Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 22 - Evidence, August 31, 1999 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, August 31, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-32, respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development, met this day at 1:38 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, we will resume our hearings on Bill C-32. We have with us this afternoon a delegation from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.
Welcome, and please proceed.
Mr. Mark A. Nantais, President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators.
I should like to begin my comments simply by outlining a little bit about our involvement and our views with respect to Bill C-32. For those of you who are not familiar with the CVMA, we are the industry association representing Canada's largest manufacturers of both light- and heavy-duty vehicles. Together, CVMA member companies produce about 90 per cent of all vehicles in Canada. We are major employers, obviously.
As major employers, we are also major investors. In the last decade, the big three automakers have invested close to $23 billion.
We are indeed vital to the health and the stability of the Canadian economy. We are one of the most strategic business sectors, and we are the single biggest contributor to the manufacturing GDP of Canada, at 12 per cent.
As an association, we create the framework within which member companies work together to achieve shared industry objectives on issues such as consumer protection, energy, the environment, and, of course, vehicle safety. Bill C-32 is a most important issue for us and it is one on which all our members speak collectively.
To place our comments in context, it is important to note that the principles of the Auto Pact have permitted free trade in the auto industry since 1965 and have accounted for the development of a significant and very successful automotive industry in Canada, which includes both assemblers and parts makers. These principles were entrenched in the North American Free Trade Agreement, enabling the auto industry to utilize the entire North American market to drive technological change or advances more quickly and more broadly across the larger market.
That has resulted in an auto industry which is highly integrated and rationalized, both in Canada and in the United States, and compels the industry to pursue a manufacturing and product strategy which makes environmental as well as economic sense. That is very important to us.
We have been participating in the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since the beginning, back in 1994. As it stands at present, this bill is lengthy, at 234 pages. It is complex, and it could be subject to interpretation and even possible litigation in several areas. It is by no means perfect. CVMA has identified a number of issues with CEPA during those consultations and today we wish to highlight the recent improvements to the fuels and motor vehicle provisions, as well as two other key areas where improvements to the bill should be considered.
I will begin by addressing the fuels and vehicle emissions sections. Automakers have reduced smog-causing emissions by as much as 99 per cent, but vehicle emission performance is a function of both vehicle emission control hardware and the quality of the fuel consumed.
While automakers are now in the process of bringing the eighth generation of emission control technology to market, there has been very little improvement in the environmental quality of fuels for more than 25 years. The CVMA strongly supports the inclusion in the bill of the authority to regulate fuels in recognition that the emission control technology simply cannot move forward without appropriate fuels being readily available in the marketplace.
The effective operation, performance or introduction of current and future emission control technologies, and the anticipated environmental benefits, such as improved air quality, cannot be achieved without recognizing this fundamental relationship between technology and fuels. CEPA has more effectively empowered regulators in this regard, but even that could be improved. In other words, Mr. Chairman, we welcome the changes that have been proposed to those sections of the act.
The second item on which I wish to comment is that of public participation. The bill includes provisions with respect to public participation. Clauses 22 to 38 of the bill provide for environmental protection actions whereby an individual may sue for harm to the environment. The "environmental protection action" duplicates existing provincial laws and common law rights of individuals and may serve to encourage frivolous litigation without improved protection of the environment.
To ensure that these provisions are used to protect the environment, and to minimize the costly litigious approach in the United States, we are recommending that a number of safeguards be incorporated to provide greater clarity regarding the application of these provisions. CVMA has suggested that certain provisions be improved along the following lines.
First, a five-year limitation should be included. After this time period, it is unlikely that such an action will result in effective environmental protection.
Second, we recommend that the defences be expanded to include compliance with provincial laws, regardless of whether a federal-provincial agreement has been completed. Where there may be conflicting federal and provincial legislation, protection of the environment would be better served by federal-provincial cooperation in dialogue rather than litigation.
Third, the government should be a mandatory party to such actions. Environmental protection would best be served by ensuring that the government is a participant in any such actions and, therefore, in a position to take any required action to improve environmental protection based on the results of such actions.
Fourth, we recommend a bar to class actions. Such actions encourage a costly, litigious approach.
Fifth, environmental protection actions should be limited to federal resources. The right to sue with respect to damage to private property as a result of an alleged contravention may in itself be subject to abuse and undue interference in a person's private property. Environmental protection of a private resource is better served by effective government enforcement rather than costly litigation.
The next item on which I want to briefly comment is that of waste shipments to the United States. With respect to waste shipments, the bill should encourage the use of the most environmentally effective disposal practices, whether in the United States or Canada, with the end goal of protecting the environment on a North American basis.
It is important to note that the United States has state-of-the-art, specialized waste management and disposal facilities which are fully compliant with their environmental laws and which are at least as stringent as ours in Canada.
Clause 188 of the bill enables the minister to require exporters to submit and implement a plan for reducing or phasing out the export of hazardous waste or prescribed non-hazardous waste. This provision implies that exporters of waste are not managing their wastes as responsibly as non-exporters. This creates a barrier to free-market access to facilities that can best handle a particular waste.
In many cases, the reason for export is the absence of suitable alternatives or technologies in Canada. Moreover, Canada already has a bilateral agreement with the U.S. with the necessary regulatory support to ensure that wastes are properly managed. We suggest that improvements are needed to clause 188(1).
In closing, Mr. Chairman, not only do I want to say that we certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear here today, but I want to acknowledge that this bill has undergone extensive review and deliberation over the last six years. We have been part of that throughout the whole process. Not only have we appreciated that, but we feel it has offered the opportunity for very healthy debate.
In the private sector, however, timely decisions need to be made so that business plans and strategies can be developed with some level of certainty. Continuing with the review of CEPA detracts from the certainty needed by our industry to make decisions so that industry can move ahead with the job of not only protecting the environment but contributing to the Canadian economy.
Today, we are urging that the committee ensure that the practical aspects of the bill are maintained and to recognize that the environmental and economic considerations must be balanced.
The Chairman: Near the end of your brief you make a plea for certainty and an overall plea to stay away from litigation. Do you agree that if the legislation before us today is ambiguous or uncertain it should be examined in that context to avoid the litigation from which you said you wished to stay away?
Mr. Nantais: Mr. Chairman, while the bill has those weaknesses and we would like to avoid those areas of contention, we are at a point where we must move on. The certainty that we require for business decisions is part of any legislation or regulatory regime in which we have to operate. We need that certainty to make the decisions to move forward, whether it be on vehicle product or whether it be on our manufacturing operations.
Obviously, if it is possible to improve the bill at this point in time, we would like to see those improvements. However, if we are to enter into a long, protracted process to make those further changes, then we would ask you to consider the value of that process relative to those areas of uncertainty or weakness.
The Chairman: Are you of the school, like the Chamber of Commerce yesterday, that is in this category of legislative exhaustion? In other words, you have been at it for six years. You are tired of it and you want to get on with life. You will take it, warts and all.
Mr. Nantais: We probably do suffer from exhaustion, not just with regard to this bill, but in some other areas that you mentioned at the outset of the session today. It does not mean that we should not move ahead.
The Chairman: If certainty could be brought to the bill in areas where many have told us it is uncertain, would that not be preferable to having to deal with uncertainty?
Mr. Nantais: I suppose that is always preferable.
The Chairman: For example, concerning the terminology of the bill, what interpretation do you put on the term "cost-effective," which is not defined in the bill? Obviously, it is pretty important as a component of the precautionary principle. What do you think "cost-effective" means in this bill? You had better talk to your lawyers about that one.
Mr. Nantais: I am not sure she wants to answer it, either.
The Chairman: Some court somewhere will define it unless we define it here. What is meant? Are you not concerned about such an important clause going undefined?
Ms Lisa Kozma, Legal Counsel, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association: We are concerned about a number of the uncertainties in the bill. Our concern is to obtain certainty. However, what would be the cost of obtaining certainty? How many more years would it take to achieve that certainty?
Our fear at this stage is that to do that would take away from the achievements that are in this bill. Therefore, perhaps we are willing to live with a little bit of uncertainty in exchange for the improvements that you have made in the fuels provisions, for example.
The Chairman: With the greatest of respect, it seems that you want two opposing things, Mr. Nantais. On one hand, you are telling us that in public participation, you want to do whatever you can in order to avoid litigation, so please amend those clauses. On the other hand, you want certainty, and even though you know there will be litigation, you will accept that wording there but you do not want it in the public participation clauses. Perhaps I am not being fair, but that is what it sounds like to me.
Ms Kozma: We are trying to deal with two specific questions. First of all, there is the general question, which you led into at the beginning, of our general view of the bill. Mr. Nantais has already explained that we feel that the bill could be improved. However, after having gone through such a protracted process, our position was similar to the Chamber of Commerce in that there are a number of positive things in this bill and as a result, we support it. If we are looking at the specifics of the bill, or at opening up the entire bill, we have a number of concerns, and we will raise those. That does not mean that we are advocating a complete re-haul.
Mr. Nantais: Mr. Chairman, you have asked some very tough questions. It is hard to explain that we want something in one section and not in another. We look at it in terms of what it means in practice and what it means in the real world. There are some areas where we may be willing to take a greater risk of litigation than in other areas. The area of public participation, however, is one that is particularly problematic for us, and is one with a much higher risk. I am not sure I can go beyond that at this point.
Senator Nolin: You made a recommendation on page 3 of your brief. It talks about public participation, more in the environmental protection area.
In the first paragraph of that section, you are saying that it would encourage frivolous litigation.
Why do you use such a tough word as "frivolous"?
Ms Kozma: Frivolous is a tough word, but we are looking at the United States experience where you can often get lawsuits that are not brought with the intention of protecting the environment. They are perhaps brought for another purpose. They are using the environment as the podium on which to bring other actions. We have not had that type of a society in Canada to date.
Our concern is that we would like to maintain the Canadian approach to litigation, as opposed to encouraging the historic American approach, which is, if you have a concern, then sue.
Senator Nolin: I would agree with you if it were an open-ended right for anybody to sue the minister. However, if we are talking only about clause 22, it is very narrow.
First, the minister is asked, because it follows clause 17. Let us say that an individual of more than 18 years of age is complaining to the minister. The minister can decide not to investigate, or he may investigate and file a report.
After that, the individual can push the minister into action. That is very narrow. We are not talking about suing for all kinds of reasons. Are you maintaining your objection that litigation could be "frivolous"?
Ms Kozma: You have to read this provision in the context of the type of property environmental damage for which an individual can sue. It is beyond public property. The definition of environmental damage extends to environmental damage to private property, and that is where we have this concern that an issue may be avoided. The ministry may not feel it has a role with respect to private property for whatever reason. Individuals may, nonetheless, continue to pursue that type of action.
Senator Nolin: But the matter will come before a judge, who can decide if an action is frivolous. Are you still afraid of that?
Ms Kozma: It is still time consuming. Even if you are ultimately vindicated, you have spent tremendous time and resources going through the process.
Mr. Nantais: It also damages your credibility.
Senator Hays: Would you comment further on the provisions of the legislation that deal with what I would call reformulated fuels, vehicle engine and equipment emissions? We will be hearing later today from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. I want to take this opportunity to ask for further comment on why this is a good section, particularly in light of the fact that the Minister of the Environment has called for what I would call a reformulation of fuels, in any event. That will go ahead. Why is this an important step forward?
Mr. Nantais: This is an important step forward on several counts. Let us look at what we had to deal with in terms of trying to get changes to either fuel formulations, or in the case of MMT, some restriction on the intentional addition of metals as gasoline additives. The current CEPA is very limited in its ability to regulate either one of those, given its framework and given the criteria that is used or is available to make changes to fuel formulations. It is primarily, although not entirely, based on the premise of the ability to demonstrate health effects.
We think that the changes to the new CEPA are beneficial. First, it provides greater scope to regulate both the constituents of the fuel, as well as additives to the fuel, on the basis of their ability to impair the proper operation of emission control equipment. That is something that is very weak in the current bill.
It is very important to us for the government to be able to regulate fuels in the absence of voluntary action on the part of the petroleum industry. It is important to regulate fuels for some of the advantages to the emission control systems that we anticipate bringing to market for a couple of very significant reasons. One is to ensure that we obtain the improvements to air quality that are attainable by virtue of some this technology. In other words, we are producing vehicles that are capable of reducing emissions to a greater level but are not doing so in the real world because they are not getting the appropriate fuel.
