ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 17, 1998

• 0907

[English

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I apologize for being late.

Today we're looking at the Auditor General's report on contaminated sites, management information and environmental costs and liabilities. We will start with Mr. Emmett, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Welcome back, Mr. Emmett.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): It's good to be back, Mr. Chairman. I have a very brief opening statement on our report on contaminated sites.

Contaminated sites are a potentially serious environmental problem. They can lead to contamination of groundwater, take valuable land out of productive use and threaten human health and the environment. Also, they can lead to potentially significant financial liabilities for the Government of Canada.

[Translation]

The Federal Government owns thousands of contaminated sites that pose potential risks to public health, safety and the environment. Before the government can assess the environmental and health risks, it has to identify its contaminated sites. Only then can it develop an action plan, including a timetable to monitor and at least contain the risks or to fully remediate a site.

[English]

But the federal government, the largest landholder in Canada, does not have a complete picture of the potential risks to health, safety and the environment associated with about 5,000 contaminated federal sites, nor does it have an accurate picture of related financial liabilities. As a result, it is unable to assure Parliament and the people of Canada that it can address these risks.

[Translation]

The situation is not entirely bleak. Individual departments have made some headway in beginning to inventory and assess their portfolios of contaminated sites. The 1996 chapter describes some of the progress made by three large departments with significant landholdings. However, based on the current rate of progress overall in the twelve departments reviewed, it could take them at least another ten years to complete the job of identifying, assessing and remediating their contaminated sites—ten more years of potentially serious health and safety risks.

[English]

What I find personally disturbing is the way the government has chosen to manage its portfolio of more than 5,000 contaminated sites. Every organization we visited in the course of this audit that managed a large portfolio of contaminated sites took a global approach to identifying its highest-risk sites and dealing with them first. However, if the federal government has chosen to take a fragmented approach, that raises questions about whether its approach is the right one. The government is essentially captive to each department's individual level of interest and capacity in dealing with its own contaminated sites.

• 0910

As a result of this institutional approach, there is no common timetable for the identification, assessment, and ultimate remediation of federal contaminated sites, particularly the high-risk ones. Nor is there a common, consistent, and coherent federal approach to ensuring that the government exercises the due diligence expected of a major landholder, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. One department may be remediating a lower-risk site while another still has to remediate all of its high-risk sites.

[Translation]

The Treasury Board Secretariat has prepared a draft policy on accounting for costs and liabilities related to contaminated sites. The proposed implementation date is April 1, 1998 with the first reporting in the government's financial statements by March 31, 1999. A key issue is the readiness of individual departments. Our concern is that given the government's fragmented approach, individual departments may not have complete estimates of their departmental liabilities by March 31, 1999. The unresolved challenge is how to ensure, without a common timetable for the identification and assessment of all federal contaminated sites, that Parliamentarians and Canadians will know the cost of mitigating the risks to health and safety.

[English]

The government continues to disagree with us over the need for a government-wide action plan and timetable to complete the identification, assessment, and remediation of all federal contaminated sites. It emphasizes that each federal department is responsible for its own clean-up.

I think Canadians are questioning the credibility of our institutions. The federal government risks a loss of credibility because of its inability to put its house in order when it comes to monitoring and managing the legacy of hazardous waste on government lands. Erosion of this credibility can also affect the government's ability to regulate and influence the environmental practices of others.

The question remains: what are the potential health and environmental costs of not taking timely action?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much.

We now have Mr. Colin Potts from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Mr. Colin Potts (Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board Secretariat): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

I am pleased to be here this morning to discuss with you and members of this committee the government's approach to accounting for and reporting financial liabilities related to contaminated sites under federal jurisdiction.

First let me introduce those with me today: Mr. John Denis, the director of the government accounting policy division, and Mr. Larry Birch, acting director of the bureau of real property management, both within the Treasury Board Secretariat. Mr. Denis' division develops accounting policy for the federal government, while Mr. Birch's bureau is responsibility for the federal government's real property policy.

In chapter 22 of his November 1996 report, the Auditor General made a number of comments and recommendations on accounting for and reporting environmental costs and liabilities of the federal government. Specifically, it was recommended that the Treasury Board Secretariat develop an accounting policy that defines a contaminated site and an environmental liability, and sets out when and how such liabilities should be recorded and reported in the public accounts.

In November 1996, the Treasury Board Secretariat responded to these recommendations that it was researching the issue and developing a policy for implementation in the fiscal year 1998-99. Since that time, the secretariat has developed and circulated to departments a proposed policy. This policy defines environmental liabilities related to contaminated sites. It also calls for departments to develop the necessary inventory of sites under their responsibility and to estimate future costs of required remedial activity.

• 0915

Annual reporting of this information will be submitted to the secretariat and reported in the financial statements of the government. Appropriate supplementary information on the liabilities for remedial activity will also be reported in the public accounts.

The proposed policy was developed in consultation with representatives from a number of departments that are custodians of significant inventories of real property. Reference was also made to private sector practice and expenditure drafts of proposed accounting recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

In addition, drafts of the policy were circulated to the Office of the Auditor General for comment and suggestions. A number of such suggestions were received from the audit office and incorporated into the final proposal, thereby strengthening the policy and improving its clarity. Such input, of course, is very much appreciated.

In terms of implementation, our intention is to obtain departmental comment on the proposed policy and make any necessary amendments by April 30, 1998. We shall then ask departments to undertake an inventory of their contaminated sites and to cost the required remedial work during the upcoming summer, with reporting to the Treasury Board Secretariat by September 30, 1998. During the fall we shall assess the results, make necessary refinements to the data in conjunction with departments, and develop public accounts reporting instructions with the Receiver General and the Department of Finance. Departments will be required to update their data as of March 31, 1999, for reporting to the Receiver General and inclusion in the 1998-1999 financial statements of the government.

For the information of committee members and yourself, Mr. Chairman, I have copies of the proposed policy available for distribution.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much.

We're scheduled to go to Mr. Guimont next from Environment Canada. Welcome back.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Protection Service, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be back before you this morning and to have this opportunity to speak again with members of the Committee.

[English]

I have with me this morning Ms. Karen Anderson. She is the director of real property at Environment Canada.

My remarks this morning will focus on three areas. First will be the actual national contaminated sites remediation program, a program that was in place from 1990 to 1995. I'll then touch on how we are organized at the federal level in dealing with contaminated sites. Thirdly and more specifically, I will address how Environment Canada is dealing with its own contaminated sites, which may be a bit of an example as to how other departments are also dealing with this issue.

The national contaminated sites remediation program was a five-year, $250-million program that was struck under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The program was cost-shared 50-50 between the federal government and the provinces. The program was set in place to achieve a number of things. We wanted to get our hands nationally around contaminated sites, understand what the issue was, proceed with remediation, and support technology development initiatives that could be put in place to correct problems and size them correctly so people could take action.

Let's talk about results. Under that program over the five years, 45 high-risk orphan sites were cleaned up, 325 federal sites were identified and characterized, 18 federal sites were decontaminated, and 55 projects under the technology portion of the program were put forward.

When I say the program spanned over five years it is accurate, but there was an extension of 12 more months, so in reality it spanned one more year. The resources started to be consumed more actively toward the end of the program, so within the envelope of $250 million, federal and provincial ministers agreed to extend the program so that resources that were still available would be used. That was the reason for the 12-month extension.

Now let's talk about the way we are organized at the federal level for dealing with contaminated sites. Most of the members are aware, by looking through the Auditor General's update, that there is an environmental accountability partnership that exists between Treasury Board and Environment Canada. It is co-chaired by the two departments. This accountability partnership has two components.

• 0920

On the one hand, there is a policy component dealing specifically with contaminated sites issues, and that is a subcommittee. That is on one side, while the other side deals with the so-called federal commitment on environmental management systems. It is what we refer to as the “operationalization” of what would be and should be the content of sustainable development strategy. It's the whole area of environmental management systems.

