ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, September 16, 1998

• 0907

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Welcome to this sitting of the Committee. I hope you had a very pleasant summer.

Pursuant to the order of reference from the House dated April 28, we now resume consideration of Bill C-32.

[English]

As you know, we are engaged in the study of a bill that aims at protecting the environment. This bill would amend legislation that has been in force since 1989.

We welcome a new member of the committee.

[Translation]

At this time, we welcome a new member to our committee, Ms. Girard-Bujold, the Member for Jonquière and the new Bloc Québécois spokesperson.

[English]

We welcome also the new parliamentary secretary, the most distinguished member for Burlington, Paddy Torsney. All the others are seasoned veterans. They don't need to be introduced.

• 0910

Today we are beginning two days of hearings, morning and afternoon. We are devoting the morning to industry witnesses and this afternoon to environmental organizations. Tomorrow we will go into health and other witnesses.

There is a fairly good quorum here, for which I would like to thank you. Since there is a motion by Mr. Laliberte that requires a full quorum, perhaps it might be appropriate to deal with it first and to hear comments on his proposal.

Mr. Laliberte, would you like to give the committee the benefit of your thoughts on the motion you are presenting. Particularly, I'm sure the members of the committee would like to know why you are seeking a certain allocation of time, considering that since June we have had some 60 or 70 days to become acquainted with the substance of the bill.

Nevertheless, your motion is more than welcome and we would like to listen to you if you would please summarize your thoughts.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome everybody back and I look forward to a bright future session.

The motion we've proposed here is that we allow 20 sitting days before we go into clause-by-clause. A number of issues have been raised through the hearings dealing with Bill C-32, and according to the schedule we received, we have around four days of hearings yet. This would require us to take those into account before we submit our amendments and review our proposals. When we looked at the schedule, it looked as if we wouldn't go clause-by-clause by October anyway, and this would ensure that.

Also, taking into account the two new members who have joined us, this would give them adequate time to review the evidence we received before the summer recess.

I'm asking the committee members to take this into account and to give due process to a bill that's very crucial.

Now, being a seasoned veteran of one year, I realize the parliamentary process and the committee process does take time, and I think 20 days would be adequate for us and for the researchers involved.

The Chairman: You are raising some interesting points, Mr. Laliberte. I'm not aware of any formal schedule that has been circulated, and neither is the clerk, but it is part of the study of a bill to go into the bill clause-by-clause and therefore you need not be unduly concerned about the absence of a clause-by-clause procedure. We will go clause-by-clause. This is a must in any study of a bill, particularly this one, which is so complex.

You've heard the motion by Mr. Laliberte. I'm sure some members would like to express their views on the suggestion made as to whether we need 20 sitting days as a cooling-off period, considering the fact that the bill has been before the committee since April 28. Therefore, I am open to a very brief discussion so we can move swiftly ahead and hear our witnesses.

Mr. Pratt, followed by Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'm of the view that 20 sitting days is rather excessive in terms of the consideration of this legislation. I was informed recently that even the gun control bill, which was considerably more controversial than this one, didn't receive that amount of committee time.

• 0915

I think we can get through this certainly a lot faster than in 20 days. The figure that comes to mind for me is about five days in terms of good, thorough consideration of this legislation. But I'm open to suggestions.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Perhaps the clerk could enlighten us on the number of witnesses we have scheduled or we are presently looking at, because I'm not sure an artificial 20 days is going to help us. We have a pretty heavy schedule coming up.

I would suggest that we see the witnesses as they come along, as they're set up, and then deal with the bill clause by clause when we're ready. We have been doing it since June, and to my mind, we have a pretty balanced slate of witnesses. But I would just as soon let it happen and, when the schedule of witnesses has expired, go into clause-by-clause.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

The schedule prepared by the clerk provides for us to hear witnesses until Thanksgiving, and then after that we should be able to start the examination of the bill.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): I think the issue is not so much controversy. I would hope that environmental legislation is something everybody would want to support. I think the issue has more to do with understanding the legislation. I have been working on this committee since 1994 and I've been working with this bill since 1994. It is a very complicated piece of legislation and it's a science-based piece of legislation as well. It has implications in that regard.

I'm not suggesting that I'm supportive of Mr. Laliberte's motion, but I am very supportive of making sure the committee understands, particularly in light of the fact that there are so many new members, that people must have the opportunity to understand what's going on. So I wouldn't suggest it's the controversial nature; it's more the complexity.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Members of the committee will remember—except for two, Madame Girard-Bujold and Ms. Torsney, of course—that we had not just one but two sessions with John Moffatt, who took us through the intricacies of the bill in early May in order to understand how it works. That was followed, of course, by several months allowed for further study.

Madame Torsney, s'il vous plâit.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I was wondering if the issue is the preparation of amendments and if that's why Mr. Laliberte wanted the 20-day cooling-off period.

The Chairman: Yes, probably that is the issue. But amendments can be prepared even starting today, if you like, because the bill is the bill, and of course additional information brought by witnesses could modify the thinking of members. That could still take place. But nothing prevents members from starting to think about amendments even tomorrow.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Additionally, Mr. Chair, there's the potential, if amendments aren't made during the clause-by-clause, that they can be tabled in the House as well. So if the question is timing and there's something that isn't developed until the end, you could always do them afterwards.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think with a bill of this complexity and importance we would want the amendments to take their due course in this committee and we would want to seek the consensus of the committee as opposed to bringing them out in the House. I know the dealings of the committee have been to try to unite this committee and take it forward, whatever report or recommendations we do make. I think the 20 days we've proposed is to make sure we do take this in light of the new members, and even amongst ourselves—

This is a complex bill, and I'm testing all my intellectual and academic skills here to try to acknowledge this— There's also the legal aspect, and the language is so crucial.

• 0920

Also, as I mentioned, we have to allow the researchers adequate time to deal with necessary questions that we have before we go clause-by-clause, because a lot of these questions arise before the clause-by-clause and we need those definitions brought back to us.

The Chairman: Are there any further speakers? Yes, Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I understand the issue in Mr. Laliberte's motion is 20 sitting days. Is that 20 days when the committee sits or 20 days where Parliament sits? If it's four parliamentary weeks and we're scheduled to go to Thanksgiving with witnesses anyway, there's no issue. I agree with Mr. Gilmour that we should take as much time as we need to do it properly and start clause-by-clause at an appropriate time after we finish with people who want to appear as witnesses. My sense is that's going to take us more than four weeks anyway, so I'm not sure what the issue is.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, would you like to clarify this point?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We were looking at 20 parliamentary days.

The Chairman: As of when, I think Mr. Knutson was asking.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That was our question of the timing. The agenda that was recently released to us shows that we have four days of hearings. I don't know when you want to end the hearings; that's what I was unaware of.

The Chairman: As Mr. Knutson said, if 20 days were to start as of today, there is plenty of time until the completion of the hearings, which are scheduled to be completed by Thanksgiving.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The question is whether we are going to have additional hearings until Thanksgiving.

The Chairman: Yes. The schedule prepared by the clerk will take us to Thanksgiving, I'm told.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: And then we have the break?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Then can we allow time after that? The review time we're looking at is to take into context all the hearings.

The Chairman: How much more time than the time that is between now and Thanksgiving, plus the break, which is over 30 days? Surely in the next month there is plenty of time to start the process of preparing amendments. I think this is the essence of what some members are asking.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If the 20 days is unacceptable, can we allow a lesser time as—

The Chairman: As Mr. Gilmour said, it would be better to have a flexible approach rather than a set number of days. I'm sure that when you reach the conclusion of the hearings just before Thanksgiving, we can go around the table and say, well, when can we start with amendments? By that time, you and your party and other members of other parties will have had sufficient time to assess your capacity to produce amendments, now that we are back in normal activities, so to speak. At that time, it may be required that we have one week, I don't know. It depends on what the consensus will be at that time.

We can revisit these issues, but I would hope that a month from now the suggestion will not be made to add 20 days to cool off, since we have another month of work on this bill anyway. Does that make sense to you?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So your recommendation is that we not table this motion now, but if it's required in the future we would?

The Chairman: I think you have registered thoughts that are helpful, and that people are glad to have had this discussion, including myself. But rather than tying ourselves to a set number of days or having a motion that will not pass, which could also happen, you have registered your views. Everybody is now aware of the desirability to start thinking about this matter, and also to keep going. Keep in mind that the longer we keep going on this bill, the more we postpone into the future other subject matters that this committee may want to examine and cannot examine because our timetable is blocked by this bill, so we preclude other opportunities that could be quite interesting, including issues you personally are interested in.

• 0925

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand what you are saying, and I understand the committee's concerns. It's just that we want to make sure that this bill receives the time and due consideration of all the committee members.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, have you seen this chair ram anything through so far?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, no.

