EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 3, 1995

.1535

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

We are resuming hearings today with people who visited us last June. You may recall that excellent paper by ITC. At that time, they promised and indicated to us that they would want to come back to visit. We are glad that you are keeping your promise. We are glad to see you. We have at the table, Peter Williamson; Peter Usher, the research director; Angela Stadel, an environment researcher.

You are welcome. Please make a brief presentation so we can have a round of questions. We have several witnesses this afternoon and therefore we have to keep a certain pace.

Mr. Peter Williamson (Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Caccia. It is a pleasure meeting with you again. The last time we met was in Brussels in March, speaking on the Quebec issue.

Last June 21, representatives of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada appeared before you to outline our general perspectives on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are grateful for the opportunity to provide you with our specific concerns and recommendations today.

I am representing our president, Rosemarie Kuptana, who regrets she cannot be here today. With me is Peter Usher, our research director, and a new person to our staff, Angela Stadel. She has been with us for just the last couple of days.

The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada is the national voice of Canadian Inuit. ITC represents more than 35,000 Inuit living in 55 communities within the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and Labrador, as well as Inuit in southern Canada. Our president is directly elected by all Canadian Inuit. Our board of directors consists of the political leaders of each of our six regions across the north.

We Inuit enjoy a close relationship with the land, waters and animals that surround us. We are a hunting people and we have experienced great changes in our lives in the last couple of generations, but harvesting wildlife and fish continues to be a central part of our way of life and our culture.

Our fishes, birds and animals are a major source of our food and an important resource for our economic development. Our livelihood and way of life depends on the health and productivity of our lands and waters, so the state of our environment is of great concern to us.

About 25 years ago we started to recognize that proposed development such as oil and gas fields, pipelines and tanker routes in the Arctic could, if improperly controlled or limited, threaten our environment and our future. These initiatives were the driving force behind our land claim settlements. We need the tools to protect ourselves from these adverse effects.

Since 1975, we have negotiated three land claim settlement agreements covering most of our Inuit homeland. These are the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement of 1984 and the Nunavut Agreement of 1993.

.1540

Our land claims in Labrador and the area offshore of Nunavik in northern Quebec remain unresolved.

The chief tools our claims settlements give us with respect to environmental protection and land ownership are subsurface and surface title to over 20% of the N.W.T., for example, and co-management. We made a presentation to this committee on the principles of co-management in the Arctic last December, and we refer you to that document for further details.

The spirit and intent of our claims agreements were that we would have a direct share in the responsibility for environmental protection and management. The claims set out new standards for Inuit participation in and consultation about matters relating to the environment and development, as well as environmental management itself.

In our most recent agreements, the operation of these co-management bodies is clarified through implementation plans that provide for funding levels that ensure effective participation and performance by all members.

Our comprehensive land claim settlement agreements are treaties in the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The principles of Inuit participation in environmental protection and management and the institutions established for that purpose are part of a fundamental law of Canada. They are not optional and they are not discretionary.

Further, these provisions of our land claim settlements are paramount. They prevail over all other federal, territorial, provincial or municipal laws, bylaws or regulations that may be inconsistent or in conflict with them.

In recent years we have learned of subtle but disturbing indications of things going wrong in our environment. Scientists tell us that they find traces of persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals in the tissues of Arctic mammals and fish at much higher levels than in southern Canada. This is what we eat. More disturbing, they tell us that these chemicals are in our own bodies at levels significantly higher than the national average.

What they cannot tell us so far is what our chronic exposure to these contaminants will do to our own health and to that of our future generations.

Our elders and hunters also tell us that they can see disturbing changes even if they cannot explain them. They see signs of ill health and abnormalities in the bodies and behaviour of animals. They see that people are unhealthy in ways in which they were not in past years.

What has caused all of this? Neither we nor the scientists have the answers. But we know that many toxic substances were brought into our country by the military, by industry and by government since the 1950s and 1960s. These have been left untreated, inadequately contained or simply dumped in the ocean.

We also know that toxic contaminants come into the Arctic from other parts of Canada and the world. They flow down rivers from your cities, farms, factories and to the Arctic Ocean. They come in our ocean currents and in the air. For a variety of physical and chemical reasons, they stay and accumulate. The Arctic is becoming a global sink for world pollution, and these poisons are taken up, accumulated and magnified in every link of the food chain we depend upon. Sometimes we have even been warned against eating our everyday food. This is a matter of great anxiety and concern for us. We did not create the problem but we will bear the consequences no less, and in some ways perhaps more, than other Canadians.

We have virtually no control over this situation, which was hardly anticipated when we began negotiating our land claim settlements. Neither our own environmental assessment and review processes nor those prescribed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or its predecessors provide adequate or effective control or remedies. This is why we regard CEPA as an important legislative tool for the protection of our Arctic environment. That is why we believe it should be improved and strengthened.

.1545

Let me recap three key points.

First, the uncontrolled emission, dispersal or dumping of hazardous materials, including organic chemicals, heavy metals and radionuclides, even if they occur far from the Arctic, are potentially a very significant and widespread environmental and human health problem in the Arctic. We believe that Canada's environmental laws, including CEPA, should give specific recognition to the problem of persistence and bioaccumulation in the Arctic. Levels of use and dispersal that may not be problematic in the south may be very problematic in the Arctic.

Second, the long-range transport of pollution cannot be controlled by traditional tools, such as environmental impact assessments of specific projects in the Arctic. As well, many local sources of pollution are not covered by the CEAA and similar processes, either because the source already exists in the Arctic and is thus a waste-site clean-up problem or because the activity that generates it, such as accidental or deliberate waste disposal, is not necessarily subject to other review or regulation.

Third, CEPA, as the chief contemporary tool for dealing with this new type of environmental problem in the Arctic, should be implemented in the spirit and with the intent of the claims agreements themselves, in view of their focus on environmental protection and management. In other words, responsible and accountable Inuit organizations, whether at the regional or national level, should be directly involved in the implementation of CEPA as co-managers. The same standards of process, consultation and practice of co-management should apply to CEPA, as do to impact assessment.

The introduction of CEPA in 1988 was certainly a step forward, but not as big as it should have been. Instead of taking a comprehensive and strategic approach to environmental protection, it appears to have been a cobbled-together package of several existing acts. CEPA falls short of enshrining, let alone operationalizing, the principles needed to ensure that Canada conducts itself in an environmentally responsible way.

Some other federal initiatives have been equally if not more important to us in the short term. For example, the Arctic Environmental Strategy, a Green Plan program now in its fifth of six years, has provided us with substantial practical benefits with respect to understanding and combating contaminants in the Arctic, as well as some waste-site clean-up.

If there is one area of disappointment for us with respect to the Arctic Environmental Strategy, it is the absence of any impact to date on domestic legislation in Canada. Yet that is a stated objective of AES. Your review of CEPA is surely the occasion to meet that objective. We have to depend on appropriate legislation and its enforcement on a continuing basis, as well as specific and time-limited programs to ensure environmental health and productivity in the Arctic.

Our experience with both the environmental review process and the Northern Contaminants Program of the Arctic Environmental Strategy suggests that CEPA must adopt the following principles if it is to be effective.

It should have the capacity to take action on toxic substances and waste, even without absolute scientific proof of their harm either to the ecosystem or to human health - the precautionary principle.

It should provide for avoiding or preventing the use, generation and release of pollutants - the pollution prevention principle approach - as opposed to measures indeed intended primarily to contain pollution after it is generated and released.

A simple operating principle should apply to industrial and other activities in the Arctic: take out what you bring in. Natural physical and chemical processes are resulting in the Arctic becoming a pollution sink. Do human processes have to add to it? Site clean-up, waste removal and pollution prevention should be regarded as a normal cost of doing business in the Arctic and should apply to everyone in the interest of fairness and equity, as well as environmental quality.

.1550

Inuit must have the opportunity to be fully involved in the decision-making processes in a timely, accessible fashion before any activity such as waste disposal or substance release is approved that may affect their lives and livelihoods, directly or indirectly. This is consistent with the spirit and intent of the environmental protection and management provisions of our land claims. Both Inuit organizations and individuals should have access to the notification and appeal mechanisms of CEPA.

Section 11 of CEPA defines toxic substances. On the face of it, this section could be read as conforming with the precautionary principle. But we understand that both Environment Canada and Health Canada interpret the act quite narrowly in practice.

First, a substance must not be intrinsically toxic. There must also be sufficient exposure to it in the environment to constitute a danger to human or environmental health.

Second, the onus of proof is on Canada to establish toxicity, rather than on the manufacturer or user to establish safety.

Finally, this proof must be conclusive, not simply on a balance of probabilities.

In our experience, these tests are extremely onerous. The first five years of CEPA implementation bear this out. Although CEPA's domestic substances list includes some 21,000 substances manufactured in or imported into Canada on a commercial scale between 1984 and 1986, and new substances are coming on stream all the time, only 44 substances were assessed through the priority substances list exercise outlined in CEPA. Of these 44 substances, only 27 were deemed to be toxic outright. The rest were declared either non-toxic because they are not released in sufficient quantity or uncertain because there was not enough information on them.

Part II of CEPA should therefore incorporate the following specific principles with respect to toxics.

First, section 11 should, at the very least, not be weakened in any way. More importantly, the process of identifying toxic substances should be based on the following principles, which should be clearly stated in the act.

Second, chemicals should be assessed on a class-by-class basis, rather than using the current one-chemical-at-a-time approach. The class approach recognizes that families of substances have similar characteristics.

Third, substances should be assessed for their toxicity on a hazard- rather than risk-assessment basis. Risk assessment consists of an examination of the cause and effect relationship between exposure to the contaminant and a decline in health status, which is in fact notoriously difficult to prove. Hazard assessment, on the other hand, consists of assessing chemicals for their intrinsic characteristics, such as whether they are intrinsically toxic, whether they bioaccumulate in living tissue or biomagnify between different levels of the food chain, and whether they can persist within an ecosystem over a significant period of time.

Fourth, the principle of reverse onus should apply where there is a lack of information on the harm of a substance. This should especially apply to new substances, and indeed to any substances known to have the characteristics stated above. They should be regarded as potentially harmful unless proven otherwise.

Fifth, the level of proof required to make decisions concerning toxicity should be based on the weight of evidence or balance of probabilities, rather than absolute scientific certainty, as recommended by the IJC. Lack of conclusive proof that a substance is harmful should not constitute a licence for its use.

.1555

Sixth, substances on the DSL that do not meet the above test should be targeted for reduction or elimination through a sunset protocol incorporated into the act. Those that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic should be targeted for elimination on a prescribed schedule.

