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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Scott Vaughan  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Richard Arseneault  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Paul Morse  Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I call this meeting to order.

I'd like to welcome to the table, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Scott Vaughan. He has with him Mr. Richard Arseneault, principal at the Office of the Auditor General; and Mr. Paul Morse, principal, sustainable development strategies, audits and studies, Office of the Auditor General.

Mr. Vaughan will speak on his report that he tabled on March 31, 2009, on the environment and sustainable development.

We look forward to your opening comments. Then we'll open it up to questioning.

April 21st, 2009 / 9:05 a.m.

Scott Vaughan Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present our 2009 Status Report, which was recently tabled in Parliament.

The status report shows what departments and agencies have done to address two issues that were raised in our past reports. In determining whether progress is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, we take into account the complexity of the issue and the amount of time that has passed since the original audit.

The two environmental issues that we cover in this report are fundamental to life: the safety of the water we drink and the quality of the air we breathe.

Let me turn to the first chapter of this report, Safety of Drinking Water.

The production and delivery of safe drinking water is often taken for granted until problems occur, at times with tragic consequences. How the federal government carries out its responsibilities for the safety of drinking water has an impact on millions of people, including travellers, visitors to national parks, federal penitentiary inmates, bottled water consumers, and federal employees.

The federal government is responsible for the development of the science-based Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. These guidelines establish maximal allowable levels for 120 different contaminants that could be found in our drinking water.

The federal government, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, must ensure that these guidelines are current and take into account scientific evidence. Provinces and territories use these guidelines in a variety of ways ranging from general guidance to legislated standards. Under the Canada Labour Code, federal employers must provide their employees with drinking water that meets these guidelines.

In 2005, we reported that the process followed by Health Canada to develop and review the guidelines was based on risk, science, consultation and transparency.

However, we also reported that this process was consistently slow, with a backlog of 50 guidelines in need of a review to reflect current science. Since then, the department has largely cleared the backlog. I am pleased that Health Canada has also set up a process to update the guidelines regularly on the basis of scientific information and risks to human health, and produced new ones as needed.

In 2005, we observed that Health Canada had stopped all of its routine inspections of drinking water quality on commercial passenger aircraft. I am pleased that Health Canada has resumed this important work. However, its current coverage is incomplete.

In 2005, we were critical of the federal government departments and agencies because of gaps and inconsistencies in their procedures to ensure safe drinking water at their facilities and sites. In late 2005, Health Canada released a central guidance document to assist federal organizations in this area.

Of the two federal organizations we examined for this follow-up audit, we note that Parks Canada had systems in place to assure compliance with those federal guidelines. By contrast, we note that the Correctional Service of Canada did not follow some of the procedures in Health Canada's guidance. We especially note that high levels of lead were detected in some of the Service's facilities located in Quebec.

Finally, the chapter also examined Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's shared responsibility for assuring the safety of bottled drinking water. Among the five recommendations in this chapter is the need to revise the food and drug regulations for bottled water so they refer to the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality.

We now turn to the Air Quality Health Index. The AQHI, as it is commonly called, is a snapshot of air quality at a given location. It combines three key pollutants that affect human health and that need to be monitored across Canada. Like the UV Index, the AQHI is designed to help individual Canadians make informed decisions about outdoor activity.

The AQHI measures the combined effect of three pollutants that exist in Canada—ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter—that can affect human health. This is one of the first times an index has been developed that combines or correlates pollution data with probable human health risks. Until the advent of the AQHI, provinces and selected communities have communicated data obtained from national networks through their own indices. These indices report only the one pollutant with the current highest measurement in a given area. They are not based on combined measurements and they're not specifically related to human health.

We found that Environment Canada and Health Canada have made satisfactory progress in developing the AQHI, a commitment that was cited in their responses to petitions submitted by the public in 2002 and 2003. At the time of our audit, the Index had been piloted at several locations across Canada, including three completed pilot projects in Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Toronto.

Our audit found that Health Canada and Environment Canada consulted widely with stakeholders at every stage of the initiative, and are now in the process of rolling out the AQHI across Canada. The short-term goal is to have coverage for all cities over 100,000 people by 2011.

The departments have recognized that they face a number of challenges moving forward, including the need for better data collection in rural areas, working with the provinces on issues related to total or partial phase-out of existing indices, and the funding of further development that would allow for coverage of rural areas and include more regionally specific pollutant issues.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. With my colleagues Mr. Arseneault and Mr. Morse, we will be pleased to answer your questions.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Commissioner Vaughan.

Mr. McGuinty, would you kick us off on our seven-minute round.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Vaughan, and good morning to your colleagues as well.

Good morning, Mr. Arseneault.

Can I go back to the safety of drinking water for a second, Mr. Vaughan?

In your judgment or assessment, is the federal role in the development of these science-based guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality the circumscribed responsibility of the federal government, or are there other responsibilities here that accrue to the federal government on water quality?

9:10 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

There are several responsibilities of the federal government. As you mention, the first one is ensuring that the national guidelines are up to date; that they're based on science and consultation with provinces, territories, and others; and that they are done in a transparent manner, which is a key responsibility of the federal government. But there are others, including the direct responsibility of the federal government over the areas for which it has direct control, for example, installations of federal penitentiaries and Parks Canada installations. In addition, via the Canada Labour Code, it is responsible for providing assurance that all employers make available safe drinking water in conformity with or guided by the national guidelines. Those are examples, and there are others, such as on bottled drinking water, which would be a shared responsibility of Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

When you were examining the whole question of the safety of drinking water, did you examine it in the context of the government having said—not once but twice, I believe, in two throne speeches back to back--that it would deliver up, years ago, a national water strategy for the country? Is that something you examined?