The Chairman: So you have the assurance of the chair that as far as the chair is concerned, nothing will be rammed through. There will be thorough discussion of every amendment, and if a member asks for a day to prepare an amendment on a particular issue, I'm sure there will be consensus, as there has been in the past.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I will leave the motion as it is, and if at the duration of the hearings the committee decides that a cooling-off period is required, I will entertain a motion then.

The Chairman: Yes, and it may not even be necessary to have a motion. I think that if there is a feeling that some time is needed to think, members will request it and it will become an adopted measure. In that sense, you have been helpful in alerting us that we may have that necessity, rather than tying us down now to something that may not be necessary. Can we leave it at that?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I'll withdraw the motion.

The Chairman: By unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now, because we don't want to keep our witnesses waiting any further, would those who are interested in that visit on Monday next to the waste treatment plant here in Ottawa indicate to the clerk during their lunch break their willingness to be part of that visiting initiative. It is a highly educational and desirable exercise to visit a water treatment plant or a waste treatment plant, and the clerk has made arrangements to that effect, but he needs a knowledge of numbers to launch it. Therefore, would you please indicate your interest or lack thereof during the lunch break. Once the clerk has the numbers, the decision can be made about launching it.

Who is planning to go? It is on Monday at eight in the morning. You would like nine in the morning? That can be negotiated. The memo was sent to every office, without the time. Can we perhaps make it in the afternoon? If the members wish to have it done in the afternoon, it can be arranged. We will leave it to you to mull it over and confirm it or not with our clerk. Thank you very much.

It is probably desirable to have the minister before the committee at the end of the hearings. Is it the wish of the committee to have the minister appear before the committee at the conclusion of the hearings, so that we can forward an invitation? It will probably be just before Thanksgiving. Yes? Fine, thank you.

Having said that, we now move to welcome Monsieur Boucher, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Barron. We have had the pleasure of having them before the committee before.

[Translation]

Mr. Boucher is Vice-President of the Environment for Domtar.

• 0930

[English]

Mr. Roberts is vice-president, environment, for Noranda Forest. Mr. Barron, as you all know, is senior vice-president, environment, resources and technology— with whom?

The Clerk of the Committee: With the CPPA, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association.

The Chairman: With the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. Welcome.

Would you like to start, Mr. Boucher? We usually try to have the presentation within a timeframe of ten minutes so as to allow questions.

Mr. Guy Boucher (Vice-President, Environment, Domtar Inc.; Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): Thank you very much, Mr. President.

[Translation]

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association is the national association of pulp and paper companies across Canada. Together, we represent approximately 80 percent of the production of pulp and paper in Canada.

The forest sector generates some $50 billion in economic activity in Canada, provides one million jobs directly and indirectly and is the main support of 350 rural and northern communities across the country.

The members of the sector are unequivocally committed to environmental protection and continuous improvement in environmental performance. Canadian mills have invested over $5 billion since 1990 in pollution abatement and prevention technologies. As a result, most major pollution indicators have significantly dropped in the last ten years.

Specifically, dioxins and furans have been virtually eliminated, biochemical oxygen demand has been reduced by 96 percent since 1975, total suspended solids have been reduced by 87 percent and water usage in the production of pulp and paper has been reduced by 55 percent. Furthermore, C0₂ omissions from fossil fuel sources have been reduced by 12 percent since 1990.

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has participated in all phases of the five-year review of CEPA legislation and welcomes a further opportunity to offer comments on Bill C-32. CPPA has, on numerous occasions, reiterated its member company commitments to the principles of sustainable development as they relate to the need to balance environmental, economic and social considerations in decision-making.

[English]

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association views Bill C-32 as an important centrepiece of Canadian environmental law. In order to reach efficient results, Bill C-32 must define clear, flexible, balanced, and harmonized guidance for all stakeholders. Clarity in the language and definition will provide better focus and better results. Flexibility will enable adjustment based on science and improved technologies. Balance in the application of all principles and concepts evoked in the preamble will maintain a check for objectives to remain practical within the concept of sustainable development. Harmony and cohesion between stakeholders will eliminate duplication of efforts and ensure that results will dominate over process.

The current process to renew CEPA has taken four years and has included extensive consultation. We believe the process has produced CEPA legislation with significant improvement over the old legislation. The new legislation as written satisfies a number of industry concerns, including the following: (1) a focus on pollution prevention; (2) a clear basis for cooperation between federal and provincial governments; (3) a definition of precautionary principle that is consistent with the Rio Declaration; (4) efficiency improvement in the processes for information-gathering requirements; (5) the beginning of recognizing the value of voluntary industry approaches in achieving environmental performance.

The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association supports environmental legislation built on a blend of alternative tools to reach environmental goals. These tools can include regulation, voluntary initiatives, and economic instruments. A strong element of equitable enforcement policy is always part of effective regulatory legislation.

• 0935

Pertaining to the bill itself, I will turn to my colleague John Roberts to pinpoint some of the areas of concern to the industry.

Mr. John Roberts (Vice-President, Environment, Noranda Forest Inc.; Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): Mr. Chairman, honourable members, the CPPA believes that after consideration of some of the recommendations we will put forward on the matters of the role of science, pollution prevention, equivalency, and the right of environmental action, the bill as proposed should be acted upon quickly.

First, we are pleased the role of science is recognized in the preamble, but believe this important principle, along with all the other principles in the preamble, should be repeated in the administrative duties clause. This will provide clarity, practicality, and consistency for the implementers of the legislation.

Secondly, the legislation makes it clear that environmental protection in Canada will incorporate pollution prevention as a national goal and a priority approach. A clear, workable definition of pollution prevention is therefore needed.

The definition of pollution prevention currently in Bill C-32 excludes off-site recycling and reuse operations. These strategies are seen by the pulp and paper industry as legitimate, necessary, and indeed economically sound parts of the pollution prevention concept, and we believe it's important that any definition of pollution prevention within CEPA include them.

Let me give you an example. In Canada the pulp and paper industry has spent about $1.5 billion on recycling technology in the last few years. Today, approximately 4.5 million tonnes of used pulp and paper products are recycled, thereby reducing the input to landfills by about that amount. On an industry basis, we further reduce landfill by reusing many of our mill residues as soil amendments. Including recycling and reuse in the definition will allow for the realization of further opportunities of waste reduction in paper as well as other materials.

We recommend that the definition used in the bill be revised to reflect the internationally accepted definition of pollution prevention, which is embodied in ISO 14000. This includes off-site recycling and reuse.

Thirdly, subclause 10(3) provides for accepting equivalent provisions in force in other provinces or jurisdictions. In the spirit of the recently signed harmonization agreements, and to eliminate wasteful duplication, we feel it should be clear that it is not necessary for a province to amend its regulations to make them identical to the federal government's. Rather, its regulations should be accepted based on considerations of performance and intent.

Finally, CPPA does not support a litigious approach to environmental protection, and finds it regrettable that the federal government is proposing such an approach within CEPA. This approach, which Canada has avoided in the past, has proven unsuccessful and costly in other countries, with no guarantee of improved environmental protection. Further, in the face of a fair, progressive, and equitable enforcement regime of environmental regulations by governments, there would be no need to ask the citizens of Canada to take over the role of environmental protection enforcement.

CPPA therefore recommends that clauses 22 to 38 be removed from the bill, and if they must be kept, the government should be made a mandatory party to all actions.

We believe with these revisions the proposed legislation will go a long way toward generating real environmental benefits, while providing for the flexibility for governments and industry to work on creative solutions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak to the committee again.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you gentlemen, your presentation came in right on time.

We will begin our round of questions with the Reform Party. Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome the witnesses.

My background is forestry; I'm a professional forester. For the committee's information more than anything else, I recall in 1970 going into Alberni, and the hotel that I was in was right next door to Alpulp. I got up in the morning and I couldn't see out the window, there was so much fly ash. Now, on a day when there is low humidity, you have to look twice to see if the mill is actually running, because there's just heat going up the stack. As well, the water quality: in the Alberni canal, 25 to 30 years ago nothing grew on the bottom of the canal, whereas now the water quality is vastly improved and the divers tell us the sea growth is coming right back into the canal. So I fully understand that the industry has greatly cleaned up both the air and water quality.

• 0940

I'd like to address an area that concerns me, and that's the right to sue in this legislation. The difficulty we have as the committee is, for example, the environmental groups say the right to sue is not strong enough, the department feels they've hit a balance, and yet others like yourselves say you would like to see it removed. Our difficulty is how do you deal with a corporation that is a bad actor or they basically pollute? The right to sue is in there to cover that.

What is your answer, to say no, the right to sue is not there— Yet how do we as legislators address the point that there are maybe very few corporations that do pollute? How we address that?

