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 23, 1998

• 1533

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.)): My name is Gar Knutson. I'm the member of Parliament for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I'm currently the vice-chair of the committee. The chair, Charles Caccia, is away, so that's why I'm chairing the meeting.

I want to thank our witnesses for coming today. Our normal routine is that all the witnesses give their presentations, and then we ask questions. If there's somebody who doesn't like that, they can tell me now. Otherwise, I want to thank you for coming.

Maybe we can begin by having people introduce themselves for the record.

Mr. Garth Sundeen (Science Officer, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): My name is Garth Sundeen, and I'm with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Jack Wilkinson (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): I'm Jack Wilkinson, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Mike Chorlton (Chairman, Canadian Fertilizer Institute): I'm Mike Chorlton, chairman of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and president of Saskferco Products.

Mr. Roger L. Larson (President, Canadian Fertilizer Institute): I'm Roger Larson, president of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute.

Dr. Mark Stauffer (Director, Canadian Fertilizer Institute): I'm Mark Stauffer, director of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and president of the Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada.

Mr. Norm Beug (Director, Canadian Fertilizer Institute): I'm Norm Beug, director of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and general manager of IMC Kalium Canada in Saskatchewan.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Gentlemen, welcome.

Mr. Wilkinson, you're the first one on the list. Are you going to go first?

• 1535

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Thank you very much for having us in front of the committee.

I would like to run through briefly some of the highlights within our presentation. I assume that the presentation in its entirety will be considered as part of the record without going over all the points.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is a broad-based, general farm organization based here in Ottawa. Our obligation to the 200,000-some members we have is to represent them on federal-related issues.

We would like to run through briefly some of the points on this proposed legislation.

I think it's fair to say that the farm community over the last number of years has both realized its impact on the environment and taken very substantial action in many provinces to try to deal with those concerns. Back when the green plan existed in the previous government, we instituted a host of activities on the farm side, for example, to reduce the amount of pesticides, to deal with a number of the issues that come up regarding soil at risk, to change tillage practices and to change a host of management practices. Some of the benefits are starting to show now. Therefore, we are converts in relationship to dealing with environmental issues.

I think it's also fair to say that agriculture, in some people's minds anyway, does impact on the environment just with the type of production we do. Obviously there is still much work to be done, and we are quite willing to participate in that activity. So we approach the legislation within that kind of context.

We accept the notion that it is useful to have umbrella legislation in dealing with environmental protection. At the same time, within that context we also think it is very important to deal as much as possible with voluntary activity and initiatives versus a regulatory framework.

I think it's fair to say regulations are of modest value if in fact they're not accepted and implemented by those people whose actions they're meant to change. We've been very positive in the challenge the farm community has taken up in the changing of production methodologies to meet some goals. So we would see that as a very important overriding principle towards activity on the environmental front; that is, how we can deal with these items and not duplicate activity that is taking place and emphasize the need to specify what is critical in relationship to the health of the environment and of the human population, and then, where there is a problem, how we can deal with remedial action to change behaviour. So we're keen to deal with that in a coordinated and effective manner.

We would like to deal individually with a number of the bullet points in our presentation, starting with item three. I'll try to run over them quickly. Obviously we can expand on them during the question-and-answer period.

Biotechnology from a farm point of view does offer some very encouraging potential for the future. As a backstop to a number of these points, I will emphasize over and over again that we want to have a good regulatory framework in which we operate, so that when products are introduced into a Canadian marketplace we're comfortable that the whole question of health and safety has been dealt with in a regulatory framework and that the bio-safety protocols have been met and that debate is taking place. But once that is out there and dealt with, we see some real benefit to the farm community.

We think there are going to be many changes in the near future to reduce the amount of pesticide and insecticide use on plant protection materials. There are already cases where that is in fact showing up. As well, we are moving to lower toxicity herbicides, which are much more benign to the environment. We think as well that facts will show that by having some of these products available we'll reduce tillage practices, which will help with soil and water erosion. Some of that evidence is starting to show its way through.

Regarding some of the concerns on the prairies, in particular saline problems in their soil, we will have grasses available that can produce a good pasture and hay crop.

• 1540

In our view, the list of activities that are going to be very positive from an environmental point of view will go on. Again, I do it with the backstop that those products have been evaluated, have been approved for use in the Canadian market, and the other considerations being dealt with the same as any other new science that may come on board.

Even though it may be a concern to the gentlemen on the left here, I think there are going to be some reductions in fertilizer use possible, with some of the biotechnology innovations, fixing nitrogen and a host of others, which will be viewed positively by the farm community. I am sure that the Fertilizer Institute will find an opportunity to help capture some profits within that system, as other people have in the past, so I'm not really too concerned about their viability in the long run.

The farmers are very clearly wanting to develop a sustainable agriculture point of view. I believe that in today's world no one would accept anything less. It's demanded to move and to continue to move at an aggressive rate to more and more sustainable practices, to have less impact on the environment, and wherever possible to have a positive impact. To that end, I think some of the activity going on in the greenhouse gas workshops is going to show that the farm community and agriculture in general can contribute very positively to a host of other environment-related activities if given the resources to do so.

As I said earlier in a sort of general introduction, we have some cases now where in some provinces in particular farmers have moved quite aggressively into a self-regulating mode. For example, I come from Ontario, just for my background, and that's where I farm, so it's easier for me to find some examples there.

A number of years ago a contract with the provincial government to reduce pesticide use in the horticulture and tender fruit industry was brought into place. It was a ten-year program, but in eight years pesticide use in that area of agriculture was reduced by 50%, just as an example. That really was due to research and development, a lot of work in intensive pest management systems, monitoring systems, a host of areas, which contributed positively to the farm community from an expense point of view and a quality of food point of view. For the consumer and environmentalist it also reduced, as I said, the use of herbicides and insecticides by 50%. That was a program that was initiated by the farm community.

There are over 15,000 farm plans, for example, in Ontario where self-analysis of farm operations has taken place, where they have assessed the risk from an environmental point of view and taken action on those. As I said, over 15,000 of 40,000 commercial farms are involved in that program. It's been running for a number of years. Even though there is some modest grant money in the program, farmers are spending between four and five times the amount of money of the grants that are within the program to take some of this action voluntarily. They know full well that not only do they live on that farm, they want to market as clean and safe a food as possible in an international marketplace. They want to also be good environmental stewards and know that this is expected of them.

