[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 30, 1996
.0835 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. In the interest of time we will start with a reduced quorum this morning. Other members will be joining us as the morning progresses.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated March 7, 1996, the committee is considering the main estimates 1996-97, votes 1, 5 and 10 under Environment Canada. I might mention that this is the final meeting on the main estimates.
I would also like to mention that we are very happy to have the witnesses here from the field offices. I think it's very important for us to meet with you in order to be able to get your views and to have questions directed at you that may not have been answered as of this time. Based on the information that comes forward today, we may make some further representation on the observations and findings.
I would like to state that Mr. Mel Cappe is here with two other members: John Mills, regional director general for the Ontario region; and François Guimont, regional director general for the Quebec region.
Mr. Guimont, I want to congratulate you on your new position and welcome you back here. It's good to have you.
Mr. Cappe has to leave for an appointment. So perhaps we could have his presentation first and then the others can follow. We'll direct questions to Mr. Cappe first. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mel Cappe (Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment): Thank you,Madam Chair. I'd like to present to you a draft of the department's action plan. Perhaps the clerk could distribute copies to the members of the committee.
[Translation]
This document is a draft, one that we are in the process of finalizing. Nonetheless, it reflects the department's operational and policy priorities.
.0840
The minister appeared before the committee on April 17 last and unveiled the department's six priorities, which are listed on page 1 of Environment Canada's Action Plan.
[English]
I want to spend a few moments today looking ahead. You've heard many witnesses from the department in the last couple of weeks who have talked about past performance. I want to give you a sense of where the department is going and what kind of priorities the department has.
You'll see that the action plan builds on accomplishments of the department over the past number of years. Thematically, at the bottom of the page we have continuity and change.
[Translation]
We speak of continuity through change.
[English]
This is really a sense that the architecture of the business plan and the action plan is consistent with what has gone before but there's been a change in emphasis. I hope this gives members of Parliament, staff in the department and other stakeholders who are interested in the department an indication of where we're going and how we are consistent or changed.
On the front page - and again this is a draft and therefore not signed yet - in the minister's testimony on April 17 he indicated the six priorities you see on the first page: building greater public awareness and support for the environment; ridding air and water of toxics; protection of species; contribution to employment creation and growth; partnerships; and having a strong international voice.
I'd like to spend a minute and show you inside the fold-out in the action plan a sense of how the department's organization and structure of programs relate to the minister's priorities. You've seen us come before the committee the way we are organized and structured. We are organized and structured along the lines of services and regions, and this presents to you how we are organized in terms of programs. The programs are very cross-cutting. So they're very thematic.
In terms of the minister's first priority, building greater public support for the environment, that is mostly handled in the third business line on the far right of the fold-out, ``A Greener Society''. There are a number of initiatives, like Action 21, which are used to promote building a greener society and developing greater public support.
As well, under the column of toxics, under ``A Healthy Environment'', you see the national pollutants release inventory, which also helps build public support. Under the middle column, ``Safety from Environmental Hazards'', we also have the issue of forecasting and averting urgencies, which also helps build public support.
The second priority, reducing toxics in air and water, is mostly handled in the first business line, ``A Healthy Environment'', and obviously under the toxics column, although there are atmospheric changes related to smog and other elements that relate to that as well. Also, the production of an atmospheric pollution index under the middle column, ``Safety from Environmental Hazards'', works towards that end, as does the third column, which talks about engaging Canadians in dealing with those issues of air and water toxics.
The third priority of the minister was conserving nature with an emphasis on endangered species. Obviously that is most highly emphasized in the fourth column, under ``A Healthy Environment'', the biodiversity and wildlife column. But indeed there are a number of other areas. Under the business line of ``A Healthy Environment'' we touch the issue of endangered species and in particular, under the compliance and enforcement column, we talk about proclamation of WAPPRIITA and the implementation of its regulations.
The fourth priority of employment creation is again mostly under ``A Healthy Environment'' and ``A Greener Society''. The more timely and accurate the weather forecasts are, the more that helps the private sector carry out their activities, aware of environmental challenges they may face.
.0845
[Translation]
For the most part, partnerships are promoted in the business line "A Greener Society". The business line "A Healthy Environment" focuses on priorities such as biological diversification and major ecosystem programs, including the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence programs.
[English]
Finally, strengthening Canada's international voice again falls mostly under "A Healthy Environment'', but you'll find elements of it that fall also under issues of integrating trade and environment under ``A Greener Society''.
I won't go on further. I would rather leave time for questions, but I would just note that this action plan, once finalized - and we hope to have it finalized in a week or so - will allow us to deal with members of Parliament and with our staff and with our stakeholders in a way that is very open and transparent and allows them to understand how we are trying to advance the agenda of the government in the environment.
The plan of action again is not structured along the lines that were organized. We're organized for management purposes, but this is a display of the nature of our programming that presents the way we appear to the public and the kinds of issues that are important to the public.
Madam Chair, if you'll permit, I would ask Mr. Mills and then Mr. Guimont to speak very briefly about how their programs in the regions fit within this plan, and then perhaps we could take some questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Cappe. Mr. Mills, please continue.
Mr. R. John Mills (Regional Director General (Ontario Region), Department of the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It is indeed an honour for me to be here today to address the standing committee and to respond to any of the questions you might have. My presentation will provide a brief overview of the range of activities and services that are delivered by Ontario region, with particular attention paid to the Great Lakes 2000 program and the impacts of program review.
[Translation]
Ontario Region accounts for slightly less than 10% of the department's total resources. Its budget of $53 million and 450 full time equivalent positions places it second largest of the five regions of the department in terms of financial resources and third largest in terms of human resources.
[English]
Our role as a regional office is to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of the department's products, which can be broadly outlined in terms of regulation, information and advice; to deliver those products in accordance with the national program direction; to lead on the consultation, the communications and coordination with regional partners and stakeholders; and to participate in the development of departmental policy and policy setting.
In Ontario region, we also have a rather unique and special role, which is leading the federal government delivery of Canada's commitments made under the Canada/U.S. water quality agreement and the Canada/Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes ecosystem.
[Translation]
Organizationally, the Region is divided into seven branches: Conservation, Protection, Services, Monitoring and Systems, Great Lakes and Corporate Affairs, Finance and Administration and Human Resources.
Consistent with the concept of locally shared support services, Ontario Region provides Finance, Administration and Human Resource services to the National Water Research Institute located in Burlington, and to the Atmospheric Environment Services headquarters, located in Downsview. The total client base for these services is 1,200 FTE positions.
[English]
Ontario region plans and organizes its programs according to the three business lines that the deputy has just outlined. Within business line one, ``A Healthy Environment'', our greatest priority and indeed our greatest challenge is delivery of the Great Lakes program. I will return to this in a moment and provide a little more detail.
.0850
Other priorities for the region within this business line include addressing urban smog, a particular concern given the international dimension of that issue in southern Ontario, the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the implementation of the endangered species legislation.
