ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 5, 1998

• 0905

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to today's session. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we are considering the National Pollutant Release Inventory.

[English]

For this meeting, which is a very interesting and important one, we have a good hour and a half, after which this committee will go into an in camera session in order to discuss the work of the committee in a way that will confirm what we discussed at a dinner meeting on Monday. Therefore, we'd better start without delay.

I apologize to the witnesses for this five-minute delay, which is also due to the fact that some material has been misdirected and is on its way back again to this committee.

In any event, we have, from Environment Canada, Steve McCauley—welcome—and François Lavallée. From the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, we have an old friend and colleague of ours, André Lachance, former député de Rosemont. Then we have, from the Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition, John Jackson. And finally—but he's not here.

There is one witness arriving by train—we wish her luck, it might be tomorrow—and that is Janine Ferretti from Montreal.

Our clerk, who is diligently feeding us with printed material, is suggesting that we start with Mr. Lachance so that the missing material has a chance to arrive. If that is all right with you, we will start with Mr. Lachance, followed by Mr. Jackson, and then Environment Canada.

Would you like to start? If you can compress your presentation to within seven or eight minutes—four of you will make half an hour and it gives more time for questions—that would be very helpful. In any case, welcome to the committee. It's nice to see you again.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance (Director of Public Policy, Dow Chemical; Canadian Chemical Producers' Association): Merci.

The Chairman: You're getting some grey hair.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: Grey hair and less of it, Mr. Chairman. Grey in my beard, too, unfortunately.

It's good to be here, and it's good to see you, a former colleague of mine. There are a lot of faces that I know from having encountered them in various forums.

I will abide by your direction, Mr. Chairman, and keep my remarks short, because I believe it's the dialogue part that the members will want to dwell on.

I'm here as a representative of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. This is an organization that this committee is familiar with. Basically it represents a great majority of chemical producers in this country. Quite understandably, it's an area that will be of great interest to the members of this committee, dealing as we do with chemical substances and involved as we are in reducing and managing risks associated with their discharge in the environment.

My remarks are going to deal with the three inventories that are germane to this discussion. Our own is in its fifth version—and I circulated copies to the clerk and to the members. The members may want to refer back to the document as I speak and during the question time.

• 0910

The second one of course is the NPRI, which is the main topic of today's discussion. I'm also going to touch on the CEC's “Taking Stock”, which although it is not strictly speaking a Canadian inventory, certainly deals with Canadian data as they compare and aggregate with U.S. and Mexican data.

Without further ado, let me share with you some thoughts about those three inventories and give you my perspective and the association's on their respective merits and the potential for improvement as it may apply.

One thing I would like to preface my remarks with is to provide a bit of a generic context having to do with what is referred to as PRTRs—there are a lot of acronyms in this business—“pollutant release and transfer registries”, which is a generic term for those inventories and an area that has been examined and is still being examined by various international organizations to see how it is that we can define them in a way that is going to make sense and is going to meet the needs of the various countries that generate them.

What we need to understand about those PRTRs is that they don't need to be one size fits all. Rather, they should be designed in such a way that they meet the requirements of the various jurisdictions which generate them. It is with this thought in mind that we shall look at the body of inventories we have developed in Canada and assess how well they are doing the job from the point of view of ensuring there is transparency and accountability in the way we communicate data to the Canadian public, but at the same time how it is that they are going to provide us with direction on where it is that we need to address gaps and deficiencies and design programs that are going to reduce the risk associated with those initiatives.

Let me start first with NERM, the national emissions reduction masterplan, which is the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association's own inventory. This inventory was started in 1992 and was the first somewhat comprehensive inventory to see the light of day in Canada. It covers over 500 substances. In that regard it is more comprehensive than the NPRI. As a matter of fact, it also has a lower threshold of reporting, and in so doing covers some of the micropollutants, which may not reach the threshold established under NPRI.

It also has other characteristics that make it quite interesting, in that it provides context. It provides context from the point of view of five-year projections, because this is, as the name implies, not only an inventory but also a direction for action for the member companies, a call for action that stems from our commitment to the responsible care ethic. I know you are familiar with responsible care as a program that has been designed in Canada and is now in force in about 40 countries around the world. This inventory also provides context from the point of view of clustering the various emissions in areas of concern, and in so doing it provides not so much interpretation as perspective: what do those those emissions mean and how is it that they are going to drive member companies to act.

• 0915

The other thing that is interesting about this inventory is that it relates the emissions to the value of shipments.

We have to realize, of course, that there are two dimensions to an inventory. There is the absolute, obviously, in terms of what emissions are going out, but it also has to be related to the level of production that it relates to. So if you increase your production, what does it mean in terms of the emissions?

One of the three slides that the clerk copied.... I was going to use the overhead, but we'd might as well refer to the slides. I refer you to figure 1.1, which shows that in the case of the chemical industry emissions have been reduced from 1992 by about half in the aggregate. Meanwhile, the value of shipments has gone up. That again gives a sense of perspective in terms of how it is that one relates the emissions to the level and value of production.

The last item I'd like to mention about NERM is that it covers not only emissions but also transfers. Let me make a comment about transfer, because it applies also to the NPRI and to NACEC.

Transfers are not emissions. Transfers are basically non-product materials that go out of a plant to be either recovered, if they're recoverables, or treated, if they're non-recoverables. From that point of view, to try to relate transfers to releases in the environment is problematic at best, and at worst misleading.

This is one of the problems we have conveyed to the secretariat, to NACEC, in the context of their second inventory of taking stock, where they basically lump transfers and emissions together.

In the case of the NERM report, we keep them separate. We believe that from a public accountability point of view we have to account for transfers, but they should be kept separate, for the reason I just spelled out.

NPRI is a smaller set of 117 substances. It has a two-year lag time, compared to NERM, which is a yearly process. It is a good inventory in that it provides for targeting action on substances where there are problems, but it needs to be improved. Quite clearly, the multi-stakeholder process that underlies the development of NPRI will be a good approach to improving it.

As I mentioned, one area where it could be improved is that of micro-pollutants. Another area will be timeliness, and a third area could be in the context of providing perspective.

Lastly, let me make a few more comments about the NACEC “Taking Stock” inventory. If this is going to be useful for Canadian public policy making, this inventory, which is an aggregate inventory, will have to be fine-tuned quite a bit. At this time it has all kinds of problems in terms of trying to compare apples and oranges. The inventory in the U.S., called TRI, is conceptually quite different from ours.

The problem that I mentioned about transfer is not really addressed properly. The consultative time lines around ensuring that there is ground-proofing of data is too short. Also, this approach of highlighting companies is, I suggest, counterproductive if we're going to work on targeted substances.

I'll conclude with this comment, Mr. Chairman. I can say this from the point of view of a company not having been identified as sticking out in terms of the “Taking Stock” report, so I don't have an axe to grind here. But quite clearly, especially with a four-year lag, if you highlight companies—and we've seen the problems created in Canada—this might be counter-productive in that it will focus public attention in the wrong direction as opposed to ensuring that it provides direction for policy-makers to target areas where we actually need to develop programs to reduce emissions.

• 0920

Mr. Chairman, I will certainly be very happy to respond to members' questions as they come. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lachance, and thank you also for producing this report number 5. We appreciate very much the items on page 45, the “Taking Action” page, which is quite interesting, and the charts you have produced for us today are also quite valuable. We congratulate you on your good work.

We move now to the Environment Canada people. Is it Mr. McCauley who would like to go first? Please go ahead.

Mr. Steve McCauley (Acting Manager, Pollution Data Branch, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the committee for its invitation to talk about NPRI. It's a program in Environment Canada that we think is a key priority. It's part of the priority the department is putting on “right to know” and informing the public about the environment.

The other point I'd like to make, just before starting, is that the committee's interest is timely in the sense that we are in the middle of consultations on the NPRI. The national pollutant release inventory has been in place for just over three years. We're starting the production of our fourth report, and we're now in the middle of the first consultations we've had since the inception of the program. So we're very much looking forward to getting some contributions and ideas and direction from the committee on the future direction of NPRI.

