll conclude my comments with that. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. McElgunn now.

Ms. Kathleen Connors (President, National Federation of Nurses Unions, and Chairperson, Canadian Health Coalition): There is one more group that has to go.

The Chairman: Sure.

Ms. Kathleen Connors: The Canadian Health Coalition and the National Federation of Nurses Unions are pleased to be able to be here.

My name is Kathleen Connors, and I wear two hats on this one head. I am president of the National Federation of Nurses Unions and act as chairperson of the Canadian Health Coalition. So when we come to this environment/health table, I feel quite confident that I can speak about the links between a healthy environment and healthy Canadian citizens and just how strong those are, and that it's important that you hear the concerns of those links.

One of the goals of the Canadian Health Coalition—and this was circulated to you—is that in order to improve the health of Canadians we have to create good health. We must make conditions for good health, and that includes public policies that make for healthy people, that talk about full employment, decent wages, housing, a strong social safety net, food, peace, a clean environment and a safe workplace.

• 1355

As a nurse, I know perfectly well about the intimate relationship between the determinants of health the health coalition lays out as an objective and what it does to the level of individual citizens' health in this Canadian population when those determinants aren't in place.

One of the issues of primary concern I want to put before this committee concerns the federal-provincial-territorial relations.

The Chairman: No, no; you are here to speak on Bill C-32.

Ms. Kathleen Connors: Yes.

The Chairman: All right, continue.

Ms. Kathleen Connors: And in speaking on Bill C-32, the proposed new law will make the federal government less able to regulate, since the provinces have been given a greater role in the legislation. We believe that because of the Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization, that ability, under whatever legislation is passed, will be more difficult for this federal government. We recognize and see similarities between this accord on the environment and the social union discussions that are happening with respect to Canada's health and social programs.

Our concern is if the mechanism for a strong federal leadership role in the environment isn't available, and if things change in the health and social services sector, who is going to protect and ultimately be responsible for protecting the health, the safety, and the environment of Canadians? We appeal to the committee to look at strengthening the provisions of the legislation for that strong federal role in the environment and health of Canadians. So we put that before the committee.

The other issue—and again just briefly touching on it—is what we're seeing is a whole change in values in the environment, in health, where the old value of guarding the public interests and the common good is being replaced by new values like satisfying industrial clients and serving private interests. The old values of health as a public good are being replaced by the new value of health as an industrial commodity.

We can't support passage of the bill as it's currently drafted. There are a number of amendments required in key areas. Certainly we do not have the legal or the environmental expertise to provoke the amendments, but there is expertise around Canada on this. We really feel that enactment of the legislation as it's currently proposed would be a backward step in protection of the environment and the health of Canadians.

On the very issue of leadership of the federal government, the health care sector is a major polluter. The polyvinyls that are released—

The Chairman: I ask you to address Bill C-32 once again, please.

Ms. Kathleen Connors: The issue of mechanisms within the legislation to require education around the importance of the health professionals and administrators in health care around hazardous by-products of health needs to be there.

Stronger regulations to enforce emission controls with respect to the mercury and the dioxins that come from the plastics that the health care sector is putting into the environment are really important, as is leadership in ensuring that mercury-free health care facilities are put in place.

The issue I would conclude on is our concerns around the biotechnology parts of the bill. Under the proposed legislation, we see a weakening of the equivalence requirements that are in the current legislation around potential effects on human health and the environment around biotechnology. I think the recent experience with MMT is a clear indication of where there are weaknesses even in the existing session.

• 1400

I would like to finish by saying that polls show that fully 89% of Canadians feel that there's a role for the federal government to be an activist preserver of health care, and only 11% feel that there should be a devolution of this responsibility. If this committee and the legislation is willing to address that, I think those kinds of polls tell you that there is support from the Canadian people for an activist involvement on the environment.

Mike McBeane, the executive coordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition, is here. He might have a couple of points to finish up on.

Mr. Michael McBeane (National Coordinator, Canadian Health Coalition): I'd just like to zero in on a point Kathleen raised about the weakening of equivalency in the proposed act. Before you go ahead with that kind of an option, you should know the state of deregulation in Health Canada, and you should not assume that biotechnology is going to be regulated in the public interest in Health Canada.

Currently the Health Protection Branch has four clusters. One of them is environmental health hazards; others are food, drugs, and disease surveillance. These clusters are being destroyed, shut down, deregulated. The Bureau of Drug Research is completely destroyed. It was done secretly, without parliamentary knowledge. The ADM in charge of the dismantling also tried to shut down the food labs.

The Chairman: As with Ms. Connors, I must interrupt you again and urge you to concentrate on that part of your brief that deals with Bill C-32. I notice, for instance, with great interest that you have interesting contributions to make on pages 5 and 6 in your brief, which have not yet been put on the record. Could I therefore urge you to come back to Bill C-32 if at all possible?

Mr. Michael McBeane: I will indeed. I'm just saying that if we lose our air safety labs, water labs, radioactivity labs, the environmental committee should be aware of this before they devolve to other departments and assume those issues are being covered there.

Kathleen, do you want to come back to the—

Ms. Kathleen Connors: I think in all fairness, in the interests of time and if the committee is interested in having the questions around the issues that we have not had sufficient time on, you could certainly direct that we have endorsed the recommendations the Canadian Labour Congress have made in their submission you heard this morning related to pollution prevention and the regulation of toxins, and around the issue of environment and workers' rights. The National Federation of Nurses Unions is an active participant of the Canadian Labour Congress, so we left those issues to the workers' panel that you heard from this morning and felt that we would concentrate on other aspects of concern.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Connors. That was a very fine conclusion and very helpful.

I gather that Ms. McElgunn has been patiently waiting to make an intervention. As a veteran in pioneering lead-related matters, we are very pleased and very honoured to have you here with us today.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn (Health Liaison Officer, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada): Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia and committee. We're very pleased to be here.

This is actually the third presentation I've made to parliamentary committees on CEPA. The first was in 1988 and the second was in 1994.

I guess in general this version of the act does not address some of the substantive concerns we had with previous language and content, or lack thereof. I think maybe the problem is that Bill C-32 is predicated on a pollution prevention paradigm, which though important provides only one leg of the base upon which environmental protection must stand.

CEPA is based on controlling releases of substances that may or must enter the environment at levels that present a long-term harmful effect or a danger to health to be designated toxic. There is no statutory authority for monitoring or controlling the presence of toxicants in water or in air, which most Canadians would regard as a cornerstone of their environmental protection. If you ask most Canadians what they think an environmental protection act is doing for them, they would say it's providing them with clean air and clean water. This proposed act does not do that. So if you look at it from sort of a management-by-objectives point of view, it does not deliver in that way.

Another large concern, which has been mentioned by others today, is the discretionary nature of the bill, for example, in part 3, clauses 43 to 46. We would say that surely the purpose of environmental legislation is to ensure environmental protection. We feel this discretionary language will allow present or future governments to sidestep their responsibilities to this most important role of government. It places environmental and human health protection at the mercy of the political will of present and future governments. We think these clauses should be made mandatory.

• 1405

However, in contrast, interestingly enough, the minister must issue guidelines respecting the cost-effectiveness of his actions. We are concerned that this, plus the need to offer to consult along the way with everyone, might tie the scant resources of Environment Canada and Health Canada into a Gordian knot that will further erode environmental protection in Canada. I think there has to be a little levelling of that part of the bill.