We think there are many things that can be done on a volunteer basis, if given the education, the resources, the information, and the partnerships to do it. We believe we have a track record to say it's more than just talk; we can in fact do it. We've shown that we can do it and are quite willing to. That's something that I think is critically important.

As well, there is an assumption often made that farmers in general are industrializing—the view that agriculture is sort of an industrial park, that biodiversity is a problem to them, and they want to drain every wetland they have on their farm and cut down every tree they have on their farm, etc. The list goes on and on. I think that in fact is in general absolutely incorrect.

For example, Alberta has done a great deal, with Ducks Unlimited, with the streams and grazing programs they put in place, to change the way ranchers cut hay at the nesting times of birds, graze pastures, setbacks from streams, a host of areas and activities in joint agreements that have shown very dramatically that the farm community wants to in fact keep an interrelationship with the environment.

The fact is that the duck population in North America, as proposed by Ducks Unlimited and other conservation groups and hunting groups, is at a 30-year high. That we have problems and complaints from the farm community of overpopulation of a host of big game, deer, and wildlife in a number of areas attests to the fact that the farm community in fact does try to interrelate with the wildlife and environmental habitat. I'm not saying that there aren't examples to the contrary, but I think the attitude is in the right place and the facts bear it out.

• 1545

It is fair to say that we want to be very heavily involved in a consultative process with this draft legislation as well as endangered species legislation. It's fair to say in general that from a regulatory point of view, we view that a number of acts that are currently in existence in other line departments have shown, over the last number of years, to be meeting the needs of the industry and the consumer. For example, the Seeds Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, a number of these acts are regulated and administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but all those guidelines and tolerances are set in consultation with the Ministry of Health.

In fact we believe that the industry has done a very good job of regulating. When you look at new proposals, we don't want to get into a situation of duplicating. They've done a good job there; we think there is reason to leave them there. We believe that the partnership with the provinces in the past as far as enforcing has been relatively beneficial. If there's something that needs improving, we should look at doing it there, versus putting in place a large bureaucracy at this end, which could be costly and cumbersome.

Our view is that there isn't a lot broken, and we can fix what is. We want to be a partner in that fixing where it is appropriate. We want to be consulted as we move down the road. We're pleased to be here to give this presentation and answer questions.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.)): Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson.

Could you give me an indication of who wishes to speak?

Mr. Roger Larson: I'll introduce our group.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Okay. If you're all going to speak, I'd rather that you limit your comments to five minutes each, so that we can have time for questions afterwards. Otherwise, we use up most of our time and it doesn't give the members an opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Roger Larson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've carefully planned our three presentations within a total ten-minute program.

Members of Parliament, we are pleased to be here today before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to discuss our perspective on Bill C-32. Mike Chorlton and Mark Stauffer will be making verbal presentations with me. Mr. Beug and Mr. Donald Côté, my colleague and counterpart with the Quebec Fertilizer Association, and Mr. Jim Farrell, our director of technical affairs, are also available to answer any questions the members will have.

Our written presentation will be sent to the clerk tomorrow morning. I would note that we will not be reading our brief and request that you include it into the record.

CFI represents the basic manufacturers of nitrogen, potash, phosphate, and sulphate fertilizers, as well as most of the retailer distributors in Canada. Our members produce 24 million metric tonnes of fertilizer, 80% of which is exported. Altogether, Canada supplies 12% of the world's total fertilizer needs. Our exports contribute $3 billion to Canada's balance of payments. Global competitiveness is an issue our members must continuously address.

This legislation has a great deal to do with how we, as a society, perceive our role as stewards of the land. Farming and agriculture in Canada can be depicted as a mining operation, as each year's harvest represents a removal from the soil of some measurable amounts of nutrients. Just like forestry, healthy agricultural soils are an important carbon sink. Balanced adequate nutrients are essential in both cases.

Canadian farmers, by way of contrast, use only one-half of the amount of fertilizer per hectare of cropland as the United States and only one-fifth that used by France and Germany. In spite of the five million tonnes of fertilizer annually consumed on Canadian farms, we are putting in less than we are taking out. Too little is as potentially damaging as is too much. Protecting our soil's health, ensuring an adequate world food supply, and protecting the environment is all about balance and integrating this balance into our nutrient management systems.

• 1550

Dr. Stauffer will discuss fertilizer's role in providing food for our future.

Dr. Mark Stauffer: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

I oversee an international program that creates understanding of the appropriate use of nutrients in agriculture. I've seen agriculture at its worst and at its best. What I have seen leads me to what I call the first human right: I can feed myself and my family. This basic right confers dignity and it empowers the individual. In today's world, Canada needs to quickly address the issue of food for our future, for obvious population and environmental reasons. Canada's role as a food exporter is obvious; hence the need for essential plant nutrients.

Fact: In 1996, 95 out of every 100 persons added to the world live in less developed countries. These rapidly expanding populations and the resulting effect of agriculture moving into fragile, environmentally sensitive areas must be stopped. Sustainable agriculture cannot exist there. Wealthy nations protect and enhance the environment. The converse is demonstrated by examples such as the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries.

Former U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself”. We all pay a price for the extraction of soil nutrients. Destroying good fertile soils is an extreme but very real consequence of soil mining—mining the soil of its nutrients. It is possible to recapitalize soil fertility through the judicious inputs of nutrients, coupled with other sound soil and crop management practices.

Fact: Two billion people suffer terrible nutrition.

Fact: Of the 12 million children under the age of 5 who die each year in developing countries, mainly from preventable causes, 55% are either directly or indirectly attributable to malnutrition.

Fact: Worldwide losses of social productivity caused by overlapping forms of malnutrition equal 46 million years of productive, disability-free life.

I give a little scientific homily to those interested. Simply, it goes like this. Without phosphorous there is no cell. Without a cell there is no plant. Without a plant there is no food, no grain. Without phosphorous there is a lot of hunger; and that applies to nitrogen, potassium, sulphur, zinc, and so forth.

My plea, our plea to you, is to insert the food policy issue when discussing risks from fertilizers. Nutrient management is necessary for producing food as well as protecting the environment. Canada and the world need to bring food policy into the nutrient management and legislative risk debate. It provides the balance needed. In fact it becomes a fulcrum on which we weigh risk from nutrients in the environment with benefits from nutrients in food production.

Looking ahead and considering Bill C-32, it is reasonable to ask ourselves whether the consequence of this legislation will be good for Canadian soils and for the soils of the world, from the perspective of sustainable development.

Now I will ask Mike Chorlton to outline our specific concerns with this bill.

Mr. Mike Chorlton: Thanks, Mark.