It is also important that we be able to regulate additives. In our opinion, and others disagree, certain additives have a detrimental impact on the vehicle emissions systems performance. It is important to be able to regulate those aspects of fuel.
Again, equally important, is the fact that some of these technologies are not only cleaner technologies, they are more fuel-efficient technologies. We have technologies right now that we would like to bring into Canada, but we cannot do so because we do not have the proper fuel quality.
I am thinking of technologies such as direct injection gasoline engines, which are cleaner and more fuel efficient and available in certain countries around the world. But because of the current absence of low-sulphur fuel; for instance, we will not bring those into Canada at present.
The bill provides the basis on which we can provide the technology that we are planning to bring into Canada, and the technology that I think the government would like to see in terms of emission standards and fuel efficiency. Those are all the reasons why we see major improvements here in terms of the ability to regulate fuels.
It is equally important to be able to regulate fuels for technologies that could ultimately be denied in Canada. I am thinking of fuel cells, which require virtually zero sulphur. I am speaking of non-conventional technologies, such as non-combustion engines. If we do not get fuel requirements in terms of non-combustion technologies, we may not see those advances in Canada as quickly as elsewhere. That is why it is so important to us.
Senator Hays: Following up on Senator Nolin's questions, you asked for a bar to class actions, although I do not know that you are asking for that in this legislation.I guess you are with respect to the part dealing with public participation. Those are available under defined circumstances in any event. It seems like a rather large thing to be requesting for inclusion in the CEPA bill.
Ms Kozma: That request is based on what exists in the current Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. As you are probably aware, the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights was developed by consensus between business and government. One of the conclusions reached by that group of entities was that class actions might not be appropriate for environmental-type actions. This is particularly true in the context of CEPA, which goes beyond the Environmental Bill of Rights. The bill of rights applies only to public resources, whereas this bill extends to private resources. A class action is appropriate only if you are dealing with environmental damage to private resources that are owned by a particular individual.
Senator Hays: I am not aware of that. Perhaps you could state for the record the rationale for not having class actions in environmental areas. I heard what you said, but I am not sure that I am convinced by it.
Ms Kozma: I did not participate in that coalition group. I only know that it is one of the compromises that that organization reached, because there is a bar in the existing Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights.
Senator Spivak: I should like you to comment on emission control technology. Going back to the MMT bill in terms of additives, were you not supposed to have already introduced the eighth generation of emission technology? Has that been delayed because of the MMT case?
Mr. Nantais: We will continue to follow through with our commitments. The level of technology that we are at now is what we call the low-emission vehicle technology. This gives us the 99 per cent plus reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. That does not mean that we are not concerned. It does not mean that these vehicles are not at risk. We made a commitment to bring this technology into Canada and we intend to follow through on that commitment. That is why we remain so adamant on the need for appropriate fuel quality.
Senator Spivak: I understand that, but I thought the timeline had passed when this technology was supposed to be here. Am I wrong about that?
Mr. Nantais: Assuming that we are speaking of the same technology, the timeline has not passed. We agreed that we would start to introduce that technology as we speak and that it would be fully implemented across the board in the year 2001. We are presently at what we call a Tier I technology. Tier I is that which essentially complies with the 1998 emission standards.
Senator Spivak: Those cars are produced already, are they not, with the new emissions technology?
Mr. Nantais: Tier I technology is introduced, yes.
Senator Spivak: The ones that you are supposed to introduce in 2001 have not come off the production line yet?
Mr. Nantais: Some of those vehicles are now entering the market.
Senator Spivak: In other countries, but not in Canada?
Mr. Nantais: Some low-emission vehicles are now entering the Canadian market.
Senator Spivak: Will the 2001 technology also deal with the sulphur problem, or is that not the same timetable?
Mr. Nantais: We must recognize two things. First, every vehicle operates more cleanly and more efficiently with low-sulphur fuel. The low-emission vehicles, which we hope to have 100 per cent in place in the model year 2001, require low sulphur; 30 to 80 parts per million sulphur in order to operate as designed. While the government made the right decision in terms of what is necessary on fuel quality, we have objected to the timing. We believe that the timing should be coincidental with the introduction of the technology in 2001. It would be commendable if some refinery stepped forward voluntarily to do that.
Senator Spivak: Am I correct that in 2001 you will have the proper emission technology for dealing with sulphur?
Mr. Nantais: It is kind of twisted around. The technology that we are putting on vehicles is not intended to deal with sulphur. It requires low sulphur in order to operate as it is designed and provide its optimum emission reductions. Without it, the emission reductions will not be there.
Senator Spivak: Am I correct that if you had this low-sulphur fuel you would be complying with the new regulations that the Government of Canada has now promulgated?
Mr. Nantais: If we get the fuels, they will deliver the emission reductions as designed. Compliance is another issue altogether. Requirements exist to meet a certain emissions standard after 80,000 miles. Whether we will meet that or not is questionable in the absence of appropriate fuels.
Senator Spivak: I understand how important it is to get the fuels.
Does this emission technology to reduce smog emissions by 99 per cent stack up to the technology in California?
Mr. Nantais: The technology that will be on these vehicles is very similar to California technology.
Senator Spivak: Does the United States have the proper fuel to deal with that?
Mr. Nantais: In the state of California, they have the fuel now. From what we can determine at this time, the regulatory process in the United States has made it quite clear that they will be moving to 30-80 sulphur, beginning in 2004.
Senator Spivak: I understand that the refineries are multinationals. If they have to produce something in the United States, why would they not produce it here, with or without legislation?
Mr. Nantais: Perhaps you should ask the CPPI that question when it presents.
Senator Buchanan: I have a supplementary question on MMT, which we discussed in this room.
At the time, as I recall, the CVMA, along with the vehicle manufacturers who were present here, said that if MMT was not banned, warranties on 1999 vehicles might be withdrawn. Have the warranties been withdrawn, because MMT is not banned?
Mr. Nantais: The whole warranty issue is a competitive one. It is one we do not discuss under the umbrella of the CVMA. That is governed by individual company policy. I am sure we could line up some people to speak with you directly about that relative to their own companies.
Senator Buchanan: It has not been withdrawn. I wondered why in two years it was going to be withdrawn if MMT was not banned. MMT has not been banned, but the warranties are still there.
Mr. Nantais: No one likes to make the customer the meat in the sandwich. We want to ensure that all of our customers remain satisfied customers.
Senator Buchanan: I was opposed to the banning of MMT.
Mr. Nantais: We appreciated that.
Senator Buchanan: Someone said that I should be on the other side, given what happened to the big Volvo plant in Halifax that I helped open. It is closed now, but not because of MMT.
Mr. Nantais: In all seriousness, steps were taken to make customers aware in every owner's manual of the problems that we see with MMT. Each manufacturer made it very clear that these vehicles were not designed to run on fuels containing MMT. Obviously, no one wants to put the customer in the middle, as I have said.
The Chairman: Mr. Hansen, on that point, Chrysler did not void their warranties because of MMT, did they?
Mr. Paul Hansen, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Facility Engineering, DaimlerChrysler Canada, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association: I do not believe so. I believe there is a statement in our warranty manual.
The Chairman: What does the statement say?
Mr. Hansen: The statement says that the warranties may be voided.
The Chairman: But they never were voided, were they?
Mr. Hansen: No, they never were.
Senator Taylor: You raised the issue of waste shipments to the U.S. I do not see how this bill hurts that issue because subclause 191(g) refers to "the benefit of using the nearest appropriate disposal facility" even if it is in the United States. You referred to clause 188 as stopping the export of hazardous waste. My interpretation of clause 191 is that it deals with the best technology, and we can go whichever way we want.
Mr. Blake Smith, Director, Environment, Energy and Vehicle Safety, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association: This clause requires the exporter to prepare and submit a plan for the elimination of those exports. That is pretty straightforward. It is a requirement to stop doing it over a period of time.
Senator Taylor: I do not think so. Clause 191(g) refers to the benefit of the nearest facility, even if it is a U.S. facility. I think you quit reading the bill after clause 188. If you go on to clause 191(g), it answers the question. I simply think you did not read on far enough in the bill. I think you get what you want later on in the bill.
Mr. Smith: I am reminded here that clause 191 only applies to regulations.
Senator Taylor: That is what we are talking about, is it not?
Ms Kozma: This is our interpretation of the bill, and we obviously are taking a very cautious approach, since we have concerns about anything that may affect our ability to dispose of the waste most appropriately.
Under clause 188, our concern is that one could be required to submit and then implement a plan for phasing out or getting rid of hazardous waste or prescribed non-hazardous waste. However, when we go to clause 191, these are only regulations respecting the type of plan that they may want. These plans are supposed to take into account the benefit of using the nearest appropriate disposal facility, but they may also take into account a number of other factors. That is just one thing that will be considered when those regulations are enacted. That does not guarantee that one would still be able to obtain the best technology. The benefit of using the nearest appropriate disposal facility is only one factor. We may not be interested in the nearest facility. A more distant facility may have the best technology available.
Senator Taylor: I think that is true, but there is also a change in the quantity of goods. There are a number of factors. This gives you not a cornucopia, but almost a Safeway aisle of choice as to where you can get rid of your hazardous waste.
Mr. Smith: It would mean a large amount of work to allow us to use our own facilities. From a stewardship point of view, in our particular business where we own our own disposal facilities, it makes sense for us when we do not have any other choice but to keep them under our ownership. We could well be prohibited from doing that in this circumstance.
Senator Taylor: I do not think you would be prohibited unless there was some evidence that, like our refineries, you were using equipment that is 75 years old when there is new stuff out there.
Because I am in the oil and gas business, Senator Buchanan asked me about the lack of good gasoline. When you have only three or four refiners and not much competition, there is no real need to retool your refineries.
The Chairman: Mr. Nantais, I was surprised that you would object to that, recognizing that many people out there do not have the sophistication or financial resources of our major auto dealers, whom we must also control. All we ask for is a filed plan. If the plan is reasonable, I cannot imagine that the department would say, "No, you cannot use your own site."
We must be concerned with smaller organizations that may not have facilities as sophisticated as your own. I find it surprising that you would find those sections of the bill objectionable, Mr. Nantais. I do not understand.
Mr. Smith: You have to remember that the plan is to eliminate the export. We are already filing plans.
In order to export now, under the existing regulatory framework of CEPA, we must file notices. We have to have insurance guarantees. There is a complex set of regulations that comply with the Basel Convention, which Canada signed, and the bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S. on the import and export of waste. All of the hazardous waste that currently crosses the border between Canada and the U.S. is governed by existing regulatory requirements. The plans mentioned in the new CEPA are plans for the elimination of those exports.
The Chairman: Where do you see the word "elimination"? I am missing something here.
Mr. Smith: "Phasing out" and "reducing" are the terms used.
The Chairman: What clause are we talking about?
Mr. Smith: We are referring to clause 188, and the words are "for the purpose of reducing or phasing out the export."
Senator Taylor: Does that not refer to creating hazardous waste, rather than getting rid of it?
Mr. Smith: It does not deal with the generation of hazardous waste at all.
Senator Taylor: If you go on to clause 191, it seems to me that they have prepared a fence full of holes for you to get around it.
Mr. Nantais: We do not see it that way.
Ms Kozma: We are not sure why we need the fence to begin with.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Smith. I understand your point now, although I may not agree with you.
Senator Taylor: You mention the harmonization of regulations with the provinces and you seem to say that in the case of federal-provincial conflicts, you would prefer to follow the provinces. Under CEPA, we are allowed to create areas of environmental control, such as, for example, the Lower Fraser Valley or Toronto or Hamilton. You did not bring that up in your presentation. If you are afraid of a whole province, are you not afraid of CEPA regulations applying to certain areas in Canada, areas that are not municipally or provincially defined?
Ms Kozma: The area in which we raised the concern about provincial legislation was quite specific. It was with regard to the public right to sue, under which an individual would sue for damage to public or private property because you breached CEPA. Our position on that was clear: Why should a company be open to litigation when they are complying with provincial law, particularly when the property may be located in the province? It may not be a federal property at all.
