Environment Committee on June 12th, 2006

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

Mr. Wellner.

[John Wellner, Director, Health Policy, Ontario Medical Association]

I'm going to speak further to your suggestion of possibly testing the departments with some ideas. I'm particularly interested in further investigating what Dr. Levy talked about--that is, the issue of attaining standards, the issue of measuring our country's attainment of particular pollution standards, be they ambient air standards, water standards, or whatever.

I'm wondering if there is an interest, and if in fact it's simply because there's no mandate at the moment to investigate ways to ensure that we make and attain measures such as Canada-wide standards for smog. We see very different approaches in Canada and the U.S., and it seems that the only reason for a province to do so--except for doing the right thing, possibly--the only real threat of a province not attaining a standard is potential political embarrassment.

That, from a health point of view, doesn't seem to be quite enough. If there were some mandate given to designate attainment and non-attainment zones, and penalties attached, that might help us a little bit.

I'm wondering if there are any thoughts we can gather on those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The clerk will certainly take note of that. As we examine these hearings and from what we have heard, it's certainly a suggestion we will look at.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Glover, thank you for the evaluation report. We had been waiting for it for over seven years, ever since the vote on the CEPA was held.

While reading over your report quickly, I was struck by the difficulty departments have hearing each other and speaking to each other. I will give you one example. Recommendation 1 by the consulting firm you engaged states “[...]Improving the interdepartmental management of CEPA across Health Canada and Environment Canada [...] A little further, it states “[...] makes it very difficult to determine overall CEPA's achievements because of overlaps and gaps in the individual reports.”

So your consulting firm is telling us today that it is almost impossible to determine whether CEPA has been successful or not, because of the gaps and overlap among departments.

My question could also be directed to Mr. Moffat. I would like you to tell us specifically what, in your opinion, are the gaps observed in the reports you are required to submit. Where is the overlap among departments? This is important. Within the framework of the legislation, departments have to communicate. Could you tell us about some of the gaps in the individual reports, as well as some of the overlaps you have observed between your two departments.

[Paul Glover]

Thank you. That is a very good question, but unfortunately it has no simple answer.

In our view, the major challenge is the issue of partnership — partnership among a number of sections in both departments.

The challenge we face in measuring performance is that CEPA is a large act. It is shared between Environment Canada and Health Canada, and within the different departments, different areas are responsible.

Each department has a number of sections, and all of those sections have very specific responsibilities.

One thing that we tried to do with the evaluation was to be very transparent about what we were doing and how we would measure it.

As we did the report, we realized that on new substances, you worry about the specific act and what it says on new substances. On existing substances, you worry about what you have to do with respect to existing substances. If you're in food and drugs, you worry.

Thus, each section of a given department has its responsibilities and its success indicators, naturally.

What are the things that are important in order to say we've achieved success? We realized that when you added them all up, there wasn't a coherent picture.

So in general it is the overall framework which is lacking.

Specifically, we found that we could measure individual transactions. But when you put the pieces together, was there a shared framework that we all used for measuring success? It's one of the things we've learned.

This report has taught us a number of things. Your answer is that a framework will have to be developed for all parties involved, and for both departments.

We are working to develop a shared framework that will allow us to have the same success measures among the different parts in the same department and between the two departments.

I hope that answers your question.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I'm always surprised when I read your reports. CEPA came into effect in 1999. Yet, seven years down the line, you have not yet been able to establish a final interdepartmental strategic plan. Why is it that, seven years after passing the Canadian Environment Protection Act, you have been unable to establish a strategic direction for your actions, and put them into an interdepartmental strategic plan?

First of all, how do you explain the fact that you have been unable to agree on a plan?

Second, can you tell us what your timetable is?

We could amend CEPA, we could spend six months here amending its provisions, but if officials cannot agree amongst themselves on how to apply it, there will be a problem when it comes to application.

How do you explain the fact that, seven years after Parliament voted on CEPA, you still do not have a final interdepartmental strategic plan?

[Paul Glover]

The answer to that question is a little easier. It is simply because Health Canada and Environment Canada are extremely busy with meeting the legal requirements in the legislation.

Health Canada has limited resources, and we're responding to the immediate requirements. When you're in the new substances program and you have 800 notifications, you have a very specific timeframe within which to respond to those. If you don't in that timeframe, they are, by default, allowed onto the market. Stopping to ask what we should do that's strategic matters less when you're trying to keep your head above water.

I hope that is clear.

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

I have a question on Canadian environmental sustainability indicators. We have an air quality indicator, a water quality indicator, and a greenhouse gas emissions indicator, but I thought we said there were six possible indicators.

What are the other three? Has Health Canada expressed the intent of establishing a health indicator? Should we be thinking about a food indicator as well?

A little earlier, we heard that PCBs and DDT are found in children's bodies. Should we insist on having food indicators or are foods already checked? What are the three additional indicators we are waiting for? What will we do with the results indicators provide on water quality, air quality and greenhouse gas quantities? What are the recommendations?

[Robert Smith]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Lussier. I want to start by saying that it is my fault if I gave you the impression that the report refers only to the indicator definition process. The report you have shows the indicators as such and the results of those indicators. It is a statistical report. I wanted to mention that before answering your question.

The other three indicators recommended by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy are forest cover, wetlands and human capital. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy received its mandate from—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we do not have translation.

[Robert Smith]

I can speak in English, if that's preferable.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Robert Smith]

Is it back?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, it is, thank you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

We missed the three indicators, though.

[Robert Smith]

I'll quickly repeat it in English.

The three indicators were an indicator of forest cover, an indicator of wetland cover, and an education indicator.

I was just about to tell you why we have five environmental indicators and one educational indicator. This may seem somewhat strange. It is because the terms of reference set out by the Minister of Finance were to establish indicators of overall sustainability, not just environmental sustainability. That is why we selected the indicator of human capital, meaning education, and the five indicators of natural capital, meaning the environment. Those are the other three indicators.

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

Did you consider adopting an indicator on health care?

[Robert Smith]

Health care was the subject of much discussion during meetings of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, but we did not consider it as an indicator. I can assure you that we discussed health care in depth.

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

So you did not see a link between sustainability and health care.

[Robert Smith]

Health care falls under human capital, and, in its recommendations, the round table focused more on the environment than on the human aspect. We recognized, however, that health care is important.

We published the air quality indicator last December, and Health Canada is currently developing another version of this indicator, which will further develop the link between air quality and human health. This is the direction of our work, but the research has not yet been completed.

[John Moffet]

We are currently doing the same thing with regard to the indicator on water.

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

Okay.

In your fifth slide on the statistics, you mention that the data on transportation are available but data on cities are not yet available.

[Robert Smith]

The data on transportation will be available this fall. The data on cities will be available next year, and data on the north will be available in 2008.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.