[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 26, 1996
.1538 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
This morning we met in camera, and therefore it was... [Technical Difficulty - Editor] ...in a public meeting, namely to bring to the attention of those of you who are not yet aware of it the tragic event that happened in the family of our colleague, Monique Guay, who lost her husband the week before last. The committee has expressed in more than one way its sentiments and condolences and expression of solidarity.
We would like, in the presence of Monsieur Asselin, to renew our sentiments in the hope that he will be able to convey to his colleague and vice-chair of this committee the fact that all members are very close to her and hope and pray that she will find the courage needed to resume life, and to continue it in the name of her husband and for the sake of the children. We hope, Mr. Asselin, that one of these days you would do that on behalf of the committee.
This afternoon we are here to listen to the report on CEPA and the government reply from two gladiators on the subject, who are well equipped to take us through and bring us up to date and up to speed on the developments - particularly in the last three months, about which we know very little.
.1540
Before doing that, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome Mrs. Forseth to this room and to the side of our colleague Paul. We're very glad to see her with us.
Mrs. Forseth, we hope you will be able to join us more frequently. Perhaps you can give good advice to Paul when he waivers or when he needs assistance. We're glad you came all the way. I hope you have a good time in Ottawa.
Without any further ado, you have as witnesses Ruth Wherry and Martin Boddington. They've prepared this document, I understand.
Let's give you the floor. You can start, and we'll see what you would like to convey to us. Welcome to the committee.
Ms Ruth Wherry (Director, Intergovernmental and Legislative Accountability, Environment Canada): I've given out a deck on what's contained in the government response to the standing committee's report. It's a proposal for renewed legislation. The proposal is for an act to prevent pollution and to protect the environment and human health, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
The government response proposes a series of guiding principles to the renewed legislation.
The Chairman: It looks like this, right? You may want to do that, because we have some new members and we have to make sure that they are not completely abandoned.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I brought some for members.
The Chairman: For those members who do not have a copy, the clerk has already thought of it. Who is without it?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin, do you have a copy? Yes.
[English]
Mrs. Payne, by any chance do you have a copy of the government proposals with you?
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Yes, I do.
The Chairman: Good, thank you. Please go ahead.
Ms Wherry: There is a proposal to restructure the current CEPA. In the first part you would have a title, which is, ``An Act to prevent pollution and to protect the environment and human health, thereby contributing to sustainable development''. You would have the guiding principles, which would be the preamble and the declaration. With the guiding principles, the proposal is to include pollution prevention, the ecosystem approach, biodiversity, science and the precautionary principle, user-producer responsibility, economic responsibility, and intergovernmental cooperation. Then they would have -
The Chairman: Whose principles are they?
Ms Wherry: Do you mean the definitions?
The Chairman: Well, the bullets, yes.
Ms Wherry: The definition of pollution prevention is the one contained in the recent federal strategy.
The Chairman: Yes, we have no problem with that. Where does economic responsibility pop up all of a sudden?
Ms Wherry: Where does it come from?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Wherry: Which department asked for it?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Wherry: The economic department.
The Chairman: Maybe we shouldn't comment, but wait. I apologize. Carry on.
Ms Wherry: The next part would be administration and definitions. The administration would be intergovernmental cooperation. As in the current CEPA, there is a federal-provincial advisory committee. The government is proposing to change the federal-provincial advisory committee into a national advisory committee, which would include representation of the provinces, the federal government, and aboriginals. We are proposing to consult with the aboriginal peoples on all aboriginal proposal matters.
.1545
The government is also proposing to include economic instruments not in the current legislation. Public participation -
The Chairman: Which is not in the current CEPA legislation?
Ms Wherry: The current CEPA, yes.
Then there would be a part I of CEPA. The new part I would be called ``Public Participation''. In this part, the government is proposing to include authority to create a public registry of environmental information, greater rights for citizens to request an investigation, power for citizens to bring a civil suit when the government fails to act under CEPA, and improved whistle-blower protection.
A new part II in CEPA would be on ecosystem science and national norms. This would include the current authority for monitoring and research, and objectives, guidelines and codes, but it would be expanded to reflect an ecosystem approach. It would also include authority to collect information for the purposes of data inventories, including enshrining the authority for the National Pollutant Release Inventory.
Part III would be on enforcement. It would add authority for administrative monetary penalties, negotiated settlements, and cease and desist orders. These are new tools in addition to the tools already in CEPA, which primarily resort to the courts.
Inspectors' powers would also be improved where there were deficiencies, and a new category of officer called a CEPA investigator would be created.
Part IV would be on pollution prevention. It would include a new authority for the minister to request pollution prevention plans for substances that have been declared toxic. The authority to develop a national pollution prevention information clearing house, to focus on developing clean technologies and to have awards for innovative technologies would also be included, along with authorities for dealing with environmental aspects of emergencies.
Part V of the legislation would be on biotechnology. All parts of the legislation in the current part II would be removed to this new part called ``Biotechnology''. The government proposes to act within the existing federal framework, and the biotechnology provisions would act as a safety net in CEPA.
Part VI would be on controlling pollution and waste. This would include the transboundary air pollution provisions that are in the current part V. The government is proposing to improve part V by adding a framework for federal and provincial governments to work together and to establish time lines for coming up with decisions.
It would also add authority for international water pollution similar to the international air pollution. The authority for fuels in the current part II would be brought in and authority for national standards is proposed. The government is proposing to examine the possibility of transferring the provisions dealing with the motor vehicle emissions from the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to CEPA.
.1550
It would also include the authority to deal with waste, which again is in the current part II. It is proposing a series of amendments for ways to be able to meet international commitments in the import and export of waste, to expand the waste provisions to include authority to deal with solid waste, and to amend the ocean disposal provisions to have a reverse listing for what can be disposed of in the ocean.
Part VII, which would be controlling toxic substances, is in the current CEPA as part II. It is proposing to have three funnels leading into what would be the priority substances list. You would have the current approach, which is the priority substances list. Then you would have the domestic substances list, which would be screened for all persistent bioaccumulative and inherently toxic substances. It is also proposing that any bans or severely restricted substances in OECD countries or other Canadian provinces would be automatically put on the PSL or go through for fast-track assessment for being declared toxic if it is based on science and it is relevant to Canada.
