Environment Committee on June 10th, 2014

[Fe de Leon, Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Can I add one comment with regard to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

It does have jurisdiction in terms of managing chemicals. Some of the chemicals that are being detected in end-of-life vehicles, and certainly the design of vehicles, include chemicals like brominated flame retardants and perfluorinated chemicals, which the government has regulated on, and continues to regulate on. It speaks to the issue around designing for the environment and designing for products or parts that go into vehicles that may not necessarily have to contain these types of toxic chemicals.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Given that this is your report, you must be quite knowledgeable in this area.

Would you have a recommendation to make to the federal government about mercury and recycling car parts?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

We had quite a few recommendations in the report. We will provide it.

We did specifically talk about recommending a law similar to the European Union end-of-life vehicle directive. In addition, as Fe mentioned, it's a big part of the approach the federal government can take under risk management decisions made on those components that are deemed toxic under CEPA. But even better is maybe to use different materials and follow green chemistry approaches, instead of using those same old materials. The recommendations are contained in the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

We move now to Mr. Woodworth for five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all of the witnesses for a very interesting session.

Hello, especially to Ms. McClenaghan, my old colleague from Kitchener. I'm happy to see you again. In fact, I'd like to ask you some questions, if I may, Ms. McClenaghan, because I am interested in the cradle-to-grave approach, which I think was a phrase you used.

In fact, it reminded me of another bit of evidence that we had earlier in this study regarding “extended producer responsibility”, which I took to be a kind of cradle-to-grave process. I have since discovered that in 2009 the Canadian Minister of the Environment, together with the other national ministers of the environment through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, actually published a Canada-wide action plan for extended producer responsibility. That came out I think in October of 2009.

Would it be all right if I asked you some questions about that? I'd like to get some further details if you are familiar with it. Are you familiar enough with it to answer some questions for me?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

I don't know if I'd be able to answer specific questions. We definitely did note in the end-of-vehicle report that the CCME had taken a number of steps, including that one and including a specific national code. We can see what your questions are and we'll see if we have the level of detail you're looking for. Also, the piece we're advocating is “cradle to cradle”.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Oh. Thank you.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

We used to say “cradle to grave”, but we all decided that cradle to cradle was a better idea, because we don't want to just landfill the material. We actually want to put it back into the next vehicle down the road.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I agree. It's sort of like the big bang theory. It just keeps going.

To go back to that extended producer responsibility piece from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the definition that was adopted for extended producer responsibility is this, “an environmental policy approach in which a producer's responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of its life cycle.”

That seems pretty straightforward to me. Is it an acceptable definition from your perspective? You are nodding your head, “yes”, and as you remember from your court days, you have to say it out loud.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Yes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I see also that the Canada-wide action plan for extended producer responsibility, which our Minister of the Environment and others came up with, had a phase 1, which included operational extended producer responsibility programs within six years of the adoption of the plan. It included a number of products, and specifically automotive products. I think you just referenced that. Are you aware of that?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Yes, that's right.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In addition, the jurisdictions, within two years of the adoption of that program, would identify a more detailed phased implementation plan for those products. Have you sort of kept up with that? Do you know how they're coming? Six years from 2009 would be 2015. These plans are sometimes so ambitious that it's hard to actually grasp the nettle in its fullness and meet the deadlines, but can you give me an idea of where this stands right now?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

For Ontario, we can. We don't follow all of the provinces in the same detail, but earlier this year Ms. de Leon put in a submission to Ontario's proposal specifically on end-of-life vehicles.

You can speak to that, Fe.

[Fe de Leon]

Yes.

There was an Environmental Bill of Rights, or EBR, registration for a regulatory proposal to deal with end-of-life vehicles in Ontario, which just ended in May. The Ontario government is proposing to create a regulation that will allow for facilities that engage in dismantling and depolluting exercises involving end-of-life vehicles to continue the work they need to do and to prescribe the needs for permits and approvals to conduct that work.

We certainly submitted our concerns related to that approach, such as the scope of depollution efforts that would be covered under that regulation as well as concerns relating to impacts to the communities that would have these facilities located in their neighbourhoods. That includes concerns around noise level and the types of technologies used to operate the machines that are involved in end-of-life management.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

At this point, we will need to conclude. I know that Mr. Woodworth wants to get clarification, but we'll try to get that in some other way.

Mr. Choquette and Ms. Leslie will be sharing the time.

Go ahead, Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to go back to the polluter-pays principle. I think this is very important to talk about within this study.

Mr. Thurlow and Ms. Labrie, at first I didn't know exactly where this study could fit in federally, but it's starting to become clear, thanks in part to the recommendations that you have made to the federal government. They are very interesting and very relevant.

Ms. de Leon, do you have recommendations to make to the federal government about the polluter-pays principle or the laws referred to earlier, that is, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

I know that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was recently amended. Would you recommend that this legislation and regulations be strengthened, amended, or more strictly enforced?

Please go ahead.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

In terms of CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, your question is about how polluter pay can be incorporated. When we do environmental assessments in federal projects or projects that fall under CEAA, they're not always looking at the economic impacts of those projects necessarily. Often they defer to the other sector in that case. They do look at cumulative effects and they do look at the precautionary principle.

It is an area that we could improve in terms of incorporating polluter pay. We do have Supreme Court support for polluter-pay principles. We just saw the other day, through your sister committee, explicit incorporation of polluter pay in proposed Bill C-22. We do absolutely support incorporation of polluter pay, and making it explicit.

[Fe de Leon]

I would just add that under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there's an explicit reference to the principle of polluter pay. Certainly in the context of managing, say, chemicals that are found in products that may end up in the municipal solid waste stream, there is some concerted effort, at least on our part, to incorporate that into any submissions we write. We state our concerns around the way in which chemicals are managed in Canada, particularly those that end up in consumer products...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...in terms of regulation-making.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

I am going to give the floor to Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

To Ms. McClenaghan and Ms. de Leon, in addition to polluter pay, what do we need to do to make sure that such things as asbestos or mercury aren't ending up in our domestic landfills? Is it just polluter pay? Is it doing something under CEPA? Is it penalties or incentives?

What is the best federal legislative solution here, or regulatory solution?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

When we're talking about whether things are ending up in landfills, the federal role definitely has to be in conjunction with the provinces because landfills are pretty much entirely within provincial jurisdiction.

That being said, through the powers of CEPA to control toxics, it definitely can be used for sector-specific regulations or for controlling specific chemicals that are designated as toxic. That's where the risk management plans come into play around the specific substances.

It's one of those things where you have to look at the actual issue. Mercury, at least in the past, and probably still now to some extent, was an issue, and dental amalgams going into sewers. You need to have a take-back program or some way to recycle that product in order to have a mechanism for the dentists to deal with it properly, instead of having it end up in sewers.

It's a combined approach with whatever sectors: using the material, finding alternatives, applying green chemistry, and then having your regulation as the backup.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks. That's helpful.

I think I have only 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 28 seconds left.

We'll move to Mr. Strahl, for five minutes.