Public Accounts Committee on May 6th, 2010

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that. That's the reason I'm raising it. It's not your issue; it's for us as parliamentarians to deal with.

But that's the reason you're in here with us doing this. It was our understanding that it was not being done at the other committee, which I think is surprising. Hopefully they'll start the process, because really, the other half of the work you do when you do an audit is to pick it up, analyze it, and say, “Where do we go from here?” That's the role of our committee.

It seems to me that the environment committee ought to be doing the same. Anyway, that's for internal matters, and we'll deal with that later.

I want to say that I was very struck by the fact that we seem to be in a world where, if somebody mentions national security, that can lead us all the way to a potential constitutional crisis in terms of its importance. And if we're dealing with the police or our firefighters and all of our front line emergency response folks, there's never enough we can do, but when it comes to the slow poisoning of Canadians, we don't take that with the same seriousness at all.

I have to say to the deputies who are represented here today that I am not impressed at all. I am not in the least bit impressed with the track record of your ministries on these issues and with your statements today. In particular, in the one from the deputy Minister of Environment, there was nothing in there that really spoke to these issues, as far as I'm concerned. It was just a piece of fluff.

Here's why I'm so upset. We're talking about our kids in many cases and their exposure to toxic substances. So we're going to prevent bombs going off in their schoolyard, but it's okay to let them get poisoned.

And this is not new. This is when I really get cranked. We can go back to 1999 to an audit that was done. I'm quoting from the commissioner's audit report in front of us, the 1999 report, which found, “The chapters raised concerns regarding the federal government's lack of progress in developing and implementing risk management strategies”. In 2002, a follow-up report was done, and it said in part, concluding, “Although the federal government had made some progress...its ability to detect, understand, and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances was still limited”.

So we had an audit that found the problem, then we had another audit that came three years later and said there was still an ongoing problem, and now, today, we have the Commissioner of the Environment in front of us and he's saying in his opening remarks today, in part, “This underscores a key observation of the audit...”--meaning this one, the third one--“the risks posed by toxic substances such as lead and mercury still require active management.” Further, in paragraph 8, he says, “The first relates to risk management strategies”.

So I want to know what's going on. It has been raised now in three audits that risk management, in terms of the exposure of our citizens to these substances, is still not being managed adequately. I didn't hear answers from these two deputies, Chair, that gave me any satisfaction that these matters are in hand.

I'm going to give the two deputies an opportunity to respond. But I really am very disappointed and worried, and that's why I'm so upset. It's because it's about our kids, in large part.

Anyway, that's my bit. I want to try to be as fair as I can and give you a chance to respond.

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you for the observation. At Health Canada, we certainly share the passion and concern for protecting Canadians.

We feel that we have made significant progress. We actually believe that there are a number of steps that have been taken and appreciate the commissioner's comments about the progress that has been made since the last audits that you referenced.

With the investments that we've had to move forward on the risk assessments in a much more methodical, and paced, and deadline sort of way, the pace has augmented significantly, as I mentioned. There has been a significant investment of dollars and we have moved through the list of chemicals in this triaged way very significantly. We recognize that there is much more to be done, but we have been working to work through along the schedule that has been outlined.

With regard to the lack of a risk management strategy for lead and mercury, I think the commissioner noted that in fact there are many individual strategies that have been taken, and in fact there have been steps taken to monitor the efficacy of these strategies. I think we are gratified that we in fact can see some of the positive results from the biomonitoring and other methods that we've taken to actually measure our 20 regulatory regimes, for example, in lead or mercury, to ask if they are producing results.

I think the commissioner makes a very good point, in that in fact it would be advantageous--and we agree with this recommendation--to pull together all of those individual mechanisms, or individual regulatory steps that have been taken over the years, into one risk management strategy. In a sense, because lead and mercury have been known challenges for such a long time and we've been going through the process of addressing those, over decades essentially, they were not brought together in the same way that we're using for the modern chemicals, in a coordinated risk-assessment way.

So there are two points I would make. One is that on the newer chemicals, we are doing this in a consolidated risk-assessment way, and for the older chemicals, lead and mercury, we believe there is a series of very effective measures, but we also agree with the recommendation to pull those together.