The government in its response is proposing to incorporate key elements of the toxic substances management policy, which the government had just released probably at the end of May or in early June. But it was a policy, and the government is proposing to incorporate key elements of it right into the legislation. An example is the virtual elimination of track one substances, which are persistently bioaccumulative and toxic, which means they can go right through fast-track to virtual elimination.
Within two years of the determination of a substance to be toxic, a proposal has to be in the Canada Gazette and controls have to be in place within 18 months of that. In the current CEPA, there are no time lines for that.
For track one substances - those that are to go to virtual elimination - industry has to submit proposals for achieving virtual elimination of these substances.
The government in its response is also proposing to add to the requirements from users, producers, and importers for testing and information requirements.
The last part of the legislation would be government operations, the federal and aboriginal lands, and the federal -
The Chairman: Could you revisit the three funnels that you put very well and that are not indicated on that page? Evidently you improvised. But those three funnels, particularly for new members, are extremely important to understand. So would you mind either repeating what you said or provide us with -
Ms Wherry: A chart.
The Chairman: - a chart on the three funnels, because without that type of graphic tool, we would be at a loss. We spent a lot of time last year on this subject matter.
Ms Wherry: We will get a chart to you. I'm sorry; I never thought of it. The current process is the existing nomination process whereby they come up with a priority substances list. There have been two so far. In the first year there were 44 substances in the first list. In the second list, which was just announced a couple of months ago, I believe there are 25. That's the current way of coming up with substances for assessing and determining whether or not they're toxic and, if they are determined toxic, taking action.
The government in its response is proposing two other tracks for coming up with substances for action. There are currently approximately 23,000 substances on the domestic substances list, and there has been a lot of criticism, because there are only 44 looked at in the first 5 years and now there are 25. So the government in its response is proposing that the 23,000 substances be screened for persistence, bioaccumulation, or inherent toxicity. Those substances that are found to be persistent or bioaccumulative or inherently toxic would go either for fast-track assessment or for the standard risk assessment. That currently takes approximately five years, whereas the fast-track assessment -
.1555
The Chairman: You're telling me something that is not in this summary.
Ms Wherry: No. It is in the government response.
The Chairman: Would you refer it, please, so that everybody can look it up?
Ms Wherry: Yes. It's in chapter 9, pages 68, 69, and 70, ``Reforming the Existing Substances Program''. It has three tracks for prioritizing substances for action.
The first one, (a), is substances meeting persistence or bioaccumulation or other criteria. This is the one I was just describing, whereby the 23,000 substances would be screened.
Then there's (b), your second track, which is substances that are banned, sunsetted, or severely restricted in an OECD country. Those substances that are based on science and are relevant to Canada again could either go for fast-track assessment or for the longer risk assessment process. It would have a fast-track assessment if it meets the criteria for persistence - well, the criteria that are in the toxic substances management policy. Those are the criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation and toxicity. If it is found to meet those, it will go for virtual elimination. If not, it will go to the risk assessment process.
The third track, the third tunnel or funnel, if you want to call it that, would be the current way of doing the priority substances list, whereby the advisory panel comes up with a certain list of substances. They've just come up with 25 substances.
Is that okay?
The Chairman: Would you like to take us through this as well?
Ms Wherry: The last one?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Wherry: In the government operations, the government response is proposing to close the regulatory gap for the federal house. In the current CEPA, the concurrence of other ministers was needed before proceeding with a regulation in federal house. The government response is proposing to remove that concurrence. The normal regulatory process consultation that takes place with industry, or with anybody, would be the only process that would take place before the Minister of the Environment can propose to regulate federal government operations.
Then there would be the aboriginal lands. CEPA would continue to have environmental protection on Indian lands, but if the government response is also proposing that aboriginal peoples could have administrative agreements with the government for administering regulations on Indian reserves and with self-government regimes that have environmental protection regimes, they could sign equivalency agreements, much like the provinces can sign equivalency agreements with the federal government to administer regulations on aboriginal lands.
.1600
For the next two, I've tried to give an indication of what the steps we've been going through since the government's response was tabled on December 14. On December 23, a notice was placed in the Canada Gazette giving a 90-day comment period on the government's response. During the month of January to the present time, if anybody indicated a request for bilateral meetings to have further clarification or whatever on the government's response, we were available to do so, and on March 22, which was Friday, the comment period ended.
The Chairman: How many requests were there?
Ms Wherry: We've got approximately 70, but they just started coming in last week and this week. We fully anticipated that people would wait until the end. They're quite lengthy submissions that are coming in, and we expect them - we got 16 or 17 just yesterday - to come in this week and next week.
At the current time what we're trying to do is go through and analyse them as they come in and try to highlight what people have said and what they like, don't like, or whatever. As I said, the majority are just coming in, so we are in no way ready to be able to provide.... We can give you some indication of comments, if that's what you would like, but we're certainly in no position to give you a thorough analysis of the comments, because they're just coming in. As we have indicated all along, we anticipate that we will compile all the comments that have come in and that they will be bound together and distributed on request to anybody who asks for them.
We had planned in mid-April to have a workshop on any outstanding issues for which we got an indication that there was great polarization. We had offered to have a workshop on this. People have indicated very strongly to us that they no longer want consultation, that the standing committee consulted widely, and that enough consultation had taken place and they wanted us to move forward with what needed to be done to get the legislation tabled as quickly as possible. That's not to say they like what's in the government's response. That's simply to say they don't want to spend any more time being overly consulted on it. I don't think the workshop will be going ahead. They've indicated quite strongly that they don't want one - the majority of people.
We are hoping that by the first of May we will have a memorandum to cabinet on drafting instructions and go through the month of May to mid-June trying to get approval of the drafting instructions among the various government departments. We are targeting mid-June to seek cabinet approval of the drafting instructions, and then through the months of June to September Justice would draft the renewed legislation. We are targeting September to October to have first reading ofA Renewed CEPA.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Boddington, is there anything you want to say?
Mr. Martin Boddington (Senior Adviser, CEPA Office, Department of the Environment): I think this fairly well summarized it. I think we've made every effort to accommodate and read the standing committee's report. It was tabled last June. We have, I think, done the very best we possibly can with other government departments to achieve a response that is not only good for environments and Environment Canada but is within what the government as a whole wishes, which doesn't constitute just Environment Canada. I think it's a fair indication of the balance we've attempted to achieve, and I think we've done a fairly good job in trying to explain to you the complex situation of a new piece of legislation as we see it at the present time.
