ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 26, 1998

• 0850

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Liberal.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2), we are beginning our consideration of the enforcement of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act.

[English]

First, let me welcome you, Mr. Glen, the Deputy Minister. Thank you for your letter of March 19, which is encouraging and helpful. And when it is time for questions, we may have some to ask, but I would like to congratulate you on the initiative that you have taken in the meantime, as outlined in your letter.

We are short of a quorum, which does not allow us to do something that might be desirable, at least from an environmental point of view. I will briefly describe it to you and see whether there is any disposition to propose a motion when we have a quorum later on in the morning. It has to do with the question of the dredging of the St. Lawrence River, which has been raised in the francophone press over the last three days, and the desirability of an environmental impact assessment taking place before the dredging proceeds.

Those of you who were on the St. Lawrence River visiting some years ago will remember what the scientists and the technicians were saying as to the dangers involved when you start dredging. The sediments are just dynamite in terms of accumulated substances that are toxic over the years as a result of industrial activities. Therefore, the necessity of at least proceeding with an environmental impact assessment in order to protect the quality of water for people living along the St. Lawrence and adjacent areas....

I'm just raising it in the hope that perhaps some of you might wish to indicate, either now or later, the desire to propose a motion with which we would urge the Minister of Fisheries to take that kind of action. As you will recall from the assessment act, it's the minister who initiates a certain action who also has to invoke the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and therefore, in this case, it would be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Are there any comments? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, from what I know of this case, I understand that there at least have been discussions. Certainly, it seemed to me like a tacit agreement that there would be a joint federal-provincial panel in view of the huge importance of the project, the dredging of the St. Lawrence from Montreal to the gulf of the river. And I understand now that Quebec has indicated that it wants an assessment, regardless of the decision of the Minister of Fisheries to proceed without an assessment.

I know there has been no advance notice of motion, but I would like to ask consent to look at a motion to say that the Minister of Fisheries should carry out a regular environmental impact assessment on the project.

• 0855

The Chairman: Are there any further comments, without our going into details? We don't have a sufficient quorum for a motion. Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): What is the timeframe? Is it immediate or in the thinking stage? How far along the pipe is it?

The Chairman: To judge from clippings and newspaper reports, it seems to be fairly urgent.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's to take place as soon as it can in the river. From what we understand from the report, the minister decided not to have an impact assessment and just to carry on with the project, so I imagine it will take place very soon—this year.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix,BQ): Mr. Chairman, if I had a motion to make this morning, it would be a motion to censure the government. It is unacceptable to convene members for 8:30 in the morning and to waste the time of very busy officials. This censure motion could be conveyed to the Prime Minister to let him know that Liberal members are not assuming their responsibilities on the Environment Committee, given their absence. They are the reason why we are starting at this hour.

The Chairman: It is not a matter of censuring anyone, Mr. Asselin. It is something that involves the Fisheries Minister rather than the Environment Minister. The law is written this way and if we want to do something positive, we must present a positive motion, not a censure motion.

We don't have a quorum.

[English]

I will leave this matter to settle and go into sediment for a while, if I may be permitted, and I will bring it up again when we have a quorum, in the hope that something positive can be articulated.

I apologize to Mr. Glen and the officials for this brief departure from the agenda.

We welcome you all to the committee. You may wish to make a statement in the light of the documentation you have kindly provided us, or to comment on your letter or whatever, so as to bring the committee up to date before we start a round of questions.

Mr. Glen.

Mr. Ian Glen (Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Caccia. We have several new faces here. In certain instances they represent replacements for people who are not able to come back for today.

Steven Mongrain is with the CEPA Office activities within Environmental Protection. Nadine Levin is ill and wasn't able to be here today, but Steven is more than able to assist in answering questions.

Dale Kimmett has been here once before.

There was a desire to have David Pascoe, who was here earlier, from the Ontario region, come back. Today David is working on an investigation with parties in Ontario. I basically said “Stay with your day job”, if I can put that in with some humour. I believe the people we have here as return participants should be able to help.

On the letter Mr. Knowles sent to our department on March 20, trying to locate our discussion with you today, the one part we do not yet have completed—I regret to say it, but it has proven more complicated than we had first thought—was the reference to trying to provide analysis of the expenditures over, in essence, the last five-year period. We're in the process of doing that. I was told in a briefing last night it could be another three weeks.

By this morning I think what we've learned is we can give you as we go, if I can put it that way.... I think we're about three years through. If that would help your research staff, Mr. Knowles and his people, to assist you, we'll work with them to complete that.

On the other material we put in for you, I think questions may elicit some of it, but perhaps François, if he is comfortable, could speak briefly at first on the review that he does have under way and that I reference in the letter. That may inform members before we do questions.

