:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, colleagues and friends.
My private member's Bill calls for a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury. Bill C-238 calls upon the to work with the provinces and territories to develop a national strategy for the safe and environmentally sound disposal of mercury-containing lamps.
We know that mercury is dangerous and we know that it is very toxic. This is an element that causes severe health problems, birth defects, and even death. We advise Canadians that if they break a mercury-bearing light bulb, they should step out of the room, but for years we've done very little to protect Canadians from the mercury-bearing bulbs that are thrown into landfills and that contaminate our lands and waterways every day.
To better reflect the environmental intent of the bill and to complement the federal government's proposed code of practice for the environmentally sound management of end-of-life lamps containing mercury, I propose an amendment right off the bat. I'd like to amend the title to now read “A National Strategy for Safe and Environmentally Sound Disposal of Lamps Containing Mercury Act”. I believe, Madam Chair, that this better represents the precautionary approach and nature of this bill and the importance of viewing legislation through an environmental lens, as we've talked about so many times at this committee.
When the previous government took steps to ban the use of incandescent bulbs and promoted the use of efficient, compact fluorescent lamps, it was always assumed that regulations for their safe disposal would follow. In 2014 StatsCan reported that three-quarters of Canadians were using energy-efficient CFL bulbs. At a point where so many Canadians are using these bulbs, we must ensure their safe disposal.
I will note that this bill does not speak to a ban on fluorescent bulbs; it speaks to ensuring that Canadians are aware and are able to dispose of them in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Whenever we introduce or promote the use of a new product, we must look at the full life cycle.
The idea for Bill goes back to 2012. There was a realignment of districts when I was a municipal councillor, and all of a sudden I found myself representing Burnside industrial park. While touring local businesses to get caught up on what was going on in the park, I came upon a very innovative fluorescent light bulb recycling facility called Dan-x Recycling. This facility has the ability to recycle these mercury-bearing light bulbs entirely in a way that is safe for the environment. During my tour I asked what the regulations or guidelines were for the end of life for mercury-bearing bulbs, and I was shocked when I found out there were none. They were always contemplated but never enacted. At that point I started working within the municipality to, at the very least, divert the bulbs used in city-owned buildings to an environmentally sound disposal facility.
Canadians are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in municipal landfills across the country. These bulbs are valuable recyclables and they must be diverted from landfills and disposed of in an environmentally sound way. All of this was the inspiration for my Bill .
Light bulb recycling facilities like the one in the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour employ Canadians, while providing a valuable environmental service. This is the beauty of the clean economy. This is where costs are recouped, industry grows, and our environment gets protected.
Like all of you here, I want to leave this world a better place for our children and for our future generations. It's for Canadians and for future generations that we must move forward on a strategy now. This is an opportunity for us to provide leadership and to work with all levels of government to better the lives of Canadians.
I'm sure that some folks would focus on the potential costs associated with the consultation for a national strategy or for its implementation, but we must remember that there is always a cost to inaction.
Our colleague Nathan Cullen, who was formerly on this committee, explained eloquently in the House when he spoke to the bill that:
...if we look at the full cost of what is happening, there is a cost already being borne on municipalities and provinces, in trying to deal with these toxins, like mercury. There is a cost to consumers and Canadians directly through their health care.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment reported that waste lamps, whether broken or intact, contribute 1,050 kilograms of mercury into Canadian landfills each year. Remember that for a moment and know that sources state also that it takes only 0.5 milligrams of mercury to pollute 180 tonnes of water.
Remediation of mercury in land is very costly. We must prevent mercury contamination whenever possible.
From my days as a municipal councillor, I remember what it was like to have costs and red tape imposed on us by other levels of government. Through consultation with colleagues and stakeholders and comments made in the House of Commons during the reading of the bill, I've come across one measure that should be amended and removed from this legislation.
Our Conservative colleague, Mr. Dreeshen, of Red Deer–Mountain View spoke to the reporting mechanism in the original draft of the bill. He spoke to how the reporting mechanism, through working with the provinces, could cause delays and unnecessary costs. I'm inclined to agree to this point and have brought forward an amendment to that effect. I believe that it will be up to the consultation process to determine any sort of reporting features, regulations, or standards. Too much red tape could put undue hardship on the governments implicated in this legislation.