Also, we think that at least six citizens representing environmental and health organizations should be added to the minister's advisory committee under part 1, subclause 6(2), or, as others have suggested, a separate public advisory board should be mandated—one or the other. There should be environmental and health organizations involved in these actions.

I talked about safe drinking water. I think that what has happened is that the authority provided to the federal government to monitor and enforce water quality criteria under Bill C-32 is really non-existent. We think Canadians deserve clean water and clean air. If our federal system of shared responsibilities does not permit a federal role in environmental protection that will provide adequate protection to the Canadian environment and to health, then Bill C-32 must include statutory provisions that require an open, accountable system of monitoring and reporting from all jurisdictions. That's something the bill could do.

If there's going to be harmonization, if there's going to be equivalent provisions, then the public should have a right-to-know provision in the bill that would require new public access to water quality information and public notification. This is what's happened in the United States under the Safe Drinking Water Act amendment. All water utilities will be required by law to send customers an annual report identifying contaminant levels in their water, plus information on the maximum U.S. contaminant levels. A national contaminants occurrence database will be another valuable tool that consumers and citizens and actual cities and towns can get information from in plain language.

Under the equivalent provisions, we are also concerned that this proposed act might be residual to other legislation in Canada. We think CEPA should be the overriding legislation and that the federal government should have the supreme authority to step in when provinces are not doing their jobs in the environmental way.

Several references are made in the bill on the need for environmental harmonization “to prevent duplication and overlap in environmental protection”. However, it is more likely, in our opinion, that there are huge gaps in environmental protection wherein no one is taking responsibility. So we would offer that the words “and inaction” should be added to part 1, subclause 6(1): “for the purpose of avoiding duplication and inaction in regulatory activity among governments”.

Another recommendation we have is that under the accord on environmental harmonization we would remove the authority of the federal government to act unilaterally to set health-based guidelines and objectives for air and water toxics. I think this need for consensus can be very troublesome. In the past we have heard from Health Canada that sometimes provincial governments have argued that making the technical and other changes to meet new guidelines would be too costly, resulting in no action or little action. Therefore these actions are not health-based; they're politically based. This is what happens often with consensus: you get a watering down. This is where it's important to have public representation on these advisory committees. We think this clause we were referring to should be deleted or revised.

Another recommendation we have is on the definition of “toxic substances”. You know, Mr. Chairman, that we have spoken on this on many occasions. We have real problems with the definition of a toxic substance under CEPA. We feel that it probably has arisen out of the reliance on a pollution prevention paradigm for CEPA and its focus on releases. It also reflects the too-misused fifteenth century concept that the dose makes the poison. We know now that research is challenging that basic principle: that there are susceptible people, children, pregnant women, or specific ethnic groups. That also greatly influences the possibility of risk.

• 1410

We think this is an important point with respect to the limitations of Bill C-32. A definition of toxicity under CEPA that recognizes the inherent toxicity of a chemical would provide a foundation to address the other bases that are needed to build sound environmental protection legislation. This would include recognition that risk reduction is another reason for action on toxic chemicals, that very small releases have an effect, that some toxic chemicals are no longer in use in Canada but persist in the environment and really have to be addressed, that national standards for water and air toxics are basic to environmental protection, and that seemingly insignificant exposures in early development can result in significant long-term effects.

So we think the definition of toxic substance should be changed to define a substance for control, and there should be added to the bill a definition of a toxic substance similar to the IJC definition of a toxic substance, which Canada and the United States agreed to.

We also think it would be important to include in the bill some mention of health end points that we are trying to avoid. Death, disease, behavioural abnormalities, cancer or genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malformations or physical deformities were in the 1978 IJC definition. In 1997 they would include hormonal, immune system, neural, developmental, and reproductive abnormalities. I think politically it's important to include that kind of language in an environmental protection act because it sets out some of the reasons why we think this is so terribly important to the people of Canada, and it does appear in other jurisdictions.

I think I will stop there because my time is no doubt up. I hope our recommendations will be looked at very closely by this committee. We know we are all trying to do the same thing, which is get the best possible legislation we can in Canada to protect Canadians.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. McElgunn.

The foundation for a good discussion has been laid now, and Madame Kraft Sloan already indicated some time ago she would like to proceed with questions, followed by Mr. Casson and Mr. Laliberte. I will take other names eventually. Please proceed.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'm used to the opposition starting first, so I have to organize myself here.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): We're ready.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Are you ready?

I want to thank all of you very much for your briefs. We have some incredible information here that will be very useful.

In CAPE's opening presentation, you talked about some concern in regard to some of the principles articulated in the preamble and your concern about how they might be operationalized in the bill. I have particular concern about the precautionary principle and ensuring that we find an effective way to operationalize this in the bill. I know you have quite a substantial brief, which we didn't go to in detail, but perhaps for the record you can talk about some ways that you see that that precautionary principle could be operationalized in the new CEPA.

Dr. Peter Carter: In general, on the principles, we just don't see really how the principles are translated into requirements in the bill. Specifically on the precautionary principle, we feel that one of the problems is that CEPA is being reviewed, but Health Canada's role really has not undergone review. So there's a problem there, because although the precautionary principle is identified in the preamble, it does not run through Bill C-32. We draw attention to the committee to several places in our brief where there's confusion worse than it not running through.

If we look at the policies of Health Canada, the expert advisory committee on the second priority substances list really brings attention to this problem of the precautionary principle not being thoroughly incorporated in the policies of Health Canada. I will quote:

Throughout its deliberations, the Panel was aware that the application of one of its guiding principles—that nominations would be based on substances with a high probability of potential concern—meant that substances about which little is known were unlikely to be selected for the PSL2 or, for that matter, future lists. In fact, the Mechanical List, which served as a prime focus of the Panel's early deliberations, was entirely driven by available data. Poorly researched substances were generally not considered since meaningful risk assessments can only be carried out when adequate data are available. Some substances that were discussed by the Panel at length might have been recommended— had there been more information—

• 1415

So this really is what the precautionary principle is all about.

In another section, the same committee drew attention to the problem that they in actual fact, because of the guidelines, had to say that a substance was not toxic. Well, the toxic language is very confusing, and I think we're all recommending some addendum to that or at least a change. Here we have the public and the regulations saying a substance is not toxic when according to the precautionary principle you really can't say that. Scientifically we don't think you can say that either. So we don't see the precautionary principle as actually guiding this bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Dr. Chance, in your presentation it seems to me that the precautionary principle has been a very important approach or underlying principle if you are concerned about addressing environmental contamination, especially as it affects the health of children. I'm just wondering if you can elaborate on that a little bit more for the committee, and anyone else who would like to jump in on that as well.

Dr. Graham Chance: Thank you.

The difficulties with regard to children and the effects of contaminants we are only now really realizing. We obviously learned the desperate story of lead and its effects on children, and it's interesting to look at the history of lead. I've lived through that history, starting at acceptable blood levels that were astronomically high and now finishing up realizing that it should not be there at all.

Had the precautionary principle been operative, even in the terms of Bill C-32, then action on lead would have been taken years ago—many years ago, one suspects.

So essentially why we're so concerned that this should be guiding the future of environmental legislation is because what we must get away from as a society—as a world society—is waiting for the disaster to strike and then trying to catch up with what disaster we've created. If we continue to do that, clearly we will not have an environment to worry ourselves about.

