Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Good morning, I want to welcome everybody and let you know that we're going to have four witnesses today. We have a full slate to answer questions.

There were a lot of members who asked me if we could put everybody together rather than have two separate panels. It would give us a little bit more time for questions and make it more pertinent, and so we've done that. I want to thank the departments and the commissioner for respecting that wish. It's very nice of you to do that, and I think it will make it a better meeting.

I'm going to introduce everyone here with us today. We have a very large contingent, so hold on.

We have, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Julie Gelfand, the commissioner of environment and sustainable development. We also have Kimberley Leach, Andrew Ferguson, and Frank Barrett, some of whom we have seen before.

From the Department of the Environment, we Diane Campbell, director general of the meteorological service of Canada; and Eric Gagné, director general of the science and technology branch.

We have, from the National Research Council of Canada, Philip Rizcallah, the director of building regulations.

From Infrastructure Canada, we have Marc Fortin, assistant deputy minister; Bogdan Makuc, director of program operations and program integration; and Sonya Read, director of strategic policy and priorities initiatives, environmental initiatives.

From the Department of Health we have Hilary Geller, assistant deputy minister, healthy environments and consumer safety branch; and James Van Loon, acting director general, and Christine Norman, director, healthy environments and consumer safety branch.

We have, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lori MacDonald, assistant deputy minister.

We have a full house of support here to answer all our questions.

Our procedure for those who haven't joined us before—I know Ms. Gelfand is very familiar with this—is that I will tell you when one minute is left, just to give you a chance to know where you're at.

We'll open the floor to Ms. Gelfand. Thank you.

[Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our recently completed audits. The full reports were tabled in the House of Commons last Tuesday.

I am accompanied by Andrew Ferguson, Kimberley Leach, and Frank Barrett, who were the principals responsible for our audits.

Whether it's about consumers deciding which product to buy or municipal planners determining where to build hospitals and schools, the federal government directly and indirectly provides funding, programs, and tools to many different stakeholders to support them in the decisions they must make.

In the first of our three audits that we are reporting on today, we looked at how Health Canada manages risks to human health and safety posed by chemical substances used in cosmetics and household consumer products. These products range from makeup and skin creams to baby bottles, children's jewellery, and toys.

In short, we found that Health Canada is not in a position to fully assure Canadians that its product safety program is working to protect consumers.

Since the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act came into force in 2011, Health Canada has improved its oversight activities, but it is still falling short on detecting and assessing health risks. For example, we found that the department did not assess the scope and magnitude of the risks associated with imported products purchased online or those related to counterfeit products and cosmetics.

It’s important to understand that it is not Health Canada’s role to ensure the safety of cosmetics or consumer products before they enter the market. Health Canada works primarily to detect and respond to health or safety risks after problems arise. Companies are responsible for following the regulations put in place by the government. Companies are required to report health and safety incidents involving consumer products to Health Canada, but there is no requirement to report incidents involving cosmetics.

We found that Health Canada did not regularly test cosmetics to ensure that labels were correct or to check for the presence of prohibited substances. This is a problem, because labels do not disclose what's in “parfum”, “aroma”, “fragrance”, or “flavour”. Those catch-all terms can conceal a range of potentially hazardous chemicals, and this information is not readily available to consumers.

Health Canada also told us that marketing terms such as “preservative-free”, “fragrance-free”, and “unscented” are outside its mandate. In our view, these terms suggest health and safety benefits and may be misleading. For example, a product labelled fragrance-free or unscented may in fact contain chemicals to mask the scent. Where consumers are expected to make informed choices and use products appropriately, reliable product information is critical. Frequently this information is not available.

Let me now turn from our households to our communities.

Our second audit looked at federal programs that are intended to support the sustainability of Canadian communities. Overall, it is not clear to what extent a decade of federal funding programs in excess of $13 billion have produced the environmental benefits they were supposed to bring.

When we looked at infrastructure projects that Infrastructure Canada has funded, under the gas tax fund, for example, we found that the department did not have indicators in place to assess to what extent the money spent had resulted in cleaner air, cleaner water, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

When it comes to considering infrastructure projects for funding, we found that Infrastructure Canada had not adequately identified or managed environmental risks. The department expected proposals for major projects to include information on environmental risks, but it did not use this information to analyze the risks of climate change, for example.