The last point I would make is that we continue to want to move forward with updated legislation, for example, such as the proposed Canada Consumer Products Safety Act. We continue to want to push the envelope to update the tools that we have to keep Canadians safe and we're very dedicated to that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you have a response?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, and I'm sorry my remarks didn't give you enough information in terms of explaining what we are doing today. My colleague mentioned that we do have a significant investment that the government has made in accelerating the assessment and management of substances that came into commerce before the modern regime.

The modern regime started in 1994, so since that time, no chemical is manufactured, imported, or put into use in Canada without a risk assessment and appropriate control instruments as needed--or in fact banned and prevented from coming into Canada.

So under this audit, we're dealing mostly with the legacy of the past. Canada is the first country to deal with this. It's just starting in Europe. It is under discussion in the United States. In 2007, the government invested $300 million over four years to start this process. We're expecting it to be completed by 2020. We'll be the first to complete it if we make that target objective.

We're well on track, as my colleague mentioned. This is a large volume of work, but I have some happy news. For many of these substances we're finding in fact.... Our list that we're working from, the 23,000 that we assessed and found that 4,300 needed further work, in fact, of that 4,300, many are no longer in commerce. Industry is getting the message and they've been getting the message since 1994 with the regulations that prevent these kinds of substances coming into the market.

So we have a program to deal with the legacy of the past. We're well on track to meet it. I would just mention we've also invested in enforcement. The penalties are much higher as well, as a result of the new enforcement bill that was passed last year and further investments in compliance and enforcement.

With respect to mercury, as I said, we have over 20 instruments in place that we're monitoring just to make sure they're working. We also have a number of instruments that were under development, including those dealing with products. We have further work that is being assessed as our research and monitoring continue to identify problems. We're actively working with other countries, recognizing that 95% of the source in Canada is not from Canada. It's coming largely from Asia, the United States, and other countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

I understand, Mr. Vaughan, that you have a comment.

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. It's just to point out that in 2008 we noted that there has been satisfactory progress on the risk assessment side. I think, as the honourable member had noted, in previous audits we had noted that there were delays, that things weren't moving forward as quickly as they should.

I think the assessment process, which we didn't look at in this audit, partly because of the findings from 2008, found that not only was there satisfactory progress, but that the chemical management plan represents, not only for stakeholders within Canada but for many international partners, a model of how to undertake thousands of complex assessments, do that in an expeditious way, and then be able to move to the control mechanisms that are needed once they are determined to be toxic.

On the assessment side, I think, Chair, that there are some important and positive findings on what Health Canada and Environment Canada have been doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.

Mr. Saxton, you have seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first questions are for the commissioner. In your opening remarks, you mentioned that Health Canada and Environment Canada prepared risk management strategies for five of the seven toxic substances. I believe the report actually says four, but in your opening remarks you mentioned five.

How have these strategies helped to improve results and what have we learned from the development of these strategies that will help us in the development of strategies for mercury and lead?

[Scott Vaughan]

Chair, thank you very much.

The member is right. There was a fifth substance for which the department considered there to be something comparable to a risk management strategy, and that is why we increased it to five.

I think there have been lessons learned. I think our colleagues from the departments would be better placed to discuss this, but what we have said, and I think what your committee looks at, is that in all federal management practices,we have to set out a coherent strategy on what we want to do, when we're going to get there, what the means are to get there, and how we know whether or not we're succeeding. That then builds some internal synergies and internal logic in order to build success, to measure success, to figure out if there are gaps, and to close the gaps.

As a point of general management practices, we have repeatedly found, through the Office of the Auditor General, that taking these basic management approaches is helpful to get better results.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

In your report, Commissioner, you illustrated the process of managing risks for toxic substances, and your diagram illustrates it. Can you walk us through that diagram, please? That's on page 7 and is exhibit 2.1.

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you, sir.

I'll ask my colleague, Jim McKenzie, to go into more detail. But essentially what we noted in those paragraphs between 2.8 and 2.11 are sort of the basic foundations on managing. The beginning part is what we just discussed: the assessment or evaluation process. What is the process by which you can determine whether a given substance falls within a toxic categorization?