The reason we focus on it particularly from the point of view of children is because they are more vulnerable than the adult. People have an amazing ignorance over the level of vulnerability of the fetus. People still think that the fetus living inside a woman is perfectly protected when in fact that fetus is so much more susceptible to many pollutants—most pollutants—than the equivalent adult.

So without a precautionary principle we'll continue to accept waiting for evidence, solid scientific evidence, which is often impossible to obtain, but nonetheless seeking it, to protect the most vulnerable of society. If we continue to wait like that, then we will indeed lose the battle for the most vulnerable of society.

I don't know whether Ms. Schwartz would like to add more to that.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz (Director, Environmental Programs, Canadian Institute of Child Health): One of the things that I'd like to add is an example coming from Russia currently, where there now seem to be latency results due to radiation exposure, and there do seem to be abnormalities in terms of their development. There seem to be also abnormalities in their potential to reproduce in the future. I believe this is a concern not only here in Canada but globally.

By taking a precautionary stance, both within a bill such as this and in all environmental legislation, we're not using certainty in science as the basis for inaction. What we're doing in fact is taking action rather than waiting for the science to come in. In combination with waiting for the science, I think what will end up happening is we're going to see more developmental and neuro-developmental problems; we're going to see more behavioural problems. Endocrine disrupters are currently a big problem, we feel, and are probably going to increasingly become a problem in Canada.

We need to start reviewing the potential effects as well as the chemicals that may have those potential effects and not wait for the science to come in on that. I think it needs to be done in conjunction with scientific research.

• 1420

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: I'd just like to say on the MMT issue, which has been quite a bit in the news lately, that the Americans really use the EPA. The U.S. EPA used the precautionary principle. They said, we don't have all the data but there are uncertainties, and the uncertainties are so large that we're not going to use this stuff until we get the data in, whereas the uncertainties were sort of glossed over. I think that is an area where we have to say that if we don't have the data and we have some feeling that this has a sort of structure-activity relationship to lead, which it did, we should not be using it. And that is a real example of where the precautionary principle should have been used in Canada.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: There are some who suggest that if there is an uncertainty, it's an uncertainty with the scientific data, and therefore the cost of action is too great. But one has to look at the other side where the uncertainty of environmental harm, harm to species, harm to the human species, is too great not to act.

Dr. Graham Chance: I guess a particular feature of the precautionary principle is that it asks those proponents of an activity to burden the proof rather than the victims of the activity to burden the proof. I read in this declaration, and I'll quote it:

committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,

—that's going a long way—

lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures—

We're placing human lives on a cost-effective basis there, and I question the ethics of that. I recognize I'm an idealist, but then I'm pleased to be an idealist under those circumstances.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: If I can add to that as well, I've done some research in looking at cost-benefit analyses in the health care sector, specifically looking at a full-cost accounting mechanism for looking at the potential effects environmental hazards may have on health. When we are looking at putting together a theory, because currently there doesn't even exist a structure in order to cost out the effects, the costs of things such as increased hospitalization, waiting room time for parents, and parents spending time sitting in traffic need to be taken into account. When one does a cost-benefit analysis, those costs have to be accounted for as well. Then if we take those costs into account, we will find out that the benefits of reducing pollution, reducing environmental contaminants, will far outweigh the costs. The costs are so high when we include those things that really the benefits of reducing are there.

The Chairman: Thank you. You'll come on a second round perhaps.

Next is Mr. Casson, followed by Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you all for being here today and bringing your briefs to us.

The aspect of children and the separate way we have to understand how some of these things affect them is interesting and certainly something we need to know. We heard yesterday from the World Wildlife Fund probably more about this than we have until today. But the minutest amounts of toxic substances can affect an unborn child. You mentioned research, acceptable levels, consultation, all of these things that need to come together for us to formulate a proper plan.

One person mentioned harmonization as something good, one mentioned harmonization as something bad, and we hear about harmonization a lot. We studied it and prepared a report on it. This precautionary approach, especially when it comes to children, I can understand, but where do we go and where does the emphasis need to be? Does it need to be in CEPA, the aspect of the research, the seeking of acceptable levels, the standards by which we need to govern ourselves to live healthily? Where does that start or where do you see that coming from? Dr. Chance, I'd like to ask you first.

Dr. Graham Chance: To go into the whole detail is impossible in a short period of time. But what we are suggesting clearly is that there be written into this legislation, or into separate legislation, the recognition of the total difference as far as children are concerned in relation to environmental pollutants. Ministers need advisory bodies, indeed public advisory bodies, that will be able to inform on the risks, on the potential aspects as regards children, and on approaches to the use of the precautionary principle in relation to substances that are coming on or plan to come on the market. As I say, the burden of proof should not be on the victim, and as long as it is that, then we're going to see children damaged accordingly.

• 1425

Precisely how you bring it in— either separate legislation looking at a children's protection act or, as in the U.S., a very extensive advisory body to the minister. The advisory body to the minister we detail—I think we sent it with our brief—and that is a very extensive committee.

Mr. Rick Casson: The other thing that was mentioned here is we're at a certain point in time and we're looking at legislation that's going to govern us in the future, but up until this point we've created some problems as well. I don't know who wants to comment on this, but you indicated that the bill doesn't address existing pollutants. We know of areas where these exist. They need to be cleaned up. We could run through the list of them—the tar ponds, the DEW line sites, and on and on. But I'm not sure what in CEPA we can have that would clean up what has happened in the past. We're creating legislation that is going to govern us. How do we ungovern what we've done?

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: We feel that CEPA is predicated on those releases and preventing— as a pollution prevention paradigm. You're quite right, we have to have some part of CEPA that deals with cleanup of existing problems. I know they're in the arctic and the north; they're everywhere.

I have to confess, I haven't read this cover to cover, bit by bit. I have read the parts that I knew we could talk about. It may be there somewhere, but I have a feeling it's not. I just feel that if we had a different definition of a toxic substance, then action could be taken on these kinds of things. It wouldn't be predicated on releases. It would be predicated on the inherent toxicity of the substance and therefore there could be other actions under CEPA.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Yes.

Mr. Fred Ruf: We have heard lots today about harmonization. That word “harmonization” has taken this country by storm. I guess it's a difficult thing to harmonize various pieces of legislation, but when we talk about environmental protection and protection of human health, I would think that a committee or an advisory committee made up of some of the stakeholders that are sitting at this table today could assist the government in reconciling some of the different levels of protection that exist from one coast to the next, because there are very serious environmental issues out there. They are continuing to affect human health. That's a fact. The fact is they are continuing to affect human health as we speak here today. So some attention needs to be paid to that. I don't have an easy answer, but I think it should be a priority item.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Dr. Peter Carter: One of the things about the precautionary principle that is not often recognized is part of the solution too, because if the precautionary principle is legislated, that would drive research. It would drive funding for research in this country. Environment Canada's action right now on the problem of endocrine disrupters is to collate the research and documentation. That clearly isn't enough. If we had a precautionary principle legislated, that would be the driver. That would make a huge change. It's not just that things are going to be stopped. If we have sustainable development, things should be able to carry on, but they should be able to carry on in a safe manner protecting the health of all Canadians, and that would include susceptible populations of Canadians. So this would be a progressive thing to do.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, and then my list is coming to a rapid end.

