STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 5, 1999

• 1534

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our witnesses.

I'm going to begin by making a brief announcement concerning

[English]

Ballard Power Systems. Ballard is a company that has tremendous relevance to the work of this committee. It's located in that happy part of the world called British Columbia, and more precisely, in Burnaby. It is a plant—actually, it's more than one plant—that departs from the conventional approach to plants. It's very quiet, very dust-free, and has some 400 or 500 individuals dressed in white coats who look like chemistry professors engaged in some interesting activities related to the production of these Ballard units.

• 1535

The Ballard annual report is a document worth reading. I will pass around a copy for you to see in case you would like to make a note, at least, of their address and telephone number. The clerk will circulate it this afternoon.

What is so impressive is the fact that not only are they engaged in the production of the fuel cell at the stage where they are moved out of prototypes and they are producing buses and cars as models that they think they'll put on the market in the year 2002, but I was very impressed to learn also that they have a section of Ballard that deals with stationary power production. Stationary power production has tremendous implications for anyone interested in the reduction and prevention of pollution.

The stationary power generation chapter is yet to be written, perhaps, but certainly there are some indications on page 24 of their annual report contained in that kit that are worth reading. Therefore, I would like to bring them to your attention and to add that should you ever plan to be travelling in that direction, include a visit to their plant.

The committee is very happy to receive today the Minister of the Environment and her officials.

[Translation]

In accordance with subsection 81(4) of the Standing Orders of the House, we are studying Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 of the Estimates under Environment, which were referred to the committee on March 1, 1999.

[English]

I therefore welcome Madame la ministre, Monsieur Good, Monsieur Gershberg, and Monsieur Monette.

Madame la ministre, the floor is yours.

The Honourable Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, members of Parliament. It's a pleasure to be here again today and talk to you about priorities and planning. I thank you for this invitation.

You've introduced the officials who are here at the table: my deputy minister; the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; and our assistant deputy minister of corporate services, Mr. Monette. There are other ADMs and officials from my department and my staff present in the room to help me answer questions if that's required.

I've presented to you in both languages a paper that I will deliver to you. I'll make this statement at the outset, and then I will be very happy to entertain your questions.

I've now finished my second year as Minister of the Environment, and the experience has deepened my appreciation of Canada's rich and diverse environment. It has also deepened my concern about the challenges in learning to live responsibly on this planet.

Today I'm going to talk about my perspective and approach to the environment portfolio, where I intend to focus in the year to come, and the actions I intend to take, but first I want to follow up on the commitment I made at this time last year to report on our progress.

Last year I talked about delivering results in four broad areas: climate change, clean air, clean water, and nature. I want to review some milestones we've reached, say something about the achievements of our weather services and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and then reflect on lessons learned and how they shape our agenda.

• 1540

First, on climate change, in the 1998 budget the federal government committed $150 million over three years to build understanding and spur action on climate change. The recent signing of the Canada-China action plan, an initiative under the climate change action fund, is an example of the important work this fund will lever.

I am proud of the responsible course we are following in developing Canada's national strategy. Today we have 450 experts from all walks of life who are providing their best advice to the federal and provincial governments. They're identifying opportunities in all sectors of our economy and policy tools to meet Canada's climate change emissions target. Their work will form the basis of our national strategy, to be completed by the end of 1999. I am confident the strategy will be phased, balanced, equitable, and comprehensive. Most important, I am increasingly sure it will work. More and more, people are talking about the opportunities associated with the climate change challenge and the risks and costs associated with inaction, and this is a change of rhetoric.

I am pleased with preparatory work on a public education and outreach program but anxious to begin to make the challenge of climate change real to Canadians. To date, funding has gone out on 50 public education and outreach programs, totalling about $3.5 million and leveraging funds on a two-to-one basis.

I'm also proud of the leadership Canada is providing internationally to secure the participation of the world's major economies and developing countries in the global effort to arrest climate change. Canada, for example, is leading in the development of the clean development mechanism to help countries achieve their Kyoto commitments. Our international workshop last September in Ottawa is credited with having stimulated consensus in our negotiations on climate change held in Buenos Aires last November.

Poor air quality continues to take its toll on our health, especially that of children and the elderly, to say nothing of the toll it takes on Canada's productivity. I am encouraged by the progress over the past few years in reducing the impacts of poor air. With Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada, we are implementing the second phase of a national smog plan with its 32 initiatives designed to strengthen industry and government effort to reduce smog and are beginning consultations on 27 proposed initiates under phase three.

The effects of poor air are felt most directly at the community level. In New Brunswick, with health, environmental, and community organizations, we conducted a smog forecasting pilot and have begun to develop tools to assist communities in dealing with the issue. The pilot phase was converted to a permanent program just last week, which will cover the two-thirds of New Brunswick that is heavily impacted by smog.

In the next century, the strategic importance of fresh water will increase across the world. Canada is blessed with an abundance of this precious resource. Our responsibility to manage it sustainably cannot be overestimated. With the Department of Foreign Affairs, we have announced a federal strategy to prohibit the bulk removal of water, including water for export, from Canadian watersheds. The strategy will be developed jointly with the provinces and territories.

Efforts to restore water quality in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin have resulted in a 96% reduction of toxic effluent from 50 plants along the St. Lawrence, and a 66% reduction in emissions of dioxins and furans into the Great Lakes. The accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics program, ARET, has reduced releases of certain substances by 27% since 1995.

Canadians are doing a lot in their communities to conserve our natural legacy, and we are doing what we can to support them. For example, through programs like Partners in Flight Canada, we are encouraging communities and landowners to conserve habitat for some 200 species of land birds. Under the endangered species recovery fund, it was recently announced that 55 recovery projects will be launched across Canada, the highest number ever. But we must do more to nourish this public commitment. Federal leadership in the form of species-at-risk legislation is urgently required.

No review of Environment Canada's accomplishments would be complete without reference to the service for which Canadians know us best—our weather services. Every day, 85% of Canadians consult our weather forecasts, and our weather Internet sites are among the most visited in Canada.

• 1545

In the past year we began installation of 26 Doppler radars across Canada. Doppler significantly improves our capability of detecting severe weather. Our meteorologists also continue to build their international reputation for scientific excellence, with the introduction of new forecasting models.

One indispensable tool for protecting and sustaining our natural heritage and quality of environment is environmental assessment. In this regard, I am delighted to report some of the agency's achievements since the last time I appeared before this committee.

The final report from the panel reviewing the Voisey's Bay project in northern Labrador is an excellent example of a cooperative approach to environmental assessment. The review was established in partnership with Newfoundland, the Innu Nation, and the Labrador Inuit Association.

Certain legislative gaps have been addressed to improve the consistency in the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For example, regulation that brings the new Canadian port authorities into the federal environmental assessment fold. Also, amendments to existing regulations, to be published shortly in the Canada Gazette, will improve their efficiency and expand their application.

To ensure projects of a similar nature can be assessed more efficiently and effectively, two model class screenings have been completed. Finally, a monitoring framework has been developed that will measure compliance and quality of environmental assessments.

Underpinning much of what we have done and will do are our efforts to strengthen the legislative mandate of the environment portfolio, in regard to both toxics and species at risk.

A great deal of work over several years by Environment Canada and the standing committee will shortly come to fruition with the intended passage of the amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The act will accelerate screening and assessment of new and existing substances, improve management and control of toxic substances, and strengthen their tracking.

Building on last year's announcement of additional resource for toxics research, this year the government announced an additional $14.4 million per year for toxics assessment, management and tracking. I have also asked my officials to examine the design of our toxics program closely for greater efficiencies.

We are, in effect, following a three-phased approach to improve toxics management in Canada by improving research through the toxic substances research initiative; improving the legislative instrument; and improving the enforcement.

With regard to species at risk, over the past year I've consulted widely with provinces, territories, aboriginal leaders, land owners, environment organizations, business interests and youth. I believe the outcome will be a responsible, innovative, and above all effective act.

We have accomplished much, but much remains to be done. Our business is very complex because the environment is complex and the things that affect it—the economy, the global community and us—are all complex. We have long since run out of simple solutions. Today we have to learn every step of the way.

We always knew our job was too big to do alone; that we had to work with partners, and to partner meant to give and take. We have learned that to be effective we must keep an eye on what matters—a sustained and sustainable quality of life in Canada's communities.

We have learned just how critical strong working relations with the provinces are. Provided we maintain a clear focus on results, our relations with the provinces will mature as they should.

We have learned a lot from our long history of cooperation and bilateral arrangements. The lessons are reflected in the harmonization accord—in the provisions for improving accountability, including monitoring performance and public reporting for stakeholder participation and the role of aboriginals.