9:10 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

It's actually an interesting question. It's something that the team began to examine, and the position of the office is that we don't examine a program if it's based only on a press release. So there had been commitments to develop a national strategy or a national framework. What we said was that there wasn't enough at the time to audit. So we did not see any measurable progress in developing a national strategy or a national framework. However, what I'd like to say is that I hope we're going to go back and look at this more comprehensively in 2010.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

So I take it from your answer, then, that you concluded there is no national water strategy?

9:10 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

There's no national strategy that has enough announcements in terms of commitments, budgets, resources, plans, and programs that we'd actually be able to look at. There have been announcements, but there weren't enough of them for us to go and say they would be the basis of an audit. So yes, your question is correct.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

What kind of efforts have been made then by the government? What is the timeline of your assessment?

9:15 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Yes. The assessment began, I believe, in August 2007, and it ended in about August or September 2008. So it was within that 12- to 13-month period.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Have there been any efforts you can ascertain between the federal government and its provincial counterparts to move the whole question of water forward nationally?

9:15 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Not that I am aware of, but let me turn to my colleague Mr. Arseneault.

9:15 a.m.

Richard Arseneault Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

When we started the audit, we wanted to follow up on the work we had done in 2005. We had done work on the federal water framework. The government at the time had produced a federal framework, and we made a recommendation.

What was the future of this thing? It existed on paper but did not materialize in terms of hard work on the ground. So when we started this audit, we looked at what was going on given that there was a new government in place, and the new government was starting anew and had announced a federal strategy. When we looked at this, what we saw was essentially site decontamination. That is essentially the work that was done. Important work was done on the Great Lakes and in areas like that where there were contamination problems related to water, but the government was also looking at prioritizing its interventions in terms of water. At the time we looked at it, they were in the midst of working on this. They had developed a document called a diagnostique of the situation. So we decided that it was too early to do an audit of that. Therefore, we decided to scope it out of our audit with a view to looking at it in the future. We don't know what the status of that initiative is currently.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

In your water work, did you examine the Walkerton report by Mr. Justice O'Connor and its potential application to the federal and national setting?

9:15 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

In this report, no, we didn't. This is a follow-up to a report done in 2005. There were actually two reports in 2005. One was on federal responsibility. The second was on water quality for first nations, and they referred to the Walkerton incident in that report.

I don't know if there is anything else you want to add.

9:15 a.m.

Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Richard Arseneault

Obviously we were very aware of the situation, and in fact, when we looked at the situation back in 2005, we saw that the federal government was getting interested in water again. Because of what happened in Walkerton, I guess there was a feeling that there were risks that existed and that the federal government needed to potentially intervene. That's why the federal water framework involved 19 federal organizations that had water responsibilities. It was kind of a mapping exercise: what is going on in the federal government regarding water? So they did this exercise. But what was the next step? We don't know. Then there was a change in government and then a re-start of an initiative.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

So in 2005 the new government inherited a framework, which built in part on the findings of Mr. Justice O'Connor, which Canadians will remember was a report that examined and investigated the deaths of 22 Canadians and the sickness of over 2,200, some of whom are still living with the long-term effects of E. coli infection. The federal government came in in 2006, and since then you cannot point to any progress, seemingly, on a national water framework or to any building on the framework they inherited. Do I have this right?

9:15 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

You have that right. What we've said is that there have been a couple of media releases. There have been some announcements. But when we went into the departments, there wasn't enough in terms of discernable progress to say that it actually looked as if there's something in place.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thank you very much.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you. We're going to continue.

Go ahead, Monsieur Bigras.

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to share my time with Mr. Ouellet.

I understand Mr. McGuinty's questions, but we have to be careful when we talk about a national water law and suggest that certain disasters might not occur if the federal government decided to create a federal law. The evidence is that the federal government's responsibility for drinking water quality in penitentiaries in Quebec is a lamentable failure.

You have to be quite careful when you say it would be preferable for the federal government to be responsible for evaluating water quality in the provinces and territories.

On page 22, you say this:

The cause was lead from the facilities' aging water distribution systems and not the municipal water supply to which they were connected.

Am I to understand that the problem was not water quality, but rather aging federal infrastructure? If prisoners were drinking poor quality water that didn't meet the standards for lead concentrations, it wasn't because the water supply and quality control systems put in place at the source by the municipalities, which are responsible to the provinces, were obsolete, but rather because the federal infrastructure was. Is that what I am to understand from your report?

9:20 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Thank you for your question.

Yes, that's precisely the problem that we noted in the report. All departments and agencies are responsible for verifying the quality of drinking water in federal government facilities. The Correctional Service's facilities in Quebec are a problem: some are very old and the problem doesn't stem from the source, but from the infrastructure of those facilities. I think the Correctional Service of Canada has eight facilities.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

A number of buildings and infrastructures are under federal responsibility. The Parliament buildings, for example, don't date back to 1996.

Could it be that the problem of aging infrastructure does not just concern the penitentiaries, but also other federal departments that have offices in other places?

9:20 a.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

I'm going to hand over to Mr. Arseneault in a moment.

In last month's report, we only examined two departments, Parks Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada. We haven't yet done—