When environmental risks are not considered, projects may not be designed to minimize environmental effects or withstand the impacts of future weather events. This means that municipalities could be left facing significant unexpected costs down the road. Infrastructure Canada informed us that it does not have a mandate to encourage innovative infrastructure projects through its project selection. This means that there is a risk that new, greener approaches may not be considered.

In our final audit, we looked at what the federal government is doing to support efforts to mitigate the effects of severe weather. Overall, the federal government has not adequately supported long-term efforts to make Canada's infrastructure more resilient to a changing climate. Severe weather is expensive. The federal government has spent more on recovering from large-scale natural disasters over the past six years than in the preceding 39 years combined. Scientists are predicting that severe weather events will become more frequent and more intense. We found that the federal government has not been successful in its efforts to encourage provinces and territories to invest in projects designed to mitigate the impacts of severe weather.

None of the existing funding programs is specifically designed to improve the resilience of Canada’s infrastructure. For example, the new building Canada fund supports infrastructure improvements in 14 priority areas, including disaster mitigation. The fund is not designed to encourage provinces and territories to make disaster mitigation a priority.

The federal government could also better support the planning of resilient infrastructure through the information and tools it makes available to decision-makers. We found that some data was incomplete and some tools were obsolete. For example, engineers rely on tools to predict the probability of extreme rainfall amounts and the duration of storms when planning and designing municipal water infrastructure. Yet the data used to inform these tools has not been consistently produced since 2006.

Similarly, flood-plain maps allow municipalities to better plan for future growth in areas of low flood risk and compensate for areas of high flood risk. National guidelines for flood hazard assessment and mapping have not been updated in 20 years. This has left the provinces and territories to manage and update their own maps. With no federal standards or guidelines, there is no consistency between jurisdictions.

With significant and ongoing investments in infrastructure across the country, resilience means a focus on building and rebuilding better. When resiliency is built into infrastructure, it is built into communities. Those communities are then better able to meet the needs of future generations, withstand the impacts of climate change, and recover more quickly when a disaster does strike.

Madam Chair, this concludes my opening statement. I am now ready to answer your questions.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to hold off on your answering of questions. We're going to hear from everyone, and then we'll get into questions, if you don't mind.

Now, we'll move over to Marc Fortin at Infrastructure Canada.

[Dr. Marc Fortin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Operations, Infrastructure Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to speak before you.

I’ve been invited here today to speak to you about Chapter 1: Federal Support for Environmentally Sustainable Infrastructure.

This chapter of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development's 2016 spring report examines federal and municipal infrastructure programs that are intended, among other objectives, to improve the environmental performance and sustainability of Canadian communities.

Specifically, the chapter assesses whether the environmental objectives of the gas tax fund, which is managed federally by Infrastructure Canada, were being achieved and whether Infrastructure Canada had adequately coordinated its program with its partners.

The GTF is an important program, providing over $2 billion annually for municipalities across Canada. It is a stable source of funding that gives communities the flexibility they need to plan, build, and revitalize key infrastructure and address their priorities. A 2015 evaluation of the GTF found that it is viewed by municipalities as one of the most efficient federal programs, due to minimal administrative overhead costs, effective governance, and jurisdictional flexibility.

The commissioner's report identifies areas where we can make further improvements to the GTF. It also proposes improvements to our coordination with partners and data collection. The report also highlights the importance of investing in infrastructure that is sustainable over the long term and meets the real needs of Canadian communities.

Infrastructure Canada agrees with all the recommendations made by the commissioner and is taking action to improve our programming to demonstrate clear results of our initiatives to Canadians. With respect to the GTF, Infrastructure Canada will continue to work with partners to develop an appropriate and effective performance measurement strategy to better inform Canadians of the outcomes of these investments.

