ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 18, 1998

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will be considering the enforcement of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, including related regulations and administrative agreements.

[English]

We have received, compliments of the clerk, some interesting documents, and I want to make sure you are aware of that. One is a study that dates back to April 1996, produced by Monique Hébert and Tom Curran from the Library of Parliament, entitled “CEPA Review”. This document is a good foundation for anyone who wants to see a comparison. It is two years old, but nevertheless is a first step in the direction we would like to go when we examine the bill when it is introduced, hopefully in a few weeks. You might want to have a look at this document because it will give you an idea of the magnitude of the task ahead of us, when instead of two documents we will actually be comparing four, if not five.

You have also received a document from the clerk today, which was just distributed. It was produced late because of the translation speed. It's by Monique Hébert and it's dated February 16, 1998. It is intended to help members tackle the task today, tomorrow, and in the weeks ahead. It is on the enforcement of CEPA.

I would like to draw the attention of members to page 3 in particular, to what this document outlines with respect to the Fisheries Act. This document is about 13 pages long, plus appendices.

I think we have another document that was distributed by the clerk yesterday or the day before, but I can't get my hands on it, so you just have to take my word for it. Oh yes, this is the one. It is the summary of the recommendations this committee made on CEPA in June 1995. “CEPA Revisited” is the title, and the title of the committee report is “It's About Our Health!”. It is one of the documents we will keep in mind when we start our review of the legislation, if and when, with its glacial speed, it reaches this committee.

• 1540

We have four or six witnesses here today, and perhaps I should invite one of them, François Guimont, to introduce the others. Would you like to do that?

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, would you like me to introduce the people who are with me here today and then immediately give you my presentation, or would you like me to stop after I make the introductions?

The Chairman: As you like.

Mr. François Guimont: If you wish, I will introduce the people with me and then continue with my presentation.

I am very happy to be back before the committee to discuss enforcement of the Act. On my right is Mr. Ian McGregor, director General of National Programs. He is responsible for enforcing the act, as well as for issues relating to the operational aspects of environmental emergencies. Mr. McGregor's directorate is National Programs. Some departmental directorates are located almost entirely at Head Office, while others are completely decentralized. National programs fall somewhere between the two. The directorate genuinely manages national programs affecting regional operations.

The Chairman: What sort of national programs?

Mr. François Guimont: Just national programs, Mr. Chairman. He is Director General of National Programs.

The Chairman: All programs?

[English]

Mr. François Guimont: As I was explaining, the national programs in question fall under the area of environmental emergencies and enforcement. Mr. McGregor has responsibility for environmental impact assessment as it feeds into the responsibilities of the agency, and he also has some corporate responsibilities within the environmental protection program. That's why we call that group a national program.

The Chairman: Does Mr. McGregor find time to sleep?

Mr. François Guimont: The next person is Dale Kimmet. Dale Kimmet is the person directly responsible for the office of enforcement. He's the director of enforcement under Mr. McGregor.

What we have done for the members today is also reach out into the regions, so we have not only the headquarters people but also two regional directors.

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay is Environmental Protection Director in Montreal. He is responsible for enforcing the Act in the region.

His Ontarian counterpart is Mr. Ron Shimizu.

[English]

On top of that, what we've done is ask the people who are closely related to enforcement activities in the regions to come with both Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Shimizu. So we have

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier is not at the table, but is available to answer your questions. He represents Quebec, like Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Rob Patzer is Mr. Gonthier's counterpart for the Prairies and the North. He is also directly responsible for enforcing the Act.

So we have an excellent panel of experts responsible for enforcing the Act.

I will let Mr. Swanson and his colleague introduce themselves when they make their own remarks.

[English]

The Chairman: Can you do it now?

Mr. Gerry Swanson (Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Certainly. I'm Gerry Swanson. I'm the director general of habitat management and environmental science with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans here at DFO's national headquarters, and I have with me Mr. Grant Pryznyk, who is our director of conservation and protection from our central and Arctic region. He's located in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Go ahead, please.

Mr. François Guimont: Thank you.

We have given the committee clerk

[English]

a deck presentation in both languages. What I will do is go through the deck very quickly, slide by slide, to give the members a feel for enforcement in Environment Canada.

The first slide after the cover sheet essentially talks about environmental protection laws. Just to put things in perspective, we are responsible for the administration of 32 regulations, 26 of them under CEPA and 6 of them under the Fisheries Act. The two overarching pieces of legislation for those 32 regulations are CEPA and the Fisheries Act.

• 1545

We have also filed with the clerk an outline of the 32 regulations so that members can see in detail what those regulations are.

The next slide is on the role of enforcement. As Mr. Glenn mentioned when he appeared before the committee on the topic of hazardous waste, the overall goal of the department is compliance with the law, conformity with the law. This is tied to our results-based agenda, where we want to talk about results for the environment, on the environment. Therefore, one of the strategies we're using in doing so is to promote and provide for compliance.

Compliance is a continuum, as it says on the second bullet. It's a continuum in the sense that it includes compliance promotion but also enforcement actions. So it's a continuum under what we call compliance activities.

The next slide gives a graphic description of how we see our compliance strategy. The bell curve is a representation of how we see the regulated people fitting into that compliance continuum.

If I start on the right-hand side, as with any bell curve, there's an appreciation for a smaller but existing number of people who are leaders in environmental performance, and that is what this is expressing. These people want to go beyond what the law is asking them to do. Very often in the past we've referred to people being keen on moving on pollution prevention, voluntary action, and things of that nature. They're not just pushed to do things; they want to go beyond, and they see a number of advantages for that, which are tied to their businesses.

We would like to think that the bulk of people are naturally complying through various means, and our compliance promotion approach ensures that the bulk of these people are within that area of the bell curve.

As we get closer to the tail-end of the curve, as I call it, towards the left-hand side, we have people who have experienced or could experience problems meeting regulatory requirements. As you can see, this is where we have the offenders. As you get towards the smaller end of the curve, you get into cases that are the more refractory to being in line with regulations and conformity with the law.

The shaded area essentially represents an area where enforcement actions being taken induce these people who are in the grey area, towards the tail-end of the curve, to move more squarely towards full compliance, and more on their own.

The idea of this curve is to show members that through the various actions we have—perhaps it's our overall compliance program, composed of compliance promotion and enforcement, as it is broken down, together with other programs we have—the ultimate aim is one of pushing the majority of people, not only towards what I would call square compliance in the sense of being compliant with laws and regulations, but also towards becoming more and more performance leaders. That's an aim that Environment Canada would like to have as a goal, ultimately.

The next slide talks about us and our enforcement program. As I was explaining earlier to the members, it is delivered through our five regions. We have the regional directors—you have two of them today—who are actually responsible for taking operational decisions on enforcement issues. The headquarters is responsible for creating cohesion and coherence through the program. As you can appreciate, it is decentralized by being in the regions, and there is what we call

[Translation]

in bureaucratic terms a functional accountability,

[English]

a functional accountability, as opposed to the other way of having a relationship in the organizational structure, which is a line responsibility. I want to stress that the relationship between headquarters and the five regions is one of functional responsibility.

The next slide talks about our resources. We made that point earlier on. During program review the enforcement resources were not decreased; they remained stable.

The second and third bullets speak to a way for the program, for the department, to reach out in its capacity to enforce. We're not there totally. We have made steps and strides, but it's obvious from the interaction with the committee and the conclusions of the auditor general that it is an area, as we have explained before, where we need to invest more.

The reaching out has to do with partnership—partnership with the provinces, and the harmonization agreement is there for that, but also partnership at the national level, when we think of our colleagues in Revenue, Customs, at the border; continentally, North America, with U.S. counterparts, as I explained before; and internationally, for those things related to transboundary movement of regulated substances.

• 1550

So the reaching-out portion of our resources enhances the program impact without necessarily having more resources flowing in or being in DOE.

[Translation]

The third bullet is to help you understand the additional factors that increase our capacity to enforce the Act. The first is NEMISIS, the National Enforcement management Information System and Intelligence System. This is a new computerized system that provides more effective connections among the regions and with Head Office. The new links enhance information transfer and improve program efficiency.

You will notice that the word "intelligence" is in the title.

[English]

As I mentioned earlier, the intelligence function in our enforcement program is something new. We want to develop it, because we feel very strongly that the need to go upstream to the industry and understand how things are happening is going to be an important way of our ultimately being able to measure both success at the border and smuggling issues.

[Translation]

The second bullet is entitled "Technologies for Borders". I spoke about it briefly.

[English]

You know about the sniffers for CFCs. We would like to see if further applicable technologies would be available to other border issues in terms of other regulated substances.

[Translation]

Computerized training: we discussed it briefly with our colleagues from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

[English]

We would like to see them able to augment their capacity to understand the programs through computerized self-training packages. Again, those are examples of us trying to augment the reach in our program.

[Translation]

On the next transparency, you have a more detailed overview of program resources.

[English]

I won't go through it, because it's quite obvious what the dollars are, and the resources. The only point I would make is that the people you see there are people squarely dedicated to investigation and inspection. The point I'm making indirectly here is that in our system we do have individuals dealing with emergencies. They are designated inspectors under CEPA, but we did not account for them here. So what you're getting here are the people who are doing full-time inspecting and investigating on the ground.

Now, the way we do business, we touch on all aspects of our legislative mandate. Our enforcement activities touch on that continuum within the enforcement function—inspection and monitoring; investigation of violations when they are picked up through an inspection; and measures to compel people to get back into compliance. Again, a number of items are there. There can be warning letters, a direction from the inspector, an injunction, or a delaying of charges.

These components are articulated in our program against the backdrop largely contained in our enforcement and compliance policy. So the enforcement and compliance policy under CEPA is the document that outlines how the department is proceeding with its enforcement function.

There is a national compliance promotion plan. This is a new item that will be coming on board. There's also the national inspection plan. The national inspection plan sets out the targets, the priorities, and the number of inspections that need to be carried out. It reflects regional realities. It is tailored, if you wish.

That document essentially is the bible people will be using in a given fiscal year in discharging the enforcement program.

The compliance promotion plan is going to be un pendant. It's going to be a mirror image. As it says, it's compliance as opposed to enforcement. The enforcement plan is, by its very nature, confidential. The compliance promotion plan will be available to members. That plan outlines the measures the department intends to put forward in a given year to augment compliance through promotion activities.

• 1555

There is an emphasis on training, as we said earlier. It's not only for our own people but also the people we deal with—Customs, Excise, etc. The information and data management system I spoke about briefly, and the partnership is a trust that we want to enhance.