Under that group, there is specifically the contaminated sites management working group, which deals with specific issues related to contaminated sites, the more operational matters. So on the one side we have policy aspects related to contaminated sites, and on the other there is, under the contaminated sites management working group, an interdepartmental committee chaired by DFO that deals with the operational aspects of contaminated sites.

When I refer to the operational aspects, I mean site identification, the various forms that may be used to identify sites, how to go about risk assessment and how to proceed in setting priorities, things of that nature.

I just want to conclude by touching on the Environment Canada component of contaminated sites and how we go about doing business in the department.

[Translation]

There is also an EC interdepartmental working group chaired by our corporate group. Ms. Anderson sits on it. That group brings together people from headquarters and the regional offices.

Since 1996, a number of activities have been pursued within the department, including the development of a Contaminated Sites Remediation Framework; a departmental inventory of potentially contaminated sites and development of an action plan integrated into the departmental environmental management plan—this is the kind of program departments must develop, as I mentioned earlier, to support their sustainable development strategy—as well as the development of a contaminated sites policy, including procedures for remediation and clean-up of affected sites, as required, within the department.

Assessment and remediation of Environment Canada sites is ongoing using the risk management process. The fundamental principle we apply continues to be that the higher the risk, the faster we act. Thirty-four Environment Canada sites, representing various site typologies, have been assessed to determine the presence and sources of any existing contamination, as well as potential visits of confirmation in all sites administered by Environment Canada. The first step was to assess the 34 sites, and clean-up operations have begun in four of those sites. Those activities will be ongoing in the years to come.

Based on the assessments completed to date, we have determined that the overall risks for Environment Canada sites are low.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much. We'll now hear from Bruce Lorimer from Public Works.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer (Director General, Architectural and Engineering Services, Real Property Services, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. With me today is Bob Davidge, the director of environmental services for our department.

As you know, the management of contaminated sites is potentially a very large financial issue. Recently, the Auditor General estimated that the potential liability to the federal government is likely to exceed $2.8 billion.

I should note that in comparison to the potential federal liability, that of Public Works and Government Services Canada is relatively minor. Our share of the liability is in the order of $20 million, although it must be recognized that this is still a substantial sum.

[Translation]

When we, at Public Works and Government Services Canada, first started developing an Environmental Management System in 1991, it was very clear that the management issues dealing with contaminated sites were at least as challenging as the technical issues. The key problem was that expectations were likely to be raised, expectations that were technically achievable, but financially unachievable—especially in the case of other custodians.

[English]

We were very pleased, therefore, when Environment Canada and Treasury Board formed the environmental accountability partnership and the contaminated sites working group in 1995. These committees served to bring together the desires of the regulatory and policy setting agencies, the financial concerns of the custodians and the know-how of the service agencies and other doers.

Experience on other topics had shown that such a marriage of capabilities could permit environmental benefits to be realized at a much lower cost than if Environment Canada had been left to set regulations without custodial department input. At the same time, Environment Canada served to challenge us to achieve goals which we might not have otherwise considered.

In the case of contaminated sites, it was clear that if the federal government could not afford to remediate all sites at once, there should be a logical plan in place for dealing with them over time. To our way of thinking, this meant a form of risk management.

• 0925

For our own sites, risk management means developing a logical approach, starting with paper searches to identify the sites with the greatest probability of being contaminated. Using this list, we started physical site surveys and assessments. Based on these results, we developed cost estimates for various management options and made judgments concerning the potential risk of the site to human health and to the environment.

This management approach has led to a priorization of sites for remediation. It has also led to the realization that some sites are better managed in situ, since the act of remediation also normally has its own environmental risks and costs. In addition, some sites that we have inherited may be sold as is with full disclosure, and with the caveat that the purchaser clean up the site to the extent that is appropriate for its intended use.

I should note that the management approach is an ongoing process. We have not waited to evaluate all sites before starting working on containing, monitoring, or remediating contamination, especially with respect to those sites that are in the higher risk category. Other custodians have developed similar approaches.

It is our preference that the federal contaminated site management approaches employed by the various custodians should be more than similar; they should be the same. Furthermore, these common principles should be reviewed by and blessed by the federal authority having jurisdiction—in this case, Environment Canada. Without that blessing, management approaches across government will almost certainly be inconsistent, as will the cost-effectiveness of expenditures. As I noted, we strongly support the formation of the environmental accountability partnership committee, and especially the formation of the contaminated sites management working group.

[Translation]

To date, the Working Group has developed an inventory of contaminated sites on federal lands, a guide on best practices to prevent contamination and one on remediation technologies. It is currently developing a framework for the management of sites on federal lands and organizing a workshop on legal issues surrounding contaminated sites.

It has already developed a draft policy on the management of contaminated sites, with a view to having that the policy adopted by each department or by Treasury Board.

[English]

The key strategic objectives that remain to be accomplished concern the development, proposition, and acceptance of a risk management approach, as well as addressing the funding issues. As a key custodian and optional service provider, Public Works and Government Services Canada can play a significant role by developing and proposing highly pragmatic and cost-effective risk management approaches. We can provide advice and guidance concerning risk assessment, and cost estimates for alternative management and remediation approaches. We are creating environmental accounting systems under our own environmental management system, and they could be used by other custodians to track progress as compared to their own sustainable development goals where their goals are similar to ours.

We will continue to be active in the contaminated sites management working group. Currently we are chairing a subcommittee of the working group charged with developing the required management framework. From a more operational perspective, we intend to take part in a demonstration project to be organized by the working groups to test innovative approaches to contaminated sites remediation.

On a regular basis, we will continue to provide contaminated site management services to other government departments, principally carrying out assessments and remediation projects for large custodians such as Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Transport Canada, and the Coast Guard. In addition, we have dedicated units working in the headquarters of Parks Canada and Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They are charged with coordinating the management of environmental affairs, including contaminated sites.

Public Works and Government Services Canada is making progress in the management of contaminated sites under its custody, continually identifying, assessing, and remediating sites. The priority has been on remediating those sites posing a danger to human health and/or the environment. Other sites will be remediated depending on their compliance status, the benefit to the environment, and the cost of remediation.

[Translation]

In short, by working with the Contaminated Sites Management Working Group, there is much that we can, will do and indeed are already doing, as a key custodian and service provider to facilitate progress by the Federal Government towards meeting its contaminated sites management responsibilities.

[English]

Collectively, however, we must rely on the leadership of Environment Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat to accept and to adopt processes and procedures being proposed by this working group if they are to become uniformly used across government. Similarly, the budgetary issue will require central agency leadership if it is to be uniformly managed.

• 0930

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much, Mr. Lorimer.

Next we have Daniel Green from the Society to Defeat Pollution.

Mr. Daniel Green (Director, Society to Defeat Pollution): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I may, I have a few transparencies to illustrate my presentation.

[Translation]

I think it's important for members to understand what the real issue is. With your permission, I would like to show you a federal site that, from our perspective, has been very poorly managed by the various departments responsible: Public Works Canada, Parks Canada and Heritage Canada. I refer to the Lachine Canal, which is a Federal Government responsibility and runs right through the centre of the City of Montreal.

Based on assessments made by Environment Canada, Parks Canada and independent consultants, the Lachine Canal is considered to be one of the most contaminated sites of all known federal sites in Canada.

It is estimated that the Lachine Canal presents risks, not only for the people who live close to the canal and might accidentally fall in, but also for the water quality of the St. Lawrence River; Heritage Canada's plan to reopen the canal to pleasure boating will result in contaminated sediments being carried from the Lachine Canal into the St. Lawrence River.

Here, then, is an example of a federal site where the actual contamination is contained, but could well spread to the St. Lawrence River and become a major source of contamination.

The Lachine Canal example shows that even though the government may theoretically seem to be in control of the situation, in actual practice, it is not. Yet the Lachine Canal site is one of those that have been studied the most. It is not out of ignorance that nothing is being done about the Lachine Canal. If nothing is being done, it is because of economic imperatives, and that is a very serious problem. The Federal Government wants to make its contaminated sites cost effective, at the expense of protecting public health.