Under the accord we are doing a lot. The development of Canada-wide standards is on track for delivery this fiscal year. The inspections and environmental assessment subagreements have been completed, and the development of an enforcement subagreement is on track.

We have learned just how important it is to strengthen the links between environmental, health and economic commitments across the federal government. For our part, we must ensure that our environmental policies and programs are reflected in current trade and competitiveness considerations. At the same time, we must help every other department discover that what is good for the environment can also be good for Canada's economic, social and cultural well-being.

• 1550

Every day I see how crucial concerted international action is to progress on environmental issues. Persistent organic pollutants, for example, are a very real threat to the well-being of Canada's northern peoples. But it is a domestic threat that can only be solved through global action.

Canadians need to be represented when international rules are set, not only environmental rules but trade and investment agreements as well. Our goal in the international community is to ensure economic growth complements efforts to enhance domestic and global environmental conditions. But in choosing what to do at the national and international levels, we have learned to always ask what will make the greatest difference in the quality of life at the local level, which brings me to communities.

From our long experience, we have learned that the most effective thing we can do at the community level is build knowledge and understanding of environmental issues. We have ample proof that when people understand the issues, they will do everything they can to safeguard their quality of life and a sustainable future for their children.

At the end of the day, I believe our greatest challenge is to unleash the power of our own communities, to provide them with the tools, skills and support to enable them to act on their own values and concerns. It's not a simple task, but the potential is enormous.

These are the lessons we try to apply in everything we do, and we do a lot. Every day we are at work in hundreds of communities. Our work touches thousands of businesses and millions of lives. But there are things that I, as minister, am especially concerned about. I have directed my officials to focus effort and attention in four broad areas.

First, I want to continue to make measurable progress in securing for Canadians clean air, clean water and our natural heritage, and in meeting Canada's commitments related to climate change. In particular, I want to complete the process of strengthening our legislated mandate.

Second, I want to make sure Canadians have a margin of safety from a changing climate by ensuring a sustainable future for our world-class weather services. I also want to make the most of a certain competitive advantage that may come from having a national capacity for environmental prediction.

Third, I want to review the operations and provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to ensure we continue to provide high quality environmental assessments to Canadians.

Fourth, and for me most important, I want to do whatever we can to nourish the will and ingenuity of communities to act on their own environmental values and concerns.

Let me say a little more about each of my priorities. I look forward to seeing all the ground-breaking of the past year on climate change bear fruit this fall, when we begin in earnest the work of reducing the threat of climate change.

The incidence of bad air is still too frequent. Domestic efforts will focus on implementing national standards for particulates and ground-level ozone. But 50% of ground-level ozone in southern Ontario comes from the U.S.A. Efforts to reduce cross-border transport of air pollutants will continue with the negotiation of an ozone annex to the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Accord by 2000. We will promulgate sulphur and gasoline regulations this year.

While Canadians enjoy some of the highest standards for fresh water, pollution of our rivers and lakes remains a problem. We will work with provinces, territories and local governments to improve freshwater management and renew the federal freshwater policy by 2000. National standards for some of the worst polluters will make a real difference in securing water quality. Most important, the amended CEPA will increase the effectiveness of toxics management. I am especially anxious to do more to promote pollution prevention, and improve accountability and verification of agreements with the private sector.

We will fulfill an important obligation to Canadians by reintroducing legislation in 1999 to protect species at risk, and will commit to increase the populations of ten migratory bird species by 2005, and increase federally protected areas for wildlife by 6%.

On safeguarding Canadians, we tend to forget that weather forecasts are not just about when to carry an umbrella. They know that all too well in the U.S. today. They're about good economic and environmental decisions in agriculture, the hydro-electric sector, and construction. Most important, weather forecasts are about our safety—of children on stormy days, drivers on icy roads, pilots and passengers in our skies, mariners at sea, and loggers in our forests.

• 1555

With Treasury Board we have studied options for the delivery of weather services and concluded the program is best positioned within Environment Canada. But the study did identify areas of attention. Our weather systems, technologies, and science need ongoing attention and investment to insure their continued effectiveness.

In 1999-2000 Environment Canada will begin to make these investments. We will achieve Y2K compliance from mission-critical systems in good time. We will strengthen relations with key clients like NAV CANADA and the media, and we will improve the measurement of our performance as a basis for future investments and improvements.

Thirdly, I will launch the five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in January 2000. This review presents a real opportunity to learn from past experience and to improve our process. A framework for the review is currently under development, and I have asked the agency to initiate preliminary consultations and information gathering. A number of studies are underway to evaluate the operations and provisions of the act, as are discussions with key stakeholders to identify issues. These stakeholders include my multi-stakeholder regulatory advisory committee; the Canadian Environmental Network's environmental assessment caucus; aboriginal groups, including the AFN and provincial counterparts; as well as key federal ministries. Additional discussions are planned for this spring and summer. I intend to launch the five-year review with the release of a discussion document by January 2000, at which point broad public consultations will begin.

Finally, I'll speak about our efforts with and on behalf of communities. In my work in public health and international development I have seen first-hand what communities can accomplish. To take advantage of this potential I want to do as much as I can. I want to continue to build on the success of initiatives and ecosystems like the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and Atlantic coastal communities. Our focus is on building community capacity and delivering environmental improvements rather than on jurisdiction and barriers.

I want to make even greater use of new techniques and technologies like the Internet to communicate Environment Canada's knowledge and information and share ideas and tools with communities.

Finally, I want to help Canadians exchange their own ideas and experiences, their own successes and strategies. I want to encourage communities to talk about what works and what they can do to help each other.

Last year we launched a project called millennium eco-communities. I want to greatly expand participation in their dialogue and the action that follows.

That is my agenda. Can we do it all? Canadians expect us to try. And I'm prepared to be accountable for the targets in our report on plans and priorities.

Do we have the resources we need? I set clear priorities and targets precisely to make sure resources are spent where I believe they will make the most difference, and to remind you of what our targets are, I have attached them to my handout. Clear priorities and realistic targets are basic to good resource management. They are also important if we're going to make our case for new resources. In this regard, I am pleased the government has shown its willingness, when an issue warrants, to provide the resources required, as it did with climate change, toxics research, and toxics management.

Most importantly, clear priorities and targets are necessary for strong partnerships. Partnerships will be key in delivering on my agenda—with departments, governments, companies, communities, and, I'd like to think, with you the standing committee.

We may differ on details, we may differ on strategies, but we have never differed in our shared commitment to secure for Canadians a sustainable quality of life and our most extraordinary environmental heritage.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Minister.

We're beginning the five-minute round,

[English]

five minutes each because of the vote at 5.30.

Mr. Gilmour, you have five minutes, please.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1600

Regarding climate change, we spent $50 million last year; we have $50 million again this year, plus another $14 million. So we're up to $114 million, including this year. Emission levels have not decreased. In fact they're probably still on the increase. We still have no concrete agreements with the provinces. The economic analysis of an agreement that we signed a year and a half ago is still not before us. And we're now at the stage where Iceland has said it will not ratify, and other countries such as the U.S. are backing off. We're spending this great amount of money. What are we getting for it? We have little to see at the moment. Where are we going?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'll be happy to respond to what you're saying with regard to climate change.

In fact, outside of what the government is doing, there is a lot of activity taking place in our country, within industry, at the municipal level, and at the personal level, that is reducing emissions. However, we have a growing economy, and it's true that overall our emissions are continuing to grow. But in balance there is a decline in emissions. If we had continued business as usual, we would have much higher emissions today than we do have.

I believe that our $150 million climate change action fund is effective. It is supporting the national implementation strategy process, which is bringing together these 450 experts with provincial and federal government representatives to discuss what the most cost-effective way is for this country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is going to cost considerable money to reduce emissions to meet our Kyoto Protocol commitments. However, there are many opportunities, and the purpose of the tables is to look at the challenges, to understand the best practices that are out there right now, and to look at what our opportunities are as a nation to effectively bring down emissions, while at the same time, in many instances, enhancing the environment overall and the economy. We have made significant progress.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If I may interrupt, I want to get some questions in, but at the same time, we only have five minutes.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: If I can respond with regard to the U.S., I was in Calgary, which held its own climate change round table last Friday. The province that was so reluctant to participate before Kyoto is in many ways now showing leadership in this country. They're committed to reducing. One of the speakers at that meeting, a Mr. Lovins from the Rocky Mountain Institute in the United States, said that the United States is taking considerable action. And having heard what they're doing, I would have to say they are on track in trying to reduce their emissions as well. It's what they do, not necessarily what they say.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Well, I look forward to our economic analysis to see what it's going to cost this country.