Seventh, to the extent that risk analysis is used in determining toxicity, worst-case scenarios should be employed. What may not be a risk in southern Canada may be one in the Arctic. The most vulnerable environments and human situations should be the criteria for assessment. For this reason we ask your committee to recommend that the Arctic be declared a contamination-elimination zone.

Finally, we note that radionuclides are not regulated under CEPA. We Inuit have long been concerned about activities involving the use, generation or release of radionuclides. To us, the hazard to our food supply and to the health of our people and future generations is simply unacceptable.

We therefore recommend that radionuclides be regulated under CEPA; in other words, that they be treated as substances to be assessed for their toxicity according to the criteria indicated above, and regulated or eliminated if shown to be toxic by those criteria.

This seems to us to be part of our larger problem relating to the scope of CEPA. Subsections 26(3), 34(3) and 54(1) provide for major exclusions from CEPA regulation, including pesticides and agricultural chemicals, which are among the chief sources of persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic.

We recommend either of two possible solutions. One is to change these sections to make CEPA the paramount federal legislation respecting toxics. The other is to amend the other relevant acts to incorporate the principles we outlined above.

The practice of ocean dumping in the Arctic raises a number of concerns for Inuit that have broad application in terms of principles for CEPA and, more generally, for economic activity in the north. The ocean is seen by many Canadians as a vast, unbroken expanse, which is therefore capable of absorbing the impacts of activities to a greater degree than smaller bodies of water or land. To Inuit, however, the ocean is far from limitless. We depend on the ocean at least as much as the land. It is the home of the marine mammals and fish we eat and make our living from. Whatever might adversely affect the ocean must be fully evaluated in an open and timely way, considering all the alternatives, before a decision is reached.

As a general principle, ITC does not support any dumping or disposal of waste materials into Arctic waters. Any decisions regarding activity in the Arctic should be guided by the precautionary approach of avoiding marine pollution altogether, rather than simply managing or minimizing it.

The current provisions in part VI of CEPA regarding ocean dumping fall short of incorporating these principles. To make the ocean dumping section of CEPA consistent with the principles of environmental protection prescribed in our land claims and with those suggested above for toxics, we recommend the following changes with respect to permitting under sections 71 and 72.

.1600

The public notification and approval system with respect to the Arctic Ocean and Labrador Sea, at least, must be subject to the same co-management principles as our claims agreements. Currently, the Regional Ocean Dumping Action Committee has power under CEPA to approve or reject ocean dumping applications. This body consists of public officials from concerned agencies. Notification procedures are limited and, for remote arctic communities, virtually ineffective. Public consultation by RODAC is discretionary.

Inuit organizations should have the same representation and role on RODAC as on claims-mandated co-management bodies.

All RODAC decisions should be publicly justified and environmental considerations should take precedence over matters of economic convenience in the making of such decisions. On occasions where the responsible minister rejects or varies RODAC decisions, written reasons should be provided to the RODAC and to the public.

The recent amendments to part VI in which the dumping permit fee was raised to a flat rate of $2,500 per permit fail to recognize the polluter pays principle, under which whoever causes environmental degradation or resource depletion should bear the full cost of remediation and compensation.

The current definition of ocean dumping does not include dumping in the intertidal zone or the disposal of artificial structures such as islands or platforms.

The Cold War has been outlived by its toxic legacy in the Arctic. Three major early warning radar lines, the Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line and the pole-vault line, the mid-Canada line - all since decommissioned - and the still-operational Northern Warning System sites span arctic Canada from the Alaskan border to Davis Strait and the Labrador Sea. Activity at these sites has led to violations of contaminant levels allowed under CEPA and exposes the inadequacy of the statute in addressing the unique circumstances posed by the sites.

At present, the 21 abandoned DEW Line sites are administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, while those converted to NWS sites are administered by DND. They are all on federal lands and the federal government is required to ensure that conditions there meet the terms of subsection 57(1) of CEPA.

Almost all of the sites are at coastal locations. Some are in highly productive marine areas that support large bird populations. Many are in close proximity to our communities and our important hunting and fishing areas.

A typical abandoned DEW Line site consists of one or more unsecured landfills, chemical storage tanks and buildings and other structures in conditions ranging from intact to severely damaged. Recent studies indicate some cases of high levels of nutrients, heavy metals or PCB contamination at DEW Line sites.

A protocol has been developed by Environment Canada and DIAND for cleaning up these sites, but it has not undergone any formal external screening and review process, including those mandated by our claims settlements. Some initial clean-up has taken place in recent years, but progress is slow and, in our view, incomplete. Few of these sites are considered to be secure at present.

These abandoned military installations are only the tip of the iceberg, however. Virtually all lands in the Arctic are federal lands, except for Inuit lands, and virtually all the activity on federal lands has been authorized by the federal government. Spread across the Arctic are countless other reminders of human activities, such as abandoned exploration and development sites for mining, oil and gas; research stations; federal installations and even communities. Most were abandoned with little or no remediation. They present a wide spectrum of environmental problems.

.1605

I cannot tell you if these sites constitute CEPA violations under the act as presently written. One reason is that there is not even a single, comprehensive inventory of waste sites across the Canadian Arctic, let alone a comprehensive system for setting priorities and targets for assessment and clean-up. I can tell you, however, that they are of great concern to Inuit for the reasons outlined at the beginning of our presentation.

We ask that this committee, apart from its recommendations to the Minister of the Environment on CEPA, ask the federal government immediately to put into place a priority-setting mechanism that will include Inuit as meaningful joint participants in priority-setting for DEW Line and NWS site clean-up.

We also ask the committee to urge the federal government immediately to set aside adequate funds for accelerated clean-up, over a period of not more than five years, of all DEW Line and NWS sites in the order of whatever priority results from the recommendation above, subject to the appropriate environmental reviews and contractual arrangements mandated by the claims agreements.

We Inuit think of the environment very broadly. We cannot in our minds pigeon-hole bits and pieces of it under specific legislation. We therefore recommend that this committee consider CEPA reform in a broad context of related federal initiatives and obligations.

At a minimum, we would note the following.

We are very concerned about the effects of this proposed legislation, which has already passed first reading.

Bill C-62 would allow for the negotiation of compliance agreements: privately negotiated agreements between the regulator and the regulated respecting the terms and conditions of operation and the mode of compliance regarding activities with potentially significant environmental effects. Such agreements could be negotiated in private, with only summaries of completed agreements being published in the Canada Gazette, if companies do not invoke the liberal confidentiality provisions allowed for under the bill.

It appears to us that these compliance agreements undermine the principle of ministerial responsibility and public accountability. We understand the rule of law in Canada to mean that, with respect to environmental responsibility, Canadians are treated equally, irrespective of their income, corporate organization or ability to negotiate.

The resultant semi-statutory patchwork of agreements that will spring up across the country as each company negotiates on its own will be virtually impossible to track and scrutinize. We are especially concerned that this process may be in conflict with our land claim agreements and particularly the work of the co-management bodies, which are instruments of public government.

We recommend that Bill C-62 as drafted be withdrawn and replaced by a process aimed at improving the regulatory system so that outmoded, inefficient regulations can be examined and replaced as is appropriate on a case-by-case basis with full consultation.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, a national forum for discussion and joint action on environmental issues, has recently released a draft environmental management framework agreement outlining a framework for harmonizing responsibilities for the environment among federal, territorial and provincial jurisdictions.

We are concerned that the framework agreement may become a means for the federal government to delegate virtually all of its responsibilities for the environment to the provinces and the territories. The constitutionality of this delegation is questionable, not least in terms of Canada's obligations under our claims agreements. We are also concerned about the resources available to the provinces and territories to effectively assume delegated responsibilities.

.1610

The level of consultation on this initiative is inadequate, and not up to the standards required by our claim settlements.

Above all, in view of the paramountcy of our claim agreements, if harmonization is to be to be done it must be in full recognition of what our agreements provide for.

We cannot help but note that all of this is taking place in the context of federal program review and expenditure reductions particularly affecting the environmental departments. The federal government's capacity to identify environmental problems, regulate environmentally sensitive activities, and monitor both environmental trends and the effectiveness of regulation and remedial action is declining when we need more, not less, regulation and enforcement.

Again, we are concerned about the effectiveness and utility of our review of CEPA and the development of strong environmental standards when other initiatives may have the effect of dismantling federal powers. We therefore recommend that the mandates and core capacities of the federal departments that presently deal with environmental issues be maintained at least at current levels.

Nowhere is the need for comprehensive revisions to CEPA more apparent than in the Arctic. Whether in regard to toxic contaminants, atmospheric pollution, ocean dumping practices, waste-site clean-up, or the challenges posed by changing government structures and practices, there is a clear need for a statute that firmly incorporates the principles of pollution prevention and is responsive to Inuit rights, values and practices.

We are well aware of the status of budget deficits and the public debt and its implications for Canadians. But we are also acutely aware of the environmental deficit that has also been a long time in the making. We have lived in a clean and healthy environment that sustains us well for our most basic bodily, cultural and spiritual needs. We want to keep it that way. We know that you can't just keep taking from the environment and abuse it by treating it as a dump. The diminished capacity of our basic life support systems - the ocean, the air, the land - can only lead to resource depletion and deteriorating human health.

The costs of cleaning up and reversing the process are already enormous. Look at the potential costs for waste-site clean-up in the Arctic itself, let alone the reduction of toxins at source. Look at what is happening in the Russian Arctic, where the situation was more advanced and allowed to become considerably worse. Environmental deficits are real and costly. They could be around a lot longer than government deficits and have much more painful consequences.

We do not expect a reformed CEPA to end all environmental contamination and degradation. But if your exercise is to be worthwhile it should go a long way in that direction. Certainly we expect substantial improvement over the present situation, which is unacceptable to us.

We would remind you that, in reaching for that objective, the paramountcy of our claims agreements and the solemn undertaking of Canada in those agreements must be respected.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson, for your important statement. You've brought some interesting new information to us today, and we'll certainly make good note of it and study what you are saying about the RODAC, dumping permit fees, dumping in intertidal zones and the DEW Line, and your suggestion about meaningful joint participation in priority setting for the DEW and the Northern Warning System site clean-ups. Also, we'll make good note of your points on the CCME framework agreement. Your concluding remarks are very timely, particularly your observation about the long-term environmental deficits. Again, we thank you very much.

.1615

[Translation]

Ms Guay, you have five minutes.

Ms Guay (Laurentides): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You have submitted a very substantial brief which is also very germane to our review of the CEPA. I have a couple of questions for you. I would first like to know if there are agreements on ocean dumping. Did the Inuit try to have the act amended in relation to ocean dumping?