.1605
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Boddington.
There are probably many questions. Who would like to go first?
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): First, let me congratulate you on the work you have done in order to better inform the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I have two short questions.
Did the Government or did the Minister himself ask for this work to be done?
When the House of Commons will have passed the Bill, will you, in the Department of the Environment, have the required human resources to ensure the implementation of the standards you will have established according to the new CEPA? Have you done an estimate of its annual cost?
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, I think it will me more relevant to ask the questions you have raised to the Minister or to the Deputy Minister. You may get a more thorough answer if you asked these questions on April 17, when the Minister will appear before this committee. The Department officials who are here today have nothing to do with administrative or budget issues.
Mr. Asselin: I think they are...
The Chairman: If you want to go ahead with this question, we can listen to Ms Wherry's orMr. Boddington's answer.
[English]
The Chairman: Please feel free to comment.
Ms Wherry: With regard to your first question, I believe it's the Government of Canada that necessitates a response to a standing committee report, not the Minister of the Environment.
With regard to your second question, I think that Mr. Caccia's response was a fairer response - to wait, perhaps.
[Translation]
Mr. Boddington: It is a bit premature. We are just starting to analyze the impacts of the new bill.
Mr. Asselin: That's what I was going to say, Mr. Chairman. Such a bill cannot be drafted without the Minister making the Department aware that it should not only be effectively implemented, but also me made effective. Otherwise, it would simply mean to pass a Bill for the sake of passing it. It would be a masquerade. To make it effective and cost-efficient, we must have some means of control.
I think that it is not by reading this that the Minister will know how much the new CEPA implementation will cost. His officials will evaluate the costs. They will make the Minister aware by telling him : Should this bill be passed, here are the means of control necessary for its implementation and this is how much it will cost.
Mr. Boddington: This will be part of the submission that will be eventually made to Cabinet.
[English]
Ms Wherry: I'd like to add to what Martin said, because it will be included in the next memorandum to cabinet. We are undertaking the necessary estimates so when the minister appears, he will have those estimates.
In the government response, it proposes to include provisions for cost recovery, for one thing. Also, part of the government response proposals is a big shift in emphasis to pollution prevention. One should know about pollution prevention that in the shorter term you may have some more costs, but certainly in the longer term you will more than save money, your costs will reduce.
The wider use of the many of the proposals in the legislation are for more flexible tools, other than just your regulation. It's for economic instruments and different kinds of enforcement tools. As well as trying to achieve the environmental objectives in a much more effective manner, it also has an objective of achieving them in a more cost-efficient manner.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: In order to eliminate duplication and overlap, has your committee taken into account, in drafting this new CEPA, what already exists in other provinces, particularly in Quebec?
.1610
[English]
Ms Wherry: We've met with the provinces quite a few times since last summer, since the committee's report was released. We've had quite a few meetings with the provinces and many discussions on the government proposal - the renewed CEPA - since the government response was released.
We're actually making quite a bit of headway with the provinces. As you go through the government response you realize that many of the things in it are not duplications at all of what the provinces are doing. As we go through this and more and more information is shared, we see less and less resistance from the provinces and quite a bit of cooperation. Quebec has not been participating in these meetings.
The Chairman: Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): It's along the same sort of line. As for the new part II, the ecosystem science and national norms, it seems to me that part of that is in the existing legislation and the addition to it is the ecosystems approach - which, by the way, is not inconsiderable. When you think of monitoring... [Technical Difficulty - Editor] ...not just monitor one substance. If it's in the air and then it's in the water, you have to have some way of monitoring what the air is doing and, in an ecosystems approach, some way of monitoring what the water is doing.
When a response like this is being prepared, to what extent does it represent a commitment of resources? I know of areas - the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg, for example - which are being cut as we sit here. It affects the efficiency of the department in delivering on this monitoring and research.
Do you have to take that into account when preparing a response of this type?
Mr. Boddington: Without being rude, the Freshwater Institute is a part of the Department of Fisheries.
Mr. Adams: Excuse me, I'm sorry.
Mr. Boddington: That's all right. But in a general sense, I would think that scientifically our research institutes, particularly the CCIW and the National Water Research Institute, which is a combination of both Environment and Fisheries and Oceans, have been promoting and discussing the ecosystem approach for ten years.
In many respects, the legislation in this particular instance is reinforcing the departmental mandate to undertake science in certain areas. It is trying to reflect the shift in that scientific thinking away from environmental quality to the concept of ecosystem quality - in a legislative sense as opposed to a scientific sense, so that you have a legislative underpinning for the departmental mandate to undertake science in specific areas.
So we would not expect -
Mr. Adams: So would that mandate help get more money or help slow the cuts, or is it...? Do you see my point? Is the government's response some sort of a commitment to maintain services and people who can do this monitoring and research?
Mr. Boddington: It would be very difficult in this day and age to expect any major proposal to reflect a major new demand of moneys. I think that is well understood by all levels of the civil service.
Any new proposals such as this would perforce be undertaken at the present time with our current resources. Whether that would allow, within the department, the shifts of emphases and the reallocation of resources between different programs is not for me to say, but that would be the general process we would undertake over the short term.
I think you are attempting to see the institution of a piece of legislation that has a timeframe of at least seven - if not ten or fifteen - years in terms of its influence. In that sort of timeframe, one would anticipate that the economy of this country would have changed considerably, and that within that timeframe - Mr. Caccia alluded to that in his press release when the standing committee released its report - you are setting a scene for the future. If ``ecosystem'' is one of those buzzwords that allows you - not necessarily today, but as the economy improves - to search for moneys, you have all the backing to do that, not today but as time goes by. It would be naive to think this particular response was the department searching for more money. I don't think that's going to happen.
.1615
Mr. Adams: The process that came to mind...in other words, the department or the minister would say that we at least have enough now; we're simply doing it under the existing legislation, and we believe we have enough resources to carry out this mandate in some reasonable fashion.
Let me put it this way. If the department thought it did not, would it respond and recommend a new part II like this? If it thought it did not have the money or the people, would it still endorse something like this?