Within business line two, our priority is the continued availability of accurate and timely warnings and forecasts, and the establishment of a user-pay system for specialized and special interest users.
Within business line three, ``A Greener Society'', the priority for the Ontario region is encouraging environmentally responsible decision-making by developing and making available environmental information through a computerized access called Great Lakes Information Management Resource and through leading by example through the greening of government.
Our management priorities continue to be the streamlining of process and the reduction of administrative costs. In particular, for the region a priority will be the continued development of a management system to track, evaluate and report all progress made in relationship to program priorities and commitments.
Turning now to the Great Lakes program, members will recall that the deterioration of the Great Lakes and the recognition that the ecosystem could not continue to sustain the existing trend in human activity and economic development led both Canada and the U.S. in 1972 to sign the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and subsequent revisions in 1978 and 1987.
That agreement commits the governments of Canada and the U.S. to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. It provides a framework wherein common objectives are specified and commitments are made on programs and other measures to achieve the purpose of that agreement.
Three-quarters of the basin population is American. They account for some 87% of the water consumed from the basin and contribute 70% of the toxic pollutants entering the lakes from industrial sources. Progress in addressing environmental problems in the Great Lakes is therefore significantly influenced by the extent of U.S. efforts, and it is therefore in Canadian interests to ensure the U.S. commitment is in place and maintained.
In Canada, the federal government provides the leadership role in establishing common environmental objectives and cooperative programs with the U.S. Also, it is a federal responsibility to establish the appropriate agreements with the Province of Ontario to deliver on Canada's commitments.
The Canada-Ontario Agreement, COA, is a partnership of seven federal and four provincial ministries. The purpose of COA is to deliver on Canada's commitments under that Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The current agreement was renewed in 1994 and runs to the year 2001.
It is a work-sharing arrangement wherein both Canada and Ontario agree to contribute equitably in a way that reflects the unique roles and responsibilities of each level of government. The agreement is a results-oriented agreement that clearly outlines fifty measurable targets to be tracked and reported against in a public fashion.
I might note that we are making some progress. The first progress report under the 1994 COA was released in September 1995. The report outlines the progress achieved against each of the fifty measurable targets.
Two key highlights of that report are the de-listing of Collingwood Harbour as an area of concern and the first nesting of peregrine falcons in southern Ontario in over forty years. I have provided the clerk with copies of that progress report and I would commend it to the committee for review.
[Translation]
The Great Lakes Program, as well as all programs delivered in Ontario Region, is impacted by Program Review. During the Program Review period, that is from 1994-95 to 1997-98, Ontario Region will undergo significant change and downsizing. Regional resources will shrink from approximately $69 million and 550 full time equivalent positions in 1994-95 to $49 million and400 FTEs in 1997-98.
.0855
[English]
The continued delivery of the Canada-Ontario Agreement is contingent on the ongoing level of support of both federal and provincial partners. The activities of the seven federal partners in the Great Lakes 2000 program were affected in different ways and to a different extent by program review.
In Environment Canada, program resources were reduced by approximately 15% over the life of the program. In most other departments, a similar level of resource reductions has occurred, the one exception being the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in which changes to that department are expected to result in a significant decrease in the involvement in the Great Lakes 2000 program.
The Province of Ontario has recently announced significant reductions to three of the four provincial partners: a 39.8% reduction in the Ministry of Energy and Environment; a23.4% reduction for the Ministry of Natural Resources; and an 18.9% reduction in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
In light of the reductions to both the federal and provincial agencies, the agencies have agreed to reconfirm the key commitments of COA targets and to review the targets and schedules to determine how best to deliver on those key commitments.
We can expect a slowing of progress as agencies are downsizing to address the resource pressures. Our objective, however, in the review of COA will be to ensure that progress continues to be made on the priority issues, which are the clean-up of those areas of concern and the virtual elimination of toxic substances.
Others areas in the region that our program review has affected the way in which we do business are our weather forecasting and water quantity monitoring. The acceleration of the modernization of the weather service in Ontario means a decrease in the number of manual observation sites, from some 37 in 1975 to 13 in 1998. Over the same period, however, the number of automated stations will increase from 7 to 50.
It also means that forecasts, which were previously delivered to the public, the media and other clients from 14 locations in the province, are now both produced and delivered using modern technology from three regional centres: Ottawa, Toronto and Thunder Bay.
The local tailoring of basic weather products is no longer available; however, for the most part, these changes have been implemented so smoothly that most clients are unaware the information they are currently receiving is being generated and delivered in a different way.
The review and rationalization of Environment Canada's involvement in water quantity monitoring has resulted in the process of withdrawing from some 85 stations in the Ontario region. This is a three-year plan over the period of program review, and we have included in that a consultation with our major partners and clients. We will continue within that program to fund the water quantity monitoring stations that support our priorities of the Great Lakes and climate change.
I might note, on the human resource side of program review, that we have successfully resolved some 155 of the 214 affected people identified in program review. I might add that there were no lay-offs.
In summary, implementing the program changes and managing the human resources impacts of program review in the region was, and continues to be, a challenge, but we're implementing those changes without major incident. High-quality environmental services continue to be provided, and positive environmental results continue to be achieved.
I look forward to a continuing challenging period over the next few years and to answering any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Guay): Thank you very much. Mr. Guimont.
Mr. François Guimont (Regional Director General (Quebec region)): I am pleased to be here this morning to give you an overview of Environment Canada's responsibilities in Quebec Region. I will also be happy to answer your questions.
.0900
The format of my presentation, which will be fairly brief, is similar to that of my colleagueJohn Mills. Of course, the content will be different since we are talking about different regions, but I will try to highlight the differences rather than repeat what has already been said.
Quebec Region has a total of 387 FTEs and a budget of $44 million; 37% of human resources work in the scientific and professional field, 30% in the technical sector and 19% in the administrative field. It is interesting to note that the average age of employees is 36 years. Therefore, we are talking about a relatively young regional team.
Our offices are located in Quebec City, Montreal and Rimouski. I would like to note that
[English]
the bulk of our employees are in Montreal and we also have a regional office in Rimouski.
There are six basic directions, mirrored largely on what exists at the national level here at headquarters, similar to Mr. Mills's organization. There's a group on protection, conservation, atmospheric environment, a corporate group called
[Translation]
the Departmental Affairs Branch, Finance, Personnel,
[English]
and there is also the biosphere, which I will describe briefly later on.
[Translation]
The Program Review has had an impact on Quebec Region, just as it has had on other departmental units. Basically, budgets have been slashed by 30% and human resources that I described to you a moment ago will lose 98 full-time positions. By the end of 1998, the region will be left with a total of 292 FTEs.
The Atmospheric Environment group has been hit with rather substantial cuts. The department has focused on three strategic axes: modernisation, consolidation - there were formerly eight satellite offices in Quebec and now there are three - of integrated weather offices and environmental services and commercialisation.
I will dispense with any additional details because the approach that John Mills describes is essentially the one taken in Quebec with respect to modernizing different stations and so forth.