I'd like to begin my comments by emphasizing that CFI supports the need for strong environmental legislation and continuous improvement in environmental performance.

I want to discuss some of the concerns the fertilizer industry has with Bill C-32, an act that has grown considerably relative to its predecessor and that in our opinion has become very complex.

CFI feels that if CEPA is going to be strong, enforceable, and promote sustainable development in Canada it must first be very clear and predictable, so that government can enforce the legislation and business can make appropriate environmental management decisions. Second, we need to ensure that provincial and federal legislation are harmonized and not duplicated. Third, we must not include information-gathering provisions that are inflexible and create unnecessary administrative burdens.

• 1555

On the issue of clarity and predictability, the fertilizer industry has a specific concern in the nutrient section. Regulatory uncertainty is created by virtue of the fact that there's no provision for the minister responsible for administration of another act in Parliament to determine whether or not their act is appropriate and sufficient to address the matter. We feel it's important that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food be responsible for determining whether the legislation is appropriate and sufficient to deal with the matter related to nutrients.

The other concern is related to environmental protection actions. We do not feel it's beneficial to follow the U.S. model and adopt a litigious approach to environmental protection. The government should be responsible for enforcing environmental protection legislation and should not abandon this responsibility. We don't believe litigation is an effective way to resolve environmental issues.

Although we believe that environmental protection actions through provisions of the bill are not good public policy, if the courts are to decide on environmental protection issues, then there should be some time limit on the application of these provisions, and the federal government should be a mandatory party named in any environmental suit brought under the act. We feel this is reasonable, as the purpose of the provision is to deal with persistent non-enforcement of its legislation by government.

On the issue of harmonization, we feel there should be a clear commitment to avoid overlap and duplication between provincial and federal environmental regulations. The commitment to this principle could be more adequately reflected in paragraphs 10(3)(a) and (b) if provisions were made to allow for treating provincial requirements as equivalent to federal requirements of the act based on considerations of performance and intent, not just identical provisions.

The information-gathering provisions of the act are very broad in scope and in our opinion must be carefully applied. As outlined in section 47, the cost-effectiveness of the use of the powers must be evaluated through guidelines issued by the minister. We recommend that the information providers, such as the members of the CFI, have input on the development of such guidelines so that the true cost to industry can be realized and cost-effectiveness can be evaluated and the provisions implemented in a harmonized manner.

In summary, the fertilizer business operates responsibly and is important to sustainable development in Canada and worldwide, and fertilizer is key to feeding the world. We appeal to you to consider the integration of these factors in your analysis. Environmental protection and sustainable development really can work together. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Are there any other opening statements?

Mr. Mike Chorlton: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): We will begin with questions by members, starting with my colleague, Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, gentlemen. It's nice to have you here. Thank you for your presentations. They're well done.

Mr. Wilkinson, I'd like to start with your presentation and get to some of the aspects of it. You point out some interesting things. The population of the world is growing rapidly and somehow we've got to be able to feed them. To have the two of you here at the same time is probably good because one will have to lean on the other in order for us to do that.

One group said that you are stewards of the environment. Mr. Wilkinson, you mentioned stewards of the land, and I truly believe that people in the agricultural community indeed do those two functions and do them very well.

I come from an area in southern Alberta that's the intensive livestock feeding capital of Canada, and we have lots of natural fertilizer to deal with. The effect that is having on our area is something we're trying to determine, and it will be done.

One thing I'm interested in is your item five, Mr. Wilkinson, where you have a self-assessing environmental plan. When we get into issuing development permits for people to expand their farms or turn their farms into something more of an industry than a farm, environmental assessments will start to be talked about more and more. If we want to get into a different function for the land, we should do an environmental assessment on all the aspects of that.

• 1600

Are these self-assessments done in conjunction with the development permit or in conjunction with the municipal regulations? How are they used, and what are the criteria for them?

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: The background to date is that they have been used. I'm not sure of the development of them in Alberta. I think every other province has a program in place. I think they have started in Alberta as well.

There are a number of modules, if you have livestock, if you are a cash cropper, and then you would have sections under that. For example, in a livestock operation, the siting of the barns in relationship to streams or natural water courses, the way manure is handled, stored, spread—there is a host of areas there. By going through this booklet, which is quite a substantive item, you would assess, for example, whether the manure storage is too close to water courses, too close to the farm well, whether more days of storage are needed, and you would rate it against an objective rating. It would either be satisfactory, above average, below average, etc. As you work through various items, depending on your farm design and make-up, once you are finished it very clearly shows you... I mean, if you want to lie to yourself in your test, I guess you can, but if you are being honest about it, it very clearly shows you that you have, say, a well siting problem in relationship to manure storage, or the way you are handling it is creating or can create environmental problems. It also gives you some activities to do to improve that.

It's confidential in most provinces where it is in place because it's meant to improve behaviour. Then you put together a package of activities that you want to do on your farm. There's a peer assessment group in your community. The cover page has been taken off so that it doesn't identify the particular farm site. They make assessments on your action for improvement. Some provinces have available some modest grant money to help offset some of the cost of that improvement. This peer group would then make recommendations as to whether your plan of action on your particular farm is suitable and what you're planning to do in the future for future activities.

In our view, it really is phase one of an education, a whole attitude, and changing practices in identifying on your particular farm what needs to be done: fencing from water courses, where to use zero tillage, the slope of your land if you do, erosion problems. There is a host of activities. We view this as a very positive step in recognition of the issue and changing behaviour. It's not as fully developed as you would be talking about. That would be something the municipal bylaws would put in place, and it would be more regulated than what we're advocating at this point.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do you see that peer pressure or peer evaluation is effective?

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Does that bring the non-compliance to bear?

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: I honestly think it does. It won't give action necessarily on farmer X tomorrow. Some common practices that used to be there a number of years ago are non-existent in many areas of the country. It was normal to let your cattle go down and drink from the stream in the past. I would say it is abnormal now in many parts of the country. The norm would be fencing water courses, keeping livestock away from stream banks, and putting in some sort of alternative watering system—something that simple. In a group of beef producers, who pride themselves on being independent and not having anyone push them around, that style of behaviour is normal now.

There are zero-tillage practices to deal with erosion. There is a host of activities. For example, just about every province has recycling systems in place for pesticide containers. They are triple rinsed and returned so that they don't go to landfills and are not dumped on farms. Activities like that have come about because of peer pressure, first through education, a view of a different and better way to do it—involving farm organizations who advocate change is very critical—and then peer pressure, pushing people to suggest at the coffee shop, well, it's kind of windy out today, Joe, and I noticed you were spraying. When you get in the car and drive back home after people have made those comments to you, you start to think that maybe it was a little bit windy and maybe you should have quit at ten o'clock because of spray drift.