Mr. Boddington: I think it would be unlikely. We haven't done a precise cost estimate of the government response. As I said, we were just starting on a more precise estimate. We did do an estimate of the standing committee's response, and we did feel that even if we followed every one of those recommendations, with good time and some adjustments there was an ability to accommodate quite a lot of those recommendations. Since the government response reflects only those recommendations reflecting CEPA and the amendment to CEPA, I would feel fairly confident that the amount of money involved would be able to be found over a period of implementation.
The Chairman: Usually in government operations, the procedure is that a department first moves through cabinet and through Parliament a new piece of legislation and then acquires the funds necessary to make that legislation operative. That is usually the sequence. However, having said that, it seems to me, Mr. Boddington, that both Mr. Asselin and Mr. Adams are raising concerns that are understandable and very appropriate. It may be that you want to channel these concerns to your colleagues in the departments so as to alert the ministers that you might expect these questions three weeks from today.
Mr. Boddington: Thank you. I think that's very appropriate.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, please.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The sheet on public participation talks about how to bring a civil suit when government fails to act and improving whistle-blower protection. In the ministry's response to our report on page 22, under the expanse of public participation rights, it refers to improving monitoring and reporting to the public, greater protection for those who blow the whistle. Then it mentions some acts, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Environment Bill of Rights. It doesn't mention the Ontario intervener policy act.
At the bottom of the page, it reminds us of the commitment in the red book that says Canadians have expertise and a valued perspective to contribute to environmental policy-making but that these assets are often not tapped because of financial or legal restrictions. I totally agree with that.
Then you go to the top of the next page. It says that in this respect the commitment was made to build on this public awareness to give individuals new tools to protect the environment and to participate in environmental decision-making.
I'm putting forth, of course, something that is dear to my heart, as you know, and that's what was Bill C-339 but is now Bill C-229. That's intervener funding, and I'm wondering why it is not in this bill. There is the provision in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for something akin to that. I see nothing in here.
Ms Wherry: The reason it wasn't in is that it did not make it through the process of consensus needed to have it in.
.1620
Mr. Finlay: Well, it's a serious omission and I'd better ask the minister about it.
The Chairman: That is what this meeting is all about: it's to determine what is lost in the process, what is being reinforced, and what has remained more or less status quo. So your question is more than welcome.
Mr. Finlay: Is this because... [Inaudible - Editor] ...the expense?
Mr. Boddington: No. In this particular instance, as you know, the department does give funding to groups. The concern from other government departments was that intervener funding would become, in this sense, a strict legal tool that other agencies and other groups would use specifically against industry, as has been the case in the United States.
The interpretation we have received in many instances has been equating Canadian law to American law in this particular area and in a couple of other related areas where the similar provisions in the United States have not been well used. So there is a lot of concern out there, particularly on behalf of the private corporations and industry, and part of the bilaterals is that these provisions will cause them a lot of concern in terms of administrative legal affairs that they will have to undertake with private groups, and they don't feel private groups should be funded to take them to court. That's basically the argument.
Mr. Finlay: With all due respect, I suppose if you use American experience, you've got one thing. If you use Ontario's experience, you've got quite something else.
Mr. Boddington: Exactly.
Mr. Finlay: So I don't think they're using the right experience. We are not given to the kind of confrontational, high-level, ``I'll get you $5 million and I get $2.5 million of it'' kind of jurisprudence and nonsense in this country, thank God.
Mr. Boddington: I agree with you. I'm merely trying to give you a sense of some of the pros and cons.
Mr. Finlay: I quite realize that.
Mr. Boddington: When you're in a complex negotiation of 60-odd pages of various enabling powers, some give and some take, and that was a give, unfortunately.
Mr. Finlay: I don't think it's going in the right direction. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Forseth is next.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): I'll refer to our report. On page 146, recommendation 83 says:
- The Committee recommends that CEPA and its regulations be amended to fulfil Canada's new
commitments under the Basel Convention to ban immediately all exports of hazardous waste
destined for disposal to non-OECD countries, and to phase out the exports of hazardous waste
to non-OECD countries destined for recovery-recycling operations by the end of 1997.
The Chairman: Yes, it is.
Mr. Forseth: And does Canada export hazardous waste to non-OECD countries?
Mr. Boddington: Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Forseth: Can you tell me, in your own terms, in general what the Basel Convention says about the export of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries? What tack does it take?
Mr. Boddington: As far as my understanding goes, this has been a proposition towards the Basel Convention over the last two or three years by non-OECD countries. There is trade between OECD countries, but many non-OECD countries feel that their countries are being used as dumping grounds for developed countries' wastes. As far as I understand, we have no specific trade as yet with non-OECD countries, but the United States specifically does in certain countries. So the attempt by under-developed countries is to not be used as dumping grounds by developed countries. That's the bottom line for what they are trying to do.
.1625
There has been a considerable amount of controversy around this particular proposition, largely due to the definition of what is considered to be a hazardous waste, as opposed to the concept of whether we should be importing or exporting hazardous wastes.
The biggest concern about the definition of hazardous wastes as it currently resides under the Basel Convention is that it includes certain sorts of waste metals. Therefore, the International Mineralogical Association and various people....
Although Canada at the present time does not export waste metals, there is potentially a market there for that in the future. There are therefore propositions being brought forward such that the definition should be changed under the Basel Convention so that it does not include waste metals.
I guess there is an ongoing committee of the Basel Convention examining the definition to move forward to a definition that perhaps does not include waste metals, but it still would retain the general concept that hazardous wastes, under whatever the new definition is, should be disposed of within the developed countries, not in underdeveloped countries where there are inadequate facilities or inadequate disposal techniques for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
Is that good enough?
Mr. Forseth: On page 59 of the government response, section 8.15, it says:
- It is proposed that CEPA be amended to require exporters to have plans for reducing/phasing
out the quantity of hazardous waste that is being exported for the sole purpose of final disposal.
Mr. Boddington: I'm afraid I can't answer that question.
Mr. Forseth: Okay.
The Chairman: Actually, Mr. Forseth, if you like - I think it would be very useful to the entire committee - we could ask the researchers to produce in bullet form a summary of the Basel Convention for the members of the committee so that these questions are fully answered. This would also guide the members of the committee in future sessions.
Can we leave it with you, Madame Hébert? Thank you.
Mr. Boddington: I'll take it under advisement. I can get a technical person to answer the questions in detail.
The Chairman: Yes, definitely, in addition to that.
Mr. Boddington: I just didn't come prepared for that.