Senator Taylor: I am not a lawyer, and I would have to check with Senator Hays and our worthy chairman, who sometimes has views that are different from mine, but I had the impression that suing referred to suing the minister for violations of CEPA. The provision was in there so that, if CEPA were violated, you could not suddenly start a suit because the minister was not being tough enough, and you would have to go back through the Crown.
The Chairman: That is possible.
Senator Taylor: That is what we are after, is it not? Perhaps you could comment on it. I thought that the right to sue had more to do with stiffening the government's resolve and drawing their attention rather forcefully to their lapse. It is like the old business of training a mule; you might have to get rough. I thought it was more along that line rather than suing a private organization.
Ms Kozma: You are quite correct that there is an entire process around the right to sue. One of the intents may well be to stiffen government resolve so that individuals never bring litigation. However, the bottom line is that, at the end of the day, they might bring litigation, and the concern is whether litigation is appropriate against an organization that is complying with provincial laws, particularly if the property on which the litigation is based is also within the province. It may not necessarily be a federal resource, it could be a provincial resource. That is specifically why we brought up that concern.
In general, we feel that it is very important to have harmonized provincial and federal laws. That relates to your earlier comments about whether we have a concern about areas that are strictly within federal jurisdiction. That may or may not be the case. We strongly feel that we need consistent federal and provincial legislation.
Senator Taylor: I was not talking about areas within federal jurisdiction. I was talking about the fact that the bill sets up the right to draw arbitrary boundaries, such as those around the Lower Fraser Valley or the Toronto-Hamilton corridor, and sets up regulations for those areas that are entirely different from the rest of Canada or the rest of the provinces for environmental protection. You worry about the provinces. Those boundaries are higher than those of the provinces: they create an environmental fence and you have to play the game a certain way.
Ms Kozma: I am certainly not an expert on constitutional law, but there are a couple of issues here. One is the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. That would be the first concern. The federal government would have to satisfy itself that it has constitutional authority.
The second thing is that there are a number of areas in CEPA that do provide for that, such as emergency response plans. There is a process for provincial participation and for determining whether there are existing provincial laws.
The Chairman: You might look to subclause 30(1)(a), where you have the defence of due diligence. Does that not give you some comfort, Ms Kozma?
Ms Kozma: Not really. The defence of due diligence means that you took all reasonable care in complying with the act. Is it taking all reasonable care to just comply with provincial legislation? I do not know the answer to that. It would depend on whether the provincial legislation was significantly different from the federal legislation. In general, this makes us feel a little more comfortable about actions, but I will draw your attention specifically to subclause (c), which is what we are addressing when we talk about the fact that there should be a general exemption if you comply with provincial law. The way it is currently set up, there is a defence that the alleged conduct is authorized by or under the law of a government, such as a province, but only if the federal and provincial governments have essentially entered into an agreement. Then an order is issued that the provincial law is equivalent to the federal law.
The bill contemplates the impact of provincial law.
The Chairman: As I understand the concept of residualization in this bill, and I may be wrong, CEPA would apply in areas where provincial laws do not. They are giving jurisdiction only under this proposed act. They are not endeavouring to do it under provincial areas.
If someone comes in under this bill, then in those circumstances, you can use these defences, that you have used due diligence in complying with this bill.
I do not know how you could go and add "and provincial."
Ms Kozma: What you said is correct. Our point is that the action you may have taken may in fact be authorized by provincial law. It may be in contravention of the federal law, but, nonetheless, it may be authorized by provincial law or a permit under such law.
The Chairman: I am not sure I would share your concern, but I understand the point. Thank you for raising it.
Senator Taylor: I have a quick question about virtual elimination. Emissions from a vehicle are largely due to your fuel input. Then we get into this argument about cost-effectiveness.
Obviously, the companies that produce the fuel will argue that it is more cost-effective for you to take the last trace of an element out of your vehicle through a catalytic converter or some filter. You will argue that it is more cost-effective to take it out at the refinery. When I see these two huge behemoths, with all the money in the world and lawyers reaching from one end of the world to the other accusing each other of not eliminating emissions, to which one do I listen?
Mr. Smith: Virtual elimination is for substances that are deemed to be toxic. That is in a completely different section of the bill from the fuels provisions. They are two different issues.
The discussion around fuels is usually with regard to some element or constituent in the fuel and the by-products of fuel combustion.
Senator Taylor: Take a trace of cadmium as an example. It is not considered very nice. Cadmium can be in your fuel and it can also be generated by your vehicle.
Mr. Smith: I am not sure I understand the question.
Senator Taylor: Take the mineral cadmium as an example. It is poisonous and you want to phase it out. However, it can be in the fuel or even created within the catalytic converter. We can use manganese as an example, as well.
Mr. Smith: The fuel provisions and the virtual elimination provisions are completely different issues. Virtual elimination applies to CEPA toxics. We do not envisage that that will ever be used for fuels. I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that those provisions would be applied to fuels.
Senator Taylor: We are getting to the point where we can measure smaller and smaller quantities. Do not be surprised.
Senator Adams: You have been talking about vehicle emissions. Who manufactures this technology? Are you buying from other companies or from United States companies? How does that work? Last June, we heard about Bombardier, the aircraft maker, who buys their parts from all over the world. They complained that Department of Transport officials inspect parts put on to aircraft. In terms of Bill C-32, who approves the technology that you put on the vehicle systems to control emissions? Perhaps diesel-powered vehicles have been improving faster than gasoline-powered vehicles. The minister, who was here about a week ago, seemed concerned about pollution caused by lawn mowers. Where do you get your equipment, which you use to lower rates of pollution?
Mr. Smith: There are many answers to that question. First, the emission system of a vehicle includes everything from the fuel feed system, to the canisters for vapour recovery, the construction and engineering of the engine itself and its combustion attributes. That leaves you with what we refer to as engine-out emissions. That is the little tin bit of combustion by-product that is left over after it has been through the engine. It goes into a control system. It is a systems engineering exercise that is typically done by the manufacturer with inputs from all of the vendors.
These are very complex systems. The fuel system may be from an outside vendor, or it may be an internal system that is company-dependent. There is no single answer to that question.
Your question regarding government approval relates to the safety certification of vehicles, which currently rests with Transport Canada. Our understanding of the aircraft industry is that there is what we call a tight approval, where Transport is intimately involved with the design approval. In Canada, for motor vehicles, we self-certify with government audit. We must meet an established set of standards. That is for vehicle safety and vehicle emissions. With the new CEPA, the emissions part would move from Transport to Environment. We certify the vehicles to the standard. It is a completely different process.
Senator Adams: Do GM, Ford and Chrysler work together?
Mr. Smith: All the systems are different.
Senator Adams: They have to be approved by Transport Canada.
Mr. Smith: Again, it is self-certification for motor vehicles. We supply all the data for our certification.
Senator Cochrane: I want to return to the waste disposal issue on page 4 of your brief. Clause 188 of the bill requires a plan to be implemented, if you are to export waste to the U.S. Of course, you are saying that it is cheaper and more efficient if you do not have to implement this plan. I can understand that.
My concern is not the flow from Canada to the U.S.; it is the flow from the U.S. to Canada, that is, waste materials coming into our country. Of course, the U.S. certainly has much more industrial waste than does Canada. Is it feasible for us to have an open North American disposal entity? We can have a dump. Canada could become a disposal dump for the U.S.
Mr. Smith: The provision here is for export only. As I said earlier, the import and export of hazardous waste from Canada is already covered by a bilateral agreement and, for want of a better phrase, sister regulations in Canada and the U.S., where we have notification requirements. All the paperwork must be done. It is a very sophisticated process of tracking.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving of your time, intelligence and wisdom in coming before us.
Our next presenters are from the environmental group STOP and from the Société pour vaincre la pollution.
Please proceed, Mr. Green.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Green, Co-President, Société pour vaincre la pollution: Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise senators that they will be hearing Radio Canada, not the CBC, so you should put on your earpieces if you need simultaneous interpretation.
My name is Daniel Green, and I am the President of the Société pour vaincre la pollution, located in Montreal. Our association is one of the oldest francophone environmental groups in North America. It was founded in 1970. We have taken part in various studies ever since the beginning of environmental legislation in Canada, particularly when the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act was tabled in the 1980s. We have been monitoring the process ever since the beginning.
We do not have a brief for you, because the other environmental groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and the Center for Canadian Environmental Law and Policy have already told you many things. Several amendments to the bill have been submitted to you. So I am not going to waste time repeating things that you can read in the briefs that have already been given to you.
I am here this afternoon to beg you to give us legislation that will truly control toxic chemicals. A potential victim is here beside me, Ms Lisette Anfousse, who represents the Coalition pour une Magnola propre. Magnola is the name of a plant that Noranda has built in Asbestos. It will be releasing many toxic substances such as PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, dioxines and furans into the environment of Quebec.
Our association has used the Canadian Environmental Protection Act on several occasions. We defended the act before the Supreme Court when Hydro-Québec challenged its constitutionality. As you know, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Parliament of Canada's jurisdiction over toxic substances less than a year ago. Bill C-32 indirectly takes away from us what the Supreme Court confirmed was the right of Parliament.
You have read the bill, so you know that it is very complex. A few small words were added after the House of Commons Committee tabled its report. These little words contaminate this bill, which is supposed to protect us against toxic substances. You have received specific recommendations to amend the bill so that it can afford us the slight protection against toxic substances that we deserve.
The Société pour vaincre la pollution intervened before the Supreme Court. We also intervened in Quebec court when the Supreme Court referred the Hydro-Québec case to the provincial court. Do you know what fine Hydro-Québec got for spilling PCBs in Jean Chrétien's riding twice? One dollar per charge. That was under the old legislation. With the new Act, the procedure for suing a polluter is very complicated.
The bill you have before you will not protect us against toxic substances unless major amendments are made. I refer you to clause 64 and to clauses 65 to 77, more specifically clause 65(3). The government is in favour of virtual elimination, as long as any other relevant social, economic or technical matters are taken into account. This little word that is repeated throughout the text is a license to pollute. Companies such as Hydro-Québec and Noranda will use it in court. There is little protection against toxic substances in Canada. By the way, the Government of Quebec could have sued Hydro-Québec. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonio Lamer, asked, in court, why the Attorney General of Quebec did not sue Hydro-Québec for these PCB spills. The poor Attorney General of Quebec was flabbergasted. You should have been there in the courtroom.
Obviously, we need a specific federal act. I am a Quebecer, and I know my government. I know that at the present time, the Government of Quebec is focusing more on economic development than on protecting people's health against toxic substances.
Consequently, I would ask you to consider the recommendations from the environmental law associations, which suggested simple yet specific amendments to the bill. Do not pass Bill C-32 as it is currently drafted. You would not be helping us to protect our health and our environment.
Ms Lisette Anfousse, Coalition pour un Magnola propre: First of all, I would like to thank Daniel, who took pity on me. I would also like to thank you for allowing me to express my views and defend my cause.
My name is Lisette Anfousse, and I live in the Eastern Townships, very close to a very beautiful mountain, Mount Ham. I have been living there on a 300-acre farm for 25 years. My husband and I have raised goats since that time. We have three adult children, one of whom is in the process of building himself a log house. Our children are very attached to the place, just as we are.
Things have been going very well for the past 25 years, but now something has cropped up in our region that saddens us and concerns us greatly. The Government of Quebec has given permission to build the Magnola plant, a magnesium plant that will be using a chlorine process. This plant is the second largest magnesium plant in the world. The infrastructure is currently being built to make it the largest magnesium plant in the world within a few years. It will produce large amounts of PCBs, dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzene. These four substances are among the 12 that will be eliminated subsequent to an international agreement.
This project has transformed our lives to some extent. In response to these disturbing events, friends, neighbours and I have taken action. The project was approved by special order after the report by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPEE) failed.
I live about 20 kilometres from the plant. I get the prevailing winds head on, and my life is changing greatly because of that. I am here to ask you, actually to beg you, just like Daniel did, to ensure that the act is tougher and stricter so that industry does not get preferential treatment. There are too many of these poisons; they affect our entire lives, our health and our entire well-being. They represent death to the environment. I myself may be a little bit more affected, given that my sister died of breast cancer. Nowadays many women are getting breast cancer, mostly due to organochlorines.
I think that there should be some changes as this century draws to a close, as we approach the next millennium: many people in our country need these changes. They need us to focus on human beings, to really protect human beings, not industry. I believe that we have to let our hearts decide whether legislation should be strong or not. These poisons really are very dangerous. I ask you to amend this bill and to follow your hearts and your innermost consciences when making your decisions.
