Environment Committee on June 12th, 2014

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'll give my first couple of minutes to Mr. Carrie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Moore, you didn't quite get to explain how you managed to get the rural buy-in or some of the growing pains. I don't know if anybody does it the way you guys do it; it seems to be very innovative.

[Gerry Moore]

I think our geography certainly has helped in that regard. We're not really spread out that much. Prince Edward Island is a very small area. The rural area certainly is a very important part of our economy. It has been forever, and it continues to be. A lot of the farmland is developed with families.

We basically, at the time, didn't want to segregate. We were going to do this island-wide, with every home, cottage, and apartment in the province in the program. The source-separated program was very painful to start up. Sometimes people are reluctant to change.

But the program was offered to everybody, and people were told, “If you don't source-separate your waste, when we come around to pick it up it will not be picked up”. That was very tough to swallow at the outset.

As time has gone on, most people have come to appreciate that, listen, we're doing the best we can to dispose of all this material in an environmentally safe manner while trying to keep tax dollars in mind. Some say we do too much and others say we don't do enough. We try to strike a balance and do this as economically as we can and in the most environmentally friendly way we can.

The rural areas weren't any different from the city areas. In a lot of cases they were actually maybe even easier, because they were used to having to dispose of their waste themselves without having any municipal government pick it up for them.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Lawrence.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thanks.

Mr. Louie, the question was brought up about wastewater facilities and the regulations regarding those federal regulations regarding waste water from the municipality's perspective. Do you find those regulations onerous or much higher than they need to be? Or do you feel they are reasonable and achieve what they need to achieve?

[Raymond Louie]

Let me start by saying that I'm not an environmental scientist. What I try to deal with at the municipal level is to ensure that the municipality stays within regulation. We intend to do that, but we require the resources in order to make that happen.

That was the point of my comments earlier. If regulations are mandated to be applied, and municipalities must conform to those regulations, then given the fact that we receive 8 cents on the tax dollar and we are stressed in terms of the resources we have and the services we need to provide, I think it's important that we have partners in making that happen.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But you would obviously have the expertise within your municipality that would tell you whether they felt the regulations were reasonable and fair or whether they were overly onerous regulations.

[Raymond Louie]

I think it does vary. You know, the regulations themselves, when I've had a look at them myself, depend on a number of different factors. The measurements on whether or not you fit into the category that needs compliance by 2020, or whether or not you fit into the second category that needs compliance by 2030, depends on your environmental situation. I think there is some science behind it. I don't take issue with the science. I think everyone is trying to improve the water quality that we all rely upon. My point is that in order to reach those standards, improve the quality, and maintain the quality that we need in our water systems, we require support in order to make that happen.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The reason I asked that question was that the implication was brought from my colleagues across the table that with those regulations should come financial support. It's just very interesting to note that in my home province of Manitoba, the provincial NDP government actually raised the standards, the federal standards. They made them higher for the City of Winnipeg, which has pretty much doubled the cost of the wastewater facilities they need to build.

So it's interesting to say that on the one hand the federal government should be supporting when they bring regulations forward, and yet on the other hand the provincial government can raise those standards and have no need to support them themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Toet.

We'll move now to Mr. Sopuck, for five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Louie, you talked about food waste. It's easy to say, but aren't there significant public health considerations? I read recently that they've found antibiotic-resistant bacteria in some foods.

Don't you think we'd want to exercise extreme caution before we tried to divert food waste from the landfills?

[Raymond Louie]

Absolutely. You are correct that we should always have high and stringent standards. What we're saying is that there needs to be a test that should be met. If you can meet that test to indicate the food is safe, then that food should be absolutely diverted.

As I stated earlier in my presentation, fully a third of the food that is purchased to go home with you ends up being wasted. Are there ways that we could eliminate that from happening? Are there ways that we could reuse food that is obviously of good quality? There are ways, and they've been implemented in both Ontario and British Columbia for some period of time now.