At the present time, the Lachine Canal site contains an enormous number of pollutants, including PAHs, PCBs, grease and oils, arsenic, and cyanide. Some of these are carcinogenic. And this is occurring in one of the most populated areas of Canada.

We have even used an assessment done by Environment Canada that measures what we call Chimiotox units. These units correspond to different sections of the Lachine Canal. So, every section has been assessed. Once again, it is not out of ignorance that the government is not taking action on the Lachine Canal situation; it is by choice.

The state of contamination of the Lachine Canal is very well known. It is one of the federal sites that has been studied the most. And yet the Federal Government does not seem to want to assume its responsibilities and clean it up.

That obviously prompts editorialists in the Montreal area to wonder whether the Federal Government really intends to take responsibility for this problem. Let's not forget that the Federal Government promised in the Green Plan to decontaminate the Lachine Canal and made that same commitment in two federal-provincial agreements signed with Quebec. But the government is silent about all that now. Rather, it is proposing to open it up to navigation without a serious assessment having been completed.

• 0935

Of course, this site carries with it certain political implications. Since I knew I would be speaking to Members of Parliament, I took the liberty of putting a colour code next to the initials of the various M.P.s concerned. Red is for a Liberal M.P. Clifford Lincoln...

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I am no longer there. That was my previous riding.

Mr. Daniel Green: It doesn't matter. Your riding adjoins...

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, no.

Mr. Daniel Green: It no longer adjoins the canal?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, no.

Mr. Daniel Green: Congratulations. There are also Paul Martin, Marlene Jennings, Lucienne Robillard, Raymond Lavigne and Gilles Duceppe, whose riding unfortunately will be receiving the contaminants that flow from the Lachine Canada.

That completes my audio-visual presentation.

In light of this situation, I think it's important to set the record straight. I believe the Auditor General's Report to be accurate. He describes what the Federal Government, as a responsible government, should do. There is no doubt that as a landowner, it has almost a fiduciary obligation to ensure that these sites do not contaminate the environment.

I would say there is another very important reason why the Federal Government should intervene. The Lachine Canal is one federal site that threatens to become an active contaminator of the environment, and an active polluter of the river, with all that may entail in the way of lawsuits, and both criminal and civil liability.

You can imagine what would happen if the Lachine Canal were to contaminate a sport fishing area where fishermen are exposed. The long-term risks for the Public Accounts potentially represent much more substantial amounts of money, in the form of payments to victims, than the $2 billion estimated cost of the clean-up.

The interdepartmental working group has done some extremely interesting work on these sites. I think what is missing is an analysis of the governance problem. Someone must be in control.

At the present time, at least as far as the Lachine Canal is concerned, Heritage Canada seems quite unable to take control. We suggest that the responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites be returned to Environment Canada, which would become a central agency charged with coordinating and managing site clean-up.

Let's be clear. We're talking about management and coordination. The responsible department or landowner is the one that has to pay the bill. But the honest broker, if you will, would be Environment Canada, as the Public Works Canada official has recommended. A central authority is needed.

In order to facilitate Environment Canada's work, we are recommending that under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there be a federal regulation setting out the legal responsibilities of departments that own contaminated sites. That way, everything will be very clear. And since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides for citizen involvement, this will also give the public some way of ensuring that departments responsible for contaminated sites take action to decontaminate them. These stipulations would have force of law.

In the case of the Lachine Canal, we mustn't forget that just because a department knows the level of contamination at a given site does not mean that because it has access to all this information, it will automatically make the right decisions. In actual fact, it has a conflict of interest. It is the department that determines the level of decontamination. But it should not have that power; that responsibility more rightfully rests with a higher agency.

The Auditor General's Report uses a number of keywords: political leadership, central policy, central leadership. Given the context in which the Auditor General's Office uses these keywords, I can't see how we could maintain a system where each department decides on its own how to decontaminate these sites and whether they have been sufficiently remediated to justify terminating clean-up operations.

• 0940

Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Could I ask you to sum up.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Green: Yes. So, I have proposed a number of concrete actions: restoring to Environment Canada responsibility for the federal remediation program and a legislative framework under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Those are my recommendations to the Committee. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Gilmour.

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

This is to the Auditor General. The point made by Mr. Green is a good one. Who do you think should be the lead agency? Should it be Environment Canada? Should it be Treasury Board? It certainly doesn't appear, with each department running its own show, there is any consistency. What would be your recommendation? Who should run it, or have the hammer, basically?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

I guess our recommendation is that someone should have the hammer. In the report we make that point. The report indicates that Environment Canada or Treasury Board would be candidates: Environment Canada if you view it essentially as an environmental problem, Treasury Board if you view it as a real property management problem.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: There seems to be a lack of consistency right across the board. Where do you think it has fallen down? Is it a lack of political will? Is it the departments themselves? Is it the government of the day? Where is the weak area?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Clearly, Mr. Gilmour, in our report we looked at what we regarded as a fundamental weakness in management, and that is to take a decentralized approach as opposed to a centralized approach. We found when looking at individual departments we surveyed in detail, when they approached their own sites they used good techniques. On a departmental level, things seemed to be operating quite reasonably well, consistent with best practices we had observed elsewhere. Where it falls down is on this horizontal issue: how can we be sure we're using scarce taxpayer dollars to remediate the highest-risk sites first, the second-highest-risk sites second, and so on, as makes sense to me?

The other issue was touched on by Mr. Green as he finished his remarks, and that is how do we get consistency? Does each department have the same understanding of how clean is clean enough?

So I think it's with the overall management approach that we have a problem. The best practices in the department we are quite encouraged by. The lack of consistent standards across the board I think we had a problem with.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: There seems to be a lot of effort on working on identification, working on costing, but the ultimate goal is to clean these sites up, and I don't see a lot of effort to do the third part; to get the sites cleaned up. We've heard a lot of talk about studies and identification and costing. How far down the road are we towards actually getting these sites cleaned up? Or is there a bit of a wall; we'll have them all identified, we'll have a wonderful stack of paper telling us what it's going to cost, but the bottom line is the sites won't get cleaned up?

Mr. Brian Emmett: That question may be better answered by the department, but certainly what we call the implementation gap is something I identified in my first report. We often have good plans, but they are not adequately executed.

In this area I think we have run into the additional problem—this question has come up before in this committee—of whether resources are involved or not. In some cases you can identify efficiencies that will get you a long way towards solving a problem.

• 0945

I think when you look at contaminated sites, it's an area where you really do have to apply money to the problem at a time when there are many competing priorities, and that makes it doubly difficult.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): As I was reading the Auditor General's Report, I also reviewed the various components of the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, which was in effect for a 10-year period, from 1989 to 1995. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Guimont.

It is my impression that this whole issue has been managed according to a two-speed process. When the program was first implemented, there was a period during which the government was more active. It tried to find more concrete solutions to problems. It focussed on actual site remediation. After 1995, however, a more bureaucratic approach was adopted, with all that entails— essentially a focus on talking about plans.

I would like to begin by quoting from the Report where it talks about the Environmental Accountability Partnership Policy Sub-committee:

The EAP Sub-committee has prepared a general policy draft on contaminated sites that is currently under discussion; however, neither departmental deadlines nor a date for implementation of the inventory model have yet been set.

So, another approach has clearly been adopted in this area.

Mr. Guimont, I would like you to tell us what aspects of the program I just mentioned have not worked. How do you explain the fact that a more bureaucratic approach is now being taken—one that does not really tackle the problem of direct site remediation?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, the joint plan was developed and implemented between 1989 and 1996. As I explained, it was extended by one year since funds were still available. It was a new program, and its main purpose was in fact to provide the necessary methods and tools to be as effective as possible in remediating contaminated sites. We not only developed tools, we cleaned up sites. Also, technologies were developed to be used for site remediation.

Often, as part of these technology development programs, pilot projects or pilot decontamination techniques can, depending on results, be transposed to other sites. That is pretty well what happened under the plan implemented over a 5-year period.