The Chairman: All right, briefly, Mr. Guimont. Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

We have indeed decided to move forward and to conduct a review. I use the word "review" rather than the word "study". Numerous studies have been conducted, and you are currently conducting one with the view to submitting a report to Parliament. We wanted to move forward while these issues were on the table and, with the help of a consultant, we wanted to involve in this exercise regional senior managers, regional directors directly accountable for enforcement actions, the people working in the field and employees at headquarters.

• 0900

[English]

The purpose of this review is to get all the information that can be assembled on the topic from studies that have been done and reports that have been filed and create a dialogue between our people—the field people—and our people in the office of enforcement and management, putting on the table those issues that need to be discussed, also in view of the dialogue that took place before the committee, and out of this come up with an action plan that will be very much action oriented. It will address things such as the fact that some regulations are difficult to enforce, the issue of being more efficient, the issue of the flow of information, and the issue of resources. These items will be discussed.

The purpose is not to second-guess the committee's report. It will inform our response to your report when it is filed with Parliament. That's the basic approach we're taking, but instead of simply waiting, we felt collectively that the time was right to take action and proceed quickly. That's pretty much the approach we're taking.

The Chairman: The committee members, including me, would like to understand what the difference will be in the dialogue you are planning to have and the dialogue so far. I'm sure you are not implying there has been no dialogue in the past. There must have been something. So what would be the difference between the current and the future dialogue?

Mr. François Guimont: The idea is to be able to move from the points that have been made, understand the differences or similarities between the points of view around the table, and come up with—I used the expression when I was talking to my staff—a ten-point action plan. There could be six or five points; we'll see.

Nothing is too small. Any action that can be taken to address a point that was raised following a dialogue is a good point that can be put forward. I'm looking for implementation, as opposed to simply discussing the issues. So that may be the difference.

The Chairman: But you wouldn't want to create the impression that until now there's been no implementation in the light of existing past dialogues.

Mr. François Guimont: I think you're absolutely right. Actions have been taken. If you look, as an example, at the various MOUs we're working at developing, they came out of a dialogue that took place in the enforcement group. There's also NEMISIS, the information system we have between headquarters and the region, and the training packages we've been putting together.

I'm talking about those items that seem to be still left on the table that require a course of action or a work plan in order to put into place or implement.

The Chairman: Why were they not there before? I'm just trying to round up what you just said. What is the difference between the proposed regime and the present regime?

Mr. François Guimont: You're asking me a question that will be coming through the dialogue that is taking place. The point is that this review, exercise or dialogue may give rise to items, some of which we'll say we have taken care of. Others may need fine-tuning, and others may need new implementation things. So that's what I'm looking at. For me right now to be able to forecast what is on the table that needs addressing would be unfair or impossible, at the present time anyway.

The Chairman: Are there any other statements?

We'll start, as we usually do, with Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: In terms of enforcement, I was impressed with the people who were before us. They're clearly a dedicated group. There were some areas of policy that were missing and overlapping, but clearly resources were not available.

At what level does the department assess priorities in terms of whether the money will go to weather collection or enforcement? The thrust of my question is, given a finite amount of resources, is it at your level, Mr. Glen, that the priorities are decided—whether money should go to enforcement or to the various departments? What would be required in order to change some of those priorities so enforcement would get more of a shot in the arm than it is at the moment?

• 0905

Mr. Ian Glen: The complete answer is it will engage at many levels within the organization. The end point is the minister's casting of what she would propose to be the estimates that would represent the funding basis for the department. So it engages between myself, as the deputy minister, the minister, and the projections of Parliament of how we lay out the estimates and where we're going to try to allocate our resources. Those are in fairly big blocks.

As recently as yesterday, our management table—we call it the environment management board—had as one of its agenda items our budget pressures, which we discussed for several hours. We tried to determine—I'll use for example Mr. Guimont's area, environmental protection—what a number of identified funding pressures to the activities we're doing. He will have to return to his management table and try to find ways to reallocate, rebase, in order that the activities that are priorities of the day get addressed.

It can then perhaps go down even further, depending on the particular component of activity in that group. The management group, or staff with management, will then assess and say, “Okay what do we do with x dollars? We've been given x dollars within the overall budget. What are we going to do?” So it locates in different areas.

In terms of significant rebasing, if we come to the management table, then it would be my recommendations to the minister.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Considering what you've heard around this table from the committee—the concerns of the committee—do you have any intention of rejigging the figures so that enforcement gets more of a priority?

Mr. Ian Glen: One of the expectations I have of the review is that it will assist me in determining the degree to which the problem is solely resources, or whether it may call for a reorientation of the way in which we address inspection and enforcement activities as well. So it will be a more complete thought.