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

Just on the last presentation we received, recommendation 7 dealt with the definition of toxicity. Your overall comment is that the goal is to see clean air, clean water, and a cleaner way of life. But when it comes to legislation and regulatory matters, definitions play an important role. In light of the changes that have happened in the reproductive abnormalities, the neuro-developmental and immuno-hormonal dysfunctions, are you asking that this definition be added, or does it exist in legislation somewhere? You're alluding to a U.S.-Canada agreement that has it. In terms of reference to CEPA, what is CEPA based on?

• 1430

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: The definition under CEPA is based on releases. In other words, it isn't toxic unless it's released in a— I'm not quoting, but I can get it. It's part 5, clause 65.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It says “entering or may enter the environment”.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: I think we, and even the parliamentary committee in its report It's About Our Health!, suggested that that was misleading, because substances such as, for instance, toluene, which everybody in the world knows is toxic, is not toxic under CEPA because the risk assessment found that it wasn't being released in harmful enough amounts to constitute a hazard to health; therefore it wasn't toxic under CEPA.

It's kind of a strange way of looking at compounds, because, as we say, minute amounts of toluene— For instance, if aboriginal children are sniffing glues, they are becoming intoxicated with toluene, yet under CEPA toluene is not a toxicant. We really find difficulty with that, and I think after our second presentation to the committee in 1992 we did send a recommendation to the committee on various definitions of a toxic substance. They are out there. The World Health Organization has one we can use—any of them.

My recommendation would be that it did speak to some of the health end points that we are concerned about, because I think politically, in a bill such as this, it's important that the Canadian people and legislators and managers know what we're trying to prevent and why we're trying to prevent it. It probably should talk about sensitive populations somewhere in there. The current definition could be used but for a substance for control under CEPA. In other words, this is a substance for control under CEPA. A toxic substance is something else, and we're going to do other things about that. It's just an idea, but this is what we would like to see.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So with this definition it would be appropriate if it was pollution control, but in pollution prevention it's totally different.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: It's based on pollution prevention, but not pollution control is I guess what we're saying. It's based on releases. The current definition is based on releases.

In other words, the substance isn't toxic unless it's released in enough weight or volume to present a hazard to health or the environment. We're saying a toxic substance is a toxic substance in its own right. It shouldn't be dependent on releases. Everything eventually reaches the environment, as we all know. PCBs were supposed to be contained and they are out there.

Dr. Peter Carter: The trend in the States, if I can jump in and add— they've left us way behind in Canada. What they're doing is putting susceptible subpopulations at the centre of their legislation. That's a different paradigm to putting a substance at the centre of the legislation, particularly when the substance is defined in the very restrictive manner in which it's defined under CEPA now. So that's a huge change in approach, and we feel that without this change, your CEPA will not work.

• 1435

On voluntary, there's prevention and there's control. The experts in the field have been pushing for years for prevention not to be a substitute for regulation. They've said the regulations have produced great improvements in North America and Canada. And they have: look at air quality. But the experts in the field have said now is the time to add another level, and that level is pollution prevention.

This bill makes a substitution, not an addition. It's in error. We feel that would be a very grave retrogressive step.

The approach we're recommending is the one that's developing with experts in the field, in which environmental protection occurs at the interface of three approaches: regulation, voluntary programs, and economic instruments. We feel that is the way ahead. If the bill were based on that, if it were based on the new level, not the substitution of prevention, and put susceptible populations in the middle of the legislation, then things would work; sustainable development would work.

Sustainable development is no buzzword. Look at the release on global warming from the New Scientist: things are going to get really bad. We've mentioned toxics and pesticides on children, but the big one is climate change for children. Children will suffer more under climate change than anybody else. This is a very real matter. I know it disappears from the headlines every now and then, but it's getting worse. It's getting more frightening; it's getting more concerning. That demands stronger legislation, not weaker.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I would like to add to this, if I may.

I'd like to read you something from a document your committee produced back in 1995 on the issue of toxicity and toxins themselves. It's on page 67 of the document It's About Our Health, which was CEPA revisited:

Nonetheless, the Committee considers that an “inherent toxicity” approach has merit and could help to identify quickly the most harmful substances. We are concerned that some potentially dangerous substances are not being adequately addressed by the current risk assessment-based PSL system. Particularly, the current definition of toxic has contributed to two important problems, both of which could be addressed by moving in the direction of a hazard assessment. First, extensive amounts of data are required to conduct a full risk assessment. For some substances, these extensive data requirements may be extremely difficult to satisfy with the result that the PSL process may be fatally compromised. For 13 substances on the first PSL, the assessment process, unfortunately, could not be completed for this reason. Second, the Committee believes that, in some cases, such exhaustive information is not required in order to justify their regulation.

That is the precautionary principle. In addition, it also says:

We are aware that the adoption of an “inherently toxic” approach must be done with great care. It is the Committee's belief, however, that selection criteria defining inherent toxicity can be established to identify and “capture” a modest, but significant, number of substances of environmental and health concern.

I would like to see that revisited.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you.

I want to echo the sentiments. I appreciate your being here. You've certainly given us a lot to think about. I also want to add that even though your briefs might have been prepared for ten minutes and shortened, I think they'll be read and that information will be transferred to us.

Dr. Carter, you mentioned climate change. One of the things I have learned in my 14 months through that climate change debate is there are certain stakeholders and constituents who want to put their hand in the wound before they will sort of accept these things. Whether it's actually that they want to put their hand in the wound or that they want the delay that asking to put their hand in the wound will cause, it's resulting in the fact that we're going to find out about these things after we can do anything about them. I think you touched on that.

I want to go back to the idea of full-cost accounting. You mentioned it. I think the point is quite valid: by enshrining the precautionary principle we will change our approach to things and drive research. But I would also argue that it's probably a cost-saving measure. Children are most vulnerable, but there's also the most potential to save because of their age.

• 1440

Given the socialized nature of health care in this country, is that a formal procedure you're going through to identify those models that can give us that economic data? I think what we're really talking about here is something that is morally right, but I think the economic argument's there as well, and we can fight it on both those fronts. Is that something that's going on?

Dr. Peter Carter: I agree. Full-cost accounting can be done, and it has been done, but you've got to really look hard to find it—20 years, you know.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: Well, Joel Schwartz did it for less.

Dr. Peter Carter: Right.

It's a way around the ethics, I suppose, but it certainly needs to be done. One of our problems with this bill is that all these requirements are predicated on cost-effectiveness, but it's not defined, and that's not acceptable. That's just not acceptable. There's no reason not to define it.

If there were a requirement to define that, then we could get some work done; then we could make some progress. And it's out there. It's maybe difficult to find, but it's out there. There is a new association in Canada, for example, under Bill Rees, who is the former dean of economics at UBC—the Association of Canadian Ecological Economics. They can do the job. There are people who can do the job, and it needs to be done, but it won't be done unless we have a CEPA that requires it to be done.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: But there's a really troublesome part of CEPA in subclause 47(1), because the minister must issue guidelines respecting the cost-effectiveness of the use of the powers provided for in a discretionary way under subclause 46(1), which allows the minister to ask for cost, ecological, and other information from corporations and industries. But this is a circular thing. It's patently unfair. As Ted Schrecker points out in Political Economy of Environmental Hazards, benefit estimates must be made on the basis of available evidence, but if the minister can't get the evidence until he has a cost-benefit analysis, this means that nothing is going to be done.

