Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2006

[Catherine Cobden]

In fact we no longer use chlorine gas for bleaching. Madam Broten did make a reference to this, that we have virtually eliminated dioxins and furans in our effluents. We did this was by significantly shifting the technology within our pulp and paper mills.

In addition to eliminating dioxins and furans, we've reduced AOX by more than 90% over that same timeframe. Certainly this was precipitated by regulatory drives, but nonetheless we've made the significant investment of billions of dollars to do so.

[Delores Broten]

As a clarification, part of that shift was by using chlorine dioxide gas rather than straight chlorine gas. Chlorine dioxide is a chlorine-based compound that is also quite dangerous to use.

[Catherine Cobden]

If I may, we have seen significant improvements in the receiving environment. I'm not really able to go into this in a significant way today, but I'd be more than happy to make a separate submission to the committee on this point, if that's of interest.

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

I have one last question. We know that efforts have been made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because there has been a 33 % reduction.

Could the industry reduce their emissions even further? Will we have to wait for new technology or is that new technology already available?

[Catherine Cobden]

This is something we call the miracle of biomass. It sounds a bit facetious, but it really is an opportunity out there for all to reach for and grab.

As we've become more energy self-sufficient, the beauty is that we have brought down our greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, we've been able to liberate ourselves from our fossil fuel hunger and find a renewable fuel.

This has also addressed air quality considerations. They really do go hand-in-glove. The single largest contributing factor to air quality, climate change, and greenhouse gases in a pulp and paper mill facility is the energy system. So as you focus on that and provide incentives for doing more, it's a beautiful scenario where all of the things you're concerned about come down.

The challenge is that we've done about as much as we can economically; the low-hanging fruit is done. Is there more potential? Absolutely. We need to figure out ways to provide more incentives to get to that.

There's no doubt that biomass is available; it's just more costly to get. There are beehive burners that can be shut down, and that stuff can be sent over for better, more appropriate use. As an industry, we're committed to this.

The problem is all about economics. So we really urge the federal government and the committee to look where you can for opportunities to further the biomass opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen had to leave, so we'll go to Mr. Warawa, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to be sharing my 10 minutes with Mr. Calkins.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I've found it informative.

Of course the government is supportive of CEPA and wanting to make it better. We believe that the equivalency agreements are important, and we want them to be able to be effective and used. In fact, the Clean Air Act, Bill C-30, which was mentioned a number of times—and Ms. Cobden, you mentioned it—will make CEPA much more effective than the equivalency agreements, with the changes that we're proposing.

I do have some questions here.

Ms. Broten, you made some comments that I'm a little puzzled with, and perhaps you could clarify them. You mentioned the “talk and log”. You talked about expensive and time-consuming meetings. It sounded like you want action and you want us to be effective. You talked about “the whole long process of multi-stakeholder meetings, scientific twists and turns, market scares, job blackmail, and a Harmonization Agreement”. It sounded like you don't appreciate the consultation process, which does take time.

For clarification, are you're saying that you find the process very long and time-consuming and you'd like it to be more effective?

[Delores Broten]

Yes. I like the consultation, but I'd actually like to see more clear leadership from the federal government when it's actually operating under CEPA instead of letting a provincial bureaucrat derail the process for a couple of years here or there. It's very frustrating and very difficult for the rest of us to live with, and I believe it happens quite often.

It's more a question of setting a timetable and moving on instead of spending 10 years to develop a standard.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

You do support consultation.

[Delores Broten]

Oh, I love it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. Good.

Of course, the harmonized equivalency agreements don't include everything. They cannot deal with quantities targeted for virtual elimination, nutrients disposable at sea, fuel and engine emissions, movement of hazardous waste, and some administrative processes. But our hope is to provide an effective change through CEPA and Bill C-30.

At present, all agreements terminate after five years, and I'd ask each of you to make a comment on that.

Mr. Heming, I appreciated your comments, but could you give some comment on equivalency agreements? It's the topic of today. The agreements terminate within five years. Do you think it is a good idea? Should they be within agreements with the province, territories, or first nations? Should they end at five years or should they be part of an agreement?

Could each of you comment on that?

[Delores Broten]

I think there should be a review for effectiveness built into it somewhere, and it could then be renewed fairly simply. But there needs to be some kind of going back, first of all, to check that the provinces are actually doing what they committed to do. Provinces tend to be even more variable than federal governments. There needs to be some kind of scientific or technological check on each agreement before it rolls over.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Heming.

[Gregory Heming]

My confusion on anything that has to do with time is that there's such a big difference between how provinces work, how territories work, how government works, and how industry and business work that timeframes can either be very positive or very negative. I don't know how to streamline the process. But I know when you talk about doing something regulatory that ends in five years, it may begin to work in a small place like ours or in a first nations group that has to roll this into land claim agreements.

It can be a frightening concept. Again, I don't know how to address the issue, but I think a word of caution is needed. Anything that terminates at a particular time can be troublesome and it can also be very positive.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Heming.

Ms. Cobden.

[Catherine Cobden]

As I think has been mentioned by Ms. Wright, it definitely adds a burden to a province that is actually interested in the equivalency situation. It's problematic from that perspective. At the same time, I understand the need for review.

One option you may want to think about is this. Rather than a termination or even a mandatory review, you could actually build performance criteria that could be monitored into these agreements, as any kind of performance criteria approach would be, so that you could actually show how you will verify and validate that things are progressing.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

I want to elaborate on what was already discussed by several of the members here.

Thank you for coming today and sharing your information and time with us. It's very enlightening.

I want to talk about what was mentioned in some of the presentations about the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the CCME: that they have Canada-wide standards. If I can get some clarification from the department here, are those Canada-wide standards mandatory for the CCME?

[Cynthia Wright]

No, they're not mandatory in the sense of being enforceable regulatory standards.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

They're not enforceable?

[Cynthia Wright]

That's correct. Each jurisdiction has to put them in place with their own instruments in their own jurisdictions.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So it's voluntary.

[Cynthia Wright]

They were signed by ministers, so there's certainly a political commitment, but you couldn't enforce a Canada-wide standard; you would have to have the jurisdiction put in some sort of tool to enforce it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Following that, have the CCME's Canada-wide standards for air contaminants, such as particulate matter and ozone, been implemented nationally?

[Cynthia Wright]

Certainly the federal government implements them. Most of its commitments were in the area of fuel and vehicle regulations, negotiating an agreement with the United States for them to reduce ozone into Canada, and also some product reductions.