As far as the inspection plan, you just have a bit of a breakdown of what it is composed of—national and regional priorities. Various strategies and tactics are being proposed. This is following interaction between the regions and headquarters. The number of inspections to be carried out, the frequency, and details of that nature are part of that plan.

The compliance promotion plan I have explained, so I won't go into details, but you have what the basic components should be for that plan as it is being produced.

The second-to-last slide essentially explains the challenges we are facing and these challenges as a function of our own analysis, of what the auditor general is saying, of the interaction with the committee. So it's an an amalgamation of these various findings, if you wish.

There is a challenge at the border, and we have to do better and organize ourselves better. I've explained how we were planning to do that, and as you can see, partnership is a key element in being more effective at the border.

The issue of sophisticated violators speaks to better intelligence-gathering capacity, and that's the way we want to address that.

The continuous learning has to do with being able to train the people at the border. If it's not an Environment Canada employee, that person extending our reach has to have a capacity to be effective in recognizing things and afterwards being able to call us in so we can do the work we're supposed to be doing.

Hazardous materials: I mentioned the idea of new technologies. That's partly the way—not solely, partly—we would like to address this issue.

Results measures: that's been said by the auditor general. We were questioned on a number of occasions about results measures. As an example, is number violation a valid results measure?

The point I'm making here is that right now we have to move from the number of inspections we carry out and where we carry them out to a better definition of what we would like to see as being transparent results measures when the program is being assessed afterwards. There is a challenge there in terms of getting our minds around that—what it means and how to do it properly.

The maximization of resources speaks to targeting the worst offenders—the bad guys, essentially. Once again, the intelligence function is going to be key. There's also a recognition of the need to tie better links between the headquarters operation and the regional operations—to have better coherence and consistency in the way we approach enforcement.

The last slide is about the partnership aspects, just to recap very quickly. These are things that are happening as we speak. We took the time to put the deadlines there again, which are consistent with the time lines we've offered in the various auditor general action plan responses we've given. Revenue Canada and Customs this spring—we will have a renewed MOU, which will be, as you will remember, broader than the one we have right now, with sub-elements that can be built into it. It is very critical to have an MOU with the RCMP, and we would like to see that by the end of 1998, essentially this winter.

The provinces: we need to crack open that element called a subagreement on inspections and see what it means versus enforcement. That discussion needs to take place, so this is something that will be taking place over the next two years, essentially.

International: I spoke about working more closely with the U.S. EPA, Justice. Internationally there is also the Interpol connection, which is international as opposed to just continental.

On the intelligence side, expansion of our capacity: I spoke about that during the time of the presentation of the auditor general. Specific plans are developed, as an example, in the case of the import-export hazardous waste regulation. This is an example that is given—a specific action plan for that regulation.

So this, Mr. Chairman, situates the enforcement program from an Environment Canada perspective. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

[English]

Mr. Swanson, would you like to make your presentation now?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Thank you. I'll make a very short statement, after which, Mr. Pryznyk and I will be available to answer any of your questions.

Essentially, the text of my remarks was distributed through the clerk yesterday. What I would like to do is explain the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in regard to the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and our relationship with the Department of the Environment.

• 1600

Going way back to 1971, DFO and DOE were part of the same department, which in those days was known as the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. There were two major services within that department. One was the fisheries service and another was the Environmental protection service.

In 1971 there was an agreement drawn up between the two services that set out the responsibilities of each of them with respect to certain provisions of the Fisheries Act. Back in those days, the principal section in the Fisheries Act relating to pollution was section 33. With amendments to the Fisheries Act, that section has now been renumbered and it's essentially contained in section 36 of the act.

That agreement of 1971 provided that the environmental protection service would assume responsibility for: the administration of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act; the development of national effluent regulations; the compilation of inventories of pollution problems and sources; conducting water quality assessments; the development and negotiation of solutions to problems on the enforcement of the legislation; dealing with provincial governments and referrals from them; acting as a single point of contact for the public and the industry and governments for problems related to the protection of the environment.

Briefly summarized then, the environmental protection service was to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, as Mr. Guimont has explained.

The responsibilities of the then fisheries service were to administer the provisions of the Fisheries Act related to the control of physical alterations to habitat—currently, that's section 35 of the Fisheries Act—and to identify ambient water quality requirements for the optimum management of the fisheries resource. These would be the basis of effluent regulations to be developed by the environmental protection service.

Following the establishment of a separate Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1978, these arrangements were confirmed in a letter from the prime minister of the day to the two ministers of the new departments. As I indicated, that letter essentially confirmed the arrangements that had been drawn up in 1971. That really is the arrangement that continues to this day.

Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans also has enforcement capability, particularly in the coastal areas of the country, where we have fishery officers deployed. In those areas, fishery officers provide important assistance to DOE by bringing to the department's attention any incidents involving the deposits of deleterious substances that may require investigation by DOE or the provincial authorities. Those officers are also available to assist the enforcement staff of the Department of the Environment in any enforcement actions that ensue as a result of this first response capability.

Essentially, that's the relationship we have. We work very closely with the Department of the Environment, particularly in providing them with scientific expertise in matters related to the protection of fisheries populations that may be affected by effluents and pollution problems.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Swanson. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the trouble to bring us up to speed, starting with 1971. It would have been helpful if you had also given the committee some background on what is happening in more recent times, particularly since last September when Ontario decided not to proceed with the implementation of section 35.

In other words, you could have given the committee a picture on bilateral agreements with provincial governments, on whether they function, and if so, to what extent. When they have been suspended, as in the case of Ontario, why is this so, and what is being done?

It seems to me, therefore, that your presentation needs to be completed. How do you propose to do that?

• 1605

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I can make some remarks on that now if you wish. I understood that you wanted to talk about the pollution provisions of the act, and that's why our presentation was directed that way, but I'd be pleased to provide you with an—

The Chairman: Section 35 deals with bilateral agreements, and some of them are wobbling, if not being suspended. I think that is an essential part of what we are discussing here today. I wonder whether you would like to do it in writing and send it to the committee, in case it is not raised in the course of this afternoon. You can indicate to the committee what the present situation is, province by province, and what measures you're taking when, as in the case of Ontario, the agreement has been suspended, frozen, expired, whatever. In Ontario we are in no man's land. It's not a minor region for that matter.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'd be pleased to do that, sir, but perhaps I could just say in closing that because Ontario has withdrawn from certain cooperative arrangements, which we had in Ontario for a number of years, the minister has taken action to redirect resources within the department to try to cope with those problems. This redirection of resources has involved the engagement of fisheries biologists, who are now reviewing project proposals emanating in Ontario that could have impacts on fish habitat. We have also moved experienced fishery officers into Ontario from other parts of the country, so we will have an enforcement capability there.

The Chairman: Would you provide the members of the committee with a memo on this matter indicating what is happening?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes, I will.

The Chairman: All right, thank you very much.

Are there any further speakers? If not, I will start, as we usually do, with the Reform Party.

Mr. Casson, would you like to pick it up?

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

You're redirecting resources and trying to stretch what you have. Do you feel with the cuts that have taken place in the last number of years in Environment Canada you're still able to do a decent job of enforcement? In order to have compliance, enforcement is important. Can you do that with what's presently available?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, generally speaking, the department was reduced with program review cuts. The enforcement function within the department was not reduced; it has remained the same. I'm trying to go by memory here. I think the average overall for the department was about 30%, and in the case of enforcement it remained at zero. It's not that there are no resources; it was not reduced in any way.

The commissioner, Mr. Emmett, spoke of efficiencies. Before one speaks of needing more resources, being challenged, having a problem, and being unable to cope, one has to look at efficiencies within the system. And we are doing that. When I speak of the connection between headquarters and the region, this is what we're speaking of. When I refer to NEMISIS, when I refer to training, that's what I'm speaking about; that's what I'm addressing.

The issue of efficiency is a bit like a sponge, I must admit, however. In going through the efficiency measures and effectiveness, you don't really know how much you're going to be saving or gaining, but that's something we want to go through and go through in a cyclical way. I don't want to say here that in the past efficiency measures and effectiveness were not considered, but it is something you get better at with time.

I said also last week that if you look at the office of enforcement, it is a relatively new program—1993. This is not an excuse, but if you look at an enforcement agency that has been operational for 50 or 60 years, we are in a mode of developing a culture. We are in a mode of creating the efficiencies, which will give us results as we put these efficiencies into effect.

The third item I would refer to is partnership, the reach aspect. We have added only one MOU with Revenue, and we want to renew it. There's openness and we need to reach out so that when we carry out inspections at the border.... Let's take this example. I would say that the border people become our muscle in some way. They are there. They have a systematic presence across the land. I don't remember the number; it was mentioned by my colleague before the committee last week. To be able to create the relationship between that muscle and the border.... The auditor general did pick up deficiencies at the border, there's no question about it. So we use that muscle by creating a continuum of understanding between the people at the border and Environment Canada people.

• 1610

That I want to speak to. It takes a bit of time. It's not instantaneous. Even if we had a relationship with the customs people, renewing the MOU, setting a new footing for a better relationship not only with them but also with the RCMP and our counterpart on the U.S. side.... That is another sponge, if you wish. How much are we going to be getting out of that? I'll be able to speak to it in a number of months...normally. When these things are in place and become effective, you can appreciate the further impact you have on your program.

As for your question about whether it will be sufficient, we need to assess after we have properly squeezed those two sponges. There's more than that, because the federal-provincial aspect is also something that can give positive results by creating a continuum between the federal actions and the provincial actions. A combination of these items on the ground, with time—and I can't define time right now. Is it two years, three years? With time, as they gel, they should give a better impact to the program.

Mr. Rick Casson: Are you able to respond now to every incident that's reported to you as a polluting act? If somebody sees something, knows something, and it's reported, are you able to go out to each and every case in Canada?

Mr. François Guimont: One of the principles of our enforcement compliance policy is that every call of that nature needs to be addressed. We need to have somebody carry out an inspection or someone who moves from an inspection mode to an investigative mode. That is our policy.

Mr. Rick Casson: So every time there's a call, there's a response?

Mr. Dale Kimmet (Director, Enforcement Branch, Environment Canada): Of some sort.

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, my colleague is saying of some sort indeed. Mr. Kimmet is referring to the analogy of the border and the muscle, customs—I think I've got something here, there's something unusual, I'm looking at a description of X, Y and Z with respect to a shipment of some kind—and the Environment Canada person. That to me is also part of the response. Well, what does it look like? Does it fit this pattern or that other pattern? This is phone interaction, which could fall into the category of action having been taken on a given case.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Purely by coincidence, my question is similar to Mr. Casson's.