So I think that subclause 47(1) is a very troublesome part of this bill and should be looked at again by this committee. It's a chicken and egg thing: how can he get the evidence if he has to do a cost-benefit analysis where there is no evidence?

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I'd also like to add to what Dr. Carter was saying about full-cost accounting.

Often when we talk about full-cost accounting in the environmental circles, it tends to exclude health. What I have proposed and the piece that I had written initially was for Health Canada. It is on their documentation. There is a model currently that could be used to include health costs. That is not just for environmental costs. I think when we talk about full-cost accounting those also need to be taken into account. And that is things like waiting time in a doctor's office.

You mentioned the cost-effectiveness or even the benefits of reducing some of the costs. I would use asthma as an example. Asthma at the moment is currently on the rise. Hospitalization of asthma patients, particularly children, is on the rise. Eliminating or reducing the amount of air pollution, particularly smog that children have access to, is one way of benefiting that population by reducing the cost of hospitalization for those children.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm thinking of something like bio-pollution. I mean, it may be very difficult to assess what those costs may be, but surely to God I hope somebody is doing that.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: There are models.

Dr. Graham Chance: There are models. There are actually human studies.

At Hamilton, when there was a pollution episode, they examined in fact the hospital admission rates, the duration of stay, the illness rates, and there was a dramatic increase and of course a documented increase in deaths. Deaths, as we all know, don't cost a lot of money, but ill health does.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Madame Carroll, followed by the chair.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To reiterate what my colleagues around the table have said, thank you all for coming today and providing us with such excellent analysis and recommendations.

Mr. Ruf, if I could just clarify, because I think perhaps I'm the one who's confused, you spoke favourably, I think, of harmonization. This morning the Canadian Labour Congress was here, and in response to my question whether it would be a misplaced assumption on my part to conclude that they didn't believe the recent federal-provincial harmonization would address their concerns, they answered very quickly that I would be correct and that would indeed not be a false assumption on my part.

• 1445

I listened carefully as well to Dr. McElgunn and read on page 4 of her submission:

Several references are made in the Act on the need for environmental harmonization to prevent duplication and overlap in environmental protection— However, it is more likely that there are huge gaps in environmental protection where no one is taking responsibility.

I just wanted to bring it back to you to be clear if I am correct that you are, of the three presenters, the one who in fact sees a considerable benefit, or is it the principle of harmonization to which you are referring?

Mr. Fred Ruf: I guess it's both. I see a tremendous benefit in closing whatever gaps exist. And there are gaps. I see tremendous benefit in establishing what I call a concept of primacy. Who has primacy for environmental protection?

There are different standards in different provinces. There are different political agendas in different provinces, and we know political agendas drive legislation. I guess what I'm looking for and what I'm asking you to consider is whether there is a way to harmonize these provisions and is there a way to establish that someone, hopefully the federal government, has primacy for this field?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: But it would appear, Mr. Ruf, that primacy does not always indicate will or resources.

Mr. Fred Ruf: Would you repeat that comment, please?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It would appear to me, as a member, like Mr. Jordan just here for 14 months, that in listening to what I've listened to over this time, having primacy does not at the same time indicate a will and the resources to facilitate or accomplish the objectives that the primacy has dictated are indeed yours or mine.

Mr. Fred Ruf: If you're talking about will, everything comes back to the political will. Is there a political will to act here? Is there a political will to make this legislation work or make the improvements we're hearing about today? But I can't answer that. You're the one who has to answer that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thanks, Mr. Ruf.

Dr. Peter Carter: May I, quickly?

The Chairman: Very briefly, please.

Dr. Peter Carter: The OECD has an excellent report, which I believe provides the answer: a high-level advisory group on the environment, a report to the secretary general in 1997. That has now become policy at OECD governmental level, although to be honest, reading Bill C-32 you wouldn't get it. And this report calls for harmonization up to the highest standard.

What we are concerned about is harmonization being driven down to what's called the lowest common denominator. If there is a legislative requirement—and there should be, because this OECD document calls for it—to harmonize up to the highest standard, then I don't think we would have a problem.

The Chairman: Yes.

Let me ask a couple of questions. One has to do with virtual elimination. The brief by the Canadian Public Health Association indicates that CPHA is in agreement with a definition of that in the proposed bill. I wonder whether that is a unanimously shared view by the health community or by those of you in this room.

A voice: Virtual elimination?

The Chairman: The definition of virtual elimination as spelled out in clause 64 is endorsed by the Canadian Public Health Association. Does that reflect the view of the other witnesses here today?

Dr. Peter Carter: That depends what it means. If it means that the virtual—

The Chairman: It means what it says, and it is in clause 64.

Dr. Peter Carter: If it means that virtual elimination is a process that may include a ban and a phase-out—

The Chairman: Dr. Carter, may I urge you to read it and then perhaps to comment on it?

Ms. Kathleen Connors: Mr. Caccia, in all sincerity, I have to indicate that we wouldn't be in a position to report either that it is our position or not our position, because we haven't read the legislation in its entirety. We could certainly take a look at it and get back to the committee.

The Chairman: Fair enough. That would be very helpful. Thank you.

Dr. Graham Chance: We'll have to go the same route. Having read it, we'd need time to read it.

The Chairman: Fine.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: We'd need time to interpret it.

• 1450

The Chairman: Now, Dr. Chance and others who have spoken on the precautionary principle, as you know, on page 1 of the bill there is a definition of precautionary principle, as you have already pointed out. Would any of you be willing to think about an alternative definition for the bill and perhaps to forward it to the committee so that we can study alternative approaches?

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: We have one in the brief that we've submitted, as well as in the presentation we gave today. We have given a few different definitions based both on the Bergen Ministerial Declaration, which did discuss in some—

The Chairman: Where in your submission are you?

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: I'd have to actually get to the submission. I was looking at the presentation. In the submission itself, let's go to page 5. Page 5 first of all does define it through the Wingspread statement. This was at Wingspread in Racine, Wisconsin, of this year. There was a group of scientists as well as several others who came up with a definition of the precautionary principle.

The Chairman: This is fine. I noticed that you did that, but this has to be compressed into six lines, more or less, as the bill at the present time provides. So it would require quite a reworking.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: It's two and a quarter lines.

The Chairman: Can you read it again?

Ms. Sandra Schwartz:

When an activity raises threats to human harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically

The Chairman: That is not a definition of the precautionary principle. That is an action-driven description as to what should be done. What would be helpful is an alternative definition to the one on page 1, which, as you know, contains a major qualifier:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, 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.

Dr. Graham Chance: We'll submit something to you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. McElgunn and ourselves.

The Chairman: That might be very helpful.

The third question—

Dr. Peter Carter: Mr. Chairman, can I respond to that question?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Dr. Peter Carter: We would have the same definition of the precautionary principle, and what we're recommending is this definition, which is an official international definition, which does not include the fettering of it, if you want, by cost-effectiveness. So that's what we would recommend.

On virtual elimination, we do not accept the definition as it stands. We're recommending the addition of:

—bearing in mind that where more appropriate the controlling measure will be banning or sunsetting and wherever reasonably possible, virtual elimination will progress to a ban or sunsetting.

