Evidence of meeting #37 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was phosphorus.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So there'd be very little competition for a period of how long?
Director, Policy, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
It would be until our manufacturers come with their new products, which we've committed to doing by July of 2010.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So July 2010 seems to be the standard that's been set in numerous jurisdictions. So Bill C-469 could speed up that process by maybe even as much as a year or a year and a half, but it could create a problem with product availability for consumers.
Director, Policy, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Currently, nil-P products in the U.S.—and these figures I'm not sure of, as I think they're from a few years ago—are .03% of the market. They likely would not have the ability to fill the demand. Our member companies make 86% of the products sold in Canada, and if they can't fill the demand, there will likely be less product or not enough product to fill the actual consumer demand.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It would have an impact on consumers, but it would also have an impact on the industry itself.
Director, Policy, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Yes. As I explained to Mr. Bigras, three counties in Washington State have moved toward an implementation date of January 1, 2008, and as a result our member companies are not currently selling products in those three counties.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Do you feel that the amount of time that has been proposed under Bill C-469 is reasonable? They are saying that they would like to see this enacted fairly quickly, and that it would have an impact on consumers and industry. Is it feasible or practical to have it done that quick?
Director, Policy, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
From an industry standpoint, no.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Dr. Carignan, one of the questions you answered earlier had to do with whether you thought this was being done in a bit of a rush. I think your comment was that we should let industry take the time to do it properly. Were you aware of the government's notice of intent in February?
Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
Yes. But I don't see any need for hurry in moving ahead with this date. I think it should be a single date for everybody in the game. July 1, 2010, seems to be reasonable for everybody, so I don't see the point of enacting this legislation earlier than July 1, 2010.
We have lived for the last 50 years with automatic dishwashers that are laced with phosphorous, and I think we can live six months or one year more.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I read the article you wrote for La Presse approximately 11 months ago. It was very useful to find out about the other causes of blue-green algae.
Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
Unsustainable agriculture is by far the major culprit.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I think there is consensus that there is a problem, and I think we're also hearing from the witnesses that July 2010 is the better approach.
I'd like to go back to Madame Jelley, regarding moving forward by regulation or by legislation. We heard from the Department of Justice's senior counsel on Wednesday of last week. He said the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, 1999, is the framework. By fixing either a prohibition or a limit in the act itself, you've tied the hands of what's intended to be a flexible regime. You've compromised its ability to evolve with changes and scientific information or other developments.
He went on to say:
I would say that a change to the act itself to crystallize these requirements in itself weakens the regime. It doesn't make it stronger.
I think you commented on the importance of having it done properly so that it strengthens, not weakens. You said that what's being proposed in Bill C-469 would actually weaken it. Could you comment on that?
Also, Dr. Carignan, could you comment on the importance of strengthening?
Full Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, As an Individual
I don't care too much how you do it, as long as you do it. I don't understand the small details, the differences between the law and amending an existing bill. The thing is to do it.
Director, Policy, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
We agree with the senior counsel from the Department of Justice. There is currently a federal regulation under the phosphorus concentration regulations. It limits laundry detergents to 2.2%. If this bill proceeds and if the bill is amended to 0.5%, as is being proposed by some of the members on the committee, the legislation and the regulation would conflict specifically for laundry detergents.
The regulation currently says 2.2%, and the legislation would say 0.5%. That sends conflicting messages to industry and Canadians. That is why we are recommending that the bill either not proceed and a motion be tabled with this committee instructing the federal government to move forward amending the regulations under CEPA that already exist, or that the bill be substantially amended and that the Minister of Environment be instructed to create federal regulations. Either way, it has to be done by regulations rather than amending CEPA. We do not want CEPA weakened.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, witnesses.
I'll just interrupt for a minute and let members know that there will be bells at 5:12 p.m. and a vote at 5:27 p.m. That's a vote to extend sitting hours. There's been two hours of debate in the House; that's why the odd times. So there will be a vote at that time.
The one decision we do have to make is regarding Thursday. It was suggested by Mr. Bigras that we have a meeting on Thursday of this week.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
No, this week. We're not having a meeting on Wednesday because of the announcement in the House. That's when we were scheduled to do clause-by-clause. So the suggestion here from Mr. Bigras, if I'm speaking correctly, is that it be Thursday, and the clerk will have to find a time. Otherwise we would do clause-by-clause on Monday, which means, then, that we would not bring in those advisers regarding Mr. Scarpaleggia's issue on Monday. We need to know that now so we can cancel or confirm speakers for Monday.
Mr. Bigras.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed with clause-by-clause consideration Thursday morning because, if I understood correctly, there will be a debate in the House on Mr. Godfrey's bill on Thursday afternoon. Because the critics will likely have to be in the House, that only leaves Thursday morning.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I was just going to say, even before Mr. Bigras made that statement, that the clerk is going to have real difficulty in terms of getting committee spots, because we've cancelled already on the Wednesday, but now there are all the other committees meeting on Thursday and we're trying to go after the same spots they are.
If we're now pushing it into the morning only, I suggest that your task, Mr. Chair, respectfully, and the task of the clerk will be made even more difficult, because there are far too many committees going after far too few spots. I say that just to prepare the member for a possible disappointment here, but I think that's what you're up against.