Evidence of meeting #123 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was audit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
They have it here as one milligram per litre.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes, sorry. Some of the states are at three and some at one, but we're at 50.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Yes. We follow the one by USEPA. We work with and follow very closely our counterparts at USEPA in terms of reviewing all the latest science that's out there, as well as working with the World Health Organization.
This guideline that was pulled together is a draft guideline. It is currently out for a 60-day public comment period, and we are looking for any comments or advice that come in as a result of that. We take that back, we reflect on it, we look at it, we follow up—
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
As far as getting that out to the public, we became aware of that consultation process happening by fluke. The company that is trying to have a high standard established, Waste Management Corporation, made one of my constituents aware this was happening. His well was actually contaminated by leachate, and was that way for 13 years. This individual is beside himself because here we're looking at 50 micrograms per litre, whereas everywhere else is dropping this standard exponentially. We're still maintaining this very high level.
Then there was a mad dash to try to find something on your site. I actually approached the department and couldn't get any information as to what.... They wouldn't even make me aware that a consultation was occurring until our hydrogeologist and toxicologist dove into it and found the link to where they could actually put forward a response and be a part of this consultation.
I don't think any improvements are being made and I don't think other jurisdictions are being considered when we're looking at a substance like this that's already been confirmed to be a toxic carcinogen. How do you respond?
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We appreciate the concerns you've raised. In terms of the next steps on that, we are in that consultation period.
You've raised two things. Number one is to make sure that people are aware of these consultation periods when they're there. The point is very well taken. We will take a look at how we can ensure that people are aware that these are posted. It is definitely a challenge, so we are going to make sure that is clearer.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
If you say you look at other jurisdictions, how do you say on one hand that we're looking at a number of 50, and everywhere else is one or less than one? How do you square that circle, that we're still so far away from the mark of actually having meaningful standards around this chemical?
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
All of our guidelines are science-based. Your comments are well taken. We will go back and take a look at what else has been done based on comments that came in, as well as consulting with our colleagues at USEPA, who have their guideline, to get a sense of any views they may have.
Right now we have a draft out there, and once we get the comments back, we are going to take a look at whether and how it has to be revised.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Thank you. You're out of time.
Now we'll go over to Mr. Lake.
4:30 p.m.
Mike Lake Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Thank you very much.
Thank you for all your presentations today. I'm filling in on the committee for Ed Fast. I passed on a hello from Julie, and he sent me a happy face back. I asked him if I could pass on a hello to everyone, and he said please do that, so Ed sends his regards to everyone on the committee.
I want to start with the assessments of the strategic environmental assessments. When were the SEAs made requirements?
4:30 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
The cabinet directive came into effect in 1990.
4:30 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
In 2012 you started doing the audits. You had a multi-year plan, doing about five a year, you were saying.
4:30 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Yes. We did between four and six different departments. Twenty-six departments are required to participate in the federal sustainable development strategy.
4:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
When they did that, they made a commitment to improve their strategic environmental assessment work. We began that in 2012. The first couple of years we didn't look at specific numbers. We looked at processes and whether they had the processes in place. Around 2015 we started to look at the numbers to see whether or not they were actually doing it.
For 2015, 2016 and 2017, we looked at the numbers of proposals and whether or not they had completed strategic environmental assessments.
4:35 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
In 2015 they were bad, and in 2016 and 2017 they were even worse.
4:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Yes. It depended on which departments we looked at. I believe in 2017 we were looking at all the economic opportunity ones—Atlantic and Quebec—and that was probably not something they would even think of. Some of the earlier departments would have been some of the big departments.
When we looked at the past, we found that Parks Canada was the star. Every single thing they did went through an SEA. Even Environment Canada at the time—sorry—didn't follow the directive, so I'm really happy to hear they're doing a great job now.
However, definitely we were able to show—and I remember coming to committee and telling you,—that somebody can do this, because Parks Canada did it for every single proposal.
We're now finding in the proposals going to cabinet that the compliance with that cabinet directive has gone up. Around 30% to 40% of the proposals that went to cabinet a year ago had done a strategic environmental assessment. Now—bang—they're up at 90%.
4:35 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
It is a requirement, though, right? They should have been at 100%.
4:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Definitely. I was pleased to hear that one of the very senior civil servants said, “Well, what about the other 7%?”
4:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
But you have to celebrate going from 40% to 90%.
4:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
I don't usually say anything good about anything—
4:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!