Because the tools were available, we moved on to the action phase, as you were describing earlier. So, we developed tools, decontaminated sites, developed new technologies, and moved on to what I would call federal implementation—that is, a structuring of activities based on the polluter-pay principle, which says that the owner or custodian of the lands or property is responsible for them.

So, based on those two principles, the working committees I referred to in my presentation discussed environmental management systems and tools developed through implementation of the plan, comparing and testing them against departmental sustainable development strategies. The departments integrated into their regular activities those priorities they felt were important with respect to decontamination.

My colleague from Treasury Board noted that we are going to determine who bears financial responsibility for the various sites. In order to do that, though, we need a very clear description of all those sites. That is a logical, rational way to proceed.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it was mentioned a couple of times that the Federal Government does not have an overall picture of the problems associated with its contaminated sites. In that sense, it is very difficult to set a timetable for remediation work.

When those sites have been identified, and when issues of responsibility have been dealt with through the Public Accounts, I'm convinced that departments will be in a position where their sites will have been identified and they will have all the necessary tool to assess risks and set priorities. Then, using available resources and applying the polluter pays principle, they will be able to start decontaminating their sites, based on the priorities they have identified.

So, the plan provided us with tools. Now we have taken steps to share these tools so that departments are in a position to set their own priorities.

• 0950

I believe the listing in the Public Accounts of the various sites for which each department is responsible will provide the necessary impetus to move us from the planning stage to concrete action.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: However, in order to achieve results, there has to be some leadership. In light of the Auditor General's Report, a number of departments were asked which of them should provide the leadership required to coordinate management of contaminated sites. Based on the answers received, no federal organization feels that it alone is responsible for developing a strategy. I would like to know whether your own department's response was that it should not play a leadership role in this area.

Mr. François Guimont: There are two answers to that question, Mr. Chairman. The first is the very basis for the approach the government has taken to sustainable development. Let me explain.

Responsibility for sustainable development has not been entrusted to a single department, such as Environment Canada. The government has said that sustainable development is an issue for all departments. In order to put that principle into practice, all departments were asked to prepare and bring forward their own sustainable development strategy, as well as their own EMS, which is the process through which these strategies are to be implemented.

These are not fictional strategies; they will be regularly reviewed and an assessment will be made of how successfully they are being implemented. That is the first part of my answer.

Now let me answer your second question. Mr. Chairman, as regards whether Environment Canada is part of the process or not, the answer is yes.

An Hon. Member: I hope so.

Mr. François Guimont: We are co-chairs, with the Treasury Board, of the committee which is overseeing development of sustainable development strategies. There are also two other working groups dealing specifically with contaminated sites in which Environment Canada is obviously involved. Meaningful liaison between real property management in Treasury Board and the experience gained by Environment Canada between 1989 and 1995 is occurring through the discussions and work carried out by these various groups.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: One last question. I would like you to quickly describe the situation with respect to the case raised by Mr. Green, namely the Lachine Canal.

Mr. François Guimont: The Lachine Canal, as Mr. Green indicated, falls under the responsibility of Heritage Canada. Just to put certain facts into perspective, I would remind you that a joint federal-provincial commission was established to deal with decontamination of the Lachine Canal. That was in June and July 1996. After that, the joint commission held public hearings on the work it had carried out. In its report—which is an extremely important one, being technical, scientific and based on public hearings—the joint commission recommended that the canal not be decontaminated in the context of aquatic activity involving secondary contact—in other words, pleasure boating as opposed to actual swimming in the canal, which I imagine would involve fairly direct or first-hand contact.

That was one of the commission's recommendations. It also made a second recommendation, and probably others as well. If, as Mr. Green explained, the canal were to be reopened to boating—for example, if the various locks were to be opened and boats began to circulate in the canal thereby disturbing the sediment, because the commission has recommended dealing with this on a case-by-case basis, the sediment suspension level would once again be examined in relation to proposed boating activities.

On January 21, 1997, Heritage Canada made public the Federal Government's response and launched the study recommended by the commission, in order to determine what impact the sediment in the canal might have, were the latter to be opened up to boating, as has been proposed. That study is underway as we speak. So, that study is ongoing, and my understanding of the notes I've been provided is that the results of that analysis should be made public in March of 1998. So, we should be getting them soon.

• 0955

We are now in February; so, in a month or so, Heritage Canada should be in a position to release the specific study that has been done on the boating project and the problem of stirring up sediment in the canal.

It is my hope that as part of this study, Heritage Canada will essentially be able to explain how it intends to proceed with respect to the dual issues of boating and decontamination.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We'll go with Mr. Lincoln and then Mr. Herron.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was just reading the Auditor General's report. I would like to mention to Mr. Guimont that in there, it seems to me it is all a chicken-and-egg situation.

From what I understand, we still have to implement the policy on inventories, or an inventory template. We don't have enough data and costs established so that we can in turn establish priorities to find out which of the sites we should tackle first.

The report says it will take 10 years or more to decontaminate even the main sites. There are 5,000 sites. The Auditor General suggests a holistic approach rather than the federal fragmented approach.

I was looking at your notes, seeing how many programs and committees are involved in this thing. No wonder we are in trouble. There's the NCSRP, the national program of the CCME. There's DESRT, a technology program. Then we have the EAP, co-chaired by Environment Canada and Treasury Board. Then we have the CSMWG, a working group, chaired by DFO, that reports to the EAP. Then we have the FCEMS, the committee on federal and environmental management systems. I wonder, with all these things, how all these federal governments find themselves, and find out which does which.

Can you tell me, Mr. Guimont, why the federal government and Environment Canada have not agreed to the Auditor General's suggestion of a coordinated action plan by the various ministries?

Mr. François Guimont: The actual structure you've described is accurate. This is a structure that is in place to provide for consistency and coherence in the way federal departments are taking action on contaminated sites. This is exactly that.

I've explained that there is, on the one side, the policy components related to contaminated sites. This is contained on the subcommittee of the EAP, as you refer to it. The operational aspects related to contaminated sites is contained under the contaminated sites management working group.

Your very point, Mr. Lincoln, in terms of templates and so on is being discussed. This is the type of issue being discussed at the technical working group—how to proceed in a coherent, consistent fashion across federal departments.

The whole approach federally on contaminated sites, in view of that structure, is one of polluter pays. So the departments responsible for their sites are responsible for site education, risk assessment, and finding the resources to carry out decontamination afterwards.

To take the example of Environment Canada, this is exactly what we've done. We've gone through an accounting of the sites we have. We have applied a risk assessment approach in terms of setting priorities for those sites. We're now going to be moving into a mode, after doing the risk assessment comprehensively, not to fall in the trap, described by the commissioner, of starting with the wrong site. Starting with the right site, with the highest potential for human health and the environment, we're going to be proceeding with that after full risk assessment of these area sites.

This approach, this basic approach—my understanding is that this is exactly why the committee exists and is used by the various departments in discharging their responsibilities for contaminated sites under their responsibility.

• 1000

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: According to the Auditor General's report, the Treasury Board is not going to complete its accounting policy before March 31, 1999. The Auditor General reckons it will take at least 10 years, if we devoted all the resources and had the proper action plan, to decontaminate at least the main sites out of the 5,000.

Without a real action plan, how can we know, for instance, today, how long it's going to take and what the timetable is? The report says there's no timetable set as yet. There's no target. Without the accounting policy being ready before March 31, 1999, when are we going to know what the federal government is going to do regarding priorities, a timetable, the cost to the taxpayers and the cost to the departments, the funding of it?

When is that going to be known by Canadians, an exact, coordinated, holistic approach that will tell us this is the timetable, this is the money allowed for it, these are the priorities, these are the first sites we're going to tackle, on a holistic basis, regardless of whether it's Environment Canada, the Department of Defence, or Public Works?

Mr. François Guimont: Work has been done in terms of characterizing sites by various departments.