Then, from that--and this is very much what this audit is about--once that evaluation has taken place and a substance has or has not been determined to be toxic, the second point is whether a risk management strategy should be put in place to provide some internal logic on the management practices.

The third one is implementation. By then, you learn by doing what is working in the implementation. Finally, there is evaluation. After all these mechanisms are in place, do you know if they're working?

Finally, on that last point, just to underscore the opening statement, I think the national biomonitoring programs are an absolutely critical and important part of that evaluation loop to see whether or not these are working and measuring the levels in Canadians.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Commissioner.

My next question is for the Deputy Minister of Health. In your opening remarks, you mentioned, and I quote, that “we have accelerated our risk assessments from...70 substances in 18 years to...70 substances every year”. That's a remarkable increase. I'd just like to ask you how you have achieved this.

[Glenda Yeates]

Thank you very much for the question.

I think it is part of the overall management approach, which the commissioner just spoke to, of setting out a very specific schedule of how we are going to address this very long list of thousands of chemicals. It was also made possible with the investment that was made in the chemicals management plan: the $300,000 million over four years, of which $193 million is allocated to Health Canada and the remainder to Environment Canada.

That has given us additional funding to target towards these risk assessments. Part of that funding is also for the other components of the life cycle approach, which the commissioner and my colleague from Environment Canada spoke about: for the risk management part of the process and the research, which is needed to make sure we are keeping abreast of the latest information worldwide, and for monitoring and surveillance, which are ongoing and important parts, including the biomonitoring, which we think is critical.

Then there is the money for the overall pulling together of those strategies. Those investments have made this significant acceleration possible.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Environment Canada. On page 5, paragraph 2.2 of the report states, and I quote:

Assessing the risks of toxic substances, including the hazards they present and routes of exposure, and managing those risks is a complex process involving multiple actors (international organizations; federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments; academia; industry; and the non-profit sector).

Can you elaborate on the involvement of each of these actors and what role they play in managing the risks of these toxic substances?

[Dr. Brian Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

I'll start trying to answer your question by addressing that we've identified essentially seven mechanisms for informing our risk assessment process. The seven mechanisms are the categorization process we've already discussed that was taking a look at the 23,000 substances in commerce and screening that down to the 4,300 we believe might pose a risk to humans or the environment.

As my colleagues have already mentioned, for any new substance that would enter the marketplace we already have a very good process in place under the new substance notification. A new substance cannot enter into commerce in Canada without the risk assessment process.

In addition to the categorization I just mentioned, we have industry submissions through CEPA. We have provincial and international decisions that we monitor to keep abreast of what other countries are doing, not only in their assessments but in their management plans. We have public nominations under CEPA; if anybody from the public has a concern about a substance in commerce, there is a process to bring that to our attention, and we must respond to that.

I've mentioned the new substances notification process. Also, we have emerging science and international assessments, which I partially touched on, whereby our scientists, risk assessors, and risk managers are constantly keeping abreast of what other countries are doing, both on the science side and on the management side.

Finally, and very important--at least for my branch in science and technology--we do data collection; that is, we have biomonitoring programs whereby we're looking at water, wildlife, and fish, but we also have research programs. Under chemical management plans, we have a very good process in place to identify substances that we think might be of concern, and we conduct research on those to try to better understand the fate of these substances in the environment or their actual harm to animal life or environmental conditions.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

My next question is also for Environment Canada. I recognize that there are various ways of dealing with toxic substances. Can you discuss the differences between how you are implementing a risk management strategy for lead and one for mercury, as you highlight in your management action plan?

[Cynthia Wright]

Certainly. As we mentioned, the risk management strategy pulls together the risks and sources of a problem and how we should deal with them.

In the area of mercury, the original sources dealt with were large industrial emitters. Since that time, having many of those sources closed off, we are now looking at other sources, and many of those are in products. We have a pollution prevention plan dealing with mercury in lamps. We have measures coming into place--sorry, that's on switches. We have measures with provinces on lamps, and we're doing work on dental amalgam, which is another source that can get directly into the water. It's a very easy solution to deal with.