Mr. Green: Lisette brought some zucchini from her garden. When I visited her garden, she said to me, "Daniel, I am 22 kilometres away from one of the largest sources of dioxins, furans, PCBs and hexachlorobenzene in Canada. The Noranda plant will start operations in June of the year 2000. What a fine gift for the new millennium! Yet the Government of Quebec went along with the project. This bill does not keep Noranda from producing these toxic substances. Because of this bill, we are going to be getting these pollutants. Everyone knows that this huge 700 million dollar plant is going to have fugitive emissions. In terms of environmental engineering, it is impossible to control these emissions.
When I visited Lisette and her magnificent garden three weeks ago, she looked at me right in the eye -- and she has had that garden for 25 years, and she told me: "Daniel, I think this is the last time that I am going to plant my garden."
Honourable senators, you are going to get the last zucchini from Lisette Anfousse's garden, because Lisette Anfousse may not be putting in a garden anymore once Noranda starts its operations.
As it is currently drafted, this bill cannot keep Noranda from emitting these toxic substances into its environment. So, enjoy.
Ms Anfousse: I brought a zucchini, and it is not meant to be a phallic symbol, but gentlemen you must not forget the consequences of organochlorides on our reproductive systems. These chemicals are dangerous for you as well. The garden has produced very well this year. This zucchini is also to remind you that my environment is very important for me. I am here as a representative of Canadian women who are subject to contamination. I would like you to think of me, my family, my friends and the people around us.
I would also like to mention that the largest milk shed in Canada is also downwind from Noranda's Magnola plant. There was a similar scandal in Europe. The alarm has been sounded. We must not forget that it is very important to protect our food supply and human beings. You have a moral responsibility to protect human beings first and foremost and the environment.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Green, Ms Anfousse, I have heard about you many times. Thank you for your passionate and out-of-the-ordinary presentation.
[English]
I want to know two things. What is the level of emissions that will come out of that new plant? Second, Mr. Green, I am sorry that I have not read the Hydro-Québec case. Could you explain to me the connection? Why is it that there is such carte blanche for this particular factory?
You say that it will be the largest in the world. It seems to me that factories are no longer built modestly. They are all "the biggest in the world." We went to see Alberta Pacific in Alberta, and it was several football fields long, but very environmentally friendly.
Mr. Green: The Noranda plant will use a chlorine technology. They must use this chlorine technology because the magnesium in the asbestos ore is bound tightly to other materials. It is very rich in asbestos -- 25 to 30 per cent, one of the richest magnesium ores in the world.
Noranda will use a chlorine electrolysis process. They will attack this mineral with hydrochloric acid. They will separate the magnesium with an electrolysis process in the presence of chlorine gas.
According to Barry Commoner, a well-known environmentalist in the United States, who was asked by the Quebec environmental project to comment on this project, it is heresy to permit such a technology to be built in Canada.
During the United Nations POPs elimination treaty conference that was held in Montreal, reporters asked Christine Stewart, then Minister of the Environment, how Canada's policy on the virtual elimination of these chemicals could be taken seriously when Environment Canada is doing nothing to deal with these emissions that would be coming out of Noranda. The minister responded that we are in a confederation here and the provinces have certain rights.
I imagine she did not read the Supreme Court decision, which was very clear that the Parliament of Canada does have the power to protect our environment and our health against these materials. If you read the majority decision, it almost has the moral obligation to do so.
I would like to point out to the senators that, according to calculations done by Greenpeace, this plant in Asbestos, Quebec, will be the most important dioxin, furan, hexachlorobenzene emitter in Canada. If we rely on Environment Canada's inventory, one plant will emit more than all other sources.
The issue now is very simple. As I said, the act does not prevent this from happening. You would think that as a country, we are going through this process to ensure that these chemicals do not escape. While we are debating this topic, people are building this factory.
This is not a company that we do not know about. This is Noranda -- a well-known and respected Canadian company that is doing this. This is why I just do not understand.
Senator Spivak: The dioxins and furans are produced as by-products of the process.
Mr. Green: Yes, so are PCBs.
Senator Spivak: The chemical companies were here and said they could not have virtual elimination because there are these by-products.
Mr. Green: The Noranda plant will produce the PCBs and hexachlorobenzene.
Senator Spivak: What is the projected level of production of these PCBs, dioxins and of hexachlorobenzene? Is it a level beneath the level of quantification, an undetectable level?
Mr. Green: We do not know yet.
Senator Spivak: A plan must have been submitted and a licence granted. What does it say?
Mr. Green: Yes, there is. There is a total quantity of production of between 200 to 400 grams of dioxins and furans, and almost a tonne of hexachlorobenzene. This is production.
The debate between Noranda and many environmentalists is how much will escape. Noranda says, "We will capture everything." Yet, in the Wall Street Journal, there was an admission that there will be emissions in the asbestos environment of dioxins and furans. The issue now is how much and what will it do to the environment in the area. This is the debate. We will not know until the plant is operating.
Senator Spivak: If this bill is passed unamended, it will deal only with the control of substances. It will not deal with phasing out and banning the use of substances. This law will have no say, not to mention the fact that they would have to offer to consult for a million years before they can do anything. The Quebec government, as I know from reading those pages, is not very interested.
Mr. Green: The bottom line is that we know that the asbestos industry will cease to exist in a couple of years in Quebec.
Senator Spivak: Right, so this is a replacement.
Mr. Green: Yes. The people working in the asbestos industry are desperate for economic development. Noranda is considered to be a saviour. If the people in the asbestos industry were listening to me speak, I would probably never be able to go back to an asbestos plant.
Ms Annfousse: There will be perhaps 50 jobs for the people in the industry.
Senator Spivak: Was there consultation and were public meetings held? There always is, but in the end, there is nothing.
Mr. Green: In the end, the economy won.
When you read the bill, you see clauses that refer to economic considerations.
Senator Spivak: They are all over.
Is there an alternative process?
Mr. Green: Yes, there is.
Senator Spivak: What is the cost? Is that the reason?
Mr. Green: It might be more expensive in terms of energy costs.
Senator Spivak: Did they consider the alternative?
Mr. Green: They did consider it. According to Noranda, that process would not be used because of the type of ore, but they never experimented with it.
Senator Spivak: If this bill passes, are you planning to go to court?
Mr. Green: Because Noranda admitted to producing a banned substance, PCBs, we will be filing under clause 108 of the existing CEPA. Clause 108 refers to two Canadians over 18 years of age believing that there has been a contravention of the act.
Senator Spivak: I missed that part. PCBs are banned. How, then, can anyone produce them?
Mr. Green: That is a very good question. How can a company wilfully produce PCBs when their production is banned?
In clause 81, there are some catchphrases referring to the unintentional production of these chemicals. Subparagraph 81(6)(b) of the new bill is one example.
Senator Spivak: It does not say that it refers to a substance that is already banned.
Mr. Green: It is unclear. It may be on the virtual elimination list.
Senator Spivak: If a substance is banned, any substance can be produced if it is a by-product. What is the use, then, in banning it?
Mr. Green: Correct.
Senator Spivak: There is a whole class of by-products from various processes. This is something new.
Mr. Green: Canada, in its wisdom, decided that the cost of PCB production was too great to our health and our environment and decided back in the 1980s to ban production of that substance. However, here is a company that will produce kilograms of it per year. They plan to send it to Swan Hills to have it destroyed, if they capture it all.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Green, if you have any documents or research papers, I would be interested in looking at this in more detail.
Mr. Green: A lot of documents have been presented. Public hearings were held, and there is a lot of information on this subject. Sometime this week, we will send you a little primer on the Magnola process and the issues.
The Chairman: We had Noranda here, and they gave us quite a different story. They referred to their multi-megaproject. As I recall, they assured us that some elements would be emitted into the environment, but they would be below quantifiable levels. That would be reasonable, because this act only talks in terms of control, not of elimination. The phasing-out provisions have all been extricated from this bill.
Here we have a banned substance already with an outclause in subclause 81(6)(d) because it is a by-product. That is amazing.
Mr. Green: We are waiting for the conference in Geneva to begin so that we can test this. The act now says that companies cannot produce this substance. Noranda is producing it. I want the minister to tell us what he will do. Will he permit the production of PCBs? If Mr. Anderson wants to do that, let him stand up and say, "I permit the production of PCBs in Canada."
We need a clear direction from the government on wilfully producing substances that have been banned for almost 20 years now.
Senator Spivak: They will also be producing substances that should be banned immediately.
Senator Taylor: I have the Noranda brief here, as well as the act. The bill gives the minister quite a few powers under clause 80. The bill refers to significant new activity on page 52, which gives you the power to push Mr. Anderson to look into this.
Noranda says in its presentation that they are convinced that the government intends to exercise those powers and that Noranda will face new costs and competitive burdens as a result, though the benefits in terms of improved protection of human health and the environment are unclear. In other words, Noranda is making just as big a noise as you are but on the other side of the fence, saying that the government is being too tough.
The Magnola plant is being built. I am somewhat familiar with magnesium, because of the circumstances of some of the hundred million dollars we lost from the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund under Premier Getty. Some smooth talkers came in from Switzerland and we built a huge plant near High River. It is very flat land. If you crawl to the top of the smokestack, you can probably see Chicago on a clear day.
Magnesium is helpful for strengthening your bones as you get older. It is usually manufactured electrolytically and takes a lot of power. One of the reasons this plant is being built in Quebec is that, rather than selling power cheaply to the U.S., especially if you got it cheaply from Newfoundland, you can put it to work in electrolytic processes to produce magnesium and aluminum. These are closely allied metals, both very strong and light and made in almost the same way. In the electrolytic process, you create some banned substances. While you are doing the right thing by making some noise, I think Noranda is probably aware of what can fly, and you will most likely have hearings on this.
Senator Spivak: They have already done their lobbying.
Mr. Green: If I may, senator, it is a done deal. The permits have been given and the plant is being built.
Senator Taylor: That permission came from the province, did it not?
Mr. Green: Yes.
Senator Taylor: This bill would give us the right to peer over their shoulder.
Mr. Green: In my opinion, after reading the bill and relating it directly to the Noranda-Magnola project, there are enough loopholes to allow a great number of dioxins to pass through.
Senator Taylor: You need some good lawyers on both sides of the fence, like Senator Nolin and Senator Hays, to keep all this in line. Senator Nolin, do you know anything about this project?
Senator Nolin: I know what Mr. Green is saying about it.
The Chairman: I am not sure that I agree with your interpretation of the clause. Clause 81 talks about where a substance is not specified on the Domestic Substances List. PCBs are specified. If they are specified, then the clause does not have the application that you suggest it has.
Mr. Green: But then can you explain why Environment Canada, knowing that PCBs are banned under the current legislation, is letting Noranda build a plant that will produce them?
The Chairman: That is a better question.
Mr. Green: I can pose the question directly: How can we construct a clause in this bill to prevent this from happening?
The Chairman: The clause is constructed to deal with substances that are not on the list, the 23,000 chemicals, excluding the dozen that are banned. For you to point to subclause 81(6)(d) and say that is enough, I do not know that I would have that interpretation of the clause. However, that does not answer your question, and it is a very important one. We may have to have the departmental officials back to ask them how they come to those interpretations and where were they?
Mr. Green: I agree.
The Chairman: That is something I would like to hear from the departmental officials. You have raised a very important point.
Senator Taylor: Have you gone to your Member of Parliament, who is one of the rare Conservatives in Quebec? He represents that area and he wants the plant.
Mr. Green: Yes, he wants the plant, because the economics of asbestos in Danville are clear. Johns Manville will be shutting down in five years. If Noranda does not build this plant, where will the people work?
Senator Spivak: The point is that there is an alternative process. It is not a situation where you either build the plant or you do not.
Senator Taylor: There is nothing in large volume like this.
Senator Spivak: Look at what happened with the effluent from the pulp mills. They screamed and hollered and carried on, but they found another process. It is the same thing with implementing a solution to ozone depletion. Everyone said that it could not be done, but it was done. I do not believe that it cannot be done. Industry must be as responsible as everyone else. Cost is not everything. There is the cost-effective barrier. It will cost more, but, at the same time, they will not be producing the banned substances.
