Environment Committee on May 17th, 2006

[Shannon Coombs]

For a sector that was regulated under the Food and Drugs Act for so many years, to have a different type of risk assessment be done by a different piece of legislation, by two different departments, is.... Yes, we absolutely think it's a good act. It's a good foundation and a good safety net. It does what it was intended to do in 1999 with respect to Food and Drugs Act substances.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Good.

[Gordon Lloyd]

The act is good and bad.

One of the problems with the act is it's complicated. But I don't know how you get around that. I think it would be nice if we could have an act that is less complicated, but I think that's a wish that won't be fulfilled.

Another area in the act that I think is increasingly going to get in the way of its being a good act is its ability to support federal-provincial cooperation. I think the answers this committee was given by Environment Canada on Monday on the equivalency provisions.... I think that's an area you should delve into in your review, and see what the provinces think. Get some firm opinions from those who are trying to work out cooperative arrangements with the federal and provincial governments.

Our view is that the equivalency provisions in the act basically say, “If you do it our way—the federal way—then that's equivalency and that's okay”. We would like something broader, which recognizes there may be different ways of doing things. Provinces tend to often work through permit programs, which aren't specifically regulations. Is that recognizable as equivalency under the federal provision in section 10? I don't think so. Other provinces are increasingly experimenting, and the federal government also wants to experiment with challenge programs to industry.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Sorry, just for one second, without going too far into it, am I correct in assuming that you would recommend a much deeper review of the act?

[Gordon Lloyd]

No. I would recommend a deep review on that particular area, on whether the equivalency provisions are adequate. But I think you should have a focused review on seven or eight things.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

All right. Great.

I had another question, and again I just want to return to the term “toxic”. I agree with you that there are some clarity issues and some understanding issues in an act that's this large and this lengthy.

I'm just wondering if we couldn't replace the term “toxic”, which I agree is a very vivid and in some cases very misleading term, with a word such as “sensitive”, which I think would be somewhat better than “substances listed on schedule 1”, or substances.... How did you describe that?

[Gordon Lloyd]

Substances that meet the criteria of section 64.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That meet the criteria of section 64.

Again, I think we do need a term. I think “sensitive” would indicate that there is some concern with the substance, but it wouldn't necessarily set an alarm bell off on the substance.

I'm just wondering if you could comment on that.

[Shannon Coombs]

Well, I don't think it's as loaded as toxic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Any other comments?

Mr. Lussier.

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

Did the representatives from the three associations that appeared before us today work together to ensure the consistency of their respective presentations? If so, how was it done?

I would like to know how the Canadian Association of Steel Producers will make its views known. Are there other associations in your group that wish to speak out?

Lastly, do all the representatives from these associations have a meeting place to discuss the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Gordon Lloyd]

There's what I would call a networking group, which goes by the odd name of CEPA brainstorming group, where we try to share views among industry groups and let each other know what we're doing, what we think. There's an awful lot of commonality because we all have common interests, not because we've worked out some compromise proposal. There are different areas of focus. The steel producers would have liked to have come today. I think CCPA was initially invited. Two other associations wanted to come to this as well; three were enough. The steel producers agreed with that.

They wanted me to mention that they did have an interest in appearing, and they also supported many of the positions I noted. Now, that's not to say they're solidly onside with absolutely everything CCPA is saying. So there's not a united coalition, but we do share information among ourselves. That's an efficient way of doing things.

[Shannon Coombs]

With respect to the submissions, no, I don't think there was enough time to share submissions prior to our coming to speak to you today.

What I do find interesting is the issue of CEPA toxic appears to us distinctively within each association. It's something that transcends various associations and impacts us in very different ways, but very profoundly. I think that's what you're hearing today.

