Environment Committee on June 19th, 2006

[John Reed]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Pollution prevention is a separate principle from the precautionary principle, as I understand its application in CEPA, and I would treat them separately.

Earlier in my comments I made the point that if we were doing work in this area, we would ask ourselves to determine whether pollution prevention, as intended, is really occurring, i.e., the prevention of the generation of pollutants in the first place. The reason I raise it that way--and this has nothing to do with the new government—is because a game goes on out there; there are lots of labels as to what pollution prevention is. I can tell you some organizations will argue pollution control, “end of pipe” control, is a form of pollution prevention, but in my view it's a bit of a game, because the intent of pollution prevention is not to generate the stuff in the first place, and that's what we would want to pursue in an audit: to find out whether the pollution prevention plans, which are one of the CEPA instruments, are really achieving that.

That's separate I think from the precautionary principle, which has much more to do with the decision you take in the face of uncertainty.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Do we know enough now about certain things that we could go ahead and have some very specific targets in the areas of both environmental and human health and put them into CEPA? What could you recommend?

[John Reed]

I'm not sure how to approach that question, partly because we didn't audit enough of CEPA. We only looked at the provisions that dealt with the management of toxic substances.There's a lot of CEPA we did not look at. I would say it's largely a policy question, whether to use CEPA in that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Madam Gélinas.

[Johanne Gélinas]

We can certainly ask how the pollution prevention principle and the precautionary principle are applied and have a better understanding of how those two principles applied to the implementation of CEPA, because that's very unclear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier, go ahead, please.

I'll get to you, Mr. Moffet.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The monitoring of departments is one of the main responsibilities of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Why did Mr. Reed, as he pointed out, target only six departments in his 1999 report? Which ones were they? What were the reasons for this choice?

[Johanne Gélinas]

When you determine the subject of an audit, you do it on the basis of risk. So we try to target those departments that are most closely involved. We try to target also a number of areas to ensure that we really focus on those substances that pose the greatest risk. Very seldom, at least in my experience as a commissioner over six years, does an environmental issue involve only the Department of Environment. For example, enforcing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a shared responsibility between Environment Canada and Health Canada.

As far as we are concerned, as Mr. Reed mentioned, we did not audit the implementation of the full legislation, we audited the management of toxic substances. There are many aspects, among others the whole issue of pesticides, which involve one other federal agency.

Mr. Reed could tell you which departments were targeted and why.

[John Reed]

Very quickly, the departments that were chosen were Agriculture, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Health, Environment, Industry Canada, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Those are listed, by the way, in the table in the 2002 follow-up. They were included because of the scope of the audit. At the time there was something called the toxic substances management policy that engaged all of those departments, so they were included in the scope. There was the pollution prevention policy that applied to all of the government. In effect, each one of these departments had a role in either the assessment or the management of toxic substances at that time, so they were included in the audit.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It is also the Commissioner's responsibility to ensure that each department tables a strategic plan for sustainable development.

Do all the departments table a strategic plan? As of today has every department done so?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I am pleased to talk about sustainable development strategies. Very seldom do I get asked questions on this subject. In fact, I am not responsible for compelling departments to table a strategic plan. This is a provision of the Auditor General Act as amended. This Act gives me the duty to undertake audits but it compels at the same time almost all departments, with very few exceptions that are not worth mentioning, and federal agencies to produce sustainable development strategies.

The first wave of strategies has been tabled, if my memory is correct, in 1997. Those strategies, one for each department, must be reviewed and updated every three years. These strategies are tabled in the House of Commons.

As far as what we call the fourth generation strategies are concerned, we expect them by the end of 2006. This has nothing to do with which government is in power, it is an obligation of departments, set out in the Act, to table those strategies.

I take the opportunity to mention that I would be pleased to come and discuss with you in 2007 the content of these strategies, which unfortunately have not all received the attention they deserve.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Therefore, it might be useful to remind the departments that they need to come up with a strategy.

How many departments do you expect to do so?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Departments know very well that they have a legal obligation to table their strategy.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

All departments?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Twenty-eight departments and agencies have a legal obligation to do so. Others, such as we ourselves at the Office of the Auditor General, do so on a voluntary basis. No one can escape this obligation. Under the Act, these strategies must be tabled by the end of the year, in December 2006.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you have authority to reprimand?