[English]

Mr. Williamson: We don't believe that there are any agreements in place. We haven't heard of anything. But there will be representations on that issue when you travel north. The committee will be hearing the concerns of the Inuit when they travel to Nunavut.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's next week.

Ms Guay: That's fine. How does it work? You represent a great number of Inuit from all over the country; do the provinces have a role to play? Do you negotiate with the Environment Department of the provinces or only with the federal government?

[English]

Mr. Usher (Research Director, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Is this question with reference to ocean dumping specifically, or environmental issues generally?

[Translation]

Ms Guay: On the environment generally.

[English]

Mr. Usher: The Inuit organizations in Quebec and Newfoundland would deal with their provincial governments on matters of provincial jurisdiction.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I really have to compliment you on your very detailed and comprehensive brief. It's going to be very helpful for the committee.

Mr. Williamson, in your brief you noted some concerns about Bill C-62. You are probably not -

The Chairman: I did not want to interrupt Mr. Williamson in his flow, but we are now having hearings on CEPA and I would prefer leaving Bill C-62 out. His representation is quite eloquent. We know where he is on it, and since apparently a new version of it is coming down, we may want to do that at another time.

.1620

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.

You talked about pesticides in the Arctic. I was wondering if you could tell me what the source of these pesticides is, where they come from? If they are outside of the Arctic, how do they get there?

Mr. Usher: It is our understanding that most of these come not even from Canada but from other countries. There are some from Canada no doubt. Toxaphenes are one major concern; most of them are various forms of persistent organochlorines. You wanted to know the source of them and what they are?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, and where do they come from, how do they get there?

Mr. Usher: They come from the United States and Asia. They are worldwide in circulation and they are transported mostly by atmospheric currents.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You talked about a biomagnification of different levels in the food chain. I'm wondering if you could give some examples of substances that cause a particular deal of difficulty with this biomagnification?

Mr. Usher: Of the chemical substances?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What chemical substances, yes.

Mr. Usher: Certainly persistent organochlorines, heavy metals and radionuclides are all capable of biomagnification. By this we mean that they are taken up by small items in the food chain and then accumulated in higher concentrations as they go up the food chain.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What effects do they have on human health? Have you conducted any studies on this?

Mr. Usher: I think this is the biggest mystery of all. We understand that there are possible effects on human health. We are told that many of these substances are, by their nature, toxic. But what is the effect of chronic low-level exposure of people eating relatively small quantities of these substances? The answer seems to be that we don't know in the short term, and who knows what the long term will bring us?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You also mentioned in your brief that what might not be a risk in the south is certainly a risk in the north. Could you expand on that, please.

Mr. Williamson: To answer that partly, and your previous question, as Peter Usher was saying, within the food chain there is an increase in the levels of contaminants that go up the food chain. People eat caribou, seals, whales. You don't get that in the south. That is how these pollutants would have a harm in the north where they wouldn't have in the south.

Mr. Usher: If I could add one point to that, there is one aspect of the Arctic environment that is particularly troublesome from the point of view of persistent organochlorines. It is that in the course of atmospheric circulation these things come down in the Arctic and in cold temperatures they do not degrade. They persist and accumulate in the environment in a way in which they would not, for example, in the area we live in down here.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: That's what I wanted to know. So the cold acts to preserve some of these things, so it's more difficult for these to degrade.

You are aware that we will be going up to the Arctic next week. We're all quite excited about that. I was wondering if you had some ideas about the top questions and top issues that you feel the committee should be asking or looking into when we're up there?

Mr. Williamson: One of the concerns that some of the people might bring to the committee are the responsibility of the federal government. They see the federal government as having a constitutional obligation to deal with these problems, because they are aboriginal peoples and the federal government has a constitutional obligation to them in general.

Also, specifically, you will hear from Inuit organizations that are responsible for managing and implementing the land claims and responsible for ensuring that the federal government lives up to its obligations as per the land claims agreements, and specific sections of those agreements. I think you will hear some questions on how this committee will deal with these issues within their report, and how they would want the federal government to deal with these issues overall.

.1625

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): You might care to comment on one of the things I'd like to put on the record for next week when we're asking questions.

As I mentioned to you, we're not going to Rankin Inlet. I'm sorry about that. Nor are we going to Resolute. However, at the moment, one of the Rotary Clubs in my riding is hosting a group from Resolute. They tell me that Tabitha Kulluk, who is the mayor of Resolute, has objected to the fact that Panarctic Oils Ltd. has recently received permission from Indian and Northern Affairs to burn, dump and bury 7,000 tonnes of metal and other material at Rea Point on Cameron Island. This is under an agreement of a land lease that was signed in the 1960s. Of course Resolute is the nearest community.

I simply thought I'd mention that. If you'd care to comment on it, it's something we can follow up on next week in Iqaluit.

Mr. Williamson: This is the first time I've heard of this. My first reaction to that would be to ask how these things can continue where the federal government is approving things that contaminate the Arctic environment, particularly in the proximity of a community.

The first thing I thought of while you mentioned this was what has happened in Rankin Inlet. Back in the 1950s there was the Rankin Inlet nickel mine. A very few years ago - three or four years ago - we found out that the inlet at Rankin Inlet was contaminated from the mine that was there back in the 1950s. Since the mine was abandoned, the federal government has never done any testing on what sorts of pollutants there could be as a result of the mining activities. As it turned out, for the last 40 years people have been digging for mussels in the area that is contaminated, and we're looking at all sorts of health problems that have resulted from that.

It's disturbing to hear that the Canadian government is still approving dumping and getting rid of toxic substances in the Arctic.

Mr. Adams: With respect to CEPA, I notice you remark here that you hope the review of CEPA will strengthen the federal government's role in the north. As you mention, it's at a time when we are downsizing and, in a certain sense, it's for good reason, as you say. But it seems to me that very often the Arctic suffers first.

Has there been any discussion as to what might replace the Arctic Environment Strategy when it will finish, next year or whenever?

Also, because we're downsizing in terms of money that we can spend - it's just a fact of life, as you well know - in order to maintain strong national standards, including the Arctic, many of us would like to use the international authority that the federal government has. We would take the international level, which affects you so much, and use it to maintain strong national standards. I wonder if you'd care to comment on that, perhaps with respect to the Arctic Council or to international arrangements in the north in which the ITC is involved.

Mr. Usher: In answer to your first question, we understand that discussions are under way involving the Department of the Environment and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to the renewal of the Arctic Environmental Strategy, or some similar thing. We're very interested in that actually happening.

.1630

With respect to the second one, perhaps you're aware that we have an affiliated organization, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which pays a little bit more attention to the international sphere than we do. But obviously we're very supportive of the initiatives, such as the Arctic Council, that have been taken, and we attach great importance to those - not least for environmental reasons.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Williamson, it's my understanding that when it was set up, the ICC was one of the first organizations in the north to found its political will on environmental problems.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): We appreciate your presentation very much. It's very complete, very factual, very orderly, and I learned a great deal from it. You're certainly up to date on what we've been wrestling with on CEPA and its improvement. You talk about the pollution prevention and reverse onus and so on.

I want to go back to page 3. The third paragraph sets out my concern:

Our comprehensive land claims agreements are treaties in the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The principles of Inuit participation in environmental protection and management, and the institutions established for that purpose, are part of the fundamental law of Canada. They are not optional and they are not discretionary. Further, the provisions of our claims are paramount. They prevail over any other federal, territorial, provincial or municipal law, by-law or regulation which may be inconsistent or in conflict with them.

I assume that you're being absolutely accurate in those statements.

I go back to page 2, where you point out that three of the large land claims have been negotiated in the last 20 years: one in 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, one in 1984, and the last one in 1993. This committee has heard representation from the chief of the Quebec Cree that, in his opinion and his people's opinion, the federal government is not living up to its agreement with respect to co-management arrangements in Quebec. I take from your presentation to us today that you have some concerns in that regard too. Would you comment on that, please.

Is it better under the other agreements, or have they not been in effect long enough for us to know? Is it just the 1975 agreement that is deficient? Or is the 1984 agreement deficient too?

Mr. Williamson: In answer to your question, the claims are paramount over other legislation under the federal system and provincial and territorial systems. They are protected by section 35 of the Constitution.

The problem lies in having federal, territorial and provincial legislation be consistent with the land claims, in going through the process of making them consistent with the land claims. The federal, provincial and territorial governments have to go through amending their legislation to make it consistent with land claims, and in some cases there have been problems in doing that.

In answer to your question on the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, for the Inuit this was the first land claim agreement that was negotiated. It does address the co-management of wildlife and the environment, but other claims were settled after that, Inuvialuit and Nunavut, that are stronger in the wildlife and environmental areas because they have taken what has happened and improved upon it.

.1635

In terms of these claims, there is the spirit and intent to have Inuit involved in the co-management. How it might be written in one claim isn't necessarily the way it will be written in another claim. The spirit of co-management is still evolving, and the co-management structures from 1975 to 1982 to 1993 have evolved.

One of the objectives is to have the improvements gained through these claims also be applicable to the claims that were negotiated and signed before these co-management structures were set up. The spirit is still there to have equality and fairness in the system. It's a matter of changing federal, provincial and territorial legislation to make federal and provincial law consistent with the claims and to change the way the federal and provincial governments - like in northern Quebec - change their views on how strict they have to be, instead of looking at the spirit and intent of what we want to accomplish.

Mr. Finlay: That was going to be my supplemental question. I was going to ask whether there is any onus or agreement on the part of the federal and provincial governments to do that. If it works better, are we going to change the other ones? Your answer is encouraging, although it may take a long time.

Mr. Williamson: There is no agreement or system in place to make those improvements. Once you go through the process of establishing a new program in the federal system or the provincial and territorial systems, or have new legislation in the federal and provincial systems, I think one way of dealing with that is to go through the steps of putting together an implementation contract signed by the Inuit organizations, the provincial and territorial governments, and federal government to have those included as part of the land claim. I don't know how this would take place, but it's something that needs to be looked at.

Mr. Finlay: It's not going to be automatic then.

Mr. Williamson: I don't believe so.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, are you satisfied with the answer?

Mr. Finlay: Yes. But I think, Mr. Chairman, we have some responsibility in this matter. I'm not sure that it falls within our purview, but maybe we should say something about it.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's very helpful.

To conclude this round, I have one more question. It has to do with radionuclides. Are you in a position to indicate whether this matter has been raised by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada before? If so, where and on the basis of which recent scientific studies has this been done? Or is this the first time you are presenting that issue?

Mr. Usher: Do you mean the specific recommendation that radionuclides should be included in CEPA, or something else?