As I said earlier to another member, the actual publication and public account of what the financial liabilities are will force departments to account very specifically for those sites that are creating potential liabilities. As you point out, this will be, in my mind, a document, an exercise that will focus the effort of federal departments. And I would like you to know that the contaminated sites working group produces an annual action plan that reflects the things that are up and coming. It's obvious that this document, which has been called for, now, on a number of occasions, will focus the effort of the federal government because it will become very conspicuous what it is that needs to be achieved. It will have been accounted, and the accounting, in terms of liability, will have been based on the actual inventory of the various sites. It will be a compelling instrument, if you wish, in terms of people knowing what it is they have to achieve for Canadians.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have one last brief question. I read in the Auditor General's report:

The government continues to disagree with us over the need for an action plan to complete the assessment and remediation of all federal contaminated sites. We continue to believe that a federal government action plan is required to ensure that the job gets done within reasonable timeframes and to a consistent standard of remediation.

I think the Auditor General spoke to this in the same way today.

Maybe, Mr. Emmett, you could tell me what the difference is between what you are suggesting and what Mr. Guimont described today.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Chairman, in some ways I don't want to be too doctrinaire about this. When you look at approaches, I think in theory you could hold the 24 individual departments to account and coordinate their activities through a committee structure. In theory, you could approach it using a much more centralized approach, where there is a single person in charge and they take a complete inventory of all federal sites.

I think in practice we've noted the decentralized approach is very difficult to make work—the alphabet soup, as we used to call these things when I worked with the Department of Energy, which you noted earlier on.

It's very difficult to make that come together and make it work, and I think we've observed that in case after case. So in theory it can work. In practice we've noted that major corporations faced with the same problems choose a centralized approach. I think in practice it comes down to what works, and our observations are based on our understanding of what works best.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Next is Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Jordan.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a couple of questions. Primarily, I'm speaking to Mr. Lorimer's comments.

You stated that the estimated cost would be only $20 million in terms of liabilities for Public Works and Government Services. But with that in mind, I was a little curious about the aspect of—and this may not necessarily relate initially—what are the expected costs to remedy or clean up the tar ponds in Sydney.

• 1005

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: I don't have that number with me today. I can provide you with it.

Mr. John Herron: I think that would be a substantial amount of money.

My second comment is that, as you probably are aware, Environment Canada had an advisory in late 1996 on further PCB shipments to Swan Hills, Alberta. Do you know how many tonnes were shipped to Swan Hills after Public Works and Government Services ignored the Environment Canada advisory?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: First of all, we did not ignore the advisory. We took a difficult decision based on the pressures facing us. We shipped 113 tonnes during the advisory.

Mr. John Herron: My last question is do we know how many sites have been identified today as being dangerous to human health of the 5,000 sites?

The Vice-Chairman (Gar Knutson): Anyone?

Mr. Brian Emmett: If I may answer from the point of view of our report, no, we do not, and that's one of the things that disturbed us when putting the report together.

Mr. John Herron: Wouldn't that be one of the priority areas that we'd like to ascertain?

The Vice-Chairman (Gar Knutson): Anyone?

Mr. François Guimont: No. It is a valid question, and I think the question will be put to the contaminated sites working group. I understand the question, and yes.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

Mr. François Guimont: The question was do we have a clear understanding as to how many of these sites, in the full inventory, would be priority sites from a human health perspective?

The Vice-Chairman (Gar Knutson): And the answer is we don't.

Mr. Jordan, then Mr. Charbonneau and then Mr. Caccia.

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

I'd like to ask Mr. Potts a question. I want to talk a little bit about the draft on the accounting suggestions, and I refer to policy requirement number four.

I'll preface this by saying my interest in this is that I think the identification and the accurate reporting of costing information is critical to starting to prioritize and allocate funds. I realize there is a problem. The civil service has gone through a period of...I'm not saying hiding costs, but shifting costs. Costs were bad and the deficit war was being fought, but I think now we're looking at where we want to know the true costs. In policy requirement four you're suggesting present value calculations be used. Am I right in assuming that's so we're comparing apples and apples?

Mr. Colin Potts: Yes, that is correct. I don't know if Mr. Denis, who is responsible for that policy, would like to add to that.

Mr. John Denis (Director, Government Accounting Policy Division, Treasury Board Secretariat): Yes. The number of sites and the types of sites across the federal government vary widely, as you can well imagine in view of the number of different types of businesses the federal government is in.

There are many that are perhaps very quick to clean up, and really present values don't mean much, but when we get into certain types, and particularly the radioactive waste type of problem.... Some of the projections Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has for the decommissioning of their nuclear reactors extend out 50 and 60 years. It's really very difficult first of all to make a reasonable financial projection over that length of time, particularly when you take into account inflation, changing technology, changing costs and so on and so forth. So we really feel that doing it on a present value basis does bring it back to a common denominator, as you suggest.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The date that we're just getting back from is the estimated date of clean-up?

• 1010

Mr. John Denis: To complete clean-up. In the case of atomic energy, they're undergoing clean-up now, with the expectation that they won't be finished for 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Bear with me, then, because it's been a while since I took my business training, but what we're saying here is that if the clean-up is to take place in 10 years, we're going to discount the cost of clean-up back to present-day value based on the borrowing rate of the government. Is that right?

Mr. John Denis: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So, if interest rates go up, the on-paper value of our liability goes down?

Mr. John Denis: No. We would expect to use an interest rate at the time the costs are incurred or the contamination is identified. The theory is that the federal government has the choice of borrowing the money today and cleaning it up today, or delaying that decision to a future date. The delay, starting from today, means we would use the same interest rate all the time. We would not vary the discount rate, so to speak.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, but the longer the time is between today and the time of clean-up, the less the liability is going to be reflected on paper.

Mr. John Denis: It should not be. It should be the same.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, but my point is that the rationale for invoking some kind of present-value calculation is that we're comparing the same costs.

Mr. John Denis: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But that's not my problem. My problem is that at the other end, we're allowing the departments to come up with their own costing methods, so really I don't understand. We need to draw some attention to that area.

I'll finish up quickly here.

What I would like to see is this, and I'll use the Lachine Canal as an example. Say we were to tell the departments how to cost their liabilities so that we are comparing apples to apples. The estimated cost for the clean-up of the Lachine Canal is $40 million. In that $40 million, we should look at a number of things.

One, if we are going to spend $40 million and that's going to Canadian companies, well, sure, that's a cost, but there are some benefits there as well, because these Canadian companies can then become competitive in these areas. We should break down $40 million, ask who it's going to go to, determine whether they are Canadian companies or foreign companies, and cost out those benefits.

We then have to look at the management costs involved in preventing further pollution if we're not cleaning it up today. But is there a component of the risks or the costs of doing nothing—costs to tourism, costs to health, and costs of potential litigation, which was brought up? If you take a look at the clean-up costs, if those things are done, then loss of tourism, potential health risks, and potential litigation should be eliminated. If we cost these things out properly, it may make sense to do some of these things quicker. We may not be looking at simply dollars spent; we may be looking at investments in some important sectors of our economy.

When you look at the policy for how we cost these things, I would take a really hard look at that policy requirement number four, and I would say departments should not use the most appropriate methods; I would say departments should use this method, so that we are looking at apples and apples.

Also, you say in the preamble, in policy requirement number five, that this accounting has no impact on departmental appropriations or funding. That frightens me. I think it should. We should come up with a costing model that then allows us to prioritize, because some of these clean-up sites aren't as daunting as the initial, cold, hard, calculated costs on paper would indicate. There are some opportunities here that we may be overlooking.

Mr. Colin Potts: Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to that. Mr. Jordan makes excellent points, but the purpose of this particular policy is for the recording in the Public Accounts of Canada of the estimated liability that the government has for clean-up. It's not a policy that goes into the management accounting and the business case situation, if you like, as to the timing and the benefits to be achieved.