I believe you now have a copy of the deck—the presentation—we'd like to use.

The Chairman: Mr. McCauley, it's a pretty thick presentation you have here. It will require a certain speed when you're going through it.

Mr. Steve McCauley: I understand, Mr. Chairman. No problem.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Steve McCauley: The topics you see on page two are going to cover the purpose of the NPRI, its history, how it works, and where we're headed with the program as far as where the consultations are right now.

I'd like to propose that my colleague François Lavallée handle the first part of the presentation and then I will deal with the last two items covering the benefits of the program and its future directions.

Mr. François Lavallée (Head, National Pollutant Release Inventory, Pollution Data Branch, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): The first item is the purpose of the NPRI. A key purpose is to improve public understanding. It's now known as “right to know”.

There are many media stories concerning the NPRI and releases to the environment. Environment Canada has published regional fact sheets detailing releases in particular parts of the country. There have been Environment Canada science and environmental bulletins and articles on the NPRI, and our report is distributed to libraries.

It also encourages voluntary action. We do name companies in our inventory for specific releases of particular pollutants.

Ford has a pride point in that they've reduced by 50% their releases of NPRI substances over three years. The NPRI is a key part of the reason why they've reduced those releases.

Another purpose is to identify priorities for action. It's used internally in our programs, such as the priority substances list. It's also used by industry for setting priorities for their own programs. It allows tracking of the reduction in releases.

A bit of history: The federal government made a commitment to develop an inventory of toxic substances being released in Canada in order to inform Canadians. Canada was ahead of the rest of the world. Since that declaration, that commitment, there's been the Rio Declaration, which affirms this and which has been accepted by countries across the world.

• 0925

In 1992 a multi-stakeholder advisory committee developed the reporting criteria. The representatives were from industry, environment groups, labour, and governments. They produced a report for the minister. This report had a number of areas where consensus was achieved and it forms the basis for the NPRI.

The first year of implementation was 1993. In 1993 and 1994 there were few changes to the program. In 1995 there were two major revisions. One was to adopt a different way of calculating reporting thresholds. There were companies that had large releases of NPRI substances and that weren't required to report. This change now requires those companies to report those releases to the inventory. We also made changes to some of the substances, particularly ammonia and nitrates.

In 1997 there was the addition of qualitative reporting of pollution prevention activities, and for 1998 mandatory reporting of material going to recycling.

How the NPRI is assembled: A notice is published in the Canada Gazette at the beginning of each reporting year. It outlines the requirements, who must report, what they must report, and by when. Reporting forms and guidance are sent to companies by Environment Canada early in the following year and the companies are required to submit their reports by June 1 of the following year.

The information is collected by our regional staff and verified. Large fluctuations in releases and facility reports are identified. There's follow-up with the reporting facilities to confirm the data. The NPRI information is forwarded to headquarters and analysed, and any further anomalies in reported data are identified and followed up with the companies.

Who must report to the NPRI, or how the NPRI works: Those who have facilities where there are 10 or more full-time employees and who manufacture, process, or otherwise use 10 tonnes of an NPRI substance are required to report. They only have to consider those mixtures where NPRI substances are at a concentration of 1% or more by weight, except for by-products. That's where we made the change in 1995. If there are releases, you must consider the weight of those releases when calculating the threshold.

Presentation of the data and summary report: We do provide some context for the data, how the information is collected, what type of information must be reported, some of the limitations of the data. We provide definition and explanation of changes over the years, and also information on the substances. There are national and provincial summaries. Facilities are named for the highest releases for each substance. For example, you can find which facilities have the largest releases of lead or benzene or vinyl chloride.

The NPRI products: To communicate with the public we have of course our summary report, which is published each year. We also put a copy of the report on the Internet. There is now an on-line query for specific needs. If people are looking for information on a facility or facilities in their community, that's available on-line on the Internet. By the way, it's also used internally by Environment Canada for our own needs. There's an on-line national database, which is updated regularly. So the whole database is available and we do have regional fact sheets.

Mr. Steve McCauley: On page 13 we talk about benefits to Canada. Some of the benefits that have been realized with the program.... It's pretty much targeted at increasing public awareness of releases to the environment. We typically get news articles, magazine articles, stories in the media, around the time of our annual report.

• 0930

The experience that's starting to be realized with banks and insurance companies.... It seems to be more prevalent in the U.S. with their Toxic Release Inventory, but we're noticing it in Canada as well. Investment houses and pension funds are using this type of information to advise clients on investments, looking at long-term risks of those investments and the whole issue of the environmental liability that might be faced by some of these firms.

On industry and business benefits, François mentioned the 50% reductions that the board is talking to in its NPRI releases. In the recent annual report of Dofasco there were a number of references to the NPRI and its releases. So we're noticing that it is being used in various vehicles that have identified.

On page 14, continuing with benefits to Canada, the NAFTA CEC report, which you will be hearing about shortly, is based on data from the National Pollutant Release Inventory as well as the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory that I mentioned. The CEC is doing this as a result of a ministerial resolution by the three ministers to promote the public right to know about toxic release and pollutant release information.

Page 15 talks about the future directions that we're taking to improve the NPRIs. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we now are in the middle of consultations, which are addressing a number of issues. Mr. André Lachance mentioned some of the issues that we're dealing with: looking at improving the timeliness of the NPRI reporting, adding substances to the NPRI to make it more comprehensive. Pollution prevention as well is a key issue, and the whole area of promoting NPRI and communicating the information in that program at the community level.

On page 16, the feedback we've got from the consultations has been that there is a strong interest in improving the NPRI in the areas I've mentioned, but a lot of the feedback as well has been that the NPRI is seen by stakeholders as a valuable tool for environmental protection, that it's a powerful tool in fact which can be used to inform the public and encourage voluntary actions by industry.

Very much another key conclusion has been the interest in using multi-stakeholder vehicles to involve all of our partners on the NPRI and improving the program.

Just to conclude with the last slide, on page 17, one of the key priorities that's coming out of the consultation is very much to review the list of substances that's on the NPRI to make it more comprehensive and include more of the toxic substances: the CEPA toxics, priority substance lists, the Canada-Ontario agreement—the substances that are on that program—and the ARET program as well.

Related to that will be the whole issue of reviewing the reporting threshold. Because a lot of these toxic substances are microcontaminants, we're going to have to be looking at lowering the reporting threshold for the program to capture these new substances.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. McCauley.

Mr. Steve McCauley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We welcome the arrival of Ms. Ferretti.

Ms. Janine Ferretti (Director for Canada, Commission for Environmental Cooperation): Good morning.

The Chairman: With the help of VIA Rail you managed to make it.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: Yes.

The Chairman: Would you like the suggestion to carry on, please?

Mr. John Jackson (Co-ordinator, Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition): Both Burkhard Mausberg and I are speaking on behalf of the Canadian Environment Network's toxics caucus today, so we're going to do a joint presentation. Burkhard will begin.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg (Executive Director, Canadian Environmental Defence Fund): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again thank you for inviting me to this hearing.

The Chairman: Since you arrived a little bit later, when other witnesses had already started, we are trying to compress your presentation into seven or eight minutes.

• 0935

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: I'll be very brief. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To start with, I would like to provide a context and a history of the NPRI a little broader than that of my colleagues from Environment Canada.

Back in the 1980s there was a major industrial accident in India, also known as the Bhopal accident. That accident cost hundreds of deaths and literally thousands of people were affected by it. That accident led the U.S. Congress to start looking at its own industrial facilities to note whether or not such an accident was possible in the U.S. As a result of that examination, the U.S. Congress started the Toxic Release Inventory and an emergency response law. That TRI has been under way for several years and certainly was one of the instigators in Canada having the NPRI.

Canada's Green Plan, way back in the late 1980s, proposed a similar inventory. It never really got off the ground until about 1992, when a group formerly known as the New Directions group, which represented the CEOs of major corporations, including Noranda, Dow Chemical, and several others, and directors of environmental organizations got together to issue a statement on what to do with toxic chemicals. Again, a similar TRI was proposed for Canada.