The Chairman: Your concern in general terms in relation to radionuclides. The recommendation vis-à-vis CEPA is not that essential.

Mr. Usher: I can think of two occasions on which this has been dealt with, not so much by our organization as by some of our regional affiliates. One was in connection with the proposed Kivalliq Mine in the Keewatin about five years ago and, to the best of my recollection, probably about fifteen years ago in connection with the proposed uranium mine in Labrador. In both of those cases, our constituents were very concerned about the possible impacts of this particular type of mining.

I should say that people in the communities are not necessarily hostile at all to all types of mining, but to this particular form.

.1640

The possible consequences of radionuclides on the food supply are an outstanding concern and consistently have been.

The Chairman: Where did the scientific input come from?

Mr. Usher: Personally, I couldn't tell you what the source of the scientific reports were, although I know they were brought to the attention of the regulatory boards that were involved.

The Chairman: Is the concern documented by scientific studies?

Mr. Usher: I'm not sure that I have personal knowledge of that. I haven't read the scientific studies myself, or if I have, I've forgotten about them. But, to our knowledge, they certainly exist.

The Chairman: We thank you again for your very valuable input. As you have seen, there is quite an interest around this table. We look forward, of course, to the hearings next week and to strengthening the bonds and the cooperation between the ITC and the work of the committee.

I now call to the table the witnesses for three different groups: the Canadian Environment Industries Association, the Environment Canada Accelerated Reduction and Elimination of Toxics Program, and the internationally known Canadian Chemical Producers' Association.

Environment Canada goes first.

Mr. James Riordan (Acting Director, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Department of the Environment): I have the responsibility today to talk about a program called ARET, which stands for accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics. It's an innovative approach to environmental protection in Canada. We were asked to come here today to give you an outline of that program.

What makes it innovative is that we're trying to accelerate the reduction and elimination of toxics based on voluntary action. The objective of the participants in this program - later I'll talk about who the participants are - is to demonstrate if voluntary action can achieve environmental goals faster than regulation alone. Voluntary approaches do not preclude the need for regulation, which is a different way of achieving environmental protection.

The original ARET multi-stakeholder process consisted of eight industry associations, ranging from the Canadian Mining Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, as well as associations from a range of industry sectors - steel, oil and gas, electrical, pulp and paper - a professional health association, three federal departments - Health, Industry, and Environment - and three provincial government departments from British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. As well, there are six environmental groups and labour organizations, ranging from Pollution Probe, the Canadian Labour Congress, Toxics Watch in Alberta, the West Coast Law Association, and the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

.1645

New Directions Group is a group of interested individuals from a range of backgrounds that includes industry sectors and non-government organizations. In September 1991 the New Directions Group asked the Government of Canada to look at new ways to achieve environmental protection. A group was struck. It became known as ARET, and our first meeting was in February 1992. We met for about 18 months and discussed the objectives, the goals and the means for achieving this innovative approach. Throughout that process we had some lively discussions, as you can imagine, about how things should be achieved.

The intention was the accelerated reduction or elimination of emissions of toxic substances. By September 1993 environmental non-governmental organizations and labour felt that they could no longer continue to participate in the initiative because their interest was in looking at use of toxic substances and a preference for a regulatory approach to toxic substances, whereas initially we had talked about emissions of toxic substances and there was some interest in the voluntary approach. Regrettably, the non-governmental organizations and labour organizations left the table.

Interestingly, and to the advantage of the program, there was a substance selection subcommittee that was identifying what were considered to be priority substances. That committee was co-chaired by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Mining Association of Canada and consisted of a number of non-governmental organizations. Despite the fact that the environmental and labour groups left the process, they agreed to stay on to complete the important work of identifying the substances on which we would ultimately take action.

How was the substance list developed? We looked at a CEASARS database, which is a chemical evaluation search and retrieval system managed by the Government of Ontario and the State of Michigan. That allowed us to look at the intrinsic properties of certain substances and criteria based on toxicity, bioaccumulation and persistence. We applied the precautionary principle to this approach and screened in 101 substances based on science, common sense and consensus. I'll emphasize again that the consensus included non-governmental organizations as well as labour and industry.

We have 101 substances and groups of substances. Largely, the A-1 substances are the priority substances that have all the categories and the criteria. They are persistent, they are bioaccumulative, and they are toxic. There are 14 substances in that category. There are three other categories, but they accumulated substances that were toxic, or toxic and persistent, or toxic and bioaccumulative.

The vision for these substances, particularly the persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances, is virtual elimination of discharges of these substances into the environment. The vision for the other substances that don't include all the criteria were reduction of discharges to no-harm levels.

In March 1994 we went out with a challenge through these industries and associations and through our own mailing to a variety of industry associations and individual companies, encouraging them to participate in a voluntary program to reduce or eliminate these substances. There are clear targets and goals and deadlines. We were looking for significant reductions in discharges, reductions of over 90% of persistent bioaccumulative toxics by the year 2000, and 50% reduction in other toxic substances, also by the year 2000. This would require some phase-outs, always looking to best efforts.

We require that each company produce an action plan, which is publicly available upon request. Some of the participants wanted some recognition for some of the efforts they had already invested in. We thought that was not an unreasonable request, so we asked them to report on their action plans activity from a base line to 1993, and then from 1993 we wanted to see new reductions from 1993 to the year 2000. There is a pledge by each of the companies to make their plans publicly available and to track their plans with public information as we approach the year 2000.

.1650

How will they do this? How are companies accountable? They are reporting in annual reports. I'm sure our colleague Mr. Lloyd will talk about the Dow Environmental Report, where they report on one side all the substances they emit by facility, by year, projecting to 1995, and then to the year 2000.

There are sectoral reports, such as this one by the Mining Association of Canada, which has never produced a report like this - reports on all the substances that they emit across Canada.

The National Pollutant Release Inventory was recently published by Environment Canada and lists 278 substances and requires, by law, companies of a certain size with certain uses of substances to report on the emissions of those substances.

Annual reports have been provided by the ARET secretariat, which has been maintained throughout this process.

In the first year of participation we received action plans from 138 corporations. It's important to note that while it's 138 corporations, some of them are reporting for significantly more than one facility. So while we're talking about 138 corporations reporting, we're talking about hundreds of facilities reporting. We have seven government departments reporting, ranging from Environment Canada to the Department of National Defence, EnerCan, Transport, and CSIS. We have 18 new corporations pledged for 1995, and we have a response from 40 other companies that say they support the ARET initiative but don't emit any of the ARET substances.

By sectoral response, there was a positive response from certain sectors such as the pulp and paper sector, with whom we've been negotiating over the years on regulations, etc. Thirty-seven of their corporations, representing 80 facilities, have submitted ARET action plans. In mining and smelting, while they have 13 companies, that's 80% of their sector.

Moving to chemicals, while we have 37 chemical companies, it's 90% of their membership, and they are pledging to raise that to 100% participation.

There is some limited participation from aluminum and perhaps from electrical utilities. While some of them are interested, there is some peer pressure on others within their sector to come on board with action plans in support of the program.

In regard to percentages, we tried to arrive at serious commitments to reductions of emissions. When you're talking about persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances, 90% was a hard-gained level of commitment that we required and negotiated, and we came on average pretty close. If you take out the PAHs, which are polyaromatic hydrocarbons, a very difficult substance to control without dramatic retooling and reinvestment, we register an average of 72%, but without the PAHs we'd be in the neighbourhood of 96% reductions by the year 2000. For the other substances, those that don't meet all the criteria, we have an average of 67% for pledged reductions in emissions of toxic substances.

We have a report that was released at the end of March, Environmental Leaders 1, that summarizes the actions plans by facility, by substance, and identifies trends. There are copies available for your information. It also provides contact people for detailed action plans, and for information with regard to ARET. It lists some of the tracking options that companies are involved in, and it outlines next steps.

.1655

We're convinced that commitments will grow. A good percentage of the action plans we've already received indicate there will be additional commitments later. We have 18 new action plans pledged for next year and five additional associations expressing interest. These include aerospace, plastics, and rubber. The Environmental Industries Association also provided a letter of unanimous support for the ARET project.

We're continuing to market the program and hope to be able to continue to provide positive reports on environmental results.

What comes next? We'll have an update published in December 1995. In the fall of 1996 we'll release Environmental Leaders 2, with action plans received until June of next year. We'll describe what we actually achieved against these commitments. I apologize for the acronym, but we'll be linking the results to what we call the strategic options process. That's dealing with CEPA toxic substances on an individual or sectoral basis, looking for options to achieve results on those CEPA toxics.

It's our experience that environmental protection requires a mix of tools, both regulatory and non-regulatory. Voluntary approaches are a complement to regulation, not an abandonment of regulation. Voluntary approaches allow governments to go beyond regulation and beyond compliance; for example, to get results on non-regulated substances. Of the 101 substances, in excess of 80 are not regulated, and we're seeing results on the reduction of the emissions of those substances. A program such as this also allows governments better to focus regulations on the areas where there are not demonstrated results. There is also the option to back-stop these voluntary approaches.

We've had some experience with the packaging protocol, which advised the industry that if they didn't meet certain targets, we will kick in regulations. I think that can be appropriate in certain cases to encourage what are sometimes called free riders to get involved in achieving environmental objectives. It may be necessary to develop regulations that bring these free riders on board.

There's no single solution to environmental protection. Government will always require legislation, regulation, and enforcement, but voluntary approaches do provide some opportunity to achieve results in a non-regulatory way.

The Chairman: I congratulate you, Mr. Riordan, for packing into less than 10 minutes such a comprehensive presentation. We will come back to you with questions.

I now invite Mr. Gallon to possibly do the same. Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Garry T. Gallon (President, Canadian Environment Industries Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be with you again.

The environment industry sector was created out of 25 years of a strong regulatory environment in Canada, starting in 1970-71 with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We basically developed the tools and services for helping Canada and its society to meet its requirements to clean up its air and water.

As a result, we have been growing, and we now have created a competitive advantage in Canada over much of the rest of the world. We are now among the top six producers of environmental technologies and services, and we export them widely. That has been as a result of us being up there with Germany, Japan, France, Sweden, and the United States.

That competitiveness, driven by the regulations, has put us into the position to create one of the top five industries in Canada in terms of employment. We now employ 150,000 people. Our industry is $11 billion a year, representing about 4,500 companies.

With that in hand, we have been diverse. We've been doing waste management, energy efficiency, renewable energy, soil remediation, water pollution control, and even pollution prevention.

.1700

So in 1988 or thereabouts came the green plan and other initiatives by the previous government. There started the voluntary programs, pollution prevention, and the move in 1990 towards establishing such things as the new directions group and ARET.