Is it an active file? Very much so. Is it one that we're concerned about, along with others? I said to the chair in my last appearance that we had a number of priorities we're having to assess in this. There are other areas of the department where, as I said as recently as yesterday, we know we have funding pressures.

With advice from my colleague, I have to weigh the degree to which we're what I'd call really taking from one part of the program and creating problems there to address needs elsewhere. That's a constant process. But is enforcement one of my priorities to look at? Yes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, presumably we will be having the minister before us with the estimates. Do I have to make a motion to have that occur? I would hope that it would be a natural—

The Chairman: It's already been set in motion at our last in camera meeting, when we discussed the program of the committee. We have already made inquiries, and as soon as the department is ready, we will start.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Great. That's fine for now.

The Chairman: One of the reasons for the delay is that the part III documents in the blue book were tabled only yesterday. That kind of documentation has to be then elaborated on by the department. Until yesterday it would have been impossible to proceed, in any case, on the part III documents.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Let me start by welcoming you to the Environment Committee.

The vast majority, if not all, of the witnesses that we have heard from have been critical of Environment Canada, of its memoranda of understanding and partnerships established, primarily in Quebec, and in particular of the shortage of human resources to carry out the commitments made by the federal government.

I wouldn't want to see any duplication or overlap. I wouldn't want to see Environment Canada monitoring the activities of Environment Quebec. Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, certain responsibilities are assigned to the federal government, and others to the provincial government. However, several witnesses have told us that the green police or the federal government have been, to all intents and purposes, absent from the scene.

• 0910

We have been told that when Environment Canada does intervene, it provides a very good level of service, but that unfortunately, it is very often, if not always, absent from operations carried out primarily in Quebec. Are we dealing with a budgetary or with a human resources problem? Why are these signed agreements which spell out the responsibilities of Environment Canada not being respected?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give a very general answer and let my colleague Claude Gonthier from the Quebec Region provide you with a more detailed response.

To answer your question specifically, perhaps I should give you an example. I'm aware of the duplication problem, that is when two individuals intervene at the same time and at the same place. This is exactly what we've wanted to avoid in the pulp and paper industry, which I will use as an example. Under the renewed pulp and paper agreement, the two levels of government maintain their legal responsibilities and their powers to act. Information is gathered under the system developed by Environment Quebec and then forwarded to us. We verify this information to ensure compliance with federal regulations governing the pulp and paper industry arising from the CEPA and the Fisheries Act. Basically, this eliminates the need for us to do site inspections.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I have a question for you. Do you react when Environment Quebec issues a report? If a nagging problem has been identified, does Environment Canada intervene?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes. A management committee meets on a regular basis to discuss issues of some concern. The same is true of our provincial counterpart.

In other words, if the information we receive leads as to believe that certain problems exist within a pulp and paper mill, we ask our provincial counterparts what action they have taken. There may be instances where the federal government, acting under the full authority it has pursuant to the legislation, decides to intervene. However, we always do so after consulting with the province so as to avoid any duplication.

I will ask my colleague Claude to give you more details about this.

Mr. Claude Gonthier (Chief, Inspections and Investigations, Department of the Environment): You said that we do not ensure an active presence, as we should pursuant to the agreements. Let me describe for you the terms of the agreement in place in Quebec with respect to the pulp and paper industry. As Mr. Guimont indicated, during the recent meetings of the management committee, we agreed on mechanisms to ensure follow-up.

In the years preceding the agreement, we did in fact encounter a number of problems. In examining the files passed on to the committee, you will note that there were problems when it came to plants, the provincial environment department and Environment Canada sharing information. This made it relatively difficult to react to problem situations.

However, since last September, we have had mechanisms in place which enable us to examine cases of non-compliance with federal regulations. We analyze the measures taken by the provincial environment department pursuant to its regulations which, I might add, are the strictest in this area. Therefore, if the provincial government takes steps to address cases of non-compliance with its own regulations, the action taken should meet Environment Canada standards.

In terms of follow-up action, the management committee now meets more often, namely once every two months, and we intend to monitor the situation very closely and to take legal action to deal with offenders if the provincial government does not.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Changing the subject, I have a question concerning an environmental issue which primarily affects Quebec. Does the federal government intend to come to an agreement at some point in the very near future with the Quebec government on the destruction of hazardous waste stored in Quebec? I'm referring to PCB storage and other sites.

Mr. François Guimont: Perhaps my colleague Mr. Gonthier could help me to answer that question. The federal government considers the destruction of PCBs in Quebec a fait accompli. As far as I know, there are no PCBs currently stored in Quebec. They have been sent to Swan Hills for disposal.