Following that report, whaich was presented to then Minister of the Environment Jean Charest, a multi-stakeholder advisory committee was formed, which my colleagues from Environment Canada referred to. John was on that committee and is going to say a few things about it.

Mr. John Jackson: I'm John Jackson, with Great Lakes United and the Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition.

The report that came out of that multi-stakeholder committee really was the basis, and is the basis, of the National Pollutant Release Inventory we now have. It really was a model of an excellent consultation process: very focused, very directed at coming up with real results, and with a very seriously tight timeframe.

Since the data have started coming out from the National Pollutant Release Inventory, environmental groups and citizens living in their local communities have found those data to be very important for them in understanding potential problems in their communities and in figuring out where they should focus their energies in order to deal with problems.

Environment Canada, out of its Great Lakes office, put together an inventory where they actually combined the data on the Great Lakes from the National Pollutant Release Inventory with the data on the U.S. side from the Toxic Release Inventory to give us one of the most complete pictures we have ever had of the toxics being released into the Great Lakes environment. That's been an extremely important function Environment Canada carried out.

We at Great Lakes United actually took that data and put together a map. I'm sorry I don't have copies; it was in colour, so I wasn't able to copy it for you. We put together a map that puts together the data Environment Canada had gathered for both Canada and the United States to give people an indication of the extent of releases in different parts of the Great Lakes basin.

That's just one example. Groups in Montreal, for example, have put together data on releases into the St. Lawrence River, again based on the National Pollutants Release Inventory, and from that have developed priorities on where we need to focus our actions.

Just as important, if not more important, are individual citizens and little local community groups who tap into the NPRI database and find out things they didn't know before. For example, just for me personally, I live in Kitchener. I live next door to a dairy. I never thought twice about it. I have noise pollution from the trucks all the time, but I never thought anything about it. When I pulled up the data for Kitchener, I was amazed to find only four companies in Kitchener had actually reported into the NPRI and the dairy next door to me was one of those. It made me start looking at it. I had never dreamed of it.

So the public awareness and the understanding of where to focus action are a really important part of that.

I want to stress a couple of recommendations we have and concerns we think this committee needs to focus on. The first is that, as was pointed out by Environment Canada, each year they now have to put a notice in the Canada Gazette about National Pollutant Release Inventory repording. It is not part of legislation at this point.

• 0940

The multi-stakeholder committee unanimously recommended in 1992 that we put the NPRI as a requirement in CEPA. When this committee also recommended that it be put into CEPA, Environment Canada recommended when CEPA was being reviewed that it be put into CEPA, but the bill that came out to amend CEPA did not include a requirement for NPRI. So we urge this committee to make sure the next bill for CEPA will include NPRI as a requirement.

That gives us assurance, as people across the country, that NPRI will continue. It's not its value from one year of data, but it's seeing the change in releases over time that is really valuable to us. We need that assurance by having it in the legislation.

The second point I want to stress is the requirement for pollution prevention reporting.

The NPRI here is modelled very much on the Toxic Release Inventory in the United States. That's important, as was pointed out earlier, so we can make proper comparisons across the border, where we, unfortunately, share toxic releases. We don't currently require industries to report on how much recycling they do in their own plants. We do not require them to report on how much they incinerate within their own property. We do not require them to report on how much of the waste they treat on their own property.

This information is essential in terms of understanding pollution prevention activities. Are we indeed reducing the amount of waste that we produce? We don't know that unless we know how much is being treated or burnt on site.

The United States has been requiring this kind of reporting since 1991. We don't here, but there's no reason why we shouldn't. Industry has had no problem in complying with this.

Environment Canada had recommended that we indeed add that as a requirement for this reporting year. Industry objected, and Environment Canada, unfortunately, has backed off. That's very alarming for us, because this committee has consistently pushed pollution prevention as the way to deal with it, instead of keeping focusing on releases. Unless we have this requirement for pollution prevention reporting, you and the rest of us will not be able to know what progress is being made.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: The NPRI really is, in my view, one of the best federal programs there is, and it's really simple to understand why. It represents the right to know. Every Canadian should have a right to know what toxic chemicals are being released into their backyard. It allows for measurement of improvements. Finally, it helps us to focus our efforts.

So even though we may have some improvements to suggest, I want to emphasize that the NPRI is a solid program within Environment Canada and in fact deserves a lot more resources.

One of the improvements is simply more resources, because it takes Environment Canada about two years to analyse and compile the data, whereas in the U.S. it takes eight to ten months. We're now getting data that may be two years old, and it is primarily a resource issue because they don't have enough staff.

The second improvement I may recommend is the accessibility of data. There are provisions for confidential business information in the current regime of the NPRI. I just don't understand what could be confidential business information when someone releases pollutants into the air, into the water or onto the land.

Finally, in terms of accessibility, we may want to look at some changes of how the data is presented.

I remember Brian McAndrew, who is a reporter with the Toronto Star, trying to pull together the top ten polluters around Lake Ontario. That would have been an important issue for the readers of the Toronto Star, but because of the way the data is presented he had a heck of a time putting it together. So some changes into accessibility of data should really be considered.

Finally, and most importantly—and I think you heard some agreement here among the various presenters—is to include micropollutants. Those are pollutants that fall below the threshold of the NPRI but are the ones we constantly hear, in the scientific literature, are causing the damage.

• 0945

For example, we won't find dioxins in the National Pollutant Release Inventory. We won't find furans in the National Pollutant Release Inventory. We won't find many of the toxic substances that have been declared legally toxic by the federal department in the National Pollutant Release Inventory. So an inclusion of micropollutants is really crucial.

Overall, I do believe the NPRI is a good-news story, but it needs to be improved in several ways.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mausberg.

Ms. Ferretti, welcome to the committee.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: Thank you for inviting me this morning. I would like to say that I asked that this paper be distributed to help you follow the presentation as well as to keep for your records. For those members of your committee who would like it in French, I can send it to them this week.

This morning I would like to do two things. One is to introduce the CEC to you. We have appeared here before, but most of the members now sitting here were not at that meeting. Secondly, I would like to explain the efforts of the CEC in supporting important domestic programs such as NPRI in North America and facilitating access to information that is collected by the three governments in North America for the public.

“CEC” stands for “Commission for Environmental Cooperation”. It is an international organization made up of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The primary objectives of this institution can be boiled down into four. One is to help address environmental concerns to the three countries. The second is to monitor the impacts of NAFTA on the environment. The third is to promote effective enforcement of environmental laws. The last is to promote public information, access to public information, and participation in environmental decision making.

The structure of the CEC is made up of three components in Montreal. One is the council, which is made up of the three federal environmental ministers of the three countries. The second is the secretariat, which supports the council and implements the decisions of council. I'm a staff member of that secretariat, and that secretariat is based in Montreal. The third is a joint public advisory committee, which provides advice to the council as a whole. It's an advisory committee made up of 15 individuals from North America. The Canadian members are Mary Simon, Jacques Gérin, Louise Comeau—actually, she is on her way out now—Michael Cloghesy, and Mike Apsey.

In addition, in each of the three countries there is something called a national advisory committee, as well as a government advisory committee, which provides advice directly to the national government—to the environment minister, as it were. In Canada it is chaired by Stewart Elgie.

In the work of the CEC a great deal of emphasis is focused on environmental information. That is the result of a strong mandate the CEC has, based on the agreement that governs it, which is called the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation, to strengthen transparency and public access to information. As you can see by the structure, that commitment exists there in the advisory committees that are set up.

The basic objectives of the CEC in environmental information are two. One is to improve public access and understanding of environmental information. The second is to facilitate greater compatibility and comparability of that information.

Below you have a list of initiatives that are included in that. Of course the final one, the pollutant release inventory, is the one of interest to you today.

• 0950

The basic objective of the North American...and we call it the “PRTR project”, which means the pollutant release and transfer registry, because that is the common generic term for programs such as the NPRI and the TRI and the rest of the alphabet soup that's associated with this. The overall objective is to provide a picture of releases and transfers in North America. It's an initiative that is being watched quite closely by the global community, as countries recognize the important values of the PRTR, such as NPRI, in increasing public understanding of the types and quantities of toxic substances being released and transferred, and in encouraging industry to reduce industrial wastes, and finally in tracking environmental progress.