It helps. Our view is that it probably goes further than trying to regulate behaviour. That's not saying there won't be individual cases of abusers who will need to be regulated down the road, but I think self-regulation and peer pressure is a very powerful tool.

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

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Is that it?

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes.

• 1605

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Madame Alarie, Mr. Lincoln, and then Mr. Laliberte.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Good afternoon, gentlemen. I've been listening to the different presentations and I have two questions for you. The first concerns harmonization and the second, environmental costs.

I'm interested in the harmonization issue because for several years now in Quebec, we have had a minister who has put us on the right track. The government has very rigorously applied sustainable development measures. Given our production levels, our waterways and our topography, we have no choice but to do our homework. The Quebec Federation of Hog Producers recently developed an environmental plan for its 3,000 farms and compliance is mandatory.

Under the circumstances, I'm wondering how harmonization will be possible, because I get the sense that we have come a long way already. I fail to see how harmonization will work. Above all, the process mustn't result in delays.

Should I put my second question to you as well?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: My second question pertains to environmental costs. I've often wondered about this, particularly as regards animal products. How can we manage to stay competitive with countries that do not comply with environmental standards? Compliance is costly for producers, whether they grow crops or raise animals.

Given the bill's underlying provisions and in light of the upcoming international trade talks, I'm wondering if environmental costs as they relate to farming will be taken into account.

Welcome, Mr. Côté.

Mr. Donald Côté (Director General, Association québécoise des fabricants d'engrais): Good afternoon. As far as harmonization is concerned, you are quite right. We must avoid duplication. We must respect the provinces that have made some efforts in this area, if these are consistent with the provisions of the draft legislation, of course, and there is no reason for them not to be. Clearly, in terms of harmonization between different jurisdictions, the interests of different groups and lawmakers must be taken into account.

We must not lose sight of users, that is the producers who will have to manage these regulations. Clearly, it will take time to inform those who are directly involved by this and to increase awareness of problems, because these aren't always obvious. In agriculture, we deal with various pollution problems which aren't always apparent in the short-term.

As for farming practices, we need to consider the long-term. Awareness and education are very important. Action must be taken at the decision-making level, that is on the farm itself. Obviously, duplication must be avoided.

As for the environmental costs associated with different practices, Canadian legislation is way ahead of the legislation enacted in other countries. Canadians have always been well served by producers' concern for supplying adequate amounts of quality products. Canada is recognized around the world for producing high-quality products. Our exports attest to this fact.

Environmental costs must be borne by all segments of the population. However, the first step is to increase the awareness of the producers themselves, that is the agricultural sector. I'm most familiar with Quebec and I know that it has moved in the right direction.

• 1610

The products that we market either locally or internationally are recognized for their quality and their safety. Therefore, in terms of environmental costs, we are moving in the right direction.

[English]

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

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: I would concur with what has been stated in relation to harmonization. Harmonization doesn't necessarily mean going down to the lowest level and building from there. There are lots of other opportunities, as Quebec has done, to go further than other provinces. I think the point that has been demonstrated in Quebec, for example, is the $300 million that the Quebec government has contributed towards environmental activity to deal with what is perceived as a nutrient management problem. I think that is critical.

In response to your question on the World Trade Organization negotiations, there really is very little in the current state of affairs where producers get paid more than the world price because they have higher environmental standards. In fact, it's the world price that sets the price, and somehow out of your operation you have to find the resources to meet the desire of your local, regional, provincial, and federal governments to have higher standards than really, in many cases, the rest of the world, other than possibly Europe.

I think there is a role for taxpayers through those systems to put in place environmental programs that are going to help those individuals meet those obligations. For example, farm incomes in Canada are at a very low level right now, half of what they were in 1974 and forecasted to go down another 40% in this next year. Pork prices are way below the cost of production. It's very hard to imagine how producers are going to find the resources, without some assistance, to meet very high standards and make changes: longer manure storage, different manure handling systems. All of these things that are very expensive add modestly to the bottom line as far as profitability and incur very large capital expenditures. We are willing to do it, as long as we have some degree of support from our provincial and federal governments, because we know it has to be done.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: That's more or less what I wanted to hear you say. Unless certain measures are taken, it is very difficult for Canadian and Quebec farmers to be competitive.

I have one final question for industry representatives. In recent years, you have undertaken many projects in partnership with farmers. Ultimately, has the industry benefitted or not from this arrangement? Most likely, you have sold fewer metric tonnes of nutrients and chemical fertilizers. What has the outcome been for you?

Mr. Donald Côté: Producers who become involved in projects with us do so because they want the agricultural industry to benefit from this partnership in the long run. Our industry is prepared to absorb a certain loss in terms of tonnage. However, as far as advisory services are concerned, industry experts can truly justify their work and that is beneficial to the industry as a whole.

Moreover, if we can help to resolve a problem in a particular region, such as a surplus of animal waste or manure, by trying to incorporate this surplus into our regular fertilizer system, then so much the better for the industry.

We are accustomed to adapting to situations and we will continue to do so. Our customers and our members, particularly at the retail level, are also involved in other activities. Earlier, I mentioned advisory services and sales of other inputs such as seeds, control products and equipment. Advisory services, which producers increasingly rely on, are greatly appreciated by the industry. Ultimately, everyone wins.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you very much for that.

I have Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Herron, and Mrs. Kraft Sloan on my list. Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. I'll address them to Mr. Larson of the Fertilizer Institute. The first one relates to harmonization.

• 1615

I should mention, because Mr. Côté will probably know, that when I was in Quebec I fought extremely hard for equivalence provisions. I felt that if you had a regulation that had identical provisions and the province could show that it would institute a regulation that was purely equivalent and could enforce it, then we did not need two, and that was put into CEPA in 1988.

I was really struck by one thing in your brief where you say that not only should it be identical provisions but also the equivalence should be based on consideration of performance and intent. What does that mean? Who is going to evaluate consideration of performance and intent? Who is going to decide the level and the standard of it? And aren't you going to build up a system of about 11, 12, or 13 different standards? Intent, of course, can be proven to be very good, but you can have wonderful intent and not perform. And how do you evaluate performance, after it's too late? Provisions are there to prevent bad performance. It seems to me you're going very far. I just wanted to get your sense of it, because I certainly don't understand.

