Evidence of meeting #14 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Morse, and Mr. Arseneault, for being here. And thank you particularly because in reading this report, I really see credit being given to the hard-working men and women who represent Canadians in the environment department. As you know, often my concern with audit reports is to be sure the front-line people who actually do this work get credit, and so I was very happy to see the positive comments in your reports today.
There are three areas I want to try to cover in the four minutes and 35 seconds I have left. One of them is this. Do I understand correctly that in just the last three years, under the issue of safety of drinking water, the government has in fact reviewed or revised 53 guidelines? Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That is correct, yes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
And do I understand correctly that in the 13 years of the previous government, there was a backlog of 50 guidelines that had been neither reviewed nor updated? Am I correct about that?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I think the backlog we noted was that some of the guidelines had not been reviewed in up to 15 years.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Yes, and so that has to include the 13 years of the previous government, I'm presuming.
I am just astounded by that, because the public relations battle that has been waged suggests the previous government was doing a fine job in environmental matters. And it seems to me those two facts alone constitute the best example I can give people of the difference between a government that actually gets things done and a government that only talks about getting things done.
The second issue I wanted to ask about was regarding the air quality index. As I understand it, there were commitments first made at the 2001 Toronto smog summit regarding the air quality index. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
As I read your report, not much if anything was done until there were some petitions presented in 2002 and 2003. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I believe the work began in 2002, so the petitions did not so much trigger the development of the index as actually ask about the status of the index.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
The only work that I could see in your report prior to 2006 was, first of all, an all-important public opinion survey that determined that Canadians were concerned about air quality. And then there was a 2003 workshop and a 2005 peer review. Did I miss anything? That's about it?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Those are the main components. Yes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Strictly from an audit point of view, can you tell me whether you consider that degree of effort to be satisfactory progress between 2001 and 2006?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Let me turn this over to Mr. Morse.
Let me just say on the peer review process that these take time.
On the other two components you had mentioned, I wouldn't comment on whether or not they were quick.
On the peer review process, these are inherently complicated because they're dealing with different scientific weightings. And actually, this was a complicated process. But there were other things--
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
My question was directed not only to the peer review process but more to the government response between 2001 and 2005. We often see from your office, as auditor, comments about whether there was satisfactory progress. I'm just wondering if you consider that satisfactory progress was made on the 2001 commitment between 2001 and 2006.
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I'll let Mr. Morse reply.
9:50 a.m.
Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Thanks for the question.
Our report doesn't break it down that way. When we looked at it, we said that overall there was satisfactory progress. As Mr. Vaughan was saying, there was quite a bit of scientific work that had to be done to look at the old method of measurement that was based on 1979 methodology in regard to what would be the best way to go forward, what pollutants should be looked at and whether they could be looked at in combination.... There was a lot of scientific work done, papers were published, and so on.
Overall, it seemed to us that satisfactory progress was being made. People were following the scientific method. The consultation, according to the criteria we had, was following the Treasury Board guidelines. So I wouldn't want to break it down and say, in 2001 did they do enough, and in 2002...? I don't think that would be fair at this point.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'll apologize a little bit to you, because I can understand why you wouldn't want to break it down. But I certainly do, and I'll approach it from a different point of view.
I noticed in your report there was reference to a commitment of $30 million in July 2007 on the issue of the air quality index. And I didn't see anything about any previous financial commitment. Am I correct that the $30 million was the first discrete commitment of funding by either the previous government or this government in response to the 2001 commitment?
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Thanks for that question.
I think there was obviously a budget in the development of it, but it was quite a bit less, and it was bundled in with other programs. So the announcement in 2007 of $30 million was a significant commitment to move the air quality health index forward. It also included some other activities.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm out of time. I'll leave my other two questions for another day.
Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to continue along the lines of what I was saying earlier and talk about navigation on waterways that supply drinking water. This is entirely a matter of federal jurisdiction.
I want to point out that 80% of the population of my riding draws its water from various waterways on which there is navigation. The majority of the population is affected by this situation, not the minority. There are no regulations or statutes in Canada including a standard on oil or gasoline discharges into drinking water attributable to motor boats.
Once again I go back to the fact that we're talking about drinking water here. Tetraethyl carbons present in drinking water are very hard to detect, highly carcinogenic and found in tap water. These discharges are attributable to boats.
Canada is one of the only developed countries that has not set a standard for oil and gasoline discharges from boats navigating on waterways containing drinking water. The Conservatives have been in power for three years, but they have not yet introduced a bill on this matter and aren't proposing any either. When you look at others, you also have to look at yourself.
Do you take this factor into account when you assess the quality of drinking water in Canada?
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I'm going to hand over to Mr. Arseneault in a moment.
We examined certain matters included in this chapter. As for determining whether there is a national system for guaranteeing water quality, I will say that there is an obligation, regulations. We noted in the report that there were deficiencies. With respect to boats, we were unable to identify any inspection system designed to ensure water quality on board boats. In that sense, you're right.
If I understood correctly, the federal government has a responsibility for boats travelling from province to province, within Canada, or that travel outside Canada. In the 2005 report, we noted that there were serious problems regarding inspection and penalties imposed in the case of boats that did not pass inspections. We noted that there were major problems.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
If I understand correctly, you're telling us about discharges from large boats. However, there are no regulations in effect for small boats and pleasure boats. And yet they produce discharges. You are no doubt aware that one part of gasoline contaminates one million parts of water. That's enormous. If you don't check what there is at the source, how do you go about assessing what there is at the end? Are you recommending that the government conduct this follow-up?
9:55 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We didn't study that question as part of this audit. What interested us was whether the drinking water provided in boats carrying passengers met Canadian standards. We didn't check to see whether boats were discharging pollutants into the water. That would be the subject of another audit.