Senator Hays: I think that under CEPA, either old or new, or probably any successor to CEPA, it would be difficult to give the federal government power to stop this factory from being built, simply because it is within the province and it is under provincial jurisdiction. I do not think you could get that under the criminal law power nor under any extraordinary power I can think of. However, the release of substances brings the plant under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If you have the release of PCBs, which, as I understand it, are on the Domestic Substances List, then, as I read clause 81, they are covered because subclause (1) deals with substances that are not specified on the DSL, and PCBs are specified.
Mr. Green: PCBs are not on the Priority Substances List per se. PCBs are an Annex 1 chemical. They are at an even higher level. Yet despite that, and even though Environment Canada, Quebec Region, knows that PCBs will be produced because it was said in the public hearings, the federal government, for whatever reason, chose not to intervene.
Senator Hays: It seems to me that you need this bill to get these provisions under clauses 80 and 81 in place before the federal government could intervene. That might be a way for you to get federal government intervention. The public participation clauses may be of use if you have a case, and it sounds to me like you may have, if you can prove the release of these dioxins and furans or, for that matter, the other chemicals you mentioned. They could come within the purview of this legislation and its prohibitive provisions.
Mr. Green: The provisions are not prohibitive. The provisions apply if you cannot measure emissions with existing technologies. The issue now is that, under Quebec government rules, it is up to Noranda to do its own monitoring, using accredited labs. No independent monitoring has been required. The government will not be doing it. I do not know what Environment Canada plans to do.
Senator Hays: Perhaps the Government of Quebec might not be doing it, but the Government of Canada may.
Mr. Green: We have no indication at this date from Environment Canada that it has committed itself to keeping an eye on Noranda.
Senator Hays: I think that probably arises out of the fact that they cannot stop the project. Maybe they do not want to stop the project; that could well be. I would just add that I think you would have more avenues to approach the problem under this legislation than you do now.
Mr. Green: I hope that Senator Ghitter's interpretation is correct, that if it is under a certain prohibitive list, then it does not count. You cannot argue that it is impurities or subreactions. I hope you are right.
When I read this, it seemed to me that Noranda could use it to argue, "We are not doing it on purpose, so give us a break." I hope you are right and I am wrong. We will test it.
The Chairman: It goes a little further, though. I do not think that this bill will help you. You are probably better off where we were before. The fact remains that the way it has been watered down under clause 65(3), the government will merely look at what is a controllable amount to bring in. Even though it is toxic, even though it is to be virtually eliminated, the issue is no longer its elimination under this clause but how much may be released into the environment alone or in combination.
Mr. Green: It is a banned substance.
The Chairman: That is a very different game.
Mr. Green: What hurts even more is that PCB emissions are a banned substance.
The Chairman: That is what the House committee endeavoured to overcome with their amendment that was taken away from them when this watered-down process took over.
Senator Hays: As they came out of the House committee, the provisions of that section also provided for discretion in the phase-out. Clause 65(3) provides for taking steps. "Taking steps" also provides the ministers with quite a bit of leeway and flexibility should they choose to use it. While that wording may, in the view of some, be stronger, it does not close the door because it provides the ministers with the ability to take steps to achieve virtual elimination.
Mr. Green: If I may, between the committee report and the House of Commons bill that was referred to you, they added references to clause 65(3) throughout clause 77. That watered it all down.
Senator Hays: I am aware of that, but I am also pointing out that even under the wording after the House committee stage, there was room for discretion on the part of the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Had you already begun discussions with the federal minister or his predecessor regarding the Asbestos project?
Mr. Green: Indeed, a representative of the coalition wrote to Mr. Charles L. Caccia, who wrote to the minister, Ms Stewart, who later replied to the letter.
Senator Nolin: When does this correspondence go back to?
Ms Anfousse: More or less when construction of the plant began. In fact, it was in May 1998.
Senator Nolin: What response did you receive?
Ms Anfousse: Ms Stewart replied, telling us that these were number-one substances, that Quebec had done what it could in this regard, and that things should be alright. She added that the federal government would provide assistance for controlling these substances if necessary.
Senator Nolin: Was this letter made public?
Ms Anfousse: A copy was sent to Mr. Caccia. In reply, he asked Ms Stewart to go directly to the source of the problem and to ask for virtual elimination instead of merely setting limits.
Senator Nolin: All of this could be done under the current act, the old CEPA?
Mr. Green: As far as PCBs are concerned, yes, without a doubt. It is interesting, by limiting an organochlorine, you could limit all the other substances such as chlorobenzene, dioxins and furans, because these products result from the same reaction. Unfortunately, still nothing has been done since that time.
This is very embarrassing for Canada in Geneva, particularly since the Chairman of the negotiating team is John Buccine from Environment Canada. Having known him for 15 years, I feel sorry for him having to go before an international forum to represent his country, knowing full well that one of the largest Canadian multinationals, Noranda, will produce four of the 12 substances that countries across the world are banning. Furthermore, we're not talking about an old plant here, we're talking about a brand new one. There is a fundamental contradiction there.
Ms Anfousse: We know nothing about the amounts involved, however, we do know the approximate quantity that will be placed into an open pit the size of 27 football fields. The government has authorized 80 grams of dioxin for the first two years. Four or five BAPE commissioners told us that, in all likelihood, this would evaporate.
Senator Nolin: Could you explain what the BAPE is?
Ms Anfousse: It is the Public Hearings Office on the Environment.
Mr. Green: The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement is the Quebec organization which, at the request of the provincial Minister of the Environment, has to conduct a public environmental study before a bill is approved. The BAPE makes recommendations to cabinet, and cabinet issues the decree.
[English]
The Chairman: Senators, we must press on. We have had presented to us a very important example for us to consider. I thank you both for appearing before us this afternoon. I wish you good luck in your endeavours.
Mr. Don Wedge, Vice-President, Environment Group STOP: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, Georges Hébert, who is the President of STOP, has arrived. With me as well are Bruce Walker, Director of Research, and Maureen Lafrenière, who is a board member and an inventory person in the environment world. She works as an environment person with the Ville de Westmount and has been responsible for the successful implementation of Westmount's ban on pesticides. She has come to support us today and is available to you if you should need to go into that area.
The Chairman: Tell us about your organization, please.
Mr. Wedge: STOP was formed about 30 years ago. It is a citizens environment group. We are all volunteers. We are funded largely by the contributions of fellow citizens. We have very little income from other sources, although we have a little bit from the government sometimes, and that is about it. We are very active locally. We are probably the most active environment group at the municipal level, but we are also active at provincial and federal levels. Mr. Walker, in particular, takes part in many multi-stakeholder task forces on many issues, in particular air. We specialize in urban environmental issues.
In recent times, particularly since the advent of NAFTA and its environmental implications, we have become active in matters that affect the three countries.
We were shocked at what happened to Bill C-32, particularly in May and culminating with the vote in the House of Commons on June 1. We have been very concerned about the bill since then. We are grateful to the committee for having agreed to hear our views.
Mr. Georges Hébert, President, Environment Group STOP: Honourable senators, our brief is rather general in approach. We tried to make some specific recommendations but we saw the 10-page limit and realized the task was ridiculous. We also, frankly, do not have the resources to deal with all the issues individually.
We hope that the Senate will, as the French saying goes, "dorer son blason" by getting involved in this legislation. In no other situation -- except in the Divorce Act discussions where the Senate intervened to protect children -- are so many people liable to be affected but simply not represented. This is a rare case where the Senate is in a position to play a role simply because the Commons is not representing the future generations who will be affected by this legislation. The House of Commons is representing only the current population. The Senate is thus in a better position to make a statement. You may feel a normal reticence because of not being elected, but this is a case where that reticence should be overcome.
As my friend Mr. Wedge mentioned, we were not exactly delighted to hear about the changes in Bill C-32 after it left the House of Commons committee. We found out from the Canadian Chemical Producers Association brief that the bill as originally tabled was based on years of negotiation, debate and subsequent agreement with, amongst others, provincial governments. I have never seen such an agreement. I do not know who acted as parties to those negotiations. I do not know where that agreement is. If it is in writing, it should be put forward to this committee.
We also find it very sad that, after months and months of committee hearings in which industry, environmental groups and the general public were involved at every step, suddenly, after essentially private communications with the government, the wind has changed and the private interests get their way. The CCPA's brief states that they recommended to the government that it make a course correction and the government corrected its course.
This bill is the most public of legislation. It deals with everyone in the country and with people who are not yet even born. Yet in private communications with the government, the course of the legislation has been "corrected."
One bit of vocabulary that keeps coming up with respect to this legislation is "sustainable development." It is here that we find a major point of divergence between environmental groups and industry. What does this expression mean? What do you do once you have decided what it does mean?
The bill, as presently constituted, refers to development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. That reference is straight from the Brundtland Commission. In our view, this legislation now focuses on the needs of the present, rather than on the long term. We request that this august body look at the long term exactly to represent those people who are not represented in the House of Commons.
In fact, the CCPA also stated in its brief that in tabling the legislation, the government emphasized that Bill C-32 effectively represented the goal of sustainable development, thus ensuring a high standard of environmental protection without compromising economic growth and social wellbeing. In our view, that is where things go very wrong.
We believe that government and industry simply have it backwards. The focus is on not on the ability of future generations to meet their needs but on the much more immediately appealing economic growth and social well-being with its visions of improved earnings, reports and GDP figures. Reduced to its essence, we see here as much environmental protection as is consistent with economic growth, whereas, in our view, "sustainable development" means the opposite -- as much economic growth as is consistent with environmental protection.
The whole thing should be reversed. Throughout the legislation, the presumptions favour continued manufacture and use. The procedural protections favour continued manufacture and use. The burden of proof favours manufacture or continued manufacture and use. This is supposed to be the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Why does the environment come in second? In our view, that is wrong.
Another term that often comes up in discussions is "cost-effectiveness." That term was added, after the committee hearings, to the precautionary principle at clause 2(1)(a) of the bill. What does that term mean? It is not defined. No one really knows exactly what it means. Yet, someone wants the term included to limit the ability to make decisions quickly. It takes time to determine whether an action is cost-effective.
The main question is the cost to whom? Industry can claim that being forced to make a change will result in various costs. What about the costs on the other side? In the environmental world we call this the problem of externalities. Some issues are not integrated nor counted; they are simply removed from the picture.
Regarding these externalities, U.S. Vice-President Al Gore was quoted in The Guardian, reprinted by the Montreal Gazette on October 3, 1992, as stating:
If we measure the value of what we do and consistently ignore important side effects, we will continue to set ourselves up for nasty surprises...
The bad things economists want to ignore while they measure the good things are often said to be too difficult to integrate into their calculations. Therefore, since the effort to keep track of the bad things would complicate the valuation of the good things, the bad things are simply defined away as external to the process and called externalities.
... our current system of economics arbitrarily draws a circle of value around those things in our civilization we have decided to keep track and measure. Then we discovered that one of the easiest ways to artificially increase the value of the things inside the circle is to do so at the expense of those things left outside the circle.
The CCPA brief again provides an example. They say that they will produce a variety of products. They will then make sure that while a substance is under their care and control, it does not go anywhere. They know what the stuff can do. They will make sure it does not affect their employees. They will make sure it does not leak out at their plants. They will make sure it does not leak out during transportation, but after that, "Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson." It becomes an externality. It is your problem, our problem, everyone's problem, but no longer their problem. The stuff can vaporize, condense, come back; it is used in Argentina and winds up on Mount McKinley.
Once it is gone, tough. It is not our problem; it is an externality. It is not included in costs. Now, full cost accounting would include all that. But even the government's own "A Guide to Green Government" said in 1995:
In some policy areas, the costs of action versus inaction can be objectively identified and weighed. Sustainability development policy issues, however, dictate that social and environmental values be factored into the policy equation. Given that these values are rarely, if ever, traded in the marketplace, the ability to take them into account in monetary terms is currently very limited.
It still is. There is virtually no method for accounting for all of the environmental externalities when doing a cost accounting. When we hear about cost-effectiveness, it would be wonderful if that meant full cost accounting with all the externalities in there so that when industry says it will cost us so much, the people on the other side can say, "Wait a minute, on the other hand it will cost this much." It that way we could look at both pictures on both sides in total. No one yet knows how to do it. It is not done anywhere.