I'm going to switch gears, because I've only got two minutes left.

The Chairman: You have one minute.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: My, my.

The Clayoquot Sound biosphere reserve is in my riding in British Columbia. There is $12 million designated to that project. We have been unable to get any answers about what that $12 million is for, either from your office or Mr. Anderson's. We've run into a brick wall. So I would really appreciate knowing why $12 million is going into my riding to designate a biosphere reserve, which is simply drawing an area around a map. Where is the money going? I would expect your officials will have to answer that, but I would really like to get some concrete information from the officials as to where this money's going.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I can appreciate that you would want an analysis of that. We may not be able to give you all the details today, but we'd be happy to forward it to you. I don't know whether anybody has anything to add, but we will provide you with the specific information of a costing analysis.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Herron, Karen Kraft Sloan, Lincoln and Casson.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Good afternoon, Ms. Minister. I'm very pleased to see you. I'm also very happy to have read in your presentation that you are putting a lot of emphasis on collaboration with the provinces. It did me good to hear that, because when bill C-32 was being studied, there was not much openness to collaboration with the provinces. So I'm reassured, but I'm going to keep a close eye on you.

• 1605

There are many aspects of the Department of the Environment that draw my attention, but I'd like to deal with four major issues. I'd like to talk about everything concerned with exporting water, which you didn't talk about, I think. The Deputy Prime Minister announced this week in the House that a bill would soon be tabled on this topic. I'd like to know whether this bill will be restricted to boundary waters and, if so, what elements will be covered.

Ms. Minister, I'd like you to bring us up to date on negotiations concerning the problem of exporting water in bulk, which you talked about in your communiqué of February 10.

I'd also like to talk to you about importing plutonium. You know that the Maritimes, like Quebec, are opposed to the importing of plutonium. I'd like to know what role the Department of the Environment is playing in the importing of plutonium, and I'd like you to bring us up to date on this topic.

Those are the first two points I'd like to bring up. Thank you.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: With regard to the export of water, as you said, the government made an announcement about our strategy in February. Basically, we asked all provinces and territories in the country to join with the federal government in an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk water, in general, but more specifically, the withdrawal of bulk water from water basins across the country for any purpose, including export.

We also asked the International Joint Commission to do an analysis of this issue and report back to us. We said we would bring in amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and we intend to very shortly. The United States knows of this. I've been in consultation with them, as has Minister Lloyd Axworthy, and he's in agreement.

We hope to be able to sign an accord with the provinces and territories in which we will talk about the issue of withdrawals of water from freshwater basins for any purpose, including export. Together with the provinces, we hope to develop our scientific understanding of our freshwater resources in this country.

Frankly, having ownership of 20% of the world's freshwater resources, we have a lot of responsibility in the world. But we don't take a lot of responsibility as Canadians because it seems to be an endless resource. We have to learn more about the science of water. We have to understand how we can be more responsible as citizens.

It is for this reason that we think it's important right now to stop and take a good look together, because the responsibility for fresh water lies both within the federal jurisdiction and within the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. So we want to work together with all provinces and territories, including Quebec.

On the import of plutonium, right now under a current licence for research on plutonium for the production of what is called MOX fuel, the licensing and environmental assessment approvals required for the importation of plutonium—what I understand is an amount that looks like that—have been done. The research that will be done on that plutonium will determine whether MOX fuel is an appropriate fuel for our Canadian CANDU reactors. The object of this is to try to help Russia convert their nuclear warheads into peaceful applications through the production of power in our CANDU reactors.

If it's proved through research that this is a suitable fuel, and if it's therefore suggested that plutonium would be brought in to be converted to MOX fuel to be burned in CANDU reactors, there would have to be a complete environmental assessment. Right now, as I say, for research purposes all the assessments and licensing necessary have been completed. If there were to be any further movement into our country, there would have to be total environmental assessment, including for transportation use, etc.

• 1610

The Chairman: Monsieur Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I'd like to welcome the minister to our committee. It's nice to see you here.

In some of the estimates we were reviewing, a footnote caught my attention that our Department of the Environment made a settlement on the MMT case. Part of that footnote also highlights environmental remediation. What struck me were the commitments the minister may have made or will be making on the Sydney tar ponds.

There was a question raised today, and I just wanted to follow up on it, that the JAG committee has made continuous requests for the removal of the Domtar tanks. I don't know if you know the specific issue or the various structures that are surrounding that specific site, but those requests date back to August 1997, and were made again in July 1998 and November 1998.

In your answer today in the House, you stated that if JAG makes monetary requests, you will reply to them speedily or readily. Is that something we can find in this budget, or is it part of a contingency plan for legal cases or remedial cases for priorities that pop up in the future that you'll find extra money for?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: We have signed various agreements through different stages of analysis pertaining to the JAG process, which brings all levels of government together with private citizens. The JAG has not only been given their operational budget, on a cost-sharing agreement arrangement, but they've been given the funding to carry out studies and some preliminary remediation work.

In every instance where they have required money, they have received funding. There is further analysis going on right now on how best to remediate the tanks you are referring to. They can't remove them today because the JAG is still analysing the situation, under contract. But there will be funding available when the final decisions are made and they're satisfied with the consultants' reports.

Maybe I should add that there have been three phases to the final remediation of the Sydney tar ponds. The different phases have had different scopes of agreements. But there hasn't been any lag in the process due to lack of funding.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's part of the ongoing contracts—I believe the words you used were “analysis” and “trying to find a plan”. One of the issues is dealing with the community and the street that neighbours the immediate site. Last year Environment Canada itself declared that some of the substances oozing out of the ground and into basements were literally toxic.

What is this government or your department willing to do for the residents who are hitting the media on a regular basis about the illnesses caused by these toxins? What can we do? Is there a plan in this budget, or are you working on something beyond these budget estimates?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: In this budget there is ongoing funding for the Sydney tar ponds, but there is also the necessity to continue to go to cabinet on a phased, step-by-step basis for funding for the project.

You are referring specifically, I think, to the Frederick Street residents. Last year some contamination was found in backyards, which was of extreme concern to me. The contamination showed levels of certain metals and toxics many times above CCME levels. CCME is the Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment. CCME levels of toxicity do not necessarily reflect Canadian human health exposures.

• 1615

There is analysis going on right now on new contamination that was found this spring and on the contamination that was found last year. Further studies have been contracted by the Province of Nova Scotia because the health effects fall within their jurisdiction. We are working with them, providing them with our technical and personnel assistance. We expect to have a report on that this year, because the effect on human health is of extreme concern to me.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My comments relate to the issue with respect to the Auditor General's report that was put out around this time last year. I wouldn't necessarily say the money we're allocating toward climate change is a waste of money. I just don't know if we're going to get to where we need to go.

Engaging the public is imperative. One of the reasons we were able to develop an acid rain protocol with the Americans back in 1987 was because we were able to get the Canadian public on side, to be able to say that what was going on in the eastern United States was polluting the rivers, lakes, and ponds of Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada primarily. The public said they wanted to do something about that.

I'm a little spooked by the fact that we don't really have the public engaged to the same degree on the climate change perspective. I'm concerned. And this isn't the problem of this minister or even this department in that regard; it's a matter of the capacity of the department to be able to engage in the challenges that face us.

We were able to bring about initiatives like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the acid rain treaty of 1987, the green plan that allocated $3 billion to environmental pollution prevention, and our leadership in Rio. We were able to do that from an environmental perspective because of the size of the Department of Environment during that era.

But now I look at the Auditor General's challenges with respect to CEAA on environmental assessments, where he said 99% of them had been fast-tracked. The audit focused on environmental assessments of federal projects called screenings, which account for more than 99% of the approximately 5,000 done each year.

In terms of the overall release the Auditor General put out, do you really think the department has the capacity to address the concerns of the Auditor General with respect to climate change, environmental assessment, biological diversity, and even some of the new aspects of CEPA that have been put forth, like endocrine disrupters, which we will be challenging the department to do more study on?

On my first question—and I know it's been a long one, Mr. Chair—the bottom line is does the department have the capacity to engage in these at this level? Secondly, has there been any money allocated for studying endocrine disrupters?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'll start with the last one first.

Yes, money has been allocated. The government announced a $40 million toxic substances research initiative that includes, as one of its four components, research on endocrine disrupters. An arm's-length body is reviewing applications for that funding right now. The first tranche of approvals will come to me and the Minister of Health within a month for approval. So we are doing research on endocrine disrupters.

We also got new funding to be able to activate a new CEPA. We needed new resources to deal with that, and we'll have $14 million annually to deal with a renewed CEPA.