As you know, the Government of Canada committed to investing $120 billion in infrastructure over 10 years, including $20 billion in new funding for green infrastructure. Phase one of this long-term plan includes $5 billion toward investments in infrastructure that protect communities and support Canada's ongoing transition to a clean growth economy. Infrastructure Canada is responsible for approximately $2 billion, while other federal departments will manage the remaining funds.

The department is also working with other partners on various fronts to ensure evidence-based decision-making. For instance, Infrastructure Canada is providing $50 million to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for a new asset management fund, which is designed help communities develop infrastructure asset management practices and improve data collection.

We are working with Statistics Canada and other stakeholders to provide a baseline of information on the state and performance of the core public infrastructure. We are also working to address the issue of ensuring our public infrastructure is climate resilient. The department is also currently working with the National Research Council on the development of codes and guides for climate-resilient buildings and infrastructure, including a revised national building code by 2020 for residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial buildings. In budget 2016, $40 million was announced to support this initiative.

As identified in budget 2016, our department is actively engaging stakeholders and Canadians regarding phase two of the federal government's infrastructure plan. This will ensure that Canadians have their say as we develop our long-term programming.

Infrastructure is the backbone of our communities, big or small, and our department is committed to implementing the Government of Canada's long-term plan to support the resilient and sustainable infrastructure that is at their core.

Thank you for your time.

My colleagues and I will be available to answer any questions later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin.

We're going to move on to Ms. MacDonald, who is with the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Welcome.

[Lori MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Good morning. I'm pleased to be here to speak on behalf of Public Safety Canada and my colleagues from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Infrastructure Canada, and the National Research Council of Canada on chapter 2, on federal support to mitigate the effects of severe weather, of the spring 2016 reports of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Mr. Chair, we welcome the Auditor General's report, which included a number of important recommendations on how the federal government can be better positioned to support Canada’s long-term mitigation efforts related to the effects of severe weather.

Canada has adopted an all-hazards approach to emergency management, based on the premise that many emergency management activities are common across all types of hazards and threats.

There are two elements that I want to emphasize relating to emergency management.

First is Canada’s evolving risk landscape.

To illustrate this, in the past 20 years there has been a pronounced shift in Canada’s risk profile, characterized by the increasing frequency and costs of disasters. Available data indicate that prior to 1995 there were only three disasters that exceeded $500 million in losses. However, from 1996 to 2009, there has been one disaster each year exceeding $500 million. This trend has increased since 2010, with at least a $1-billion disaster annually. Extreme weather and climate change in particular are seen as risk multipliers and are raising concerns regarding the ability of the current EM approach to managing events of differing scale and complexity.

Addressing the escalation of disaster frequency and costs is a collective challenge that will no doubt require strengthening current practices and strategies, as well as developing new approaches, to advance emergency management in Canada.

This particular audit focused on the federal government’s actions that support Canada’s long-term mitigation efforts. It examined key federal organizations’ data, tools, expertise, and funding that can help decision-makers mitigate the effects of severe weather.

Mr. Chair, Public Safety Canada, as the Government of Canada lead for this chapter, is in a strong position to respond to the recommendations outlined in the report. In fact, work is already under way to address them. Public Safety Canada and Natural Resources Canada are already working with provinces and territories and other key stakeholders to develop national flood-plain mapping guidelines.

The Government of Canada will also work to further align federal mitigation programming. This will include robust stakeholder outreach in all provinces and territories to review draft guidelines, strengthen relationships, enhance knowledge of federal mitigation programming, and bolster subscription. Furthermore, the Government of Canada will build on its relationships with other government departments, provinces, territories, and other stakeholders to understand changing requirements for climatological data, extreme precipitation statistics, and other tools.

We will also continue to work with partners who are engaged in the development of guidelines, codes, and standards for infrastructure, including Infrastructure Canada and the National Research Council of Canada, which have advised that they have already begun work to address report recommendations that the national building code take climate change trends into account. Forty million dollars was announced in budget 2016 to support this initiative.

Madam Chair, emergency management is a shared responsibility. The Government of Canada is committed to continue consulting and collaborating with government departments, provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, municipalities, and other stakeholders to mitigate the impacts of severe weather events.

Together, we can build community resilience to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters and other emergencies before they happen.