The OECD in Paris has passed a directive encouraging members of the OECD to adopt a PRTR. UNITAR is very busily working with developing countries to promote the adoption of pollutant release and transfer registers. North America is playing a leadership role because it is the first of the countries to establish these kinds of reporting systems and the success in North America is driving countries to improve and update and enhance their reporting programs continually.

Our purpose here at the CEC in North America is to bring together the experiences of the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory, the Canadian NPRI, and the Mexican RETC. It's very much grounded in the knowledge and in the acceptance that the public right to know is becoming a fundamental principle in the three countries and in fact in North American culture as a whole. It is one that has been recognized for some time even by industry, which has led the way by establishing reporting mechanisms of its own.

The work we do is based on and guided by a resolution passed by council in 1997. That asks us to do three things. One is to report annually on releases and transfers in North America. That is done by taking the common substances and common facilities reported by the three countries. That means while there are many similarities among the three countries, there are also major differences. All we can do is compare the similarities.

Because Mexico isn't as advanced, we weren't able to provide as much information about Mexico for comparison, although it was reported on. The greatest focus of comparison has been on the U.S. and Mexico, as I said, and on those substances and those facilities which are common to them.

The outputs to date include two reports. One is an overview of the programs in North America, describing their similarities and differences, and the report you have in front of you. The following page describes the schedule for the production of next year's report, for the 1995 data, as well as other programs where we'll be focusing our attention in 1998.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Ferretti.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for appearing before us.

I would be interested in hearing from industry and from government on how this plan is working specifically, and on the stumbling blocks. Because it is voluntary, is the information trustworthy? Are audits in place to ensure information goes forward both from the industry point of view and from the government point of view? Just as a brief overview from both sides, how is it working?

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: I don't know which inventory you refer to specifically, the NPRI or the NERM inventory, which is specific to the chemical industry. My understanding of NPRI is that it's not voluntary. There is a legal requirement. It's just that it's not enshrined in legislation. By the way, industry supports the notion that it should be. So it's not as if you've got the choice to do it or not: if you're beyond the threshold that's been established, you have to report. That's the first part.

• 0955

The second part refers to NERM. If you're a member of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, you have to report, and the data are available by companies and by sites. So it's not as if you do it if you want to and you don't if you don't want to. There is a verification process attached to this program to ensure that it is genuine from the point of view of the quality and the comprehensiveness of the information that is provided.

My third comment has to do with loopholes. I don't believe there are loopholes in the system. There are identified gaps, and some of those have been identified this morning. I think we all subscribe to the notion that the multi-stakeholder process, which has worked well in this context, should continue to scope out those gaps and define the solutions in terms of improvements to the program.

Mr. François Lavallée: The NPRI is a legal requirement. The Gazette notice that we publish each year is a mandatory requirement. Those who meet the reporting criteria for the NPRI must submit a report.

In the first few years of the program we concentrated on compliance promotion, making industries aware of the need to report. We have started adding an enforcement component to the NPRI.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: We've heard of gaps of substances that aren't on the list. How does a substance get on the list? Is it a consultative process between industry and Environment Canada? We've heard there are a number of differences among Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

Mr. François Lavallée: There are a couple of points here.

One is that it is through a consultative process, not only with industry but also with environmental groups and other governments. The first list was a subset of the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory, and although there are many fewer substances on the NPRI—the original U.S. list had a little over 300 substances, we had 178—the volume of releases that are common to the substances in both inventories is very large. So 92% of the reported releases in Canada are of substances that are on both inventories. In the U.S. TRI, the comparable figure is 85%. So there is a large volume of common data.

I think where we want to concentrate is on those pollutants that are particularly toxic but released in small quantities. Those need to be addressed both in Canada and in the U.S.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): If I heard you correctly, the differences between the Canadian and American lists relate to the fact that there are substances like micropollutants or small amounts on one list. Why is there a difference?

Mr. François Lavallée: Originally there are no micropollutants on the U.S. list either. It's a failing of both inventories, and both countries are working to rectify that.

It's that originally we looked at the U.S. list and in the multi-stakeholder process they evaluated the substances to see if there is a need to report these in Canada. We did a screening to see if these substances would be used in Canada in quantities sufficient that we would get reporting.

By deleting those substances we haven't reduced the quantities reported to any significant extent. We took out the things that were unlikely to be reported.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. Is this a real problem between the two lists, then? Is the fact that we don't have the same chemicals or the same number of chemicals a problem? No?

Mr. John Jackson: It hasn't been an issue that we've been concerned about, because the process we went through on the multi-stakeholder committee is that we concluded a lot of those simply weren't being used here and wouldn't be reported, as was said, and therefore it really was a waste of energy. Our concern is much more the micropollutants.

• 1000

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Why aren't certain substances that have been declared legally toxic in Canada on the list?

Mr. François Lavallée: John could probably answer that as well as or better than I could.

I think in part it's that there are a lot of difficult technical issues around that. Who should report, for example? How you set a reasonable limit which can be easily understood by industry is one difficulty. The other is lack of knowledge. Often, for example, dioxins and furans are produced from many combustion sources and industry is simply not aware.

I think we need to work on setting appropriate thresholds and providing technical information to those who are required to report. Those aren't easy tasks. I guess that would be one of the barriers to implementing that.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: I should probably mention here that many of those micropollutants are actually reported in NERM, the chemical industry's inventory. It's not as if we don't know at all what is going on. There is something out there.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Was there any other comment?

Mr. John Jackson: We're really pleased that's being reported in NERM. We think that can then be a model to have other companies, not just the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association companies but other companies, report using similar processes. We would like to see it expanded to the other companies.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The substances that have been declared legally toxic in Canada and are not on the NPRI are generally the micropollutants—is that what you're saying?

Mr. François Lavallée: Dioxins and furans spring to mind. Mercury is one that is on the NPRI, but I think we would require revision to the reporting threshold.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How difficult a process is that? What is involved in the process?

Mr. François Lavallée: I think what is involved is getting together with stakeholders and doing the technical work required to set reasonable standards. For example, with mercury, to give you an idea, if the threshold is set low enough, we could have every dentist office in the country reporting to the NPRI. I don't know that's really what is intended.

Mr. Steve McCauley: We've already been working on this issue internally in Environment Canada. Out of the consultation session we had this fall this clearly was identified as a top priority for modifying the NPRI. We're coming out shortly with a response to stakeholders that will propose modifying the NPRI, and with a multi-stakeholder process that would be used to deal with what you're recommending and the concerns there about adding micropollutants. It will obviously include looking at the threshold issue—the trigger.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'm concerned about the two-year lag in the reporting, and I think this is a concern for government. This is a concern for environmental groups and community groups. It has to be a concern for industry as well, because if industry is making headway in certain areas you can't note it. If certain sectors or parts of the country are falling behind it's very difficult to deal with that in a more effective and more efficient way, so the catch-up is difficult.

Is it fair to ask you—probably not—how we get you reporting on a more timely basis? What do you need?

Mr. François Lavallée: We're attacking this in two different ways. One is we're looking at our own internal procedures and how we verify the information and get it into a national database for analysis to produce a report. We're making a number of changes there to speed up our own internal processes, but we're also looking at changing how we publish the information. We've talked about that during our consultation and we're planning more work in that area.

Mr. Steve McCauley: I just wanted to add, if I could, that I think I heard a comment that the U.S. EPA publishes its TRI with a one-year time lag. My understanding—correct me if I'm wrong, François—is that it's a two-year time lag: that their next report will be out this spring, and it will report on the 1996 data. And in fact our plan is to also have our report published this spring. Typically it has been published in the fall. So we are making internal improvements to the program so we can have more timely reporting. The Americans have had difficulty in improving beyond a two-year reporting timeframe.