Mr. Roger Larson: Mr. Lincoln, I think I would start by saying that with regard to intent and performance we would be talking about the fact that clean water is clean water, no matter how one develops the regulations that arrive at that end.

We have a federal system in Canada, and under that system the way Alberta regulates a nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing facility may differ from the way Ontario develops its regulations. I'm talking about things such as whether the emission rate is the average daily maximum, the average hourly maximum, or the average weekly limit, which all go into the kinds of regulations that are developed within different provinces. There's a different style of approach within the prairies and within Ontario as to how these regulations are written. Therefore, if you impose a federal system of reporting on these regulations on top of the provincial system, which system is the federal government going to adopt, the same one as Ontario or the same one as Alberta? Depending on which way you do it, one manufacturer or the other is going to be adversely affected by having two styles of reporting systems they have to account for and pay for.

However, neither of these systems will necessarily result in improved performance, in cleaner air or cleaner water. And in fact they will hurt the industry's competitiveness without achieving any improvement. These manufacturing facilities are provincially regulated, and our members do adhere to the provincial regulations in the operations of the manufacturing plants. And that's what we're talking about.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I must say I remain a really strong skeptic. Unless you gear the equivalence provisions on written regulations that can be assessed as being equal in importance and effect, then you're building a system exactly as you say: there will be a different system in Alberta, a different system in Ontario, a different one in Nova Scotia. And depending on the capacity of the province to implement, you're going to have standards that are going to be very varied. This was why CEPA was born in the first place. Anyway, we beg to differ.

There has been talk recently, and the book of Dr. Colborn came out, about endocrine disrupters and the combination of chemical compounds that cause all sorts of health problems. In the United States there are amendments to the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and by August 1999 they will start a screening system of 15,000 chemicals, including fertilizer chemicals, to assess the effects of endocrine disrupters. There has to be a report by the end of 1999. As you may know, the United States set up a special committee, a task force, in 1996 on this very subject.

• 1620

Many of you are affiliates of companies in the United States. Can you tell me how you view this? Should we have a similar provision in Canada? Why shouldn't we have the same provisions in Canada as they have in the United States?

Mr. Roger Larson: Mr. Lincoln, I believe the issue of endocrine disrupters is a very important issue. However, it is one that has very little to do with mineral fertilizers. As far as I am aware, there has been absolutely no identification of fertilizers having any role whatsoever in endocrine disrupters.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Even chemical fertilizers?

Mr. Roger Larson: Everything in this world is a chemical, sir, if you go back to the periodic table.

Perhaps I should have Dr. Stauffer address this question to get further into the science.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just on that point, are you suggesting that the United States, when they decide by law to screen 15,000 chemicals, including many chemicals that are used in fertilizers, is going on a wild goose chase, that it doesn't have enough substance to it in doing this?

Dr. Mark Stauffer: I'll let you say that, sir.

The potash we mine in Canada and sell to farmers is potassium chloride. I believe you know the value of potassium chloride in nutrition. It's a commonly occurring salt. It came about because there were old seas in western Canada that evaporated a millennium ago. That's what we're mining now. It's an admixture of sodium chloride and potassium chloride salts.

The phosphates we use are in fact old dinosaur bones. It's calcium phosphate.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Excuse me for interrupting, Dr. Stauffer. I wasn't addressing my question to you and the phosphate manufacturers. I was addressing my question to Mr. Larson on behalf of the fertilizer institute to find out about chemical fertilizers generally. Surely, fertilizers are not only phosphates, or maybe I'm completely misguided.

Dr. Mark Stauffer: There are sixteen essential nutrients that the plant needs. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are the major ones...calcium, magnesium, sulphur, and then we get into some of the micro-nutrients such as zinc, boron, chloride, and so forth. All of these are naturally occurring in the environment. In our industry, we take them from deposits that occur, refine them, and in some cases make them more available to the plant so that we get quick uptake and they're not left lying around in the environment.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm not a scientist; I'm a layman. I've read what I've read. I've had many discussions with Dr. Colborn. I've met her on several occasions.

What I'm asking is this. Is the whole process now being carried out by the United States of screening 15,000 chemicals, including fertilizers that are registered, for the effects of endocrine disrupters? Should we have the same? You gave me a treatise on how safe pesticides are. I didn't ask that.

Dr. Mark Stauffer: Sorry. I'm talking about chemical fertilizers, sir.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

• 1625

Dr. Mark Stauffer: I don't mean to belabour the point. If the United States would like to test them out, fine and dandy, but I don't think they'll find anything, because they're naturally occurring compounds necessary to every living cell. I can't see that they could be disrupters to the endocrine system.

Mr. Roger Larson: Mr. Lincoln, please don't confuse the pesticides with the fertilizers. They're different industries.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, I understand that.

Mr. Roger Larson: I would be delighted to arrange for a tour of a potash mine or a nitrogen fertilizer facility to describe to you exactly what products we produce, how we produce them, what the potential risks are, and the safety measures we take in order to protect the environment. I could also refer you to publications like Scientific American that talk about the role of ammonia in sustaining the world's 5.9 billion population, and the Haber-Bosch process, which is the fundamental foundation of the ammonia industry. But I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge there is no linkage between endocrine disrupters and the fertilizer industry.

However, the North American fertilizer industry is funding a risk assessment, product by product, of the products we manufacture, and we will be delivering that to our governments as soon as it is prepared, hopefully in another year.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to come back, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I thought you would.

Does the fertilizer industry include Weed N' Feed? Is that a fertilizer or a herbicide?

Mr. Roger Larson: Weed N' Feed is a combination of a pesticide product and a fertilizer product.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): When you're speaking about fertilizers, are you including high-tech hybrids or combinations?

Mr. Roger Larson: No. The Crop Protection Institute will speak about and on behalf of the part of that product that is a pesticide or a weed control product and we will speak on behalf of the plant nutrients that are in that product.

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

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I have a number of questions to the two different groups, maybe starting with the Federation of Agriculture. At the end of your presentation, number 8, you state that the farmers want to be consulted on environmental issues. Has the federation been consulted or involved in the drafting of this CEPA?

Mr. Garth Sundeen: In general we have had the documents available, and we have gone through the process of ensuring that our board of directors is aware of the key provisions. Our brief is based on their comments back to us on that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just taking that into account, in number 1 you make the statement that Canada retain an overarching and broad-based environmental act, and that would be reference to this act. So in terms of the question of harmonization, you feel the federal jurisdiction on environment should be retained, that there should be a strong federal jurisdictional presence in environment.