• 0915

Moreover, steps have been taken or are being taken by the provincial government, pursuant to its responsibilities in this area, to destroy provincial PCBs, if I can call them that. I have no detailed information on this, but I do know that some PCBs have been destroyed. Discussions are ongoing. At the federal level, steps have been taken to address the problem of federal PCBs.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: The federal government has jurisdiction over water. Environment Canada stepped in and conducted studies on sediment in English Bay in Baie-Comeau. There are several feet of PCB-laced sediment and other toxic substances in the bay. Given that these waters come under federal jurisdiction, does Environment Canada, perhaps working in cooperation with the Quebec government, intend to address the sediment problem in English Bay?

This is one very specific case. If you cannot give me an answer right away, I would like you to submit a written response to my office. My name is Gérard Asselin and I'm the member for Charlevoix. My office is located in room 437 of the West Block.

Mr. François Guimont: We will do as the member wishes, Mr. Chairman, and forward that information through the clerk, if that is acceptable to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to say, Mr. Glen, that I think these sessions have been extremely useful. I hope, in spite of the feeling that sometimes we can be felt to be asking questions of your officials that are tough, that eventually we arrive at the result whereby we can help you to help the common cause. In fact, the minister told us you are already looking at how we can put more resources into enforcement. In turn, if we can get more funding from the minister and put pressure on through the answers you give, then all the better.

I was looking at the replies you sent to the clerk; for instance, the question of the follow-up to Mr. Caccia's questions about enforcement in the Ontario region. You say there were in fact no prosecutions under the act during the reporting period, which is 1993-94. Several charges were laid during that time under the gasoline regulations, but charges were withdrawn when the federal government extended an exemption to some of the regulatees. Can you tell me why we would, after laying charges, extend exemption to some of the people who were charged?

Mr. François Guimont: Excuse me, we're trying to put our hands on the document, Mr. Lincoln. Could you maybe indicate specifically where the—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It's a document that says: “Issue of the Chair of the Standing Committee from Mr. David Pascoe, Ontario Region, 23 February, 1998.” It's part of the answers that were sent in.

Mr. François Guimont: I have the document, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It just doesn't say why these exemptions were given and the charges withdrawn. Is there any reason why?

Mr. François Guimont: I don't have the reason, Mr. Lincoln. We would have to get back to you.

Mr. Ian Glen: We will inquire of David and then respond to the committee.

• 0920

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It would be interesting to know what the rationale was because the follow-up question is if you look at another one of the answers regarding the rate of a company that would pollute twice or be charged twice, they say that the rate is very low. But in one of your replies it states that when dealing with minor administrative offences, the Department of Justice will not necessarily approve a prosecution if it's not in the public interest to do so. One factor is crowded court dockets. Environment Canada is left with no other option than issuing another warning letter. You say one of the answers will be ticketing because of court crowding, which we agree with, of course.

There was another issue discussed at length in our committee here as to whether eventually we should push for a separate environmental tribunal in Canada. Environmental offences under the federal acts would go under a separate court, so we wouldn't have this result whereby the Minister of Justice says don't prosecute because the court system is too overloaded. Have you ever given thought to this idea again? Do you think it would be good for us to pressure for it to happen?

Mr. Ian Glen: I would say in the time I've been with the department, I haven't given it thought. It isn't as a policy item something I've looked at. I'd have to think about that.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: As the courts get more and more crowded, won't it be the case that the environmental prosecutions are going to be seen as not as important as criminal charges in other fields, such as violence and theft and other issues? Wouldn't it be compounded by the fact that it's almost a vicious circle? If we really do a good job of enforcement and bring up prosecutions, and then if prosecutions cannot go forward—especially in serious cases, not ticketable offences—we are in a vicious circle.

Mr. Ian Glen: The nature of these sessions.... I'm going to encourage others to speak as well. We're trying to share perspectives at this point. In the broad area of administrative law, what are the proper ways of ensuring that matters get the right attention has always been a concern, and going into the courts may not be the proper way. It's one of the reasons you get alternative dispute resolution activities more and more, ensuring you get to the bottom of it.

I'd want to put my assessment of it into the perspective of compliance. So in essence, enforcement is one element of increasing the comfort around compliance. At that point, I agree with you that we probably will.... The nature of the offences, the nature of the activities...we'll probably find they won't be what you would see in the criminal courts to be the priorities in terms of addressing court dockets and challenges. On that one I would agree with you. That's why I want to reflect on the use of an environmental tribunal approach as perhaps the only alternative.

I think we'd have to pay some attention to the gradation of offences. I think you're alluding to that as well. For the more serious ones I think we can get court time. I don't think the fact that the courts are quite busy should deter us from proceeding with prosecutions, when that's the only remedy we're going to see in order to get compliance.