After substances that are used in commerce or in industry are used by a consumer, where do they go? Into the sewers? Into the air? Into the water? Into the ground? What happens to them? They just go away, one originally thought. Everyone knows now that there is no "away."
The trouble is that once a substance is put into the environment by your ordinary, average consumer using a product, there is no polluter who pays. There is no one who has care and control of the substance who can be sued by someone and made responsible for that substance. It just becomes everyone's problem.
It winds up at the mouth of the Mississippi River where millions of Americans pour all of their junk. You end up with a huge dead zone at mouth of the Mississippi. You wind up with all kinds of substances that have evaporated and condensed in Arctic areas and in glacial lakes.
That is the reason, by the way, that we submit that this country should take the lead on the international scene. I am certainly very sensitive to what Daniel Green said about the embarrassment of Magnola. We should take the lead because we are particularly susceptible to this phenomenon of evaporation and condensation due to our cold climate. All of these lovely substances from all over the world wind up in our backyard. If Canada does not lead, the tropical countries will not be inclined to do so. They do not have the same problem we do.
Similarly, with the problem of cost-effectiveness, there is a matter of risks. The two pretty much go hand in hand. Of particular concern are the persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances that again evaporate and condense and come back into the water, the air, the land, and back into our bodies. I am not comfortable with the idea that I am accumulating this stuff and my kids will accumulate this stuff and probably their kids will accumulate this stuff.
I sincerely hope that the ladies and gentlemen around this table are no more comfortable with that idea than I am. I do not know how many of you have children and grandchildren, but probably the vast majority. I would not feel good about having that stuff accumulate in their bodies. It is a legacy of poison.
In our view, this thing should simply be defeated. In our view, the environment comes in second in this bill and it should not. Therefore, this proposed legislation does not deserve the title of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and this body is in the position, like a judge who hears most, if not all, of the evidence in a case, to say, "You know, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard the evidence and I am inclined to think, with that knowledge, that you should go back out in the corridor and see if you cannot work it out."
I would suggest that that is what the Senate might do. Send everyone back out in the corridor to work it out. I would humbly submit that it would not likely take another five years to get back here.
Mr. Bruce Walker, Director of Research, Environment Group STOP: Members of the committee may not know that Georges Hébert, STOP's president, is in real life a legal aid lawyer. As he just hinted, we are suggesting that Bill C-32 needs a great deal of legal aid very quickly.
This is not the first time we have been involved in this legislation. I remember testifying here before a House of Commons committee in 1987. One of our suggestions was incorporated into what is now the law. That is section 139, which requires a parliamentary review of the legislation. I guess STOP can take the credit or blame for all the kerfuffle that has gone on in this city for the last several years.
I have a couple points on cost-effectiveness specifically. We are in essence saying that one should press the delete button wherever the term "cost-effective" or "cost-effectiveness" appears in the bill. I will explain why.
As Mr. Wedge said, I represent STOP on many multi-stakeholder advisory committees, many of them national, chaired or co-chaired by Environment Canada. I even sit on a multi-stackholder committee that is chaired by Environment Canada and the Canadian Chemical Producers Association. I have a meeting here two weeks from now. Most of these committees deal with various approaches to controlling air pollution, regulatory methods, voluntary methods, emissions trading and so forth.
Cost-effectiveness is one measure that is looked at to determine if should we take an approach. I will play devil's advocate for a moment and say that a common, although not universally accepted, definition of cost-effectiveness is how many dollars does it cost per tonne of pollutant removed. If we are talking about pollutants coming out of the tailpipes of cars or nitrous oxides or sulphur dioxides from factories or municipal sewage treatment plants, the measure is how many dollars it costs per tonne removed. I am familiar with 40 or 50 examples of proposed regulations and controls that are imposed provincially and federally in this country, starting with the first regulation Environment Canada ever adopted back in 1973, regarding phosphorous in laundry detergent.
With respect to the cost-effectiveness estimates in dollars per tonne, industry has always estimated higher costs per tonne than the government economists and engineers have estimated. There has never been agreement on the numbers, even if there has been agreement on the approach. Invariably, the industry estimates somehow always seem to cost more than the government estimates or the independent third-party estimates. That is only for the cost of control directly on the affected sector, whether that is motor vehicles, petroleum refineries or magnesium plants.
Cost-effectiveness ends up being extremely value-laden. Even if you can agree on a number -- that such and such a piece of technology costs $1,000 per tonne of pollutant removed -- who is to say whether that is cost-effective or not? In fact, that decision is a value judgment. In this town, a value judgment means a political decision. Do you want to enshrine that in legislation?
Let us leave it where it is. Cost-effectiveness is already required for any environmental regulation proposed by the Government of Canada under Treasury Board guidelines. For any regulatory initiative of Environment Canada or Health Canada and so on, it is one of the things that the sponsoring department must address. They must address micro-economic and macro-economic impacts, job displacements and so forth. Obviously, when these regulations go through the PCO Justice review, cost-effectiveness must be looked at. The appropriate place for that is the bureaucratic requirements for proposing and then ultimately adopting regulations. Cost-effectiveness is one of the many requirements. It has no place enshrined in what is supposed to be environmental protection legislation.
We would go so far as to suggest that the cost-effectiveness clauses in the current bill are the types of clauses that former U.S. President Ronald Reagan would have been delighted to sign into law, as a rather well-known anti-environment president. Is that the sort of legacy we want to leave with generations of Canadians?
Finally, there are incredible, complicated bureaucratic hurdles one must jump over to control, much less prohibit, any sort of persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substance in the next millennium. It occurs to us that we are not doing a very good job.
With other environmental legislation, Canada has done a better job. For example, we can look at Canada's Fisheries Act from 1970 (R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14), particularly section 33, entitled "Injury to Fishing Grounds and Pollution of Waters." Subsection (2) states:
[No] person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish
In summary, Mr. Chairman, with Bill C-32 as it is now worded, when it comes to environmental protection in Canada, fish are better protected than people.
Senator Taylor: We heard about the asbestos in the new Noranda plant magnesium refinery. Has your organization looked at it, made any representations or examined the releases?
Mr. Walker: The short answer is no, senator, we have not. We did not participate in those environmental assessment hearings.
Senator Hays: I want to ensure that your quote from section 33(2) of the 1970 Fisheries Act is accurate. Perhaps I should read the full subsection, which states:
[No] person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any condition where such deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of such deleterious substance may enter any such water.
Is that the one?
Mr. Walker: That is the one.
Senator Hays: It is not as easy as just reading part of the subsection.
Mr. Hébert, on the issue of externalities, if a substance is bad stuff, there is provision in the bill to list it and deal with it in an order of importance, whether it is under the control of the manufacturer or whether it goes into other hands.
I was looking through the bill to see what happens in terms of export. I cannot put my finger on it, but I think the bill provides for the export for disposal down the line as substances become less of a problem. I simply wanted you to comment further on that.
If a substance is on one of the lists, the responsibility to ensure that it is not released into the environment, if that is the prohibition, is still in place, even though the manufacturer has given up control of it to someone else. Am I right?
Mr. Hébert: Is that under the bill or the current act?
Senator Hays: Either one, actually. I am just asking you to clarify this or speak further to it. It came to mind that the manufacturer of a substance -- under whatever guideline, internal or imposed -- is responsible in terms of what happens to that substance. If it is on PSL1, the First Priority Substances List, they are responsible to virtually eliminate it. Toxic substances are governed by the existing act and will be governed under this bill.
Your implication is that once a substance leaves the control of the manufacturer, anything can happen to it. It can be exported and end up back in the environment. My understanding of the legislation, both here and internationally, because other countries have comparable controls, is that such a substance is still subject to the law in the same way that it was subject to controls in the hands of the manufacturer.
I guess I do not quite share your concern. I am giving you an opportunity to tell me that I am wrong and why I am wrong.
Mr. Hébert: My understanding is that the use is not regulated. There is regulation up to the point of sale, but after that the use is not regulated. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my understanding.
Senator Hays: I am not familiar enough with the act and related legislation. Maybe you are right, but it surprises me that once dry-cleaning fluid leaves the manufacturer, the dry cleaner no longer has responsibility. If the dry cleaners gives it to a disposal company to get rid of after they are finished with it, they have no responsibility to deal with it in a way that is consistent with good environmental practice.
I am asking for more evidence that there is a high risk in this legislation or the previous legislation in terms of actually creating a substance simply on the grounds that once it leaves the manufacturer, no one will control it.
Mr. Hébert: My point was that it becomes an externality from the point of view of evaluating the business of costs and from the point of view of the manufacturer's risks. It ceases to be a risk for the manufacturer once it is out of their possession.
Senator Hays: But not for whomever the manufacturer sells it to.
Mr. Hébert: My understanding is that the law does not apply there.
Senator Hays: You mean they can do what they want with it afterwards? I do not know, so I cannot correct you on that.
Mr. Hébert: Again, the CCPA's brief mentions that the government's focus has always been not to regulate the use.
The Chairman: I think I would agree with you, Senator Hays. As an example, let us say there is a battery manufacturer. The manufacturer sells the batteries to someone who stores them on the land, and the land becomes contaminated and injuries occur. I do not know that people sue the battery manufacturer. They will sue the person who owns the land. That land will be under all kinds of regulations. I do not know that that extends to the battery manufacturer.
Senator Hays: Agreed.
Mr. Hébert: I have no problem when someone has the care and control of it, and when you have a piece of land hopefully you will get hammered if it affects someone else. But what happens when it just becomes tiny little particles and then eventually they reaccumulate in fat or whatever other substance?
Senator Hays: If it is a PCB or bioaccumulative product that is identified as such, then the CEPA legislation tells you things you can and cannot do or obligations you have to ensure that it is eliminated or that quantifications of it are done.
Mr. Hébert: But to describe the process that is in the bill as glacial is charitable, especially when you consider that the procedural burden is entirely on the people, normally the government, who want to control or eliminate the substance. There are just so many hoops with so much evidence to produce and so many expenses to incur. For instance, there is a two-year period for the minister to provide draft legislation. That two-year period is interrupted if there is one consultation. It goes on and on. The burden is enormous.
Senator Hays: My next question follows on that in terms of the burden being on the government. I guess we will have to leave a precise answer to the issue I am raising with regard to how CEPA deals with responsibility for substances after they leave the manufacturer. I do not have a good answer to your statement that there is high risk or there is no control after it leaves certain hands, whether it is the manufacturer or wholesaler or down the line at some point. I will look at that. That is a good point to raise because, if that is the case, then I have more concern than I had before I heard you.
Senator Taylor: I have a supplementary on that. Paragraph 93(1)(c) mentions manufacturing or processing, as you just mentioned, but then paragraph (d) mentions substances that may be released into the environment, but they could be released by a retailer or transporter, and then paragraph (f) talks about substances being imported, processed, used, offered for sale, and so on. It seems to me that this is designed to follow substances all the way to the grave, if there is such a thing as a grave for them. Even if it is to be exported, it is followed. Have you looked at that?
Senator Hays: That is very helpful, Senator Taylor. I thought I might find something like that.
Senator Taylor: I was asking the supplementary of the witnesses, not of you.
Mr. Walker: I cannot respond to that particular question, senator, but I should like to follow up on a comment Senator Hays made. You used the example of dry-cleaning fluid. Mr. Wedge and I know something about that. The fluid in question is perchloroethylene, commonly called perc in the trade, and it was put on the Priority Substances List by the Government of Canada and declared to be a toxic substance. The government said they had to consider options for control and they set up a number of strategic option process issue tables. Don Wedge represented STOP on the dry-cleaning SOP issue table and I represented STOP on the degreasing SOP issue table, and this substance, perc, is used in both sectors. In fact, they are about the only two sectors in which it is used. Obviously, the industry was there and some of the provinces were there, as were several federal government departments, including departments that represent industry interests and non-environmental interests. Reports came out more than two years ago from each of those issue tables, and if you are having the Minister of the Environment appear before you, we would be very curious to know whether we will be seeing any Canada Gazette announcements in terms of regulatory initiatives regarding the strategic option process for dry cleaning and degreasing.