There have been cuts to the operating budget of the Biosphere. Even so, I'm very happy to report this morning that ticket sales, an indication of the popularity of the Biosphere, will reach the 100,000 mark in several days, that is on June 5; the exact figure is 96,000 tickets. This is an indication of the success of the operation, despite the cutbacks.
In conjunction with the Program Review, the Biosphere hired back regional employees who were affected in other areas. Despite the cuts, we have tried to accommodate these employees as much as possible.
Cuts have also affected our key program, SLV 2000, St. Lawrence Vision 2000, which is the continuation of the first St. Lawrence action plan.
[English]
This reduction was 16.5%, to be precise. We've tried to minimize the impact of the program review on St. Lawrence - Vision 2000 for the purpose of making sure this flagship program was as effective as possible on the ground.
[Translation]
That was a brief overview of regional activities and priorities.
[English]
As in the case of John Mills, we have taken a kind of nested approach to the business plan of the department. That means we have defined objectives to be met, results to be met, vis-à-vis the overall objectives of the department. If I look quickly at
[Translation]
atmospheric changes, we want to focus on controlling airborne toxic emissions in Quebec. The same goes for toxic substances. As far as this component of the business plan is concerned, we want to focus on the follow-up to the INRP, the Inventaire national des rejets de polluants, or
[English]
national pollutants release inventory.
[Translation]
As for the application of the legislation, I want to emphasize that we attach a great deal of importance to renewing the pulp and paper agreement with our colleagues from the Quebec Department of the Environment and Wildlife.
Regarding wildlife and biodiversity, we will work together with our Quebec colleagues to implement the strategies for national biodiversity and endangered species once a global approach has been decided upon.
.0905
I will conclude my presentation with a comment about ecosystem conservation. The key component here is the second phase of SLV 2000 which I described earlier.
In the area of weather forecasts and warnings, we want to ensure that we continue to provide quality information despite the cuts that have taken place and that the environment and meteorological services offices now located in Quebec City, Montreal and Rimouski are consolidated.
As far as civil protection is concerned, we would like to conclude a working agreement with the Quebec government to ensure that our actions are clearly compatible. With respect to the business line "A Greener Society", our biggest concern is the sound operation of the Biosphere.
Let me touch briefly on SLV 2000. This joint Quebec-federal government action plan consists of seven components. The federal government has a $100 million budget over five years, while the Quebec government has made a commitment of $91 million, for a total commitment of approximately $191 million. This plan is set to wind up in 1998. Seven areas have been targeted: biodiversity, action in agriculture, community involvement, assistance in decision-making, the scientific component of SLV 2000, human health, and the protection and restoration of habitats.
We have already seen some results. Rather than go into the details, I have given the clerk a copy of the first biennial report,
[English]
the first biennial report that was released a month ago. This report describes in detail the objectives of the SLV 2000 together with the achievements to date. This report is a tool in terms of providing transparency to our clients, citizens in Quebec, in terms of what's being achieved by both the federal and provincial governments on the ground.
I have also included in the little pochette, a description of what SLV 2000 is and various results. You will note that the structure of it is very much like the business plan that the department has developed. Obviously the content is different because it's very much focused on the St. Lawrence ecosystem, and this would give you further details should you wish to get this information.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Guay): Thank you very much, Mr. Guimont. We will now proceed to questions. Mr. Knutson.
[English]
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you.
Mr. Mills, I represent the riding of Elgin - Norfolk. Before I start with my questions, I just want to congratulate you for the work you do down in the Long Point area. I don't know ifSimon Llewellyn works for you, but he's particularly active down there and I think does an excellent job representing Environment Canada.
Having said that, I'm new to the committee so you'll have to excuse me for asking what might be fairly rudimentary questions.
In terms of looking at your results - and I guess this is for the deputy minister - as of now, how badly do we expect to do on our goal of target for greenhouse gases by the year 2000?
Mr. Cappe: It's unclear at this point exactly how well or how poorly we'll be doing. The goal, of course, is to have stabilization by the year 2000 at 1990 levels. There's work going on with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and with the ministers of energy. They will be meeting in October/November jointly, so there'll be the 26 ministers meeting to do an assessment of how well or how poorly we're doing.
Mr. Knutson: Do you know? Do you have a sense of where the numbers are?
Mr. Cappe: The problem is that the voluntary challenge in registry is still being acceded to. Companies are still providing their plans, so it's very difficult to come up with a precise number. But our estimate is that we're 11% to 13% off the target.
We don't yet know how much closer we'll get than that as a result of the voluntary challenge, so I'm a little reluctant to say that we're on track or off track. It's likely that we are off track. The ministerial meeting in the fall will be a time for ministers to take stock. We have a report in preparation to try to come up with an assessment of how close we'll be to the objective.
.0910
Mr. Knutson: Can you give me a sense of the trends? Are we trending down or are we trending up?
Mr. Cappe: I think there are a number of forces at work. One of those forces, and the one that's most positive, is that it is efficient for most companies to find ways of doing energy retrofit, changing energy technology, to try to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. So the voluntary challenge and registry is a useful process to have companies come along and say what they're doing. That's one force that's working in a positive direction.
There's growth in the economy, of course, and therefore there are more fuels being burned and agricultural uses that are creating more greenhouse gases. So there are those two forces at work.
I would say that by and large we are going in the right direction. I think there are lots of good examples of places where the agricultural community, by example, is using different technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and also the private sector industrially is doing that.
Mr. Knutson: When you say ``the right direction'', do you mean we are just slowing the growth of greenhouse gases down or are we actually decreasing the number down towards 1990 levels?
Mr. Cappe: Again, it's really premature for me to give you a concrete answer to that, but we're certainly slowing the growth.
Mr. Knutson: All right. Let me ask just a general question. There's one point of view that the environmentalists have within caucus, which is that Environment Canada comes out with a position that's good for the environment and then it runs into the jobs agenda of Industry Canada, perhaps the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Finance. You have three or four departments ganging up on one and consequently Environment Canada loses, typically.
Given that I'm a new member, what indicators might I look for over the next year or two to judge whether Environment Canada is winning, or whether the sustainable part of the equation is winning over the development part of the equation? Can you give me some specifics that might signal this to me?
I'm not sure why you're smiling.
Mr. Cappe: I'm smiling because I'm thinking of an answer. I'm trying to decide whether to give you this answer, which says that one way to look at it is to look at how the parliamentary committees perform as well. Your colleagues in the natural resources committee, for instance, have a report - and I'm not sure if you call that a win or a lose for the environment - where they're talking about trying to streamline environmental regulation.
I want to talk about the objective, and the objective is that the environment is the winner and so is the public of Canada.
Mr. Knutson: I'd like you to concentrate on the measurement of the objective.
Mr. Cappe: The measurement.
Mr. Knutson: How do we measure at the end of the day whether we've reached our objective? What signals might help me?