• 1005

One thing we are looking at—and we discussed it with stakeholders and there is going to be work in this area—is other ways to get the information out. The summary report itself is a very large initiative. Some of the stakeholders have said that if we could release the data earlier, speed up the publishing of the summary report but also find a way, whether it be using Internet or electronic access, to get the data in the hands of communities, then that would really help. So we are going to be pursuing this vehicle.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: There are two aspects to timeliness. First, there are different baselines: one year for NERM, two years for NPRI and almost four years for the basic stocks, or three years. The second problem is staggered releases, in that they are not aligned from the point of view of when they come out. So the result of that is confusion.

In this area, if there's one thing we should all strive to get, it is to remove the confusion as much as we can, to have a common base of understanding what we are dealing with so we won't get smoke-screens.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr. Jackson, you held up a report that came out of a consultation with Jean Charest. One point you made was that it called for CEPA to reflect a legal requirement to report the data. I understand from Environment Canada that it is a legal requirement anyway. It's gazetted, so I take it that means it is in the regulations. Is this an academic distinction, or what's the deal here?

Mr. François Lavallée: There is an academic distinction in that it isn't a regulation but it is a legal requirement. I think what Mr. Jackson is talking about is that, although companies are required to report, there's nothing in the existing CEPA that requires the government to have an NPRI.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So how are they required to report? Is it under a penalty, a fine?

Mr. François Lavallée: Yes. There is a section in the present CEPA, section 16, that we use where the minister can require companies to report information for certain purposes, to assess the substance or determine the manner in which to control the substance. The minister can require information that companies possess or can reasonably be expected to have access to.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And you are not satisfied with this?

Mr. John Jackson: No, and government is not either. When CEPA was being reviewed, Environment Canada recommended that it be explicitly put into CEPA, and we just heard from industry that they support that as well.

I will read just one sentence out of the CEPA report about why the multi-stakeholder association was important. This was endorsed by all parties to the multi-stakeholder process, except Environment Canada because they felt it wasn't appropriate for them at that point to make recommendations on legislation. It says: “An explicit legislative authority would clarify rules governing the operation of the NPRI and give them a more permanent status.”

The critical thing here is that every year they have to put out the notice and every year it can change, it can be different. There is no assurance in the long term that it will be there. That is why CEPA is important.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Do we know the basis for, other than the chemical association, other parts of industry's objection?

Mr. Steve McCauley: I don't believe there are any. As John Jackson has said, and Mr. Lachance, Environment Canada agrees that CEPA should be strengthened to ensure that there is annual reporting of NPRI, and that is being reflected in the revised CEPA that is being developed.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In the new one?

Mr. Steve McCauley: That's correct.

Mr. Gar Knutson: But it wasn't in December's CEPA, Sergio Marchi's CEPA? I think it is Bill C-74.

• 1010

Mr. Steve McCauley: I understand another draft is being developed and it does reflect the concerns we've heard that there is a need to ensure the obligation to report is there.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Jackson, on the issue of in-house incineration, you mention there's no reporting, nor on a couple of other things on which you said the Americans are required to report. Why do we have a different standard from the United States standard?

Mr. John Jackson: I don't set the standards, so I don't know. You should probably ask someone else.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I will, but I'll start with you.

Mr. John Jackson: I must say the frustration I have with this is that it is operating in the States. Industry is doing it in the States.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Everywhere, as a federal law?

Mr. John Jackson: That's right, United States federal law.

They are not proposing to withdraw it. It hasn't created problems that have resulted in the need to withdraw it in any way. In fact, they are talking about expanding into additional reporting requirements.

The frustration we've experienced is that the understanding of the role of consultation.... And we strongly support multi-stakeholder consultation processes; they are critical. But they have to come to an end at some point. Environment Canada, for the well-being of the people of Canada, has to make decisions. For the well-being of the people, the government has to make decisions. There comes a time when even if you don't have everyone signing on and saying yes, we agree to do that, you need to step forward as a government anyway and say we're going to put it in because we believe it's important for the people of Canada. Unfortunately, in NPRI we've been using a consultation process which never reaches the point of saying now we as Environment Canada or as the government are going to make the hard decision even though everyone didn't sign on.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Environment Canada's comments on this point?

Mr. Steve McCauley: On the issue of pollution prevention reporting, the proposal the department has put out is to revise the NPRI to require companies to report their pollution prevention activities in a qualitative way. We're asking for examples and case studies of how pollution prevention is being done in facilities.

At the current time we propose postponing the immediate amendment of NPRI to include quantified pollution prevention reporting. In the consultations we had a number of alternatives were proposed by stakeholders to amend NPRI so we could track, on a quantitative basis, pollution prevention activities. Quite frankly, we decided at the current time to propose to stakeholders that we need to examine those alternatives more thoroughly before we actually amend the program now.

I want to emphasize to the committee that a final decision hasn't been made by the department. We're now receiving comments back on our proposal from stakeholders, obviously, but that decision has not yet been made by the department.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On the issue of having a lower standard than the Americans do, is there some reason why we should have a different standard from the U.S. one, given our world of NAFTA and all the linkages and all the stuff we hear all the time?

Mr. Steve McCauley: I think that's another issue which has to be developed with stakeholders. The Americans have really been in contact with us on this issue. We're looking at some joint work with them to look at lowering the standards.

It's an issue we're going to have to deal with. The issue of whether we need to be lower than the Americans or not has to be looked at in consultations with all stakeholders, including the industry and environmental groups.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: I would like to make a comment on this question, if I may. The impression may have been given to the committee that industry in the U.S. is finding no problem with the TRI. This is incorrect. Some serious questions are being asked about how meaningful some of the in-plant information is from the point of view of tracking pollution prevention activities.

This is the reason why here in Canada, in the context of those discussions on how we should track pollution prevention activities, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association and industry in general have indicated that by tracking emissions and backfilling into a case study approach to why reductions have either increased or decreased we're going to get at the root cause of the actual activities, either process changes or various other product mixes changes that will have caused those reductions.

• 1015

There is a study by the Academy of Sciences in the U.S. that's cast some serious questions as to whether or not the materials accounting proposal in the U.S.—I'm extending the TRI to include materials accounting—will truly result in a trackable process; in other words, whether or not this will be truly meaningful from the point of view of identifying pollution prevention activities.

So it's not as if it's black and white and it's not as if it's better in TRI than it is in here. Everybody on this panel that I've heard has agreed that in Canada we've got a system that works and we should improve on it. That doesn't mean that TRI is the model we should adopt.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Lachance mentioned before you came, Ms. Ferretti, that, regarding the CEC report on taking stock, in his view this was not useful in the sense that it was misleading—that, in his own words, we were comparing apples and oranges.

When I looked at your report it seemed to me that what you had tried to do was to exempt or exclude those chemicals and substances that didn't match and you tried to make a match with the rest to produce a report.

So I would really appreciate if Mr. Lachance would tell us in which way he felt the CEC report was apples and oranges, and perhaps Mrs. Ferretti could tell us what her reaction is.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: I specifically mentioned the problem with transfers. If one tries to aggregate transfers into an emission inventory, then one gets the problem that not all transfers result in emissions, because transfers are also recoverables.

So although it is important to track transfers, because we need to know what goes out of the plant so we can ensure that there are no leakages, loopholes—to go back to the question that was asked before—we have to understand that transfers are not releases to the environment. They're basically substances that will go into one of two streams. Either they will be recovered in one form or another or they're going to be treated from the point of view of being waste. So that's one difficulty with trying to compare the two inventories.

The other difficulty I mentioned with the taking stock—and we've talked about that before—is the timeliness issue. We've seen some of the difficulties in the first report in terms of specific companies being defined as being major polluters that in reality in those four years have basically completely changed their process, and that basically addressed or alleviated or mitigated, or completely eliminated in some cases, the emissions that were earmarked in the report.

So my problems with the NACEC report were comparability and timeliness.

The other problem I mentioned was the consultative process, which, in our opinion, is defective because it doesn't give enough time for feedback. So it can be improved.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: Both the TRI and the NPRI track transfers and releases. I think what Mr. Lachance is referring to is that in the report we present tables that describe the total of transfers and releases per facility. The rationale for that is that this is a tool to track the generation of waste, whether it's directly released into the environment through a discharge pipe or a smokestack or it's released to a body of water through a sewage treatment facility.

