Environment Committee on May 8th, 2012

[Scott Vaughan]

Are you referring to Chapter 1 of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I would like to know how useful the act is and what your recommendations are.

[Scott Vaughan]

For that chapter in the audit, there are no recommendations because it was the last report of our—

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I am talking about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

[Scott Vaughan]

I am sorry.

We presented that audit before the committee in 2009. We recommended—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

On a point of order I'll hear Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

The commissioner's report does not deal with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, so I think the question is not relevant to what we are discussing today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Madame Quach.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I feel that it is very relevant today, given that we are talking about contaminated sites, some of which are being assessed. So we need to know how important the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is so that we can have all the relevant information about those recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

This is the Standing Committee on Environment, and we can be very general in our scoping, but I'm going to rule that we deal with the report that's before us today, and that is the report from the commissioner on his three chapters. We'll provide some latitude, but to ask for the commissioner's comment specifically on the review of CEAA is, I believe, outside the scope of our meeting today.

I'd encourage members to keep—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I have made a ruling on the point of order, Ms. Leslie; the decision has been made. The only alternative would be to challenge the decision of the chair.

Is that what you're doing?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I would like to challenge the decision of the chair—although I know what the outcome will be—because, with all due respect, we are the environment committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

That is a dilatory motion, Ms. Leslie, and so there is no debate.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Fair enough; I won't debate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

The decision of the chair has been challenged. I will hand it over to the clerk. The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

I'm going to ask for a recorded vote from the clerk.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

The chair has been sustained in its decision.

Madame Quach, you can continue, and your question should be focusing on the report.

Thank you.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let me reword my question on contaminated sites.

In your report, you say that there is a shortfall of $500 million to deal with the sites already assessed. The budget for assessment has been reduced by 60%. What do you recommend in terms of those assessments?

[Scott Vaughan]

In terms of contaminated sites, we made two recommendations. First of all, we asked that the government assess all the sites because, as you know, many sites are still open, 13,000 to be precise. We noted that half of them have not been assessed yet. After the assessment, there needs to be an action plan to determine the next stage in dealing with the sites that will remain open. We also noted that there are gaps in management, more specifically in terms of the transparency of information that parliamentarians and the public get. We recommended that measures be taken to improve management levels and to set up steps in the management process so that parliamentarians can analyze the resources and outcome. There is no such system in place right now.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

So some information is concealed. You are also saying that the hidden information is detrimental to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is very, very important. That is quite alarming.

All things considered, how many contaminated sites are in Quebec's major centres?

[Scott Vaughan]

In Quebec, there is a total of 2,300 contaminated sites, all categories included. I have the data for Montreal. There are 168 sites or so. Of those, 15 are on the Island of Montreal, which is in the category of higher risk sites.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

We are talking about contaminated sites in Montreal, which is a large urban centre. Does that pose risks both to human health and the environment?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes. There are some sites near the Lachine Canal in particular. I believe there are two sites in the Old Port of Montreal and another one on île Bouchard, by the Island of Montreal. There are 15 class 1 sites with contaminants. That is why they are now considered contaminated sites. Not all the sites are the same. Some contain fuels with benzene and other toxic substances.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you.

As for Environment Canada, you talked about three major gaps in terms of accountability. The three gaps had to do with the ways things are being done, financial information for the members of Parliament, and the lack of closure reporting mechanisms. Could you give us more information about those three gaps?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes. I am going to let my colleague Mr. Sloan answer your question.