As I listened to your presentation, I thought I understood— and please tell me if I'm wrong—that your organization was in the process of being reengineered. You are trying to see things somewhat differently. The computerized system and national data banks you were talking about make it possible to take a new approach in enforcing the Act.

Does this reengineering mean that you will require fewer human resources in the field? If that is so, do you really expect this reorganization to result in more efficient use of the resources? Can it make up for the present use of human resources, particularly at the level of the investigators in their inspection function?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, it cannot really be described as a reengineering of the group.

As I explained, there is a cyclical program analysis to identify possible improvements and deficiencies. This is something I would consider to be more like fine tuning. We carry out this analysis in order to be more strategic and targeted, two key words. If you want to consider this reengineering... In my opinion reengineering implies something broader and more systematic. It's something structural, whereas we are not so much concerned with changing the structure as with improving operations within the structure. That is the first point.

• 1615

Secondly, as I mentioned, as part of our efficiency and partnership program with our computerized systems, it is difficult for us to be more targeted and to have a better relationship with the Customs and Revenue people and to put a precise figure at the present time on the positive results and profits resulting from this relationship.

We can assume it is beneficial because of the better intelligence gathering capacity, among other things. It should produce results. We have observed, and others have noted, that the blitz campaigns at the border were not effective. That does not mean that interventions at the border are ruled out, but the systematic inspection of all trucks at the border, for reasons I have previously explained, and because of the way people operate, is not necessarily the most efficient procedure.

The new intelligence function we have developed means that we now have one person assigned to the regions rather than two as used to be the case. Once we establish links between these people in the regions and the person in Ottawa, our new strategy of intelligence gathering will increase our efficiency.

As I mentioned in reply to another question, it is difficult to describe these results in terms of time because this phase always includes an adjustment period, but we should be able to see positive results. Will it be in 24 or in 12 months? We don't know, but it is logical to conclude that improved co-operation with the partners I mentioned will enable us to have a greater impact in the field and to do a better job in carrying out our mandate.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I also have a question about the distribution of human resources in the region. Although it may be a complex matter, I would like to know what the criteria are for regional allocation of resources. I note that for the Quebec region, for example, there are three investigators and seven inspectors whereas Ontario has five investigators and nine inspectors, and I could continue.

What are your criteria for the regional distribution of resources and can they be adapted? Are these criteria static or can they take into account new circumstances as they arise?

Mr. Albin Tremblay (Regional Director, Quebec region, Environment Canada): Since you made specific reference to the Quebec region, perhaps I can answer your question.

I think that these criteria are certainly flexible in that the picture that you have today is the true picture of the resources as they are distributed in budgetary and staffing terms in the field of inspections and investigations.

The figures that you see for the Quebec region can and will indeed change over the coming months. It's often a matter of attrition, or people being reassigned to other sectors, staffing actions that are being taken, etc.

But to answer your question about whether there are criteria, yes indeed, they do exist. When budgets are set for the enforcement of certain regulations, this is done taking into account the potential volume that may be required.

For example, if the 61 paper mills in Quebec, a number that is higher than in most other regions, are affected by a regulation, normally the Quebec region will be allocated more resources. In other areas, other regions will be given more resources. But generally speaking, Quebec and Ontario have a certain volume in terms of the concentration of industry. The distinctive feature of the western and northern regions is the large territory covering two provinces and one territory, thus requiring more people. These various criteria come into place such as industrial concentration, the number of inspections and investigations necessary, municipalities and business sites that are scattered over large areas, etc.

Mr. François Guimont: Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that generally speaking the budget of the Ontario region is comparable to that of Quebec. The budget for the Atlantic region is slightly lower and the budget for the Prairies and the North is higher, mainly because of distances. If memory serves me right, the latter region, that is the Pacific and Yukon, has approximately the same budget as Quebec. That is how regional budgets are set at the department.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My last question deals with your curve of groups coming under regulation. You show in this curve a number of the offenders.

• 1620

Is it possible to have a breakdown of these data to indicate the kinds of companies most affected, the groups most concerned? In what kinds of activity are these violators to be found?

Do you think that the present legislation allows for a greater degree of civil liability? I'm thinking of the Irving Whale disaster, for example. Under the present legislation, is it possible to make these companies accountable? Does the law have the necessary provisions enabling us to take steps?

[English]

Mr. Dale Kimmet: Perhaps I could answer the curve question. This curve was developed largely to communicate to anyone who wishes to understand how the department is viewing the whole field of compliance.

As we've said, we know there are always those who are trying to avoid the law, there are those who want to abide by the law, and there are those who go beyond the law requirements. So to answer your question, it isn't intended to reflect any one industry, sector, or regulation; it's the strategic approach in which we would target any given group that's, for example, an offender under any given regulation.

If you wanted to talk about individual regulations, then you could perhaps identify sectors that are relevant to those regulations, and then we could answer your question more directly.

With respect to Irving Oil, I'll offer that to someone else.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont: To come back to this matter of accountability, this is how we see the purpose of the curve. When legal action is taken against an offender, then obviously the person concerned does feel personally involved. We assume that this will have the effect of correcting the individual's or the company's behaviour. There are also related companies.

For example, in the case of shipping companies,

[English]

we've laid a number of charges

[Translation]

recently, today or yesterday, in two cases involving oil spills. There's no doubt that people working in this sector are aware of the legal action we have undertaken and that this does increase accountability. There is the deterrence effect, people are made accountable for the consequences of their actions or of their failure to act.

This is one of the key elements in matters of compliance. We are emphasizing compliance promotion but at the same time we recognize that there will always be room for legal action to ensure compliance with the law. There's both a direct and indirect effect on the regulated community.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Lincoln, please, followed by Mr. Knutson.

[Translation]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I feel a bit embarrassed whenever we hear from Mr. Guimont, who's a very nice fellow. Every time he comes, we set about criticizing him but I hope he doesn't take it personally. We are defending the same cause.

[English]

I have great hopes that Mr. Guimont will turn things around in his new, very important position. But as I look at things, I must admit, it's a bit of a story of horrors, really. It's not totally Mr. Guimont's fault, Mr. Tremblay's fault, or anybody else's. I realize that, as one of my colleagues said the other day, we've clobbered the Ministry of the Environment and the budget is shrinking and shrinking even more.

Mr. Guimont says he's going to try to make do with what he has. If you leave the 11 chiefs aside, there are 49 investigators or inspectors for the whole of Canada—that is, the people who work in the field—to monitor 32 regulations: mercury, PCBs, CFCs, gasoline, lead, pulp and paper, chloride, the Fisheries Act, and so on. Let's face it.

When I was the Minister of the Environment in Quebec, if my memory serves me right, New York State had something like 125 environmental police. To ask you to do this massive job with 49 people in the field is crazy. Whoever says we have enough, I don't think it's right.

• 1625

And the proof bears it out. I was looking at statistics for just gasoline. In 1990-91 there were 1,141 inspections. In 1993-94 there were 11. In 1995-96 there were six. And in 1993-94, when we went on the CEPA review, the testimony that was given to us in Ontario was that gasoline contraventions were occurring in front of our eyes on the border.

How can 49 people spread themselves so thin across a huge country to catch all these people? What happens is that obviously they can't inspect, so it goes down from 1,141 to six. It's obvious that we just don't have enough people.

So what has happened? Because of the pressure, we just kind of harmonize and turn it over to the provinces. And what do the provinces do? I understand, and

[Translation]

perhaps Mr. Tremblay can confirm it,

[English]

that Quebec had 15. I remember when I started as Minister of the Environment, there was zero. Because of the Saint-Basile fire, we managed to get a few—15. I understand now in Quebec it's just a handful. It may be down to four or something.

[Translation]

I'd also like to know whether it is true that Quebec, for reasons of its own, is unwilling to certify federal officers working under the Fisheries Act who should normally be certified under federal legislation.

[English]

Really, what happens is we are paying $250,000 a year to Quebec for monitoring, inspection, and investigation of pulp and paper effluents, amongst others. The Quebec Environmental Law Centre and Great Lakes United gave statistics that are horrifying. One of the 61 pulp and paper companies breached the toxic inspections 98 times. Maybe there's an answer for it, but the fact is that....

Let's take the Kronos case. Kronos was charged in 1992 with five counts. Then there was a deal between Quebec and the federal government that if there was some sort of Quebec law that was respected by Kronos, the federal regulation or law wouldn't be applied. As a result, there was a ministerial order covering Kronos and no action was taken by the feds for a few years.

Eventually the charges were laid in 1992. The Minister of Justice had to stay the charges in 1997; they said, “If we go into court, we're going to look silly, because Kronos is going to turn around and say we told them they were respecting the Quebec law and that was sufficient.” And so it goes.

My question to you is this: how can you explain that, first of all, we are ceding jurisdiction over the Fisheries Act, which is our best act for enforcement, to provincial authorities? In the case of Ontario, they shelve the stuff and pile the paper on one desk and tell you a few months after that they don't have anything to do with it.

In the case of Quebec, they want certified inspectors, Kronos falls between the cracks, and—

Mr. Bernard Bigras:

[Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's a fact. If you want to go and check, Mr. Bigras, you are most welcome. I can tell you that's what happened.

How do we explain that we turn these things over plus we pay $250,000 to Quebec? B.C. charges us $160,000 for doing the work we are supposed to do. Ontario wants money to administer the Fisheries Act. Why don't we do it ourselves? Why should we pay people who don't do the job? Nobody does the job.

I don't know if you want to answer, Mr. Swanson or Mr. Tremblay, but we need some answers about these things, because the thing stinks right now.

The Chairman: Please answer the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: If you want to have a debate on what I did as Minister of the Environment, I'd be happy to do so. When I was appointed Minister of the Environment, there was a not a single inspector in Quebec and when I left, I had a budget of $15 million for inspectors. Don't tell me... I'd be happy to debate it with you.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Very good.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'll be happy to debate it with you, if you want to, and compare the situation when I started with that when I left. There wasn't even legislation on pesticides in Quebec. Did you know that? It was one of 52 jurisdictions. And who passed the Act? I did. Who passed the Act on industrial effluents in Quebec before 1999? I did. Who passed the Act on endangered species? I did.

• 1630

So you can keep quiet with your remarks.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Sure. Today you can see that your legislation applies and you want the federal law to apply. Come on. It's your own Act that you passed and sponsored.

[English]

The Chairman: Please address your comments to the chair, as they do it also in—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I won't accept all that nonsense by the Péquistes.

The Chairman: Order, please.