That also allows me to give you a concrete example with regard to our concern about cost-effectiveness. When it comes to the production of perchloroethylene, there is essentially one major manufacturer serving the Canadian market, a very well known chemical company, and they treat it responsibly, but while it may be cost-effective for the "ma and pa" dry cleaner to switch to a non-toxic process, often called wet cleaning, it may be very cost ineffective for one mega-multi-national chemical company that will no longer be able to sell what up to now has been a very profitable chemical. We should not tie ourselves down by requiring a cost-effectiveness test enshrined in legislation.
Senator Hays: Are you saying that, having identified this on the Priority Substances List, Environment Canada has structured a plan but has never implemented it or never seen it through? Is that your point?
Mr. Walker: Exactly.
Senator Hays: What is the time frame?
Mr. Wedge: The dry-cleaning report was completed in November, nearly three years ago. It was a multi-stakeholder consensual report.
Senator Hays: So November of 1996?
Mr. Wedge: Yes.
Mr. Walker: And the degreasing strategic option process issue table finished at least a few months after that, two and a half years ago, and apart from some press releases from the Minister of the Environment's office, and admittedly there have been quite a few of them in the last three years, there has been no action even in the form of voluntary agreement, much less proposed regulations published in The Canada Gazette.
Mr. Wedge: The Government of Quebec has introduced legislation for its part of the levy on the dry-cleaning fluid, but I think that is the only province to have moved on what is an ocean-to-ocean problem.
Mr. Walker: We can say one positive thing with respect to the process of consultation. Environmental groups were asked to be present and we were elected or appointed or chosen democratically through the Canadian Environmental Network. The environmental group sector chose its own delegates. The minister did not say, "I like you but I do not like you." In other words, just as industry gets to choose its own stakeholders at the table, so does the citizen environmental sector.
The structure of these issue tables, from a process point of view, was rather positive, in the sense that when Mr. Wedge or myself or the representative of the Canadian Environmental Network expressed concerns, they were clearly enunciated. If anyone cares to read the significant paper trail, including the formal reports that have come out of that, you will see that the diverging views are clearly enunciated and that, in some cases, the environmentalists have alternative proposals to those of the majority members. From a process point of view, we felt it was rather inclusive and democratic and representative, but we have seen no indication of governmental activity.
Senator Hays: That is an interesting example, and I am glad you brought it out. I used it myself because I wanted to get into the discussion of cost-effectiveness. The first time I encountered this was in the context of the California Air Resources Board which monitors air quality management boards in the different air basins where there are problems with low-level ozone or smog. It was interesting to me that at the time of my briefings on this, the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, had no cost-effectiveness tool to achieve its objective, which was to reduce NOx, SOx, and volatile organic compound emissions. For instance, what you called perc is an aromatic that is one of the contributors to the ozone problem. They simply told them, I gather, to stop using perc, or whatever they were using, without reference to cost-effectiveness. In other words, what was CARB to do in terms of dry-cleaning costs for mom and pop establishments as compared with other dry-cleaning establishments?
If you go into Los Angeles one day and tell everyone, that this is it, they cannot use this substance any more, on a command and control basis, which is what I gather they must have done, then at least everyone is on the same ground.
California phased out lead in gasoline. In a number of areas, they have used economic instruments, either a pollution fee or trading in emission allowances or permits as a means of achieving their objective. One is a stick and the other is a carrot approach. It struck me that that was good. They had a full array of policy means of implementing their objective, which was to phase-out or eliminate on a particular day a particular substance to improve air quality.
Under CEPA, the objective is a much broader one that covers the full environment. It seems to me that the ministers, and government for that matter, should have a full array of carrot-and-stick instruments available to them to achieve their objectives. Cost-effectiveness is consistent with that. It is also consistent with the section of the legislation dealing with economic instruments. Tell me, then, why I should be more worried.
Mr. Walker: As Mr. Wedge mentioned, I spend quite a lot of my time on multi-stakeholder committees dealing with smog, principally in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, where 14 million Canadians have had a hot, smoggy summer. Having spent 25 years dealing with smog and other aspects of air pollution from mobile, stationary and area sources such as dry cleaners and so on, many of us look to the U.S. and, in particular, to California.
I have a technical clarification, senator. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which covers the greater Los Angeles area, is a regional government that manages the air quality of a population that is almost one-half of Canada, that is, almost 14 million people, almost all of whom drive cars all the time, unfortunately. It is more accurate to say that in all of their proposed regulatory approaches at that level, the state level, the California air regulators calculate cost-effectiveness in dollars per tonne of nitrogen oxide or volatile organic compounds. Those are the two pollutant families that combine in the presence of sunlight to form smog. Some of those volatile organic compounds, as you pointed out, like the dry-cleaning fluid, can themselves be toxic. Benzene is another example.
In California, some of the costlier control measures have been implemented. There are control measures on the books in California applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers, oil refiners and even small sources that on a cost-effectiveness basis cost upwards of $15,000 U.S. per tonne of either of those pollutants avoided. In the Canadian context, federal, provincial and regional air regulators cringe when STOP proposes initiatives to control smog that may cost $1,000 or $2,000 per tonne. Those initiatives are already in place and have been law almost everywhere in the United States. In California, in fact, an initiative went through recently whose cost-effectiveness was $20,000 per tonne -- in other words, rather expensive.
That is the most common definition of cost-effectiveness. I think what some people are thinking of when they see the term "cost-effectiveness" is rather cost benefit; that is, for "X" dollars invested, what are the avoided health costs and what is the improved environment? Is it so that we can see the Rocky Mountains or is it because there will be less damage to crops in southern Ontario, et cetera?
Senator Hays: When you say get rid of "cost-effectiveness", are you saying that you dismiss as not desirable some of the policy instruments that internalize externalities either through pollution fee or through trading in order to reduce emissions?
Mr. Walker: Not at all. In fact, we endorse those. I even represent STOP on the Ontario industry committee.
Senator Hays: That is all I want to know.
Mr. Hébert: We are saying that the method is not yet clear. It is not yet clear that it can be done properly. That is the trouble. I was saying it is premature. If it were total, full cost accounting, then we would be happy with it; but it is not.
Senator Hays: It is evolving too slowly for you. Thank you.
Senator Spivak: My question has to do with inherent toxicity, which you do not mention here. Do you not think that this area, which has to do with assessment, was also changed? Many things that might be CEPA-toxic cannot be done through risk assessment. That is why the committee included the term "inherent toxicity." Have you any thoughts on that?
Mr. Walker: Frankly, no.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your work, for your volunteerism and for your input which we very much appreciate.
Our next witnesses are from the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute.
Welcome again. Please proceed.
Mr. Alain Perez, President, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute: Mr. Alan Chesworth is with us today from Imperial Oil to bring the viewpoint of a practising member-company that operates under CEPA today and into the future. Mr. Harper has lived with CEPA since its inception and will be happy to help you with your questions.
Honourable senators, we are pleased to be before your committee again. On behalf of CPPI, I have submitted to you a short brief on our views. CPPI represents what we call the downstream industry, which distributes, refines and markets petroleum products for transportation and industrial uses. Our members place a very high priority on protecting the environment. Attached to our brief is a copy of our second annual environmental performance review. We are in the process of releasing the third review now.
This new habit of reporting clearly shows a pattern of continuous improvement in the management of our environmental affairs and in the environmental performance of our products.
We believe it is possible for industry to work co-operatively with government to make Bill C-32 best serve the interests of Canadians. I would be afraid if the current bill were to be considered for a major overhaul so late in the process. That might open up a Pandora's box that would lead to the continuance of a debate that has been long and protracted and to further public policy development activity that has been dysfunctional.
Improvements can be made. Our brief highlights the areas we feel are most important. My colleagues in the CEPA review group, and at CCPA particularly, have discussed in very precise terms all of those improvements. I will not go into details except to say that the 1988 CEPA has served the country very well. Our environmental protection regime, policies and legislation rank very high internationally. As a result, environment quality in Canada is better today than it was 20 years ago.
CEPA, above all, must be clear, effective, predictable legislation for investment to continue in this country in both economic and environmental terms. In this respect, the new CEPA in Bill C-32 has been strengthened over the previous CEPA in many areas. I will cite four such areas.
Progress has been made in the preamble and elsewhere in the bill to include the principles of pollution prevention and sustainable development.
A second and I believe significant improvement was described by Mr. Caccia during the House of Commons hearings when he said that science is the essential if often overlooked foundation of an environmental protection strategy. We totally agree. We see science as being embedded in many parts of the bill -- in Division 5 for fuels and in Division 6 for vehicle engine and equipment emissions. The bill recognizes fuel and motor vehicle technology as a total system. We believe that the application of science-based decision making is a sound legislative test and an improvement here.
From overhearing the earlier debate, the third improvement may be regarded as controversial but we believe the inclusion of cost-effectiveness to complement the definition of the precautionary principle is a sound policy.
Finally, the bill requires the Governor in Council to ensure that regulations make a significant contribution to the prevention of or reduction in air pollution. Together, clause 140 and clause 141 on national fuels marks provide a balanced and solid basis for environmental protection regulation respecting fuels and vehicle technology compatibility.
It is always possible to improve the wording. We have some observations on changes that could be made now or in the future.
We recommend that government generally employ the least interventionist and most cost-effective instruments to manage environmental and health risks. For example, we have taken many voluntary initiatives in fuel improvement and in recycling. We would like to see the bill go further in recognizing and promoting responsible voluntary approaches in environmental protection. Many tools such as communication, information, education, codes of practices, guidelines and certification are available for the government to use without resorting always to the heavy machinery of regulation. We would like CEPA to integrate better those concepts into the core of the bill.
I must also mention virtual elimination. Countless hours and days of debate have been consumed by this subject. The proposed CEPA is not consistent with the government's own toxic substances management policy, nor does it complement the CCPA's toxic substances policy. More importantly, the current definition appears to be neither workable nor scientific. Our ability to detect, measure or track substances should be only one factor in setting targets for eliminating or reducing toxic or persistent bioaccumulative substances in the environment.
It is not scientific to be chasing the last detectable molecule. It would be more prudent for the government and industry to examine the more important factors of actual risk and exposure to Canadians and then use measures to manage the risk. Applying sound, risk-based analysis should override ever-changing levels of measurement precision.
The lack of clarity and workability in these sections on virtual elimination will unfortunately be evident in the near term in the application of the bill. Unfortunately, the remedies may be found outside the legislative process and probably in the judicial process. However, at this point, reluctantly, we would not recommend changes on virtual elimination because reopening that discussion would certainly raise so many emotions on all sides that it would send the bill into another spin cycle.
I have several concluding remarks. I have touched upon some significant concerns, and I said I would be brief. I mentioned that currency could be improved but I would also leave with you my concern that significant reopening of the bill and the introduction of a host of changes would not at this stage be productive. Therefore, our recommendation, all things considered, is an early passage of the bill in the form that is close to its current state.
Continuous improvement of CEPA can be effected in the implementation stage. As you know, if something is not workable in the bill, there can be timely amendment. There will be regulations as well as the use of other tools to strengthen the objective of the legislation.
Some of the problems in implementing stronger environmental initiatives -- for instance, improved screening and assessment procedures for toxic substances -- have already been addressed in 1999. The government at that time allocated more than $100 million to Environment Canada to augment its capacity to implement pollution prevention and speed up assessment and management of toxic substances. We are anxious to see this legislation passed and to see how it will work because it will provide at least a climate of predictability around a very important legislation that affects many investment decisions. You have heard about some of those.
The challenge now is to field test legislation and with this experience make changes, when necessary. You could consider this as one phase of a continuous improvement of the regulatory process. In my view, the real test of CEPA will be the effectiveness of the regulation that will be brought forward in the near future.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: This morning, we heard the testimony of Mr. Blais, a legal expert specialized in the English and French translation of legislation. As a result of his comments, we concluded that "cost-effectiveness" had been poorly translated in French. The economic aspect referred in to the English version is absent and the French version deals only with effectiveness.
In your opening remarks, you talked about your interest in having "cost-effectiveness" included. In your discussions, was it the French or the English version that prevailed?
Mr. Perez: The English version.
Senator Nolin: Could you give us a definition, because we do not find one in the bill, nor do we find any idea of what it is supposed to mean?
Mr. Perez: What would happen if the descriptive "cost-effectiveness" did not precede "precautionary principle"? We are talking about environmental protection here. According to this argument, we are putting the protection of the environment and protection of people's health on an equal footing.