With that, I thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much, Ms. MacDonald.

We are now going to hear from Hilary Geller, from the Department of Health.

[Hilary Geller, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear today.

I'd also like to thank Ms. Gelfand and her team for their report. Health Canada agrees with the recommendations and has already begun work to address them.

This report addresses various issues related to the consumer product safety program, but focuses on the management of chemicals of concern in consumer products and in cosmetics.

When it comes to the potential risks of chemicals in consumer products or cosmetics—what the report terms “chemicals of concern”—it is the chemicals management plan that allows Health Canada to identify precisely what a chemical of concern is. The recently renewed CMP is a world-leading approach to the risk assessment and the risk management of chemicals. It uses scientific information to identify those chemicals that may have health effects and, importantly, whether Canadians may be exposed to them at levels that may pose actual risks to their health. It is through the CMP that Health Canada has identified certain substances of concern, for example BPA, which we banned in baby bottles; or the flame retardant TCEP, which we have prohibited in foam products for children.

Health Canada thanks the commissioner for her constructive suggestions concerning improving our management of risks from chemicals of concern in consumer products and for the more general suggestions for improving the effectiveness of this now five-year-old consumer product safety program. As I've said, we have already begun to implement the recommendations, and we will continue in this work.

I plan to focus the rest of my time on our cosmetics program, where the bulk of the attention in this report is focused.

Cosmetics are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act which, like the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, contains a general prohibition making it illegal to sell dangerous products. The same basic principles of shared responsibility apply to both the consumer product and the cosmetic regimes. Generally, industry is responsible for ensuring the safety of the products they bring to market, consumers are responsible for making informed choices about the products they purchase and for using them safely, and government has responsibility for regulatory oversight and for risk communications.

As it is for consumer products, the CMP is key to our management of chemicals in cosmetics. Through the CMP, 26 substances have been identified as problematic when used in cosmetics. These have been added to the cosmetics hotlist, meaning they are prohibited or restricted for use.

Health Canada has the ability to rapidly screen cosmetics for chemicals on the hotlist. When industry begins sale of a new product, or changes the formulation of an existing cosmetic, they must notify Health Canada within 10 days and provide the list of ingredients and their concentrations. We receive roughly 30,000 such notifications each year.

The commissioner's report noted 50 cases over a two-year period where a prohibited substance was notified in a cosmetic. The commissioner indicated—and we agree—that some of these cases were too slow in being resolved. While implementation of an online notification system in 2013 has greatly reduced our response time, we will be taking additional actions to make sure we can respond in a more timely manner.

The commissioner has also suggested that more needs to be done to verify that cosmetics do not contain substances that are not on the label or notified to Health Canada.

Where evidence indicates this may be an issue, as in the case of formaldehyde in hair straighteners in 2011, we do conduct sampling, but we have agreed with the suggestion that we can do more.

Supporting consumers in making wise choices is an important part of our job. Our regulations require cosmetics to disclose all ingredients on the label, thereby making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions. The one exception, as the report points out, is that in line with international standards, the sub-ingredients of fragrances or perfumes don't have to be individually listed—although it is interesting to note that some leading companies do disclose this information, either on the label or online. Beyond that, Health Canada agrees with the commissioner's recommendation to both encourage voluntary disclosure by industry to the department, which will allow us to check these ingredients against the hotlist, and to undertake to test for prohibited substances that may be included as part of a fragrance or perfume.

We will also further support consumers by communicating more about how cosmetics are regulated in Canada.

In conclusion, in all the areas that Health Canada regulates, we endeavour to take an approach commensurate to the risks posed by the products. This is based on a system that works to prevent problems before they occur, respond when they do, and provide the appropriate level of oversight.

We are confident that implementing the recommendations in this report will help us in our ongoing efforts to continuously improve the implementation of our program.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate all of your taking the time to come today and share this information with us.

We have two new MPs with us today at the committee. I just want to say that we have Fin Donnelly standing in for Nathan Cullen. Thank you and welcome.

We also have Diane Watts standing in for Jim Eglinski. Thank you for joining us today.