We will proceed with answers by the witness—whoever wishes to do so.

Mr. François Guimont: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll give an overview and then let Monsieur Tremblay speak, and Mr. Swanson if he wishes to do so.

The situation on the pulp and paper agreement in Quebec is as follows. The pulp and paper agreement that has been renewed is based on the premise of no devolution. So the federal regulation applies under the Fisheries Act, and the dioxin and furan regulation applies under CEPA. That's very important to understand—there's no devolution.

Second, the Quebec regulation—and it's nothing but a regulation; it's not a permit-by-permit thing—is equal to or more stringent than the federal regulation. In order not to be at the same place at the same time with a regulation that is equal to it or more stringent, they asked whether they could have an agreement between the two governments whereby they collect the information in the mills, as is done in other mills in the rest of the country, and then file this information through a computer system. That's where the money went to. So instead of being a physically collected set of information or being sent through the mail, the actual mill manager, or whoever, punches into a computer the actual information they are requested to file with the government on a monthly basis. That information goes to Quebec and within five days the information is flipped back to us.

The point I'm trying to make is that the agreement essentially says “computer system, information to be filed, information given to Environment Canada”, and Environment Canada, after looking at this information, says there is or is not a problem.

If there is a problem, if a parameter is exceeded or something, the Environment Canada person speaks regularly with his or her counterpart in Quebec. They will ask what's this, what is going on, what will be done?

And yes, the agreement says that Quebec will be the first government to take action. But it also implies that if action is not taken, the federal government—I said there's no devolution; the actual regulation applies—can take action. On top of that there is a committee in that agreement. I don't want to say that everything is done through the committee. Phone calls are made regularly. On top of that a committee sits and reviews cases—the Environment Canada people and the Quebec people do a review of what has happened and what is going to happen so that the next steps are clear and transparent.

That's the way the agreement functions. As I said, the idea is to not have two inspectors at the same time, especially if the information collected by one level of government can serve the purpose of what needs to be done federally. That's the premise of the the pulp and paper agreement in Quebec.

I'll let Mr. Tremblay speak to the resource aspect. Mr. Lincoln was asking a very pointed question on that.

The Chairman: Let's go.

[Translation]

Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Albin Tremblay: I'll try to add some clarifications to the general information provided by Mr. Guimont. I think that Mr. Lincoln's questions are very relevant and indicate a good knowledge of the situation. Perhaps I can clarify certain elements.

As Mr. Guimont said, the main purpose of the agreement, concluded at the request of the very important pulp and paper sector in Quebec, is an attempt to reduce to the minimum the administrative requirements resulting from the need to respond to two regulations which, as Mr. Guimont pointed out, have identical standards and requirements.

So the idea was to make it possible for companies to supply this information once electronically and have it conveyed directly to the two governments, each of which maintain their ability to enforce regulations.

• 1635

I think that this is a distinct advantage given the limited resources of all governments, including Quebec. The information we obtained from the Quebec government shows us whether the pulp and paper regulations we are talking about are enforced in Quebec by the province through the six regional offices or the 16 regional directorates of the MEFQ involved in enforcing the pulp and paper regulations. This amounts to 60 people on the Quebec side, analysts and inspectors who deal directly with each of the 16 pulp and paper mills involved in Quebec. This intervention capacity is very close to the field, as we say. They are people who deal directly with the regions themselves and the mills, who can meet the mill owner and directors and discuss and negotiate conditions to ensure compliance with regulations.

In addition, there are more then 20 investigators in Quebec. They are at a central unit in head office and over ten of them are to be found in different regions. The important thing about this approach is that it attempts to bring together the available resources to use them in the most efficient manner possible. The federal concern is to avoid entirely delegating its intervention capacity and that is why we have retained our powers of intervention.

As Mr. Guimont explained, if I as Director of Environmental Protection in Montreal and Joint Chairman of the Pulp and Paper Agreement Management Committee am not satisfied with the way in which the regulation is being enforced, I have full power to take steps at any time to enforce the law under the law enforcement policy in Quebec.

Perhaps I should give you some information about the present state of affairs, particularly with respect to pulp and paper. All sorts of information is circulated and reports have been published by environmental groups within the context of discussions in the CCME on the Federal-Provincial Environmental Harmonization Agreement. I think that the picture of the pulp and paper sector in Quebec is far from being that portrayed by certain groups. It should be remembered that the federal and provincial regulations officially came into effect for Quebec in September and for the federal government in January 1996. As of 1992 there were transition periods when companies were allowed to avoid compliance with standards in order to set up treatment systems which in Quebec required investments of $1.5 billion.

The important thing to note is that there has been a significant reduction in pollution in Quebec. Perhaps I should give you some figures. For example, between 1987 and 1996 there was a 73% reduction in suspended matter whereas the average national reduction in Canada was 60%. In Quebec there was a 94% reduction in biological oxygen demand, a significant factor in the pollution of waterways, between 1997 and 1996, whereas the average for Canada was 89%. The compliance rates for three parameters were the following in Quebec: 99.8% for suspended matter, 98.9% for biological oxygen demand and 81% for toxicity. All these figures are either higher or equal to national averages.

It should be remembered that the pulp and paper industry is the largest in Canada with 61 mills. The sector is characterized by the existence of several very old mills dating to the beginning of the century. As I said, in order to comply with these regulations paper mills in Quebec alone invested $1.5 billion between 1992 and 1995. Throughout this time, while all these reductions were taking place, there was a 28% increase in the production volume of Quebec paper mills.

All this took place in a context of law enforcement and the context of the federal-provincial agreement, which demonstrates that the federal government has not given up its prerogative to intervene and at the same time Quebec has accomplished a great deal of work in this field with each of these mills. This proves that by bringing together limited means, the two governments are able to accomplish excellent work in an area as important as that of paper mills in Quebec.

• 1640

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay.

[English]

Mr. Knutson please.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much.

I would just ask the witnesses to keep their answers as brief as possible. I only have 10 minutes and I'll try to make the questions pointed.

Mr. Guimont, briefly going back to the issue of Kronos, are you of the understanding that charges were stayed by the Department of Justice in 1997 based on the opinion that there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction because of the accused's strong arguments to rebut the charges?

To summarize, there was a common understanding among industries operating within Quebec and officials of the environment department in Quebec that the environment department would not investigate or lay charges against companies that were in compliance with provincial laws. Are you familiar with the reasoning behind the staying of the charges?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll let Mr. Tremblay answer the question, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: Your question deals specifically with the Kronos issue, I believe. I'll attempt to give you a brief answer. It's a very complex matter.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: Do you know why the charges were stayed?

Mr. Albin Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is it fair to say that Kronos thinks they are in compliance with Quebec law and that they think being in compliance with Quebec law puts them in compliance with federal government law? Notwithstanding that the federal government might want to step in—as Mr. Guimont says we have the right to step in—based on the opinion from the Department of Justice, we in fact can't step in, and that's not fair.

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: No, that is not really how the situation has developed. Let me explain what it is. All these measures were taken as part of the St. Lawrence Action Plan in 1993. As you know, some 50 mills were established as priorities for this St. Lawrence Action Plan. Intervention under this plan was carried out jointly by the federal and provincial levels in the context of a Canada-Quebec agreement relating to the St. Lawrence Action Plan. It is not an agreement on the enforcement of a regulation but rather an harmonization agreement covering all actions undertaken as part of the St. Lawrence action plan: habitat conservation, environmental protection, reduction of toxic matter in 50 mills, site restoration etc. The range of intervention is extremely wide. It was a general harmonization agreement.

The result of the prosecution...

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can we go to the main point of my question: why were the charges stayed?

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: The prosecution was undertaken by the federal government in conjunction with the Government of Quebec which also took action against the same company and negotiated a clean-up certificate or an authorization allowing the company to take the appropriate corrective steps.

The reason why the federal government prosecution was not supported by the Department of Justice is because of the way in which things were done by the harmonization committee discussing the Kronos issue; the company could claim that it received authorization from the Quebec government as part of the authorization process and that the federal government officials on the committee did not clearly indicate to the company that these conditions did not comply with its regulatory requirements, therefore the company maintained that it met the federal requirements at the same time.

So the basis of all of this...

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I just interject for a second? So the authorization by the Quebec government nullified or prevented the federal government from laying charges?

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: No, the existence of the agreement as such did not prevent the federal government from undertaking the prosecution. The proof of this is that charges were laid. But in view of the way in which these discussions took place administratively and the fact that the federal officials did not formally notify the company that the agreement with Quebec did not automatically signify it met the federal requirements, lawyers with the Department of Justice considered that in the circumstances the company did have its reasons and a fair chance of winning.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we couldn't win.

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: We might have been able to win...

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think Mr. Guimont wants to jump in.

• 1645

Mr. François Guimont: I was simply going to say, Mr. Chairman, knowing, if you win or lose...you would have to go through the courts. Justice decided it was in their best interests, knowing what they knew and the way the case unfolded, to not push the case forward. But I would not equate that to mean automatically, systematically, they would have lost.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's ambiguous, but—

Mr. François Guimont: The second thing I want to say, because that's important—

Mr. Gar Knutson: —my point—just to cut you off, and I don't mean to be rude—is that it's not as simple as, “Quebec has the authority to go first, and if they don't go first, then we can just step in cleanly and go second”. It's not that simple from this one-fact situation.

Mr. François Guimont: I was going to try to see that question coming to give you an answer—to add value. The value added is as follows. Obviously, Justice, having gone through what they did, said we don't want to do that again, so what we're telling you to do is the following.

I'll let Mr. Tremblay explain.

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: We have indeed learned a number of very important lessons as a result of this situation and we intend to apply them not only to the Quebec region but throughout Environment Canada, throughout the country and in the context of our agreements. As part of the administration of these agreements, it is important for the federal government to clearly set out, preferably in writing, that when a company has an agreement with a province, it is not automatically freed from its obligation to meet federal requirements. That is what we now do in Quebec in the enforcement of the pulp and paper regulations as a result of this experience.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, a letter was sent systematically to all companies informing them about what Mr. Tremblay has just explained. This letter was drafted in co- operation with the Department of Justice.

Mr. Albin Tremblay: It's very important...

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd like to leave this one. Again, I don't have a lot of time. Can we move on to another issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Albin Tremblay: Allow me to point out that Kronos is not a pulp and paper company. There are two different agreements for the St. Lawrence Action Plan and the pulp and paper agreement we already referred to. They are two completely different things.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't know that I suggested they were. I don't know what they are. I don't know what they did. I just know the charges were stayed, and it seems the harmonization accord vision is not as clean as we might think it is. It might be clean in theory, but when you actually come to the practical application of it, it's going to get muddied. But I'll leave that.

