Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by expressing our industry's appreciation to be addressing the committee on this important and timely examination you're undertaking with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
By way of introduction, FPAC is the voice of the Canadian wood, pulp, and paper producers, nationally and internationally, in the areas of government, trade, and environment. Canada's forest industry represents 3% of Canada's GDP and exports over $40 billion of wood, pulp, and paper annually. We're also one of Canada's largest employers, operating in hundreds of communities—mostly rural—and providing nearly 900,000 direct or indirect jobs across the country.
The forest sector has established itself as a leader on environmental issues. The operations have spent over $8 billion on reducing air and water discharges. Our most recent data show that the sector has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 30% since 1990; at the same time, we have reduced particulate matter by over 60%. We have an equally impressive track record on water, which I won't get into, as time does not permit.
We are very proud of our environmental track record. However, we recognize that the status quo is not good enough. We must do more to continually improve our environmental performance; and to do more, we need creative approaches built upon collaboration and cooperation with stakeholders, as well as federally and provincially. Through mechanisms like our Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum, we have proven our capacity to work with a broad range of stakeholders in thinking creatively about solutions to very complex and difficult issues in a time of economic crisis for the sector. Indeed, the remarks I'll be making today draw very heavily from the work of that forum, and I look forward to sharing those.
We are a highly regulated sector in many jurisdictions across the country, and consequently we have a significant level of experience with respect to environmental legislation, both federally and provincially. CEPA has a significant impact on our members, particularly now that the Clean Air Act amendments have been included within CEPA.
FPAC would like to focus our comments today on one issue that is of overriding importance to our members, the equivalency provisions within CEPA. As a highly regulated sector, we are particularly sensitive to the increasing regulatory morass and complexity we're facing within Canada's landscape. To be very clear, FPAC does not challenge the federal government's authority to regulate environmental issues, nor do we advocate harmonization with provincial standards. We recognize that the federal government may wish to do more in certain provincial jurisdictions, and we also recognize that the provincial governments do share some of the burden of reaching and eliminating the complex environmental challenges we face.
However, we do advocate very strongly for efficient approaches that eliminate federal and provincial duplication. We firmly believe it is critical that federal and provincial governments work together towards that goal. We suggest that understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the existing provincial regimes is a key step in pursuing federal action. This understanding is certainly a necessary building block for ensuring regulatory gaps are addressed and that duplication is avoided.
CEPA 1999 does provide provisions to allow federal and provincial governments to sign equivalency agreements between them. We fundamentally believe that the original intent of these provisions aimed at simplifying the environmental landscape without weakening environmental performance. However, our experience to date has shown that the provisions, along with their interpretation, are significant barriers to achieving this important goal. I'm sure you're aware that only one province, the Province of Alberta, actually has an agreement in place with the federal government.
In the interest of the committee's time, I do not intend to review all of the legal intricacies of CEPA. I'm sure you're more than intimately familiar with them. I would also like to set aside Bill C-30 for just a moment.
So just in the context of the existing CEPA as it stands, there are two provisions for equivalency, which I think are important to highlight here. One, the provincial regulatory provisions can be deemed equivalent to regulations of the federal government and therefore could be eligible for exemption. Two, these provisions must allow for investigation of alleged offences or what we call the citizens' right to investigate. You need both of these criteria to be in place to get an equivalency agreement.
Bill C-30 proposes amendments to CEPA 1999 in this area, and I implore the committee to take a very close look at those provisions as you undertake your CEPA review.
The proposed Clean Air Act amendments shift away from a very strict regulatory-to-regulatory interpretation or focus toward the more outcomes-based approach, i.e., provisions, the effects of which are equivalent. FPAC strongly believes this is a clear and important step in the right direction, as it adds flexibility to the requirements and should not compromise the quality of the environment. Bill C-30, however, does not modify the “citizens' right to investigate” provisions.
I would like to lead you through a very short example around air quality that highlights the challenges and implications of CEPA 1999 and then also the proposed amendments for Bill C-30.
Based on comprehensive legal analysis, we have several stand-alone legal opinions, as well as consultations with the federal Department of Justice, Environment Canada, and five provincial governments—B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. On the potential for an equivalency agreement with provinces for our sector, we have found that only Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador would be in a position to sign equivalency agreements under CEPA 1999 without tremendous and significant modifications to their existing regulatory regimes. If you add Bill C-30 amendments to this equation, what you get is Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia able to sign equivalency agreements, due to the shift toward the outcomes-based approach that I mentioned earlier.
I would like to note that Quebec, with its very comprehensive regulatory regime—it has a tremendous regulatory regime in place—would still not be able to sign an equivalency agreement. That's given as a result of the lack of “citizens' right to investigate” provisions. Quite frankly, this concerns us greatly.
The following are our recommendations for your consideration. We urge you to remain committed to simplifying the environmental regulatory requirements in Canada by addressing the legislative constraints that prevent the establishment of equivalency agreements. Furthermore, we urge the committee to support the proposed amendments, as they relate to equivalency, that were introduced in Bill C-30. While they do not go far enough, in our opinion, they do move us in the right direction.
As a supplementary to this, we do not know how the committee intends to deal with this, but we believe there would be some inherent value in the committee's coordinating its CEPA review activities and its Bill C-30 activities. I'm sure you have all sorts of thoughts on that, but this is an area that highlights, I think, the value of undertaking that.
We apologize in advance for not having any specific recommendations here, but we would like to ask the committee to undertake a study or further examination of what options may exist to support the citizens' right to investigate in concept. We really believe it's an important concept, but there must be a way to do this while providing flexibility for provincial jurisdictions in terms of this requirement. We haven't yet undertaken our resources to figure that one out. We intend to, and we would like to be able to present the results of that to committee, but we also suggest that you may have some study work or interest to study that particular opportunity.
We request that the committee recommend to the government that it draw on the experience of sectors that have already developed cooperative federal and provincial mechanisms. For example, I did mention the Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum. For the last two years, we've been rolling up our sleeves with environmental organizations, aboriginals, five provinces, and the federal government, to figure out a path forward on air and climate change that makes sense for all concerned. We really hope those initiatives are not pushed aside with respect to a new approach to air.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I'd be happy to take any questions that the committee members may have. Thank you.