Mr. Forseth: Continuing now then with recommendation 83 and the government response, can you describe whether the response fulfils the recommendation, or is there a nuance of difference? Is it fully fulfilled or not?
Mr. Boddington: It's my understanding, Mr. Forseth, that the response fully fulfils what the committee was asking for, which in turn was what we were looking for, I think. It's my understanding that the response does respond fully to the recommendations you've made. This, in terms of the long-term development of the Basel Convention and Canada's long-term implementation, other than the definition of hazardous waste, is how Canada wishes to fulfil the Basel Convention. That's my understanding at this precise time.
Mr. Forseth: Okay, I'll ask another question after the next round.
The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): I might just continue on where Mr. Forseth has left off.
Does the Basel Convention deal with the issue of plutonium after the non-proliferation agreement being signed by Russia and the U.S. in the reduction of product? Are we speaking to that issue? Are we denying the use of that product? For instance, if Canada should become a partner to the use of that product, would it speak against that? What would be the connotation on that?
Mr. Boddington: Again, I'd have to take the question under advisement. I would certainly get back to you. I really don't know the relationship of the Basel Convention to nuclear wastes or plutonium specifically. I apologize for that.
.1630
Mr. Steckle: I'll go further to another issue. I'm new on this committee and basically from another background. I'm coming to this and seeing the kinds of atrocities that have occurred in the world in terms of ships losing their cargo.
Other nations perhaps aren't a party to some of the agreements to which we would like to think we're a party. How well do they live up to their undertakings in terms of a commitment to make good on the restoration of these kind of things that have happened?
Just recently, again, we've had an example of that. We can have all kinds of wonderful agreements, but how well do these people, who are actually at times within our own jurisdictional waters, respond? How do we deal with those kinds of issues when it's our ecosystem that's being affected by this?
Mr. Boddington: In a general sense, the question you're asking goes beyond the scope of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The sort of emergencies-at-sea concept that you're dealing with is dealt with in cooperation. It's largely dealt with under the Canadian Coast Guard, which is now a part of the Department of Fisheries. It was originally a part of the Department of Transport. We, the Department of the Environment, act as an adviser to the Canadian Coast Guard under those situations for boats within territorial waters.
I gather the response is usually a country-based one. If there was an emergency around our coastline, we would initially undertake to clean those problems up, and then try to recover costs later, as I believe we did with the Exxon Valdez and various other things, which eventually ends up going to court somewhere in the world.
Environment Canada offers that advice to the coast guard and also internationally, as do other developed countries. We have flown experts to the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands when there was a spill over there. We were also involved in the clean-up down in the Persian Gulf after the Middle East war in the Kuwait sort of situation.
The sorts of emergencies that CEPA tries to deal with, with which we have been asked to deal, is a gap to do with major industrial accidents, which is different from shipping accidents or accidents between different countries. That is currently a gap that deals with the sorts of things, if you remember them, like the Indian pesticide plant that blew up. These are major industrial, land-based accidents.
So CEPA does not deal with the sorts of things that you're talking about per se, unfortunately. Those are dealt with elsewhere in Canadian legislation.
Here is what we're trying to do. For instance, perhaps ten years ago there was a shipment of PCBs that left Montreal to go to a potential disposal facility in Wales. The Welsh, the British, did not accept that. You ended up with a ship with a hazardous waste cargo without a port to which it could go. So those are the sorts of situations we're attempting to deal with with the Basel Convention.
The Chairman: Mr. Fewchuk, please.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): I'll just follow up a little bit more on this, too.
Peter indicated the scientist in Winnipeg. You just indicated that you'd be an environmental advisory to something major in the ocean. What scientists would you call on? Where would you get your expertise? The cutback in Winnipeg of fifty scientists left them with three. Did you ever use them in the past? Who would you call for the expertise? To whom would you take these samples? Who would do the actual job?
Or is there a conflict, again, between Fisheries and Environment as to who's the boss and who's going to do it?
Mr. Boddington: I don't think there's a conflict. I think different departments have different research institutes involved in different elements of scientific research.
The Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg is controlled by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It has been under a serious set of cutbacks for the last twenty years, which is as long as I've been in government. It acts, actually, more or less as a contracting facility now. Scientists are working almost as private consultants.
The Department of the Environment, on the other hand, has several research institutes. It has the National Hydrology Research Institute in Saskatoon. It has the National Water Research Institute in Burlington. It has the National Wildlife Research Centre, housed in Hull, near our headquarters. It has a waste-water technology centre, housed also in Burlington, and the River Road Environmental Technology Centre, housed in Ottawa near the airport.
.1635
Environment Canada has quite a large staff of scientists still, even after all the cutbacks, devoted to a number of specific issues. I don't think we've had the same sort of demise, perhaps, as some of the other institutes have. We still are capable of responding scientifically and technically to several issues.
Mr. Fewchuk: Just to follow up on that, is there any duplication between the two departments? Is there a possibility of saving more money? If there are too many scientists on the other side, can we just do it for one?
Mr. Boddington: There are currently - or there have been for the last few years - ongoing discussions between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding rationalization of certain elements, particularly elements to do with oceans. The Oceans Act was placed before the House. I'm not sure where that is on the order book at the moment. Discussions have been going on vis-à-vis Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans what the relationship for the freshwater part should be. I'm afraid I have not been a party to those, nor do I know the situation they are currently in, but again, if you wish I can again find out more information for the committee.
The Chairman: This is the substance for inquiries with the minister when he will appear before us on April 17.
Thank you. We now we have Madame Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Unfortunately, this is the first CEPA briefing I've been able to sit in on since the response came out. I just want to make sure I understand some things here, particularly in the section under controlling toxic substances.
Is the government suggesting that we use a hazard assessment as well a risk assessment, or is it only risk?
Ms Wherry: To the extent that those that would go to track one, that is somewhat.... Yes, you would call that hazard assessment, because it's using indicators of persistence and bioaccumulation for human exposure.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay. So that's really the only area they're....
Again, clarification on page 15, going back to the principles: economic responsibility. What does this mean?
The Chairman: You asked my question.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Sorry.
The Chairman: I'm so glad, because -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I will give this question to the chair. I'm sure the chair would have some supplementals.
The Chairman: No, please, go ahead.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you explain this to us to the best of your ability - which is quite extensive?