Mr. Cappe: I'm going to suggest, Mr. Knutson, that this committee has made a significant change in the way government operates and in the ways conflicting objectives of departments operate. What looks like an apparently conflicting mandate is going to come together, because in the amendments to the Auditor General Act, which is the result of this committee's work, where you create the commissioner of environment and sustainable development, ministers will have to table in Parliament their sustainable development strategies. Those strategies will be an indication of how every single government department is going to try to meet those objectives of sustainable development.
The evidence that will be then tabled subsequently and the audits that will be done by the Auditor General will give parliamentarians a very clear measure of whether the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Agriculture is actually meeting the objectives of sustainable development. In a way you've set in process the measurement of those objectives.
That's about the best I can do for you. If you look at the environmental protection bill, which the minister hopes to table in the fall, I think you'll find that it goes a long way to meet the objectives that were set by this committee's report. I'm not going to suggest that they were tempered or diminished by my colleagues in other departments, but I think the government has reflected its view of that balance, if you will, or of that integration of environment and economy through its government response.
.0915
Mr. Knutson: My last question is: if you were resigning today -
Mr. Cappe: Is this a suggestion?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Knutson: No, no...I'm just trying to take today as a baseline for me. Give me your sense of Environment Canada's biggest success over the last few years. Then I'd like you to say what you think the biggest failure has been for the government.
Mr. Cappe: That's a very interesting question.
Let me say that this year is the 25th anniversary of Environment Canada. Next week is Environment Week and we're having a bit of a celebration. June 11 is the actual date of the promulgation of the Environment Canada act 25 years ago, so it's an appropriate time to be asking those kinds of questions.
Perhaps my colleagues will want to comment as well. If I look back over that period, one of the things that I would identify as a great success - although the battle has not been won - is acid rain. Over time, a number of people have expended an enormous effort at really trying to get the science on acid rain right and at really trying to get the policies and programs right. And what we've observed is not a deacidification of the lakes but a diminution in its worsening. We measure progress very slowly here, but I think that is a bit of a success.
But again we've seen scientific evidence that the lakes are not deacidifying, so we still have -
Mr. Knutson: Are they not coming back now?
Mr. Cappe: They are declining in the rate at which they're getting worse and we know that -
Mr. Knutson: But if they're dead, they're still dead.
Mr. Cappe: That's a problem. The regeneration is a much longer process than we thought, but they are not acidifying like they were.
The other one - and this is perhaps the most significant, even more than acid rain in a way because it's a global issue - is the issue of ozone depletion. Very recently, if you look in the long term of scientific time, we have become aware that the thinning of the ozone layer has literally put life on earth in peril. We have scientific evidence showing the degradation of aquatic ecosystems as a result of the thinning of the ozone layer.
Again, what we've seen is a levelling off in that thinning to the point where by the next millennium we would expect to see an actual thickening, not a significant one, but at least a levelling off in the degradation of the ozone layer. I'd say that's a major success, providing a future for life on earth. I also note that's a result of the Montreal Protocol, so Canada has a particular niche in there. It's the first time that atmospheric scientists have been recognized with a Nobel prize - just recently - for the work on the thinning of the ozone.
Mr. Knutson: What is the most significant failure or the biggest disappointment?
Mr. Cappe: Another success, I would say, is the Great Lakes, but I don't know...the failures... I guess those successes I've identified are not such successes that we can breathe easily yet, which is a bit of a pun, I suppose, but I think we still have a long way to go to fix those problems.
Mr. Knutson: Surely there must be something in your mind that sticks out, something where we really are not even close. If I were to ask the president of the Ford Motor Company what his biggest failure was, I'd like to think he had a sense of where they messed up. For the government or the department, for Canada as a whole, where are we off the mark most seriously? Where do we have the greatest sense of urgency?
Mr. Mills: Maybe I can try to answer.
When you asked the question, the thing that came to my mind as a success was awareness in a general sense. What Environment Canada brought to that was the science and the knowledge. The deputy has indicated a number of specifics in that regard. I guess if I was thinking of the failure, I'd say it's the speed with which we can generate that awareness, both in terms of our partners and the community at large. There are a number of successes we can point to, but I guess if I thought about it - and I've been in the department for 25 years - in terms of the expectation of building that awareness, and therefore understanding, and therefore programs to deal with the problems, the speed with which we were able to do that we fell short on.
.0920
Mr. Guimont: I would like to add, Madam Chair, that to me one of the key challenges that is still facing us has to do with the long-range transport of airborne pollutants. From my perspective in the region, in the first plan d'action Saint-Laurent we have targeted very quickly what I would call more core sources of pollution, point sources. These are such things as the need for secondary treatment; a system for pulp mills is an example that was done through regulation.
We're now down to 94% in terms of reduction of toxins from the same 50 key mills in theSt. Lawrence ecosystem. However, as we did that we noticed - I don't want to call it another form, but there are those substances called persistent, toxic, biocumulative, with very unusual characteristics, if you wish, which make them more capable of travelling long distances. This is a challenge not only in Canada but worldwide. They have the capacity to undergo global distribution, and these substances have been there for years.
DDT, which we banned 20-some years ago, is an example. We're still picking up fresh input of DDT in the north. The point I'm making here is that, not only for DDT but for other substances that have these characteristics, the challenge is still ahead of us.
So we have had very good success with point sources, core sources of pollution, agriculturally diffused sources, etc., but that category of substances is both a scientific and technological challenge yet to be addressed.
Mr. Knutson: So among the three of you, you don't have a sense of an environmental battle that, if you walked away from the table today, you'd be really disappointed that you'd lost.
Mr. Cappe: Over the last number of years?
Mr. Knutson: Yes.
Mr. Cappe: I wouldn't identify anything that I would say was a real loss in that sense. I think we've made progress on a broad array of fronts.
I think Mr. Guimont's point is well taken, though, about those global issues, the problems that Canada can't fix itself, where you need to galvanize global action. Your original question about climate change fits the category as well; it's not that we've failed but that we haven't been able to engender enough action by the world, and the long-range transport of airborne pollutants in particular, but by sea as well, is a real challenge.
So we're picking up these substances that we know we're not generating in Canada; we're measuring them in the Arctic. That's a problem for us and we haven't been able to break the back of it. There's a lot of action going on, but we haven't been able to solve it.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you.
I was looking at the business plan around the ecosystem initiatives, and I want to congratulate you on the work you've been doing with the RAPs and the ZIPs in the Fraser Basin.
I have familiarity with the RAPs in Ontario. I've had the pleasure of visiting a couple of sites and I was also able to talk to some of the people from the Atlantic coastal project, the ACAP, and was very impressed with what they were doing there.
It's my understanding, and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, that at least the funding for the ACAP was part of the Green Plan money and may only last for another year. So I'm wondering if you can tell me about ACAP, as well as the other ecosystem initiatives.
Mr. Cappe: In the Atlantic Coastal Action Program, we are working with those13 communities to lever really quite small amounts of money from the federal government, but we are working with partners from the private sector, from voluntary groups and the community itself.
