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.
Grant Hogg Director, Protected Areas Directorate, Department of the Environment
Hello. My name is Grant Hogg. I'm a director in the Canadian Wildlife Service, in Environment and Climate Change Canada.
I don't have specific numbers, but I can go and get them. I do know that after budget 2018, we did get significant resources to increase the staffing complement for species at risk. I'll be sure to provide that money afterwards.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much. It would be good to know if they've been onboarded or if they were just announced.
This goes to my question to Mr. Burns. How much money has yet been allocated out of the $1.5 billion announced for oceans protection?
Director General, Fisheries Resources Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Sorry; again, I don't actually have the specific numbers, but it is something we could definitely provide to you.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That would be great.
Let me get to a very specific question. I'm not sure who the right person is to answer it.
The state of the southern resident killer whale population is a deep concern for my constituents. What I hear repeatedly from people is if the whales are on the U.S. side of the border and whale-watching vessels come too close, they are ticketed, but when Canadian whale-watching vessels get too close, there's virtually no enforcement. The 200-metre safe distance would be great if we were enforcing it.
Are there any comments on that?
Director General, Fisheries Resources Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
On that particular issue, definitely enforcement is a critical component of making sure that the measures put in place are being followed.
In terms of enforcement on the west coast, we're certainly acutely aware of that need. There have been some investments as part of the OPP and the whales initiative to ensure some additional capacity in terms of enforcement.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As of now, there's nobody there ticketing whale-watching vessels that are harassing whales. I'm glad to know that you're moving on it. I can tell you from the ground that I get reports all the time from desperate constituents who are watching this critically endangered species being harassed. You would think that the people who make their living out of showing tourists southern resident killer whales would be more protective, but I hate to say that there are some bad actors out there and we need to ticket them.
Thank you.
Director General, Fisheries Resources Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Okay.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
All right. Now we'll resume our regular list.
Ms. Dzerowicz, you have six minutes.
Julie Dzerowicz Davenport, Lib.
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Commissioner, thank you so much for your report. I'm glad you exist. Thank you to the departments that are here as well, and for all your presentations.
This area is very important to me, not least because I'm highly sensitive to chemicals and to toxins. I'm one of those canaries in the mine, so I feel it right away. I get skin rashes. I notice everything. Also, I'm super-concerned about the fact that we have cancer rates that are increasing exponentially each year in spite of our putting far more millions and millions of dollars into cancer research.
I'm pretty new to the committee and I'm going to ask some pretty basic questions, but this is where I am as a Canadian and as a parliamentarian right now.
For my birthday, I received a bracelet. That bracelet caused me immediately to have a migraine, a colossal migraine. I went back to the store and said there was nothing on the box but I know it's some type of lead, or I don't know if it's lead or mercury, but it's something that has led to the migraine. When I went back to the store, they couldn't tell me what the bracelet was actually made of.
As a department, what would you say is the obligation of that company to know what's actually in that product, and what's the obligation of the Canadian government to tell me that there's something there that might make me sick as it relates to toxic substances?
Do you have an answer to that?
Executive Director, Chemicals Management Division, Department of the Environment
You're raising a concern that we've heard from other Canadians. We do have regulations that prohibit toxic substances from being in products. We plan to be doing some product testing to make sure that a sample of products we test do comply with the regulations, but obviously we can't test every product on the market.
One of the things we're looking at in the context of planning for a chemicals management program after 2020 is the type of information consumers need that would be helpful to address a situation such as that, to give them information about the products they're buying and how to use them.
It is an issue we're aware of. At this point, companies need to comply with the regulations, but we can't test every product.
Product labelling was one suggestion made by the ENVI committee. That's one of the options we're looking at, but there are other ways to get information to consumers. Retailers such as Walmart have a safe-product label that they put on products that don't contain toxic substances.
There are different ways of addressing that concern, but I hear you.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
We have done an audit on chemicals in consumer products. I encourage you to have a look at it.
I don't remember what year it was, because I focus on the two or three audits that I'm doing at a time. However, we did do an audit on chemicals in consumer products, and that would clearly outline who is responsible for what.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay. That's helpful.
One of the other things that again I'm looking at just from my perspective, because I figure I'm an average Canadian, is in terms of what information is available on the Canadian government website in regard to toxic substances.
I went to the Canadian government website while I was waiting, just to see what was there. I would have no understanding when I'm looking at the different types of lead and the chemicals that are there.
As an average person, because I'm so highly sensitive to everything, I would want some idea of things I need to be careful with if I'm sensitive to mercury or lead. I don't necessarily need you to mention stores, but even bracelets or things such as that. I'm not quite sure exactly what I'm looking for, but I know I'm looking for far more information than what currently exists.
Have we actually done focus groups with Canadians to ask them to look at our websites and tell us what information they think is missing? Have you done any of that so that maybe we can get Canadians coming to the Government of Canada website, so that you can provide people such as me with the information I desperately need to stay healthy?
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Thank you very much for your question. It's absolutely very relevant.