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: I think there are certain areas the federal government has jurisdiction over and there are other areas that are very clearly within the jurisdiction of provincial governments and different ministries. So our view would be that there are certain defined bilateral agreements, memoranda of understanding, that currently exist that divide up certain areas of jurisdiction, but obviously there will be some areas in which the federal government has jurisdiction and some they don't.

For example, as it applies to biodiversity protocols and other things, if it's trade related it will be within the jurisdiction of the federal government. If it's open waters going into oceans and what not, that obviously, as you know, is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Land use, to a great extent, is provincial jurisdiction.

All we're suggesting here is that there need to be some overall goals within the country as far as environmental activities. When we talk about harmonization and making sure we don't duplicate jurisdictions in various areas, we are then talking about how we concur with the seeds, feeds, and fertilizers acts, for example, and it can work very well within CFIA as far as how it's administered. It would help in setting the regulations. Some of these we view as contractual arrangements or MOUs with provincial jurisdiction.

• 1630

We're not saying that the federal government would in all cases take control over all activities as they relate to the environment, because there are many that are understood by agreement if not by law to be within provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: With regard to that—and I think presenters from the Fertilizer Institute also touched on this point—subclause 2(2) deals with whether other acts are appropriate and sufficient to address this matter. This was brought up earlier in our committee hearings. But this subclause does not deal with what “appropriate and sufficient” means. Is it to environmental safety, to human safety, or to human health? This whole harmonization issue and other acts that pertain to this don't necessarily spell out that it's about the environmental or health interests of Canadians. It may mean financial interests, it may mean economic or international trade interests, but it doesn't spell out that this should be an environmental or human health issue.

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: I would be very surprised if any act of the federal government would spell out that its purpose is economic interest of the industry. I think it's fair to say that the Food and Drugs Act, as well as a number of other acts, has a preamble to it that very clearly refers to the protection of human health, and there is provincial and federal environmental legislation that would show clearly that the intent is the protection of the environment. I'm unaware of any act that spells out that this is clearly in place to protect the commercial interest of private business or farmers. I'm unaware of any of those acts. I'm not trying to be facetious, sir, but I think a lot of the acts we're referring to here do have jurisdictional issues and in the preamble they do talk about their intent, and most of them, I think, are there to protect human health and safety and/or the environment to a great extent.

Mr. Roger Larson: Mr. Laliberte, if I could supplement Jack's comments, subclause 2(2) is kind of the minimum level of clarification that we sought in how industry would be regulated, whether it's the fertilizer industry or agriculture, because we think it's an important principle that the regulatory environment be predictable in terms of long-term development of an industry. Subclause 2(2) calls for the ministers to determine if another act of Parliament is sufficient to regulate an aspect of a product. I concur with Jack's initial comments, and I think that subclause 2(2) does provide that if the Fertilizers Act does not sufficiently address human health, then the ministers would determine how those regulations should be developed in the future, whether it would be under the Foods Act, CEPA, the Fertilizers Act, or some other piece of legislation.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In terms of the preamble of the bill, are both groups aware of the inclusion of the term “precautionary principle”? Because with regard to the statement you made, to my knowledge it would seem that insufficient scientific data or research could cause a continuation of toxins to be released, and the precautionary principle is contrary to that practice. Would you like to comment on the precautionary principle?

Mr. Roger Larson: I think the precautionary principle calls for—and I don't have the subclause in front of me—recognition that you don't always have full scientific knowledge but that you do need scientific knowledge in order to consider how one might want to regulate an industry or a product. It says that it shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. I'm not sure exactly what else you're asking for.

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

• 1635

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Just on that point, we've always advocated—for example, in the World Trade Organization agreements, the UN Protocol on Biodiversity, and a host of areas—that regulations should be science-based with monitoring, appeal, and dispute-settling mechanisms.

I'm not advocating that within that regulation framework—and we have always advocated that it is critically important that domestic law in Canada and internationally be based on science—that in fact does, as best as time can judge, meet the needs of both environmental and human health related issues. For example, products wouldn't be licensed for sale in Canada if they don't go through the regulatory hoops that currently exist.

Our view is that there is no evidence to show that the regulatory framework we currently have—even though it may be housed in other departments and what not—has not met the needs of the consuming population and the environment in general. So that's where we would view the strength to come.

The precautionary principle in some of the international agreements is very difficult to deal with when you move into action on the ground. I'm not trying to be flippant, but it's fair to say that with six billion people out there, you can always have someone who has a concern about what might happen. If the precautionary principle is taken to the extreme, it can to a great extent mean no activity. So our view is that science-based activity is about the best way of dealing with a number of these issues.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Is there anything more? Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm just wondering if any of the witnesses could comment on whether the pesticides aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptaclor, mirex, or toxaphene are used in Canada.

Mr. Donald Côté: I couldn't answer that question. Mark, can you?

Dr. Mark Stauffer: I'll defer to Mr. Côté, but to the best of my knowledge they've all been banned for use in Canada.

Mr. Donald Côté: Could you repeat the list again?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Aldrin.

Mr. Donald Côté: It is not used any more.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Chlordane.

Mr. Donald Côté: There is restricted use.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Dieldrin.

Mr. Donald Côté: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Endrin.

Mr. Donald Côté: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Heptaclor.

Mr. Donald Côté: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mirex.

Mr. Donald Côté: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Toxaphene.

Mr. Donald Côté: No. Those have been banned—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Have those been banned in Canada?

Mr. Donald Côté: Actually, in many cases the registrations have been withdrawn by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Thank you.

I realize from what they've said today that the Canadian Fertilizer Institute is not involved with the issue of endocrine disrupters. But as its constituents do use pesticides, I'm just wondering if the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been following or has been involved with any of the research that's being conducted on endocrine disrupters.

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Not to my knowledge.

Garth is the science person with our group, and from a science point of view I'd just as soon defer to him. I can speak from a policy point of view afterwards. I'll let him go first.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Sure. Thanks.

Mr. Garth Sundeen: We certainly have been following the developments, and people from our office were in attendance at the workshop on that very issue that was held earlier this year, I believe it was, or perhaps last year. In terms of any policy development with regard to their use, we have not undertaken that task as yet. We're still waiting for some of the information to be confirmed and some of the science to be better established.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The Americans and the Europeans have been moving on the issue of endocrine disrupters, so maybe the science has been better established in the United States and Europe. I'm not really sure.