The risk management strategy sets out what you're trying to achieve and what are the major sources. We're using a mix of regulations, codes of practice, instruments with the provinces, pollution prevention plans--a number of different tools to deal with those.

The monitoring and release information informs us of whether there are ongoing sources that we need to deal with. In this case, it's the research is pointed to sources outside Canada, largely from Asia and other countries like the United States as well.

That is what has taken us into dealing with the United Nations Environment Programme to work on a legally binding instrument that would deal with sources from all countries. It would also help to deal with the fact that products may be manufactured offshore, not in Canada, and imported into Canada. It's very difficult to deal with it once it comes into Canada. It's sometimes difficult to know what the content is.

So it's very important to deal with countries, particularly in Asia, with its big manufacturers, to send the signal that mercury has to be eliminated except for essential products and that in those essential products it needs to be controlled to a certain limit, with labels as to what that limit is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

We're now going to go to the second round of five minutes. We're going to start with Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee, you have five minutes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to focus my questioning on filing complaints. I believe this was referred to in chapter 1 of the environment commissioner's report. My questioning is directed to the Department of the Environment, whichever one of the witnesses wishes to speak for it.

Under section 342 of the statute, the department is required to make a report annually to Parliament on both administration and enforcement on the one hand, and on research on the other. That's a very clear, unambiguous reporting requirement. It's an annual report.

It looks as though the department has failed to file annually since the beginning. This reaches back four or five years. There hasn't been a report filed for the fiscal year that ended in March 2009. There's no report for that year. That's a whole year gone by without a report. I'd just like to ask either of the witnesses who wanted to speak to this where the report for that particular fiscal year is.

[Cynthia Wright]

I do take the point. Environment Canada is responsible for preparing the report with input from others and, for a lot of reasons, fell behind on reporting to Parliament, which is unacceptable. It fell behind on a number of different legislative requirements.

I'm pleased to say, though, that since I took this position a year ago we've filed 14 reports for a number of pieces of legislation, including two under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. However, the member is correct: the 2008-09 report is not yet out. We do expect it out very soon. It has been prepared. It's in the final approval stages. We have taken measures to avoid falling behind on our reporting to Parliament in the future.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

One thing I wanted to emphasize--and I'm not someone who chases statutory deadlines for the fun of it--is that these reporting mechanisms are there to assist Parliament in its work. The report isn't filed anywhere else. The report is for Parliament. In not filing on a timely basis, departments would handicap Parliament.

I'll ratchet that up just a little bit further. Failure to file in accordance with the statutory requirements would likely lead to a contempt of Parliament, and it would be your minister who would face this. If it's any help, I'll refer you to the rulings of Speaker Fraser in 1992 and 1993. They're pretty clear.

At some point, if your department is going to continue to be late--I'll be kind and say late, but it has actually never filed an annual report, and it tried to cover off two years with one report--your minister, your department, is going to be looking at something on the floor of the House of Commons, because some opposition member is going to decide that it's time to ring the bell. It might be me. I don't know. I've done it before.

I just wanted to get your comments. I wanted to get a commitment that the report you referred to is really on the conveyor belt, that it's going to be done soon, and that there will be good compliance in the future.

[Cynthia Wright]

Rest assured that the minister has made the same observation and the report is on the conveyor belt to get out the door.

There was a period of time in which we got behind on reports. There had previously been fairly good compliance, but I do take the member's point. It is inappropriate. We understand that fully and, as I said, we now have a group dedicated to all of our annual reporting to Parliament to avoid this situation in the future.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Is the department in some way underbuilt with respect to these types of requirements? You can be in a management transition and you can have two or three ministers in one year. You can have some bad luck, but is there some internal departmental obstacle here that you've identified and think you've overcome?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, I would think that is the case. In the past, it became an add-on to somebody's job; the reporting for Parliament was diffused amongst many people. We did have a major reorganization and restructuring so it was difficult to know who exactly was going to be accountable. We did address that by creating a group that's dedicated to parliamentary reporting.

It's now somebody's day job, as I say. This ensures that management knows--and then we know--who's accountable. We have procedures in place. They have to collect information from a lot of different people, but we now have clear timelines in place for people to submit the information and to get the report ready and translated and to Parliament.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

And as far as you know, your minister knows?