So through the course of our program review we have gone back and assessed not the source of funds - so you're absolutely right, that was originated in the Green Plan - but rather whether these programs were worth preserving or not, and therefore we will continue with ACAP. It may not be funded at the same level as it had been, but we have made the decision on these kinds of programs, on those four ecosystem programs there, and the work that's being done now in the northern river basin study, which is that fifth tranche if you will -
.0925
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Is that the Mackenzie River basin?
Mr. Cappe: Yes, it's the Mackenzie River. It doesn't have community action in it yet; it's more a scientific piece. But these four in particular we're going to continue as major programs, much reduced in terms of funding but, again, in fact ACAP is unique in the sense that it really takes quite small amounts of money working with the local communities and achieves a great deal of real help for the environment. So we're going to keep those programs going.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think one of the powers of ACAP is that local people are able to set their own objectives and own vision. Certainly that came at a later time period after the RAPs and the ZIPs may have been more fully developed, and our understanding of community participation involved some changes over time as well.
Mr. Cappe: Can I add that one of the things that's interesting, that's just beginning to develop, is an exchange of information among communities across those four programs. I was in Salmon Arm, B.C., and there were two or three people there who had visited some ACAP sites to exchange with the community what they're doing in Salmon Arm and what the ACAP sites are doing. I think this is the same as what happened with the ZIPs and the RAPs; it's been quite useful for people to see what other communities are doing and how they can learn.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I feel there's a very important role for the federal government to play in a lot of these community action projects, to play a role as a catalyst and a facilitator and a provider of resources in partnership or whatever that the local community can leverage.
My problem in my constituency is that I have a good portion of the Lake Simcoe watershed and it doesn't fall in any category. So if we can dream up something I'd be particularly pleased about that, especially in light of the heavy cuts to conservation authorities.
I'd like to go back to the issue of climate change. I'm wondering if you could clarify what the division of labour is between Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada with regard to climate change and if there are other departments involved in trying to achieve our targets.
Mr. Cappe: There are three critical actors in the federal government on the climate change file and they are Natural Resources, Environment Canada, and Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Foreign Affairs is obviously for the international elements of this, and on the domestic side it is Environment Canada with Natural Resources.
Let me answer the second question first. All departments are involved in one way or another. As I indicated earlier, in response to Mr. Knutson's question, there's a lot that can be done in the agriculture sector on climate change as well. Therefore, we worked with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture to organize an agriculture forum on climate change, where a number of producer groups got together with scientists and talked about what could be done by the agricultural sector to help Canada meet its objectives on climate change.
So in a sense all departments are actors on the climate change file in one way or another, regardless of the sector they represent. Transportation is another department that has a large role to play because of the emissions control under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act that Transport can play in, as well as the role of alternative sectors in transportation.
So we work with all departments as partners, if you will, to try to deal with climate change. On the international side the critical partnership, the lead in terms of the division of labour, as you put it, is Environment Canada and Foreign Affairs. On the domestic side the lead is Environment Canada with Natural Resources, but that's oversimplifying because indeed we're partners on all of these and so we, the three departments, try to work together quite closely.
I mentioned earlier the joint ministerial meeting in the fall of environment and energy ministers. Under that structure, with the ministerial meeting at the top, there is a national air issues steering committee that is co-chaired by a federal deputy and a provincial deputy. I was co-chair a year ago and my colleague from Natural Resources is the co-chair now. That rotates back and forth. The other co-chair is a provincial deputy from the other department. So it's currently co-chaired by a provincial deputy from environment.
.0930
Under that, there is the National Air Issues Coordinating Mechanism, which is a committee of assistant deputy ministers and a number of other working groups under that, which are exploring other particular issues related to air issues generally but in particular climate change. So they deal with smog and other air issues, but the major focus is on climate change. That's how we work with the provinces to deal with this, as well as the other federal departments.
I would just mention as well that one of the issues dealt with under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment was cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels. It was a project that was co-chaired by me and my colleague from British Columbia. Under cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, while the focus wasn't on climate change, it obviously had significant implications for climate change.
We had five federal departments and all thirteen jurisdictions participating in the work of that group to lead to reductions in emissions, looking at the vehicle and fuels as an integrated system. So that's another instrument of collaboration and cooperation.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you just outline a little more what it is that Environment Canada does domestically around climate change and what it is that NRCan does, just so we understand that?
Mr. Cappe: Sure. There are a number of things we do on climate change. Again, you've had before the committee the three assistant deputy ministers.
Let me start with the science. The Atmospheric Environment Service, headed by Dr. McBean, who appeared before the committee, does the bulk of the work on atmospheric science. So atmospheric chemistry and the modelling work on the changes to the atmosphere are done in AES.
Dr. Bob Slater is head of the conservation service. There's quite a bit of work being done on the effects of climate change on the ecosystems, especially aquatic ecosystems. The Mackenzie River Basin study, which will be released in a week or so, will indicate some interesting results on the effects of climate change already on the Mackenzie ecosystem. There's work going on in Burlington at the National Water Research Institute on those ecosystemic effects as well.
The other point I should make is on work in AES that's being done on adaptation. Assuming the climate will change whether we mitigate or not, how can we provide for adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change?
The third area is under Tony Clarke from a policy perspective, where the Environmental Protection Service has the lead in developing the policy proposals we take abroad on our international position and that we use in developing the domestic action plan with the national and the federal. The federal action plan on climate change deals with how the federal government as an institution deals with climate change, and the domestic action plan is of course the whole air issues coordination process I described.
So we have a fair bit of activity on climate change, which cuts across all the organizations. I've talked about them from the perspective of the services, but I should indicate that the regions have work going on as well on the effects of climate change on the ecosystems in their regions. It really is one of those pervasive issues that cut across the department quite broadly.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you outline very briefly what NRCan does?
Mr. Cappe: NRCan has a particular focus on energy. Again, I remind you, members of the committee, that climate change has a number of sources. Energy is the single largest source, the burning of fossil fuels, but it isn't the only one. I mentioned earlier, in response to Mr. Knutson, that there are different tilling technologies in agriculture that release more or less methane, which has an effect on the atmosphere as well.
.0935
So NRCan's role is predominantly in the energy business, but not solely. The mining sector and the forestry sector fall under natural resources as well. So the extent to which forest practices provide better carbon sinks is something NRCan would be interested in. As well, the energy policy side is obviously critical here.
The other element I would mention is that they have the technical models that are particularly valuable for measuring the effects of policy changes on the energy sector. So they do a fair bit of work on the economic implications, as does Environment Canada.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Now, I understand a social and economic study is being undertaken on the social and economic impact of climate change. We have yet to get a clarification on who is responsible for that in Environment Canada. It is my understanding someone from Environment Canada is going to be chairing that task force.
Mr. Cappe: I'm not familiar with the particular task force. What we have done with Environment Canada is set up a table of all the actors on climate change, bringing together the scientists from our institutes and from the atmospheric research side in AES, the policy people in EPS and the scientists in ECS to coordinate all of this. The head of that table is Tony Clarke from the Environmental Protection Service, and he is coordinating the whole government activity, certainly the department's activity, on climate change, bringing together the pieces but not directing the particulars of the research.
