Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much for the question.

This is a really unique case because it's multijurisdictional. Municipalities are in charge of their solid waste disposal. Provinces issue permits that allow them, or dictate to them, what they can and cannot do. The federal government has say over toxic chemicals. So a really collaborative multi-government approach is needed.

I think our government is certainly not in the business of coming down hard on the provinces and saying, “This is what we're going to do.” However, having us take a lead on this, I think, is showing environmental leadership. It's going to put everybody at the table. It's going to have us sit down and talk about those multiple jurisdictions.

Numerous things have come up before and we've talked about them. Light bulbs were specifically excluded from legislation in the past, as far as things that could be put in landfills go. I'm not certain why that happened in previous governments. But this is something that respects the multiple jurisdictions, all the levels of government and all those interested parties.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Fisher, I would just disagree a little bit, maybe, in terms of the mechanics. You're quite correct in pointing out that it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate toxic substances. Of course, the mechanics of how that disposal is worked out are up to other jurisdictions. It's not up to the federal government to say exactly where..., or to decide on some of the very properly local details, but since we are talking about the regulation of a toxic substance, it would seem to me that it would be legitimate. There's certainly value in the consultation.

We do see cases of this federal government taking a somewhat more heavy-handed approach to the provinces. The carbon tax is probably the most obvious example. I know that's maybe a different discussion.

What would be the value, then, in the federal government just coming out and saying, “This is our job. This is a toxic substance. Let's impose regulations to address the safety issue that's in front of us”? What about having a bill that forced the government to do that, instead of saying, essentially, that the government may do that or may introduce a framework that may include certain things?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

From the start, this bill was meant to be the beginning of a conversation, the beginning of a collaborative approach, in which multiple levels of government and interested parties sit down at the table and come up with a plan that works. They would look at successes, look at failures, and come up with a strategy that is respectful of all of the multiple jurisdictions, of all levels of government. That's the genesis of this. The plan from the start was to respect those other levels of government and to work with them to come up with a strategy that works and that Canadians back, support, and expect from us.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'll conclude here by saying thank you for putting this bill forward. I'm pleased to support it. In terms of the amendments you're proposing, it's your bill, so it's up to you to propose those amendments. I think it makes sense for us to take direction from you in that regard.

I do hope we see the follow-up here, because it seems to me that some of the language does give the government opportunities to get out of what should be an obligation, which I think the House is seeking to impose on the government.

I hope we don't see in the future a kind of weaseling out of this. I hope you're right and that we actually do see the follow-up and the steps taken that, I think, are needed to keep the public safe.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I couldn't agree with you more and I appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you for introducing your private member's bill. It is greatly appreciated.

The fact that mercury poses a serious problem is nothing new. It has in fact been a priority of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment for a few years now. Mercury pollution causes many problems. Mercury lamps are one source, but there are also others, such as cement plants and coal combustion plants, which pose very serious problems. Mercury is a neurotoxin with serious effects on the health of adults and children.

I agree with my colleague who just asked you some questions. It seems that your bill could have proposed a much more robust approach, since the federal regime allows for legally binding regulations. I am a bit concerned. Why did you not take that approach? Is the introduction of your private member's bill regarding mercury lamps a way of trying to influence your government by asking what it is doing in other areas, for its part, to ensure that mercury is not circulating in nature?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much for the question and thank you, also, for your comments in the House of Commons when you spoke to this bill. You spoke in support of it, and I appreciate your comments. A lot of the things you said were things that we looked at when we talked about different ways of amending this and making it work.

First, when you write a private member's bill, you want it to be successful in the House of Commons, but you also want it to be successful across the country. I think, again going back to the comments I made to Mr. Genuis, I want this to be successful and I want this to be seen by the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, and all of the groups that are interested in participating in this. I want them to feel like partners at the table in collaborating to come up with a strategy as opposed to taking the heavy-handed approach of us saying “This is what we're going to do. What do you think?”