On the climate change file, there is no way my department can do climate change all alone. It's a joint file between myself and Natural Resources Canada now, but frankly it requires the participation of every department of government. It requires every government across this country—provincial, territorial, and municipal, I hope.

We have to do a lot of work on public education and outreach, which is part of our climate change action fund. Some very exciting tools are being developed right now that will start to be implemented in the fall. For example, UBC is developing what's called a CO₂ calculator, whereby households across this country will be able to analyse their own contribution to the problem and be told how to reduce. There are other tools that are out there.

• 1620

Yes, a lot of the environmental assessment is done through screenings, and that's one of the reasons we developed a model for screenings, because we don't want to duplicate resources or dissipate resources on routine things. So there is a very thick manual that has been produced on how to do those model screenings that tend to be more routine, so that you can more quickly point out the projects that need further review.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron. You'll have a second round if you like.

Madame Kraft Sloan, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Casson, Mr. Jordan, and Madame Carroll.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you.

Minister Stewart, I'm just wondering how the standing committee will be involved in this CEAA review process.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I haven't determined that as yet. Under the legislation it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment to undertake that review. As I outlined in my opening remarks, we're going through a consulting process right now. We have our own advisory committees that are contributing to that, but we're dealing with outreach groups. I haven't made a designation on how, in the end, we will undertake the complete review, but I do hope and anticipate that the standing committee will have a role to play in that. It must be a transparent process, and I would want it to be as inclusive as possible. But I haven't made a final decision as yet.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): My questions are just to get some precision. So I'll ask all of them, because I don't think it will take long to have them answered.

The first one is on CEPA. Could you tell us what the critical path is for substantive amendments if you intend to bring them in at report stage? Are we to expect a report stage before Parliament recesses for May, or afterward?

In regard to CESPA, could you tell us if in the proposed legislation you have come to a conclusion about including the notion of habitat rather than residence, of giving COSEWIC an arm's-length authority to list?

Thirdly, have you adopted the Caccia bill's formula covering the total Canadian territory rather than just federal lands, subject to an equivalence clause by the provinces?

Fourthly, could you tell me if the commissioner's report, which is due toward the end of May, would show that there is a problem, or if there are study recommendations regarding bilaterals or the harmonization framework? What would be the process for accepting those conclusions or working on them?

Finally, to follow up on Mrs. Kraft Sloan's question on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, have you got a critical path for the review? In other words, if it starts in January, how much time do you see before the review is done? And if it were to include the committee, which I certainly hope it will, when we can expect it to come before committee?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I missed the last part of your last—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When can we expect to get it, if you do include the committee?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Okay. To begin, I'm hopeful we'll be able to bring back the CEPA legislation before our May break. I don't want to make further comment than that right now, but that's my hope. I mean, I truly do want to see us get on with this legislation and enact it.

The endangered species legislation, or species-at-risk legislation, is still in draft form, but I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Habitat is a very critical and serious issue, and we're still trying to grapple with that. As you know, the difficulty is that we do have our own federal jurisdiction for habitat, but the provinces have a lot of habitat authorities as well. How do we deal with that? We are trying to work with the provinces through the accord to develop this national safety net of protection. We're still working on that.

• 1625

The legislation will enshrine and legalize an independent, scientifically based COSEWIC analysis of species at risk, such as we have now. But it will be legalized. In other words, its stature will be enhanced by being recognized with legal authorities—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And lists?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: —to make their scientifically independent lists, yes.

With regard to total territory, the new species-at-risk legislation will be protecting all species at risk, wherever they exist in Canada—on federal, provincial, or private areas.

Your question about the report of the commissioner on sustainable development is rather hypothetical. We don't know what his report includes at the moment, but I would be very happy to answer any of your questions once we have that report.

The review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to commence January 1, and there must be a report back to Parliament on that review within a year. As I said, I want to include the standing committee in that review process, but I haven't decided as yet exactly what that role will be and what the structure of that review will be. But on January 1 I will be putting out a paper as a beginning point for review of the act.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Casson, Mr. Jordan, Madame Carroll, Monsieur Charbonneau, and the chair. Then we can have a second round.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome the minister and thank her for being here.

We've had quite a time here this last year on Bill C-32, and I imagine you've been informed as to what went on here. Some of it was quite bizarre. Now we're getting to the point where it will come back to the House at report stage, and we'll have a go at it then as well.

You mention in your opening comments on page nine about making Canadians understand the issue and trying to get them to come on board as far as helping to cure it. I'm encouraged to see that aspect in your comments, as far as education is concerned.

I would like to touch on endangered species somewhat. You indicated that it would apply to all lands—federal, provincial, and privately owned.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: All species.

Mr. Rick Casson: All species, but on all lands as well.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Wherever they occur.

Mr. Rick Casson: Wherever the endangered species occur. Okay.

We have seen some strange coalitions come out of this endangered species debate, and some very good ones. People on all sides of the issue have got together to talk about how we can do it effectively. How much of that cooperation is going to be in the new bill? Is there anything in the bill in terms of compensation for people whose livelihood is affected by recovery programs?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: With regard to this proposed legislation on species at risk, it was certainly my understanding when I became Minister of the Environment that there were perceived serious problems with the previous legislation. So my department and I have been undergoing a long period of consultation with stakeholders, and some of them have been one-on-one with stakeholders. But we have had other processes that have been multi-stakeholder, in which we brought groups together. It really has been, I think, a good process, very informative, and has helped people to understand each other's issues.

Legislation alone is not going to resolve all the problems. It's obvious that we have have to work in partnership, and stewardship as a notion has come forward as a very important concept. When COSEWIC designates a species at risk, it will be necessary to put together recovery plans, and those recovery plans are going to have to bring together all of those parties who are going to be affected by them. We're going to have to have a stewardship program to help implement those recovery plans in a way that will in fact protect species. There is legislation south of the border that is to protect species, but in fact it has allowed the destruction of species because of difficulties with the legislation. We're trying to avoid those difficulties, but have good enforceable legislation.

• 1630

Mr. Rick Casson: Just to switch gears a little bit, carbon tax has been talked about somewhat in the climate change issue, and you've said time and time again there will be no carbon tax. I want you to say it again. About carbon tax, do you mean when you say “carbon tax” also that there will be no tax at the pump?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: That's what is generally understood in a global way. Basically, I believe there are many, many opportunities to be had in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country. And we haven't even begun to address them.

Frankly, where they're most concerned about carbon taxes is in Alberta. As I was saying, they were the province that gave us the greatest push-back pre-Kyoto. And it's the industry in that province—the fossil fuel industry in particular—that has shown a lot of leadership in this country. They have been coming forward with their own in situ reductions, but also trying to find other ways to create reductions, through other kinds of investments—for example, Suncor investing in rehabilitating schools in the province, reinvesting in renewable energy, and so on. There are some very good stories.

In this province, I know, people are very frustrated by extreme fluctuations in gas prices, pump prices. You know, there is ten cents or more variation from week to week. It isn't discouraging people from driving their cars, but it is making them very frustrated.

We believe there are many effective ways and cost-efficient, beneficial ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Our national implementation strategy is trying to look at that and come back to us with recommendations about it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

Mr. Jordan, Madam Carroll, Monsieur Charbonneau.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome the minister here.

I just want to talk a little bit about cleaning up the toxic sites, where we're beginning to look at the Sydney tar ponds issue, which I guess is the poster child for toxic sites. It seems there are a number of sites that are going to require remedial cleanup, and the more we know about it, the more sites there are going to be.

I'm glad to see we're directing resources to that. But in the larger scheme of things, I would really hope we qualify these expenditures by saying we're essentially doing industry's job for them, and at the very least doing the Ministry of Industry's job for them.

Can I get a show of hands in the crowd of who works for Environment Canada?

A voice: I wanted to know too.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The reason I say this.... Okay, this is my opportunity to say it then. I think whenever we talk about toxic site cleanup, we've got to resist the notion that this is a cost that should be borne by the Ministry of the Environment. Industry has been in our face on CEPA; they've got lots of advice in terms of don't use command and control, voluntary compliance.... All this is wonderful stuff until there's a mess, and then all you see is the back of their head.

I think we should all decide.... I won't make you chant with me together, but let's maybe just adopt this notion that these are industry costs. These are costs that were not captured in the way industry spread out the economic pain and economic gain of the activities that led to these sites.

So even though initially we might want to put some money into the cleanup, I don't think we need to take this one alone. I think we should be pushing for the proper recognition of who's responsible, and that it shouldn't just be the environment ministry, because as we fight the good fight for more money, we don't want to be having this money count against what we could be using for other things.

