Environment Committee on March 12th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I want to focus then, starting on the first chapter.

About 16 months ago, in December of 2006, the government announced $300 million for the chemical management plan, dealing with very dangerous chemicals. I was shocked to see how many people are getting sick because of exposure. Actually, one in 12 of the fatalities in Canada are related to the environment, poor quality in the environment. The government committed to the chemical management plan. How was that initiative looked at, or how did it influence the report we have before us today?

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you very much for that question.

Perhaps I'll ask my colleague, Richard Arseneault, who's responsible for that chapter and the other two in the first set, to respond.

[Richard Arseneault]

Thank you.

Yes, we have, obviously, looked at this chemicals management plan. As you know, CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, required the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to do a categorization of the domestic substances list. It's a long list of 23,000 chemicals.

They did this screening, a mechanical exercise determining which ones were candidates for further risk assessment, and they came up with a list of 4,300. This chemicals management plan is a response of the government to deal with this new priority list of substances over the next while.

We looked at the plan. The plan was already being implemented. It had been piloted. We saw some of the decisions coming out of that. We looked at the capacity of the departments to deal with this new priority list of thousands of substances. In the past, the government had a smaller list of substances, but it took forever to do the assessment. So we wanted to see if it had learned some lessons and would be able to streamline the process for assessing while still maintaining the scientific rigour to do the proper assessments.

We saw that all the pieces were in place and that money was available. That's why, when we looked at the overall situation, we had to conclude that progress was satisfactory. But the work isn't over, obviously. This is work for the long term. But progress today is satisfactory, because all the pieces of the puzzle are in place and there's actual, real work happening on the ground.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Good. I am very excited about that, actually. I was there for that announcement. I think it's important that we look at issues and actions that are going to see positive results.

[Richard Arseneault]

Not only that, the chemicals management plan also deals with pesticides. The needed re-evaluation of older pesticides, which we've been critical of, obviously needed more funding. The chemicals management plan is providing the PMRA with additional funding to complete this exercise.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

I have another quick question, and it refers to our protected areas.

I've had the honour of working with two environment ministers. When Minister Baird became the environment minister, one of the first things he did was announce the Great Bear Rainforest agreement. He has also announced the expansion to Nahanni National Park and to the Lake Superior national marine conservation area. He also set aside some land for a future park in the Northwest Territories.

You're seeing a trend, a very positive trend. This was in chapter 4, which got “unsatisfactory”. Are we heading in the right direction with these strong commitments to protecting our natural environment?

[Ron Thompson]

I'll ask my colleague, Andrew Ferguson, who's responsible for that chapter, to comment in a minute.

In that area, we found that the government has a sense of the threats to these areas, but it really hasn't monitored yet whether these threats are getting more severe or declining. It has a strategy it has put on paper and maybe has put in play a little bit, but it's not implemented yet. And there really aren't expectations, that we could see, as to what is expected in terms of making the kind of progress you're talking about, Mr. Warawa, looking ahead.

In that sense, we were disappointed. We thought the progress was unsatisfactory. There was just too much to do as of the end of June of last year, I guess, Andrew, for us to conclude anything else.

[Andrew Ferguson]

The problem didn't seem to be a matter of identifying areas that needed protection, but rather, as Mr. Thompson said, identifying the threats that needed to be addressed and then responding to those with management plans and action plans to do so. We found that most of the action plans remain 20 years or so out of date for the sites in question, the 143 sites we looked at.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate that. So we have a lot more work to do on that file, but it is going in the right direction. When you have $30 million announced with the province and industry for the Great Bear Rainforest...I was so excited to see that. It protects a very sensitive area.

[Andrew Ferguson]

We look at the management of the issue. Independent, as well, of announcements, we look at how things have been managed on the file.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our guests.

I find that the 14 follow-up audits point out something very obvious. I think the climate change debate has sucked up most of the oxygen on environmental debate in terms of the political arena for quite a long time, and these 14 audits point back a long time to a lot of work not done for a number of years. It shows the breadth of the long-term environmental neglect.

With 14 follow-up audits, obviously governments have to make priorities, and I think we're starting to see some of those priorities emerge from this government. We talked earlier about the chemicals management plan, of course, and $225 million for habitat preservation. We're starting to see some of the announcements rolling out now. Funds have to go into programs. Programs have to be set up, as to their requirements, and so on, and then the money starts to flow. We're starting to see some of that now.

On green infrastructure, of course, we've announced $33 billion in infrastructure funding—$8 billion for the Building Canada Fund—which is being negotiated. Some negotiations with the provinces are complete. For Ontario right now it's an ongoing negotiation, as I understand it. With the $8 billion in that fund particularly, one of the pillars addresses issues of clean water, waste water, those types of things. So when you're calling for funding, some of that negotiation is going on now.

Of course, we've seen in some budgets now some money set aside for sediment cleanup. In your report here on the Great Lakes, you said the $90 million estimated cost of Randle Reef, for example, was still unfunded as you ended your audit. Of course, our government has announced $30 million as the federal share, the one-third share of that particular project.