I would think that there would be concern within your constituent base because of the use of pesticides and certainly because other jurisdictions have been moving on these things. There are health issues. There are non-tariff to trade barrier issues around the use of certain things that could possibly have an effect on the endocrine disruptance. I was just curious as to where the CFA was on this issue.

• 1640

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Further to Garth's point, there are many issues about which we're quite happy for work to be done in other jurisdictions in the initial stages. I'm certainly not making a value judgment on whether the federal government should get into work in that area.

If problems are found within plant protection material in relationship to environment and human health, we have never tried to stop those products from being de-listed or taken off the market. We are very strong advocates, have been and always will be, of a very strong regulatory framework in which human health and safety is judged.

As producers, we do not have the resources. As the CFA, we do not have the resources to do analysis on those sorts of issues. We have eight people in total on everything from farm safety to trade to whatever, and we advocate a regulatory framework to look at those issues. If they should come up for re-evaluation, we've always advocated that re-evaluations where appropriate should be part of any pest management regulatory agency.

All we want to do is move much more aggressively than we have in the past to share data between jurisdictions so that we can have the resources at a price we can afford in a Canadian context.

If there are any problems that arise out of this work that's being done under other jurisdictions, we'll deal with them at that time. I'm sure those products will come up for re-appraisal, if there are some identified that are at risk. All we want to do is find other products so that our producers don't become uncompetitive in the marketplace on the food production side of things.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Sorry for the confusion here. We are just deciding if we have to vote, but I think it's been deferred to 5.30 p.m.

I have a question that our esteemed researcher has asked me to ask.

The Canadian Fertilizer Institute wants an explicit primacy clause respecting nutrients that would give agriculture and agri-food primacy. In part 7, division 1, “nutrients” seems to be limited to the regulation of nutrients in cleaning products and water conditioners. The question is, isn't this satisfactory? Is the institute involved with the production of water conditioners and cleaning products?

What's the clause number?

Ms. Monique Hébert (Committee Researcher): It's division 1 of part 7 of the bill. It deals with nutrients. The prohibition is in clause 117, whereas the regulatory authority is in clause 118.

Mr. Roger Larson: I'm not familiar with the clauses, but I think I can answer your question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Maybe we can get you a copy of the language.

Mr. Roger Larson: As a matter of fact, our members do manufacture water conditioning products. Norm might want to address that question.

Mr. Norm Beug: It depends on what you're speaking about in terms of water conditioning. I'm speaking specifically about water softening. The agent of choice is usually sodium chloride for water softening. The potash industry does market potassium chloride for water softening as well. It's a substitute material. Instead of using sodium ion for reconditioning the resins, you're using potassium. That's the extent that I'm aware of any conditioning agents.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We had the cleaning products manufacturers in front of us and they wanted the provision taken out. They wanted the qualification taken out.

Mr. Roger Larson: If you took that qualification out, then I would suggest that we would be seeking something like subclauses 106(6) and (7), which occur in the biotechnology section, to be added to the nutrients section in order to clarify and provide regulatory predictability for the fertilizer industry.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Can you just remind me what those sections are?

• 1645

Mr. Roger Larson: I could pull them out and read them to you. They're a clarification of how regulation will take place under the biotechnology section.

Incidentally, the water softening products that Norm was describing are what would be called environmentally friendly water cleaning substances. That is essentially potash fertilizer. It minimizes risk to water bodies compared to the conventional alternative.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Can I just stop you for a minute.

Madame Girard-Bujold, did you want to jump in?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I would like to comment on this clause.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I didn't get the translation from Madame Girard-Bujold's question.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The witness referred to subclause 106 (6). I'd like to know what changes he would like to see in the bill.

[English]

Mr. Roger Larson: We have two things we're discussing here. Norm, do you want to address the first one?

Mr. Norm Beug: The only other point I wanted to make on the water conditioning issue is that it's also a health issue, as my colleague pointed out. The reason people use potassium chloride for water softening as opposed to sodium chloride in some areas is that there are people who are sodium sensitive and who have a diet that requires they reduce their sodium intake. In a lot of jurisdictions the water is so hard that it has to be softened before people can drink it. So potassium chloride is the substitute for health reasons in that situation.

Mr. Roger Larson: To complete the answer on the removal of the qualification on cleaning products in the nutrients section, if you look at subclause 106(7) it says:

(7) For the purposes of the administration of this section, the minister responsible for administration of another Act of Parliament referred to in paragraph 6(a) is responsible for determining that the requirements referred to in that paragraph are met.

I would suggest that if you added that to the nutrients section it would clarify the regulatory boundaries of the Fertilizers Act, and it would be very explicit as to what is in the nutrients section of CEPA and what is in the Fertilizers Act. That would provide total regulatory clarity.

There are questions, if you look at the nutrients section—for example, in the description of laboratory standards—as to exactly how laboratory standards should be described, whether it's under the Fertilizers Act, which regards nutrients as the beneficial aspect of the product, or CEPA, which addresses nutrients from a different perspective because they are for a different purpose.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you. Is there a supplementary there?

Ms. Monique Hébert: I'm just wondering why you feel Agri-Food Canada would be in a better position to regulate these water conditioner products and cleaning agents than would Environment Canada.

Mr. Roger Larson: I'm sorry, but that's not what we're saying. What we're saying—

Ms. Monique Hébert: Aren't you asking for primacy where Agriculture Canada would take precedence?

Mr. Roger Larson: I don't think Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would define itself as a regulator of cleaning products and water conditioning products. However, I think it would describe itself as a department responsible for the regulation of agricultural fertilizers.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I have Mr. Lincoln on a second round.

I'm advised that the bells will ring at 5.15 p.m. for a vote at 5.30.

• 1650

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Larson and Mr. Stauffer, I don't want to have a debate on scientific knowledge. You would be far more knowledgeable than I am. I am a layman in that field. At the same time, I would like to have clarity as to what I'm asking about.

Mr. Stauffer, you seem to describe the fertilizer products as being completely natural. I took it from your reply and the smile on your lips that you felt it was a silly question to even suggest that they could be toxic. Yet CEPA is dealing with toxic substances, so maybe we shouldn't have invited you at all.

Could I ask you, are any fertilizers dealt with by your institute toxic or potentially toxic? Am I stupid to understand that phosphorous going into water, or zinc in some capacity, can produce problems? Aren't the people who have written about endocrine disrupters saying we don't know, but there's a combination there: phosphorous, zinc, all these things get into the water and cause all sorts of problems, and we are seeing some effects, so let's study them.