Imagine a health system that was not "cost-effective", where there were no financial constraints and where the law compelled hospitals to get rid of each and every germ found in the hospital rooms where patients were resting. Our experience has taught us that this is not the case, that there are financial limitations in the health system, that we have extremely high standards and that we are not going to hunt down the last bacterium. We always determine whether or not we are able to have all of the means and the equipment required for doing diagnostic work, et cetera, and a wealthy country is going to have more than a less affluent one.
Imagine how it would be if we had no notion of a relationship between the consequences of protecting health or the environment. Imagine the consequences if no limits were set on spending with respect to what we could ask from our health system or from industry, in the case of the environment.
As far as health is concerned, you know what the answer is. As for the environment, if there were no limits set, that would mean that the impact would be felt in investment, labour and employability. Consequently, somewhere along the way there has to be, perhaps not a barrier, but a means available to the government which, ultimately, drafts the regulations.
The government drafts the regulations without appearing before you, without appearing before the House of Commons. The government consults us. Despite all the power it has, every time that the government takes any action leading to a regulation, it must look at all of the economic consequences and make what is often a political decision on the balance. That's my definition.
Senator Nolin: The words "cost-effectiveness" refer to whose economic inputs? Mr. Blais translated "cost-effectiveness" in French by "rentabilité" (profitability).
Mr. Perez: In my opinion, "cost-effectiveness" does not mean profitability.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Blais reviewed a series of Canadian laws currently in force where "cost-effectiveness" was found in the English version and "rentable" in the French version. Whose profitability and costs are we talking about?
Mr. Perez: The word "rentable" in French seems to be translated in English as "profitable." We do not want CEPA to say that protecting the environment "has to be profitable." "Cost-effectiveness" and "profitable" are two very different things.
Senator Nolin: So we are talking about costs to whom and "effectiveness" for whom?
Mr. Perez: Costs to society. The money we are spending is translated down the line in the price of our products or our ability to export. Canadians are paying these costs and that money is no longer there for other things. It is the whole system that needs to be "cost-effective" for Canadian society and not for company A or B.
For each example, and it is often difficult, we need to find a ratio to measure what is "cost-effective." Our fear is that there would be no such criterion, which would mean that regulations would not address the notion of "cost-effectiveness."
[English]
The Chairman: On that point, Mr. Perez, in your summary and conclusions you say we place great emphasis on legislation being clear, scientifically valid and durable. I think Senator Nolin has already shown you one of several examples where the legislation is not clear and durable in my view. Would you not want to have that cleared up?
Mr. Perez: I mentioned that the regulation is for the government to apply, and regulations do not meet the legislative test or the test of politics, of having to take a vote in the House and bring the legislation to you. A regulation is done through consultation. When we have cost-effectiveness in front of precautionary principle, it tells me that we will be able to open the debate with government regulators on the cost-effectiveness of the measures that they are taking.
The Chairman: I must tell you that worries me.
Mr. Perez: Well, if you had a system --
The Chairman: It is hardly transparent.
Mr. Perez: I wish that all regulations were laws because there would be fewer of them. However, regulations are important.
We have had some bad experiences in my industry in terms of regulations, but, in general, the process is reasonably open and our views are heard. People are usually reasonable in this country. It is also a question of trust.
If we did not have cost-effectiveness, we would have MRIs and scanners in every local clinic paid for by the government because they would all be useful at one point.
The analogy with health helps me when I deal with environmental issues. Even if we do not have a definition other than a dictionary definition, it allows the discussion to focus also on the consequences of the regulation from an economic standpoint and from the standpoint of the impact on society.
The Chairman: Mr. Perez, during the MMT debate, if the government had had the power to ban MMT by regulation and not by legislation, how would you have felt?
Senator Nolin: With or without scientific knowledge?
Mr. Perez: It would have been done whether it was a regulation, legislation or just a magic wand. That is the past.
Actually, because it deals with additives, the new CEPA could regulate MMT out of existence. It would not be a question of cost-effectiveness because if it is a problem for the cars, it will be cost-effective to remove it. I can assure you of that. However, it will have to meet the test that shows that the substance significantly contributes to air pollution or is detrimental to the health of Canadians, which has been the current debate. If that were brought on the table to close off this issue, you would not need regulation, as we have said many times. We would stop using it and would have stopped a long time ago. However, the new CEPA can regulate MMT out of existence.
The Chairman: You could have been regulated out of existence under the old legislation, too, had the Department of Health determined that MMT was deleterious to public health.
Mr. Perez: Absolutely.
The Chairman: This act has not added anything new.
Mr. Alan Chesworth, Manager, Environment, Health and Safety, Imperial Oil Limited, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute: If there were clear evidence that it was detrimental to health, we would not have needed regulations. We would have encouraged the government to put regulations in place because in selling commodity products, we like a level playing field. I can assure you that if there is clear evidence that there is a health consequence with our products, a company like Imperial Oil will take that component out of its products. However, we would also be pressing the government to regulate, and I believe our competitors are responsible and would take the same line.
The Chairman: But only if everyone did it. Would you do it if the others did not?
Mr. Chesworth: If we believed there was a health consequence, we would do it.
The Chairman: Were you here earlier for the evidence from the people in Quebec dealing with the Noranda plant? Did you hear that evidence?
Mr. Chesworth: We came in halfway through the testimony. I could not follow the conversation, so I should not like to comment on it.
Senator Spivak: We have heard in testimony before that all regulations are looked at in terms of cost-effectiveness. Also, there is provision to look at economic factors as well as social and technical factors. However, cost-effectiveness it is not the same as cost benefit. The whole point is that it is a different word in French and, therefore, in administering it, there is a basis for a legal case. Why would you want that? You already have so much protection in this act when it comes to economic factors. Why would you want it there?
We were discussing the precautionary principle earlier. It seems to me that the very act of being precautionary should not take into account cost-effective measures.
My main point is that I think you are more at risk leaving this in the bill, and you are not at risk for not having economic factors considered constantly. They are in the bill in a million different places, and here are you asking for trouble. That is my view.
Mr. Perez: I will let my colleague answer those questions, but I would respectfully remind this committee that the precautionary principle has been cited hundreds of times by two different environmental ministers to ban MMT, so it could be abused in the future like it has been abused in the past.
As an example, in the environmental debate, phrases like "precautionary principle," "sustainable development" and many other words can be interpreted many ways. You can put any meaning on them, so you have to qualify them.
Senator Spivak: I think you are agreeing with me. We must be careful about ensuring that we define what we put in the bill and that it means the same thing in both French and English.
Mr. Chesworth: I cannot address the French-English question, but I think what is important to us in the petroleum industry and on a broad industry basis is that the precautionary principle was clearly defined in the Rio Declaration. We wanted to ensure that there was alignment in Canadian legislation with that worldwide, recognized definition. That was a key point, that the precautionary principle was being quoted in the legislation and did not coincide with what was broadly recognized.
Senator Spivak: Many other international conventions are legally binding on Canada. The Rio Declaration is not legally binding. For example, the Convention on Biodiversity does not mention cost-effectiveness. Currently, treaties are being looked at which do not mention cost-effectiveness. It is cherry picking to say, "Well, this is the Rio Declaration." I think the Rio Declaration was chosen because cost-effectiveness meant it would always be cost-effective to take the precautionary principle when the results were irreversible so that it would benefit society. I do not think that is the meaning everyone would put on it.
There are arguments on both sides. I think this is a sticky issue no matter how you look at this bill. I guarantee you that lawyers are reading these transcripts and have read the House transcripts as well. It is not a good thing to leave the bill hanging without, first, a clear congruity between French and English and, second, a clear definition in the bill of what is meant by "cost-effective."
Mr. Perez: In my view, the French-English issue is a big one. I have stumbled on other examples where the French and English were not the same, which has opened up a huge gap for people to get into.
I am not a linguist, but I speak both languages. My mother tongue is French, and I can tell you that cost-effective is not "rentable" at all. The translation in French is not good.
Senator Spivak: This morning, the linguist said that in some bills it is translated that way, but he indicated that the preferable words would be "efficient" or "au moindre coût." What he did say, which is very definitive, is that the notion of cost is not "effectif", so you could have something that was "effectif" and that would be not cost-effective but a much higher cost, and that to me was a very convincing argument because it showed the discrepancy in the two versions. I just wanted to correct that.
Mr. Perez: I agree with you. Having said that, I still believe that the precautionary principle must be qualified by something like cost-effectiveness. You heard the preceding panel, and we are on different sides of the issue, obviously. We are also the ones incurring the costs. It might be that Bill C-32 will be tested in the courts on several issues, and there is nothing wrong with that. It happens all the time. It is part of the process and we will see how it goes.
Senator Spivak: Your position is very straightforward. I thank you for that.
The Chairman: I have asked this question before, but, Mr. Harper, you have been following the trail of this legislation for many years.
Mr. Ron Harper, Senior Advisor to the President, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute: That is right.
The Chairman: You are very familiar with it, and I take it you have watched the process through the House of Commons, the committee, then back to the government and then here today, so you have been there for all of that.
Mr. Harper: I have not been in the House of Commons nor here every step of the way, but certainly I have not been far removed, spiritually or philosophically.
The Chairman: Philosophically, at different times, we may have been a little apart. Are you suffering from the same legislative exhaustion that others are suffering from?
Mr. Harper: I would say so. I am amazed at the amount of effort put in by members of Parliament, by you honourable people here at this point trying to give it sober second thought, plus by all the stakeholders, including industry. It has been probably one of the most spirited, heated debates I have ever seen. It has allowed for very open debate about a very important piece of landmark legislation in the country. I do not know what your next question will be, but just to answer you tersely, it has been tiring, and if something were to happen to the bill, there would be an immense amount of frustration in different ways on the part of different stakeholders.
Sure, the bill can be improved, but as my colleagues here have said, there are amendment processes, regulatory processes and lots of new instruments, such as economic instruments, regulation, voluntary tools, codes of practice and so on, all of which are available to be used.
The Chairman: Let me present you with a hypothetical situation. Say my colleagues in the Senate determined that there were 10 to 15 areas that required some change, and the bill ended up going back to the House of Commons to deal with those amendments, to make the bill more appropriate, to bridge the gap that obviously exists between business or industry and the environmental people who have come before us. Say it took six months to bring that to finality. Would that be a worthy investment in time or would that be something you would prefer not to see happen?
Mr. Harper: I think that is a judgment call on the part of each and every one of you. I would have to know what the benefits would be, what the improvements would be. It is a hypothetical question. If improvement can be made, great, but there is a risk there. There is a certain amount of uncertainty, but we take that every day when we come into work or fly in a plane or whatever. It is another one of those risks that, at some point or other, Canadians in their conservative fashion will have to face up to, and it is a very tough judgment call, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perez: If you believe that in six months you can bring together the parties and get the type of resolution that you have described, it would be a very worthy investment of time. My pessimistic or cynical view is that it will not happen that way. It will be emotional. It will probably jeopardize part of the new minister's environmental agenda, just because of timing constraints and all of that. We are not eager to see more laws or regulations, but some are needed.
The process leading to Bill C-32 has been very dysfunctional. It has become almost a question, as they would say in Asia, of "face." It is something that goes beyond reason here. It is a question of leaving that one alone or killing it forever.
The Chairman: What do you mean by "dysfunctional"?
Mr. Perez: We should be in the third revision of CEPA in 1999. We are discussing the passage of the second one. We had the process where the committee of the House issued a report, the government responded in 1995, and that process foundered completely. Then there was a new session of the House and the bill was reintroduced by the government. A few weeks after that, the same government, through the minister, brought in hundreds of new amendments, the committee does the same on the other side, and you have a process where everything broke down, and in the end the cabinet, after a lot of pain inside, as you can probably imagine, has to come up and make a compromise. That is what we have. Maybe "dysfunctional" is not the right word and maybe I will use a French translation on this one, but it is not a good process for developing policy, particularly on enabling legislation like CEPA.
The Chairman: I agree with the dysfunctional interpretation that you have placed on it. The ball has been dropped badly in this legislation. You are nodding your head in agreement with what I am saying.
Mr. Perez: You have caught the ball, sir.
The Chairman: It has been dropped badly. One of our responsibilities in the Senate is to help the process.
Thank you very much for being here.
The committee adjourned.