So I think we're beginning to see a sequence, because these audits not only have to approve something in terms of a management plan, which you're addressing, but they also have to translate into budgetary dollars and programs to actually do something about it.

One of the things I find insightful in regard to the areas of concern in the Great Lakes is that in five years, between 2000 and 2005, four goals didn't get it done. There was a new agreement signed in 2007, for the years 2007 to 2010, a new Canada-Ontario agreement. Does this agreement address your concerns regarding cleanup of the Great Lakes, or does it address most of your concerns, or some of them?

Secondly, is there a planned audit in another three years to follow up on some of these commitments, or are you going to revisit AOCs again?

I've read a lot of reports from the CSD and the Auditor General and other departments, and usually the recommendations that are responded to by the government are fairly bland. I see some extremely specific commitments here, with timelines and actions linked to timelines. Will you be revisiting that to see if in fact they have been met?

From our side, we can look at this and say, “Okay, now I can look at budgets ahead and ask, are we setting aside the money; are we doing some of these things to achieve our goals?” But will you revisit it?

So the first question is on your assessment of the new Canada-Ontario agreement. How far does it go in addressing your concerns that weren't fulfilled in your previous audits? Secondly, will you revisit, and when?

[Andrew Ferguson]

I'll preface my remarks by saying that this is an issue that was identified in 1987, when these sites were first identified as being severely degraded and in need of remediation. There have been, as you said, four plans—Canada-Ontario agreements—since that time. We have noted some weaknesses in previous plans. We've noted some marked improvements in the most recent plan in terms of identifying the roles and responsibilities more precisely.

One of the things that gave us some cause for concern was that whereas the government previously had targets for delisting these sites—in other words, returning them to beneficial uses and delisting them from being areas of concern—they no longer have targets for doing that. So that was an issue of concern in the most recent agreement.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Are those targets in terms of the requirements for delisting, or are they targets in terms of when they hope to achieve the delisting?

[Andrew Ferguson]

It's that latter part, targets for when they hope to achieve the delisting.

In some ways we're pleased with the added precision of the most recent Canada-Ontario agreement; in some ways we're concerned because there are no target dates for actually delisting these areas.

[Ron Thompson]

If I could respond to your second question, Mr. Watson, I think I mentioned earlier, departments have given quite specific responses, with timelines and whatnot, to the recommendations we made. That is a great thing. They're really trying to work with us to get some commitments, and then of course to live up to them.

Chapter 7 is a good example. There is such a lot of money on the table here. There has to be a lot of money spent to clean these up. I'm very hopeful that we will see good action on this file in the coming years. We don't have an audit on the books yet for that, but if we see a lot of activity in this area, then obviously we will want to take a good look to see whether we should re-audit.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Chan.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is my first time to this committee. I'm substituting for my colleague, John Godfrey, who we all know is a champion on environmental issues.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Thompson. I quote you a lot in my communications. It's nice to put a face to a name.

Mr. Godfrey has many issues relating to the report you tabled, but he has two specific concerns, which hopefully you can shine some light on. I would like to put them both on the table. If you don't have enough time to answer, and I hope you do, then maybe you can respond in writing.

The first question relates to protecting wildlife and the habitat issue, which was raised earlier by another colleague on this committee. You talk about the questions we should put to the deputy minister. Why are you not meeting the deadline? Why are you omitting the obligation? How are they going to fulfill their obligations in the future? Since there are no consequences when a department fails to meet legislative deadlines, obligations, and requirements, would you think that having some consequences in legislation would be helpful in advancing the cause?

The second question relates to the government's progress on strategic environmental assessment and guidance for greening operations. You say in your report that the government is unsatisfactory. His concern is whether a national sustainable development strategy could help in ensuring that guidance is clear for the application of the SEA and the greening of the government operations. Would a national strategy be helpful in advancing this cause?

These are the two questions he would like answered.

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you very much.

Let me address the second one first and the first one second, if I may.

In terms of the national sustainable development strategy, we talked about that a bit on Monday. What we've been encouraging, through our reports, is a federal government strategy, which would be part of a national strategy. But we audit the federal government, so it's a little hard for us to go beyond that.

Clearly, if an overarching federal government plan or strategy for sustainable development was put in place, certainly that would provide some help to the SEA process. It would give something for the SEA process to interact with and it would help with greening government operations, too, because a set of objectives, presumably, in that strategy would have to do with how the government is going to green what it does. So I think, yes, that would help.

In terms of the consequences for failing to protect habitat, I wouldn't really want to suggest that putting things in legislation or consequences in legislation is a good thing here. But good management should have, as part of it, rewards for doing things well and some kind of consequence for doing things poorly.

In that sense, if habitat isn't being protected properly, one of the consequences presumably would be that the deputy minister and his or her staff who are responsible for protecting habitat would be called summarily, from time to time, to a committee like this in a public, televised hearing, with their feet held squarely to the fire, and asked, “What are you going to do about it? The Canadian people are depending on you. Why are you letting them down?”

I've seen that happen over 30 years of being in this business, and it may not be very nice, but I think it's important to close the accountability loop like this. That, I think, would be a set of consequences that people would react to, if I may suggest.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I don't have any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. Any other questions?

Mr. McGuinty.