Mr. John Roberts: Mr. Gilmour, as we implied in our presentation, there are already environmental regulations in place that deal with limitations to pollution. We would deal with the corporation that you have indicated by enforcing those regulations as they exist today. If those regulations are in fact in force, then there is adequate opportunity within that regime to ensure that companies behave as they should behave.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That's it for now, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Madame Girard? My honourable friends on the government side? No one? Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Getting back to one of the issues raised, you indicated that CPPA does not support a litigious approach to environmental protection and finds it regrettable that the federal government is proposing such an approach within CEPA. CPPA is calling for sections 22 through 38 to be removed from the bill.

I fail to understand the message that CPPA is trying to send to this sector and its members by calling for such harsh restrictions on possible litigation. What message are you in fact trying to send?

Mr. Guy Boucher: We must look at this from various angles. Firstly, CPPA stated at the beginning of the year that a progressive, balanced approach to environmental regulation enforcement was needed and that is what we see in place today. The legal mechanisms providing for injunctions or other types of civil actions are already in place. These existing legal mechanisms can be invoked.

The bill now under consideration provides for something that is unnecessary because on the surface, it makes assumptions about the government's ability to enforce regulations in this area. We feel that the government has the executive responsibility to deal with this matter.

• 0945

By allowing for possible litigation, the draft legislation opens the door to a range of legal actions, which will not necessarily result in an improved performance by the targeted group or groups in the area of environmental protection.

We are not opposed to regulatory enforcement. We feel that the required tools for enforcement already exist. What is being proposed in the draft legislation strikes somewhat of an imbalance between the rights and interests, whether those of an individual or of the a corporation, when it comes to environmental regulations.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

In your brief you talk about the consultation around the CEPA legislation and you're pleased with the improvements over the legislation. Could you tell us a little bit about the consultation you were involved with? You met individually, or were there association groups that met?

Mr. David Barron (Senior Vice-President, Environment, Resources and Technology, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association): I think a lot of the consultation has been done before this committee over the past five years or more. There certainly have been industry discussions on what common thoughts there were, and those have been put forward in briefs and the like.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Did your representatives meet with Environment Canada officials?

Mr. David Barron: Nobody from our association met with Environment Canada officials on any formal basis. There may have been discussions on the status of the bill from time to time, and our views.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Informal meetings?

Mr. David Barron: In the course of our normal meetings with Environment Canada on a whole series of issues.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: We had industry association representatives come before the committee in the spring who were quite pleased with the number of hours of consultation they had with officials from Environment Canada. I'm not assuming you were excluded from that process, then.

I'm just wondering if you could perhaps identify for the committee or clarify for the committee— You indicated here that it satisfies a number of your concerns. Can you identify, for example, with the principles of pollution prevention and on the cooperation between the federal and provincial governments, how the legislation has been altered to address those concerns for you?

Mr. Guy Boucher: We made reference to five elements where we were seeking basically some resolution to the difficulty. I think one point was a better focus, as we said, on pollution prevention and sustainable development, taking into account socio-economic and scientific factors in a more direct fashion.

With regard to the second point, a clearer basis for cooperation between federal and provincial governments, I think the equivalency accords and agreements are important for us. We view them as very important because we are one of the most highly regulated industries in this country, both from the federal point of view and from the provincial point of view. There are over 60 pieces of legislation affecting our operations on a daily basis. So harmony and accord and any wording or concepts that could give us an opportunity for harmonization we welcome. We think that has been somewhat expanded, but as we said earlier, we would like that notion to be a little more expanded in terms of intent, as opposed to strict wording of the regulation.

We see that the precautionary principle now is more consistent with the Rio Declaration. Amendments and a few words have been changed that are in line with international accords. We welcome that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How does that make it more consistent with the Rio Declaration?

Mr. Guy Boucher: Well, the words on full scientific accountability have been added.

I think it's important in the overall concept, especially when we talk about concepts that we see in the preamble, that we keep a language that is consistent with the international accords as much as possible. The difficulty with a lot of legislation is that when we come out with definitions, we come out with sometimes a more legal definition, as opposed to a practical definition. We're trying to get some harmony, so that from a North American perspective we have at least the same language as we find on international forums.

• 0950

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you were following that logic, would you not then be supportive of the definition for “virtual elimination” as outlined by the IJC?

Mr. Guy Boucher: The IJC is encompassed in the North American aspect, but I think it's important that from the IJC perspective, when it talks about environmental performance, which is fine, the reality is that there still has to be a check with regard to socio-economic consideration in the overall assessment. That's the reality we must face.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But if you were following through with the original logic that you put forward that it's important to have definitions that fall within the other sorts of definitions that are out there internationally as well as within the North American context, we would then think that it would be important to harmonize our definitions, particularly around something as important as virtual elimination, with other North American uses of it, like the IJC, which has been a very credible organization that has been working for a long time and has been using a definition of virtual elimination that CEPA doesn't match.

Mr. Guy Boucher: When I'm talking about international agreements, I'm talking about general accords internationally recognized by governments where balance has been struck. I mean, the IJC, yes, is for focus on North America, which is fine, and has certainly addressed environmental concerns, as they stand for environmental concern. But the issues are brought into that, and we find that in the general international accords. I'm not saying that the IJC is wrong in its approach; I'm saying there are further considerations to take into account, and these considerations we have found probably even more in the broader international accords than on the IJC itself.

We are respectful of the IJC, what it stands for, what it's looking for in terms of environmental improvement. But environmental improvement comes with the reality check of the socio-economic development of each country, of each region.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): On page 2 of your brief, under "Definition of Pollution Prevention", you profess to be surprised that the definition in Bill C-32 excludes off-site recycling and reuse operations. You further state that "these strategies are seen by the pulp and paper industry as legitimate, necessary and economically sound parts of the pollution prevention concept".

Can you give us any concrete examples to prove that these strategies should be included in the draft legislation because they do indeed prevent pollution?

[English]

Mr. John Roberts: The fact of the matter is that if pollution prevention is definitely what we want to do, it is the way in which we will from now on deal with pollution, because bolting things onto the ends of plants is no longer a good idea because it's simply not cost-effective. But part and parcel to that is taking some of the materials that we generate as waste within our mills or other kinds of factories and moving them to another location where people can more appropriately deal with them. We're in the pulp and paper business. We're not in the waste management business; there are people who do very good jobs of that. In fact I believe you'll hear later this morning from Safety Kleen, who in fact we use frequently; they take solvents away to their sites and deal with them.

The difficulty with that is that under current regimes, those materials are dealt with as if they were wastes and not the input to someone else's business. That creates a permitting and bureaucratic difficulty that doesn't incentivize people to do that. If we can find ways to acknowledge the beneficial nature of those kinds of practices and put them into the act, that would greatly incentivize people to do that sort of work and simplify the process.

• 0955

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You haven't answered my question. You say that the strategies have not been included in the bill. What is the industry currently doing in this area? What future plans do you have to eliminate polluting waste materials? What are you currently doing about this?

You say that the sector has embraced this goal, but what is doing now about pollution prevention? Why are you doing this, given that it has not been included in the proposed legislation? Can you give us some evidence that it is economically sound that these strategies should be included in the bill?

[English]

Mr. John Roberts: One of the examples was in our submission. The sludges that are generated from our treatment system are quite useful products in assisting farmers to grow more and better crops. Large amounts of that material are so used. In addition, that material is very handy for reclaiming debilitated land such as old mine sites and that kind of thing. It's quite handily used.

In other businesses—I can't speak for all of them, although my history speaks to some of them—there are ways of taking solvents, paint sludges and other various kinds of wastes that can be reused and turning them into useful products.

In our own industry, for example, if you look at sawmills, we take a log that's round and cut it into pieces of lumber that are square. The bits that are round don't make very good lumber, so we chip them. That waste becomes the input for pulp and paper mills. That's a classic example of the kind of industrial ecology that we're suggesting you would include in the bill by referencing the ability to reuse and recycle off site.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Madame Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Because I don't have the document that I've made a call to get—it's on my desk, unfortunately, in my constituency office—I'm going to ask your patience with me, as I will contact you afterwards with a question with regard to the recent report by the Solicitor General on environmental crime. It is further to the questions of my colleague Mr. Charbonneau on your recommendation to reduce litigious power rather than see it as it is or enhanced. Because I don't have that document, I will refrain from confusing the issue and instead present my question to you as soon as I get that. If you're still here when it arrives, I'd ask your tolerance in letting me ask you then.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I would like to address the comments made by Mr. Boucher in his exchange with Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Boucher and also other industry representatives frequently invoke the theme of socio-economic consequences resulting from environmental legislation. Mr. Boucher several times referred to socio-economic aspects of the legislation and of the matter before us. I would say to Mr. Boucher that conceptually what he's saying requires to be closely examined, because the implication is—and not just on Mr. Boucher's part, but also on the part of some industry representatives—that there are certain environmental measures that would harm the economy and the social structure of society.

With all due respect, Mr. Boucher, I would say to you that this notion is a false one, and it is also a dangerous one, because it implies that the economy and the environment are at loggerheads, that the economy and the environment are in conflict or can be in conflict. It implies that certain environmental measures that may be desirable from a human health point of view may not be desirable from an economic point of view.