I must make note that certain provinces are leaders in the safe disposal of mercury-bearing bulbs. There are cool things being done across the country already. British Columbia, through its LightRecycle outreach program, is now diverting 74% of all mercury-bearing bulbs sold in the province for safe disposal. Let's put that number in perspective. They were diverting only 10% back in 2010. Imagine what we can do with a national strategy, instead of a piecemeal approach across the county.
Outreach and public awareness are important parts of Bill . Mr. Cullen spoke in the House about the importance of education and awareness around the safe disposal of these bulbs. I think he hit the nail on the head when he said:
changing the way we recycle and use products is important, but a key element in that is that consumers have full knowledge and full participation in whatever program we are trying to initiate.
It's another reason why a piecemeal approach does not work. It's also dangerous for Canadians. Mercury has the ability to undergo long-range transport. This means that, theoretically, mercury deposited into a Halifax municipality landfill could redeposit somewhere else, perhaps in northern Canada. It's our responsibility to show real environmental leadership and to protect Canadians whenever we can. It's also our responsibility to properly engage and consult relevant and interested governments and stakeholders whenever possible.
After listening to our colleagues in the House, such as Mr. Fastand and Mr. Cullen, speak to Bill , I would like to amend, strengthen, and open the consultation process of the strategy. It's important that all interested and appropriate governments, persons, and organizations be part of this consultation. We need to include our partners in other levels of government to ensure that they, along with the federal government, take ownership of this initiative. This will be a strong, collaborative effort that will include any interested indigenous groups, governments, stakeholders, or citizens to ensure that this strategy is best for all Canadians.
Again, it's important to note that I'm not here to tell provinces, territories, or municipalities what to do and how to do it. We could sit here and we could speculate on what a strategy could look like or should look like, but it isn't up to just us. It is important to me that Bill not put demands on the provincial and territorial governments. Bill C-238 complements our government's firm belief that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. You've heard that a lot, even recently around this committee from Mr. Fast echoing the Minister of Environment.
Now is the time to take responsibility and protect Canadians from this needless pollution. We must work together with all interested levels of government, stakeholders, and Canadians to develop a robust national strategy for the safe and environmentally sound disposal of mercury-bearing lamps. It is only by working together that we can leave the world a better place for future generations.
I want to thank you again, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you, friends and colleagues on this committee, for your consideration today.
I look forward to any further discussion you may have on Bill .
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, and “hugs” for the question.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Darren Fisher: That's how we get hugs into the blues.
Thanks very much for the question. As I alluded to in my notes, in 2012 there was a realignment of the districts in Halifax regional municipality, and I found myself representing the Burnside industrial park. Of course, for politicians, since there are no people who live there, there are no votes in there, but I was very eager to go in and find out how I could represent those businesses.
I took some tours of some of the really cool things that are going on in the Burnside industrial park and stumbled upon Dan-x Recycling. They are very neat and kind of eclectic folks who, I think, saw a TV show about the harm of mercury in light bulbs. The entrepreneur, who had a little bit of money, went and built a factory without borrowing any government money, predicated on the fact that he was expecting that there would be regulations federally, provincially, or municipally to ensure that light bulbs ended up there.
The tour that day led me, in my position as a municipal councillor on the environment and sustainability committee, to try to find a way for us to do that as a municipality. Could we come up with regulations whereby we could tell people that they must...?
We found out we couldn't do it. The best we could do was to ensure that all of the light bulbs, both the fluorescent tubes and the CFL bulbs that were used in municipal facilities....
If you think about fluorescent tubes, think about our MP offices. There are about 40 four-foot fluorescent tubes in every office, and there are 338 offices. There are millions and millions of these bulbs going to landfill every year because there are no regulations.