I just hope we're conscious of that and I hope we don't lose sight of that fact, that it's good someone's doing it, but we shouldn't be doing it alone. And when we do spend money, we should make sure the appropriate ministers know we're kind of picking up the ball for them. And down the road these costs should be borne by either the people that polluted or the ministries that were responsible.

• 1635

So that's one of my concerns, because I think there's lots to do, and we shouldn't be doing other people's jobs for them, because we take it out of our budget and they get the free ride. That's my first point.

I don't know whether that requires any comment or not.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'd like to respond to that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, sure. I'll just add one little trailer to it, then, and that's on the eco-communities thing. I think it's important.

I absolutely agree with you that if you can motivate the resources at the community level you're going to get such bang for your buck. There's such a latent will to help if we just find some way of tapping into it.

Initially I was a little confused, but it's been cleared up. I think it's very important.... There are rumours flying everywhere that we may be putting money into environment in the next budget. We've got to figure out some way of motivating and activating these community groups without it being rallying around a pot of cash. Because if it's a rally around a pot of cash, you're going to get people who are very good at getting cash and getting rid of it.

I don't know how you do that, other than maybe they have to be in existence a year before they apply. I don't know how you do it. From my own experiences, as soon as you dangle the carrot of cash the whole focus of the thing changes.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: You're singing from my hymn book.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

So those are the two things. One is the very general notion that we have to always make sure we point out that these toxic sites should not be Environment Canada's responsibilities because they're not prepared to let us control the pollution. They want to be able to have us buy into a flexible model, that's fine, but if at the end of the day we're paying for the cleanup out of our budget, they can't have it both ways.

The second one, I guess, is the eco-communities.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'd like to respond to the toxic sites, because this is an enormous issue, of great concern to the federal government, and it's certainly of concern to our department as the Department of the Environment.

The federal government is not without responsibility for contaminated sites. And it's not within Environment Canada, although we have had a couple of our own sites, but Transport, NRCan, DND, DIAND.... Several departments are responsible for contamination they themselves have created in the past, and the cost is very high.

The other problem is the problem of orphan sites across our country. There are a lot of very serious contamination sites, and Sydney tar ponds is one. We no longer have the business and industry there that were responsible for it, so how do you split the responsibility among province, federal government, municipality, and so on and so forth? It makes this whole scenario very complex.

Provinces and municipalities are very responsible for licensing businesses to operate within their municipalities, and many of them levy environmental protection. Some of the better companies, from an environmental perspective, ask why they have to pay those megabucks, and the municipalities will say they're sorry, but it's because of all the others that don't and they vacate and leave them with a costly mess. So industry is paying something, but it's an issue globally that we are addressing right now as the federal government.

Mr. Joe Jordan: When I referred to industry in—

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, your time is up.

Any other answers?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I just wanted to say that I agree with what Joe is saying on the millennium eco-community. My dream is to have every community working from a geographic information system base where they can look at their MEC and see which endangered species are within my MEC, where they are, which pollutants are being emitted by whom within my MEC area, and help people to understand the air quality issues. This department has so much data that need to be made available to people in a readable, understandable fashion. I think if people have that information, that is what will inspire them to act. They don't need cash necessarily up front, as you suggest.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Madam Carroll, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1640

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Madam Minister.

Having been involved in one of the pilot projects on MEC, it is indeed an exercise in making people aware of that and also, as Mr. Jordan said, in trying to take the focus off of where's the cash and instead for them to become problem solvers themselves. But I think it's a very worthwhile endeavour and one I agree wholeheartedly with. Also, Mr. Jordan does tend to steal my thunder. I have to find a new seat.

I also have grave concern about industry and watching their tail-lights, as they say down east, when the damage is done. The library prepared an excellent background paper on the Sydney tar sands and the memorandum of understanding that has been signed with JAG and so on.

Perhaps we have to learn and take today and look forward. Then I think Mr. Jordan's comments become particularly relevant, that there has to be a real buy-in from industry, because they have indeed had ample funds for their lobby services to contact us on other issues. Those, of course, wouldn't be equal to the costs of cleanup, but there has to be an understanding that there is a relationship. So while the past is indeed murky, perhaps what we need are very clear guidelines for the future.

Mr. Jordan addressed some of my concerns, but I have another question, which has to do with the following. While we are waiting for the report from the federal environment commissioner, we have indeed benefited—I guess I shouldn't be too parochial—from the recent report of Eva Ligeti, the environmental commissioner of Ontario. Not wanting to engage in hyperbole, perhaps we could say that her report was depressing, one might even say devastating, but maybe that's when it assigns responsibility to the Ontario government. There has been a lot of press on it, enough so that I think the current government, which has now called an election, has some concerns about what they're going to meet out on the hustings.

From my perspective as a member of Parliament at the federal level, I hearken back to the concerns we had on this committee regarding the harmonization agreement. I draw your attention to your comments in that regard on page seven and ask you, when you have the advantage now of that kind of a report, how does it make you feel about that province's ability to partner with us through the ambit of a harmonization accord when they have a track record that an independent, arm's-length body has given them?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: If I might go back for a moment to contaminated sites, your concerns and every Canadian's concerns are legitimate, and that's why the principle of pollution prevention and the virtual elimination of the most toxic of the toxic substances in the new CEPA is so important. That piece of legislation does have the guidelines as to how we try to work from a pollution prevention principle.

The commissioner of sustainable development was appointed by our Prime Minister. Commissioners' reports are always going to be challenging, especially to ministers of the environment. They're not in place to give gold stars. They're trying to find out where you can improve and do a better job. I think we have done a lot. But his reports will always be informative to us, they will challenge us to do better, and they will indicate where he believes we can do a better job. So, as I say, it's challenging to get his reports, but on the other hand I think it's a good instrument for moving forward.

With regard to harmonization, as you know, our accord was challenged in the courts, but we won our case there. It was considered to be a good initiative. I understand what you're saying about the federal government working with the Province of Ontario under a harmonization accord. But under the harmonization accord, for every subagreement you sign a particular bilateral agreement, federal government and province. If a province does not meet its obligations under that agreement, with six months' notice you inform the province that they're out of compliance, and you take your action as a federal government. However, it also gives me an opportunity, because you have an agreement, to constantly challenge that province and say we have an agreement, and you're not doing it, and you have some levers. How public does that become?

• 1645

The Chairman: Madam Carroll, you can have a second round if you like.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister three questions.

The first one deals with observance and application of the law. Our committee has devoted a lot of time to examining this aspect. We found there were too few resources. In the Estimates, how can we see the extent to which you took these recommendations into account? Where can we find the control function or the application-of-the-law function?

Last year, there was an entry to this effect under the heading of “healthy environment.” This year, we can't find the figures on full-time resources.

This is my second question. You said in your presentation that you had announced a federal strategy for prohibiting massive withdrawals of fresh water. We know that this embargo was not accepted everywhere, notably in Quebec. What are your comments on that?

Thirdly, with regard to climatic changes, there are rumours saying that there will be a delay in the preparation of the national strategy, given the difficulties that will arise at some sectoral tables. There may be some blockages. Can you assure us that these rumours are false?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'll start on the first one first, CEPA. As I said in my remarks, our last budget provided $14 million annually to address CEPA issues, and part of that is because there will be increased regulations under the new CEPA and guidelines and policies. Part of that is going to additional enforcement.

I have to say, again, that in the enforcement area, despite program review and so on, the department never decreased its expenditures on enforcement. There was one unique program wherein it was decided at a community level what they wanted, and that was the Fraser River Basin initiative. They decided they wanted some enforcement and that program sunsetted. And I've put in place the Georgia Basin initiative. Whether in that initiative they will decide they want to spend some money on enforcement is up to them.

There's never been a decrease and in fact there is now an increase to enforcement. And the department, on the recommendation of this committee in its reports, has been working on the review of enforcement within my department. I think we're making some good headway and are quite happy to share that information with you.

With regard to fresh water, yes, we have agreement from all provinces for a moratorium, with the exception of Quebec. But the reality is that although Quebec didn't want to come on board with support, in fact they aren't exporting and they're going through their own process.

With regard to climate change and the national implementation strategy, and the 450 people who are sitting down trying to determine what recommendations to give to, first of all, the joint ministers meeting—the ministers of environment and ministers of energy from all jurisdictions, federal, provincial, and territorial, and then on to first ministers in the year 2000—the 450 people who are at the table are having a frustrating, difficult time. It's a lot more work than they ever had imagined, but I give them full credit for the work they are doing. They are working very hard. We still expect them to report out of their issue tables in June, as was first planned. They're telling us that this will be the case.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you here, Madam Minister.