That's after all where the idea of virtual elimination came from. The other addition or requirement for virtual elimination we would have is to expand its application beyond CEPA toxics. So we would not agree with it as it stands. It needs more to be said about it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The third and last question has to do with the brief by the Learning Disabilities Association. You make an important point there, one of many, that the CEPA legislation as it stands has taken the place of the Clean Water Act—I'm referring now to page 2 of your brief—and that this bill does not make any direct reference to contaminants in air or water. And therefore I would like to know if you could expand as to how the present legislation could be improved by direct reference, which wouldn't be too difficult, but also by the incorporation of the guidelines you would like to have stated.

• 1455

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: Yes, I think the only reference to water is except as they affect international agreements, which is in part 7, division 7, clause 175. But nothing in terms of domestic water quality is mentioned in the bill.

I think it would be important in a bill that deals with the environment to mention air and water somewhere in the beginning in terms of Canadian standards or guidelines. I think maybe in part 3, subclauses 55(1) to (3), wherein the Minister of Health shall issue guidelines and objectives— that's a very short paragraph to replace the Clean Water Act. It's virtually nothing. It's virtual elimination. So I think there might be a little expansion on that paragraph.

I am troubled because when I go into the web and look at the American guidelines for contaminants in drinking water, I can find them readily. If I go into Canada's web site, I have to pay for them. I don't think that's right either. I think every citizen in Canada should know what the guidelines are for drinking water contaminants in Canada, and they should be free of charge and posted.

I think this has to do with a whole feeling of openness and the public's right to know and communities taking responsibility for their own environments, and I think that if communities know exactly where they stand in terms of water quality there will be some action. So I would like to see part 3, clause 55, expanded.

The Chairman: And having done that, what would you do about guidelines?

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: Guidelines for drinking water?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: I would think there should be standards, not guidelines. I think there should be standards for across Canada and they should be enforceable standards. If they are developed in concert with the provinces, that's fine, but they shouldn't be watered down because some provinces are going to have difficulty meeting those standards. They should be health based.

The Chairman: Are you saying there are no water standards in this—

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: We have some guidelines. We have federal water guidelines.

The Chairman: Right, but no national standard.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: But they don't have the force of law, I don't believe; they are just guidelines, and the provinces may or may not pay attention to them.

Dr. Graham Chance: I would hasten to add that those guidelines do not address the risks for young children.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Dr. Graham Chance: They're based on a 70-kilogram, healthy, working adult male.

The Chairman: We could now start a second round of questions, if there is a wish to do so, and the first name on the list is Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The chair scooped me on virtual elimination, and I look forward to your analysis of that, particularly in light of the effects on children's health and some of the other issues you've brought up.

I have a deep concern about this legislation and it has to do with what many witnesses before this committee have said, that it appears to be more residual in nature. This has been brought forward by CAPE as well. There are many concerns you can have around this if CEPA has indeed become residual in nature through some of the changes in the new CEPA.

First of all, I'm wondering if the witnesses can comment on whether they feel the new legislation is residual in nature, and secondly, if they could comment on, in the light of some of the other things that are happening with other government departments, etc., what they feel the effects will be on the government's ability to undertake environmental protection.

Dr. Peter Carter: We feel very strongly that Bill C-32, if you use the term “residual act”, weakens CEPA and it weakens Environment Canada, actually. It downgrades the role of Environment Canada in a legislative way. Any other jurisdiction, according to Bill C-32, that is involved in some way or another in environmental protection will take primacy over Environment Canada. That, in our view, makes this bill alone completely unacceptable. The environmental problems we face—there is no question about them—are huge and Environment Canada, although not overnight, certainly has to have the ability to influence and drive the other departments. The cart right now is before the horse and it has to be put around the right way. Again, if it doesn't we will all suffer. Children will suffer more.

• 1500

There's another factor as well in the ability of Environment Canada to protect the environment, which has already occurred and is at another level of jurisdiction. We have a whole international trade agreement level that has teeth—through the World Trade Organization and the MAI it has received a lot of publicity—and we have already had examples in Canada where those teeth really work and they really hurt the environment.

Again, it's a question of catchup, and with all the experts writing on this, it's rather obvious we have to have catchup on multilateral environmental agreements. We have to have catchup, as is recommended by the OECD, which CAPE fully supports in this matter, but we can't expect to have that catchup on that international level, which is now so important, if the governmental levels like Environment Canada, under Bill C-32, have no influence, have no push. It won't happen. It can't happen.

So the bill is bad news in that regard, very bad news.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Michael McBeane: It's relevant in this discussion too, as is implied in your questions, that the environment portfolio be aware of what's happening with other regulatory agencies, structures, and authorities, because a lot of this is built on the assumption that other departments are regulating pieces of the environmental stewardship. Therefore, you need to know that the environmental structures are being dismantled in some departments, and that leaves you with even more responsibilities, not fewer. At a very minimum, you should know the status of the regulator as it affects environment directly. If water labs, air labs, and radioactivity labs are being shut down and you're legislating assuming they're there, then that's not exactly responsible. You should at least have the facts on the table from the other ministries, the other departments.

This is basic, but the amount of secrecy in regulation on the health side, particularly with food and drugs but also other environmental regulation in Health Canada, and the amount of misinformation of parliamentary committees, is something that I think has to be put to a halt.

It has been raised here before that the real driver here, and it's in Health Canada documents, is regulatory competitiveness. Now, if the Department of Health is using that language, I think the environmental committee should be a little concerned about what's happening to the regulatory authority and capacity of government in general.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Chair —have we had a change in government?

Mr. Joe Jordan: He's seen the light.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Bill has seen the light.

I'm sorry, I keep referring to the CAPE brief, and I encourage everyone else to jump in. It's just that you have this nice little summary right here in the front, so it makes it easy for me to ask Chris to jump in.

In here you had talked about finding a way to integrate Environment Canada and Health Canada's principal policies and procedures on human health, and we are fully aware of the fact that it's the Minister of the Environment as well as the Minister of Health who sign off on this legislation. I'm not sure the rest of our colleagues know that, because CEPA has always been seen as an environmental piece of legislation.

I know I am always whispering in the Minister of Health's ear about CEPA, and he's probably getting tired of my doing that, but I'm wondering how we might be able— This is directly in reference to the legislation, but also indirectly as well. I'm just wondering if people have comments on how we can better integrate the principal policies of Environment Canada and Health Canada. We've had a little bit of discussion about some of the problems, so let's look at ways that we can bring these two departments together.

• 1505

Ms. Kathleen Connors: We're undergoing a review and consultation process within the Health Protection Branch, looking at the so-called antiquated Health Protection Branch legislation. We have an opportunity here, I think, and certainly our participation in those consultations will call for a strengthening of the obligation of the Minister of Health to protect the health and safety of Canadians. Ultimately within government the buck stops somewhere, and from the health care side we think it should stop at the feet of the Minister of Health. So under this consultation process, that would be one of the pieces we are putting forward, and we need to look at, based on what we're hearing here in this committee about strengthening not only the food and drugs and medical devices, the environmental part of the ministerial obligations with respect to ensuring the health and safety obligations of the health of Canadians.

I think that would be one way in which we can be involved, and it certainly would look to the members of the environment committee for putting those kinds of words within the Health Protection Branch consultation process, because you're members of the Canadian populace as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.)): Thank you. Mr. Ruf, do you have a comment?