Mr. Guimont, you've made the point on a number of occasions that the enforcement budget has not been cut through program review. Has the enforcement level of activity been affected by other cuts in other parts of the department or by, for example, the sunsetting of the Green Plan?

Mr. François Guimont: Had an impact on the enforcement program?

Mr. Gar Knutson: A negative impact. A deleterious impact. Is it as simple as, “We didn't cut enforcement, so therefore we're enforcing at the same level of activity as we were a number of years ago”?

Mr. François Guimont: My colleagues and I are not aware of any cuts to the program in the context of program review.

With respect to the Green Plan, I would have to go back. I understand the question, but I don't have the answer here. What you're asking is, with the reduction of the Green Plan were there ancillary effects on the enforcement program.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes.

Maybe?

Mr. Ian McGregor (Director, National Program, Environment Canada): Not that we're aware of. Part of it may be a question of approach, but in terms of direct impacts on the enforcement program, no.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let me read something to you. I'm not sure who said it, but I'll just throw it out for discussion purposes:

Although the A-based operating budget was not cut in our region, we relied heavily on the Green Plan for O and M. As a consequence of this program terminating, the O and M budget will fall. The budget for prosecutors fell very significantly. Our region was using approximately $105,000 in salary before 1996, and now the total budget for all regions is only 245,000, with similar cuts to the private prosecutors fund as well. Workload has increased substantially, and will continue to do so, but with few new resources.

• 1650

Again, this is our first day, so we're sort of scratching the surface, but if in our examination through the coming weeks this is found to be true, then there's something really wrong here.

Mr. Ian McGregor: There may have been some reallocation of resources within regions from Green Plan activities into enforcement to provide support in one form or another. I have to say I'm not aware of it, but if that were the case, then clearly when the Green Plan programs were sunsetted, the moneys disappeared. So it is possible that has occurred.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not suggesting anybody is acting in bad faith, but when somebody comes in front of a parliamentary committee and says their enforcement budget has not been cut, presumably that is specifically intended to assure Parliament that the level of activity is still as strong as it was. But if it's being eaten away by other forces, such as cuts and the sunsetting of the Green Plan, or people not having enough money for automobiles or for other things that may have come from other budgets, then the impression the department is trying to create may in effect not be a correct one. I just want to throw that out.

Mr. François Guimont: The points that were made about budget reduction were tied to program review decisions. That's what was said, and I repeated that earlier on this afternoon. I spoke about program review 1 and program review 2.

The question today is tied to the Green Plan. We need to go back and look into it, and the numbers will speak. It's a fair point.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let me just move to a third issue. Who is responsible for regulating what stuff goes into the water from Ontario Hydro? If I lived beside an Ontario Hydro plant and I woke up one morning and saw all this stuff going into the water and I thought it was going to kill all the fish, who would I see?

Mr. Ron Shimizu (Regional Director, Ontario Region, Environment Canada): The Ontario Ministry of the Environment would be your first step, your point of contact with any question regarding pollution control. Of course, we in the Ontario region would be prepared to advise you the best we could.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If they're killing federal fish and they're not enforcing the federal Fisheries Act, why wouldn't I come to you?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: You would come to me, and if in fact you alleged that there was a violation of the federal Fisheries Act, we would pursue it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If they're putting something in the lake that's toxic to fish, is that a prima facie case? I'm not an expert on the Fisheries Act. Is it a prima facie case if they've breached federal law?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: We would take that allegation and investigate it, yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What did I say in my original question where you referred me off to an Ontario department?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: The permits that the public utility operates under are granted by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The control orders are under provincial regulations. The general provisions of the Fisheries Act hold, of course, but the actual administration of environmental protection is done through the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Going back to my basic question, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an ordinary Canadian. I wake up in the morning and I see some gunk going out of the pipe. There has been stuff in the newspapers. Can I go to the federal government and expect the federal government to stop Ontario Hydro or lay charges or prosecute them under the federal law?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Yes, sir. You should expect us to take down your allegation, follow it up, and get back to you with what action we are going to take on it. In some cases it might be that we will go to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and question them. In other cases, we'll see whether they're already taking action under their own laws or whether they're inspecting to see if there's been a violation of their control order or certificate of approval.

• 1655

Mr. Gar Knutson: Could I just—

The Chairman: We'll put you in the second round, Mr. Knutson, because you had 16 minutes.

Mr. Shimizu, thank you.

We will have Mr. Charbonneau now, followed by Mr. Pratt and Mr. Laliberte, and then the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I had a question on pulp and paper but it has already been answered at length.

I have a second question relating to the sub-agreement on inspections recently signed by the Minister of the Environment. The subsidiary agreement is to be completed by an enforcement agreement, if I'm not mistaken. Can you tell us about the various stages for the negotiations of this agreement on the enforcement of the inspection sub-agreement? What are your parameters? How do you envisage your discussions with your provincial partners on this matter? What will the implementation of this sub-agreement on inspections change or what is it likely to change in your present enforcement and compliance promotion strategy, as you've just described it to us? What will the impact be on your strategy and your resources?

Mr. François Guimont: There are two parts to my answer. With respect to the next stages, this question arises not only for the negotiation of this sub-agreement but also for the Canada sub-agreement on the establishment of environmental standards. My colleague McGregor told me that a meeting will take place next week in Winnipeg to begin the dialogue with the provinces on the specific implementation of the inspection sub-agreement.

It is rather difficult at the present time, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Charbonneau, to confirm that we will have established the procedure for the implementation of the agreement in six months. It might have been easier to do so after the meeting rather than today because of course this first discussion will allow both representatives of the federal and provincial side to put on the table questions they would like to explore and the way in which they wish to proceed. That is the first part of the answer.

Secondly, Quebec did not sign the agreement. I am of course referring here to the relationship between that document and the pulp and paper agreement in Quebec or any other potential agreement with Quebec.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Or to the impact on your organization and your own strategy for the enforcement of the law.

Mr. François Guimont: Briefly, I repeat that Quebec did not sign the agreement. We see a continuation of our present relationship with Quebec in the field of pulp and paper, for example.

As for the more general question, I consider the sub-agreement on inspections to be a way of clarifying the role of the two governments, as is the intent of the agreement. With an improved approach to inspections, I expect we'll be able to be more efficient as far as the border is concerned, for example. I don't necessarily mean that the province will be working with us at the border but if the agreement means that we have fewer inspections to make with respect to certain operations, we can focus our efforts on the areas we consider to be our priority. The advantage of the physical presence of an inspector will not be lost because there will be this agreement between the provincial and federal levels. That is my view of things and I hope the provinces share the same view of the implementation of this sub-agreement on inspections.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You think it may increase the efficiency of the entire implementation mechanism of the law.

Mr. François Guimont: A better coverage, yes.

• 1700

It's a bit like the previous example I gave on federal and provincial regulations. In the absence of an agreement on pulp and paper, we had to inspect these mills in Quebec. At the present time, in view of the agreement and the fact that we can use the information, we do not have to be physically present. That means we don't have two people in the same place at the same time. I don't say that it will be so permanently but it is not impossible to have such a situation in the absence of an agreement. I would like the agreement to make up for the gaps rather than create situations where people are in the same place at the same time.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Of course, this greater efficiency cannot be realized in Quebec because Quebec did not sign. That is how I see it.

Mr. François Guimont: In the case of pulp and paper, an important sector with 61 plants, it is already done. There are also other harmonization activities not necessarily involving regulations, like the St. Lawrence Action Plan. Yes, I understand your point. If there are other areas of application in the agreement with other provinces, Quebec being absent at the present time and having failed to sign, then case-by-case coverage will have to be considered.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: One last question, a short one, about the negotiation of the implementation of the sub-agreement. I gathered that the first meeting was to take place soon. From the standpoint of Environment Canada, is this a negotiation that could last a year or two or is it a matter of a few weeks?

[English]

Mr. Ian McGregor: Our best estimate at the moment—and that's all it is—is that it will be going on for some time. We're expecting a series of specific cases to be dealt with. We're hoping to have some early agreements very soon. There'll be others that will develop and come along as we have a better appreciation of how we can work together better under these agreements. We're pushing very hard to have some results within 18 months.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's the time it takes for an elephant...Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: We will have Mr. Pratt next, followed by Mr. Laliberte.

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

My first question is for Mr. Guimont. It relates to the national snapshot that was provided in what looked like photocopies of an overhead.

The Pacific region seems to have 16 PYs for approximately $1.3 million, whereas the Quebec region ends up with 8 PYs for roughly the same amount of money. Why do we get so much more bang for our buck out in the Pacific region than we seem to in Quebec? How do you account for the discrepancy?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll let Mr. Kimmet address the question.

Mr. Dale Kimmet: I can't address the discrepancy exactly, other than to give you some ideas of what might be considered between the regions. The first point is with respect to the Pacific and Yukon and it covers all the functions. They don't have, for example, a pulp and paper agreement, as in the case of Quebec, although one is under some discussion. In terms of general costs associated with operations along the coast, it's usually much more expensive.

We have of course the Fraser River. The physical and geographic conditions there are significant for travel and for inspections. They also have a large pulp and paper industry that they are inspecting under the Fisheries Act.

I can't explain the exact differential, but there are a number of factors operationally that can make a significant difference. Perhaps Quebec could explain their individual budget, but we don't have someone here from the Pacific and Yukon.

• 1705

Mr. David Pratt: I'm a little confused here. Granted, the work on the west coast may be more difficult, but you still are able to get 16 PYs for the $1.3 million and only 8 PYs in Quebec. The discrepancy remains in my mind. The work may be more difficult on the west coast, but why are we able to get that much more out of our budget dollar out there than we are in Quebec?

Perhaps I could just leave that with you. Perhaps you can provide us with a better explanation at some point later on.

Mr. Chair, the second question relates to enforcement standards and ties in with the harmonization agreement.

I'd like to read a paragraph from a story that appeared in the Globe and Mail on February 14, 1998. I'd like Mr. Guimont to comment on it.