I'd ask others if they had perspectives on that.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, that's fine, Mr. Glen. I just wanted to refer to the questions that Mr. Pratt and I put to various people the other day regarding a Globe and Mail article that said Ontario allowed a couple of companies, GE Plastics and Geon, to dump all kinds of deleterious effluents into the Great Lakes on the basis that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment was quoted as saying:

We have increased...the conventional [pollutants] to respond to business opportunities.

...regulations must balance the economic requirements of industry with environmental protection.

• 0925

We asked for an answer from you, and you stated that the increased loadings are allowed for conventional pollutants only—and the list is pretty impressive: nitrogen, organic carbon, oil and grease, phenolics, ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids—but not for persistent toxic substances. While loadings have been allowed to be increased, the effluent concentration or toxicity has not been increased.

You said the Ontario region of DOE has sent letters to the companies concerned, advising them that notwithstanding the issuance of provincial permits.... So they give provincial permits on one hand, and then you tell them they are legally obliged to comply with subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. To me, that seems completely contradictory.

My question is this. Considering the fact that Ontario is not respecting its obligations under the Fisheries Act and has suspended its responsibilities under the act since September 1977, I think.... Ontario sends a letter saying a company can pollute, that it will give a permit. But it also tells that company to watch out, that it's still subject to the Fisheries Act's subsection 36(3). At the same time, we know Ontario doesn't want to enforce the Fisheries Act, because it has notified the federal government that it doesn't enforce it.

We, the federal government, have an agreement with Ontario that Ontario will be responsible for the Fisheries Act. So who takes care of this thing? Don't you think this is a case that really, clearly shows that somewhere in all of these agreements, pollution falls between the cracks? In other words, Ontario is supposed to be responsible, but it's not enforcing the Fisheries Act. Can you tell me why, then, the federal government doesn't step in under its authority to say, “Fine, under the Fisheries Act you're not allowed to do this, GE Plastics and Geon, and we is going to enforce it”?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Shimizu came before the committee, he explained that the increased production rate did indeed increase loadings, but that was within permit limits provided by Ontario. The following step that was taken was for the department to indicate to the company that the general provisions of the Fisheries Act were still applicable. At this point in time, in view of that statement made in writing by our Ontario people, it would be improper for me to comment beyond that point.

The Chairman: That's pretty tricky. They haven't charged anyone. It's not before the courts.

Mr. François Guimont: No.

The Chairman: What I'm trying to find out is this. If Ontario gives a permit to pollute, do you go in and say that the DOE says it's not allowed under the Fisheries Act? The Fisheries Act has really has been ceded by agreement pro tem with Ontario. Ontario doesn't enforce it, so you're using your authority under the Fisheries Act. Are you following it up in order to say to these companies that despite the Ontario permit, the federal government will enforce? Or does the permit just give them a completely watertight case in court?

Mr. Ian Glen: My understanding of the letter that was sent, I believe by Mr. Pascoe, was that it informed these companies that the Fisheries Act would apply. They were put on notice that they'd be expected to comply with that legislation. To put it another way, they weren't given exemptions from the federal laws, they were given special permits under Ontario laws. So there still is a legal regime that they are expected to live within.

Mr. Dale Kimmett (Director, Enforcement Branch, Department of the Environment): Perhaps I could shed a little bit of light on this.

I understand that in some provinces, if not all, when permits, certificates of approval and things of that nature are provided for construction of a facility where there is a potential for pollution, the limits are set. In that certificate of approval, the fact is that it's written that notwithstanding this approval, the Fisheries Act or some other laws may apply. I'm told that this is not an uncommon practice. In the case here, as I understand it, the letter was in fact ensuring that such an understanding was made to the companies.

The Chairman: Do you agree, then, to take it to its logical conclusion? If this pollution has happened—which it has—for the letter to be meaningful, the logical conclusion is that you send these people at least a warning letter, you fine them, or you prosecute them.

• 0930

Mr. Dale Kimmett: Not quite.

Literally thousands of orders of approval, certificates, and so on are issued in Canada by provincial governments every year. The nature of those may or may not lead to pollution at some level that may or may not exceed the limits required to prosecute under the Fisheries Act. So there's a difference in terms of what the provincial loadings allowances may be for a given order of approval. Hopefully, and we believe in most cases, that allowance would not exceed the limits that would be required to prosecute under the Fisheries Act. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis; that's the situation.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Well, I've taken my time. I'll come back on this.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): On this last point, Environment Canada officials said they don't enforce the Fisheries Act in Ontario because they don't have the resources. This letter was merely sent as a backstop, because it had received some publicity and there was this decision in Quebec, I believe it was Kronos, where the courts said the situation had become so muddled that in the mind of the company, when they were in compliance with provincial law, they thought they were in compliance with all the laws. When the federal government tried to comply, the company used the defence that they were acting in good faith and they thought they were in compliance, and the courts found they had a legitimate defence.