I agree that in some cases there may be benefits. That would be a follow-on. But for purely financial accounting purposes and reporting in the Public Accounts of Canada, we need to have management's best estimate of what that liability is, should the Government of Canada need to expend those funds at that point in time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Does anyone else want to add something? Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1015

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Commissioner to explain specifically how he arrived at the conclusion that the government prefers a decentralized approach to a centralized one. Is that stated in any particular document or is he simply inferring, based on his observation of considerable decentralized activity, that this is the government's prepared approach? Does he have any particular evidence that would explain his position—either a statement or a report of some sort—something that we might look at here in committee?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, as far as the Government of Canada's approach is concerned, what I can say is this: in the course of our discussions with two departments, we were told that they favoured a decentralized approach when there are private sector companies; we met with private sector companies, who told us that they used a centralized approach.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: But you don't have any document from the Prime Minister's Office or any other senior government authority indicating that that is the way it has to be. This is your own inference; it is essentially by questioning various people that you arrived at this conclusion.

Mr. Brian Emmett: It is based on an overview.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I also want to ask Mr. Green whether he has any comments to make in response to the explanation provided by Environment Canada with respect to the Lachine Canal issue.

Mr. Daniel Green: Mr. Charbonneau, I have only one comment to make. In the case of the Lachine Canal, the assessment of the clean-up or the potential risks is being carried out by the very department that is proposing to open the Lachine Canal. This clearly raises a problem as to the independence and objectivity of an assessment not only of potential risks, but of the very positive spin-offs identified by both the City of Montreal and Heritage Canada.

I would feel more comfortable if, for example, Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada and Environment Canada were to make the final decision as to whether pleasure boating in the Lachine Canal threatens to contaminate the river, and just what the extent of that risk is.

The impression I was left with following my discussions with departmental representatives was of a very closed environment, in which the decision had already been made. This is not due to a lack of information, but rather a conflict of interest. As far as I'm concerned, in order to avoid conflicts of interest between departments operating their contaminated sites and the public interest, it would be preferable to allow an independent agency to make the final determination, and there the polluter pays principle could apply.

I would like to add one other thing, because Mr. Guimont has often referred to this principle. The Federal Government is not the polluter of the Lachine Canal. The polluters of the Lachine Canal are well known, yet the Federal Government is not prepared to pass on part of the bill to the polluters of the Lachine Canal, supposedly because of a contractual agreement. I won't go into the details here.

However, there is both an elegant and intelligent solution for the Federal Government in terms of getting these corporations to contribute to decontamination efforts. Adding to what Mr. Jordan said, we have been contacted by a number of Canadian companies operating in the Montreal region and in Ontario that would like to demonstrate just what they can do to decontaminate the Lachine Canal. These are Canadian technologies developed by Canadians, and to which the Federal Government would be contributing further through such an expenditure.

• 1020

I think it's unfortunate that sediment decontamination technologies developed in Canada are valued more in the Philippines and Indonesia than they are in our own backyard. I believe the Lachine Canal could become a laboratory and showcase for Canadian decontamination technologies. I think we are missing a wonderful opportunity, because of the close-mindedness of Heritage Canada.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have another question, this time for Environment Canada. Given the picture the Auditor General has painted, and his assessment of the decentralized approach and the problems it gives rise to, and in light of his suggestion that another approach be taken, would you say that at Environment Canada, as custodians of the environment, you are satisfied with the decentralized approach that has been used thus far? Would you prefer the one suggested by the Auditor General?

My second question relates to the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, which ended in 1995 but was extended for an extra year. We all know that the task is not yet completed. Under the circumstances, then, why was the program terminated? Was it simply a matter of money? What arguments were presented at your level? And what is your recommendation in that regard? Are you insisting that your department take a leadership role in the general area of decontamination, or do you agree with a piecemeal or department-by-department approach?

Mr. François Guimont: In answer to the first question, Mr. Chairman, I would repeat what I already mentioned when answering a question early on in this meeting: the government has recognized that the various departments require a sustainable development strategy.

So, it's important to recognize that the government is now asking federal departments to be accountable. That is the term being used. Rather than asking a single department to be responsible and to pressure other departments, the approach we have taken is to call all departments to be accountable. That is how I understand the process behind the sustainable development strategies and environmental management systems.

So, that is my basic response. Because the sustainable development strategy comes under the responsibility of National Defence, Environment Canada and Heritage Canada, all those departments have an obligation, working through an environmental management system, to determine where they need to improve some of their practices. And that includes everything. Using that approach, they must develop a strategy that will be reviewed and submitted to Parliament. We're not just talking about a piece of paper; as far as I'm concerned, this is a formal commitment.

They will have to be able to demonstrate the tangible steps they intend to take with respect to contaminated sites, just as they must do in other areas. And that accountability is in keeping with what I would call the empowerment of various departments. Management of contaminated sites is very much part of that whole process.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: But do you think this is a good method? Do you feel it is moving in the right direction or are we just spinning our wheels?

Mr. François Guimont: I think it is moving in the right direction. It is often said that sustainable development is everyone's business. And that doesn't only apply to the Federal Government. It's just as true at the provincial level, and for industries and individuals.

When every member of this continuum we call society recognizes that action must be taken on an individual level, we will achieve sustainable development in society as a whole and nationally.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And what do you have to say about the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program?

Mr. François Guimont: That program was set up for five years and was to be sunsetted at the end of those five years—when available funding had been spent at both the federal and provincial levels. And that is what occurred.

• 1025

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And within your department, did you recommend that the program continue until the work was completed, or did you yourself conclude that it should end?

Mr. François Guimont: As I explained at the outset, the purpose of the program was to develop expertise, policy direction, and technological development tools, as well as to prove and demonstrate that it is possible to remediate highly contaminated sites and to analyze and assess risks at other sites. That is something we have done at the federal level.

It was a way of getting the process underway at the federal and provincial levels. Many of these operations have now been incorporated into management systems, particularly at the provincial level, but at the federal level as well. That was the very goal of the system established federally, which involves the various committees I mentioned earlier.

So, those tools can still be used and are very tangible, very real. They are part and parcel of our daily activities. And it is no different at the provincial level.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think Bill Gilmour was dead-on when he asked basically the question on when the clean-up will take place, because in essence that's what we are here about. Mr. Bigras also was dead-on when he made reference to the fact that we seem to be proceeding with two speeds.

Actually, we are running the risk of proceeding at so many different speeds that the whole train will eventually move at the speed of the lowest component. Mr. Lorimer, in his excellent paper this morning, for which I would like to thank him and congratulate him, draws our attention to this danger. On page 5 he concluded by saying:

In short, by working with the Contaminated Sites Management Working Group, there is much that we can, are and will do as a key custodian and service provider....

Collectively, however, we must still rely on the leadership of Environment Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat....

I wish you luck on that unless Treasury Board shows some leadership. If it does, maybe there will be some movement, but this insistence on a central agency runs the risk of determining a speed of progress that will be established by the slowest component; and this is a dangerous potential, at least.

I have a couple of questions to ask, but let me make this observation for a moment. When it comes to our domestic expenditures, we do not tend to give to the garbage can the same priority as we do to the car. However, when in the basement the sewer pipe is disconnected from the main trunk, then we get going and we rush for help, don't we? Today, or at night when we turn the lights off, we are likely to worry more about gold medals at the Olympics than about contaminated sites, aren't we? Obviously in human nature there is a tendency to leave the subject of wastes somehow at the margin. It is not attractive. It has not much appeal. Yet the consequences, as Mr. Green has pointed out in his presentation, can be extremely serious.

Thank God, we haven't heard a presentation on the Niagara Escarpment, because what happened there is of the same magnitude and of the same consequences. It has forced several communities abutting the Niagara Escarpment—Niagara-on-the-Lake and other communities there—to turn off their source of water, the magnificent source of water right at their doorstep, and bring it in from Lake Erie, 30 kilometres away. In other words, there are communities on Lake Ontario that, because of the neglect that has taken place here, have lost their natural source of water and have had to build expensive alternatives, which maybe one day Treasury Board will want to calculate and measure as part of the cost of inaction which Mr. Jordan quite rightly raised.

• 1030

We have the technology, yet we don't seem to be able to capitalize on our own capabilities and technological potential. We know where the problem is. We know it extremely well, particularly north of 60. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, when we visited the Arctic and the concern expressed by people in various communities north of 60, such as Iqaluit. They showed us what was left over from military activities. It is there, neglected in the open air and nobody knows about it. The local reeve is very upset about it and will show anyone around, but nothing.

