Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for their report and honesty.
Given the lack of regulations in a number of areas, as you noted in the report, do you feel that going from 40 environmental agencies to three is a questionable decision?
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
In terms of the 2020 plan?
4:15 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We noted there have been two regulations to date. The government has announced a third one for the transportation sector, but a lot of work needs to be done by 2020. And there are still no regulations for the six other sectors.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Earlier you mentioned 15 contaminated sites in the Montreal area. Do you know which ones represent an immediate danger to people's health?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. That is probably a question for the officials from Environment Canada and other departments. But I still think that it is important to inform parliamentarians of the existence of those sites and their exact location. You said there were 15 in Montreal. I believe I said that there were two in the Old Port of Montreal and a large one around the Lachine Canal.
However, I don't think they represent an immediate danger. I also feel that, if there was in fact a class 1 site posing risks to people's health and to the quality of the environment, the government would be well aware of those risks and would take the necessary steps to protect the public.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
I hope so.
Do you think it will be necessary to set up an organization to oversee the cleanup of the 13,000 sites across Canada and to make sure that those in charge report on the progress to the public?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I am going to let Mr. Sloan answer that question.
4:20 p.m.
Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The responsibility for the 22,000 sites is spread across most government departments with INAC and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans certainly being the largest. They do some individual reporting department by department, but what's missing is the overall picture. I think that's where our recommendation was saying that if we can get a consolidated picture, it's a much better image for parliamentarians and for the Canadian public to understand where these sites are, what the contaminants are, what the reasons were that they were closed, and what risk mitigation procedures have been taken. It's trying to get greater transparency about the picture as a whole rather than a broad number of subsets.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
The first Earth Summit was held 20 years ago in Rio. In your view, would we have had the same GHG and climate change problems today if the governments had taken action then?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Let me tell you that the climate change problem has been around for many years. It was one of the main topics at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. That is when Canada and other countries around the world signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
As to the second part of your question, it has to do with politics. So it is not within the purview of our audit.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC
Do you think that the government would be transparent if it were to conduct or to request a study to determine whether the sector-by-sector approach is better for Canadians and whether it makes it easier to comply with the Kyoto Protocol or the new 2020 protocol?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Once again, it is a political decision. The government has announced a regulatory sector-by-sector approach. That's the government's decision. Our responsibility is to follow up on the plan, to see if it is working well and if there are gaps in terms of management, data, information or allocated funds. The OAG's mandate is to look at all those issues.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you, Monsieur Pilon.
Closing out the round is Ms. Rempel. You have five minutes.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Back to the federal contaminated sites inventory, in the report you mentioned that the government has made progress in managing the federal contaminated sites inventory. Could you briefly outline some of this progress?
4:20 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, with pleasure....
To say again, my predecessors have gone back from 10 years ago, and it was really a mess. The government didn't know how many sites there were, or what the risks of those sites were. Some were since 2005 and it's particularly accelerated in recent years.
The government has prepared a national inventory. It has identified 22,000 sites. It put in a system to classify the risks to that site, so you could say if it was a class 1 or not a risk at all.
The government set out 10 steps to manage a site, whether it goes from initial assessment to full remediation to closure. It has closed 9,000 sites. So that's the progress to date and I think it's considerable.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Good.
We were talking about accountability and you noted in your report that, while you were completing the audit, the FCSAP secretariat of Environment Canada was developing a standard tool to use when closing contaminated sites. Could you explain how this tool will strengthen the management of federal contamination sites and if it was included in your report?
4:25 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It was not included because it is not yet completed. I think it was begun, by coincidence or not, while we were doing this audit. I'll ask my colleague, Mr. Sloan, to comment.
4:25 p.m.
Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
The tool is still being finalized. I think it is an important one to carry out because it will get each department to consider the reasons for closure of the site on a consistent basis. That then allows for a roll-up where apples are apples. People are looking at it in a consistent way, and it gives you a better picture of whether the risks to the economy, health, and environment are coming down or staying the same. It gives an important performance measure of the progress that government makes in carrying out this program.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Would you think that, if implemented appropriately, this would address some of the recommendations we're finding in your report?
4:25 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
One of the findings was to have a standardized closure system, and as Mr. Sloan said, it's important that what one ministry determines to be closed, the other ministry has the same criteria. It is important to be able to say it is being closed for the right reasons. So yes, it is an important tool and when it's completed it will be another development and another positive step forward.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Your report also states that the estimated financial liability for dealing with federal contaminated sites exceeds the amount of dedicated funding remaining in the federal contaminated sites action plan by about $500 million. Is this a little bit like comparing apples to oranges—comparing the estimated cost to address all sites in the inventory to the funds remaining for a program that is intended to address the highest risk sites?