Your official said on the record that you don't enforce the Fisheries Act because you don't have the resources. That's what the gentleman said. So Mr. Lincoln's concern is it's sort of an academic point. You don't enforce the Fisheries Act in Ontario, which may be a totally rational thing to do, given that you don't have the money—which turns me to my main point.

Mr. Glen, this is a theme I've brought up before. I don't know if you saw this article; it's called “Shoestring Soldiering”. It's about the military. It says, “Beset by `a thousand cuts', military wrestles once again with morale problems”. The whole gist of it is that the military is underfunded and the expectations are above what they can do. General Roméo Dallaire said on record, “It is my personal opinion that the core capability of the Canadian Forces is our people.” Then he goes on to say, “Maybe we've got to ask for more cash”. He's saying that in public. Then there are other quotes in here from current acting officers and retired acting officers.

With the general theme being that the military doesn't have enough money, do you think I might ever see an Environment Canada official say that? Perhaps you, through the chair of course? If General Dallaire can say that on the record, why can't Environment Canada say it: “Maybe we've got to ask for more cash”?

Mr. Ian Glen: Well, we've danced this before. I'll say to Mr. Lincoln that sometimes it hurts to get help.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sorry?

Mr. Ian Glen: You weren't here when he was saying you're trying to help. We understand that.

Okay, we have to be fair to the process. Of course Environment Canada is dealing with pressures. I answered questions earlier by saying that trying to rebalance from one part of the organization to another is a constant exercise to ensure we're effecting the right environment agenda. With resource cuts to an organization, any organization of government—National Defence and General Dallaire speaking—it's the same dilemma. You are expected to do the best you can with what you have. That's a reality.

We're also dealing across governments with public expectations exceeding, quite frankly, the capacity of most departments and the budgets they have.

Do you want me to say we're underfunded? Then I'll say we have funding difficulties. We have pressures in the program in order to do the right thing. Beyond that.... And you're not asking me to make comparisons with DND. That happened the first day I appeared before the committee.

But to Environment Canada, is it an organization that has felt the pressure through program review? Yes, including staff reductions and reductions to the funding bases. That's an honest answer, and I think you all know that.

• 0935

Mr. Gar Knutson: Here's my more general point. I voted for the budget. I'm one of four people here who voted for the budget. I vote for the cuts. Certainly on a personal level, I supported the move toward eliminating the deficit as actively as anyone on the Liberal side.

But that's the past. I think the Canadian public sees environmental protection as a priority. I'm trying to get a sense that Environment Canada officials will be fighting for their share of additional budget money as those moneys become available.

I felt really bad about some of the testimony we heard: we're enforcing the Fisheries Act in British Columbia, we're not enforcing it in Ontario. I worry that if we did a review on other departments we would see that they've been cut far too deeply. I don't want to argue about why they had to be cut. Let's just accept the fact that they did and we balanced the budget. If we were to view the science element, we would get another whole list of sad stories that are very significant.

My point is that when the senior officials from Environment Canada come, we hear stories about partnerships, rationalizations, more efficiencies, and trying to do things smarter, but I just think you don't have enough money. You can make things as efficient as you like, but at the end of the day, we're not going to have enough enforcement officials.

Mr. Ian Glen: In terms of our overall approach, I think as public servants within Environment Canada, the organization has been quite professional at responding to the commitment it was required to make and keep under the program review exercise. So I think that, as an organization, it addressed the issues of the day to the government's agenda very well.

In terms of efforts to obtain additional resources for the activities or priorities of the organization through the recent budget, our department was again successful with efforts by our minister to be able to get money for climate change from rather limited moneys available for new activity. That was declared to be one of the priority areas we had to get into. So we feel we enhanced our base there.

In terms of what we call the A base, the expectation is to work within your base and do the appropriate reallocations. So at this point in time, I and my officials are addressing it on the A base we have. We'll be as straightforward as we can, but we do have pressures, yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let me change the subject. In a letter received by the committee on March 19, the deputy minister indicated that he was granting the highest priority to the process launched by François Guimont. This process consisted of reviewing recent studies of enforcement organizations, existing information, and committee transcripts in order to find a way to move forward.

These questions were prepared by the researcher. When was the review launched? What is its scope? Who's conducting it? Are consultants involved? Is Environment Canada's enforcement personnel involved? When will the review be completed? Will a report be prepared once it is completed? If that's yes, will a copy of the report be made available to the committee?

