Environment Committee on March 8th, 2016

[John Moffet]

Pollution prevention plans are one tool that we use. We don't use them in all cases.

There are numerous factors that go into deciding what kind of tool, including the seriousness of the issue. So, if you get it wrong, can you remedy the issue, or do you need to get it right in the first place? This would put you on the regulatory side of things. Another one is, what is the likely receptivity of the target audience? We don't throw out a P2 plan and hope that people comply. We generally talk to the affected parties and try to get a sense of whether there would be receptivity to the instrument. This, I guess, is one of the reasons they've been relatively effective. I think we've done a relatively good job in using them only when they're likely to be effective. They have been used for a range of issues, and they have been applied to a range of sectors in Canada.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Excellent.

The next questioner is Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and in the spirit of International Women's Day, I'd like to give my time to Elizabeth May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Is everyone all right with that?

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

It doesn't require a unanimous vote, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Well, in most committee practices, it doesn't. If the member wants to give his time to somebody else—

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

I'd like to hear from her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

—the practice has generally been that the committee is okay with that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, certainly the member has a right to cede his place at the table. That's perfectly within his right, and he can do that to any member of Parliament, but to actually continue to cede that without the appropriate notice and paperwork and have another member speak is inappropriate. I've never seen it done in my years here, and I've been here some 10 years.

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

I'm not sure how it's been done in the past, but I don't see—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Do you want to cede your seat?

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

Sure. Today, yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You have to provide paperwork to the clerk.

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

Is there something in the rules that states we can't share our time with another member of Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. I will read the rules, and then, fortunately, it is never, ever black and white. But the rule basically says, “Non-members are occasionally given the right to speak, however, following a decision by a majority of the members present or by unanimous consent.”

We're hearing that we don't have unanimous consent.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Let's take a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

“...a majority of the members present or by unanimous...” Okay.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay, one or the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, we'll take a vote.

All those in favour of having Ms. May speak?

(Motion agreed to)

It's going to be a shortened time because we're going to be finishing up, so three minutes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Getting back to CEPA's origins, I think you presented it very well, John. It was a collection of other acts. We had the ocean dumping act. We had the nutrient provisions of the Canada Water Act. I'm trying to remember all of them. Of course, the main body of it was the contaminants act.

We really missed something, and I think this is relevant to the point that Nathan Cullen was making a moment ago. With regard to pesticides and radionuclides, although they were toxic chemicals, and although the effort at the time in 1988 was to have a comprehensive handling of toxic chemicals from cradle to grave, pesticides are only included in this act when they constitute waste. In other words, after they have no commercial value, they can be regulated under CEPA.

I want to ask whether in your time working with the department there has been a serious look and re-look at this matter of the different treatment of some toxic chemicals that are clearly highly toxic, clearly dangerous. Has there been an opportunity over the last 10 years or so—as I understand that's as long as you've been with the department—at relooking at this question of CEPA's carve-out, if you will, of radionuclides and pesticides?

[John Moffet]

I think the short answer is no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Getting back to your point about regulation of wood stoves, it's been a while since I looked up these provisions. As I recall, in 1988 when the act was being promulgated, the minister of the environment at the time made sure that as a result of some of those plug-in heaters that have oil moving through them—they were a consumer threat—CEPA was designed to allow the recall of products like that.

Is that still in the act, and could that be used, by extension, to regulate wood stoves in the way that you've described as a gap?

It was a DeLonghi heater, something like that. They had to be recalled. The minister of the environment made sure that this act allowed for the recall of some products that were a toxic threat.

[John Moffet]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that.

We've done pretty extensive analysis around this wood stove and jerry can issue. We've looked for ways and haven't found them. You may have identified one, and we'll look into it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I'll look back at that.