Ms Wherry: To the best of having been involved in these words and making sure they were in the document - not writing them but making sure they were placed in the document - I can't completely come up with a definition of what it means for you. I think the whole idea was the notion of making sure that economic principles are one half of the definition of sustainable development and that the environmental objectives in CEPA you were trying to obtain, that the principle of economic responsibility in terms of trying to achieve environmental objectives, the other half of the sustainable development coin, would also be in the legislation. I think that was some of the notion behind putting it in.
Other parts of the notion of putting it in were to ensure that cost-benefit analyses, etc., are done when decisions are being made, decisions to make a regulation, which is already done anyway. When you do a regulation you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. It is enshrining the notion that is somewhat used anyway, that all economic considerations have to be taken into account when you make any decision. I think that's the idea, but I....
.1640
Again, perhaps if you want more than that.... To me, that's the best reading you're going to get of it, but if you want even more of what that means, if you're planning to hold hearings with the economic departments, you might ask them if it means more than that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Because there are two ways - well, obviously there are more than two ways - of looking at that. One argument is a balance between economic and environment. You're still seeing these arenas, the ecological environment and the economic environment, as two separate environments, and there is somewhat of a confrontation, or you have this balance. Which way is the balance going? A lot of us on the committee have expressed the concern that economic and environment be integrated so that its economic, environment and equity concerns are integrated. I have a little bit of concern when I see this separation. To my mind, it seems like a separation.
I'm also concerned that when we take a look at principles, is there going to be a weighting of the principles? Is one principle going to have a stronger weight than another one? In other words, if you go through the precautionary principle, ecosystem approach, biological diversity, all of those kinds of things, but in terms of traditional understandings of economics, short-term economic understandings, it's not a good idea, or there's a cost. As you said earlier, there may be some cost to pollution prevention at the beginning, but certainly we will see a greater benefit in the long run.
So it's often a difference in the time horizon, whether it's short, medium or long term, as to how ecologically sensitive it is or how sustainable it really is. My concern is, what does this definition really mean? Are we talking about a balance, and in what weight? As well, there's the weight of the priority of the principles, because often this is the escape clause.
Mr. Boddington: In terms of the sorts of discussions the government went through in preparing the response, I think there was a concern that the new act truly be a sustainable development act and that clearly, whilst it reflected heavily on environmental protection as its major part of that sustainable development, there was a sense of discomfort from the resource and economic departments that the other part of the equation be more explicitly stated in order that it was perceived as a balance rather than just environmental protection.
That was much as Ruth said. I don't think there was any greater definition to it than that. It was more that there be an overt statement of the balance within sustainable development.
Ms Wherry: Other than the other part I mentioned, of getting right into the legislation, they need to do the cost-benefit. There was a longer list, but it's much shorter now.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I guess that's my concern, how this principle is going to be reflected in both the spirit and the content of the legislation.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Before starting the second round - and there are a few names there - I briefly would like to pursue and support the line of questions by the parliamentary secretary on the guiding principles page. It is a bit troublesome, particularly the last two items.
It may be they are not articulated in a manner that principles ought to be articulated, and it may be that we shouldn't take that page too seriously. It may be that this is too soon. But just in case these are really principles the department intends to consider as such, it seems to me that, for the reason just given by the parliamentary secretary, economic responsibility is not a principle, particularly within the context of CEPA. If you want a principle there, you say the principle of sustainable development. Then you have a principle that encompasses all three sectors Mrs. Kraft Sloan referred to.
.1645
On the next bullet, it seems to me that intergovernmental cooperation is an administrative tool. It is not a principle, for heaven's sake. What is the principle behind all that? It's not a religion of its own. There's been intergovernmental cooperation since the existence of this country, and it is considered a desirable administrative measure on behalf of the public. Why add it to the category of principles? I find it a bit strange, to put it that way.
Second to last is the science and precautionary principle. We all know what the precautionary principle is; it stands by itself. What does ``science'' mean on that line? What does it signal? Are you in a position to interpret that?
Mr. Boddington: My interpretation is that it signals there is a lot of concern - not necessarily within the Department of the Environment but certainly within the Government of Canada, which in turn reflects a number of groups outside the Government of Canada - that the precautionary principle would be applied in situations such as toxic chemical control, which are devoid of any scientific basis.
The Chairman: I don't want to argue with you personally, Mr. Boddington, but then it's no longer the precautionary principle, it is just a vague notion.
The precautionary principle is very clear. It says that when science says there is a degree of persistence and occurrence that ranges well over 50%, about 70%, or 80%, we do not wait for the smoking gun and the 100% assurance, that you are already in that area of scientific knowledge that does not allow for fancy notions to be taken seriously.
This is why this ``science'' word is a bit distressing. It seems to be one that cautions against the precautionary principle.
Mr. Boddington: No, I think the intent is to reflect exactly what you have just said, that the precautionary principle is not a principle applied without knowledge. Yet there seems to be this concept or fear in the great unwashed wilds that the precautionary principle allows government to come in and apply draconian controls with no apparent reason whatsoever. So people are trying to provide exactly the statement that you just made, that the precautionary principle is not applied without some measure of science, that it is not a measure independent of science but one that is taken perhaps -
The Chairman: Excuse me, we had one of your excellent green books on the precautionary principle. You even gave us a phenomenal amount of theology on the precautionary principle.
I don't like to see this linkage. As you put it, it is a reflection on something that casts doubt on the validity of the precautionary principle.
Mr. Boddington: This is only to say that maybe in certain parts of the government the precautionary principle is well understood, perhaps in the science departments, perhaps in those departments that use the precautionary principle or would use it in the assessment of toxic chemicals. That is not the sole universe of decision-making. There are parts of government that do not understand the precautionary principle as well as other parts and would like to place it in a perspective that makes them comfortable.
The Chairman: I think perhaps it will be for this committee to revisit the principles and ensure that the precautionary principle stands alone and that the other half is dropped.
I have two more questions. First, is biodiversity a principle in your opinion?
.1650
Ms Wherry: Is it a principle? Yes, it's in there.
The Chair: I would say it's a policy goal. It is a program. It is a convention. Why is it a principle all of a sudden?
Ms Wherry: It was one of the standard committee's guiding principles.
The Chair: Is the policy objective?
Ms Wherry: I believe the government's response used the exact words that were in the standing committee's report.