I think it's important that we come in from the start with a collaborative approach. I share your comments and those of the previous speaker, and I do hope this is taken seriously and looked at. I believe, based on the successes of B.C., P.E.I., Manitoba, and Quebec, and the voluntary program in Ontario.... I'm not a fan of voluntary programs, but it is having some success. I want to see if we can look at these successful programs. Nova Scotia has just hopped on the bandwagon in the last few months with a program. Nova Scotia Power is participating and taking bulbs back.

These are steps in the right direction, but these are piecemeal approaches. These are approaches that help the overall picture. I mean, we are currently throwing away in landfills, 50% of all of the mercury-bearing bulbs used in Canada. That is including the success of B.C., Manitoba, P.E.I., Quebec, and now Nova Scotia. Actually, the numbers probably don't reflect the new program that Nova Scotia has started, but they reflect the programs of the other provinces that are doing great things. Let's get everybody in the room. Let's find out what's working. Let's find out why B.C. is so successful and see if that would work across the country. Let's have the respect for those other levels of government and have them at the table to share their successes with us.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Fisher, I would like to ask the same question that was asked earlier. Having a strategy is important, but I would like to see regulations for its application to ensure that concrete action is taken as a result. Despite everything, having a strategy is not a bad idea, although there is already a code of practice. I do not know exactly how your strategy will fit in with the existing code of practice.

That said, when there are federal responsibilities, we must always be careful not to pass the buck on to the municipalities. You were a municipal councillor and you know all too well that the federal government must assume its responsibilities. We must be careful not to always pass the buck on to the municipalities. We must not add to their tax burden, which is already very high.

What are your thoughts on all of this? In what way will your strategy complement the existing code of practice?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much again for the question.

The code of practice is voluntary, and it's designed to complement other initiatives that are happening in the country, including this, if this gets forwarded through the House.

I've seen first-hand how this creates jobs in my riding, and how this could create jobs across the country. We've talked about the green economy. We've talked about the ability for private business to build these plants and create these jobs, seven, eight, nine, or ten at each, depending on the size of the community. We've talked about EPR. We've looked at situations of EPR across the country. These are things that don't necessarily have to cost municipalities, provinces, or taxpayers. That's not what we're here to talk about. We're not here to discuss how the strategy looks, what it looks like, whether this is going to cost any money, or what it's going to cost. This is to start the conversation, look at those successes, look at EPR, look at the green economy, look at creating jobs. Again, we'll go back to Dan-x. They have seven to 10 employees working there full-time. Let's say they're at 15% to 20% capacity, so they have a lot of room to grow. Regulations will help that. This is not necessarily going to be a cost to municipalities or provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you for the question, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fisher, your bill is interesting and, quite frankly, as you and other people around the table mentioned, one that I didn't realize was so needed. Like many people, I assumed the legislation was already there, but it is in fact not.

We both have had experience at the municipal level. Municipalities that are primarily in charge of waste within their areas don't seem to already have a strategy on this, yet they do have strategies on stuff like paint recycling, battery recycling, and some hazardous waste stuff.

I'm curious. Do you know why it is that we haven't already seen strategies developing in municipalities? Is there some complication to dealing with light bulbs in particular?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That is a great question.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I know you hear that often.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Yes, I do.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I can take a stab at that.

For things like paint, the federal government has federal regulations for toxic chemicals, but it doesn't have regulations for light bulbs containing toxic chemicals. They were specifically separate from Canada's dangerous toxic chemical laws. It's unfortunate that we're moving forward with this now, because we really should have had federal regulations that took light bulbs into play a dozen years ago.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Maybe that was actually because they were trying to encourage those light bulbs back then.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with using these bulbs if they're handled properly.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That leads me to my next question.

We've seen—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It will also be a great question, I expect.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

This will be a great question too.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are very popular now. I think that even the compact ones are probably at their peak, because we're seeing LED being so much more popular. I realize that when we talk about the longer light bulbs that would be in a room like this, they're still fluorescent, but I'm sure there will come a day when they become LED as well.

Do you think we're still projecting towards using more mercury right now, based on your research and what you've done on this bill, or do you think the usage is actually declining right now, notwithstanding the fact that you've identified that there's already so much of it still out there?