The difficulty with transfers is that it's not possible to make a black and white statement that all transfers are benign to the environment. We know that, for example, sewage treatment plants are not designed to treat certain chemicals. Yet companies have the option and have the design possibility and are allowed to discharge some of their wastes into a system that ends up in a sewage treatment site.

• 1020

We also know that under the NPRI, for example, what is considered a release includes if wastes are treated on site. The distinction is even muddy in the context of NPRI, where an on-site treatment is considered a release but an off-site treatment is considered a transfer.

So the issue is not that cut and dried. We did a lot of thinking about this. This was not a whim. This was based on a lot of consultation and discussion for that report, and it was believed that because there isn't that nice, clean-cut distinction, it didn't necessarily merit making that difference.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It would be interesting to see. I can see both sides of the argument, but how do you tackle, for instance, waste that goes into those captured caves, or whatever you call them now, the encapsulated traps in LaSalle?

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: Underground.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And they'd stay there for 25 years. We get PCBs and all kinds of things in there.

I wanted to ask the members of the ministry, as you seem to agree that NPRI should and will be part of CEPA, if it gets into CEPA obviously the requirements are going to be stricter rather than less so. That's why we put them in CEPA. How do you respond to Mr. Jackson's feeling that the time lag, especially now that it's going to be in CEPA, is caused by the lack of proper staffing? Are you getting more resources if you put it into CEPA? Would you want to? Would you need resources?

Mr. Steve McCauley: The strengthening in CEPA is really an insurance policy to be sure that the obligation to report to NPRI is protected, as Mr. Lavallée said. With the Gazette notice there's already a new legal obligation.

As far as the workings of the program, as I indicated, we're already modifying NPRI in a number of areas, and that would happen, quite frankly, whether it was strengthened in CEPA or not.

As far as the timeliness issue, we are certain, with the resources we have, that we can improve the timeliness substantially so that we can move up the reporting—this is the published report that goes out to the public—from the fall to the spring, which is similar to the American reporting.

The difficulty of improving it beyond that goes beyond the issue of resources. We have approximately 1,750 facilities reporting to the program. It's not just the issue of government resources to improve beyond the two-year time lag; it's also resources of companies to improve the reporting. That's why we're pursuing different vehicles to get the information out on facilities quicker.

One of the pilot projects we're considering is to look at decoupling the release of the data and summary report so that the information could be provided much sooner on individual facilities. So communities don't have to wait for the report to be published before they can get information on individual facilities.

We're talking about various things in the consultations to try to improve timeliness.

The Chairman: Ms. Ferretti, please.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: I just realized I neglected to answer Mr. Lincoln's second question on the timing.

I agree the timing is a difficulty if you prepare reports with data that appear to be two or three years out of date. But we peg the production of the CEC report to the release of the NPRI data, so it's usually done within a six-month period after the NPRI data are released, because we need to allow for consultation on the draft, and obviously there's no point in having a simultaneous release or a release released in advance. We're very much pegging it so that we're not more than six months later.

• 1025

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could I ask a second question?

The Chairman: We have time for a second round very quickly, unless you want to go ahead now.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, just very briefly, to follow up on Mr. Knutson's question about quantification.

In 1993 the department published its pre-CEPA review documents, and in there one of the department's objectives was harmonization of the NPRI with TRI. Now we are five years later, and on quantification we haven't harmonized; on recycling, incineration, waste treatment we haven't harmonized. Do we have a deadline or some sort of objective for harmonizing?

You say you're still looking at quantification, that you haven't made a decision as yet. Yet there have been repeated questions about it and also repeated questions about looking at the internal recycling, incineration, etc. When are you coming to a final decision on this? Can we see ahead and you tell us when this happens?

Lastly, you talked about the follow-up after reporting. Who does that follow-up? The CEPA inspectors? Your own people? Who does that?

The Chairman: Could we have a brief answer please?

Mr. François Lavallée: On the follow-up on reporting, we have our own internal data quality checks. If we find that there are problems with a particular report we can contact the company, do compliance promotion. Or, if problems are more serious, those are referred to the enforcement people for them to take appropriate action.

On the issue of harmonizing with the U.S. TRI, I think there is a lot of common data between the two programs. The U.S. has made steps to improve their program to adopt things that we have done in Canada. For example, they've added industry sectors that were reporting in Canada but were not originally part of the TRI. So I think what we 're going to see is each country taking a step in the same direction. I don't think that the goal is to have identical programs, but we certainly must look at the differences and ensure that they are small, and we should deviate only when there is a good solid reason.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is this small?

Mr. François Lavallée: Well, we have made an improvement, for example, on recycling. Recycling is now going to be mandatory for 1998.

The Chairman: Thank you.

On the first round, Mr. Casson, followed by the chair.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): I'd just like to ask Ms. Ferretti, is this your report on pages 76 and 77?

Ms. Janine Ferretti: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: The one I have has two maps of the United States instead one of Canada and one of the United States.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: I noticed that. So does Mr. Laliberte's. Mine has Canada and the United States. Perhaps if you'd be kind enough to give that back to me then I....

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: If you'd like to look at mine I'd be happy to let you.

The Chairman: We have time for a quick second round, but allow the chair for a moment to ask two brief questions.

In the presentation of the officers from Environment Canada this morning, I couldn't find any reference to the word “verification”. We just touched upon it a moment ago. Could you tell us how the verification works? How many people do you have involved in verification? And why not make it part of your presentation?

Mr. François Lavallée: I believe we did. When we receive data from companies we take a lot of effort in checking that data.

The Chairman: Please show me the chart that deals with the verification.

Mr. François Lavallée: I thought it was there. If you look at slide number nine, Mr. Chairman....

The Chairman: The word “verification” doesn't appear. What is its equivalent in the bureaucratic language? What is the equivalent of “verification”? How does it work? How many people are involved?

• 1030

Mr. François Lavallée: We have the word “verified”. We check the company's reports for any change from year to year that seems anomalous. We also check for any unusually high or low data values.

The Chairman: How does it work? How many people do you have involved in verification and what is the workload that you have to verify?

Mr. François Lavallée: We don't have verifiers per se; we have people working on the program who during certain periods of the year will verify the data.

The Chairman: How many?

Mr. François Lavallée: Approximately seven or eight people in the regions.

The Chairman: To verify what volume of workload?

Mr. François Lavallée: There are 1,700 reports from facilities.

The Chairman: Then does that lead to an investigation, and what are the statistics for your verification?

Mr. François Lavallée: Most of the problem points are corrected simply by making a phone call to the company: This data doesn't look right; are you sure this is what your releases are? And in many cases we'll get a revision within a matter of days or a few weeks.

The Chairman: And that is sufficient to you?

Mr. François Lavallée: I think that's only one of the checks that we do. On our incoming data prior to publication we go through a series of checks, but we also have more long-term strategies where we will take the releases from a particular industrial sector, such as pulp and paper or refineries, and compare releases reported from the various industries in that sector. And where we find—

The Chairman: So your verification is a paper verification and sometimes by telephone checks.

Mr. François Lavallée: And in some cases where there are still questions, where there are reasons to believe that the violation has occurred, those are referred to our inspection staff.

The Chairman: How many cases per year?

Mr. François Lavallée: This year there have been quite a few. I'm not sure of the exact number.

The Chairman: What do you mean by quite a few? The committee would like to know how many cases per year. Five, six, sixty, six hundred?

Mr. François Lavallée: I think it would be better for us to provide the committee with an exact number. Certainly in the....

The Chairman: Has your verification led to any prosecutions?

Mr. François Lavallée: Prosecutions? Not so far. There have been a number of warning letters issued.

The Chairman: How many warning letters since you have started this business?

Mr. François Lavallée: Well, we started during the past year, and Steve is saying 82, but I'm not sure of the exact number. It would be of that order of magnitude.

The Chairman: Would you provide this committee with a memo indicating the answer to these questions?