It's headlined, “Ontario Backslides Again on Environment: Another Hit Against Environmental Harmonization”. It goes on to say that:

Within a week of signing a “Harmonization Agreement” with the federal government, Ontario has taken its new responsibilities from the federal government and set them aside. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is providing exemptions to two companies allowing them not to comply with current environmental law. Both are U.S. companies GE (General Electric) Plastics with a plant in Cobourg, Ont. and GEON Canada Inc. in Niagara Falls, Ont. The changes to the permits under the legislation will allow GE Plastics to increase its discharges to Lake Ontario of oil and greases by 241%, phenols by 38% and BOD by 63%. GEON Canada will be allowed to increase its discharges to the Niagara River of nitrogen, ammonia, phosphorous, suspended solids, and oils by 113%. Both discharges enter the boundary waters of the Great Lakes between Canada and the United States. The...(IJC) has designated toxic hotspots in the Great Lakes to be cleaned up. This action by the Government of Ontario contradicts international agreements to clean up the Great Lakes. MOE spokesman, Yousry Hamdy, was quoted by The Globe and Mail newspaper as stating: “We have increased the conventional pollutants to respond to business opportunities...regulations must balance the economic requirements of industry with environmental protection.”

Can you provide some comment on that in terms of the direction of enforcement in Ontario especially?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Perhaps I might respond to that, Mr. Chairman.

We looked into that matter when we were made aware of it. My understanding was that the actual concentration limits of the effluents did not change, but in fact the flow was changed to accommodate the increased production that was required as those two industries expanded their operation.

Neither of those spots is in toxic hot spots. I think the article is inaccurate there, sir.

Although the Niagara River is a specific area of concern, the Great Lakes water quality objectives are probably still being met. The effluent concentration doesn't violate those objectives.

That's the best I can do for you at this time.

Mr. David Pratt: Again, Mr. Chair, perhaps we could get some additional information on this. I'm particularly interested in whether or not the current arrangement as far as enforcement is concerned would in any way put Canada in non-compliance with its treaty obligations under the IJC.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And NAFTA.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: The specific water quality objectives of the Great Lakes water quality agreement are common standards that Canada, the United States, and provincial and state governments have accepted. They are used as a guidance to set more specific effluent requirements. It is the effluent requirements that are legally enforceable in each jurisdiction.

So to the extent that Ontario is permitting those discharges, those are permissible. They're within existing law, regulation.

• 1710

Effluents are governed by concentration, not by flow, and so they're legal. This would be true in all jurisdictions around the Great Lakes. It's not just Ontario, but all the Great Lakes states.

The Chairman: Before we start the second round, we have Mr. Laliberte and the chair.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Still dealing with enforcement, I was looking at some of the activity reports that were submitted here.

Under the Fisheries Act, are these all-inclusive, CEPA and the Fisheries Act, or is there a separate list of DFO activities that we should be requesting?

Mr. Dale Kimmet: Whatever has been provided to you has been Environment Canada information.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Can we request similar incidences so we can see the regularity of the regions or repeat offenders?

Mr. Dale Kimmet: The Department of Fisheries does not have any inspection program with respect to the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. Any inspections that are done under section 36 would be inspections that would be conducted by the DOE.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So there's no report done by anyone.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Laliberte, I guess the point of my colleague is this. Those six regulations under the Fisheries Act are part of our activity report. They're what we call the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. That's as per subsection 36(3), or something like that. We also have our so-called CEPA regulations on which we report.

If I understand your question, you're asking my colleague whether there's something similar for pollution-prevention-type responsibilities that are still under the Fisheries Act. You wonder whether there's some kind of a report with respect to those habitat-type responsibilities in the department. I think that's your question, isn't it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, in the paper that was issued to us it mentions the tables that show enforcement activities under CEPA. They don't include related offences under the Fisheries Act. So what's under the Fisheries Act, and who can report that to us?

Mr. Dale Kimmet: We have that information. I didn't understand that you didn't have the piece from Environment Canada on fisheries. We can provide that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. I'll wait until the next round.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

I have a couple of questions here.

Mr. Pryznyk, in your capacity as a conservation and protection director, would you indicate to this committee whether you are satisfied that you have the necessary resources to administer section 35?

Mr. Grant Pryznyk (Director, Conservation and Protection, Central and Arctic Region, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, there are perhaps instances where resources are required, particularly in areas such as the Northwest Territories, where there are long distances to cover and expenses are a lot higher. There certainly is a requirement for extra resources for the Ontario situation, albeit temporary, right now. Those would be the two I could speak on from my personal experience.

The Chairman: My question is, are you satisfied that you have the necessary resources to implement section 35 in your region?

Mr. Grant Pryznyk: No.

The Chairman: Are you short by 50%? By what percentage are you short, roughly?

Mr. Grant Pryznyk: I think I could provide that estimate for you, but I really haven't got an accurate figure to give you right now.

The Chairman: Are you seriously short or marginally short?

Mr. Grant Pryznyk: I would say somewhere in between—moderately short.

The Chairman: Moderately short.

Mr. Grant Pryznyk: That's right.

The Chairman: Can you provide the committee with your assessment?

Mr. Grant Pryznyk: I think we could provide something, yes.

The Chairman: Looking at the implementation of section 36, as indicated a moment ago, Mr. Swanson, as an outsider, are you satisfied with the way Environment Canada is implementing it?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I'd prefer not to get drawn into that debate. The responsibility rests with that department, and I don't think it's my role to comment as an official from another department as to whether or not they're adequately meeting that responsibility or not.

The Chairman: Do you have discussions between you and your counterpart on reviewing the implementation?

• 1715

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We have discussions quite frequently on the implementation of various sections of the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chairman: Have you indicated to them that you're satisfied or dissatisfied lately?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I don't think the questions come down to whether we're satisfied or dissatisfied. We participate in discussions that the Department of the Environment has with provincial governments when agreements are being negotiated. We bring to their attention any concerns that we might have so that these are reflected in those agreements.

The agreements are also eventually signed off by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He's provided with briefing material by officials from the Department of the Environment. This is supplemented by briefing material that we would prepare for him before he signs those agreements.

The Chairman: So we can take it that Environment Canada is still on your Christmas list.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes, we exchange cards and letters regularly.

The Chairman: Mr. Shimizu, in the CEPA report of 1993-94, those of us who looked into it found that there were no prosecutions for that year, which is rather strange considering the fact that the bulk of activity is in Ontario. The following year there were a couple, followed by another couple in 1995.

Can you explain why in that year there were no prosecutions at all?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I find that extraordinary. I will look into that.

The Chairman: Perhaps we can provide you with—

Mr. Ron Shimizu: May I offer one possibility? We may have a number of investigations going on at any one time, but to bring them to a point whereby they're pursued in the court system as a prosecution takes some time. It's done in a very careful, deliberate manner. It's done in consultation with Justice.

The Chairman: Well, let me ask you the question I just asked Mr. Pryznyk: are you satisfied that you have sufficient resources in the Ontario region to carry out your task?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I don't know of a public service manager in this country today who wouldn't want more resources, sir, but to be honest with you, we have to take into account a number of factors.

One is the fact that the whole notion of pollution control and environmental protection is changing. In fact, in North America, in the western world, I would imagine that basically you'll see a move away from pollution control into pollution prevention. You're going to see more targeting going up the production process whereby there's a better selection of materials. You're going to see better technology used in terms of on-line reporting.

So from that point of view, as Mr. Guimont said earlier this afternoon, we're exploring the efficiencies we can garner through the use of partnerships and new technologies. We're taking into account the relative capacity, not just of our provincial partners, but also of our partners in the United States in certain areas.

The Chairman: Mr. Shimizu, when did you become director of the Ontario region?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: In 1995.

The Chairman: How many person-years did you have then?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I had approximately 68.

The Chairman: And you now have 15?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Oh, on enforcement? I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about my whole operation.

I have five other divisions and an enforcement division.

The Chairman: No, but you've been in enforcement for many more years than just two or three.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Since 1995, yes. I've been with the environmental protection branch since 1995 myself, personally, yes.

The Chairman: Yes. What were the person-years in 1993?

• 1720

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I don't know, sir. I can find out for you.

The Chairman: What were they when you became director?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: When I became a director I had an office of about 68 in total. That's not enforcement; that's total environmental protection branch. My inspection and enforcement staff was about the same. I think it was a total of about 15. In fact, I might have been running a little lower than that because I might have had a few vacancies, but I can't recall. I can get you the specifics.

I can tell you right now that my resource base has decreased by approximately 17% over the four years since, and the reductions weren't taken in enforcement because the department made a decision not to reduce its enforcement staff.

The Chairman: So the base for enforcement has remained the same.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: That's right.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Guimont, would you be able to tell us what data you have on recidivism in the field of enforcement? What are the findings you have and what are your data telling you?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, as I understand, a recidivist is a person who has been charged and is being charged a second time.

The Chairman: Or several times.

Mr. François Guimont: So that's your measure? Okay, the question is clear. Perhaps my staff can answer that.

Mr. Dale Kimmet: Sir, if I understand you, just to be more clear, you're talking about the same company being charged twice for different matters.

The Chairman: They are persisting in the same infractions.

Mr. Dale Kimmet: I don't have the statistics, but it's very small.

The Chairman: But you keep data on that?

Mr. Dale Kimmet: We have a record of all successful prosecutions. It's public information on the Internet on the Environment Canada green line, so we can provide that. In fact, I have a copy with me today.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Guimont, if we look at the total number of prosecutions and convictions over the years, your own data indicate that in 1993-94 there were ten convictions across Canada, in 1994-95 there were nine, and in 1995-96 there was one. How would you interpret those figures? How do you read them?

Mr. François Guimont: Well, I would say they are fluctuations tied to the regulated area, first of all.

Secondly, it's also tied to the fact—

The Chairman: You may want to start in 1992. You had 17 convictions in 1992, 10 in 1993-94, nine in 1994-95, and one in 1995-96. There is a trend downward here. What does it reflect? How do you read it? You would like to know too, wouldn't you?

Mr. François Guimont: As I was explaining earlier, we have a national inspection plan. The national inspection plan has various targets, which fluctuate through time. In any given year we may have PCBs at the head of the priority, which was the case a couple of years ago, as I remember. In terms of storage sites of PCBs, if you look at the regulated population you can have a higher number. Potentially with a higher number you may end up with higher infractions, and ultimately a portion of those infractions are potentially convictions.

The point I'm trying to make is—

The Chairman: Would it help you, Mr. Guimont, if you were to have the number of prosecutions on PCBs for the same years so that you can help us in understanding the trend? Would you mind jotting them down? The overall total number of prosecutions, as I indicated before, is 17 for 1992-93, 10 for 1993-94, nine for 1994-95, and one for 1995-96.

When you look at PCB storage, inspections, investigations, warnings, and then finally prosecutions for the same years, starting with 1992-93, the data are the following: zero, two, zero, one. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the two, but perhaps there is one and that's what you were trying to do a moment ago.