That was the impetus for this. When they told me there were no regulations but that they were always expecting regulations to come along, I was absolutely amazed. I was shocked that was the case. The bulbs we use, the CFL bulbs and fluorescent bulbs, are efficient and they're cheap. Kudos to the former government for having us use them, but I really wish we had moved forward on some form of national strategy 10 or 12 years ago.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Garnett Genuis: To get back to the topic, I wanted to just dig into the direction you chose to take here, especially with some of these potential amendments. I would be quite bullish in terms of the need to address this problem, the need for regulations to deal with the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury, and the risks of mercury in general.
What you've put forward is a bill that involves the development of a national strategy when, arguably, it is within the federal power to regulate the safe disposal of mercury directly. I understand from a private members' business perspective that there's only so much time in terms of preparation as well as debate in the House. I'm curious as to why you didn't take that step, though. My sense, looking at some of the amendments, is that they do soften a little bit the version of the bill that we had at second reading.
Your bill had strong support in the House at second reading, and I think the stronger version would have strong support at third reading. I'm curious as to your thinking behind, first of all, not going directly for the regulation route and, secondly, the softening in terms of the amendments.
:
Thank you very much for the question and thank you, also, for your comments in the House of Commons when you spoke to this bill. You spoke in support of it, and I appreciate your comments. A lot of the things you said were things that we looked at when we talked about different ways of amending this and making it work.
First, when you write a private member's bill, you want it to be successful in the House of Commons, but you also want it to be successful across the country. I think, again going back to the comments I made to Mr. Genuis, I want this to be successful and I want this to be seen by the provinces, territories, indigenous governments, and all of the groups that are interested in participating in this. I want them to feel like partners at the table in collaborating to come up with a strategy as opposed to taking the heavy-handed approach of us saying “This is what we're going to do. What do you think?”
I think it's important that we come in from the start with a collaborative approach. I share your comments and those of the previous speaker, and I do hope this is taken seriously and looked at. I believe, based on the successes of B.C., P.E.I., Manitoba, and Quebec, and the voluntary program in Ontario.... I'm not a fan of voluntary programs, but it is having some success. I want to see if we can look at these successful programs. Nova Scotia has just hopped on the bandwagon in the last few months with a program. Nova Scotia Power is participating and taking bulbs back.
These are steps in the right direction, but these are piecemeal approaches. These are approaches that help the overall picture. I mean, we are currently throwing away in landfills, 50% of all of the mercury-bearing bulbs used in Canada. That is including the success of B.C., Manitoba, P.E.I., Quebec, and now Nova Scotia. Actually, the numbers probably don't reflect the new program that Nova Scotia has started, but they reflect the programs of the other provinces that are doing great things. Let's get everybody in the room. Let's find out what's working. Let's find out why B.C. is so successful and see if that would work across the country. Let's have the respect for those other levels of government and have them at the table to share their successes with us.
:
Thank you very much again for the question.
The code of practice is voluntary, and it's designed to complement other initiatives that are happening in the country, including this, if this gets forwarded through the House.
I've seen first-hand how this creates jobs in my riding, and how this could create jobs across the country. We've talked about the green economy. We've talked about the ability for private business to build these plants and create these jobs, seven, eight, nine, or ten at each, depending on the size of the community. We've talked about EPR. We've looked at situations of EPR across the country. These are things that don't necessarily have to cost municipalities, provinces, or taxpayers. That's not what we're here to talk about. We're not here to discuss how the strategy looks, what it looks like, whether this is going to cost any money, or what it's going to cost. This is to start the conversation, look at those successes, look at EPR, look at the green economy, look at creating jobs. Again, we'll go back to Dan-x. They have seven to 10 employees working there full-time. Let's say they're at 15% to 20% capacity, so they have a lot of room to grow. Regulations will help that. This is not necessarily going to be a cost to municipalities or provinces.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear here today to contribute to its study of Bill , the national strategy for safe disposal of lamps containing mercury act. Thank you to Mr. Fisher for bringing forward this bill.
Before focusing on Bill C-238, I would like to provide a brief overview of how mercury is currently managed in Canada, as it may be helpful context to your study.
As you are likely aware, and as Mr. Fisher has pointed out, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that poses a risk to Canadian ecosystems and human health. Although mercury occurs naturally in the environment, it is also released as a result of human activities, such as the combustion of coal and the use and disposal of consumer products such as lamps.