Our industry found as a result that there was a stall in the domestic market starting in about 1992-93 as a result of a paucity of strong environmental initiatives, whether they be regulation, economic instruments, or environmental voluntary compliance. At first when we went to government and said there is an issue here, they said, we are undertaking action.

However, our companies have come back to us and said that the user companies that are supposed to be cleaning up no longer require our services, and as long as their actions are not strongly required by strong environmental initiatives, they will not be using the services of our companies. So in essence we are in a situation now, especially as of 1992 with the U.S. environmental Clean Air Act amendments, where we are beginning to fall behind the United States and the others in our major clean-up efforts.

What we want to do, then, is work towards strong initiatives that have a mixed bag of voluntary compliance, ARET, and pollution prevention. We think we can do that in a way that is effective.

If we take a look at some of the actions being reviewed by OECD and the United States, they've recently issued a number of reports. One of them, for example, which was done by the OECD, is called Voluntary Agreements in Environmental Policy, written by Mathieu Glachant. That was prepared by the OECD Environment Directorate in February 1994. It basically says that industry will not entirely comply voluntarily without some other instruments to prod it along.

Nicholas Ashford, from MIT, chair of the U.S. EPA Technology Innovation and Economic Committee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, NACEPT, has a report called Permitting and Compliance Policy Barriers to U.S. Environmental Technology Innovation, written in 1991. It basically alludes to the fact that voluntary measures are ineffective without being accompanied by other measures.

Another OECD report, which was written by J.Ph. Bard and P.F. Ténière Buchot, is entitled Promotion and Diffusion of Clean Technologies in Industry. This was written by the Paris office of the OECD Environment Directorate in 1987. Basically, it says that enforcement is not any more expensive than environmental initiatives; in fact, enforcement of regulations can be cheaper. It can provide certainty to industry. It can reduce a tremendous number of hours in negotiation as to whether or not companies are complying or in trying to bring in field-levelling regulations to catch those companies that are not complying. Also, they state that the regulations can drive innovation of new technologies and new processes.

About process, for example, Canada is a world leader in environmental assessment as a result of the process beginning with the Berger inquiry back in 1973-75. We have since innovated and developed that EA process to the point where we are exporting our EA processes all over the world through our consulting engineering firms and through our environmental consulting firms.

If we are going to work with the voluntary initiatives, we propose the following approach. For example, we would have an EEI approach. That would be effective environmental initiatives. It would be set up on a T-square mandate; that is, first targets, then timetables. You would have a five-tier approach to that. The first tier would be voluntary programs.

As has been made very clear, we at CEIA support the ARET voluntary initiative, especially if it becomes effective.

.1705

We have a number of questions about ARET. We want to make sure ARET in fact is effective across the board, that it indeed meets its goals across the board...not just the companies that volunteer themselves. We have excellent companies, such as Noranda, Dow, and Du Pont. They're all volunteering. They're showcased. They're right up front amongst the leaders. But what are the percentages of the companies that are complying with the ARET voluntary process?

In fact, I would like to table with you today a letter we wrote as an association from Ontario to the Hon. Sheila Copps on March 14, 1994, on ARET. It basically puts forward those types of questions. I won't read them into the record now, since you will have them as part of your documentation.

First, you have the first tier of voluntary programs. That includes ISO 14000 and environmental management systems such as TQM, total quality environmental management.

Then you go to tier two. What if the voluntary measures need additional support? What could those support measures be to work with non-compliers?

First of all, there needs to be peer review amongst the industry and the government. Bring in the offenders, sit them down, and say, we need to review your non-compliance with this voluntary program.

The second is a report in the media. Buy some space in the newspaper. This should be done by the ARET group. If the newspaper is available and we can expose those who are (a) not complying with ARET or (b) not participating, then there's nothing like the clear light of exposé to have them comply without any regulation whatsoever. Also, there's the possibility of cutting them off from buyers, such as procurement for the federal government. If they are not complying, just cut them off on a procurement policy approach.

The fourth is educational awareness. If executives don't understand why it's important to be part of the voluntary program, then let's bring them in and talk to them in a process of educational awareness.

Now, that's all non-regulatory and could be very effective.

Tier three, then, would be environmental economic instruments. They would include, one, liability and insurance; two, economic instruments; three, green procurement; four, effective pollution prevention programs with, of course, timetables and targets; and five, compliance with international agreements. This includes NAFTA, the NAFTA side agreement, and the international agreements on the Montreal protocol for CFCs, for example. I think we can do those kinds of things without implementing regulations.

Tier four, then, would finally get you to the regulatory approach, which we would say should not be just command and control. They should be smart regulations. They should be a mix thereof. In our policy committee and our board of directors meeting we have assistive regulations, field-levelling, and finally, command and control.

Important within regulation is enforcement. One of the key elements is the threat of regulation. There's nothing like preparing to write regulations to create voluntary action. We found that in writing our proposed regulations in the provincial government when I was there as policy adviser from 1985 to 1990.

The fifth tier would be the ZIC group, the zero impact companies. They would be those that get completely out of the loop by having closed circuit, virtual zero discharge systems put in place. A number of companies are now doing that.

In the end, we think there can be environmental competitiveness and industrial growth with job creation with strong environmental initiatives. We have not seen those initiatives in the last several years. We would hope that as you review and rewrite the Canadian Environmental Protection Act you would write in strong processes that can support the voluntary initiatives, which are in their infant stages.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallon, for bringing us this methodology, which certainly shows you have put a lot of thinking into it.

Finally, we have Mr. Lloyd, on behalf of the Chemical Producers' Association. Welcome.

Mr. Gordon Lloyd (Vice-President, Technical Affairs, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CCPA is happy to be back here again before the committee in the context of the parliamentary review. We appeared earlier in the fall with a fuller submission where we addressed a lot of the broad areas the committee is looking at. We also explained to you the important role the chemical manufacturers' association plays in the economy. We also explained to you our responsible care program. So I won't get into those things again.

.1710

We're very pleased to be back again to comment on the ARET program, which, as you've heard, we were a part of putting together.

Our association sees the ARET program as a very important initiative.

We talked in our broader submissions in the fall about how we felt that a mix of regulatory and voluntary measures were necessary for improved environmental protection, and we said that we needed to move away from an over-reliance on regulations and to give voluntary measures a chance to show what they could achieve.

Within that context the ARET program is a flagship and will be watched very carefully. I think it's important to note what it has achieved. Mr. Riordan talked about what it had achieved broadly for the number of industry sectors that are participating. I'd like to give a bit more detail on what it's achieved in the chemical sector.

Nearly all of our members have decided to participate in the first report. At our board meeting several weeks ago, after the initial report came out, the board reviewed the fact that we did not have 100% participation. We will work to get the remaining members to participate. These tend to be our smaller members, and also some new members. But our board feels it is very important that we do get full participation.

In the chemical sector of the ARET report, in the four areas that ARET divided its list of chemicals into, there were, as Mr. Riordan said, targets set for each. In each area, the chemical sector emissions reductions exceeded the targets that were set. This is something we feel is consistent with what we're trying to do under responsible care. Overall in the chemical sector, from 1993, our emissions were 1,799 tonnes, and those are projected to decline to 859 tonnes by the year 2000.

We agree it's important that there be public visibility of how voluntary programs work. One of the phrases I've used to describe this in the past is ``track us, don't trust us''.

We have an initiative within CCPA called Reducing Emissions. It's similar to the National Pollutant Release Inventory to which Mr. Riordan alluded, but it tracks a broader range of substances, and it also provides projection plans for reductions by member companies, which we aggregate in the report. We give information on how the public can talk to the individual companies about what their specific site plans are.

Once ARET came out we broadened our Reducing Emissions report for last year to make sure all of the ARET substances were included in it. Through that vehicle, which we release in the fall, we are showing the public what our reductions are in ARET, as well as other emissions.

One of the things we think are important to note about the ARET process is the flexibility it provides and the way it allows companies to priorize on what makes sense for them to spend their dollars on. A wide range of substances are in the ARET report. There are 101 or 117, depending on how you count up the PAHs.

These are grouped into various categories. As I said, reduction objectives are set for each of the categories on a menued approach with the substances in that group. This allows companies to pick substances where it makes the most sense to focus their efforts, but overall it allows for broad achievement of environmental protection objectives and emission reductions, which the results show.

CCPA is promoting the concept Canada has pioneered in ARET. We're doing that internationally through the ICCA, the International Council of Chemical Associations, and we feel that ARET provides a basis for Canada to show leadership on how voluntary programs can work.

.1715

As was said in previous presentations, there is a lot of discussion within the OECD and elsewhere about trying to look at innovative ways to deal with environmental management beyond command and control. We think Canada has a real solution and a success story in ARET. It's something we should be talking about internationally.

Although we've achieved a lot in ARET, we think more needs to be done. As indicated, our board is going to try to make sure we have full participation by our membership. There was good, broad participation by industry generally, but as representatives on the ARET steering committee, CCPA members hope more companies in other sectors also participate. In that context, I think encouragement by federal and provincial governments, and by committees such as yours, about the benefits the ARET program can achieve will go a long way to try to get further participation.

At an early stage in the ARET process, CCPA wrote to Minister Copps. We were discussing with her our view that ARET should be an important cornerstone in the way the federal government manages toxic substances. She wrote back very positively. Here are a couple of quotes from the letter she sent to our president, Jean Bélanger. She said:

Should the results of the ARET initiative indicate that voluntary programs can offer timely and effective ways of adequately protecting the environment in a cost-efficient manner, they will be emphasized greatly.

She went on to say:

The greater the success of the ARET program in a sector, the more likely that voluntary measures will be used in that area to achieve future objectives.

Those are the kinds of positive statements from government that show industry voluntary approaches are seen as a way in which we can do business in achieving environmental protection. We hope that type of statement will come from this committee in its report to the government. We feel that will encourage additional buy-ins into the ARET process by other sectors and other companies.

We think the ARET program is a great success. We certainly agree that voluntarily is not the only way to go about environmental improvement. There needs to be a mix, but we need to make sure where there are voluntary programs that can work, they are fully supported and utilized to the fullest extent. ARET has shown they can work, and it's achieved results.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. It was very interesting. We will now launch a round of questions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay, please.

Mrs. Guay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This presentation was very interesting and very well documented. I shall ask a few questions about voluntary measures. Obviously, when we are talking with environmental groups and mention voluntary measures, they don't react very positively because of lack of control.

I will ask first what industry is the most active participant in the program. What types of industry do participate in the program?