Mr. Fred Ruf: Let me add something to that. It seems lately that I've spent more time in Ottawa working with Health Canada and Environment Canada on some really interesting projects, which I think have relevance here today.

I'm going to use public health jargon for a moment when I talk about upstream and process. You have two ministries and two bureaucratic structures and it strikes me that what you need is an advisory component that brings the two groups together at a very senior level. That would be number one.

Number two, I'm going to borrow from the two projects I'm involved with. One is the trihalomethane chlorination project with Health Canada and one is a CWF project, which is a Canada-wide standard with Environment Canada. There are two really critical aspects of both of those projects, and I'm taking both projects at face value, by the way. Both projects have brought together, and have made a commitment to bring together, interested and informed stakeholders made up of health groups and environmental groups. We have already come together on a number of occasions. We're coming together again to exchange the health agenda with the environmental agenda and see how we can bring the two together. To my mind, that's the single most positive thing I have seen coming out of this city with respect to environmental and health issues. I'd like us to look at what already works and what is already in place and borrow from that, if possible.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. Laliberte and then Madame Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to raise again the point of two ministers being involved here, the ministers of health and environment. If you get a chance to read part 9, when the jurisdiction comes under government operations, federal and aboriginal land, it only deals with one minister. It also refers to the role of the inspectors. When it comes to whistle-blower legislation, employee protection, again it only covers federal employees.

With the medical and health industry involved at this level, what is your view on this? There's one focus on federal jurisdiction that seems so clear and concise and then it gets watered down when it becomes the public, the municipal or the provincial domain. Have you noticed this?

Dr. Peter Carter: We note this and it's not acceptable.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What's not acceptable?

Dr. Peter Carter: Having the whistle-blower protection just for people who work under the federal government is not what we would call whistle-blower protection. It has to be applied generally.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Are all of you—

Dr. Graham Chance: Indeed.

Dr. Peter Carter: You either agree with whistle-blower protection or you don't. If you agree with it, this doesn't do it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So this should go beyond the federal definition.

Dr. Peter Carter: Most definitely.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It starts off really nicely, but then—

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: Yes, it does.

• 1510

Dr. Peter Carter: When you read it at first, it looks rather good, which I have to say applies to a lot about this bill. When you really read it the fifth and sixth time, you think, oh, my gosh, that's not whistle-blower protection. That's not this, that's not that. That's not really virtual elimination.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There's also a reference in the bill— If somebody has a toxic material and needs to report it, it's okay as long as he reports it to either minister. That is this harmonization. I think we need harmonization within this bill as well, between the two ministers, because if nobody knows where these toxins are— This is an environmental bill and I think one ministry should have primacy over it. What's your view on that? I know you deal a lot with the health minister, but what do you see with this bill? Is this a priority for the environment minister to take the lead on this?

Mr. Fred Ruf: Speaking from an operational point of view, having been responsible for public health programs for the last 30 years, I see that more as an operational issue. One of the two ministries has to have carriage, obviously, of the administration, of the staffing, of the response, of the investigation, inspection, and the enforcement aspects. Whether or not a complaint can be filed with either ministry at this point is not all that relevant, as long as it ends up where the proper response is. That's an administrative matter, to my mind.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Ms Torsney, did you have a brief intervention on this point?

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Because it's a fairly important point and because we are televised, I wonder if we could ask our researcher, Madame Hébert, to elaborate on the issue of why the whistle-blower protection in the federal workplace is included in the bill.

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): Generally, labour relations are governed by the Constitution, and as a rule the provincial workplaces should be regulated in the provincial arena. This is federal legislation. Any protection that it offers limits itself to the federal workplace, thereby not applying to the provincial workplace. It's basically a constitutional problem, if you will.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Dr. Peter Carter: But couldn't the legislation have whistle-blower protection for people working in companies, or anybody for that matter? No?

Ms. Monique Hébert: Not having looked into this in any great depth— it might arguably be held to be incidental, if you will, to federal environmental protection, but what you basically have here is a protection in the provincial workplace. It may well be that the provinces would think this is an unacceptable intrusion into their own provincial workplaces; hence, you would have another area of conflict between the federal government and the provinces.

Perhaps by way of clarification I might be able to say constitutionally it's unclear. I don't believe this matter has been tested in the courts, but in political terms, some may view that it is ill advised for federal protection to be offered to provincially regulated employees.

Dr. Graham Chance: Is it not ill advised that protection should be only available to certain Canadians? It doesn't seem appropriate that only a segment of the population should be protected under a bill.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes, but there are differences in workplace regulations. For instance, at the federal level there's employment equity legislation; there isn't in the province of Ontario anymore. I think there's probably another way to skin the cat, to achieve what you want to achieve, but I think in reference specifically to what the legislation has, it's not about some disregard for the other employees; it's about a constitutional issue. I just wanted to clarify that specific point in this specific case.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Our researcher has some clarification.

Ms. Monique Hébert: I'd just like to add that I suppose the preferred method in situations where you have divided jurisdiction is that you see federal-provincial efforts together, such as the workplace hazardous materials legislation, where you see both the federal government and the provincial counterparts legislating at the same time under one uniform regime. Quite possibly, in terms of whistle-blowing, you would need that same approach in political terms. Quite apart from what the Constitution would or would not permit, that does seem to be an area that's unclear. But in political terms both levels of government progressing together has been the solution in the past in similar situations.

• 1515

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, were you finished your questioning?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In the same context regarding differences between federal jurisdiction of operations or public works and the pollution prevention principles, in the bill itself pollution prevention mainly focuses on a requirement for plans, but under federal jurisdiction it highlights a whole different aspect of responsibilities and roles for the minister and expectations, and the discretionary powers kind of change from “may” to “shall”, not only in the whistle-blower regulation but I think also in federal jurisdiction. I think this bill tests the jurisdiction of the federal government. I think everybody is agreeing that we need strong federal jurisdiction on environment and I think everybody here agrees and everybody we've heard today has said the same thing.

Ms. Kathleen Connors: That is why, despite the concerns expressed by the chair, we had to address the legislation. But I think there are some overriding issues in the legislation that we have to look at in the political context.

Right now federal and provincial health ministers are meeting in Regina, and they're discussing the issue of the role of dispute resolution with respect to the interpretation of the Canada Health Act. The issue of harmonization in environmental protection and in health care is part of the federal-provincial relations situation now, and I think it's important to realize that many Canadians, despite what provincial politicians are saying, believe that there is an absolutely incumbent role for the federal government to establish and legislate strong national standards to protect the health and the safety and the environment for all of us. That position and that political reality is before you, and so the legislation that you're considering, if it isn't able to do that, needs to be modified. There need to be amendments to the legislation to address that will of Canadians to have that kind of protection in place.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I've been listening this afternoon quite attentively to your exchanges with committee members regarding Bill C-32. I haven't had the pleasure of reading CAPE's submission, as I just now received a copy of it in English only.

I'd like to focus on the executive summary presented by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. CAPE believes there are major items not explicitly required by Bill C-32. For instance, it notes the following in paragraph 5 on page 2:

5) Bill C-32 does not protect against the pressure of domestic and global commercial interests forcing CEPA environmental regulations back and forcing environmental health standards down.

What provisions do you suggest be included in the legislation to provide the increase protection you feel is currently lacking in Bill C-32?

