Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

[Kenneth Maybee]

I would just add to it.

When you're dealing with the issue, there's a lot of knowledge and a lot of things that can be done. The thing we have not been able to fix is cultural change. We have to notify people. If we really are going to make advances, culturally, from a consumer's point of view, we have to educate the consumer that this is an important issue. We have a tremendous problem with climate change. We have a tremendous problem with air quality. We must educate the consumer about change, and then we have to change.

We also have to educate politicians about behaviour change, to get to the point where they start looking past an election period. Being from a non-profit organization, I can say that. We have to look for a longer span and develop a strategy that is going to work in the longer term. Then it will work.

The other thing that is critical, and perhaps the most important thing I can say here, is that federal and provincial civil servants are outstanding individuals. They're excellent. But they are understaffed for the job you want them to do. I can say that; they can't. If you really want to get something done under CEPA, you should do a review of the Department of Health, in particular, and the Department of Environment, and give them the tools they need to help you do the job. If you get them there, an organization such as ours is going to be able to help in partnership, and this can work far better than what you think.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

My second question is for Mr. Teeter.

We have already debated the issue of fertilizers. At the time, the point was made that the phenomenon of blue-green algae, which is currently present in many Quebec lakes, had several causes: the treatment of domestic waste water, septic tanks, fertilizers, soil leaching and so on.

Presently in Quebec, there are more and more bans on the use of lake water. One of the causes of the problem has just been identified. There was abundant rain last spring, very high levels of precipitation and soil leaching.

How should we interpret the fact that a non-toxic product undergoing a transformation implies that algae produces toxins?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Very briefly, Mr. Teeter.

[Michael Teeter]

I'm not representing the fertilizer industry, so I shouldn't speak on their behalf, but a point I did make, and I think would get us to action faster, certainly on the question of ammonia, which was assessed under PSL.... If the debate there had focused more on what the context of the problem was, you would have achieved a solution much faster. In that case, the priority was municipal waste water treatment plants and effluents from them. If you had the system focused on that right from the start, I think we would have had action a lot faster, instead of focusing on the whole business of trying to list ammonia as a toxic substance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, please keep it to about two minutes.

Mr. Glover, I understand you have a statement on timelines. If you could send that to the clerk, we'll distribute it to all the members. Thank you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the things we haven't really discussed with respect to timelines is virtual elimination. I'll start with Mr. Glover and I'll invite some panellists to jump in after that, if we have time.

Once a substance has been placed on the virtual elimination list--and maybe this will depend on the substance, and I'll get one of these “it depends” answers--how long are we looking at for a substance to be virtually eliminated?

[Cynthia Wright]

The general timelines still apply. The requirement is to have a proposed instrument within 24 months and a finalized instrument in place in 18 months, and that's to bring it to what is determined to be the level of quantification--in other words, the lowest detectable level possible, measured with current technology.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Maybe that leads to my question: Help me understand virtual elimination a little bit better and what that means in practice. Are there some real challenges with respect to setting the limits of quantity or things like that? Obviously, virtual elimination is different from banning something outright. We're talking about risk management, essentially. Can you walk us through what that means?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Very briefly.

[Cynthia Wright]

Very briefly, it is different from banning because some substances combine with other substances. The original concept was meant to get at those things that were not released intentionally into the environment but were created by a mixing of other things. It's focused on eliminating the release of those substances. The challenge is around the limit of quantification, because now we're finding other substances that meet the general criteria for virtual elimination but are not released in a normal way. They might deliberately be put in a product. So this whole concept of release and of the limit of quantification does not work for that family of substances. I presume that's the nature of your discussions next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Watson.

I'd like to thank our panel, and I certainly appreciate your addition to our information. I dismiss you now.

We do have this set as an in camera session. I'm prepared to have this as an open meeting. What is the will of the committee? Any comments?

Okay, we'll proceed. I'll excuse the witnesses. Thank you very much.

We have several items we need to deal with, committee, and I'll be brief, for the sake of time, because we have another committee coming into this room.

The first item is a housekeeping item. It is the operational budget request for $18,800 to cover witnesses, and I would like a motion to accept this expenditure.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes. Are we in camera? This is in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, it's not in camera. No one suggested it needed to be. Is everybody happy? Okay.

This expenditure, then--will someone move that we accept this?

Mr. Godfrey moves that.

(Motion agreed to)

The second item we need to deal with concerns the main estimates, which have to be reported to the House. The supplementary estimates will be tabled on October 30, and the suggestion is that this was the previous budget for the main estimates. Over 90% of the money has been spent, whereas the supplementary estimates would be the present government, and of course would be something where we could call for the minister, etc. So I would like a motion as to whether we send the main estimates to the House and then plan for the supplementary estimates.

Mr. Cullen, I believe you had your hand up.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Maybe we can have our witnesses clear the room. It's hard to have an in camera meeting when--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, we're not in camera, Mr. Cullen. We said we would just go open, so we're proceeding.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I do have questions about some of the money that's been spent. I think it's been a topic of discussion, certainly since this new Parliament has started, where money was spent, whether it was effective.

I guess my question is more of a process question. If we wait until the supplementary estimates are before us, is there any denial of access to those main estimates?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The main estimates have to be reported back to the House by November 10. If we don't report, they'll automatically be sent back November 10. So they're going back anyway.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My question, then--because the way money was spent has been such a big topic, and we've talked about it lots in the House--is if we have a month and a half, can we not find a committee day to spend on it? I'm going to suggest very particular categories in the main estimates.

We didn't do it last time, and I think it was a regret for many committee members that we simply sent them back without any analysis at all. I would suggest that's where some of the problems arose, because we didn't do an assessment of where the government had spent its money. And the auditor just gave us a report, not two weeks or three weeks ago, that raised many concerns.

I understand how much pressure there is on the committee's time, but if we're not looking at and understanding the way government spends money, how can we do any proper assessment and advise on how the government chooses to spend money?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, your comment.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to broach this topic specifically. I just want to make sure that we will be able to discuss Bill C-288 before the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can we just deal with these estimates quickly? Would someone like to put forward a motion? We can vote on it and make that decision.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The motion is not complicated. It's that we find one committee day to spend on the main estimates before they return to the House--prior to November 10, I believe you said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Does everybody understand the motion?

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Just for clarification, you said “one day”. Are you talking about a day when we would discuss that along with hearing from witnesses, or are you dedicating a complete two-hour period for the debate?