[English]

Mr. Riordan: They are the chemical producers, the Mining Association of Canada, the electric utilities to some degree, pulp and paper, and steel. They are some of the largest companies in Canada.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Do the oil industries participate?

[English]

Mr. Riordan: The oil and gas industries were part of the ARET process throughout. Some of the member companies of the association are participating and others are not. Their performance is not as good as some of the major companies you asked about. I think they're currently looking at priorities. With the ARET program we're dealing with with toxic substances. I think their priority now, as required by governments, is more with chemicals that are effecting climate change, ozone depletion and global warming. They are different categories - in some cases; not in all cases.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: You may have some industries that make use of your program and that work under a system of voluntary measures but they may find themselves at a given point in time in a difficult financial situation; wouldn't there then be a risk that they make enormous strides from an environmental point of view during one year while they might just drop the program the following year? Do you follow up very closely on participating industries? I would like you to give me a general idea on how your program works.

.1720

[English]

Mr. Riordan: First, I think I need to emphasize that in effect this program started in March 1994, so we've really been at this for one year. It took a while to get it up and going, but we've been at it for one year. During that year, companies prepared action plans that are public, that say what they will do by substance over the period of the program, which is six years.

There are two ways. One, as we talked about, is annual reports. Many of the companies have annual financial reports and also annual environmental reports. Those are a voluntary way to report on their achievements. There is also the recently announced National Pollutant Release Inventory, which is operated by Environment Canada and which tracks the emissions of these companies.

The other point is that these action plans are available publicly so you or any member of the public could ask any company participating for a copy of their action plan and a copy of their report against that action plan. There is also peer pressure if a company is reporting under an ARET and another company is reporting, and one sees the other isn't reporting fully or the extent to which the first company is reporting. There is pressure through industry associations, through peers and through competitors to get the other to report better.

About investment, I really can't speak to that. Perhaps the member from the industry itself could speak to that.

The Chairman: Briefly.

Mr. Lloyd: I'd like to note that about the participants... I believe the ARET report has been provided to members. Page 30 has a table showing who has participated. I think the question of trying to get continued and greater participation, which you've addressed, is key also to what I commented on.

For investment dollars to be available is certainly critical, but I think more and more companies are realizing they have to plan their environmental performance as part of their investment in an integrated sustainable development approach. These aren't separate questions. They have to be done together.

As Mr. Riordan said, the tracking type of mechanisms that are part of ARET, the public scrutiny, plus the types of - in our sector - responsible care approaches and similar approaches in other sectors, will ensure that companies keep on the track of what they've committed to. But also I'd like to re-emphasize the point I made that with encouragement from groups such as this, voluntary programs, if they are followed out by industry, will be recognized and will be important, I think, in bringing on some of the sectors and some of the companies that were looking to join the ARET process.

The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you. Mr. Gallon, I'd like to begin with you and give you a question. Then I would encourage the other members to chime in to fill out the question from their point of view.

Mr. Gallon, you alluded to how Canada is doing, and then you talked about the United States. You talked about how Canada was in front, and then you saw some shift to the initiative going on across the border. I'd like perhaps for you to expand that issue a little and say why and what the real character of that is.

As a subset of that, you also said you saw a reduction or a flattening off of the curve of initiatives in Canada lately, a change in what was happening in the last couple of years. I want to ask why that is, in your opinion, and for you to describe really what is happening. Then what in your opinion would be the response? How do we fix it, and especially the role of the federal government? What would you be liking to see from the federal government to respond to those changes you observe?

.1725

Mr. Gallon: In its regulation and enforcement Canada levelled out following implementation of the green plan in 1988. In 1990-91 ARET was starting to be developed out of a new directions group. Then in 1991 the environment groups, which helped build it, walked away, finding that it had fundamental flaws in it.

The Canadian government waited for the voluntary initiative. As a result, no other strong initiatives of substance were taken at the national level; and this is after 25 years of strong action. There were a lot of reasons for that; first the attempt to shift to voluntary pollution-prevention measures without full facilities around them to make them work.

The second was the recession in Canada. But there was a recession in the U.S. at the same time. What we found in Canada was the inability to pay for a lot of the clean-up that was needed during these recessionary times. Now we're in a situation where we have an economic growth spurt, very strong economic performance by the pulp and paper industry , which is under some regulation by Canada, and there's a requirement for additional enforcement, of course.

As you've noticed, in the ARET program, as it's been described, there has not been major participation by some of the sectors: the mining sector, the energy sector, for example, with its toxic contaminants. They're not there. Therefore what's going to bring them to the table? We think if they can't come voluntarily with the excellent work that's being done by the ARET group, then maybe the threat of regulation, the power to regulate, as long as that is shown....

In the provincial government, when I was there, we were writing regulation on recycling. That threat of regulation caused voluntary action. As you long as you maintain that power within CEPA, I think you're in a situation where you will be able to show a stimulus for tremendous voluntary action that would move the industry along. The environmental industry will help there and innovate new technologies for the export market.

Mr. Forseth: During your answer I was just reading the faces of some of the other presenters here today, so I would like their counter-answer, because I don't think we got total agreement from the other members as to how you characterize things.

Mr. Riordan: Just for the record, the mining association is a major participant in the ARET program.

I think we're talking about two different things. Mr. Gallon is talking about the market for environmental industries and we're talking about innovative ways of achieving environmental results.

I also would like to point out that Environment Canada did not wait to see how this voluntary program played out before it continued to develop its regulatory approach with assessing 25 substances as CEPA toxic and moving through CEPA review and so on. I think this is a small part of what Environment Canada does overall.

I'll come back again to the Mining Association. Throughout the consultations, there was a clear lack of trust between various groups; the environmental groups, the industrial groups, and government. No one fully trusted the other at the table. So the fact that we sat at the table for 18 months and actually talked about the environment I think was an achievement in itself. The fact that we had a multi-stakeholder committee, which included NGO, labour, industry and government, to decide to focus on a list of substances on which we wanted to act was an achievement.

Regrettably, for whatever reasons, the non-government organizations and labour chose to leave the table. But we took the risk and proceeded with a program which we all had invested two and three years in and thought could achieve valuable environmental results. We're seeing that.

The other thing is when you talk about some of these companies - and I'll come back to the mining association - this was never one of the most environmentally conscious sectors. Right to the end, before we got our minister to sign on to proceeding with a writ, our minister had to make a decision as to whether to proceed without non-government organizations and only with industry and government.

.1730

Right to the eleventh hour, the Mining Association was saying, we cannot do what you're demanding; we cannot reduce emissions of toxic substances that are persistently biocumulative by 90% by the year 2000; what's the point in signing on if we know we can't do it?

The example they kept using was cadmium. I won't get into cadmium, but as it turns out, they were able to reduce the emissions of cadmium by 88%.

So I think we came with a challenge, and we're testing to see what can be accomplished with voluntary approaches. It's as simple as that.

The Chairman: Ms Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I just wanted to point out about the national pollution release inventory...I think you had quoted 278, and I have a press release that says 178 subtances on -

Mr. Riordan: I'm sorry.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So just a clarification for the record. Is that correct?

Mr. Riordan: Yes.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you. I was just wondering if you could clarify, for the committee, what the process is of getting a substance on the list. I understand you have different categories you've identified criteria for. I just wonder what kind of process is involved in getting a substance on the list.

Mr. Riordan: The list, as I described in the overheads, was based on the CEASARS system. We screened several hundred substances for persistent biocumulative toxicity. There's a detailed description in the ARET report. The ones that met our criteria were these 101 substances that met the persistent biocumulative toxicity requirements that were agreed to by the substance selection subcommittee.

How new substances get on the list and how even a substance might get off the list are being looked at right now, but it depends on how you meet the criteria. We didn't use the detail that CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, uses for its priority substances, which takes a long time; for example, a risk assessment. We used the precautionary principle, good science, the CEASARS system, and consensus to arrive at these 101 substances.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Who sits on the subcommittee?

Mr. Riordan: At the point of arriving at that 101 substances, it was a subcommittee that was co-chaired by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Mining Association of Canada. It had equal representation from environmental non-governmental organizations, government and business.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: On page 44 in your report, you have three substances you're looking at downgrading. You said - I just wanted to clarify what you said - you're still trying to determine the process for de-listing or downgrading a substance.

Mr. Riordan: If there is new information, for example information that was not available at the time when we did the assessment, or new information which can be brought to the substance selection subcommittee whereby the committee can be convinced that a substance be considered non-toxic or non-biocumulative or non-persistent, then because it's new information we didn't have at the time of the initial screening, a substance could be removed from the list.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Who makes the decision?

Mr. Riordan: The substance selection subcommittee, which is a multi-stakeholder subcommittee.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: How does the information come to them? I know these individuals represent various industries and things like that, but are the NGOs still involved with this process?

Mr. Riordan: Yes.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: As far as I understood, the environmental groups had walked away from the process.

Mr. Riordan: With the exception of the substance selection subcommittee. If there is an appeal - and there have been two, I think - we fax the information around to the substance selection subcommittee. They give the substance selection subcommittee time to consider the information and then have a conference call or meeting and render a recommendation to the ARET committee, which would make the decision.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So the NGOs are still involved with that process.

Mr. Riordan: Yes, they have been.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What kind of backgrounds do these individuals have? If we're talking about representatives from industry or something like that, do they have a scientific background or do they...

.1735

Mr. Riordan: The persons from the Canadian Labour Congress, from the various NGOs and from the Ontario Government, for example, have the background in toxicology and science that's required. That's why the committee itself didn't feel equipped to do the science.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Right. So how is it done? Is it done by vote or by consensus?

Mr. Riordan: Consensus.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was wondering also, because we are looking at CEPA, if ARET decides to downgrade a substance but CEPA still considers it toxic or looks at the substance in a different way...we're concerned about the ramifications for CEPA, especially if there are any challenges in the court around CEPA substances and things like that.

Mr. Lloyd: Could I respond partially to that? When you're looking at - to use your word - downgrading a substance on the list, I think it's important to remember that the purpose of the list is to provide a menu of substances of concern about which people make priority decisions on what they're going to address. If we get new information that says one of those things on the list is no longer a priority, it doesn't make sense, in our view, to continue focusing attention on that.

On your question about what if something was CEPA toxic, it's inconceivable that something would be removed from the list because it was CEPA toxic. On the other hand, you might have a situation where you've gone through a full-blown assessment under CEPA and determined something was safe. In our view that might be - although we haven't worked out the rules for how this will work - a possibility for saying why focus attention on something that's established to be safe. But it would not work the other way around.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You keep referring to the fact that new information is available. I appreciate that, and certainly science learns over time, but just in the item of the first one here - God help me, I can't pronounce it - it refers to a concern around the original criteria used for that substance. I'm wondering how the new information enters into the situation.