So those economic studies - and a number have been done already - have been done by some of the economic analysts in EPS, in the Environmental Protection Service. They've been leading the economic and social analysis of that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you give us a couple of points on what has come out of the Mackenzie River Basin study?
Mr. Cappe: I'd love to. I admit to not having read it. It's not public yet. So I really will have to wait. As well, a number of background studies, background papers, have been done by scientists in the provinces, in the federal government, in the private sector, in academia. It's going to be very difficult to summarize. I really wouldn't want to try from what little I know of it.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: All right. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Madame Kraft Sloan.
On one of the points raised by the parliamentary secretary - and that was ACAP - I certainly hope that program continues, because, as I come from Newfoundland, it's certainly one of the very important programs. I think it has served to focus the problems we're experiencing in the smaller provinces and cities. So I certainly hope we see a continuation of that program. Thank you very much.
Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): I have a few brief comments. When I look at the budget which again this year has been cut rather drastically, I am concerned for the regions as well as for the department. The programs do, however, appear to be well structured. It remains to be seen how they will be implemented in actual fact.
With respect to the Great Lakes 2000 Program in Ontario, last year, we had a meeting in Washington where we just managed to get the Americans to keep their commitment to invest in this program. They had wanted to back out. I wonder if they will maintain their interest in the environment and in this program in the coming years.
Clearly, US policy is heavily slanted in favour of economic development rather than environmental development. We will have to monitor this situation very closely. I wonder what Canada's role will be in all of this. We don't have much clout as far as the United States is concerned. If they decided to make some cuts to this program, we would be hard pressed to bring them around.
.0940
I have a few questions which I hope the witnesses can answer, each in turn, and some specifically for Mr. Guimont from Quebec Region.
A while ago, you mentioned an extension of the pulp and paper agreement. Could you tell us a little more about this? How long is this agreement scheduled to remain in effect? What exactly does it provide for?
You also mentioned the proposed Endangered Species Protection Act. Ontario already has legislation on the books concerning endangered species and so too does Quebec. To what extent will this act overlap existing legislation and how is all of this going to be managed? It is not that clear.
I also have a question for Mr. Cappe concerning the cleanup of contaminated sites. We need to invest a great deal in this area, but we know that there will no longer be any funding available for site cleanup. How are we going to manage?
I will let you answer these questions. Please go ahead.
Mr. Cappe: First, I would like to make a few opening remarks.
The department's budget is exactly as projected last year. All of the cuts carried out this year were forecast in the 1995 budget.
Mrs. Guay: Nevertheless, they are a reality.
Mr. Cappe: The cuts have been substantial, but these are not new cuts. They were forecast.
Mr. Mills could provide you with additional details, but let me just say that in February, I believe it was, I accompanied the then minister to the United States to meet with senators and congressional representatives and to discuss with them their budgets and the cutbacks.
This year, I have also met on two occasions with my counterpart at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to discuss budget issues and to stress the need for a sustained commitment to our joint programs.
More specifically, I would like to discuss the proposed Endangered Species Protection Act. The Minister's proposals affected only federal jurisdictions and recognized that four provinces already had their own endangered species protection legislation in place.
Our goal, therefore, is to devise a national framework within which each jurisdiction could develop its own legislation so as to achieve the same results nationwide
[English]
to build on the existing base of the four provinces that have such legislation.
Therefore, this national framework would provide the 100% solution, recognizing that the federal government would act within its areas of jurisdiction. So we would have migratory birds, the interprovincial and international issues, federal lands, as well as using other heads of power for the federal government.
The provinces would in effect have the base that we would be supplementing, those four provinces that have such legislation. The other provinces, at least at the level of the discussion at the moment, are keen to join the national framework. Therefore, every jurisdiction would be acting in its own area of responsibility to provide this framework and would be using regulatory or legislative tools to meet it.
.0945
I think I've answered most of the points. Perhaps Mr. Mills could supplement.
Mr. Mills: Perhaps I could supplement the comments the deputy made relative to the relations with the United States.
As was noted in my opening comments, it's obviously very important that we continue to ensure that the U.S. maintains its commitments on the lakes. There are a number of mechanisms from a bureaucratic or administrative point of view, and through ministerial contacts, by which we influence this.
At the program level a number of binational program activities are under way. On each of the connecting channels, for example, which are areas of concern, binational committees meet and try to coordinate their programs. On a basin-wide basis a coordinating group chaired by Canadian and American EPAs attempt to coordinate program activities to ensure that the commitments of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement are being met.
I would mention one other mechanism, and that is the IJC, which is an oversight group set up by both governments to track and comment on the parties' progress in meeting those commitments. On that commission there are three members from Canada and three from the U.S. So in terms of relative weight, in that one committee we are on an equal footing.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimont: Certain questions were raised concerning the pulp and paper agreement. The first agreement with our Quebec colleagues was aimed at ensuring single-window service for the industry in the area of federal and provincial regulations.
As you also know, there are quite a few pulp and paper plants in Quebec. It was therefore important to conclude agreements with this industry in the province of Quebec. The first agreement expired in December. We are now finishing up two reports, the first of which focuses on how the agreement was implemented, whether it worked well, if there were any problems and what they were exactly.
The second report, which I'm sure will interest you, concerns inspections, violations and so forth occurring in the two years during which the first agreement was in effect. As I said, the first agreement expired on December 31 last.
The negotiation process began in November, prior to the expiration of the first agreement. At the outset, it was rather slow going. That was normal because we wanted to extract the substance of the reports described. We wanted to take what we had learned from the first agreement and incorporate during the negotiation positive elements into the second agreement.
The negotiations were carried out by a federal-provincial team. Everything went very well. Right now, we are ironing out a few important details for the two parties, that is the provincial and federal governments.
We hope to wrap up our negotiations with our Quebec colleagues shortly. We are aiming for an agreement that would cover a three-year period to bring some stability to the industry.
This is what we hope to be able to do in the coming months with the pulp and paper agreement.
Mrs. Guay: Will the standards be harsher or will they remain the same as they were in the previous agreement?
Mr. Guimont: A distinction must be made between the standards and the way in which the agreement operates. In the case of federal as well as provincial regulations, standards have, to all intents and purposes, already been set.
In the new agreement, both parties, federal and provincial, have succeeded in bringing improvements to areas which posed some problems in the first agreement. This information will be available when the report is completed.
.0950
Mrs. Guay: One of my questions has yet to be answered. It pertained to the cleanup of contaminated sites. Could you comment on this matter?
Mr. Cappe: Our budgets for site cleanup have been completely slashed, but this doesn't mean that the matter has been pushed aside. I would like Mr. Mills to answer that question.
[English]
Mr. Mills: Thank you, Madam Chair.