[Johanne Gélinas]

No, not at all.

My mandate in terms of sustainable development strategies is to do a follow-up on the implementation of commitments contained in the strategies and to report to Parliament, which includes discussing this here, in front of parliamentary committees, especially that on the environment and sustainable development.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you have an obligation to measure objectives, performance or efficiency?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I am not obligated to do so, but it is part of my mandate as auditor to do follow-ups. I am obligated to report to Parliament on progress made in implementing these strategies by all departments, whether they be Finance, Fisheries and Oceans or Justice.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

So we will see you again in 2007?

[Johanne Gélinas]

It will be much earlier, but you might see me again in 2007.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Moffet, you've been trying to get in during the last couple of questions. If you would like, please just carry on.

[John Moffet]

Thank you.

I just thought I would try to provide a quick update on some of the comments that Mr. Reed provided.

First of all, he mentioned that the toxic substances management policy and the federal pollution prevention policy applied at the time of his audit. Both of those policies still apply and still guide the decision-making under CEPA and other federal statutes related to toxics.

He mentioned that there was a general absence of science-based goals for risk management. After the implementation of CEPA 1999, the department developed toxic management procedures--which are on the website of the department--that guide the way each risk manager undertakes his or her activities. They prescribe a process. The first step in the process is to try to identify a science-based goal for the management of a substance. Then, of course, you have to turn to what is practical and what the actual goal will be that is articulated in the management instrument. That's the policy that guides the development of risk management.

I don't want to mislead you and suggest that that is actually carried out in every case: the identification of (a) a science-based objective, and (b) making a linkage between a science-based objective and the actual risk management measure is extremely hard to do in many cases. We may want an ambient concentration of X, but if we decide to regulate sectors A, B, and C, but not D and E for various reasons, deciding what level of emission control, for example, or that a percentage of a product can contain a certain substance and then making the linkage between that and the overall environmental or health outcome that one wants is conceptually extremely hard to do. So again, this remains an ongoing challenge for both departments.

With regard to the DSL requirement--I've mentioned this a couple of times in appearing before the committee--the obligation in the act is to categorize all 23,000 substances by September 14 of this year. That obligation will be met; the departments will meet that obligation. The ministers are preparing to make those announcements.

As I have mentioned in the past, and I think as Mr. Reed emphasized, the interesting questions will be what we do with that information and how that information will change the way we both assess and manage substances. The departments are starting to talk to industrial and civil society stakeholders about a proposal for a new regime, based on that information.

The assertion was also that the regulatory process is too cumbersome, and therefore there is a tendency towards non-regulatory measures. I won't comment on the cumbersome nature of the process—there are many steps involved—but again, I want to emphasize that the law does not allow us to rely exclusively on non-regulatory measures. We must, by law, have a regulation or instrument for each substance added to schedule 1. I think that's important to recognize. Whether that's good or not is an issue for you to decide.

There was a question about virtual elimination, whether virtual elimination is precautionary and whether virtual elimination requirements in CEPA are linked to pollution prevention. I would suggest that virtual elimination requirements in CEPA are precautionary in the sense that they say if a substance is PBIT, it must be virtually eliminated. There is no question about it being subject to other types of analysis; it must be virtually eliminated.

Do those requirements necessarily drive or force pollution prevention? I would say the answer is not necessarily. The way virtual elimination is defined in the act is focused on releases. One can reduce releases through control measures or one can address releases through pollution prevention. The act does not necessarily drive us towards pollution prevention in the way that it spells out or defines “virtual elimination”.

That's the extent of the comments I wanted to make in response to those comments that Mr. Reed made.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you, Mr. Moffet.

Mr. Godfrey, do you have a question?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm just curious, because it follows on what you were saying, Mr. Moffet, about banning. In a way, you asked why you would need to classify something that can be virtually eliminated as banned. One reason might be that--and correct me if I'm wrong--some products that are banned in their pure form can be imported if they're contained within consumer products. For example, my understanding is that lead is banned in children's jewellery but might be contained in something. So “banned” may not in fact get you to the place you want. Or in the case of PFOs, can you say there are no PFOs in any consumer product that is imported into this country?