Because of the dangers posed by mercury to the environment and human health, mercury is listed as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA.
In 2010, Environment Canada, along with Health Canada, released “Risk Management Strategy for Mercury”, and I believe a copy was provided to the committee. The strategy provides a comprehensive description of the Government of Canada's plans and progress in managing the risks associated with mercury. One federal action outlined in the strategy that may be of particular interest to you is the promulgation of the products containing mercury regulations, which came into force about a year ago, in November 2015. These regulations prohibit the manufacture and import of products containing mercury or any of its compounds, with some exceptions for essential products that have no technically or economically viable alternatives. In the case of lamps, the regulations set mercury content limits for fluorescent and other types of lamps and require labels to inform consumers about the presence of mercury, as well as safe handling procedures and options available for the end-of-life management of these products.
In addition to the broad range of domestic measures included in the risk management strategy, the need for global action on mercury was also highlighted. Since 2010, Canada has been active in the international negotiations for the Minamata convention on mercury, which our government signed in 2013 and recently tabled in Parliament. Once the necessary compliance requirements are in place, the government will be in a position to ratify the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
I will now turn to Bill and how it would contribute to the government's ongoing efforts to address mercury.
The bill addresses one source of mercury pollution: lamps. Mercury is an essential component in some energy-efficient lamps, such as fluorescent tubes and light bulbs. These lamps contain a small amount of mercury, which may be released when the lamps break or are improperly disposed of as regular garbage.
There are four aspects of the bill that I want to mention specifically.
First, the bill speaks of “safe disposal”. In the waste-management context, the term “disposal” often means final disposal in a landfill or incineration. However, the environmentally sound management of lamps at end of life includes a range of activities, such as collection, transportation, processing, and recycling, as well as final disposal. I note that the discussion of the bill in the House of Commons, as well as the remarks made by Mr. Fisher today, seems to acknowledge that the national strategy is intended to cover the full range of these activities to ensure the environmentally sound management of these lamps at end of life.
Second, the bill would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop and implement a national strategy for the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury in co-operation with representatives of provincial and territorial governments. It is important to keep in mind that the jurisdiction over the protection of the environment, including matters related to waste management, is shared among different levels of government in Canada. Other governments, including provincial, territorial, and municipal, have an important role to play in the management of lamps containing mercury. Therefore, a national plan of this kind would build on the existing areas of responsibility and the respective strengths of the various government levels in order to effectively address gaps and make timely progress on this issue.
Third, the bill would require the minister to engage with environmental groups and industry in developing and implementing the national strategy. However, consultations with a range of other interested parties, including indigenous groups, would also be important in order to create an effective national strategy, as the protection of the environment is a responsibility shared among all Canadians.
Fourth, Bill sets out three elements that a national strategy must include, in paragraphs 2(a) through 2(c). Our experience working with our provincial and territorial partners suggests that flexibility is important when developing national approaches to issues that are of shared jurisdiction, in order to accommodate existing initiatives.
At this point, allow me to provide you with a very brief overview of some related initiatives currently under way.
On April 8, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada published the proposed code of practice for the environmentally sound management of end-of-life lamps containing mercury, for public comment. The code is intended to address reducing mercury releases and emissions to the environment from these lamps, and also includes options for diverting used lamps from landfill and managing them in remote and northern areas. We are currently working to finalize the code of practice for publication later this year.
It's important to note that all provinces and the federal government have committed to implementing the Canada-wide action plan on extended producer responsibility. This plan, approved by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in 2009, aims to divert products from landfill and increase the recycling of a broad suite of products, including mercury lamps. One important aspect of extended producer responsibility programs is the enhanced financial responsibility that manufacturers and importers in the management of waste would assume. As a result, all provinces now have in place the necessary authorities to implement programs, and work continues to explore options for northern territories. Four provinces have implemented specific mandatory programs to collect and recycle mercury lamps, and as Mr. Fisher noted, those are British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island.
Although a number of initiatives to address lamps that contain mercury are already under way in Canada, co-operation among all levels of government will promote a consistent nationwide approach to the safe and environmentally sound disposal of lamps containing mercury.