[English]

Dr. Peter Carter: You were talking about the effect of the international trade agreements on environmental protection in Canada. Frankly, it needs to be included in the bill. Like so many other things, the bill doesn't really mention it. The only place where it's mentioned at all in the bill is in the preamble. I think the last paragraph in the preamble says that Canada must abide by its international obligations. But that's only one side of the coin. Canada must be involved, and Environment Canada, for the environment, must be involved in these international discussions and in making the international agreements.

• 1520

Now, I'm as sure as I can be that Environment Canada has not been involved very closely in these agreements. CAPE has had communications with all the ministries for the past year, and there seems to be a very clear lack of integration. Integration between the environment ministry and the trade and commerce ministry is fundamental to sustainable development. That has to be put in place. It's supposedly put in place by the Agenda 2000, by the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, but obviously that is not strong enough.

I'm not a lawyer, but here's an act for Canada. I don't know where else it can be put in. There needs to be something put in that recognizes this new level of government, in a sense, a new level of international government. We're not saying it's wrong; it has to happen. But it has to happen on a national basis for each country within the OECD—again I'll refer to the OECD agenda on the environment and the high-level report. It has to be put into some national legislation. There has to be a driver for multinational environmental agreements, and the driver has to be within national acts. Frankly, if it's not in, it can't work.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: I also think we're going to be more vulnerable than other countries if we have different guidelines and standards in various parts of the country, because corporations can then come in and say, yes, that might be right for this part of the country, but it's much lower over here, so you can't require us to meet that standard when you are accepting this standard in this other jurisdiction. Therefore, we may have industries coming in that are going to pollute a lot more than we would wish.

Mr. Michael McBeane: The point on harmonization, I think, is relevant in terms of Justice Krever's findings. He said that harmonization is good for industry, but it should never be an excuse to dismantle the authority and the capability of the regulator. That applies to the environment as much as it applies to the blood system or our food system. All of these are contributors to and determinants of health. We're seeing this being fundamentally violated; the regulator is being dismantled under the guise of harmonization. That is a disaster in terms of public health.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Are there any other questions of the witnesses? Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The Canadian Institute of Child Health had identified some areas where the American government had been moving toward looking at susceptible populations, for example children. You had identified the executive order and the programs that are operating through the EPA, and they're available on all of our web sites, so we can all take a look at them. Have you identified any similar sorts of work or work that's closely related to this in Canada with the federal government?

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: At that level in Health Canada there is currently a working group on children's environmental health. Now, this is not a formalized structure. My suggestion would be that if we want to have something similar to the U.S. and the Environmental Protection Agency's office of children's health, we ought to have something in place within either Health Canada, Environment Canada, or one of the other federal departments.

I believe there is currently work being done at many of the federal departments. I know that Environment Canada is trying to establish a working group within one of their divisions on children's environmental health as well. I've heard they have been in touch with Health Canada officials to discuss where things are, what they need to be focusing on, but it hasn't been established yet at Environment Canada.

• 1525

Again, I would strongly recommend that there be such an office established in Canada at the very least, and that we have public access to that as well. Members such as ourselves here would also sit on an advisory board of that office, and we would also be able to have input into what occurs. That office, in my estimation, should not be solely Health Canada. I believe it should include representatives from other federal departments, perhaps even provincial departments as well.

One of the things that we are currently working on is establishing a network in Canada that would probably be called the national children's environmental health network. It's also being established, hopefully, on an international level. It has a lot of NGO partnerships. It will have partnerships, hopefully, with the provinces as well as with federal departments, and on an international level this is also what they're hoping to do. What we would also like to have within that is representation from industry. I think it's very important that when we talk about intersectoral collaboration that that includes all sectors in society. All sectors have a vested interest in protecting children and children's health in Canada.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If CEPA is interested in making the shift towards sustainable development, we have to take into consideration intergenerational equity as a very prime area of consideration, especially if you take a look at the sort of guidance that we can look to from the aboriginal people in this country. They look at seven generations down the road. Intergenerational equity is a very important concept to help us understand sustainable development.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: May I interject?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure.

Ms. Sandra Schwartz: Sustainable development, as it's defined in the bill, is the old definition of sustainable development. It is that definition that was created back in the 1980s. My belief, in discussion with other members, is that that definition doesn't really work any longer. That only takes into account economics.

I believe there are three interconnected circles—Dr. Trevor Hancock originally talked about these—where health is really at the centre of those three, the other three being environment, community, and economy. A better definition in my mind or a better term would be something that I would call sustainable health as opposed to sustainable development, because that then encompasses all of those components.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I have difficulty myself using the term “sustainable development”.

I think it's also important to acknowledge the role Environment Canada can play in the health of Canadians, for very obvious reasons. We had a witness who came before the committee yesterday who talked about the fact that on the issue of endocrine disrupters the evidence is already in. We can already start to take action. One of the researchers indicated to me that one of the things we can look at with wildlife health and wildlife generations is that their generational year span is smaller than humans, and we can start to see the effects of intergenerational problems at a faster rate than we can with human beings. It takes 20-odd years before you have a new generation, and how many more years before you start to see some of those effects? At the cellular level we are essentially the same.

So there are certain things that we can learn a lot from in the work that has already been done in Environment Canada, and we hope they can do more to help us inform the issues around human health.

Ms. Barbara McElgunn: I wish there was more of a sway between Health Canada and Environment Canada. There seems to be a cut-off point where one cannot do what the other is doing, and I don't think this is right. I think they should be working in conjunction with each other. They shouldn't be competitive; they should be complementary.

• 1530

I was at a meeting just a week ago in Toronto where a professor from the U of T told the committee a story. They wanted to look at air quality and they had all the data. They wanted to pull it together and they asked Environment Canada for some funding. Environment Canada agreed until they found out it was going to have a health component, so they couldn't do it. They were not permitted to do it. It went to Health Canada and they weren't interested. So the whole thing was dropped. Here was an example of a possibility of something that might have borne some fruit in terms of monitoring and action and knowing where we are in terms of air toxics around the Great Lakes basin, and it was dropped because of jurisdictional fiefdoms.

I think people in Parliament should have jurisdiction over what is happening in the agencies. You as parliamentarians should be able to tell the agencies what they should be doing; in other words, almost legislate where they can work and how they should work. This happens in the United States, where a lot of times the EPA is told by Congress what they must do. Under the 1997 amendments to the Clean Water Act, the EPA must test water in terms of child health. They must allow another uncertainty factor of ten, and this came from Congress. I think maybe this might happen here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Mr. McBeane.

Mr. Michael McBeane: One of the issues people talk a lot about is evidence-based decision-making, but how do you get the evidence if you shut down your food labs, your environmental labs, and your drug labs that anticipate hazards? Before people drop dead, you can anticipate the hazard, surely, but if the labs are all gone and there's no independent investigation capacity, except industry manufacturing, what future are we creating in the environment and in health? There's also the question of Health Canada destroying the evidence on the blood case. Eight years of government records were destroyed, according to the information commissioner.

We're not dealing with a department of health that has health as an objective. That's a difficult reality for Canadians to process. We have a department of health that is working for industry, because health is now seen as an industrial commodity that has huge environmental and health impacts. The disasters are crying in our face to be addressed and we're going to have to look at them sooner or later.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for appearing before us today. That brings this afternoon's hearings on Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to a close. Thank you all for your participation.