• 1000

Mr. Chairman, through you respectfully to Mr. Boucher, I'm saying that this is absurd. This notion ought to be really abandoned, and hopefully soon, because there is no conflict between the economy and the environment if you really look at the history of issues.

You may remember, for instance, the issue of acid rain, when again the false dichotomy of the economy versus the environment was raised. In Ontario and Quebec we have seen the reduction, with the participation of industry, by some 60% of the acidity in rain. International Nickel, Falconbridge and others are more efficient than ever, and not only that, but the health of the ecosystem has improved. And not only that, but the health of spawning grounds has been more or less restored.

There is no socio-economic consideration that can be raised on the road of improved environmental legislation, because environmental legislation inevitably improves the efficiency of human endeavours, of human enterprise, and it also improves the quality of health. If a measure is too stringent for the pulp and paper industry, it has other benefits downstream for the spawning grounds and the fishery.

Can you claim that today—a socio-economic damage? Surely you can't.

Mr. Boucher, I invite you to re-examine the use of that term, because there is no conflict between environmental and socio-economic goals. On the contrary, they reinforce the socio-economic goals of society at a given time. They may not be visible in the short term, and this is where sometimes a transition is required—the management of that transition—and this is why sometimes industry has asked to be given time, to be given notice, to be given an adequate adjustment period so they can plan it. But in the long term the terms are synonymous. The environment and the economy are one and the same thing, because the economy rests on the quality of the environment, not vice versa. If the environment degradates, eventually the economy degradates too.

Let me give you another example, which may not be close to your industry. But in the late 1980s and very early 1990s we were told that the socio-economic consequences of reducing the catch of cod would be disastrous and therefore we happily continued to draw from the ocean high levels of cod—for socio-economic reasons. It was the same term. We are revisiting what we went through already 10 years ago— until, unfortunately, as we all know, the warnings came from Newfoundland, particularly from Leslie Harris at Memorial University, in his report of February 1990. For two and a half years after February 1990 we said, for heaven's sake, for socio-economic reasons we could not invoke a moratorium, and then suddenly we had to—for socio-economic reasons. Suddenly we invoked socio-economic reasons to impose the moratorium.

• 1005

Mr. Boucher, would you care to comment on this intervention? It troubles me that you believe socio-economic reasons may stand in the way of progress of your industry when it comes to environmental legislation.

Mr. Guy Boucher: I welcome the opportunity.

First of all, I think I could say that generally speaking, in terms of principles, we agree with what you just said. Mind you, we are trying to strike a balance.

Mr. Charles Caccia: You can't have a balance—

Mr. Guy Boucher: The preamble in itself, when we look at all the principles—

Mr. Charles Caccia: A balance between what?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Maybe we should let him answer fully and then I'll give you a chance for rebuttal.

Mr. Guy Boucher: What we're saying is that when we look at the preamble, we have all the principles and all the concepts listed in terms of sustainable development, in terms of precautionary principles. We're saying that in all these considerations, in this balance we seek with socio-economic considerations—

We're not saying it's black and white, we're not saying they're in conflict; we're saying they're part of the overall balance of sustainable development. In some situations maybe that balance was not rightly evaluated, granted, but that doesn't mean the concepts and the balance to be struck with all these principles should be eliminated. There can be errors done in the process of evaluating all of these considerations, whether socio-economic, science, or environmental considerations. We're simply saying that in this overall balance of things, in order to make environmental legislation practically applicable and to understand it fully, all these concepts, all these theories have to be balanced in some way, shape or form.

It's not a question of black and white, it's not a question of conflict as far as we're concerned; it's a question of balance and how you apply them. We still believe the words “socio-economic considerations” should be part of this overall equation. That's all we're saying. It's not a conflict issue, it's not a question that one or the other should be more present; we're just saying they are part of an overall evaluation for practical legislation.

Mr. Charles Caccia: With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I'm grateful to Mr. Boucher for putting the discussion of balance on the table when it comes to sustainable development.

Here I have to alert Mr. Boucher to the danger of believing, as some people do, and particularly in industrial circles, that sustainable development is a balance between the economy and the environment. Conceptually, this is a serious mistake again. It means that in order to have a balance we have to have two separate identities—to put them in a balanced way. So you put some environment here, some economic items over there, and you look at the milieu around you and conclude that the two are separate entities. Again, this is not the case.

The fact is that the two are intimately intertwined. You cannot operate for the long term, as sustainable development implies, by separating the economy from the environment. Therefore, the balancing act again is as dangerous as the belief that there is a conflict between socio-economic goals and environmental goals. It is part of the same mindset. It is conceptually extremely dangerous to go down that road.

With all due respect, I'm raising this not within the context of this bill but within the context of a discussion of concepts. The moment you believe in balancing, you disconnect the economy from the environment. This is the last thing you would want to do in the interest of industry, in the interest of productivity, in the interest of those who are downstream from you, in the interest of the vitality of the natural resource that you are handling, in the interest of preventing and anticipating rather than reacting and curing. The moment you start to balance the two, you remain on the road of reacting and curing. The moment you integrate economy and environment, then you are on the road of anticipating and preventing. Do you see?

• 1010

I would welcome your comments.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We're about a half hour behind on the morning, and some of that was due to our own housekeeping, but perhaps you could answer briefly.

Mr. John Roberts: If I may respond, Mr. Caccia, as a graduate of Memorial University and a Newfoundlander, I'm well aware of the loss of the fishery and what that has meant to that province. If I were to draw upon your analogy to that, I would say there certainly was no balance in that unfortunate circumstance. There was in fact a huge understanding of the difficulties of the economic and social aspects thereof, but absolutely no management of the environmental aspects. And if we did have management of the environmental aspects as you suggest today, then we might well have an economy in those communities, which we do not now have.

So I would refer to Guy's comments that the balance of economics and environment do come together, and they come together very poignantly in the outports of Newfoundland, sir. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I wonder if I could ask a question, Mr. Roberts, regarding your comments about the citizen suits.

Your point is predicated on an aggressive enforcement regime by governments. I don't know if those are the exact words. I just wondered which regime you might be referring to. I don't know if you're familiar with this committee's report on enforcement. Mr. Boucher is saying he is. If you were familiar with that report, you would know there isn't in fact an aggressive regime—sixteen enforcement officers across Canada, one for the province of New Brunswick. I don't know that the situation with the Ontario provincial government is any better.

That's the first half of my question.

The other half is that you've lived with similar legislation in Ontario, with their environmental bill of eights, and my understanding is there hasn't been one lawsuit arising from that legislation, even though it's been in existence for 10 years. So I don't know why the industry groups keep bringing this up all the time, that they're worried about this particular section, when in fact there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it's going to lead to litigation at all, given the Ontario experience.

Mr. John Roberts: I don't think I used the word “aggressive”. I think I did use the words “equitable” and “progressive” and “active”.

Enforcement works. In my own company, we were accused of some environmental offences, and it made a huge change inside our company. If you were to enforce the rules that already exist in a vigorous manner, I believe there would be no need to ask the citizens of the country to enforce them for you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): There's no quarrel there.

Mr. John Roberts: Then we agree.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): On that point. But I'm asking, under what regime do you think there is vigorous enforcement of the rules that exist now? Under what jurisdiction?

Mr. John Roberts: Well, as I've said, under the federal law we have felt the vigour of enforcement. It's up to the federal government to enforce its rules and not download that upon the citizens. So if that is not currently being done, then perhaps it should be.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow up on that point.

As Mr. Knutson had said, when we had the environmental people in front of us they were saying that voluntary approaches did work in some aspects, but they certainly didn't give a glowing report that voluntary approaches solve all the problems. Now, as you said earlier when I was discussing the right to sue, the legislation currently in place already covers that. It would be most helpful to this committee if you could furnish us with the legislation you're referring to, whether it's the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, other federal regulations, or provincial regulations, to show us that the legislation already is in place and that perhaps the right to sue is not required. We need to have that in order to do the balance.

• 1015

Mr. Guy Boucher: I'd like to point out two things here.

First of all, with regard to our specific industry, we do have more than 60 regulations that apply to our industry, either provincial or federal. They are monitored by all companies, by all the members on a daily basis, and the reporting aspect is vigorous. We have so much regulation in terms of daily operations that the transparency and obligation to report brings forth all the performance of the industry at all times across the country.

From that perspective, there are two points I'd like to make on the right to sue and on enforcement.

First of all, I don't necessarily make an equation or a parallel between the number of charges laid across the country and the environmental performance of industry itself. It is not a parallel. Just because there are not many charges being laid, it doesn't mean something must be wrong somewhere. I think we try to focus on the overall performance of the industry itself.

When I gave the numbers earlier in terms of the reduction of suspended solids, the elimination of dioxins and furans, these are performances that are really the pith and substance of environmental performance. From that perspective, I think this is one element we must have in mind in terms of evaluating the overall environmental performance and its application, either through enforcement or voluntary and other programs.