Mr. Ian Glen: Mr. Guimont was speaking to this earlier. You can ask François. It would be a report for our consideration and advice to the minister. I'll take on board with her the degree to which we make it available to you people. In principle, with the way it's being worked on, I don't envisage a problem. But we'll have to see how that goes.

In terms of quickly scoping out who's involved, François might give you that information.

Mr. François Guimont: I will do so, Mr. Chairman, quickly.

The contract has not yet been issued. We have developed the so-called terms of reference as the way we do that. The terms of reference have been put together in a very open way, so the enforcement people are part of this. Patrick Hollier, my colleague, will be working with the consultant who will be put on stream to carry out the review.

• 0940

So the terms of reference have been nailed down, and we want to move quickly. And “quickly” here means that after the contract is issued and the contractor has begun to look at the material and get his mind around all of that, we would like to see it done within maybe three months. That's what I have in terms of a window in order for people to get the information, set up meetings, do the round table for a day and a half to two days, and then use the material from that to derive a work plan, an action plan.

The point I want to make is that at that gathering, the managers and the enforcement people in the field will be there. This is not from the top down; it's from the bottom up and from the top down together. Otherwise, the action plan will...for me, for the action plan to be meaningful, it needs to involve the people. That would be the course of action we'd want to follow.

On top of that, we want to seek the help of a specialist, if you wish, on enforcement matters. We would have our colleagues from the office of enforcement and we would have a specialist in enforcement matters. We're looking for somebody who could fill that job and a so-called facilitator who would be the person discharging the content of the terms of reference I mentioned earlier on.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Charbonneau and then the chair.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): The minister has just recently introduced Bill C-32 as the new revisions to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We have received some information that describes some of the comparisons of the existing CEPA and Bill C-32 in terms of enforcement-related provisions. And certainly within Bill C-32 there has been an expansion of certain enforcement-related provisions as compared to the existing CEPA.

The members of this committee haven't had an opportunity to go through the new CEPA with a fine-tooth comb and I think that will take a while. In terms of these new provisions that have been written into C-32, I'm just wondering how you will be able to accommodate what is required, given the fact that we have had witnesses come before this committee and talk about their concerns about enforcement and lack of resources, etc. How will you be able to accommodate the new Bill C-32?

Mr. Ian Glen: I should also apologize to the committee. Last night we were getting the French translation. We have that and will provide it to members as well.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes. It's been passed around.

Mr. Ian Glen: Okay. The committee will certainly have its time with Bill C-32 in the clause-by-clause review after second reading. If you wish, Steven Mongrain can go through this quickly with you with regard to the more general question, which I take to be sort of like “This may be well and good, but if you still don't have the horsepower, what are you going to do?”

In doing the review that François Guimont spoke to you about, we won't factor in just the past; we'll be factoring in what the future is, what the authorities are and how we can do it more completely. That exercise will not be simply a resource-focused exercise. It'll be a compliance regime exercise and an exercise on how we can be more effective, so quite frankly, we would be looking at whether some of these new powers assist us in areas of activity where a lack of resources might presently handicap us.

So I don't look at all of this as a drag. Some of it may be a pull factor to improve our efficiencies in the future. But we will be looking at Bill C-32 provisions and assuming or hoping that they will come into law as part of the review exercise.

Mr. Steven Mongrain (Policy Adviser, Department of the Environment): Maybe I could go into a little more detail and follow up on your question.

Many of the provisions in the enforcement part will actually help us use our resources more efficiently. Maybe I could use an example that relates to the issue raised by Mr. Lincoln about crowded court dockets.

If you look at the chart that's been provided, there's a brief description of the alternative measures we put into the enforcement part. They are called environmental protection alternative measures and are an alternative to going to trial, to avoid the crowded court dockets, as Mr. Lincoln pointed out to us. These are available for the lesser offences, not the most serious ones. The way it works is that the accused must acknowledge responsibility, and then with the Attorney General, we would sit down and negotiate an agreement of corrective action, possibly penalties. It could be an agreement to put in force a pollution prevention plan.

• 0945

So this is one example of where we're trying to avoid something that is very costly and time-consuming on the resources within our department and the Department of Justice, using these alternative measures.

As to other areas where we're trying to be more efficient, the creation of a new CEPA investigator—on the chart it's the second section—having an officer whose primary purpose is to investigate offences provides a better use of those resources. They will have specialized training. We have investigators now, but under the new bill, if it's passed, they'll have new powers.

