Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2006

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Why can't we use CEPA to revisit them?

[Cynthia Wright]

We can use CEPA in many cases, but there are some limitations. For instance, if you wanted a trading regime to support the emissions reductions, there are some limitations in CEPA in terms of the kind of trading regime, particularly, that would relate to the best one for air particulate matter and that would harmonize with the United States.

There are other limitations in CEPA, such as, for instance, if you wanted to set a higher standard for new facilities versus existing facilities. So there are some technical limitations in terms of setting standards.

Then there are the equivalency provisions that Ms. Cobden mentioned. Under CEPA right now, one of the deterrents to having agreements with the provinces is that there's an automatic sunset every five years under the CEPA agreement, and that's just seen as being an administrative burden for no net gain.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

If we got rid of these automatic sunsets, could we have equivalency agreements?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes. The other thing that Bill C-30 does is make it clear to authority that we think is already there that you could recognize--as Ms. Cobden called it--an equivalent outcome regime. Most provinces don't actually have regulations; they set permit standards. So as long as their permit standards have the same effect throughout their jurisdictions as the federal standards, we think that would legally meet any equivalency requirements. Bill C-30 makes it explicit that it would be equivalent.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you so much for a great answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Monsieur Lussier.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Cobden, you stated that Quebec has extensive regulations and emissions permits processes for the pulp and paper industry.

Are Quebec's regulations effective? Do we need another layer of legislation, federal legislation, on top of that first layer of legislation? How is the industry doing? I see progress in all areas: CO₂ reduction, a 50 % reduction in air pollution and a 50 % reduction in water pollution.

Second, after you have told me whether or not Quebec's regulations are sufficient, I would like you to tell me whether or not the pulp and paper industry has programs to reduce the use of chlorine in the bleaching process for wood or paper.

[Catherine Cobden]

Merci. I will have to proceed in English, so please excuse me.

Our analysis, Mr. Chair, has shown that the regulation in Quebec would actually meet the new provisions under Bill C-30. In other words, if you were to look at just the regulatory.... As I mentioned, there are two provisions. There's the regulatory piece and then there's the “citizens' right to investigate” piece. So there is a legal view that there should be an ability for equivalency on the regulation level, as you have asked. The problem lies in that it's an “and”--and the citizens' right to investigate. So you need both.

In Quebec, they do not have that. We've been looking very diligently, through this forum that I've mentioned, to try to find a solution. We've been working with the Quebec government, we've been working with the federal government, to try to see what existed for this. Unfortunately, it's the current view of the federal government, as I understand it--anyone can correct me if that's changed--that there is nothing sufficient for that part. So that is the challenge.

In order to ever get the legislative framework fixed, what you would need to do is deal with the “citizens' right to investigate” provisions that I've mentioned. I don't know what the solution is to that. I'm sure there are some very bright legal minds that can come up with ways to not lose the intent, because I think it is really an important intent and I'm sure that my colleagues here would agree with me on that, but to not make it something that prevents you from actually getting an equivalency agreement in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. Wright, do you want to comment on that?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, to clarify, there are four provinces that don't have that equivalency: B.C., Manitoba, P.E.I., and Quebec.

However, officials from the Quebec government assured us that they are in the process of reviewing their legislation and that under the new legislation it will be easier for a citizen to request an investigation. To date, investigations have been requested 20 times, under the CEPA framework. We decided therefore to retain that component because the provinces have gradually been adding that provision to their own legislation.

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

Ms. Broten, you mentioned that dioxin comes from salt water—which contains chlorine—in the wood chips, which are burned, thereby producing dioxin.

Is the industry clean in terms of PCBs? Are you aware of any incidents such as explosions of transformers and condensers, leading to emissions and leaks into rivers and into the Pacific ocean?

[Delores Broten]

Okay. There have been some very near misses with explosions of chlorine-based gas--not chlorine gas but chlorine dioxide gas. There was a really close call in Powell River, British Columbia. But in terms of PCBs, the process that creates dioxin, which I was talking about when they burn the salty wood chips, also creates new PCBs in the stack. That was shown in test results in British Columbia.

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

You didn't talk about transformers exploding because when there is an explosion and transformers burn—

[Delores Broten]

Oh, transformers. Oh yes, of course.

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

Transformers produce dioxins and furans. Significant quantities are released during some explosions.

[Delores Broten]

Yes, and the PCBs are still in the transformers anyway. So any time a transformer is broken, PCBs are released. We say we don't use PCBs any more, but actually we reuse them. We put them back in the transformers.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Broten, I would like to ask you another question. You stated that CEPA was not effective, but have you ever used the Fisheries Act, which I think has more teeth?

[Delores Broten]

Well, the dioxin regulation that stopped the pulp mills from making dioxin from bleaching was under the Fisheries Act. That wasn't CEPA; that was the Fisheries Act. So right there, that's a really good example, because that was incredibly successful. CEPA could have teeth too, I believe. It's simply that due to provincial-federal relationships and due to the political will of Parliament, the teeth are not being activated.

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

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Ms. Wright, I think you had another comment.

[Cynthia Wright]

I want to clarify that the dioxin and furan laws for pulp and paper are under CEPA. There are complementary laws that address some of the other non-chemicals under the Fisheries Act.

[Delores Broten]

I thought it was under the Fisheries Act.

[Cynthia Wright]

No, it's a CEPA law.

[Delores Broten]

Okay, I stand corrected.

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

I asked a little earlier if the pulp and paper companies had a program for reducing the use of chlorine in paper bleaching. Do they have such a program?