What we're saying is that the right to sue action comes about through a feeling that enforcement is not adequate. What we're saying in terms of enforcement, as industry has often said, is that nobody wants to be in non-compliance. All industry wants to be in compliance, and some have more difficulty than others to be in compliance.

In our industry, because we're so heavily regulated, we have full-time people in each mill working on compliance issues all the time. These people work extremely hard to get the results that are expected through the regulation and through the companies and the association itself. And from that standpoint, we view enforcement as really a means to an end.

What we're always trying to seek when we hear of non-compliance is what's the solution, and how do we get there? What we see in enforcement is not what's the solution, it's what is the slap on the hand that could be dealt in order to enhance compliance? We're saying it's not necessary. We're saying the industry has evolved. It has had many faults in the past, but if we look at our record since the 1990s, the performance is there to show that it is much better than it was, and we're hoping to see it become even better.

That's why we say we want to balance. Yes, enforcement is necessary, but voluntary programs are also necessary. And I get to that word again—balance.

We've seen this right to sue jeopardizing or affecting this balance to some degree. And we're saying it's not necessary, because the tools are already there to bring about enforcement if it is required.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): If there's nothing else, I'll thank the representatives for coming today. I hope you have found the experience worth while. We appreciate your testimony, and we'll take it into account in our deliberations when we go to clause-by-clause.

I'll now call on Safety Kleen.

• 1020

The Chairman: Mr. Hunter, welcome to the committee. Would you like to proceed? Introduce yourself and make a brief statement.

Mr. Eric Hunter (Director, Environment, Health and Industrial Safety for Eastern Canada, Safety Kleen Ltd.): Mr. Chairman, honourable members, good morning.

On behalf of the Safety Kleen Corporation, formerly Laidlaw Environmental Services, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you to present our comments on Bill C-32, the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Chairman: Could we please have some silence in the room? Could members who wish to speak to witnesses perhaps do it outside the room? Thank you.

Mr. Hunter, excuse me for the interruption. Please proceed.

Mr. Eric Hunter: My name is Eric Hunter; I am director of environment health and safety for Safety Kleen's eastern Canadian operations.

Safety Kleen Corporation is the largest manager and recycler of hazardous and industrial wastes and spent automotive fluids in North America. We operate more than 250 facilities, service centres, and branches in the United States and Canada. Our technologies include oil re-refining, waste fuel blending, high-temperature waste incineration, secure landfill, and a host of extraction and pre-treatment methods to ensure the highest level of environmental protection. Safety Kleen Corporation employs over 10,000 people world-wide.

Our comments today will address those sections of Bill C-32 that impact more directly on our areas of business; that is, recycling and waste management.

Let me begin by stating that a business such as ours can only exist within the confines of strong, consistent, workable, and enforced environmental legislation. Bill C-32, in recognizing the importance of harmonization, helps clear the path for consistent and workable legislation within Canada. We applaud this initiative and urge the committee to complete its review in a timely manner, so that the benefits of this initiative may be enjoyed throughout the country.

It will not be possible for us to evaluate the full impact of this legislation on Safety Kleen's business until the various regulations under Bill C-32 have been promulgated. Regulations should define waste, define recycling, and provide quantitative objectives that our industry can achieve. With this in mind, we would again encourage a timely review by the committee so that this all-important aspect of environmental protection can be addressed.

Safety Kleen is an international company. More and more, effective recycling and waste management require technologies, markets, and investments that are international in scope. It must be possible to transport materials across international borders to the most effective and economical facilities with a minimum of delay and cost, consistent with effective administrative control. Bill C-32 creates the opportunity for Canada to meet its international obligations in this respect through cooperative initiatives between Environment Canada and industry.

It is important, however, that the economic realities of the waste management and recycling industries be recognized. A fee structure or administrative burden that discourages effective waste management or renders recycling economically unattractive will not serve the purpose of environmental protection and pollution prevention.

I would like to comment now on specific clauses of Bill C-32 that have particular relevance to Safety Kleen's business.

Part 4 of the bill addresses pollution prevention. In clause 56, the minister requires submission and application of pollution prevention plans for substances specified on the list of toxic substances. If this requirement were to be applied to waste management or recycling facilities, whose purpose is to assist in the management, destruction, or disposal of waste materials, they may be prevented from receiving waste containing the specified substances. This in turn would make it more difficult for primary generators or users of the specified substances to implement their own pollution prevention plan. The regulations should be written such that the recycling and waste management industry is recognized as part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

• 1025

Similarly, in part 5 the bill addresses controlling toxic substances. Clause 79 refers to plans for virtual elimination of toxic substances. Again in this case, the waste management industry may be the means by which toxic substances that have been used or generated by manufacturers or primary industry may be eliminated. The role of the waste management industry is to recycle, treat, destroy, or dispose of toxic substances, eliminating them from the environment. Elimination of toxic substances and management of risk is our business.

Part 7 of the bill addresses controlling pollution and managing wastes. Division 8 addresses control of movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials and of prescribed non-hazardous waste for final disposal.

Clause 185 provides the means for compliance with Canada's international commitments concerning management of waste under the Basel agreement and the Canada-United States bilateral agreement. Pre-notification and approval is required prior to importing or exporting waste materials and prior to carrying waste materials in transit through Canada.

Administrative controls and the movement of waste are necessary to demonstrate compliance with international commitments. It is interesting, however, to note that the recycling or waste management facilities to which the wastes are imported are in fact licensed and controlled by provincial governments in Canada, and facilities to which wastes are exported are primarily regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. By comparison, Environment Canada's participation is purely an administrative function, which has little to do with controlling pollution.

The bill proposes charging a fee for this service. The amount of the fee is not specified, nor is its means of collection. These issues can presumably be addressed during development of the regulations.

For Safety Kleen, which operates facilities in both the United States and Canada, facilities that have different capabilities, the free movement of materials between facilities is essential for effective and economic recycling and treatment of wastes. Movement of materials between sites should not be constrained by administrative delays, making effective management more difficult. To be expected to pay a fee for the privilege adds further insult.

The viability of the recycling business depends on many factors, such as influence of commodity markets, access to retail markets, and costs of collection and processing. Technology requirements are often high and profit margins low. Introduction of a fee to process administrative paperwork may well make some recycling activities uneconomical. The impact of the proposed fee on international trade, especially that between Canada and the United States, should be carefully considered.

It has been suggested that for the purposes of transboundary movement between Canada and the United States, the pre-notification and approvals procedures be waived. Given the existing trade and environmental agreements between the two countries, this may be a feasible way to reduce the administrative burden and costs.

Clause 188 seeks to control the export of hazardous waste for final disposal by requiring that the exporter submit and implement a plan for reduction or phasing out of such activity. Safety Kleen operates many facilities for waste treatment and final disposal on both sides of the Canada-United States border. These facilities are interdependent and complement each other's capability. It is fundamental to our business that waste be able to move freely between the various facilities.

Remember that this network of facilities may well be the means by which a waste generator achieves his objectives for pollution prevention and virtual elimination. Again, the waste management company is part of the solution for hazardous wastes, not part of the problem.

Where wastes are being moved for recycling treatment or final disposal by a company such as ours to a facility that is approved and permitted by the jurisdiction in which it operates, no artificial constraints should interfere with the process. Regulations written under this clause should recognize the role played in management of hazardous wastes and pollution prevention by permanent treatment and disposal facilities on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

• 1030

The impact of unrealistic territorial restrictions on the application of environmentally sound management technologies to hazardous wastes is demonstrated by the present state of PCB management and disposal in North America.

In section 189, movement within Canada, defined as movement between provinces of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials, falls under the control of Bill C-32. Although it is unclear how the pre-notification procedure described for import and export would apply in this case, the intent to collect a fee is clear. Movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials within Canada has long been regulated by the provinces. No province, to my knowledge, has indicated any intention to relinquish this responsibility.

The proposal in Bill C-32 is clearly a duplication of existing mechanisms and an attempt to extend Environment Canada's authority into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Where Environment Canada is concerned about the cost of administering controls under this division in order to comply with international obligations, a proposal to increase by an order of magnitude the number of movements to be controlled must be seriously questioned. The relationship of this proposal to the harmonization accord must also be clarified.

Clause 190 allows the minister to waive compliance with the division if an activity has an equivalent level of environmental safety and is consistent with international agreements. This clause appears to give the minister sweeping powers to exempt people and activities from the requirements of the legislation if he believes there to be an equivalent level of environmental safety. Although subclause 190(4) requires publication of each permit issued under this clause, there is no indication of an opportunity for public or stakeholder input or comment in defining the equivalent level of environmental safety. Such an opportunity should be provided.