When the contaminated sites program began, it was set up under the Green Plan. It was in essence seed money to begin the process of cleaning up those highly contaminated areas. It was set up as a program that is funded 50-50 by the federal and provincial governments. From the federal perspective, it was to provide some of the demonstrated technologies that would be used to address those areas. In retrospect it probably had a more ambitious target for the five-year program than we were able to meet. However, a number of projects and sites were cleaned up as a part of that program. It also set the groundwork for the technologies and the methodologies to actually address those contaminated sites.
I can speak specifically to Ontario. At the end of the program four projects were under way. Those four sites have been completely remediated. Our current approach to contaminated sites is really one of polluter pay, and therefore it's the responsibility of the other government departments to pay for remediation of those sites. Certainly in our experience in dealing with the other government departments, they have taken up that challenge and are addressing in a most aggressive manner the areas of concern, those sites, that are under their jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mr. Cappe: Let me just say that the polluter pays principle has been established by the Council of Environment Ministers. In keeping with this principle, one cannot necessarily talk about an orphan site since the site did belong to someone at some point in time.
[English]
We're trying to get away from the idea that the government will take upon itself the cleaning up of all these problems when there is an understanding that there need not be orphan sites if you stay with the premise and the principle that polluter pays.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Cappe.
I'm looking at my clock and it's getting close to 10 a.m. I don't know whether you canspend some more time with us. If you can, we probably have a couple of other questions for you.Mrs. Kraft Sloan has one and so does Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Cappe: I'm good for five minutes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Okay, thank you.
Mr. Cappe: My colleagues will stay behind.
Mr. Knutson: Karen is allowing me to go first, if you don't mind.
It has been reported in the newspapers that part of making the federation work more efficiently means we're going to devolve environmental management to the provinces. In an age of transboundary pollution and the need for global controls, I wonder whether you can enlighten us as to what that means.
Mr. Cappe: Well, I don't know who's reporting these things, but let me tell you what I know.
Mr. Knutson: The Ottawa Citizen, most recently.
Mr. Cappe: This evening in Toronto the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment will begin a session, which will carry on through tomorrow, at which they will look at a number of issues, including the issue of harmonization. The harmonization issue is something that has been considered by CCME for the last number of years - probably for the last three years.
Mr. Guimont described the way we have dealt with harmonization on a bilateral basis - by way of example, with the pulp and paper industry in Quebec. We have a lot of agreements with many provinces across the country. We have two agreements with environmental assessment with Manitoba and Alberta, we have one that's initialled but not signed with B.C., and we have negotiations under way with others. Those are not the devolution that is alleged, but rather modus operandi, modus vivendi of how we rationalize that activity.
.0955
We think we can, as Mr. Marchi said when he testified before this committee, improve the way in which we operate with the provinces. But it does not mean withdrawing from our responsibilities for protecting the environment. I don't know whether I'm quoting him, but it's certainly the sentiment he expressed. The CCME had been arguing about jurisdiction. He would like the CCME to spend its time worrying about the environment.
Hopefully what we are going to see in Toronto over the next day and a half is ministers from all thirteen jurisdictions in Canada discussing how to rationalize their activities, respecting their jurisdiction and responsibilities, and improve the efficiency with which we protect the environment.
I don't know whether that's enlightening or confusing.
Mr. Knutson: Where do you think we'll be six months or a year down the road? Is the federal government getting out of managing some particular issues it currently manages?
Mr. Cappe: I don't think the federal government will get out of its responsibility for looking after setting the rules of the game, being responsible for national standards on those issues for which it's responsible. I wouldn't comment on the question of whether it's a provincial inspector or a federal inspector who visits the plant.
In the case Mr. Guimont described with the pulp and paper industry in Quebec, it is in fact federal regulations. The inspections are being administered by a provincial inspector, but they're to our standards. That's the way we've been able to rationalize that.
One thing that has come up in our discussions with our colleagues in Quebec - and we met with them earlier this week and about a month ago - was to talk about taking a broader approach and trying to consider ways of really harmonizing beyond just separating activities.
Mr. Knutson: Right. I'll share an example of where theoretically it makes sense, but in practice it's difficult. It deals with farmers, who are obviously rural.
They complain about the provincial ministry of natural resources and its enforcement of the Fisheries Act. They come to me, so I call the provincial bureaucrat, who says he's just enforcing the federal act. The provincial guys aren't as responsive as the federal bureaucrats, who always return my phone calls.
It's difficult for me to get a handle on whether they're being over-zealous. I say to go and see the provincial MPP; he says to go and see the federal MP.
I think there's a real sense here that if you get combined jurisdictions, a provincial body enforcing a federal law, at the end of the day nobody's really accounting for any of this. I throw that out as a -
Mr. Cappe: I would note that in any such relationship there has to be an accountability mechanism. Again, Mr. Guimont made reference to the reports that are required. That is one way in which the federal government can ensure that its regulations and responsibilities are being carried out.
You're quite right, it's not an insignificant issue.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Cappe. I can see you're getting ready to leave, and I want to say before you do leave that we are very appreciative of your appearance here today. In fact, I think it may be the only time we've had the directors general here. Certainly I think it's a good format for us to follow and one we should probably look at again for the next fiscal year.
The presentations you put before us and the documents you've given us are excellent, and we thank you for those. Thank you for your time.
Before you go, you might want to know also that it's not our intention to hold a vote this morning on the main estimates, because we do have less than a normal quorum. That is for a couple of reasons, one of which is a caucus meeting that's going to be held this morning. In view of that, the vote will be delayed.
Thank you once again for your appearance.
Mr. Cappe: Thank you.
.1000
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mrs. Kraft Sloan, did you have a question?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes. Under ``Toxics'', under ``Actions'' in the second box down, it talks about:
- Pollution prevention strategy implemented initiates negotiations with 4 industry sectors and
provincial governments on environmental covenants
- I'm just wondering if we could have some clarification on what that means. What do
``environmental covenants'' mean?
We have been using within the department what we call the full tool kit of actions to address the issues, and toxics is one of those, ranging from regulation through to economic instruments and voluntary action.
When he appeared before the committee, the minister made the point that he was looking also at covenants that would range somewhere between the regulation and the voluntary action. The department is currently trying to determine exactly what this means. Certainly there are a number of elements of a covenant that would be part of that.
The first would be the public accountability to ensure that when parties get together and agree to a particular target or schedule, there is an accountability within the public for that.
At this point I don't have all the details of exactly what a covenant is. We are currently trying to determine that and work it through to come up with the specifics. But if you look at the range from regulation to voluntary, it falls somewhere in between those.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It says this is going to start happening in 1996, and this is 1996. I'm just wondering what four industry sectors you are talking about, what provincial governments. I'm interested in some of the mechanical aspects, more concrete aspects, of this.
Mr. Guimont: If I may, I will attempt to provide further information, which will not be extremely precise, but still I will explain why maybe it's not that precise.
The first point I would like to make, Madam Chair, is that the pollution prevention strategy that is being referred to here in that box is essentially the document that was released about a year ago. The intent of that pollution prevention strategy is to propose a framework to effect that shift between control to moving towards pollution prevention.