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

Once you decide how you move forward on your review, you should hear from a lot of other industries that have interests in different parts of the act--for example, all the recycling industries. We're engaged in recycling. Our feed material is impacted by CEPA because of transboundary movement provisions. Other sectors or other parties in that sector also have a lot of comments on that. They would have much less interest in part 5, but they would have a lot of interest in transboundary movement. Obviously vehicle manufacturers--engines.... The petroleum product producers have a lot of interest in the fuel section, and of course truckers and people like that do too. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has a broader view. It depends on how you're impacted by CEPA. You will have a different perspective either on a particular part or on an overall area.

Even among the three of us, I have interests in areas of the act that Shannon may not have any interest in at all. Our perspective on suspending belief and faith in how quickly and how well it will be implemented, given our experience with other acts and the lack of implementation, a very slow implementation, we're much more hesitant and much more skeptical about progress than maybe associations that have had a much more positive experience. So it does vary.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I just have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Mining Association of Canada for being awarded the Environmental Performance Award by the Globe Fondation. It is quite an honour.

I would like to talk about two points. You seem to be saying that there was a cutback in environmental monitoring and reporting activities. You are suggesting that additional resources be allocated to ensure a more effective implementation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

I do not work in the government, so I wouldn't want to prejudge as to why that decision was made. The act has a mandatory requirement for a state of the environment report, but one has not appeared since the act was passed. I'm assuming that it was because of a reallocation of resources. The act does not specify how frequently that state of the environment report is to be produced, but one would think that between one review and the next review there would have been one.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Lloyd, earlier you said that there were two levels of jurisdiction and that we should perhaps harmonize the federal legislation with provincial regulations. You said that we could consider this matter in greater depth. Can you tell us a little bit more about this subject?

[Gordon Lloyd]

Yes, I think that would be worth looking at more in depth.

My understanding of the way the equivalency provisions in section 10 are written is that the provincial governments basically have to do things the same way as the federal government to get recognized. I don't think that should be the standard. I think they in many cases have different approaches to tackling something and there should be more flexibility in being able to recognize the provincial approach in legislation as equivalent. Again, I think the Environment Canada lawyers should come up with the specific words; perhaps “similar” or “equivalent in effect” might be an improvement. Because as I understand it, right now if you took a challenge approach in a province and not a regulatory approach, that probably wouldn't qualify you for equivalency.

It's up to the government whether it wants to enter into an equivalency agreement or not. Just because it has more flexibility in being able to enter into an equivalency agreement if the language were changed in the direction I suggest, that doesn't mean they would have to, but they would have the ability to. Right now I think there is very limited ability to enter into equivalency agreements. I think that's illustrated by the fact that there's only one with Alberta, and I'm not 100% sure if it isn't a leftover from previous to 1999. That would be a question to ask Environment Canada and Alberta. But there certainly hasn't been any more since CEPA 1999; that's the only one there is.

I believe that's an area where we need to have more flexibility in the act for cooperation.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

You say that we could concentrate on five or ten aspects of the act that could be subject to amendments. You are recommending that we not completely overhaul the legislation, so as not to further delay the process and implementation.

Is that an opinion shared by your colleagues?

[Shannon Coombs]

I didn't believe that the review would stop the implementation of what's going on with CEPA at Health and Environment Canada. I still see them doing their day-to-day work. What the committee decides to do in the review is within your purview and your prerogative to do so.

[Justyna Laurie-Lean]

But if you introduce legislative change there is the potential of then going back and having to review guidelines and processes and arrive at an interpretation and so on. That's what we saw in other acts and amendments where there's a legislative change and then there is this stoppage of everything while new guidance and training materials and so on are produced, and sometimes it never happens and things are suspended. So there's a price to be paid for even good change.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

All right.

[Gordon Lloyd]

I would support what Justyna said. I think if we got into another review that was as fundamental as the CEPA 1999 review, we would be into a process of continuing review, which would hang up implementation.There are also resources in the department that get swept into that kind of comprehensive review that get taken away from implementation.

So I think very much what you said: it should be a very focused review; identify what the issues are and stick to those. And we have some suggestions we've made and we hope you will listen to about what the focused areas should be.