I'd like to follow up on some of the questions that were asked by my colleague, Aileen Carroll, in connection with the bilateral agreements between the Province of Ontario and the federal government. How would you characterize the state of the relationship right now between the federal government and Ontario in terms of environmental protection? Have there been any threats, any shots across the bow, as far as possibly abrogating some of these agreements because of non-compliance by Ontario?

• 1650

Mrs. Christine Stewart: The reality is that we haven't as yet entered into implementation agreements with Ontario, but we do have agreements with Ontario outside of the harmonization accord in other areas. Frankly, I've had to send out a few letters trying to encourage more action on RAP processes and contamination problems, plus a few other areas. They have been reluctant to sign on to a few things that I think they could have. That will sound political, but I think it's also reality.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

I have two brief questions, and then we'll start the second round.

The table indicating the planned spending for 1998-99 shows a planned expenditure of $173 million for last year. This year it goes down to $168 million. The planned spending for the year 2000-2001 is $161 million, and for the following year it is $156 million. Could you indicate why there seems to be a decline in net planned expenditures, considering the fact that we are out of the exercise related to deficit reduction, or are we looking at the wrong set of figures?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'm not sure exactly where you are speaking to, but I'll let Mr. Monette reply to that.

Mr. Rodney Monette (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Environment Canada): Minister, I would be pleased to address Mr. Caccia's question. The reason for the decrease, Mr. Chair, is because this year and last year we have had a number of one-time expenditures for things such as fixing our Y2K problem. We also received money for the MMT settlement. So these are one-time items we have in this year that don't continue into future years. Also, there are items such as climate change, which involved $10 million a year for three years. Consequently, you will find that the budgets will actually show a decrease, but our program spending has actually gone up. So if you remove the one-time items, such as the year 2000 and the MMT money, you'll see that our spending on programs has actually gone up in the neighbourhood of about $20 million. We received some money for toxics, climate change, and so forth.

The Chairman: So the increase is for the overall management expenditures. Is that correct?

Mr. Rodney Monette: The increase is in the programs. Our program spending has gone up.

The Chairman: Could you then indicate, as a second question, what is happening to legislative compliance and enforcement, which was easily identified in last year's budget but which is very hard to find this year? Is the amount the same as last year, and where is it to be found?

Mr. Rodney Monette: Perhaps I could just preface my response with an explanation of what we have done in our report this year. A couple of years ago we changed the way we reported to Parliament. We changed our business lines and how we grouped our activities.

The Chairman: I realize that, but I asked you the question, where is it to be found, and what is the amount for the next fiscal year?

Mr. Rodney Monette: The amount is $18 million a year, and that has been steady. We haven't changed that. That's our base budget in enforcement, and you will find that amount included in the clean environment business line and also in the nature business line. So it's in those figures you will find the $18 million.

The Chairman: Why did you switch your presentation of that amount from last year to this year, making it so difficult to find?

Mr. Rodney Monette: When we met with the committee two and a half or three years ago, there was a suggestion that the way we were presenting our budgets to this committee weren't very simple. In fact it was difficult to determine who was accountable for the different business lines. So what we've done—

• 1655

The Chairman: I would suggest to you, Mr. Monette, that it was easier to find it last year on the legislative compliance and enforcement than having to chase it under two items that don't carry that name this year.

Mr. Rodney Monette: Yes.

The Chairman: I don't know whether you misunderstood the message from the committee then.

Mr. Rodney Monette: We've certainly tried to do a good job to make it clearer.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Rodney Monette: I'd certainly be happy to sit down with any of the members to go through that.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Charles, I think what he's trying to say is enforcement doesn't fall as one item under the department as a whole. You have your Canadian Wildlife Service with enforcement responsibilities, then you have toxics issues with an enforcement responsibility. You wanted to know who is responsible for what, and we're trying to show that within the different themes of the department now.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We now have a possibility to have a second round of one question each, beginning with Madame Girard-Bujold.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Ms. Minister, I'd like to ask you about the bill on endangered species that you are going to table. You know that that will affect all territories and all species. Will you bill give a province that already has carefully worded legislation respecting endangered species the opportunity to continue applying its law, rather than a federal law?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: No. My legislation and its protection for endangered species will apply as federal law to all jurisdictions, whether they are federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, or private. It's a criminal law provision that will protect species at risk and it will apply broadly across the whole country.

In my discussions with provinces and territories, a lot of it because of habitat, which falls within provincial jurisdiction, after getting rid of a lot of tension over the issue we've gotten down to how are we together going to protect species at risk. This is the job at hand. So we agreed, through the accord to protect species at risk, that we would implement a national safety net of protection. In order to implement the national safety net of protection, we had to look at each jurisdiction to see what kind of protection each of those jurisdictions had in place. We saw that there's a great variation from one jurisdiction to another, but different provinces have already implemented new legislation, are about to implement new legislation, or are amending current legislation, so that there is indeed a national safety net of protection and hopefully provinces will be able to provide their own protection within their own jurisdiction so there isn't the necessity of federal....

The Chairman: Monsieur Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think a lot of credit can be given to the citizens of this country if they're given an opportunity.

I want to highlight a concern I have with climate change, the issues table. There's a stark absence of labour representatives in those issue tables. When you're looking at opportunities, jobs are a major spin-off to the contribution Canadians can make to this country in the future. I think you should seriously look at that issue.

The other part is youth. Youth can play a major role in empowering a new lifestyle into the future, new technologies. I was trying to look at what sacrifices were done. There's one program called the St. Lawrence action program, which is SLAP, but you seem to have diminished the youth side. The international environmental youth corps initiative disappears this year; I don't know if your contribution is coming from elsewhere. Also, the youth internship program disappears. These two programs are $1.9 million and $1.1 million. That's $3 million of specific youth programs that are absent, that you've wiped out from your budget.

Can I challenge you maybe and suggest, instead of an international environmental youth corps, why don't we have a domestic, a Canadian, environmental youth corps, with which we can empower youth to create jobs, and to learn the adverse effects of industry or industry practices of the past, so that when they design, become engineers, community or industry leaders, or financial investors, they make the right decisions through having been empowered by seeing the harsh reality of cleaning up the past generations' mistakes.

I look at Uranium City, which is a uranium mine that looks like Beirut, like a war zone. Children still live in that community, and it's been left by industry, who just washed their hands of it. You could empower a lot of youth by having them clean up these sites, even the tar ponds or other sites in Canada. But please don't walk away from the obligations we should have to youth, as this budget has highlighted.

• 1700

Mrs. Christine Stewart: You've raised good points. I don't have the information, and I don't know whether any of my officials do, on the participation of union leaders at the table, but we have tried to cover as broad a cross-section of Canadian society as possible, including youth, aboriginal peoples, and so on, in these tables. In fact we haven't cut back on youth participation but have enhanced it because the international environmental youth corps has been so successful.

Maybe Rod can talk about where that item falls within the report, but I agree with you about the importance of the engagement of youth. They've made a very valuable contribution abroad, and most of the youth have been engaged, have found permanent employment, and they're very satisfied with the program. I would love to see more of a domestic environmental youth corps and see if they can't do some work in relation to the millennium eco-communities initiative as well, which is working on all the four environmental themes, and use their expertise, their knowledge, and enthusiasm to work with communities to improve our environment.

The Chairman: Mr. Monette, thirty seconds.

Mr. Rodney Monette: I believe we did receive some additional funding for youth programming after the estimates were prepared. I don't have those details with me, but certainly we can provide them to you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I outlined in my earlier questions what we were capable of doing when we were in government compared to maybe the agenda that we have today, and I really want to go back to the capacity of the department to engage at the level they used to do before. Before, the Department of Environment was around the seventh-largest department in government. Today, it's around the twenty-first. What I'm concerned about is that in terms of some of the daunting challenges the department has right now, as the Auditor General pointed out, I'm not so sure that you had the capacity to be able to engage and meet them. As a case in point, one issue that's very close to my heart, which Mr. Jordan touched upon but I want to refer to, is hazardous sites of the federal government, which you spoke about.

When Mr. Guimond was actually here in committee, the environment department was able to say we don't even have a good inventory of about how many hazardous sites we actually have of the federal government, and more importantly, we do not have an inventory of which hazardous sites are hazardous to human health. That inventory should be something we should engage with. From reviewing this, I still don't see how we're going to get that inventory by year's end. A year from now, will I be able to ask that same question? Will you be able to tell me how many federal hazardous sites we have that are harmful to human health?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: As I said, this is a priority for our government, and we're working on it right now. I am very hopeful and expectant that next year I can speak much more positively about our progress on not only the listing of hazardous sites, but work on analysis of hazardous sites. It is a very serious problem. It's not just within my department, but it crosses many other departments as well. It's so serious. I'm trying to take a leadership role on that issue.