Clause 191 allows the minister to make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the division. The impact of Safety Kleen's business will to a large degree depend on the content of the regulations written under this bill. These regulations should be subject to stakeholder review and input. Hence, a timely review by this committee and final passage of Bill C-32 is important in order for the legislation to provide maximum environmental benefit.

Clause 328, in part 11, addresses fees for service. It allows the minister to prescribe fees and prescribe or exempt persons to whom fees apply. It also suggests that the amount of the fees should not exceed the cost of providing the service.

Safety Kleen has been working with Environment Canada on cost-cutting measures such as electronic information transfer concerning transboundary movement of hazardous waste and recyclable materials. Such cost reductions should be reflected in the amount of any fees for service.

Safety Kleen believes strongly that the collection of fees from one section of the industrial community to permit Canada to fulfil obligations under international agreements is totally inequitable. The agreements were signed for the benefit of all signatories and all Canadians, and to impose such fees on the industry sector that will be instrumental in the achievement of Canada's pollution prevention goals is an unreasonable use of authority.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to address any questions you may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hunter.

I have a short list. Rick, would you like to go ahead?

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): It's been a long summer, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Hunter, you get into definitions—the regulations should define waste, should define recycling—and you ask for quantitative objectives your industry can achieve. Are you asking that this regulation get into that kind of detail whereby they tell you how to run your business or how big your business should be? Is that what you're suggesting?

Mr. Eric Hunter: No, absolutely not; quite the reverse. I think it's important in all regulation that it be possible to translate that regulation or its requirements into quantitative goals against which we can measure achievement and which are uniform in their application.

Mr. Rick Casson: You talk an awful lot about the transportation back and forth of hazardous waste, both sides of the border, across the border, through Canada. Is Canada a net importer or net exporter in quantity of hazardous waste?

• 1035

Mr. Eric Hunter: I think it's fairly much in balance. It does move up and down from year to year, depending on different circumstances, but I think it's fairly much in balance.

The Chairman: It depends on the regions.

Mr. Rick Casson: When you're moving a hazardous good across two or three provinces, are you obliged, or is there any regulation in place now, to let local authorities know that this is on the rail or on the road, and this is what it is, and this is how it should be contained if there is a problem?

Mr. Eric Hunter: There is a normal requirement under the transportation of dangerous goods regulations, and for most provinces there are manifesting requirements that identify the material, its source, and its intended destination.

Mr. Rick Casson: So that is done for each shipment?

Mr. Eric Hunter: Yes. There is no material that wanders about unidentified.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay. And if it's going through a certain region, if it's going through the city of Regina, would the city of Regina's disaster services people know it's coming?

Mr. Eric Hunter: Not specifically, but then they wouldn't specifically know if other hazardous materials were passing through the city of Regina either. But those materials would be identified, the trucks would be placarded, and appropriate equipment would be used for the transportation.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hunter, I was just referring to page 2 of your brief, and you talked about, in recognizing the harmonization, how it clears a path for consistent and workable legislation. Are you referring to the harmonization accord here?

Mr. Eric Hunter: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you.

We're really starting to see a trend on the committee right now, and perhaps you could help me with this. The industry groups that came before the committee last spring have all indicated an urgency to have this legislation passed, and certainly CPPA, which came before the committee just before you were here, said they wanted the committee to work with this legislation as quickly as possible. You've indicated in your brief that you wanted the review completed in a timely manner, which I assume means reasonably quickly. Is that correct?

Mr. Eric Hunter: That's correct.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: However, any of the health groups, physicians, environmental law organizations, labour groups, environmental NGOs—the groups who are working in public interest positions—are very concerned about the passage of the bill. In fact, I can quote the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which is a public interest group founded in 1970 that has had significant work with this legislation. They have said that the enactment of this bill without significant changes would be a backward step in the protection of health and the environment, and that they can't support Bill C-32 as it's currently drafted.

Perhaps you could address that for me.

Mr. Eric Hunter: As I indicated from the point of view of Safety Kleen, much of the impact of this regulation on our business will be defined by the regulations and their content. I think it's important to start working on the regulations, which really are the tools by which these improvements will be achieved. It's my understanding the regulations cannot be addressed until the bill is further along in the process.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. In your understanding, what is the relationship of CEPA with the ongoing negotiations of the side agreements, or the subagreements, for the harmonization accord?

Mr. Eric Hunter: I'm not aware of that, but I think the reference within CEPA to harmonization is of value, and certainly, as one of the regulated community we want to see as much harmonization and uniformity in regulation as possible, so it's easier for us to understand and easier for us to work with.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau, followed by Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My first question is for Mr. Hunter. Further to his presentation about his firm, could he tell me if it is indeed a US company that is expanding into Canada or in fact a Canadian firm expanding into the United States? Which is it? I believe mention was made of 10,000 employees working in the United States and Canada.

[English]

Mr. Eric Hunter: I'm sorry, Mr. Charbonneau, I didn't have the translation, and I'm afraid I can't answer the question until I do. Okay, I have it now.

• 1040

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like to know how many of your employees work in Canada and how many in United States? What trend is emerging? Is your firm expanding from Canada into the United States or vice versa?

[English]

Mr. Eric Hunter: I can't give you the actual breakdown by number of employees. We have many more employees in the United States. We are not expanding at the present. We are an amalgamation of two companies, Safety Kleen and Laidlaw Environmental Services, that have operated for a long time in both Canada and the United States. Our facilities in the United States are probably greater in number and employ a greater number of people than those in Canada, as you might expect.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In your brief, you talk about the impact of unrealistic territorial restrictions on the enforcement of environmental technologies as they pertain to hazardous waste. You mention the handling of PCBs in North America.

Could you elaborate further on this point? You merely mentioned this fact, without saying exactly which problem you had identified with the current handling of PCBs. Can you tell is anything more about this? No doubt you wanted to keep your submission brief, but I would like to know your views on this subject.

[English]

Mr. Eric Hunter: The issue of the management of PCB waste is one that has plagued Canada for some years now, and as a company that operates facilities that have the capability to destroy PCBs, albeit those facilities are in the United States, we are prohibited from moving PCB waste from Canada to the United States because of a U.S. legislation that prohibits that movement at the moment. But prior to that, there was a prohibition on moving materials out of Canada. There has also, in the past, been some restriction on movement of PCB waste materials into Alberta, which has the other PCB waste destruction capability, with the result that PCB wastes are stockpiled to a large extent in Ontario and Quebec, unable to access suitable treatment technologies that are in existence at the moment.

That's the example I used. From an industry point of view, it is an unrealistic and artificial restriction on the movement of waste.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gallaway, followed by Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Hunter.

First, you've heard from an earlier questioner a comment as to what's in the public interest, and reference has been made to groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, who in a sense are saying, wait a minute, put on the brakes, let's look at this very carefully. Industry groups certainly seem to be saying, we can live with this, let's proceed.

I just want to ask you, as one of the players in the industry groups, if one wants to make a comparison to what was proposed in a previous Parliament, does this legislation, subject to the comments that you have made this morning, represent a balance with which your particular segment of industry can and will live?

Mr. Eric Hunter: Yes, I think it does, subject to the few sections that I outlined and emphasized in my presentation this morning.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Secondly, with respect to the transborder movement of waste, I believe that often in this place people are not aware of the unique nature of borders and of the movement of all kinds of goods across borders, and that the imposition of fees, however attractive that may be in this current atmosphere of government in cost-recovery—and certainly on occasion cost-recovery is a necessary factor—

• 1045

In your particular industry, you must be dealing with Environment Canada officials on an ongoing basis. You've raised concern about the fees, although you don't know what they are. I wonder if you have received any information from Environment Canada as to what these are likely to be—and I know that's a hypothetical—and what, in your opinion, the effect is going to be, not only on your company, but on your customers and more importantly what it means in terms of international business, specifically the transborder area of the industrial heartland of Ontario and the northern U.S.

Mr. Eric Hunter: Yes. We have talked to Environment Canada officials in the transboundary movement division for some months now, perhaps more than some months, concerning this issue of cost-recovery, and we have a picture of the total quantum of costs expected to be recovered with this initiative. Again, we're unsure of the exact mechanism for how those costs would be collected and what impact cost-reduction activities may have on those costs, but we do know what the number is.

This would have a significant impact, I think, on the recycling industry. As I point out in my brief, many recycling industry activities have a very narrow profit margin, by their very nature, and a small imposition of another cost or another tax on those activities may render them really unworkable and undoable.

From the point of view of an industry such as ours, which really derives its strength from many facilities that have different capabilities and the importance of moving materials between those capabilities within our organization for the best form of treatment, it certainly does provide an economic disincentive to move to the most economical, the most successful treatment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Responding to a question from my Reform Party colleague, you noted that the movement of hazardous waste is subject to existing provincial regulations. Did I understand you correctly? When your firm transports hazardous waste from Quebec to Alberta, it must comply along the way with stringent provincial regulations.