So we know the location now. We have the technology. We even know the priorities, although they weren't quite clear. I think it wouldn't be too difficult. We have the recommended structure and yet we seem to be unable to move. We have to draw the conclusion that there is a low priority within government for this kind of problem.

Granted it is a complex problem and has to be approached in a systematic manner. All the i's have be dotted and all the t's have to be crossed and so on before we move. But this has been with us for a long time. And I find it rather curious that the November 1996 report by the Auditor General and the convening of this meeting would lead to Treasury Board finally setting a date of April 30, 1998. What a strange coincidence, Mr. Emmett, that we would get Treasury Board moving.

I would like to ask one question of Treasury Board and the other of the commission. Would the president of the Treasury Board issue a strong directive on this subject to all departments concerned? I would like to ask Mr. Emmett whether he will forcefully comment on this matter in his May report.

Mr. Colin Potts: Obviously I can't speak for the President of the Treasury Board in terms of him issuing such a directive. However, I can say that at the secretariat we take this issue seriously.

We have been working very closely with and co-chairing the Environmental Accountability Partnership and participating in the various committees that have been referred to. We have been quite active in providing support, particularly to the contaminated management working group committee. We have the accounting policy, which has been under development for a considerable time. Over the last 12 months we've engaged in consultations, particularly with the Auditor General's office, to ensure its acceptance and agreement to the accounting policy we've been putting out.

I see this as an important first step. The timing was announced some time ago. A target for having the information so we could record the liability in the public accounts for the March 31, 1999 fiscal year-end has been known for quite a length of time. We're on track in terms of getting that information. We will have the first part of that information available to us in the fall of this year and we can take a look at it.

I think this will be helpful to us, because at the centre we'll have some summary data. We'll certainly know the extent of the liability in financial terms in the various departments. It will enable us to get the total picture for a first phase in terms of addressing this problem.

Mr. Charles Caccia: To reinforce Mr. Guimont's question, can you give us an indication at least as to when in your expectations you might have not just a plan but you will be operative in the clean-up?

Mr. Colin Potts: We will be operative and the clean-up will be a matter for each department. The departments and the minister, under the real property program, have responsibility as the custodians of the properties under their jurisdiction. Therefore it is up to the departments to set the plan for clean-up on the site. It will be a part of their sustainable development policy through the public document. We can expect to see it addressed in their plans and priorities documents and other public documents.

Mr. Charles Caccia: It's a well-known fact that the departments are not only respectful but even fearful of the Treasury Board for a number of good reasons. Don't you think you have a particularly strong role to play in activating departments if you want to do that?

• 1035

Mr. Colin Potts: I think we have a role to play, yes. But in terms of the structure of government and ministerial responsibility and accountability, it's the departments. I guess we can try to exert some pressure on departments, sir, and we'll certainly be monitoring the situation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Emmett.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, in my second report, which will be made available to the Speaker on May 26, I haven't really zeroed in on all the content yet. I expect, however, that I personally remain as concerned today as I was when I put forward my first report about the problems the government has in translating talk into action. In many ways, we have very good policies. We're leaders when it comes to establishing good policies and good processes. Where we fall down is on results. I expect to see that recur strongly in my next report, both in this area and in others.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I just have a couple of questions.

To Environment Canada or the Auditor General's office, is it possible to chart the level of clean-up activity—I would define that as not committee work, not studies, not consultations, but the actual digging up of muck, taking it to an incinerator or putting it into an appropriate landfill site, the stuff you would actually call real clean-up activity—over the last ten years, say? Do you have a sense as to whether, for example, there was more clean-up activity sponsored by the federal government in 1997 than there was in 1995 or 1993? Are we trending up, or are we trending down? Is it constant? And no disrespect intended, but I don't want to hear about studies or committees.

Mr. François Guimont: We can look into this, and the way to do it is through the working group.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, we have only two good questions.... Well, there aren't only two good questions, but two things that we have to bring back to the committee. There was one on whether or not we have a feel, federally speaking, for those higher-risk types of sites from a human health perspective. We'll go back to the working group on this because it's a valid question.

We'll go back on your question as well, which is: tell us how many sites have been cleaned up over the last ten years, for example. I hear your question quite clearly. We can give you a snapshot during the actual action plan, $250 million, and we can do it post-plan. On that, there were a couple of questions about why there seems to have been action but now we're moving into more of preparing for further action, and information has been asked for on that.

So while I'm giving a report here, I don't have the sum. What I'll do is give you a summary on a one-pager. Your question is very clear, so we'll file that with the clerk and turn it up, by department.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Maybe you could also do a forecast for 1998, since we're three months into 1998. That way, we would know whether the level of activity is going down or going up.

Mr. François Guimont: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): As for the other question, if someone wrote me a letter and said they wanted to know the top twelve or top ten contaminated sites in the country, would you be able to provide the ten worst contaminated sites, the ten most seriously contaminated sites?

Mr. François Guimont: Federally speaking, Mr. Chairman, that goes back to what was asked, so we're going into it. Nationally speaking—which means all sites combined, if you wish, whether it's provincial, federal or whatever—I don't have this information. I can look to see if the information is available, but I don't have a feel for whether this identification would be available.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Are you in charge of the federal Environment Canada response to the contaminated sites?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Then give me three or four of what you think are the worst ones.

• 1040

Mr. François Guimont: We heard about the Sydney tar ponds. Sites like Lachine Canal are probably contaminated sites as well. The PEC site we know about as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Where is that?

Mr. François Guimont: It is on the west coast.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): So you would be able to develop a list of what, from your point of view speaking on behalf of Environment Canada, are the more serious sites.

Mr. François Guimont: Serious would have to be defined against either environmental criteria or health criteria or a combination of both. One would have to sit down and do that assessment in order to come up with that so-called list.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I appreciate that.

Mr. François Guimont: But the tools would be there for that to take place.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I also appreciate that reasonable people might differ on the precise definition. Someone might say that this blob sitting at the bottom isn't causing any damage right now but it could sort of blow up and cause a whole lot of damage, or somebody else might say this is about to sink into the groundwater. I don't want to get into a whole discussion of well-intended reasonable people differing on definitions. I just want to.... At some point we have to say these are our 25 worst sites and we're going to get them cleaned up in five years. As long as we have a list of 5,000 or something....

Mr. Charles Caccia: You could say at each of the DEW Line sites, Mr. Chairman. That's a well-known fact.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Whatever. But I'm reminded of a sort of metaphor: the easiest way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time; we just have to decide what is our first bite. The person from Environment Canada who's responsible for this, I would think, would say that these are our priorities in 1998.

Mr. François Guimont: We had an active program when we had the national contaminated sites remediation program, federally, provincially, sunsetted in 1996. What I now have in my organization in Environment Canada is a technical capacity to follow through on some technical matters. If a site, as an example, is contaminated with PCBs, we do have people in our organization who can talk about PCB contamination.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Right.

Mr. François Guimont: We also have the people—the so-called technology development package DESRT—who who have a capacity to do that as well. These people have not disappeared. But there is no contaminated sites program in Environment Canada per se that exists as a program. So there is knowledge in my organization that can interact on technical questions, what the guidelines mean and things of that nature. But having a structured program that could move into assessing from a priority perspective across the land what should be or would be the ten priority sites, I don't have those resources, that capacity.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I think that's a good point. Perhaps you could put a proposal together. If Environment Canada were to say it is willing to take responsibility for cleaning these things up in partnership with the provinces or whatever, but is willing to take the leadership in terms of cleaning them up and wants $250 million in next February's budget, or $500 million in next February's budget, and this is the value that Canadians will see and this is the value that the government will see, is it unreasonable to think that might be a good idea?

Mr. François Guimont: But that was the purpose, Mr. Chairman, of the first program.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Right.