Is it fair to assume that there is potentially a problem there? I don't say that it is purely the fertilizer industry; I never said that. I know it could be other chemicals. I'm saying could fertilizers be involved.

Dr. Mark Stauffer: I didn't mean by indicating that... Having been a teacher for a number of years, I've always told my students there is never a stupid question, but there are plenty of stupid answers. I hope I didn't impugn either one of us, Mr. Lincoln.

To our knowledge, the fertilizers are not, when used properly... Let me back up a bit. Anything and everything can be toxic. Water, in that essence, can be toxic when you're in the middle of a great lake and don't know how to swim. You can get enough of it that it does kill you. Anything overdone has its boundaries.

Our industry has done a tremendous amount of work to figure out how to use these nutrients responsibly in agriculture, so that there is a sustainable element to the industry.

Now, to go specifically to your question, as I say, there can be toxicities if one takes it to the extreme. When we are using the ammonia compounds, they can be toxic. But we do have procedures and precautions and use instructions. We have people trained to use them appropriately. And we are moving along that line in our industry in terms of training and training and training people so that we are constantly looked after and the individuals who are applying them are looked after.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was asking all these things to follow up on Mr. Laliberte's question, which is at the nub of what we're trying to do in CEPA. Many of us see CEPA as a horizontal type of legislation; that is, they are really the arbiter, the neutral body that will study what these things do from the point of view of environment and health. This is why these two ministers are involved.

If you look at clause 2, we are talking about exactly what Mr. Larson referred to before. If you look at subclause 2(2), it says that—

Mr. Roger Larson: The two ministers will consult.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It says:

...the minister responsible for the other Act will jointly determine whether the measures that can be taken under the other Act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.

• 1655

In effect, this gives a veto right to the specific minister, you might say, and CEPA loses its quality of an overarching and overriding act. Many of us feel that this arbiter position is essentially important, because the specific ministries will tend to defend their parish, so to speak.

Do you see this as an improvement? There have been suggestions by witnesses who appeared before us yesterday or the day before that this be amended by saying something to the effect of if the other act is as stringent as CEPA, and with the consent of the environment minister, so that CEPA retains its function as a sort of arbiter legislation. Would you have any objection to some amendment like this?

Mr. Roger Larson: The short answer would be yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Jack Wilkinson.

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Thank you very much.

I think there's a possibility of looking for a problem here when a problem doesn't exist. I've been the president of CFA for nearly six years and have been involved in farm organizations for some time. I don't think that in the last number of years we can make a case, at least not from my background, where the Minister of Agriculture has intervened on behalf of agriculture in these acts that are in place and under his jurisdiction to defend the interests of agriculture above the interests of consumers.

It's fair to say that even within a number of the acts that are within the jurisdiction, for example, of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is now even further removed from any control of the Minister of Agriculture and has almost a single agency status, which reports back to Parliament in its operations... Many of even those regulations as they apply to human health are made within the Department of Health exclusively. It's the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that is to regulate, administer, and monitor. Because of the history of the particular legislation, they are making sure that food does not have any of these residues or does not have this or that, but all the regulations have been set within the Ministry of Health.

What is there that shows that we have a problem that needs to fixed? I'm not being flippant about that.

I was around in the last set of hearings where cases were made that CEPA needed to take over to a greater extent the jurisdiction and the activity of a number of these acts because there was a problem. I saw absolutely no evidence that came forward in that last round of hearings in front of this committee that showed there was any evidence of a problem. Nor have I seen any evidence a number of years later to show that there was any evidence.

In fact, in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency they're bringing one piece of legislation in that will replace I believe about 16 different acts, which will be a food act and which will put further predominance on the food and safety aspect of the consumer, even though they will continue to regulate the separate acts. They will be pulled together in groups, which I think will even further alleviate anybody's concern of any control by the minister.

From our point of view, you have an agency that has 4,500 people in it that has a history of bringing the departments of health, agriculture and fisheries together to have an operating structure that in fact is more efficient, more streamlined, and has more communication interdepartmentally. Those problems of the past disappear, if there were any, as far as efficiencies, under deputy minister status, as far as the person in charge, in which they are going to amalgamate all these acts and regulations.

I just don't see why regulatory authority should be taken out of that group and handed to anybody else, creating another structure, which will in fact be duplicating activities of various provincial ministries and in fact two or three other federal ministries. I guess that's my point.

I'm not being defensive of the Minister of Agriculture and the CFIA. We have lots of running battles with them. I just do not see, from our point of view, the case that can be made to prove that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Okay, thank you.

I understand that a few of the witnesses have to leave to catch a plane, so please feel free to excuse yourselves if you have to take off. Otherwise, we can entertain a couple of questions before the bells ring at 5.15.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): I just want to make sure we have time to deal with this issue.

• 1700

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Yes, we should do that.

If there are no further questions, we have some business in the committee. Do you want to do one quick one, Mr. Casson?

Mr. Rick Casson: Just one short one.

This has been asked of most witnesses to date. You mentioned in your briefs the issue of consultation. Have you to date been brought in to be consulted or asked your opinion on CEPA by the department?

Mr. Jack Wilkinson: Not by the department. We've had available the draft pieces the same as everyone else has. We've made comment, whether desired or not. We've been here in front of the committee as really the first level. We've had not a great deal of opportunity, as Garth answered the question previously, to consult other than seeing the draft information, reading it, asking questions of the department and making comment back.

As far as a very extensive consultation process with this particular department, I would say it would be less than many other pieces of legislation that would impact us would be. I'm not saying we've not had any, but it's been modest.

Mr. Roger Larson: We've participated in a round-table discussion or consultation session on this legislation, and we were made to understand by the individuals involved that there was a similar discussion session taking place with environmental groups on another day. That's pretty much the extent of the discussions.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Thank you very much. I thank the witnesses for appearing before us.

We have some committee stuff to do internally. We have a very short time in which to attend to this matter. I believe each of you has a copy. As we haven't had the 24-hour notice, we first of all need to have unanimous consent of all of us to address this matter. Do we have unanimous consent to address this issue?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): Okay. We need a mover. Do we have a mover for this motion, now that you've read it? We have to have a mover on the floor before we can discuss it.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I will, if no one is going to. Is this the researcher one?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to study it and come back next week. Do we have to decide today?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): No, I don't believe so. It has all sort of arrived very quickly. We have meetings next week, so that's just fine, we'll entertain it again next week.

• 1705

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Who's the sponsor of this?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bill Gilmour): It's Mr. Caccia's idea.

We will table this until next week for further discussion.

The meeting is adjourned.