When you talk about the size of our department, yes, it did go through program review, as any other department did, but at the end of the previous government's mandate they downsized our department extremely by off-loading Parks, which was a very important program in our department. I would love to have it back.

Mr. John Herron: Or have the green plan back.

• 1705

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Yes, our green plan would be nice too. But, John, it got us into a lot of debt, which we've had to deal with through program review.

Mr. John Herron: Is it fiscal debt or environmental debt?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: All debt.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In a very long article recently, the leading environmental writer in Quebec, Régis Francoeur, wrote an article about endangered species in the Quebec legislation, which is very forward-looking legislation that ties in the species at risk with habitat. As soon as a species is listed, the habitat is automatically protected. Now the Government of Quebec has decided to separate the habitat from the listing. In other words, for an endangered species of fish, the government has immediately deregulated the habitat to separate the two. Francoeur suspects it's done because Hydro-Québec wants to build a little dam in that particular habitat, in Chambly.

According to what you mentioned to us, you're covering species at risk throughout the federal territory. In a case like this, where the habitat is delisted by a province—Quebec, B.C., or whatever—would your legislation pick it up and cover the habitat?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: My legislation will indicate that it's necessary to protect species at risk wherever the species occur, whether it's in the federal, provincial, or private jurisdiction. It's a criminal offence to—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was asking about the habitat that protects the species.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Okay. Habitat is a different issue from dealing with the species.

It's an improvement over the previous legislation. The previous legislation looked after only certain species as they occurred on provincial territory or crossed jurisdictions, and even that was vague. Now it covers all species.

The habitat issue is not an easy one, because habitat is primarily within provincial jurisdiction. But I am still trying to work on that issue.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: With Quebec?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: There's no problem with species on federal lands, and when they cross international borders. We're still working on this national safety net of protection.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So there will be two governments covering the species, with no government covering the habitat that keeps the species alive. I find that really extraordinary.

The Chairman: Mr. Casson, please.

Mr. Rick Casson: In regard to the water export policy, I think I saw that on the long-term agenda for the House, to be tabled before the House adjourns in June. Is that the plan?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Yes, it is.

Mr. Rick Casson: Talking about industrial waste, nuclear waste, we heard at committee here that a study was done and a plan was developed to take care of this, but politically it's not saleable. What's in the plans of Environment Canada to further the control of nuclear waste?

We're talking now of bringing in from other countries MOX fuel to be burnt. Even after it's burnt, it's still hot; we're going to compound the problem. Is there a strategy in place to deal with nuclear waste in Canada on a long-term basis?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: The responsibility for nuclear issues is not within my department; it's within the Department of Natural Resources. The responsibility of my department with regard to nuclear is to do environmental assessments to make sure that the substances are dealt with in an environmentally correct way. But it is the responsibility of NRCan, which has responsibility for AECL and the AECB.

Mr. Rick Casson: So that has done an environmental assessment of nuclear waste?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: That's right. But that happens all the time. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, there are certain so-called federal triggers that will trigger environmental assessments. Some of those triggers are under fisheries, for example. Or whenever the federal government expends federal dollars on a project, that's in a trigger for the agency to do an environmental assessment. For Natural Resources Canada, if there's federal funding in those projects or if any other trigger is there, we will be doing an environmental assessment. But nuclear issues per se are the responsibility of Natural Resources Canada.

• 1710

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have one quick question. I want to talk a little bit about the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

Currently, in the St. Lawrence River system water levels are three feet below a thirty-year average. There are some water management issues, and it gets complicated, because it is the International Joint Commission that makes those decisions. But we have situations where wetlands are being drained, and on the American side they have legislation coming through Congress that requires that environmental assessment be done as they pertain to water management, water-level decisions. I wonder if that line is something this ministry would look at as well.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I think that hearkens back to the strategy we announced in February, where we are requesting that all jurisdictions join with us to do an analysis of our fresh water, and we want a moratorium on all withdrawals of bulk water because we simply don't understand enough about the consequences of bulk withdrawals and we don't understand entirely the relationship between groundwater and fresh water as it sits in freshwater basins.

I would hope that the International Joint Commission, which has been asked to come back with recommendations to us, might address that kind of issue.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Carroll, please.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Madam Minister, as one final point, long ago I was asking a question about the Ontario government. I have grave concerns about one of our partners who has given so little priority to protection of the environment. And I don't think that's anything but an objective statement; it doesn't even have to be partisan. Every outside source has concluded that this government has very little concern, and it makes me very sad when I hear that the Minister of the Environment for the federal government has to resort to writing letters because we have so devolved, it seems to me, whether it's through the harmonization accord—and we don't need to go there—or before, and all that sits for you to do is the power to write a letter to a government for which, if they got a lot of letters in a day, writing to the Minister of the Environment certainly wouldn't be their first priority, as they've shown in their actions. But we've been there.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: May I respond to that?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, of course you can.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I was going to say that in these other agreements, the federal government hasn't given up any authority. It's an agreement with the province, so that we're going to take our action and you're going to take your action; and you're not taking your action, so please—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: If they don't, then what?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: For example, if it's a RAP site, we're taking more responsibility, but that's not fair. Constituents in my area know that the province isn't taking their responsibility, so the process has slowed up.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It has slowed up.

On endangered species, to try to turn it more on the positive side, will the existence of the harmonization accord assist you—that is to say, assist the federal government?

By the harmonization accord, I'm talking about a philosophy as well as a legal document, a philosophy that reflects a new partnership among levels of government. So when you're negotiating on the very important issue of habitat, will there be, from your perspective, a new sense of cooperation in that regard as a result of this new arrangement into which we have entered?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: The harmonization accord that we signed has nothing to do with the issue of species at risk or nature, but we do have the accord between the provinces on the protection of species at risk, and it's under that accord that we're trying to develop this concept of a national safety net of protection for species. They're two different things.

My sense is that there's a lot more cooperation and a sense that we have to protect species at risk, and how are we going to achieve the objectives respecting each other's authorities, and when an authority isn't used, how do we deal with that?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm sure my time is up.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1715

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, before asking you a question about something that hasn't been raised, I have a wish to express, namely for the Minister to send us some explanations on the estimate for enforcing the act. You answered us and you answered the Chairman. I checked with a few people, and we didn't really understand the answers you gave us concerning the estimate for enforcing the act. You told us that it's part of this or that, but what is the exact amount allocated to that? We have to have an amount to compare last year and this year, and so that we can follow up next year. At present, it's confusing for us. Nonetheless, it's an important subject, which we examined in depth. It's frustrating for us not to be able to follow our topic in the figures you are giving us. That's my wish.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: No problem. We'll provide you with that information as quickly as possible.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, my question is about weather and environment forecasts. This is not a topic that we deal with often, although it's a major portion of the budget. It accounts for $224 million out of $618 million. These are huge figures, and I wonder what the Department of the Environment has to do with weather forecasts. We can't do anything about it. Whether they predict a shortage of water, or there's going to be rain, or snow, what can we do about it?

At present, we're going through a major drought and we would need water. Was this forecast? Even if it had been forecast, we can't do anything about it. I'd like someone to tell me why we have to spend $225 million a year to try and forecast things while, when there are mistakes, they say the phenomenon couldn't be predicted. How can this expenditure of $225 million be justified? I'd like to know whether there are any studies indicating that the more we invest in this, the more accurate the results are. Is it actually worthwhile?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'm sure if most Canadians looked at our budget they would ask the same question you are asking, because our services are not well understood, from my point of view. But it's one of the most important services within the department, and every bit of the budget is merited.

Certainly the people in Oklahoma and Kansas today must be most appreciative of the meteorological services that prevented a much heavier death and injury toll than was experienced there. They were warned for hours beforehand about the impending disaster and told to go into their basements. Everybody knew beforehand what was happening, that it was an impending disaster.

Time and time again this is the relevance and importance of weather prediction and weather forecasting. Frankly, when my department hasn't given a weather prediction or forecast—they're getting shorter time spaces all the time, and we're putting crawlers on television screens now to warn people in advance of impending disasters—we get a lot of heat when people feel there hasn't been adequate prediction or forecasting. They really think we're supposed to be seers, it seems at times.

This service also helps fishermen—they listen. Consider that 85% of the Canadian population plugs into this information every day. It might be just for a wedding. But fishermen going out on the high seas want to know. People in the north who are travelling a distance want to know what the weather forecasts are, because if you get stranded in a blizzard you're in trouble. People want to know about ice floes. Weather forecasts are also important for those in agriculture.

Forecasting also contributes to our understanding of climate change. When we talk about scientists internationally who say that climate change is a serious issue, most of that science around climate change comes from my department.