Why should we support this bill which would impose new regulations? Are the current ones not adequate? Does the federal government really need to bring in additional ones through Bill C-32?

I would like to come back to a question that a Liberal Party member asked you about regulatory fees. Are US companies like yours that import hazardous waste required to pay additional fees? If you were required to pay these fees, wouldn't this constitute a violation of NAFTA provisions?

Compared to US firms pursuing the same goals as your firm, or to Canadian firms in general, wouldn't the charging of these fees restrict you in a roundabout way from expanding your technology and impede your efforts to develop more high-tech ways of recycling and eliminating hazardous waste?

The Chairman: Mr. Hunter.

• 1050

[English]

Mr. Eric Hunter: To address the first part of your question, the regulations that are in place in all of the provinces governing generation, registration, and movement of hazardous waste and recyclable materials are adequate, in my opinion, to control the movement of these materials from one province to another.

The question of what's intended in the bill concerning Environment Canada's participation in that interprovincial trade I'm not sure of, and hence I sort of raise it as a question mark in my presentation.

The second question, on the impact of the fees or the costs on our business, this in effect amounts to $1.5 million taken out of the interface between the waste management recycling industry and its customers. It also imposes another pressure on exactly how wastes get treated and where they get treated. As I indicated, it may prevent the movement of waste to the most appropriate treatment facility. It may also prevent that most appropriate treatment facility from being developed, from being expanded, or from being able to identify additional technologies or additional research because of this further imposition of cost.

On the third part of your question, we don't incur any additional costs in moving materials from our Canadian facilities to the U.S. facilities. There are no taxes or fees that are levied in the U.S.

On the fourth part, whether those fees would contravene any NAFTA agreements, it has been suggested that they would be regarded as a tax and would be a differential tax, putting Canadian industry at a disadvantage and thereby in contravention of some of the sections of NAFTA. I'm not an expert on NAFTA, obviously.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Girard-Bujold.

To conclude, I have a couple of short questions. Mr. Hunter, would you see merit in having the definition of waste in the legislation or in the regulations? What would be your preference?

Mr. Eric Hunter: I believe probably in the regulations would be more helpful.

The Chairman: Secondly, are you familiar with the producer and user pay principle? It's an internationally accepted principle. Are you familiar with it?

Mr. Eric Hunter: Not in those terms.

The Chairman: Well, it's a term that implies—as the name says—that the producer and the user should pay for their activities. In your brief you seem to be opposed to it. We have subscribed to that principle internationally. Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Eric Hunter: Well, I think as a member of private enterprise we obviously have to believe in the user pay principle. However, in this case the cost-recovery proposal, the fee-recovery proposal for this particular small component of our business to comply with something that is much broader in scope and much broader in commitment on behalf of Canada I think is inequitable. I think it stands a chance of damaging our ability to continue to do business in the way we're doing it.

The Chairman: So what is good for the large gander is not good for the small goose.

Mr. Eric Hunter: No, I don't believe that's the case. I think equality and fairness is important.

The Chairman: I appreciate your answer, and we all appreciate the way you presented your case to us. Many members of the committee I'm sure would like to spend a day or two with you on waste. Maybe there will be another opportunity once we have finished with this bill.

I thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Eric Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The next witness, please.

Members of the committee, you have here as witnesses, as the note indicates, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, Madam Marianne Lines, taking her place right now, and the chairman of the board of directors of the centre, Mr. Firman Bentley.

Welcome to the committee. Would you like to make a brief statement?

Ms. Marianne Lines (Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention): Yes, I would.

The Chairman: Please go ahead.

• 1055

Ms. Marianne Lines: Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Marianne Lines, and I'm the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention. I will refer to the organization as the C2P2 from here on in. Otherwise, you'll be tripping over my terms for most of my notes.

With me is Firman Bentley, the chief executive officer of ADAMAC Management Group, who is the president of the C2P2's board of directors.

We appreciate the opportunity to speak before this committee. This is our second appearance before the committee. We will provide you with a very brief overview of our organization and highlight the role we play in encouraging pollution prevention as the strategy of choice in protecting the environment.

In 1992 Environment Canada established the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, formerly known as the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Centre in Sarnia, Ontario. The concept was to have an organization at arm's length to government to promote pollution prevention. In 1994 the C2P2 was incorporated as a non-profit organization, operating with the board of directors that represents business, governments, labour, trade associations, and academia. In 1997 funding through Environment Canada grants concluded. Information services today are still delivered through the C2P2 through a combination of contracts and sponsorship and membership fees.

Our membership is very broadly based. We receive funding support from businesses, both large and small, municipalities, consultants, and the government. This approach of delivering pollution prevention information through an arm's-length organization really has worked. Today the C2P2 is a Canadian focal point for pollution prevention information, and we continue to serve clients throughout and beyond the Great Lakes Basin and across Canada. Our business is the transfer of information.

We've asked to speak to you today to present our views on the delivery of information—

The Chairman: With respect to the bill?

Ms. Marianne Lines: —with respect to the bill. We have asked for that. Our comments have been recorded on the brief, and we will highlight a few.

We obviously commend the government for going beyond recognizing the importance of pollution prevention in dealing with environmental problems and making pollution prevention a national goal in the renewed CEPA.

We endorse specifically subclause 63(1), which states:

The Minister may, for the purposes of encouraging and facilitating pollution prevention, establish and maintain a national pollution prevention information clearinghouse—

Having operated an information clearinghouse since 1992, the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention can truly speak to the need for information and its effective delivery. Canadians must have access to the right information to adopt pollution prevention.

Our comments will focus on the information delivery across Canada, although if you have any specific questions on our experience and the need and demand for information, I will be pleased to address them.

I'm here to leave you with two points. One is the recommendation on working in partnership. The C2P2 believes it is crucial for the government to recognize the value of an arm's-length organization in the delivery of pollution prevention information. We call for an acknowledged role for an arm's-length organization to supplement and support the delivery of information through the national pollution prevention clearinghouse, as defined in CEPA.

In Canada there are two information systems that focus exclusively on pollution prevention information. There is the C2P2, our organization, and there is the Canadian Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, for which I'll use a second acronym, CPPIC. This CPPIC was recently launched by the federal government in March 1998 as an Internet tool linking Canadians to the information they need to practise pollution prevention.

• 1100

In the past year the two systems, C2P2 and CPPIC, have worked very closely to coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication and to work together to differentiate our delivery mechanisms to make stronger delivery to Canadians. The goal of both information systems is to support a very broad range of audiences across Canada. We do, however, work in very unique and complementary ways, and I'd just like to spend a second here.

CPPIC is an Internet tool that has a very extensive database of pollution prevention information with very strong searchable capabilities. The C2P2 operates differently. It has very diverse mechanisms of delivery. It includes a 1-800 request line, an information research capability, hard copy distribution, newsletter and monthly bulletin production, training, conferences, and the organization of an annual Canadian pollution prevention round table, which is now in its third year.

I'd like to leave you with a copy of a newsletter we produce called At the Source, which does a feature on the current efforts to deliver information across Canada. We firmly believe the demand on these services will only increase as implementation of P2 planning becomes a reality that is identified in CEPA.

My second point and reason for speaking here is long-term funding. I'd like to speak to that.

The Chairman: Is it included in the bill?

Ms. Marianne Lines: Its background?

The Chairman: Is funding a matter that is touched upon in the bill?

Ms. Marianne Lines: No, it is a recommendation that we wanted to make. That's what we would like to see reflected. I'm still speaking within the context of the bill.

The Chairman: All right.

Ms. Marianne Lines: There is a need for long-term financial support, preferably nationally coordinated, to sustain information services to ensure that Canadians have access and also use the information. That is essential.

We strongly recommend the government establish adequate resources for the effective and sustained delivery of pollution prevention information. In particular, we believe that organizations like ourselves, at arm's length to the government, should be financially resourced to support the implementation of pollution prevention concepts and planning identified in the renewed CEPA. A partnership approach will best provide value to governments, allowing shared financial support by industries and the public.

In conclusion, C2P2 would like to commend the government for acknowledging pollution prevention as the cornerstone in the renewed CEPA, and for the integral role that pollution prevention information will play in its implementation. We believe the two recommendations we have put forward, the two we have spoken to today, will contribute to a revised CEPA that will best serve Canadians.

I'd like to ask if Firman Bentley would like to add any additional comments. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bentley, do you wish to comment on the bill?

Mr. Firman Bentley (Chairman, Board of Directors, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to point out that C2P2 has established the finest information source in Canada since it has been formed. We are working very closely with Environment Canada to see that there is not duplication in the two systems. For the commitments that we as a country have made in the global warming concept, it is essential we have good information, and they need to be funded over the long term.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bentley, for having addressed the bill.

Mr. Gilmour has a short question for you or Ms. Lines.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've said you want funding. What kind of funding are we talking about, what kind of numbers?