Okay, we're going to open the questioning with Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to all of the witnesses. This was a very interesting report, so I appreciate the efforts of the commissioner's office. Well done.

Focusing first on the issue of infrastructure, my read of the report was that the emphasis was on mitigation: building better, and rebuilding better to withstand.... I didn't note any conclusions around the federal performance in terms of focusing on investing in low-emission infrastructure to get at the root of the problem, which is the actual greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, we all know we have a mitigation challenge on climate, but did the commission reach any conclusions around the root problem of infrastructural investments going to greenhouse gas emission reduction?

[Julie Gelfand]

That's an awesome question and it makes me think it might be an awesome audit to do. We did not look at the issue of whether or not we were investing in low-emission infrastructure. We had two audits that dealt with infrastructure. One was on the gas tax fund.

The reason I got interested in the gas tax fund was that round one had clear objectives related to cleaner air, cleaner water, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, $13 billion. I wanted to go and find out, did we get that or not? What happened with all that funding? So that was one area we looked at.

Furthermore, we then looked at mitigating against severe weather. We looked at the tools the federal government provides, and then the mitigation funding. In terms of mitigation funding, what we found was that a lot of it is actually left on the table.

To answer your specific question, we didn't look at low-emission infrastructure. We can tell you that at the time of our audit, Infrastructure Canada did not have a mandate to consider climate change or innovation. Low-emission infrastructure would be both climate-related and innovation-related. At the time they didn't have that mandate. Perhaps they have it now, but at the time they didn't have it.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'll follow up with a question for Infrastructure Canada. Thank you for your presentations and for your response to the audit, which I found constructive.

Can you let our committee know now what Infrastructure Canada is doing to address not just resilience, but also the broader objective of that core issue of emissions reduction? I recognize this may not have been the focus of it, but going forward what is the plan?

[Dr. Marc Fortin]

Thank you for the question, because it allows me to mention that the way the majority of our programs are designed at Infrastructure Canada is that they're done in partnership with the provinces and territories, who are prioritizing their core objectives in terms of the projects they want to move forward.

To come back to emissions, after the recent budget, the government announced a $3.4-billion investment in the first stage of public transit investment. I want to underline that this program has not yet received any projects, but that we will be expecting it to look at some transit innovations, and that some municipalities and entities running transit systems will be able update some of their fleets and to invest in some technology in that regard.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'd like to follow up very quickly on that point before going to one last question for Mrs. Geller.

I note that Infrastructure Canada didn't receive outcome reports from Quebec. As I represent a riding in Quebec, that's a matter of concern to me because I can be fairly certain we're going to want to come back at some point and ask Infrastructure Canada what has been the performance to ensure that we get emissions reductions out of our infrastructure investments. If we don't have outcome reports coming from the provinces, that's going to be very difficult. Is that something you're going to look to address?

[Dr. Marc Fortin]

This is something that we are going to address. I just want to underline that under the gas tax and the agreement with each of the provinces and the entities, they are reporting every year in an annual report the projects that have been implemented. If they don't provide that report, they don't receive a letter in which we announce they will be receiving on the gas tax. In the case of Quebec, for example, that never happened.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have just a bit over one minute.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

This is for Ms. Geller. I apologize in advance. I know what it's like to be put on the spot on a topic that you weren't preparing for.

On May 19, Health Canada came out with a statement regarding genetically modified salmon. I think this specifically to the area that you cover at Health Canada. Was there a strategic environmental assessment conducted on this new product?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, the focus of this discussion is the commissioner's reports. My understanding is that when we bring witnesses in, we focus on the matter that's on the agenda. For example, if it were estimates, I think we would all agree that it would be a wide-ranging discussion. I think we should focus our discussion on the reports themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just to follow up with that, we do have to focus on the study that was brought forward to us. We're going to have to hold that question for another opportunity. We'll have that another time.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's fine. I understand. A written response would be acceptable. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, I think this is going to have to come up in some of our other work. It's not really applicable to the study that's brought forward today. We're going to have to let that one go. We'll bring it forward at another time, I think.

Okay? Thank you.

The next one is Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

He did actually have a few more seconds.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's fine.