• 1725

Mr. François Guimont: I was giving an example of PCBs in the sense of priorities in a given year shifting. Right now, as I explained before, we are putting a priority on hazardous waste.

Now, in terms of hazardous waste, we're trying to target smuggling. Getting to the smuggling is probably more difficult just by its very nature. It's smuggling activity. As another example, another regulation where it's more contained and it's conspicuous...either that people are meeting the regulation or not meeting it.

I'm giving a qualitative answer as opposed to quantitative, but it would seem to me that the way we target our enforcement resources through the national inspection plan would provide an insight as to why some of these numbers fluctuate.

The Chairman: From what you're saying, do you mean that one year you go after PCBs but abandon lead, and then the next year you go after another substance and abandon the other two? In other words, your field is constantly in fluctuation.

What is the rationale for all this?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll let Mr. Kimmet explain.

Mr. Dale Kimmet: Let me go back to your original statistics and offer to give you some analysis upon further study. Certainly we would hope that when a regulation first comes in, and we put a significant amount of compliance promotion into it to educate the target population and to design an inspection and enforcement program, we would have a fairly high number of statistics of actions in the early years of a regulation.

We would also hope that as we implement the inspection, compliance promotion and enforcement activities, the rate of compliance would go up and the need for inspection would go down. The number of investigations, and therefore prosecutions, would go down.

So I in fact could be comforted sometimes by the fact that we have less investigations and less prosecutions over time. That's the theory, what we would hope to see.

In the case of PCBs, I believe that is the case. The public awareness and the movement by individuals, companies, and others to comply with the law and actually clean up their operations has been significant in Canada. So—

The Chairman: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Kimmet, but time is running out, and we want to start the second round.

You have, for 1995-96, under the heading “Convictions”, the figure of one. Do you have a figure for 1996-97?

Mr. François Guimont: If I may, Mr. Chairman, our numbers don't jibe with the numbers you have.

The Chairman: The numbers I'm quoting are taken from your CEPA yearly report.

Mr. François Guimont: This is exactly what we're looking at as well.

You were giving us, I think, a full number of convictions. In 1995-96—just to check the numbers a bit—it's nine overall, isn't it?

The Chairman: In 1994-95.

Mr. François Guimont: And in 1995-96?

The Chairman: One.

Mr. François Guimont: I'm looking at 1995-96 overall, and I have 15.

The Chairman: Convictions.

Mr. François Guimont: Prosecutions.

A voice: For convictions it's eight.

The Chairman: I have convictions, one.

Can you give us the figure for 1996-97 in terms of convictions and prosecutions?

Mr. François Guimont: For 1996-97, Mr. Chairman, there were five prosecutions and seven convictions.

The Chairman: When will that report be published?

Mr. Dale Kimmet: We can provide that information at the end of this meeting. It's readily available.

The Chairman: But the latest we have is 1995-96. Perhaps you can make available 1996-97. It has not yet reached the parliamentary wing, at least.

Mr. François Guimont: If you wish, Mr. Chairman, we could also compare and straighten out the figures, if that helps you.

The Chairman: Fine.

We'll now start second round. Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to have two questions.

• 1730

First of all, Mr. Shimizu, I must say I was a little shocked at your answer to Mr. Pratt. When Mr. Pratt mentioned the Ontario government releasing or letting go its standards so that it would favour so-called economic development, your answer was that the volume has increased but not the concentration. I would have thought you would have said “This is terrible. We're going to step in and look at it more closely.” Today we have the minister in Ontario saying dumping toxics down the sewers is great, you know, and that's the way we should do it.

Are you suggesting that the more volume we pump, including toxics, the concentration remains exactly the same and the pollution remains the same?

Mr. Ronald Shimizu: No, sir, I'm not. I guess I was trying to explain the administrative aspect of that problem, or the legal aspects of that problem, if you will.

We have a range of programs right now that we are encouraging all industries around the Great Lakes to take with regard to pollution prevention. We have a very, very large pollution prevention program. We are finding that by and large industries are taking measures, adopting the philosophy of pollution prevention, and moving to reduce their overall discharges.

We also have within the Great Lakes basin a strategy for virtual elimination of priority toxics. We have a—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Sorry, I know all these things. I know that we have a virtual elimination policy. I know the Great Lakes policies very well. What I'm saying is that you are trying to convince us that things are going better, when the Ontario minister himself says it's okay to dump toxics in the sewers. He's quoted verbatim.

Mr. Pratt shows us here that they're sort of lifting the standards to permit more pollution; that they're cutting back 49% of their environmental budget, 30% of the MOE's enforcement budget. And then when Mr. Pratt asks you “What does the federal government do to counteract this stuff?”, instead of trying to say “Well, we're going to really move in there and do something”, we try to rationalize what Ontario is doing—that everything is okay. “There's more volume but no more pollution. The concentration stays the same. It's going into the Great Lakes but it's not a very bad toxic area, so that's okay, to pollute there.”

I find that just sad, myself. I think what we must do in Ontario and everywhere else is to say that if we dump toxics in the sewers, it's wrong, and if you lift the standards, it's wrong. I'm hoping the story that comes out of there is that we need more resources at the federal level, and if Ontario isn't going to do it, I hope we find it and do it ourselves.

Could I ask Mr. Swanson, when was the last Fisheries prosecution report that we have published?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: There's a requirement that we will publish an annual report—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Right, I know.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: —with regard to prosecutions under the habitat provisions of the act. We have published those reports. I believe we're probably one year in arrears. We have had difficulties in assembling those reports in terms of getting the kind of data that you have been discussing here in terms of prosecutions and convictions.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: From the provinces?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: That's correct.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay. So you're not getting the data from the provinces under this wonderful harmonization agreement that works so well. Are you saying that the reports are only one year behind? My information is that they are as much as four years behind.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I don't believe that's the case. I can certainly check to see when the last report was published, but it certainly wouldn't be four years behind.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could it be more than one year behind?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: It's possible. I believe we're one year behind. It might be two.

• 1735

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It might be two. So for two years now, a report that is supposed to be published by the federal government under statute and produced publicly is not available, because the provinces don't give you the data. We are supposed to be getting these reports from the provinces. They are under obligation through their agreements to produce these reports.

So they don't produce the reports, we don't publish the reports, and the public doesn't know what goes on. And then we are supposed to believe that these things work.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Well—not to minimize the problem you've cited—the statute provides that we publish a report as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the year, and that's what we attempt to do.

There are no agreements, however, in existence with provincial governments that obligate them to provide us with the kind of information we are talking about. We have requested this kind of information of certain provinces in past years, and we have been told that they don't keep the kind of information in the format in which we would like to have it. So we're left with the kind of situation where we would have to finance or design information kinds of systems to develop that kind of information.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, could I have one last question?

You know, this is really the nub of the matter. What you are saying is that before, when we were doing it ourselves with our own resources and had them, the reports were coming out. The reports were there.

Suddenly, the last one or two years—and we'll check; I think it might even be four years, but anyway, I'll wait for you to find out for sure.... The fact is, you admitted yourself the reason why these reports are not coming out is that data hasn't been provided by the provinces. When I ask you, you say there is no legal obligation by the provinces to produce the data because they don't keep that kind of data. Who keeps it? It's a chicken and egg.

We've signed agreements with Saskatchewan, we've signed agreements with Alberta, we've signed agreements with Quebec and Ontario—we've signed agreements all over the place. If they don't keep the data, and we don't include in the agreements a provision for them to legally have to keep the data, then we don't get the data, and the public doesn't get it. What are we going to publish? We're going to publish a hollow report.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes. I didn't mean to convey that the federal government had previously undertaken this activity. Perhaps the confusion is arising, again, because of this split that we have between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment.

When I said there were no agreements in effect, I was talking about our specific responsibilities within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As a matter of fact, the arrangements we operate under are agreements or understandings that have been in effect many, many years, and they're arrangements that are in effect regarding fisheries management responsibilities. This is because of the situation we have in the country, where the federal government has constitutional responsibility for sea coast and inland fisheries, but the resource is owned by the provincial people. As a result of that, there have been arrangements that have been made, going back virtually to the turn of the century, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where the provincial governments have assumed that particular responsibility.

Part of the responsibility—and there are provisions in the act that deal with this—are the sections of the act dealing with the protection of the habitat the fish depend on. Fish and game officers within provincial governments are designated as fishery officers under our legislation and have the authority to charge people if they are destroying fish habitat.

Unfortunately, however, we have never, ever been able to get agreements with provinces, or to finance information systems that would provide the detailed, year-by-year statistical information that there may be on prosecutions and convictions.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Swanson, I don't want to cloud this issue—

The Chairman: Last question.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: —this is the last question—because I know about the delegation to the provinces of the Fisheries Act. Quebec got delegated in 1917 and then we took it back in the 1980s, and so forth. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about are prosecutions under the habitat clauses of the Fisheries Act and the prosecution reports that have now ceased and have been suspended for the last two or three years, or whatever it is—I think as many as four years, but I could be wrong—because the data that come out under the agreements with the provinces are not coming forward, because they don't supply that for one reason or another.

• 1740

So somewhere or another there's a huge gap there. Either the federal government should have insisted on the data in the first place or we should be doing that ourselves through our own systems if the data are not produced, because there are no fisheries prosecution reports at the moment. What will happen if we don't get that data? What kinds of reports are you going to produce if you don't get that?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Well, we don't get that, and the kinds of reports we produce are the reports you have seen to date. Now, whether they're a year in arrears or four years in arrears, we'll find that out, but the reports will indicate the kind of work we do and the activities we're engaged in from a habitat protection point of view, and reports will have in them in the future statistical data to the extent it's available, recognizing that it's not perfect data.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks very much.

Mr. Shimizu, I have a different tack on this article in the Globe and Mail. Maybe the company was doubling its shifts and maybe there were lots of economic reasons. Maybe they needed a different permit, maybe it's a short-term thing, maybe the area around it is getting cleaner.

Are we monitoring the number of permits Ontario gives for companies to, at least on the surface, break the environmental rules? I know that's a poor choice of language, because if they have a permit, they're not breaking the rules.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Right.