Pollution prevention strategy in some way was also a companion document, a parallel document, to the toxic substances management policy that essentially came around the same time.
So the point I want to make here is, first, that when we say implement this strategy, it means that it has a number of measures and we are nationally, through the national office of pollution prevention headquarters here in Hull, planning to move ahead, to implement those measures, strategies. This is the first point.
On the covenants, Mr. Mills is very right in his description. It is work in progress in the sense that we are developing - and again that's done at the national headquarters - the basic characteristics of what a covenant would have.
My understanding is that one of the elements has to do with transparency vis-à-vis community involvement. But in all fairness, Madam Chair, I don't have the four industry sectors. This information could be given to the clerk. I will simply ask a question of the national office of pollution prevention that is most likely responsible for those four key sectors.
The last point I would like to make quickly. In that very same box on pollution prevention,Mr. Mills was describing the basket of tools we're using to achieve environmental objectives, ARET, Accelerated Reduction and Elimination of Toxics. This program is running as we speak.
It is a program that is a voluntary action by a number of industry sectors that have signed on to a challenge that was issued by a number of stakeholders. There is a list of substances, targets, and if I remember correctly, there are something like 100 of them. There's a 90% target reduction for a given year for a number of the more dangerous or the more toxic substances - it's broken into lists - and a 50% reduction for other substances within that family of 100. It's based on scientific characteristics.
.1005
The point I want to make here is that since this ARET initiative is proceeding, it's a voluntary action. There is a record of who's participating and the types of reductions they are planning to achieve.
The department is intending to broaden the challenge of ARET. I don't have the details of how it's being done. Once again, the national office of pollution prevention is working at developing what this broadening would mean, but this is essentially in the area, once again, of pollution prevention and is understood within the overall strategy of the federal government.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The ARET process was not an entirely successful process because the environmental groups walked away from the table. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Guimont: You are referring to the fact that through the course of developing the so-called challenge, the environmental groups at a point decided to leave ARET. This was fairly late in the process, in all fairness, based on their own positions; and obviously since it was multi-stakeholder, everybody has a right to their position. The point I would like to make is that they did continue the so-called technical work in establishing the list despite the fact that they had left the main table of ARET.
The other point I would make is that the issue largely for their leaving ARET to the other stakeholders had to do with elimination versus reduction. This issue, which is obviously a difficult one, was not solvable in the context of the first ARET initiative, but that does not downplay the importance of what the ARET challenge is attempting to do. That challenge has been made publicly in terms of what the targets are, the timeframe, the substances that are targeted, the so-called list that I've described, and the companies signing on to the challenge issued to companies across Canada are defining a plan as to how they will be meeting the targets that have been proposed in the so-called ARET challenge.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What are you going to use for your model for the covenants? Obviously there were some problems with the ARET process. I understand that the Netherlands is essentially one of the few or only countries in the world that is using covenants. Are you deriving development of this covenanting process from the Netherlands experience, or are you looking more to the ARET model? I'm just wondering how you're developing what it is that you want to do with the design.
Mr. Mills: As I think Mr. Guimont referred to, the work that's being done on the covenants is really being led by the pollution prevention office at headquarters. While we are familiar with some of that, in the regional office we're not in detailed discussions on it.
Certainly the covenant model of the Netherlands is being looked at. But obviously there is also a difference in terms of the legislative regimes that exist in the Netherlands and that exist in Canada, so the characteristics or the capabilities of covenants within that jurisdiction would likely be different. But certainly some of those characteristics, some of those ideas, are being looked at.
What I think we could do for the committee is to have the pollution prevention people provide you with a more detailed description of where they are at this point and what factors they're looking at.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, I think that's one of the considerations here, that the Netherlands has, from what I understand, a fairly strong regulatory regime and this becomes an additional piece.
The other concern that I would have is, if the covenants are going to involve the community, that there are adequate resources for the community to participate. This is a very lengthy process. It's a very involved process and very lengthy when you're trying to first of all get people interested in this, get them involved in this, and then start developing consensus amongst different stakeholder groups. So tremendous amount of resources would have to be expended on something like this.
.1010
You had talked about a tool kit or basket, one that kind of ranged from a regulatory regime to something that's voluntary, with economic instruments falling in there as well. I'm just wondering what priority the department is placing on the various tools within that basket.
Mr. Mills: Let me make a couple of comments related to that.
I think we are looking at all those tools, but I think we recognize that no one tool is going to do all the work but that a full and balanced tool kit is one that has to be brought to bear.
You made the point of community involvement and I think it's a critical element. I'd just like to refer back to Mr. Knutson's first question regarding the successes.
I think one of the successes - and I'd be remiss if I didn't note it - was the idea of getting out of the RAPs that the Great Lakes brought together in the community. This is not only the community in terms of the public but also the industry, all the stakeholders, in terms of defining the problem, identifying the solutions and committing to cleaning that up. That is, in a sense, a covenant in one form or another.
I would use the example of Hamilton Harbour, where that full community of participants and people who have a stake in that issue have publicly declared what they're going to do and are now being publicly held accountable to deliver on that.
Again, I think that is a personal opinion in terms of what one covenant could be. The details of it are very important.
But I think your point on community involvement is extremely important and is one that we have to spend a lot of time on.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
Madam Guay, do you have any further questions?
On the last point, Mr. Mills, I referred earlier to ACAP and the focus it brought to the smaller communities. I think the flip side of my comments would have to be whether you are satisfied with the amount of effort that's going into that process at the community level. Can you expand on where we could probably be doing some further work?
I know that in my own community of St. John's, I sense that there is not the kind of will that I'd like to see in the prevention area as opposed to the clean-up area.
Mr. Mills: I have a couple of comments, Madam Chair.
I think I would like to see a lot more of this. Obviously it has to happen on the ground and it has to happen locally, and therefore the local community, the local people, have to be involved and engaged in that.
The ACAP, ZIP or RAP is, I think, a model. We're learning as we go along what works, and what works in one location doesn't necessarily work in another. It depends very much on the issue to be addressed, the various stakeholders and their perspective on things and their particular situations. We have noted, for example, what worked in Hamilton Harbour doesn't necessarily work in Metropolitan Toronto, and we have to find a different model for addressing that particular situation.
One of the things my colleague Mr. Guimont and the regional director general in the Atlantic have recently done was sit down and talk about how we can share and ensure we share amongst the communities some of the successes, some of those areas where what can work in one location in ACAP can be brought on in terms of a ZIP or a RAP or vice versa. We are organizing a workshop, we're bringing together some of those community groups to share that experience and try to stimulate a little more of that sharing of knowledge and understanding.
My main point is that we find in all cases they tend to be unique to a certain degree. There are some generalities, there are some specifics or models that can be used, but there isn't one size that fits all. It's very much dependent on the particular circumstances.
.1015
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
We do have to clear this room for a meeting. I again want to express my sincere thanks on behalf of the committee to you for your appearance, and again to Mr. Guimont, congratulations on your position. Thank you.
Mr. Guimont: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We're adjourned.