The Chair: It was? I have one final question, which has to do with inherent toxicity. You refer to it in your presentation once or so. Could you tell us whether criteria have been developed on inherent toxicity? If so, what are they?
Ms Wherry: You're asking whether criteria for inherent toxicity have been developed?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Wherry: I don't believe so.
The Chair: Do you intend to? Do you see the need?
Ms Wherry: There would have to be some if the proposal in the government's response to screen the DSL for persistence or bioaccumulation or inherent toxicity.... That particular question was raised for putting in that recommendation, and the agreement to put that recommendation in was made knowing that some criteria for inherent toxicity would have to be developed.
The Chair: Is that something you intend to do in the next few weeks or months?
Mr. Boddington: I think it will become a part of the general application of TCMP. Again, we can take it under advisement, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the actual implementation of both the toxic chemical management policy and any parts.... Whether we're already implementing some of this, I don't think we're really sure, but we can find out.
Ms Wherry: In terms of doing the risk assessment, they do have a whole document on that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
On second round, I have Mr. Forseth and Mr. Adams so far on the list. Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Maybe we can just change tacks here a little bit. I haven't had a chance to thoroughly digest the government's response, but I was just looking through it to see where...I may have missed it.
The notion of internalization of costs in the response is somewhere in here, that we're going to try to get to that, perhaps through regulation - the notion of industrial processes and activities and that somehow all of these costs will have to be internalized rather than the taxpayers picking them up afterwards, the clean-up or whatever.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: [Inaudible - Editor] ...responsibility?
Ms Wherry: Yes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: They're going to look at ways to do this?
Ms Wherry: Yes. Part of it - to look at ways to internalize the costs; some of the costs, for example, of producing the information for assessing new substances, and also now there's a proposal in here to screen the domestic substances list. There is a proposal in here that such information requirements.... I talked about expanding the requirements for the government to be able to go out and require users and producers of substances to come up with the information to assess whether or not it's toxic before it can be used, or even if it's already in the environment. So that notion of putting the onus on the user, producer, importer....
There are other examples of that whereby this whole notion of user-producer responsibility, of trying to shift the onus onto them and, as was mentioned on page 15, to make user-producer responsibility a guiding principle...more work would have to be undertaken by the department to see more how it could operationalize that particular guiding principle.
.1655
Mr. Forseth: I'll cut it there. We're running out of time, we have a vote.
The Chairman: We don't have a vote.
Mr. Forseth: Well, there's a vote at 5:30 p.m. today.
The Chairman: Oh yes, but we have plenty of time.
Mr. Forseth: Yes, but I have other things to do.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: I was just going to say there's a very interesting good and bad example of the precautionary principle issue around at the moment, to do with mad cow disease. I think Canada acted on the precautionary principle four or five years ago with respect to mad cow disease, and the United Kingdom did not. There were some signs around.
Back to this business of the process of this response, it seems to me that this is a response to those parts of our report that clearly require changes in CEPA and actually in the wording of the legislation. Is that what it is? So it's not a response to the whole report, because we have recommendations in there that do not require obvious changes to CEPA.
My question really is what happens to our other recommendations. For example, in the chapter on the north, where we have... I can see some: use all available international means to pursue further reductions in emissions of toxic substances from other countries - this is transboundary pollution in the north - technical assistance with respect to radionuclides in the former Soviet Union, boosting our involvement with aboriginal organizations in the Arctic environment protection strategy, some stuff on science.... What happens to those others? Does the department simply ignore them, or does it pass them on, or what?
Mr. Boddington: All of the recommendations were passed on by the minister to the appropriate other minister and were highlighted as belonging to that other minister. The general agreement of departments through the process of developing a government response was that the scope of the committee's response was so great that in fact if we went recommendation by recommendation we would basically still be at it.
Fundamentally, the department cut its losses in terms of what it could achieve - the narrower mandate of the committee itself, which was to review CEPA and its administration. It therefore focused on the actual mandate in terms of responding to the really specific CEPA-related things.
We had discussed with other departments - ours included - exactly the sort of question you're asking. The general response was that they are taken under advisement by each department and would become a part of yea-or-nay general government departmental positions.
Mr. Adams: Is there any element in that - keeping to the other departments for a moment - similar to...? When we present a petition in the House of Commons, the ministry that is most closely affected has to, within a certain period of time, table a response of some sort. Sometimes the response is very bland. There's no element of that, given that these recommendations were tabled in the House of Commons - that, for example, the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or some other ministry must respond.
Mr. Boddington: Again, I don't know precisely the rules in terms of how broad the response has to be -
Mr. Adams: But you would suspect not.
Mr. Boddington: I would suspect that you got a response well within the mandate of the committee. I don't know -
Mr. Adams: I understand the nature of your response.
Mr. Boddington: I don't know that the government is obliged to respond recommendation by recommendation.
Mr. Adams: But if the committee asked for some responses from an appropriate department, we might get something?
Mr. Boddington: You may, yes.
Mr. Adams: What about the recommendations in here that are not directly related to CEPA, but that are in that allocation you've given to the Minister of the Environment?
Mr. Boddington: The answer then is specifically that they will become a day-to-day part of our business. In some respect many of them already have been undertaken. We can take it under advisement again, if you wish to go through those that are related to the Department of the Environment and not to CEPA and therefore were not in here. We would be obliged under the same sort of thing to go through them one by one.
.1700
Mr. Adams: Essentially we would have to ask for responses in those cases.
Mr. Boddington: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I would like to know, first, if you intend to meet with us before this bill is finally submitted to Cabinet, which is scheduled for September.
The Chairman: It's up to us to decide that.
Mr. Asselin: In the document you sent us, monetary administrative penalties are mentioned.
In the bill, will there be provisions to make polluters pay? In principle, the people who cause the pollution should be penalised. The polluter should be responsible for conducting impact studies, not Canada.
Mr. Boddington: We have already written many documents on this issue. We already have a huge stack of documents on several subject matters: administrative monetary penalties and so on. We will be pleased to give you some reports on this issue, if you need them.
Mr. Asselin: Very well.
Mr. Boddington: It's a long story. Telling it all is difficult, because there is a lot to say on some issues. There is a large amount of information.
Mr. Asselin: But you already have recommended to the Department of the Environment, in Ottawa, to introduce a bill to force the polluter to pay.
Mr. Boddington: This is part of the existing CEPA in section 35 or 36, I believe.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.