Given the experience of both those jurisdictions, where thousands of people are fed each day, with no effects, I think we can learn from both of those experiences and apply it more consistently across the entire country.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

To me, it's critical that when we make environmental policy recommendations we focus like a laser on the environmental improvements that will be generated because of what we do in terms of public policy, which ultimately translates into actions on the ground and hopefully will translate into environmental improvement. For example, if you build a wastewater treatment plant at a paper mill, you will improve the water quality of the receiving waters.

I want to ask you this question, Mr. Goeres. It may seem like a simple one, but I don't think it is. What are the real environmental benefits of the waste diversion that you are advocating?

[Michael Goeres]

I'm not advocating for any particular policy approach. The environmental benefits are reducing waste going to landfills, improving the economics of that, and ensuring that the policy environment for all orders of government ensures that this disposed material is safely taken care of. Waste management, in some sense, is different from some of the other environmental issues, though they're inextricably linked, as our discussion on endocrine disruptors demonstrates. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that there's sound, appropriate management of things that are being thrown out of households. Governments have chosen certain ways in which to do that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I think my colleague across the way is very correct to raise the issue of pharmaceuticals, just dealing with the idea of municipal solid waste. But with all due respect, your answer was kind of circular: that the environmental benefit of reducing waste is to reduce waste.

More specifically, I'll give another example. If you restore a wetland, you will prevent flooding; you will improve carbon sequestration; and you will enhance biodiversity. Those are real environmental benefits from a certain action, in this case, restoring a wetland. I want to know what the environment gets out of this when we set up these large municipal recycling programs. What actually happens environmentally out there?

[Michael Goeres]

To use your example, sir, when a city dweller goes out to enjoy those wetlands at Oak Hammock Marsh or somewhere else, and they throw their pop bottle onto the landscape, someone can come behind and recover that and ensure that it's not simply left there or that the pop-top from a six pack of beer isn't left there so that the ducks get their necks twisted up in it. This is all inextricably interrelated.

The environmental interest on the waste side is to ensure that none of the bad stuff enters into our soil, our water, or our air. In those areas, we have or we will develop approaches to ensure the proper management of those. We'll establish guidelines to ensure thresholds or minimal amounts from various activities. Governments will do what they can to support the appropriate and safe collection of those materials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, we're through with time there. Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

For the final question, Ms. Duncan will have five minutes, and then we will have about five minutes of committee business that we'll do in public session. The proposed budget will be circulated while Ms. Duncan is doing her questions.

Ms. Duncan, you have five minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to come back to this, because, as you folks know, I'm not a partisan person. I am actually concerned about this.

I did go to Environment Canada's website, and I'll quote from it:

...known for over 20 years that pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are released into the environment...only in the last 10 years have analytical methods become sufficiently sensitive to identify and quantify their presence in...effluents, surface waters, drinking water, ground water....

This was archived February 2, 2014. I don't know if the program's continuing. What I'm saying is that I think it's worth our looking into this.

My question will be for Mr. Louie. You're looking for incentives for producers and consumers to reduce waste. What would be your wish list to the committee? What would you like to see as recommendations in the committee report ?

[Raymond Louie]

I've outlined a number already, in terms of food waste. I've outlined how tax incentives should recognize donated food has value, in order to best reduce the food-waste side of the equation.

I think that overall the issue is so large and multifaceted that it is important that we work through all of the various issues together to try to find.... I know you're asking for very specific suggestions for the committee today.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

If you have a few, can you—

[Raymond Louie]

The reason I'm hedging a bit is that I'm not at liberty to say; I want to be respectful of all the participants in the National Zero Waste Council and the working groups that are involved. They are working through the process. I think it's important for us to have the integrity maintained with that working group so that I don't then preclude them.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That's fair, Mr. Louie.

I have a question with regard to sewage. Has FCM done a vulnerability assessment of our infrastructure and the impacts of climate change on, for example, stormwater?

[Raymond Louie]

There have been a number of assessments done. In terms of our infrastructure, we've done a number of surveys. Most recently we did an infrastructure survey of our members representing over 90% of the population. We didn't get 100% of our population of our membership responding, but we had sufficient numbers where we had a good landscape picture of our infrastructure deficit across the country.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What is the deficit, and what are the recommendations that are relevant to this committee, please?