Mr. François Lavallée: Certainly.

The Chairman: Verifications on paper, verifications by phone, verifications in person.

Mr. François Lavallée: Yes.

The Chairman: Letters of warning, prosecutions, convictions—the whole procedure. Don't you think it's important?

Mr. François Lavallée: Certainly.

The Chairman: I'm puzzled that you didn't devote anything to it in your presentation this morning. You used the word “stakeholders” at least a dozen times. It is very important. But part of the exercise is also to make sure that the system works, don't you think?

The other question has to do with mercury. I was wondering whether you might supply the committee with a brief memo as to the present level of the threshold of mercury and what would be the consequences in lowering it following the question that Madam Kraft Sloan was asking—whether you are envisaging any lowering of the threshold, and if so, to what level. You organized a workshop in Toronto in May of last year for two days on mercury. It would be interesting to know what was the outcome of that workshop. It was organized by your department. Could you let us have a memo on that?

Mr. François Lavallée: The workshop was in Toronto and was organized by our department, but it wasn't an NPRI workshop.

The Chairman: Environment Canada.

Mr. François Lavallée: Yes. There are many ways to get information on releases to the environment. I know that Environment Canada has conducted a number of studies outside the NPRI on releases.

The Chairman: Could you perhaps let us have a memo on your plans on mercury?

• 1035

Mr. Steve McCauley: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Where you are now, whether you intend to reduce it, and if so, how and when and by what means. An overall picture would be very helpful.

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: To follow up on Mr. Caccia's line of questioning, how reliable do you think the NPRI list is in the data?

Mr. François Lavallée: That's a very difficult question to answer, in part because if they are commercial chemicals the release estimates are usually much better. The larger industries have a much better idea of what their releases are compared to smaller ones.

One of the points to make, I think, is that the reliability of the inventory goes up as you publish data. Making the numbers publicly available has a wonderful effect on those reporting that data. It allows industry to compare themselves. It allows others, ourselves, to compare the data, and we've seen improvements as a result of that.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: On page 158, in British Columbia there are two pulp mills, Powell River and Gold River. They are similar in size; both are pulp and paper. One mill reports releases of ammonia of 0.2; the other is 64.1, a difference factor of about 300. These are very similar mills. To me, that would flag an area of concern.

Do you have auditors that go into these plants, or do you just make a phone call?

Mr. François Lavallée: No, there are inspections that are done on the NPRI. There are also very large differences from one plant to the next. Even if you have similar production, often the processes used are very different.

Also, in the time period of our latest report there were some major changes in capital investments made by companies during that period of time. Depending on when they were done during the year, there are very large differences in estimated releases.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That speculation is fine, but do you do audits?

Mr. François Lavallée: No. We haven't done an on-site audit to date, to my knowledge.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: What are the penalties for either non-reporting or faulty reporting?

Mr. François Lavallée: It's a CEPA violation. I'm not sure what penalties are associated with section 16. I'd have to look it up when we get back.

Mr. Steve McCauley: We can provide the committee with that information.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It seems awfully loose. There doesn't seem to be a will to verify the information and, if the information appears to be incorrect, to chase it down. It goes back to my question on how reliable the data is. I don't think you know.

Mr. François Lavallée: We've done some internal verifications, but the data is also used by other people within Environment Canada.

For example, groups have been set up to look at releases from particular industrial sectors. An example would be the steel industry. Our data is used for those analyses, and if there are problems with the data, corrections are made. So the next year you see the numbers change as a result of that.

Estimating releases is not an exact science. It's a very difficult undertaking.

The present NPRI, as the TRI, asks companies to supply information to which they have access or can reasonably be expected to have access. That means that you're allowed to look at emission factors, at engineering estimates—a number of different techniques to report those releases. There are penalties for fraud, but there is also a wide range of possible ways to get the same answer. Often it depends on the information that a company has on hand.

• 1040

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Finally, the fact that you're saying it's not an exact science.... I'm having difficulty thinking that the reliability of the list is high. The verification appears not to be there. The science of measuring, as you've said, is not exact. Is it a 50% reliability? The confidence level does not appear to be very high on the list, just from your own testimony.

Mr. François Lavallée: I think part of the answer is how good does it have to be? One, looking at the purposes of the NPRI, if you have a certain release of lead, for example, whether it's 100 tonnes or 200 tonnes, the answer may be very much the same. There's a problem; let's deal with it. I think in many cases, if you're looking at where you set priorities, the data in the NPRI certainly is the best there is in order to do that.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: May I add a comment about this last point, which I believe is very important?

What industry finds very useful in those inventories is that it focuses the mind in terms of where it is we have a problem that we need to address. That's the first point, and in that respect I concur that it's not a matter of exactness, it's a matter of robustness. It has to be robust enough so that we can make the right decision in terms of where it is we need to take action because we have a problem. That's the first point.

The second point is that this is why we need environmental groups, because they're going to look at this data. If somebody if playing footloose with the data, they're quite exposed in terms of this information being on the Internet and environmental groups having access to it, and those people who don't report correctly run the risk of being exposed in terms of the reporting process. So there is a public accountability in addition to whatever bureaucratic or legal system of verification may or may not be appropriate in the minds of the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lachance, for speaking up for the NGOs. That's very good of you.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: We have neither the resources nor the same legal capabilities as the Department of the Environment has to verify the data. We don't have access to industrial facilities, to walk in and say let me see your books. So I appreciate the honour. If you'd like to give that legal right away, we'd more than gladly take it.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, do you have any questions? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On this issue we're still working out the standards for microtoxins. Do you think it would make sense to put a line in this new CEPA that said that within two years these things would be determined, or to put some rules into place and not have the rules come into effect for a couple of years, which would focus the mind so that they'd have to get their act together and agree what the standard should be, rather than leave it open-ended as to when we conclude these?

Mr. François Lavallée: If that's done, it will address a particular problem with the list. I think there's a need for a much broader review of the list, and I think that as time goes on those priorities, those needs, will also change.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't really understand your answer. It's neither a yes nor a no.

Mr. François Lavallée: If there are substances named in CEPA, that those must be on the NPRI by a certain date, I think that will certainly happen. But the review of the list of substances is a much broader issue than that. Dioxins and furans are only two of many possible substances that are persistent, toxic and biocumulative. I think we need to look at all of those and address them to see what is the best way to incorporate them in the NPRI.

• 1045

One of the things I'd like to mention here is that—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Putting a particular group in CEPA doesn't preclude a broader review.

Mr. François Lavallée: No, it doesn't.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Does the chemical association have a comment on that?

I guess the unstated concern is that we just drag out the consultation. I don't know if it is a legitimate concern or not, but....

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: It is a legitimate concern, but it's not one that lends itself again to a black and white answer. Let's use the example of dioxins, for instance. What should be the threshold of reporting? What is the de minimus level? It's very difficult to answer that question.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, but my point is, let's decide that we're going to answer that difficult question within a year or two or eighteen months or whatever. Does that seem unreasonable?

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: Not from my point of view.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, that's good.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: We are reporting dioxins in our inventory, so it's not as though we don't want to report them.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, followed by the chair, and then we will have a brief in camera meeting to discuss other matters.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was just wondering if we can look at the U.S. and Canada comparison picked out from the CEC report. In 1994, under the TRI, there were 346 chemicals reported. In Canada it was half that—178.

Can you tell us what it is today and whether there are more chemicals reported in the NPRI compared to the United States? Secondly, thresholds are in concentrations equal to 1% or more, and carcinogens in the U.S. go down to .1%. Considering carcinogens, I read in that report that OSHA lists 121, out of which the NPRI catches 78. So over 40 of them are not reported, and the concentrations that are reported in Canada are ten times higher for reporting.

Do you think these are areas that should be addressed right away?

Mr. François Lavallée: Yes, I think they should be. The priorities for addressing the list of substances would be the most toxic substances, those that have the potential for the highest impact on health or the environment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can we just do exactly the same as the U.S. and say if they are carcinogens, we go down to 0.1% instead of 1%, so at least you have a benchmark?