Mr. Anthony Stone (Manager, ARET Strategies, National Office of Pollution Prevention, Environment Canada): On that particular substance, the new information is coming via studies that have been performed for the U.S. EPA. Once those data are received, which apparently indicate that this particular substance, paradichlorobenzene, is no longer a problem, that information will be brought to the subcommittee for them to decide whether indeed it was good science. Should there be a consensus that whatever study was done for the EPA is sufficient, a recommendation will be made to the ARET committee to deal with the substance.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You had expressed some concern and put forward the point that the majority of the substances were moving along according to the target and it paused for one group you were having some difficulty with. You'd also expressed the concern that they were very difficult to control and monitor, and I see they're part of the group that wants to be downgraded here. So I'm wondering if there is a connection.

Mr. Stone: We received a request to downgrade from one company. The information they provided was commented on by members of the subcommittee. Several months have now gone by and the company has chosen not to continue its appeal. It has accepted, to the best of our knowledge, the consensus from the committee that indeed the substance meets all the criteria and that no new information had been brought forward.

That's the way it's been left at this time. We've contacted the company and they have been invited to provide whatever further information they want.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Finlay: It's a very interesting presentation, gentlemen. I have two very small questions.

.1740

On the fifth page of your presentation, Mr. Riordan, you mention BFC. What does BFC stand for?

Mr. Riordan: It's persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. We should learn not to use acronyms.

Mr. Finlay: Since f doesn't appear in ``bioaccumulation'', I just had difficulty with it.

On page 8, you say ``under the action plan baseline in 1993'', and I think when you explained that you said the people who were involved in this ARET program commented or reported from their baseline data what they'd achieved by 1993, yet earlier you said it started actually in 1994. So I'm a little confused.

Mr. Riordan: If you were operating a company and you'd invested significantly in the last couple of years in improving your environmental performance, I think you'd want that recognized in a report on your participation. So through negotiation we agreed it was not an unreasonable request to recognize that activity and investment and result but the baseline shouldn't go back more than five years. So a baseline could start at 1988, 1989, 1990, etc. What we were interested in more importantly was what would happen from 1993 - you're right - when the program started, to the year 2000. So we wanted companies and for that matter government departments to report new reductions from 1993 to 2000.

Now the clarification on my saying it started in 1994. The challenge went out in 1994, but companies were participating knowing we wanted them to begin to report in 1993.

Mr. Finlay: On the list of stakeholders on page 3, you mentioned the three federal departments involved were Health, Industry and Environment. I think they're obvious, and I'm very pleased they're there. However, one of the criticisms of CEPA has been that the act doesn't apply strongly enough to federal departments that go around still doing things industry and other people are not allowed to do.

I've listed here Natural Resources, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, International Trade, Agriculture and Defence as being departments, and there may be half a dozen others. I guess all of them should be. But in their responsibilities, can you suggest at all...would you agree that ARET would be strengthened if these departments were in it? Since they're not in it, do you know why? They must have been invited.

Mr. Riordan: If you look at the ARET report on page 62, you can see the three departments on the ARET committee were participants on the committee. For example, each of the industry representatives had only one representative for their sector, but many more people actually participated in the program. So at the top of page 62, those are the government departments actually participating in the program.

So you have the committee that's overseeing the program and you have actual participants in the program. You can see CSIS, Environment Canada, National Capital Commission, National Defence, National Research Council, Natural Resources Canada, as you said, and Transport Canada are all participants. They've all produced action plans and they're all reducing emissions of toxic substances in accordance with the requirements of the program.

Mr. Finlay: Health isn't there.

Mr. Riordan: We're aiming at departments that have emissions of the ARET substances, and Health either has no emissions of these substances or will soon be participating.

Mr. Finlay: Excuse me, you did indicate they were participating, did you not? They're participating in the plan.

Mr. Riordan: On the committee we needed their expertise particularly in the area of toxicology and the evolution of the program.

Mr. Finlay: I just refer to the second half of my question again. I'm glad to see Defence there and Transport Canada, but I don't see International Trade, I don't see Industry, yet they were part of the planning.

.1745

Mr. Riordan: Respectfully, some of these departments may not deal with any of these substances we've identified for reductions and eliminations. It could be perhaps labs, or, as you know, National Defence was right there, knowing they had to deal with a fair amount of these substances. We also didn't really expect to get all departments at the first go. This year we've got commitments from 14 other industries to participate.

With Industry there is pressure on deputy ministers to get other deputy ministers, for example, to get more participation. We have about 50% of government departments participating right now, and we hope to be able to match some of our industry participation rates.

Mr. Finlay: You have 50% of government departments?

Mr. Riordan: We have 50% of government departments that use the substances.

Mr. Finlay: There's certainly not 50% of them on this.

Mr. Riordan: No, that's correct.

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. First, from the CCPA I'm getting a bit of a mixed message, if you will, or at least an unclear message. I heard the spokesman say two things, that we need to move from an over-reliance on regulations to a voluntary approach, and then later on that we do need a mix of both. Do you feel there are too many regulations now? A second part is, what is the right mix, in your view?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope I wasn't inconsistent. As we said in our broader brief, and when we talked to the committee before, we feel there does have to be a mix. But I think historically the inclination was to turn to command and control first.

I think the new way of doing business that governments are discovering in Canada, the U.S., and internationally is it is an expensive way to achieve results that should be reserved for when it's needed, and that you need to see what voluntary approaches can do first. In fact Treasury Board published a directive several years ago that established that as a broad policy. So that's the underpinning of the approach we think should be taken.

If voluntary approaches aren't doing the job, then I would submit that in the red area we have good evidence that at least in a lot of the sectors they are doing the job. Then don't waste taxpayers' money on regulations where they're not necessary.

We would certainly agree, though, that concerns about a level playing-field and what not may in fact arise. But again, if regulations come along, we hope they could be done in a way that would take into account what had already been accomplished voluntarily.

There are no specific regulations I would like to comment on that need to be done away with, but the overall approach I hope I clarified.

Mr. O'Brien: I understand. I would like to have you reconcile that, though, with what Mr. Gallon said, and maybe have him comment that regulations.... And certainly we've heard consistently through these hearings that regulations, or at least the threat of regulations, are absolutely necessary in order to get an acceptable level of compliance, whatever that really is. It should be 100%, I would suggest.

Mr. Lloyd: I think the proof is before you in the ARET report that a lot has been accomplished through voluntary approaches. I can't say more than that. I disagree with a number of the things Mr. Gallon said in the very briefly, please, reminder.... I won't get into that.

Mr. O'Brien: Okay.

Mr. Lloyd: But I think you have the proof in front of you with ARET in a number of sectors that the voluntary approach has worked effectively. Maybe back-up is needed in some areas, but let's be selective about where it's required.

Mr. Gallon: Where command and control regulations have fallen down is where they have prescribed technologies or they have prescribed this is how you shall clean up. We're looking at new approaches that don't prescribe how you clean up, just set the target and then allow performance-based initiatives to allow the companies to get there.

What's happened now is that Germany and Japan, and now even Poland.... We had a meeting with three Polish government officials yesterday with 85 of our environmental companies, and that meeting revealed that Poland is going to be using environmental regulations to drive new technology development, and for them to be the brand-new driver of new technologies throughout eastern Europe.

.1750

The same thing has happened with Japan and Germany.

What we hear now is that the department of Foreign Affairs and Industry Canada are helping to set new policy initiatives by Canada to go to the World Trade Organization and to GATT and say, no regulations, please, just voluntary initiatives. I think there's a way.

Mr. O'Brien: As an individual member of the committee, I certainly believe in the necessity of regulations. But maybe to Mr. Riordan from ERAT, what measures can be taken by industry to get the compliance level where it should be, which as far as I'm concerned is 100%? If it's such an important endeavour, why don't we get 100% compliance, and how do you subscribe to do that?

Mr. Riordan: About the substances ERAT is dealing with, there are no regulations on the vast majority of those substances. We're getting results in advance of regulations. So I think that's one positive aspect of voluntary.

In no way is voluntary an abandonment of regulatory. I think regulations have a role to play, either as a back-stop or as a motivator. I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about motivation. Regulations have certain thresholds, and sometimes, frankly, those are not enough. It often can be the lowest common denominator. What voluntary approaches can do is to go beyond, to try to achieve that 100% you mentioned.

Mr. O'Brien: So you have specific plans to achieve 100% in industry?

Mr. Riordan: Do I?

Mr. O'Brien: Well, ERAT and the industry.

Mr. Riordan: I think certain sectors within the ERAT program are after 100% participation in achieving the goals of ARET, which are 90% reduction in emissions of persistent biocumulatives and 50% of others. I don't expect we'll get full participation like that. We may get it in mining. We may get it in chemicals. I don't expect we'll get it in all the sectors. But I think it will help us to target and focus some of our regulatory approaches.

Mr. Lloyd talked about achieving a level playing-field. I would suspect in some cases industry will be asking us for regulations, because they're out ahead of some of their competitors and they're seeing that perhaps this isn't fair in their minds, and where's the government when you need it? But basically, I think ARET is an approach we have to look at.

As I said earlier, we've been in operation for one year. We have results that measure in the neighbourhood of reductions of emissions of 18,000 tonnes of toxics. Without a voluntary approach, we didn't have the regulations to get that kind of a result.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm a very strong proponent of environmental industry and environmental technology, because I think that's an important area of growth for us. I had the pleasure of being at the G-7 in Florence last year with the minister, and certainly that was a common concern articulated by the countries present.

I think voluntary approaches are one way to go. However, we had a presentation by KPMG, who had a study on environmental management plans, and a large percentage, 70% or 80%, of the companies surveyed said they had environmental management plans. But when they were asked very basic questions such as, do you have this in place, do you have that in place, which are very basic aspects of an environmental management plan, they found there was an average of 2% compliance. So I have a concern when you see figures like that.

I was just wondering if Environment Canada - and I realize you've been going only for a year - has been monitoring what is happening and where the accountability to the ARET process lies.

Mr. Riordan: I think I'll come back again to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. We want to know what people are emitting. I think by knowing what people are emitting we can encourage actions to reduce or eliminate those emissions.

.1755

Maybe I don't fully understand the question, but I'm certainly not proposing that voluntary approaches are the only way to go. I think I said that from the outset. There is a role for regulation and there is a role for enforcement, but we are also seeing in tandem results that can be achieved through voluntary approaches; and it's not just direct. With the Ontario government we have a memorandum of understanding with the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. That's the Big 3: Ford, Chrysler, General Motors. It's been in operation for three years, and we've seen reductions in 2,000 tonnes of targeted substances over that period. Their third year report is about to come out.