[English]
I am the first person in the second round, so I will make a few comments on this.
It seems to me that in this presentation this afternoon there are certain gaps. For instance, on the administration page there are two bullets - they are very legitimate and desirable. What is missing, however, on that page is the federal leadership or the role of the federal government. This is an item we may want to explore.
On pollution prevention, in the same set of slides you have the emphasis on planning for pollution prevention. This is followed by clean technology development and transfer. That's fine. Then there are information clearing house and awards, with environmental aspects of emergencies being the fourth. Where is a strong regulatory system? How are you going to have pollution prevention without any instrument, any use of a regulatory system?
It seems to me that with the way pollution prevention is described here, it is not going to go very far.
There are also other aspects that may need to be examined at a further meeting. I think we'll have to meet with you people again in the light of what has emerged today and what has not yet emerged. Certainly we would like to explore biotechnology with you, as well as the control of the toxic substances, which is probably the heart and soul of CEPA, as Ms Wherry explained very well.
We would want to see the three funnels. We would want to examine this very thoroughly before we can conclude one way or the other.
.1705
For Mr. Forseth, the researchers will kindly provide a summary of the Basel Convention, whichever way you wish to do it.
I wonder whether for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary and the members of the committee, particularly the new ones, the researchers could, by the meeting with the minister on April 17, prepare a kind of review of the proposals. This is a brief indication as to whether the proposals by the government are ahead of, at par with, or behind the proposals of the committee. This would be for at least the key proposals. I wouldn't say the whole 141 need to be examined.
I think for this committee to assess thoroughly the extent reached by the proposals, a methodological review of the proposals would be desirable. There are three weeks left. Maybe it is asking too much in three weeks. I leave it to your judgment as to what you can do in that period of time.
We have three new members. I think a review of that kind would be very helpful even for the other members.
Finally, we will leave it to you to decide who will appear next time in light of the exchange today and the items that are still to be examined.
Certainly, as a member of this committee, I have grave reservations as to the effectiveness of pollution prevention if this is going to be all there is to it. I would like to be proven wrong, of course.
I would also like to see you inform us on the administration, as to whether this is the extent of the administration that is intended to be put into it. Otherwise Mr. Asselin will be proven right. We don't like to see the opposition proven right, do we?
Mrs. Payne.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Pardon my ignorance on this; I'm one of the new members. I don't see anything in here - perhaps this is not where it should be, and it may be addressed somewhere else. But I'm wondering if there is any vehicle, either under the old act or this one, that would allow us to place pressure on another country, either the country itself, its government or a company of another country, that is guilty of pollution practices. In other words, it would be a country or a company operating within Canada that's of another country.
The Chairman: In the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 there is principle 21, which attempts to come to grips with what you just said. By and large, so far it has been a mixed story of successes and failures.
Keep in mind that every day we are being economically damaged by the United States by way of transboundary pollution of sulphur dioxide because of acid rain to the tune of four million tonnes a year. We also are polluting the United States with our transboundary pollution because of wind sources in Vermont.
In Europe, the transboundary pollution by air and water is a constant object of concern. There is not much that a nation or a state can do in stopping another one, except through the normal procedure, which at times can lead you to the International Court of Justice.
In the case of North America under NAFTA, it goes through the commission in Montreal that deals with environmental protection and trade. That's the one that will be represented by a witness two weeks from today or so.
Therefore, the picture is very spotty and mostly littered with great declarations, but very little legislative muscle. Within the state there are of course measures, but you must have noticed when we did CEPA how weak we were within Canada in implementing our own legislation, let alone what other nations are doing.
.1710
Mrs. Payne: The answer to the question is that there really is no vehicle to force another country to -
The Chairman: There are conventions, you see. The conventions do help to some extent. The Law of the Sea, in terms of pollution prevention, can help. The convention on chlorofluorocarbons has been extremely effective, for instance, in removing from trade chloro-containing substances.
You are raising a question that requires a big, long, and complex answer. In principle and theoretically it has been dealt with. In practice the picture is rather spotty, but it can be done, no doubt. This is why we all are allied for an answer to the role of the United Nations. Weak as it may be, through UNEP and other means, it has delivered certain conventions that have had a certain impact. I think the most remarkable success has been the Montreal convention on the protection of the ozone layer.
Mr. Boddington: I could amplify a little on that, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr. Boddington: This is domestic legislation, and as such, it is for application of domestic problems.
Mrs. Payne: I realize that.
Mr. Boddington: The sort of question you are asking is dealt with in two specific areas: in international air, and in the current CEPA and the proposed CEPA in international waters. Canada has entered into treaties with the United States, for instance, in the area of air. We now have reciprocity between CEPA and the equivalent U.S....and in the future we would have reciprocity in the areas of water, whereby we would be expected to deal with American complaints under our domestic legislation and they would be expected to deal with our complaints under their legislation. As Mr. Caccia said, that is a spotty application, but the general principle is that the current legislation and the new legislation would have the perspective you were looking for. But we couldn't legislate -
The Chairman: For instance, in the case of pesticides there are certain nations that export pesticides they are not allowed to use in their own country. There was a big issue on this with Sweden in the early 1980s, on the use of a certain pesticide in Nova Scotia by a company whose name now escapes me. Lately however, certain countries - and I hope Canada is amongst them, but I think we would do better to verify - have agreed not to export substances that they themselves do not allow domestically.
This is a partial answer to your question.
Mr. Boddington: Under a regulation under the current CEPA.
The Chairman: Exactly, yes. In CEPA there is a section that does say that. Actually, this is in the present legislation, that we will not export substances we do not allow domestically. We can find out the section number. It is fairly advanced, towards the end.
Mrs. Payne: I realize the question I am asking is not related to this document.
The Chairman: No, but it's certainly related to CEPA. It certainly is.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you.
The Chairman: We are at the beginning of a long journey and will have to decide at the next meeting, perhaps after having heard further, whether we want to prepare a short and quick report on the committee's reply to the proposals.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: There may be only three or four members on this committee who sat through the CEPA hearings and report. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, there may only be three or four committee members who are CEPA toxic; the rest of you have yet to experience that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: That's why they look so happy.
Mr. Fewchuk: Anyway, it's the same old thing again.
.1715
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: We went through marathon sessions, right?
The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Are there any further questions?
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.