Mr. François Guimont: The program gave the tools both in terms of paper tools, guidelines, capacity and all that, as well as technology. Now the responsibility is with the provinces. The responsibility is with the provinces to gather the polluter-pays principle when it's applicable. It is the same thing federally. And we're making good on this in the sense of organizing ourselves to move forward and clean up priority sites as per the discussion we had this morning. This is taking place provincially and it is taking place federally.

Mr. Charles Caccia: With all due respect, perhaps the problem we have as an institution collectively is that we have too many programs and not even one award. Suppose the Treasury Board were to offer an award, a yearly award, to the department that delivers on the clean-up of contaminated sites in the form of a 3% increase of that department's budget. Wouldn't that have an impact? Wouldn't that be more effective than a structure or a program? Would you like to propose it to Mr. Massé?

• 1045

Mr. Colin Potts: That's a very interesting suggestion. I'll take it forward.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Green.

Mr. Daniel Green: Under the national program—and Mr. Guimont will correct me—the offer to the provinces was that the federal government would help them do the inventory, or alternatively, as in the case of Quebec, help them work on specific sites and develop technologies for clean-up or to do some assessment. This was done.

I believe Environment Canada does have quite a complete database on this country's sites, provincially and federally and crown corporations. I've seen it. So I think relatively quickly the department could....

Again, this is an intelligent database. There has been some prioritization. But either they took the classification of the provinces or they have their own.

So this has been done and this is available. I know we've used that inventory ourselves.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): The point I'm making is that it's well and good to have a snapshot, very detailed, technologically correct. To take the snapshot I'm sure took a lot of effort. But at some point we need to measure activity. Canadians expect a certain amount of dollars to be committed to clean-up activity in 1998. Canadians expect a certain amount of progress to be made this year. I don't know if it's too difficult to get the answer, but we want to start measuring activity.

We're now going to have a secretariat for climate change. Having a secretariat for contaminated sites when we don't know the level of activity we're actually measuring in terms of how much cleaner our country is getting from a contaminated sites point of view.... Is it going to be cleaner at the end of this year than it was at the beginning of the year? That information doesn't seem to be readily at hand. It doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism about having a secretariat handle climate change, or whether we're going to make progress on actual activity that's going to make us produce less of the greenhouse gases.

But I digress. We'll have to revisit this issue.

Mr. Casson.

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

I'm not sure who I should ask this question of, but who is responsible to let the public know where these sites are and how dangerous they are and what the ramifications could be if there were a problem? Included in that, who lets protective services people, such as fire departments and police forces, know what is in these sites and what they need to do to get ready for that? Is anything in place for that?

Mr. François Guimont: To the first question—I apologize for having missed the second one—it is the responsibility of every department to take action proactively to make sure that if a site is a major problem and there could be human exposure, proper actions are taken to minimize that risk.

On your second question....

Mr. Rick Casson: Is it just to deal with protective services and fire departments and police forces? They would be the same, then. Would it be up to the department that's responsible for the site to let these people know what is there and how they should prepare themselves for that?

Mr. François Guimont: If I look at the way our own department would go about it, we would take the necessary measures to make sure that for the sites under the responsibility of Environment Canada we liaise with the right people, so there's no surprise. Heads-up is being given and risk is minimized until such time as the site is cleaned up as it should be.

Mr. Rick Casson: Secondly, on page 22.22 of the AG report here, under DEW Line sites...I wasn't on the tour when you went up to have a look at this.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I wasn't either.

Mr. Rick Casson: Maybe the Auditor General can explain to me how this works. The United States government operated 42 sites. We took over 21 of them, in a long history. Then in 1966 the Department of National Defence signed an agreement to spend $68 million to clean up six of these sites. Are we spending $68 million of our dollars to clean up a United States mess here?

• 1050

Mr. Brian Emmett: I would have to ask one of my colleagues, Wayne Cluskey, to give me a hand with that.

Mr. Wayne Cluskey (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We really did a survey of all the departments, but we did not in the course of our work attempt to find out exactly how much had been spent over a period of time. We know the total amount that was supposed to be spent, but we're not sure whether in fact that $68 million has been spent.

Mr. Rick Casson: The point of my question is that regardless of how much it is, if that's $68 million for six sites and there are 42 sites, we're talking about $500 million here. Is this our responsibility to clean up or is it the American government's responsibility?

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: I'm basing this on a program I saw on TV recently as opposed to detailed audit work, but I gather there are ongoing negotiations with the Americans. The Department of National Defence would be in a better position to answer this. I guess there's been to-ing and fro-ing. The Americans have offered one sum and supposedly reduced it, so it's still a matter of negotiation. In terms of up-to-date information, as I said, the Department of National Defence or perhaps Public Works and Government Services Canada would be in a better position to answer that sort of detail. But it is a problem.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Mr. Chairman, there was an agreement with the state department at that time. It was arrived at by both sides and agreed upon. This flows from that agreement.

Mr. Rick Casson: So it has become our responsibility?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Caccia mentioned reeves and mayors of the communities in the north who are concerned with these sites. Is it National Defence's role to let them know exactly what is contained in these sites and what the potential is for danger to the environment and to the people there? Is that what I've been told?

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: I would assume it would be. It would seem reasonable. I think many of these sites are in fact known, particularly in the north, but I would assume—and this is a personal opinion—that if any government department did not inform the local population and local governments the government would be leaving itself open to lawsuits, so I think just that kind of a situation would result in appropriate information, as Mr. Guimont said, being given to local officials and local people.

Mr. Rick Casson: Again, this is probably for the Department of the Environment. We're identifying hazardous sites, and in my mind with respect to contaminated sites I'm always thinking that they're abandoned, that they're used, that they're what's left over. But surely there must be—and I think we went into this before—registering departments or companies that use and create these. A site that's actively being used that has contaminates stored on it is a different scenario. Are these all abandoned sites that we're talking about here today?

Ms. Karen Anderson (Director, Real Property and Security, Corporate Services, Department of the Environment): I guess that in some instances divestiture—getting rid of a particular facility or site—is what drives things like environmental assessment and remediation, but certainly with respect to Environment Canada sites, we are assessing active sites as well, so they're not necessarily just those that have been gotten rid of; ones currently in operation are included.

Mr. Rick Casson: So there could be an active operation on a facility and it will be on your list of 5,000.

Ms. Karen Anderson: Certainly in our case, yes, it would be included.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): It's 10:55. I don't have anyone else on my list. If there are no further questions, let me say that this is our last meeting of four that we've had with the commissioner for sustainable development. I want to thank the commissioner and his office for the work they've done in preparing for these meetings. In talking to a number of parliamentarians, I think I can say that we've found the exercise quite useful.

Obviously it occurs from time to time that we're really just starting to turn the page on some of these issues, or to scratch the surface, that's probably a better way to say it. We look forward to working with the commissioner's office and with the various departments, especially with our friends at Environment Canada, as we measure our progress. Thanks, everyone, for these four meetings.

• 1055

I'm reminded that we have one small piece of business—a motion that we need carried. I would ask members to stay in their seats, and the guests can leave.

Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, last Thursday the committee passed a motion to the effect that we would ask for an analysis by Resource Futures International to help us understand the evolution of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—from the bill to the committee report, the response of the government to Bill C-74, and so forth.

That motion, the clerk informs me, needs to be adjusted in a minor manner as follows—namely, that instead of $699 per day, as approved by this committee, the amount should be $600 per day for eight days, and in addition, the assignment given to this particular analyst should include the new Canadian environmental protection bill if introduced in the House of Commons in time to be considered.

We are maintaining the same level of expenditure, but spreading it out, and we are adding one more item to the task given to this particular analyst. Mr. Chairman, it is only a technical amendment, but it's necessary, and I hope it can be accepted. I so move.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I take it as moved. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Rick Casson: What would be the time line? When do you expect this to be completed?

Mr. Charles Caccia: The time line is as soon as possible. That would mean possibly within two weeks, hopefully.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do we know when we might see the new CEPA?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Chair, there has been no official date given on that yet.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Okay. I'll call the question, then.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much.

The next meeting is when?

The Clerk of the Committee: Tomorrow afternoon, in Room 308, on enforcement, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We're adjourned.