At Health Canada, we do a lot of work in trying to communicate with Canadians about the risks associated with certain hazardous chemicals. We do appreciate the complexity of the messaging, and also really that ability to navigate the website and stuff like that. In 2016, we undertook a five-year plan to look at this. In 2017, some public opinion research was done that focused on the interests of Canadians, what Canadians wanted to know. It focused on how they wanted to be informed about this, how they accessed data, and some of the challenges that they faced when accessing data.
We took all of that information back and we pulled together a new approach that is being implemented. From a social marketing perspective, we have some plain language pieces that are being put together. We have some social media that is being pulled together to communicate that out. We have different regional outreach programs that go out, so it's not just centred in the national capital region. We work with our regional colleagues. We target trade shows and home shows. On certain substances—for example, radon or asbestos—we've actually had blitzes and gone out to educate Canadians.
One of the things we learned is that with regard to chemicals that are very abstract to people, when people are unaware of the chemical and it's perhaps an industrial chemical that is meaningless to them, it is pretty hard for them to engage on it. However, when we're able to really make it relevant to them and they're able to see their homes and see themselves in this, they have a much greater interest.
We also looked at target audience.
Davenport, Lib.
Just because I see that we're sort of ending.... I guess the clear message for me is that we need to go much faster on this in terms of making this information available to Canadians in a way that they understand.
Among Canadians in general, there is a belief that the Canadian government is protecting Canadians in general against all these toxins, and it's wonderful that they have that. Because I'm so sensitive, I actually have the opposite view. Right now, I ask very many questions at a store, because I have to. I just say to you that if there are additional resources or additional things that are needed, bring them back to this committee. I think this is an area that is serious, and I think we're serious about trying to take some immediate action on it, so thank you.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Great. Thank you.
The last is Mr. Stetski, for three minutes.
Kootenay—Columbia, NDP
I'll try to get in two questions, starting with enforcement again.
Back in 2007, one of the ecosystems people we had on board was dealing with a developer who was about to blow up a cliff along the waterfront. The developer turned to him and said, “How much will it cost me if I blow this up?” He said, “Up to a million dollars”, and the developer turned to his guys and said, “Go ahead and blow it up.”
My question to you is this: Is the fine regime enough to actually impact and change the behaviour, in your experience, that's currently in place?
Director General, Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Environment
I'll try to keep my answer brief, even though this is an area that I'm really excited about.
There were some changes to the fine regime under CEPA and also under the Fisheries Act that took place in the last few years. The Environmental Enforcement Act, which came into effect in 2010, raised the mandatory minimums and maximums under CEPA. Subsequent amendments to the Fisheries Act did a similar thing.
The idea was to make environmental penalties larger than the cost of doing business. This was for very much the reasons you mentioned. However, we noticed over the years that even though there were new fine schemes in place, they weren't really being picked up by the courts. A group of us got together with the intent of improving our investigative capacity, and we ended up talking a lot about sentencing. Since we use all these resources and do all this work to try to get an outcome, we want to make sure that when we have a successful prosecution and a subsequent fine, it really means something to the company in question.
Corporations speak the language of money. We like to look at the size of the fines as a way of communicating a very strong message. They're also a method of moral accounting. It's the way for the justice system to say, “This thing mattered to us, so we're going to place a high value on it.” I'm smiling at you because the officer who's in your area actually was a big part of this group that put together sentencing support tools to help officers give better recommendations to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada about what sorts of sentences we would like to see for the investigations that we've been working on.
We have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of penalties that we are recovering. In addition, we're seeing an increase in the use of creative sentencing, whereby courts are ordering companies to do certain things to clean up their acts.
There was one in particular that this officer in your area worked on. There was a $3-million fine, which is significant, but what was more significant was that the company then had to invest $50 million to upgrade its treatment systems.
I wish I could talk about these things today, but in the next couple of weeks you're going to see a few more things that look like this. Over the next year, you're going to see a couple of cases that will settle for record-breaking, earth-shattering fines and creative sentences. We're incredibly proud of this for the reasons that you're mentioning. My hope is that it has not only a specific deterrence effect on the company in question, but also a general deterrence effect. What I want companies to do is think, “Are we going to invest this money and do the right thing or not?” I want them to know that we exist, know that we're watching and know that if they don't do the right thing, we're going to make them wish they had.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
There we are. We're out of time.
That takes us through the full round of questioning we have. I do have brief in camera committee business we need to tend to before we finish at 5:30.
I would like to conclude this part of the program by thanking all of the departmental officials for being here.
Commissioner, it's always a pleasure. It's great to see you. I understand that your spring reports are going to be on mining effluent, fossil fuel subsidies and aquatic invasive species.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I'm sure we'll see some of you back at the table again in the spring, along with the commissioner and her team, and there will be other opportunities for departmental officials to come visit us, I'm sure.
Thank you so much, everybody, for your time. We'll suspend briefly and clear the room, except for members and immediate staff. Thank you and have a good evening.
[Proceedings continue in camera]