With auto parts manufacturers, metal finishers, printing and graphics, dry cleaners, we're finding that in the case of the larger companies they're improving their environmental performance under these agreements and enforcing it by the marketplace on their suppliers, so those suppliers are being required to improve their environmental performance and the products they provide to some of these big companies.

The job of environment protection is very big and I don't think there is one way to do the job. We have to use the various tools that are available, and ARET is one small part of what Environment Canada does and one small part of what we need to do.

Mr. Lloyd: Part of your question was accountability. I think the critical part of that is the tracking aspect. If groups report through NPRI, or, as CCPA does, through our reducing emissions report, it clearly shows what we have done and what we haven't done. When you set out targets for where you're going to go in the future in terms of projected emissions, you'd better meet them or else you're going to be criticized in the paper.

Under responsible care, we have community advisory processes with the people who live around the plant, parliamentary committees and environmental groups. There are a lot of accountability mechanisms when you adopt a process that is a ``track us, don't trust us'', and there is information out there that people can look at. So I think information here is the key to accountability.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I have just one quick last question. We've been having a discussion around pollution prevention plans with CEPA and we were concerned about the possibility of expanding the substances, especially those that aren't regulated, and I was just wondering if Mr. Riordan would like to comment about the possibility of having CEPA mandating general pollution prevention, using the National Pollutant Release Inventory...as part of those substances that would be contained within a pollution prevention plan.

Mr. Riordan: As part of my role as a director of the National Office of Pollution Prevention I've been working for the last year on a federal pollution prevention strategy and action plan. We've had the opportunity to talk to a range of government departments. We had public consultation through March and April and we're now developing recommendations for our minister - she's been briefed along the way - about a range of options in five sectors on pollution prevention.

There are two things. One is people. I'm sure it's not the case here, but people we've spoken with often had the misconception that voluntary approaches and pollution prevention are synonymous, and I know and you know they're not. A ban of a substance is pollution prevention.

Pollution prevention planning, from experiences in the United States, for example, is a really good tool for encouraging companies, government departments, etc., actually to sit down and seriously consider pollution prevention first, rather than control or remediation. In the U.S., for example, they have a pollution prevention act. They have 33 states that have requirements for pollution prevention legislation requiring a pollution prevention plan.

When you think about it, inside Environment Canada our superiors automatically think, sure, and who is going to receive all these pollution prevention plans, in a time of down-sizing and so on?

.1800

Some of the thinking around it is that if CEPA required pollution prevention plans for priority substances, for example, or for substances in the NPRI, but didn't demand to see them...made them part of due diligence...that a company, in its everyday operations, would have to produce a plan if they were dealing.... I think that's an option you will have to consider as a committee. But there is certainly interest in various sectors in this whole concept of pollution prevention planning.

Mr. Finlay: I think you've made a good case for voluntary and cooperative efforts in this regard. I've been encouraged by a number of witnesses from industry and so on who have grasped what we're about on the environment and sustainable front and are doing something about it. I appreciate that very much.

In talking about enforcement, I think we might look at your list. I was hard on the government and agencies there, so I'll be just as hard on industry.

I don't know details of the company, but it strikes me as a trifle illogical that Potacan is interested in supporting the process but they don't emit any ARET substances. Then I read lower down that Metall Mining does. Then I have Union Carbide. I think they had something to do with the Bhopal disaster, didn't they? They say they emit negligible quantities.

Perhaps if we used your list here, we could send our inspectors to the right places with a little logic and find out just what they were sending into the environment.

Mr. Riordan: Again, if you come back, we have people participating in this program on a voluntary basis. They're there on their own free will. We also have a program called the NPRI that they're required by law to participate in. We're finding if we look up a company that you might randomly select and see what was reported on NPRI and what the response was from ARET...we sometimes make a phone call back and say maybe you've forgotten this substance. The NPRI in particular is a tool we can use to encourage further participation or consideration in this program.

Mr. Finlay: There are a couple.

Mr. Lloyd: They are one of our members. This is a question we asked them. The material they produce in their Prentiss plant in Alberta does not involve significant emission levels of these substances. They have different operations producing different material around the world. But that is a question we asked Union Carbide within CCPA.

Mr. Finlay: Good.

The Chairman: A few questions of you, Mr. Riordan, and then one of you, Mr. Gallon.

While not wanting to downplay the importance of CSIS, what kind of expectations do you have that Public Works Canada, Industry Canada and Department of Northern and Indian Affairs will be joining in this exercise?

Mr. Riordan: I'm naturally optimistic, sir. We're keeping these people informed. Through our deputy minister, we've sent copies of this report to all government departments. They can see who is participating and who isn't participating. Our deputy minister has encouraged all his deputy minister colleagues to participate.

To some degree, I think our timing may not have been right, because of some of the other things that were going on within government, in cost savings, etc. People were seeing this as yet another demand on their time and resources. But we certainly haven't given up. We will continue to pursue these other departments.

The Chairman: Would you say Public Works is an essential member of your team?

Mr. Riordan: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Industry Canada as well.

Would you be able to indicate to us whether other divisions of Environment Canada are involved in the monitoring progress, and whether progress is being measured, or lack thereof, in quality of air and water?

.1805

Mr. Riordan: I can't speak in detail, sir. Environmental effects monitoring is going on. Other types of monitoring go on routinely through the department. We're hoping they begin to pick up some of the results that are being reported in the action plans.

The Chairman: You will be reporting the results in your next report?

Mr. Riordan: I don't know if the results will be evident. We'll be reporting the results that we have in our next report. But I don't know if the results of the environmental effects monitoring, etc. will be ready that quickly.

The Chairman: Would you say the results of monitoring are essential?

Mr. Riordan: Yes.

The Chairman: In a perfect world, how many mining and smelting operations would you want to have in your sectoral response catalogue?

Mr. Riordan: All of them.

The Chairman: How many are there?

Mr. Riordan: There are 80%.

The Chairman: You have 13 here - 13 out of how many?

Mr. Stone: It's not so much the number of companies; it's the size of their operation.

The Chairman: Yes, of course.

Mr. Stone: To the best of my knowledge, there are 48 members of the Mining Association of Canada. If you look at the report, you will note the companies that have smelters and refineries, etc. are the ones that really have the high volume of emissions. We have 100% of those involved in ARET. There is one non-member of the Mining Association that has a smelter, which is another company. I won't mention the name at this moment. We are addressing those.

At the moment the other mines that are members of the Mining Association of Canada are under excessive peer pressure from those 13 leaders to participate.

The Chairman: In the case of oil and gas, or petroleum, you have four out of how many?

Mr. Stone: Several dozen, sir.

The Chairman: How many?

Mr. Stone: I can't recall at this particular time.

The Chairman: You mean more than 50, less than 50?

Mr. Stone: If I recall correctly, we went out with mailings to both members and non-members. The mailing was in the order of 50 companies.

The Chairman: How do you explain that low response?

Mr. Stone: The response we got from the industry, sir, was that many of them felt there were other priorities, and they wanted clarification of environmental priorities before they decided to act. It doesn't mean they are not going to participate in ARET. But the clear message we got is that they were waiting to assess all the priorities and demands on their resources.

The key companies, representing 50% of the retail volume and refining capacity in Canada, are indeed participating.

The Chairman: In the case of chemical specialties, eight out of how many?

Mr. Stone: I can't recall exactly, but I think it was close to about 80 firms.

The Chairman: Out of 80, it was 8. What is their response, or the reason for their low participation rate - the same reason?

Mr. Stone: Many of them claim they do not have emissions. Many of the members are companies that buy chemicals from, among others, Gordon LLoyd's member companies, mix them up, put them in small packages, and then resell them. They claim there are few emissions from that process.

The Chairman: Electrical utilities - 11 out of how many?

Mr. Stone: Again, I can't remember the exact number, but a very large number at the moment.

The Chairman: Does ``very large'' include dozens or is it into the hundreds?

Mr. Stone: Including companies such as Nepean Hydro, Ottawa Hydro, several hundred.

The Chairman: How do you explain that? How do they explain it to you?

Mr. Stone: At the moment, the very largest ones are embarked on a major study with similar operations in the U.S. I can't remember the meaning of the acronym, but it is a very expensive project with EPA called the PISCES project. It is described in the report.

.1810

They claim to be waiting for the results of that to be able to pinpoint where the greatest emissions are occurring and where they can spend their money most effectively to reduce emissions.

The Chairman: Finally, you know most dumping sites are publicly run. Some of them have flares that contribute considerably to CO2 and other emissions. Do you intend to include dumping sites in your efforts? If so, when?

Mr. Riordan: The Canadian Federation of Municipalities expressed support for the ARET program. Since it is perceived as a federal program, we're trying to figure out a way to reach municipalities; perhaps through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. It's incorrect for the federal government to go directly to municipalities to get them involved in what's perceived as a federal program.

The Chairman: Finally, Mr. Gallon, tell us something about your supreme, superlative...the paradise of all your categories, namely the zero-impact companies. How do you qualify to go to paradise? Is anybody there?

Mr. Gallon: Mr. Chairman, you certainly don't have to die to go to paradise.

The zero-impact company is that which David Buzzelli and his sustainable development group have been working on ever since we dealt with Dow Chemical and the blob back in 1985 and the first set of regulations were being proposed. As president of Dow Canada, Buzzelli said we can develop complete, closed-system companies. We can change processes, change the use of products, and reduce our costs in the long run because we don't have to be hit by continuous negotiations on volunteer programs and regulations. We can get out of the whole loop altogether by reducing our air emissions.

That is done by innovation -

The Chairman: Who has entered that category so far?

Mr. Gallon: I don't know that we have many in nirvana yet. I would not be able to put my finger on them. However, basically they are trying to attain that higher level.

The Chairman: Would you consider that an elusive category?

Mr. Gallon: I would consider that a category that should be a goal and that will be attained by some companies. I think of INCO in 1985, regulated under the acid rain program. When they were regulated, they said they didn't have the technology to attain 66% reduction. It took them only four years to innovate the technology - changing their flash furnaces and capturing of CO2 gases. Today they're saving $90 million a year. So they're closer to nirvana.

Therefore it is the pressure of peer group action and the pressure of regulation if the peer group and voluntary action don't work. You'll see a number of companies jump out of that tightening loop - 50% reduction by 2000, 90% reduction by 2005. They'll jump out altogether by going to closed-loop systems and process changes.

The Chairman: We thank you very much, all of you. It was extremely informative and we wish you well.

The meeting is adjourned until 7:15 p.m.