Mr. François Lavallée: Yes, I think that's a reasonable first step.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: How do we get this to happen? If we agree it's a first step, what do we do?

Mr. Steve McCauley: Mr. Lincoln, we're coming out very shortly with a proposal on forming a multi-stakeholder group to review the list. We've already been moving in the department to do that, but it's important that we work with environmental groups and industry on reviewing the list.

Clearly the first step, as you've said, is looking at what can be easily done vis-à-vis the TRI substances. Our objective is to go beyond that and look at other substances, whether it is micropollutants we want to track, like dioxins and furans, and tackle more of the difficult issues. So we are going to be moving very quickly. It is at the top of our list to strengthen the NPRI, specifically with respect to adding those toxic pollutants that need to be tracked.

• 1050

Ms. Janine Ferretti: I just want to add that there is an obvious recognition that TRI and the NPRI don't cover everything, that there are substances that are released or present in the environment that aren't tracked. One of the areas in which we are proposing to work together with the three governments is to enhance that coverage by looking at, for example, land-based sources of pollution—pesticides, for example, that are applied to farmlands—and by looking at ways of making inventories or tracking the releases of carbon dioxide or the greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, those kinds of things that don't naturally fall under the NPRI or the TRI.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, followed by the chair.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): That's just amazing. She read my mind. Those are the exact questions I was going to ask.

Is there an evolution of the NPRI in terms of the American advancement or standards that are here in terms of polluter pays? Is that the concept of being a conscience to the industry, being compliant to the emissions and also the possibility of slapping their wrists or prosecuting or convicting them in ways of their pollution habits or mistakes in that sense? But then there's the whole context.... Which way is NPRI going? Is a lack of resources prohibiting you, the cutbacks in the environment department? What's the wish list here?

Mr. Steve McCauley: The NPRI information, as we've said, is used by our regulatory people—not just federally, but also provincially—for regulating industry using mandatory tools. As we've heard, the information has led to concrete examples where voluntarily companies have gone beyond the regulatory requirements and reduced their emissions. The example that was used of Ford is pretty significant, where they've achieved 50% reductions over the three years in their NPRI releases.

Using the information internally to government and also, as we've heard, just putting the information out there is really stimulating voluntarism on the part of industry reductions. There's not a resource issue around achieving those objectives.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: One comment, Mr. Chair, if I may.

One of the three slides I circulated, the benzene slide, is an illustration of what was just described. The emissions of benzene were found to be high, and the government basically challenged the industry to come up with a plan to reduce. It was captured in a memorandum of understanding. The reductions that result from that will be around 70%. So that's an illustration that you don't have to slap the wrist, you don't have to prosecute. In some cases—and hopefully in many cases—voluntary responses to an indication that we have a problem will work.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just in terms of public perception the inventory and the presentation in some of the maps is very informative, but a lot of the chemical industry or industry per se will be plume-related in terms of the air flow or else river or lake contamination. Is there any way of using graphics so that the people in my jurisdiction can see on a graphic what's coming down this river or else overhead on a plume from a neighbouring province or neighbouring country? Is that something that could be enhanced by computers or graphics in the future?

Mr. Steve McCauley: In fact we are developing a project with CIELP, the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, to do a graphical presentation of NPRI releases by community so that we can better communicate the impacts, as you've suggested.

The other thing we've done is we've just put in place an on-line query system where people can go in on the Internet and do a query for what releases are in the community they're living in. Now, that information is not portrayed graphically on-line, but it obviously suggests an opportunity to do that. At the current time you can get that information at the community level.

• 1055

Mr. François Lavallée: I would also like to point out that we do publish releases to the major rivers in Canada. So we total the amounts and the types of pollutants and publish that in our report.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte—or do you have another question?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No.

The Chairman: There are two brief questions here from the chair that are interrelated, and it's from Environment Canada.

By the way, Mr. Lachance, I congratulate you on the chart on benzene; we have all noted that. The only doubt, to be quite frank with you, in the back of one's mind is that one cannot help thinking that if the fox were to issue a chart on its consumption of chicken lately, it could produce a chart showing that its consumption has gone down, and there is no way of verifying the validity of that chart. In other words, it would be much more impressive if it were produced by a neutral source, you see. That's the only problem. So we don't know how accurate it can be.

Mr. Claude-André Lachance: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. The notion of a national approach is one that we support. This is only illustrative of a program that addresses a concern in an approach to an area of concern that was identified. That was the only purpose of the chart.

The Chairman: Going back to Mr. Gilmour's question, when you drew our attention to page 158, if you look it up, you'll see on the second line of the report—I'm referring to the inventory—MacDonald Creek, point of discharge and take-off: pollutant, ionic cyanides, 0.672. Now for a layperson who reads that, it is extremely difficult to determine whether this is a cause of concern or not. All I know, as a citizen, is that you don't put cyanide in your orange juice. It is something that makes you a little bit nervous.

My question is to what extent do you people plan to launch an education program so that we can read this stuff and understand where it is serious and where it is not? In other words, if you're in charge of a national inventory, should you not also be in charge of a national education program on how to read it?

Mr. Steve McCauley: I would be the first to admit that we've heard from people that we've got a program that's working well and it needs to be modified in the areas that we've heard. But the one area in which I think we have the greatest potential is to expand the program in the areas you suggested—that there's a lot more we could do with the information to communicate it better.

When we had our NPRI workshop this fall with stakeholders, we had a specific session on communicating NPRI. We've discussed a number of projects at the community level to better present the information in a way that it can stimulate action, whether it be getting environmental groups involved or industry, working together to get improvements in releases. To be honest, the approach we're taking.... I mentioned one pilot project that we're starting with CIELP. We're also developing another with CCPA on a community right-to-know initiative where we can start looking at better tools to accomplish what you're suggesting. I think if it isn't the biggest opportunity for the program, it's right near the top. We can take advantage of this information a lot more effectively.

The Chairman: When?

Mr. Steve McCauley: Well, regarding the two projects that I mentioned, we are starting now with these right-to-know initiatives at the community level. We are interested in working with any environmental group or association on any kind of project that could better communicate this information.

The Chairman: But since you are the producer of the inventory, would you not be the ideal people to produce an educational program?

Mr. Steve McCauley: That's an interesting proposal.

The Chairman: Well, it's not very imaginative. I think it's rather pedestrian, isn't it? You explain your own product to the public, because the public in MacDonald Creek would like to know what 0.6 cyanides in ionic form means. Is it good, bad, or indifferent?

• 1100

Mr. Steve McCauley: While I acknowledge that there is more we can do, there is already a lot the public is getting out of that report. Just last week I got an e-mail from an environmental group in British Columbia that said the presentation of the material on-line and in the report is allowing them to take some community action to deal with releases in their community. So I think we're already achieving a lot in that area. There are opportunities that I think we can pursue with broader educational programs, as you suggest.

One of the opportunities we did talk about in our consultations was working with partners, whether it be industry or environmental groups, to put in place some Action 21 programs at the community level that we could use to communicate information.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We could spend a full day with you people, but time is a tyrant.

Madam Kraft Sloan, briefly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Just building on what the chair has raised here, there are a number of things that Environment Canada is already doing at the community level—the Action 21s, ACAPs, and things like that. Those are useful areas where capacity has been developed or is being developed in communities—the green communities project and things like that—where effort has been made through Environment Canada-sponsored programs to build this capacity. It allows you a ready-made network.

The other thing that I'm always concerned about is endocrine disrupters. Is there any minimal threshold? It has more to do with exposure and timing. I know the World Wildlife Fund has some very good materials on endocrine disrupters. It's utilizing, as you've said, some of the groups out there.

This issue of education is very important. That's why I'm glad to see what Ms. Ferretti has put forward to us. Part of their mandate is to make this stuff understandable. How do you deal with three different reporting systems, etc.? How do you start doing the comparisons? If the public can't have access then the public's right to know is not being kept up.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Unfortunately, this committee now has to turn into an in camera meeting.

On behalf of every member, I would like to thank each one of you for your presentations, explanations, elucidations, and insights. We look forward to meeting with you again. Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]