Ms. Marianne Lines: I can give you a brief overview of what it costs to operate our own centre and approximately what our annual budget is. Or do you want just numbers?

The Chairman: Yes, sorry. We would like to have an exchange, which is highly welcome, as it relates to the bill.

Could you please rephrase the question, Mr. Gilmour.

• 1105

Mr. Bill Gilmour: It does relate to the bill, but I guess I'm coming from a user-pay basis. You say you have customers and that there's a demand. Where's the demand coming from?

Ms. Marianne Lines: We do have financial support that is broad-based through our membership, but it will never be enough to sustain the centre in the long term. We are dealing with information that has clear benefits in the public interest and we truly believe there will always be a need for a component of public funding to support that. Only about 25% of our current budget can be sustained through membership.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I guess the difficulty the committee is having is seeing the link between the bill we're dealing with and funding for your organization, which, shall we say, is a special interest group. I have difficulty seeing the link—why we would put provisions in CEPA. It doesn't fit.

Ms. Marianne Lines: I'm not only speaking for information and public funding for our own centre. I think long-term funding— It's for access to information, because in the bill there's a provision for the minister to set up an information clearinghouse. We just want to support the fact that without long-term funding for CCPIC or C2P2 and having access— You cannot establish something and then not support it financially to be sustained.

The Chairman: Mr. Bentley.

Mr. Firman Bentley: If I may add to that, we're not here looking for funding from the new bill. What we want is that this legislation not exclude a private organization—in other words, not focus only on the government Internet service, because there is another service that is complementary to it, is working with it, and we do work for several governments from time to time: Manitoba, Nova Scotia, the federal government. So we're not here looking for funding, we're just saying don't legislate us out of existence.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour. Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'd like to set the record straight here. Because you've been referred to as a special interest group, I wonder if you would repeat how your group, C2P2, was founded, in case some members missed that.

Ms. Marianne Lines: We were set up by Environment Canada in 1992 as an arm's-length organization. The concept was to be able to deliver, on behalf of the government, very effective information delivery, and we think we have achieved that.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

Secondly, there seems to be some confusion as to whether you're speaking to the bill or not, but clearly in dealing with subclause 63(1) of the bill and other matters related to that, we're talking about the provision of information relevant to pollution prevention.

I wonder, Ms. Lines, if you could explain to us what your perspective is on this idea of an information clearinghouse or a source of information, why you think an arm's-length organization is advantageous as opposed to perhaps a direct government agency.

The Chairman: I am sure the question is very important, but it has nothing to do with the bill. Therefore, Ms. Lines, could you summarize your answer?

Ms. Marianne Lines: I can go ahead and summarize my answer.

I believe that not only is it critical what information is delivered, but the messenger is of primary importance, because how the information is delivered and who delivers it will make the difference in whether it is adopted or not. So there's a very strong role for an arm's-length organization support the delivery of information.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you, Ms. Lines.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway. Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Firman Bentley: Mr. Chairman, could I comment briefly on the earlier question?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Firman Bentley: We were set up with government funding for five years and that was terminated. Now we are self-financing, so we're not financed by the government, and we've lived up to the mandate under which we were established.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bentley. Madam Kraft Sloan.

• 1110

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was wondering if you could tell us whether the definition of virtual elimination, as it is laid out in the CEPA legislation that's before the committee, is consistent with the concept of pollution prevention.

Ms. Marianne Lines: Very much so. It is very consistent. Pollution prevention is probably the best strategy to try to approach and reach the virtual elimination. So yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The Canadian Environmental Law Association has suggested that it's very inconsistent because it still allows the use of pollution control techniques, which is opposite to pollution prevention, because it still allows release of toxic substances.

Ms. Marianne Lines: I still believe that the definition is quite strong. How it relates to information is our primary interest. Although control mechanisms still play a key role, the need for information becomes even stronger because people are looking for alternatives. And as they look to implement pollution prevention within the definition in CEPA, they want to know how to do it, where to go, and ultimately they want to find out who has already done something.

On a day-to-day basis, we answer informational questions that go way beyond people asking what pollution prevention is. We are beyond the awareness stage now, and people are looking for very concrete answers on how to do it. So I do believe that this is a very strong step towards reaching virtual elimination.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: IJC has a different definition of virtual elimination from what's in CEPA, and that's certainly the one that's supported by organizations like the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

So your preference is for the definition as articulated in this current legislation, even though it means that end-of-pipe solutions will still be used, as opposed to changing processes and procedures within the plant, which is sort of the underlying tenet of pollution prevention?

Ms. Marianne Lines: I'm not here to speak to the definition of virtual elimination within the bill. I was here to speak primarily on the use of information on achieving virtual elimination. So I still do not have a strong position on that definition.

Mr. Firman Bentley: Mr. Chairman, may I add to that?

Having been vice-chair of the New Directions Group, which put forward that definition that's now contained in the bill— New Directions is a group of industries and environmental groups. It's been a longstanding debate between industry and environmental groups. The environmentalists that want to be totally purist say you shouldn't use technology to enhance your chemical systems to eliminate toxics from your system.

Having run a large chemical company in my past, I think it's impossible to live in this modern world and not use technology to clean up chemical processes that produce some of these toxic substances. So you can never reach zero elimination without using chemical processes to do so. No disrespect to the environmentalists, but I think they're taking a very purist view when they're saying you can't use part of the process to eliminate those toxics.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's the advancement in innovation of technology that allows you to substitute processes that will not create toxic materials that have to then have an end-of-pipe solution. We're talking about prevention versus curative. If we can go out and encourage the Canadian public to adopt healthy life styles, then we can avoid people acquiring degenerative diseases that we have to spend lots and lots of money on. Likewise, if we can encourage innovation in a technological development in this country in our industries, then we can take a look at other ways of processing and producing goods.

Mr. Firman Bentley: But what I say is—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But we're not talking about— I don't know what environmental group you're talking about that is against technology, because any of the groups I've been dealing with are very concerned about having advances that allow for alternative ways of producing goods.

Mr. Firman Bentley: And what I said is not in conflict with that. When we were working on the zero discharge paper and came to virtual elimination as a compromise between these two groups, they accepted that technology would be used. And certainly it doesn't conflict with developing new technologies. Hopefully that is happening today. I'm sure it is.

• 1115

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But if your centre is a centre for pollution prevention, wouldn't you want to see pollution prevented from being made and created in the first place, as opposed to having tons and tons of money having to be spent in order to fix it up after it comes out the other end? Because we're talking about end of pipe then.

Ms. Marianne Lines: That is our specialty, and that's what we focus on day to day. That is our mandate: to encourage people to look for those innovations. And for those people who have achieved it, we highlight those and we make the connection—the transfer between those who don't know and those who do. That is what we do. We focus exclusively on at-source solutions. So we firmly believe in the virtual elimination concept.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Then you might have some concern about the concept as it is currently written in the new CEPA legislation.

The Chairman: If there are no further questions, we will conclude with a brief question from the chair to Mr. Bentley.

Mr. Bentley, don't you find it rather peculiar and surprising that, it having been established in 1992 that this committee would be informed, you do not have a position this morning on the definition of virtual elimination ?

Mr. Firman Bentley: Mr. Chairman, I was talking background on—

The Chairman: No, I'm not referring to you. I'm referring to the reply by Ms. Lines to the question by Mrs. Kraft Sloan. We learned that you as a centre do not have a position on the definition of virtual elimination, and that is rather peculiar. Perhaps you may want to—

Ms. Marianne Lines: I'm sorry; I thought you were addressing Mr. Bentley.

The Chairman: Yes. In his capacity as chairman of the board of directors, I would imagine that in the past six years a matter of this importance would have been raised and the executive been asked to produce a definition. Don't you think so, Mr. Bentley?

Mr. Firman Bentley: Absolutely.

The Chairman: So when will you approach the issue of virtual elimination at the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention and provide a definition?

Ms. Marianne Lines: We firmly believe in virtual elimination. We are the strongest supporters in being able to achieve those results through pollution prevention. That was all I meant by my statement: that we think this is the strategy of choice, the preferred method, and to make people understand that this is the way to go we were focusing on the need, in our experience, to provide the right information to the right people.

I didn't mean to say I was not agreeing with one definition or another. Zero would be ideal, but I was here to speak primarily on access to information. I am sorry if I did not answer the question to your satisfaction.

The Chairman: It's not a question of whether it is to our satisfaction. It is only peculiar that you would say earlier, Ms. Lines, that you have no position on the definition, which obviously raises the question, after six years of having been established, as to why that is so. That's all.

Mr. Firman Bentley: I think, Mr. Chairman, we made it clear we're here supporting the legislation. The definition in the legislation we subscribe to.

The Chairman: Thank you for that clarification. That's very helpful.

With that, we will thank you very much for appearing before us and for making us acquainted with the work of C2P2. We hope to see you again.

We will resume in the afternoon at 1.30 for other witnesses. This meeting stands adjourned.