Mr. Gar Knutson: But do we monitor that?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: In a specific way, no, we don't monitor who issues permits or how many permits are issued in a direct way. Another branch of Environment Canada does monitor the environmental quality of the water and of the ecosystem in general. If we see a problem, then we try to track that back to sources. But in terms of an administrative monitoring system, no, we don't.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Would it be a simple piece of information that might prove useful...? If five years ago Ontario gave 100 permits and now they're giving 1,000 permits, wouldn't that suggest something to us?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: It really wouldn't mean too much, because any given sector varies with whatever business or industrial cycle it's in. Generally, if we're growing as a society, we're going to see an expansion of that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We can put background growth, GDP, at—

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Anyway, you wouldn't find that useful?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Not at this point, no.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If a company were operating under a provincial permit, such as mentioned in the article, and if I were a federal government employee, I'd have difficulty just showing up at the door and saying, “Well, yes, too bad. You got your permit, but we're going to charge you with killing fish in Lake Ontario.” Is that your view?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Generally speaking, whenever the Ontario government issues a permit or a certificate of approval, it does indicate that the firm has to meet all other jurisdictional requirements—federal, municipal, and regional. So they're put on notice that they need to meet these. Certainly in the case of the article and the two plants that were mentioned, if they did violate the Fisheries Act, we would investigate those violations.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Is violating the Fisheries Act simply killing some fish?

• 1745

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I guess the legal definition is whether the substance is deleterious to fish or harmful to fish.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I come from Elgin County, and farmers couldn't clean out their drainage ditches without being in contravention of the Fisheries Act. It was enforced by MNR at the time. Four or five minnows, MNR was down on them. I used to get complaints about this all the time. It's a pretty strong prohibition.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: It is.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What I'm driving at is that if any of these things mentioned in the article are deleterious to fish, are in contravention of the Fisheries Act, in practical terms, are we precluded from investigating and eventually laying charges?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Yes, we tend to go after the gross polluter, the person or industry that has a record of bad behaviour. We also target priority areas. If there is a specific danger to public health, obviously we would be in there.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If you had more resources, who would you go after other than the gross polluters?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: By and large, our goal at Environment Canada is compliance. I have a range of other programs that I will use to try to achieve and maintain the high level of compliance we have.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay. That's all.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau, followed by Mr. Pratt.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a question about your training for inspectors and the investigators. Could you give us some information about the way in which you deal with this matter, Mr. Guimont? How much training do you provide to them in terms of days or years and how do you go about this training?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll ask Mr. Kimmet to answer your question, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Dale Kimmet: The approach to training in the department is very much to meet the requirements of the legislation as an inspector, the requirements of designation.

There's a basic inspector course and basic and advanced investigator courses. In addition to that, we have training programs on a regulation-by-regulation basis—for example, on hazardous wastes, ozone depleting substances, or what have you. We have a strong, rigorous training program, we have a public document that describes it in great detail, and I'm willing to table it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Do you have a problem because of frequent turnover among your staff or is your staff fairly stable in the particularly strategic functions? Are you regularly in the process of replacing a part of your staff? It's a demanding job.

[English]

Mr. Dale Kimmet: Right. The filling of vacancies over the few years has been a challenge. Our estimate of the vacancy rate is something in the order of 2%. We have enough turnover to warrant a basic inspector course once a year and an investigator course when required.

I think I've answered your question. The turnover is not significant at the present time, but we staffed a lot in the last few years.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In general terms, are you satisfied with the habitat in this country? Are we gaining, maintaining, or losing fisheries habitat in this country?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I don't think I can answer that question.

The auditor general recently concluded an audit of our habitat program in British Columbia. He had access to some reports indicating that habitat was being lost. Certainly, loss of habitat—there's no doubt that from a historical perspective there have been losses of habitat. Nobody would argue that we have the same amount of fish habitat today as we had 50 or 100 years ago. However, since the mid-1980s we have put in place a policy that attempts to recognize that problem. The policy has as its overall objective a net gain of habitat, recognizing that there were many years where there were losses of habitat.

• 1750

We strive for a net gain in three ways. One, where project proponents are going to have some sort of development that can result in the loss of habitat, we will allow that project to go ahead only if there is an agreement that the habitat at risk is compensated for in some way. By compensation we're not talking dollars and cents in the usual sense, but in the creation of equivalent kinds of habitat.

Two, in recognition that there has been loss of habitat in the past, we attempt to work with volunteer organizations, companies, and others to create new habitat in certain circumstances and to rehabilitate habitat where it has been destroyed previously. That's the policy framework we operate within. The degree to which we're effective in attaining those objectives is more difficult to answer. There are miles and miles of rivers and many lakes in Canada and many projects that can have the effect of destroying fish habitat. There's no requirement in the law that instances where habitat can be altered in some way be brought to the attention of us or of any level of federal government. So we have to operate through programs of education and sensitivity to try to get proponents who could be destroying fish habitat in some way, to avoid those kinds of losses.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Does your department sign bilateral agreements with provinces on enforcement only?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: With respect to the habitat question, we have had an agreement with only one province and it was referred to as an interim agreement. That was the province of Ontario. The chair made reference to this agreement earlier in today's session, and that's an agreement that Ontario has walked away from, at least temporarily.

We also recently entered into an agreement in the province of British Columbia, a bilateral level of fisheries management agreement, which has habitat subcomponents to it. There are no other formal agreements on habitat across the country, although we do have arrangements in other provinces, particularly on the east coast and in B.C., where provincial permitting agencies do bring to our attention project proposals that they are reviewing under their own legislation, so that we can review those projects in terms of their impacts on fish habitat.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So your structure of administration, inspection—is it similar to Environment Canada? Do you have regions or...?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes, we do. We have five regions. Newfoundland is a region in itself. The maritime provinces are a region. The Laurentian region is the province of Quebec. Our central and Arctic region is Ontario, the three prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories. Then we have our Pacific and Yukon region.

• 1755

Our personnel tend to be concentrated in coastal areas. Those are the areas in which we have responsibility for the management of the fishery. In the central areas of the country there are long-standing arrangements, as I indicated earlier, by which those inland governments manage the fishery using federal legislation and in certain instances their own legislation for allocation and licensing questions.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So in administering a federal act provincially, as the hon. member mentioned, you haven't been able to make an annual report.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes, we were discussing the annual report that's required by the Fisheries Act on the administration of the habitat provisions of the act, and we have had some difficulties in getting statistical information from those areas of the country where the fishery is managed by a provincial government.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Most of these ministers responsible would be CCME ministers, wouldn't they?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: That again varies across the country. We still have in the province of Ontario, for example, a ministry that's called the Ministry of Natural Resources. I think we have the same situation in Manitoba. Other provinces, though, now seem to have these larger amalgams of responsibilities, where there's a combination of fisheries, environment, and other responsibilities.

The Chairman: We can have a couple of questions to clarify, and then we must conclude.

Mr. Swanson, you replied to Mr. Lincoln earlier. On the question of reports—the report is behind schedule—you were referring to section 35 reports, am I correct?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes. I'm referring to section 35 reports, but I don't believe the statute distinguishes between 35 and 36.

The Chairman: So who's in charge of reporting on section 36?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: We are responsible. I believe it's our minister who is responsible for tabling that report with Parliament.

The Chairman: Both 35 and 36.

Mr. Gerry Swanson: Yes.

The Chairman: When do you plan to do that?

Mr. Gerry Swanson: I will have to look at our schedule, sir. Our last report probably deals with not the end of this fiscal year but possibly the last one. I'm going to have to verify that. I know we are in the process of preparing an annual report at this time.

The Chairman: Will you by way of a letter inform this committee as to what is the plan for the production of this particular report on sections 35 and 36?

Mr. Gerry Swanson. Yes.

The Chairman: Briefly, Mr. Shimizu, in the light of the policy direction being taken by the Government of Ontario, as arranged by Mr. Pratt and others, do you think it might be necessary for you to seek from Ottawa a larger allocation of funds in the near future?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: My resource base, as I understand it, is relatively stable now. I am making plans to work within it. That's right across the board on all programs.

We have a number of long-term programs we're tracking, and we're now in the throes of carrying through with their implementation.

No, I don't intend to ask for new resources.

The Chairman: You don't expect that the policy of the Ontario government will have a negative impact on waters, fisheries, and the jurisdiction you have?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: We've carried out a very extensive review of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, which we signed with Ontario in 1994. We carried out that review this year, and we did make some adjustments to the program based on the re-ordering of some priorities. By and large, both governments are carrying through with their commitments on that agreement, and we're tracking along those lines at this time. As you've heard often today, we are making more use of partnerships. We are trying to extend the voluntary programs.

• 1800

The Chairman: Mr. Shimizu, the Canadian Environmental Law Association was very critical of the implementation on the part of Ontario of that agreement. Do you share that view?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: We went through an extensive review with them, and they've continued to maintain they will live up to their part of the—

The Chairman: Who are “they”?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Ontario.

The Chairman: They maintain, but are you satisfied they can deliver on what they claim?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: We work with them, and whenever we have a difficulty we examine it and try to make adjustments.

The Chairman: What attention did you pay to the report by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which claims there are very serious shortcomings in implementation?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Certainly CELA is an important stakeholder in the Great Lakes. We listened to them. We listen to—

The Chairman: Yes, we know that, Mr. Shimizu, we've been around to hear that before. What attention are you paying to their report?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Do you mean the one they released yesterday?

The Chairman: No, the one that was released about five months ago.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I'm sorry, I guess I was confused.

The Chairman: We'd be glad to send you a copy.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: Thank you.

The Chairman: I would welcome your comments on it.

Mr. Ron Shimizu: All right.

The Chairman: Would you provide them for us?

Mr. Ron Shimizu: I'll read the report first.

The Chairman: Of course you have to; that is the correct sequence. Mr. Shimizu, I'll congratulate you on that conclusion.

It's now 6 p.m. and we must conclude for today. There are a few issues we have not been able to go into. For instance, we have not been able to ask questions about what your concerns are on the subagreement on enforcement. We have not been really able to find out what have been the cuts and the effect of cuts from all sources, direct and indirect, on the enforcement operations.

We have not been able to go into the adequacy of operations or resources. I'm looking here, for instance, at the Quebec office, the Quebec region. It has eight people, one of whom is the chief, five of whom are inspectors, and two of whom are investigators. I ask myself how can a complement of seven people cover such a vast geography, with so many waterways, with such an enormous mandate. The same of course applies to the other regions as well. It is really a puzzle as to how this enforcement task can be carried out with such limited resources and in a manner gaining in respect and dignity.

Another item that perhaps we may want to go into is recidivism. Mr. Kimmet indicated few offenders were prosecuted again, but the question we should perhaps pursue is whether there are recidivists in the category of warnings issued and how that is working out. It is a field we may revisit with you people again once we have had an opportunity to hear other witnesses.

Tomorrow morning we have a few witnesses, and then in camera we will discuss the question of field inspectors and how to go about it.

Thank you very much for your appearance today. We will see you again.

This meeting is adjourned.