Thank you again for inviting me to appear today. I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Fisher for bringing this bill today.
Thank you, Ms. Poter, for being with us today as an expert witness. I know you said that policy is not yours to make decisions on, but you referred to flexibility in multiple levels of government, so when you talked about recognizing different levels of government and how things are affected, that sort of got into it for me. That's why I want to ask you the question.
Mercury has been kicking around as a bad thing for a long time. As a high school kids, we used to steal it and put it in our pockets and take it home. That's what we did. The science teachers would go nuts when they didn't have any at the end of the year.
There is this sense of voluntary versus something.... In this piece here, we've taken out the “shall” and we have “may”. The word “must” is gone. There is no end mandate for something to be done. When there's legislation, in your world, that has a mandate versus being all voluntary and grassroots, what is the difference in end result? How long does it take? Is there a difference between having a mandate that says “in five years you will have something” from one level of government versus saying “we're going to work at this until we get something”?
:
Thank you for the question.
The code of practice that was published in a draft back in April of this year, and which we hope to finalize this year, provides an overview of best practices to a certain level across a number of particular areas of environmentally sound management of lamps at end of life. It is a voluntary tool kit that would be made available to jurisdictions. They could draw upon it to help inform, whether they are going down a path of regulation or whether they are putting in place programs, and it could be used in various educational materials.
Some of the waterfront has been covered there, but important gaps remain. As I mentioned earlier, we do have different approaches to extending producer responsibility across the country, as number one.
Another gap is in detailed guidance for industry and those facilities that are operating the waste management facilities and dealing with these hazardous materials.
Public education and outreach is another area where we think there is currently a gap.
As well, our northern and remote communities don't necessarily have much access to programs or to guidance, and that's taking into account the somewhat different circumstances they face, as compared to more urban centres in Canada.
As a starting point, those are some gaps we see despite the fact that the code of practice is being developed and despite the fact that there is activity under way by various jurisdictions.
Gaps remain. Mercury is a toxic substance, and the more we can do to take action, the less we expose the environment and human health to risk.
:
Okay, we'll now move into the clause-by-clause section of the proceedings today. Because we've never done it before, I thought I'd go through it carefully and in some detail, just so that we don't miss something important.
How many of you have been through a clause-by-clause before? Okay, we have two experts here.
You have, too? Okay, you can help us through if we get into trouble, but for everyone else, we're just going to take this one step at a time.
Again, as the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.
If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who will then explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate, and when no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.
You all have a package. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they'll be voted on together.
In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. This is why I have Olivier Champagne here with us today to make sure we do this properly.
You're an expert on clause-by-clause.
I may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or if they are beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.
If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it. Since this is the first exercise for many of us, I will not be going quickly, if you don't mind. I'll be going slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so that we can revisit it later in the process.
As indicated earlier, the committee will go through the package of amendments in the order in which they appear and vote on them one at a time unless some are consequential; I'm doing a little bit of repeating here. Amendments have been given numbers in the top-right corner of the pages to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it, so be careful what you're moving. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.
:
To give some clarity to this discussion, because we're talking about some specific points, I'd like to move a subamendment then, so we can discuss the subamendment, debate it, and vote on it. I will move that we change “the strategy may include” to “the strategy must include”.
For the reasons laid out, these three things are, I think, all important, which is why Mr. Fisher put them there. They identify practices for the safe disposal of these lamps, the establishment of guidelines, and the development of a plan to promote public awareness.
There is a great deal of latitude in terms of how the government does each of these three things. However, I think it is reasonable for us, as legislators, to say to the government that the strategy must include some element of these three parts. Again, that's not to be overly prescriptive about how these things are done, but it must include some element of these.
Certainly it doesn't limit the government from doing more. The government can certainly do things outside of these three areas as part of the proposed national strategy. However, I don't at all think it unreasonably fetters the discretion of the government. As I said before, to some extent, the purpose of legislation is to limit the discretion of government where appropriate, but I don't think it does so unreasonably at all. I think it's conducive to the intent of Mr. Fisher's bill, which is to have a strong bill, a strong statement, that's going to ensure that action is taken.