I made an announcement in February with Minister John Manley, who's in charge of the Canadian Space Agency. There was an agreement to spend x million dollars—I can't remember how much any more—for our next Canadian satellite to go up into outer space. Its sole purpose is to look at stratospheric ozone and also some implications for climate change. So this science is extremely important to us.

• 1720

Farmers listen to our weather forecasts because they don't want to put fertilizers or any other chemicals on their fields if they know they're going to be blown away or washed away. So it's a cost saving for different industries.

Our airports can't operate without Environment Canada's weather services. You have to know that every time you step on a plane, the pilots have plugged into Environment Canada to understand exactly what kind of weather is coming in their direction.

On the Y2K problem, we've had to spend $52 million in my department on preparation for Y2K. Our preparations will be finished by the end of June. The bulk of that expenditure had to be spent in our atmospheric environment services or meteorological services.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Pratt, you have questions. You can start a quick third round, because Mr. Charbonneau—whom I thank—asked the same question I would have asked on legislative compliance and enforcement. I understand that Mr. Monette or the deputy will provide the committee with a very comprehensive explanation as to where it's to be found and how it compares to last year. Is that understood?

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, followed by Mr. Laliberte and Mr. Lincoln.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Ms. Minister, I want to get back to the question of plutonium because it interests me a great deal and it worries me a great deal where the environment is concerned. Even if they say another department is responsible for it, I think it's the environment that may suffer most from the importing of plutonium. If the studies are conclusive, because Mr. Chrétien wrote to Mr. Clinton to tell him that he was quite in favour of importing plutonium to help the Americans get rid of this substance, who is going to assume the costs of importing the plutonium? We know it will be burnt in Ontario's nuclear stations. We also know that these stations are obsolete, that they will have to be renovated and that all that will be in Ontario's interest. Who's going to pay the costs? Will it be Canadians? Will these costs be spread out across the country?

Earlier you mentioned the importing of dangerous products from the United States. You know that we have a big problem concerning the incineration of PCB-based substances. At present, the Department of the Environment is thinking about getting rid of the manifest. The manifest is important when we import from other countries, because hazardous products are the responsibility of the federal government. We recently saw in La Presse that you were thinking getting rid of the manifesto. This really makes me stop and think because I'm dealing with that in my region. We don't want to become Canada's garbage can. Secondly, it's important to find out what's contained in the hazardous materials and contaminated land we import, especially from the United States.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I just have to repeat again that nuclear issues are within the Department of Natural Resources. Ontario Hydro are changing their business structure and will be operating as a private entity. I understand the Canadian people will not be paying for this, but we're only at the research stage; we don't even know whether it's going to happen.

The U.S. says if it proves to be an adequate fuel, they won't be sending their plutonium to Canada; they will use it as a fuel in their own country. I don't know what happens to Russian plutonium, but there are CANDU reactors in other parts of the world as well. So it's just a research project at this point, but it is within the authority of Natural Resources Canada, not mine.

Under the Basel Convention, an international convention Canada signed on to, we have to control the flow of hazardous wastes across our border. Anybody who is going to bring hazardous waste into our country has to have a licence to do so, and on that licence they have to indicate what they are bringing into the country. We have to be assured it is handled properly.

But the provinces also have a responsibility, because they license the sites where these hazardous wastes are treated or disposed. They have to make sure their provincial sites are up to provincial regulations. So we handle the import to make sure the manifest, for example, is explicit on what hazardous waste is coming in, where it is going, and that there is a provincial licence to dispose of it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

• 1725

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, please ask a very short question so other colleagues can ask short questions too. We have only five minutes left.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I welcome the minister to the committee. I'd also like to welcome the deputy minister. I believe this is my first opportunity to meet Len Good.

We've raised the issue of CEPA at this committee before. Pardon us if we're so hooked on it and spend so much time on it, but making it enforceable is a big concern. We highlighted this a year ago, and now the budgets are here and there.

Are you aware of any regional offices that may have been denied investigative or enforcement powers because of a lack of funds at any time? On these program reviews that have taken place, because of financial implications the country was facing, will there be another review of the programs Environment Canada has right now, to enforce and expand the capabilities we have with such a broad mandate here?

Mr. Len Good (Deputy Minister of the Environment): You have raised two questions. On the first one, I am not aware of the kind of situation you described. As you know, we typically do our enforcement planning on at least a year-ahead basis. We sit down with all the relevant people in the department and establish a plan, setting out our priorities for enforcement on a regional basis. On that basis we proceed, obviously taking into account the funds we have. So it's not a matter of a one-off request to do this or that. We have quite a planned approach to enforcement.

On your second question, on program review and whether we are doing anything, as the minister has said, it's a priority for her and the department in the months ahead. Since the committee has produced its report, we have been paying a lot of attention to that issue in the department.

As the chairman knows, there are studies in 15 different areas that are now well advanced and leading us toward some conclusions. Hopefully we'll be in a position to talk about those with the minister in the months ahead, and she can decide how we'll proceed. But it's a very serious matter for the department, and there's a lot of work going on.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to ask Mr. Gershberg a question about environmental assessment. We have lost cases on Sunpine, because we didn't take the whole project to court. We lost the Cheviot mine project. We're now being sued on Suncor. I've seen in the cases of Divek and the St. Lawrence dredging, on which I wrote to the minister, where one ministry—in the case of Divek, Indian Affairs, in the case of St. Lawrence dredging, the fisheries ministry—says they have looked at it and insists everything is fine. So the minister then says all right, we go ahead. It seems to me that in every case that has been challenged in court, the courts have castigated the agency for not respecting its own legislation.

Are you taking any lessons or conclusions from these court cases? Are you looking at beefing up the regulations and the act—I think sections 18 and 28 come to mind—to give the minister much more of an oversight in decisions made by other departments?

Mr. Sid Gershberg (President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Let me say first of all that we obviously take all of these court challenges very seriously. This is a relatively new act; it's four and a half years old. I suppose through experience it's quite universal, whether it's environmental assessment or other pieces of legislation, that in the early years there is testing.

To put it into context, we've had about 25,000 environmental assessments under the act since 1995, and there have been relatively few challenges, although they have been very serious. Every one is taken seriously, and we look at their consequences. I can't comment on specific ones because they are, as you know, before the courts, and I'd rather not comment.

• 1730

There are of course other cases, and some recently. The minister referred to the CELA case just a week ago. There was a recent case in Voisey's Bay where in fact the challenge has failed. There is a mix of signals, and each one informs the legislation. As a result, changes to procedures and guidelines and so on take place.

There is the five-year review coming up. I do recall, Mr. Lincoln, that last year you raised the issue of public participation. That's one of the things we will be looking at very seriously. We've had indications from some public groups that they're concerned about public participation under the act. That's going to be one of the things certainly we'll be looking at quite seriously in the five-year review, among others.

Legal challenges are important. We do analyse them very carefully and look at what modifications have to be made and we work with the responsible authorities with the departments and agencies to see that those changes are made.

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, would you like to ask the final question, shortly, please.

Mr. John Herron: As my colleague mentioned, we're a little preoccupied by CEPA, given the amount of time we spent on it in the last little while.

I just want to see if I can see some kind of a guidance from you on one particular item. If there is one law from another department, and we have CEPA—and that law could be agricultural or other—would it be your preference to be able to say that when it comes to human health and protection of the environment, the decision made about which law should be used should be done by (a) the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment; (b) the Minister of Health, the Minister of Environment, and one other; or (c) the Governor in Council? My preference would be to have at least Health, Environment, and one other to look at it, as opposed to throwing it into this little murky thing called Governor in Council. I'd like to see what your preference would be on that.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: To go back, when a law is within the jurisdiction of another department, the law remains within their jurisdiction, within their department. It's the role of my department, on the basis of science, to determine whether the law is regulated or dealt with through guidelines and policies in a way that is adequate to meet the scientific concern about that substance. It's not for me to take it over; it's for me to make a judgment on the basis of my science or the Department of Health's science as to whether that other law is sufficient to meet the scientific concern.

The issue you are addressing is who should have the responsibility for determining whether the other law is adequate—is it the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Health together, or is it the Governor in Council? The reality is that if I am dealing with agriculture and the Minister of Health and I have something to say about that issue, either the Minister of Agriculture agrees or he disagrees. If he disagrees, the Governor in Council is going to decide. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment can go out and use the big hammer and come down, but it's not gong to accomplish an awful lot at the end of the day.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

There seems to be an interest of members to have a session with Mr. Gershberg, so we'll probably arrange for something early next week. There are thirty votes waiting for us in the House, so we have to move. We only have ten minutes.

We thank the minister and the officials.

This meeting is adjourned.