Those are some of the things we're trying to do under the new bill.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: How does the review process you're currently going to undertake differ from the...is it the Istana report? This was a report dated March 1996. It says it's a study of intelligence requirements for environmental enforcement, and it looks at some of the things that help information control and flow and acquisition.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: The Istana report—I forget exactly the date—was prepared largely in response to the recognition nationally that the nature of our business was shifting somewhat with respect to the enforcement activities. In particular, we were dealing with regulations such as hazardous wastes, CFCs, that sort of thing, in regard to which we found more and more activity along the border. As a result of that, we needed more intelligence about what was going on in those regulations and in general, and in order to assess what our current capacity was, what from a national point of view the needs were, the nature of the intelligence business, how it relates to other enforcement agencies, and what the resource requirements would be for an agency such as ourselves. That report was commissioned.

So it's dealing specifically with what we call the intelligence capacity analysis function—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: —whereas the review that Mr. Guimont and others are talking about is dealing with the big picture of the total program and past reports.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So this report is two years old. I wonder how many recommendations of this report have been implemented.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: With respect to the Istana report, we have largely been moving very slowly. Resource limitations have been acknowledged. In headquarters, we've put in place one person for a leadership role for the protection side of our enforcement program, one for the wildlife and contacts, in many cases, across the regions. Very little in terms of total resource is dedicated to the function, but having said that, our headquarters people are designing and developing a specific approach to what we need to do nationally. We're at a point now where we could move forward quickly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Kraft Sloan. Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Casson and the chair.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivières-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a question concerning the report presented by the Istana group. The report is available only in English, but it is easy to understand.

You answered several of my colleague's questions. I would, however, like to come back to one thing you said. As I recall, you said the department needed to acquire a far more advanced information gathering system.

• 0950

You also stressed the importance of establishing partnerships and of cooperating with, for example, Customs and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You may have also mentioned other government departments and agencies.

Does the Istana group report shed any light on this issue for you? Does it also mention the need for cooperation? Could you tell us where exactly in the report these concerns are mentioned?

Finally, how do you intend to follow up on these concerns which were voiced quite strongly?

As far as I'm concerned, Environment Canada cannot be present everywhere. It needs to establish a network which will form the basis of this system. What relation is there between what you have said and the substance of this report? What action do you anticipate being taken?

Mr. François Guimont: I will make a few general comments, Mr. Chairman, and let my colleague, Mr. Dale Kimmett, link them to the Istana report.

As I mentioned, we are firm believers in the flow of information. We have implemented the NEMISIS system. As with any system, there are always some bugs or problems initially and we are in the process of working these out. Generally speaking, I think people in the region view this information system in a positive light.

The system will also enable us to gather intelligence. It will be practical and will eliminate the paper burden. From that standpoint, it will be useful.

Therefore, we now have an operational system and we are working to iron out the wrinkles to make the system as efficient as possible.

As for partnerships, I referred to three different types of partnerships, namely at the international level with Interpol, at the North American level with the United States with whom we share an extended border and do a great deal of trade—I referred to the American EPA and to U.S. Customs—and at the national level where we are working to renew certain agreements with Customs and with the RCMP. We also talked about that.

We are working to gather intelligence at these three levels. We are also relying on the human resources available at the border and within the country.

I will let my colleague, Mr. Dale Kimmett, elaborate further on what I've just said and on the Istana report.

[English]

Mr. Dale Kimmett: I'll touch on a few more aspects to what Mr. Guimont has said about the NEMISIS system. The NEMISIS system is a national system used by all of our regional people for both protection and wildlife inspection and enforcement activities.

The idea is the capture virtually all information our staff members gather and process during their day-to-day activities, and allow an efficient and effective retrieval of that on a case-by-case basis, or on a national, regional or managerial level basis. It is in operation now with respect to that function.

On the intelligence component of it, we are looking at so-called modules that we would add to the overall system and enhance the information that might be called intelligence by analysing our day-to-day work plus other information we might collect through additional research, contacts or what have you. That piece has yet to be made fully operational, but the rest is fully operational.

With respect to the partnerships aspect, internationally and domestically we have a very strong working relationship, particularly with the EPA. We have joint investigations. We have joint border operations. We have cooperative efforts in developing training for customs officers and a very strong working relationship.

• 0955

With respect to Canada Customs, for example, again we've provided training courses in manual form and personal form, and we're looking at computerized training tools as well.

On the domestic scene, we have cooperation at the regional level with provinces on a case basis. In some cases there is, if not a joint prosecution, a decision on how prosecutions would be best handled. There is annually a federal-provincial meeting of enforcement officers. We have a fairly strong base we've build from and continue to improve on in the traditional enforcement functions, and now we're moving more into the intelligence area.

I would also add that with respect to the business of intelligence gathering, analysis and so on for environmental agencies—if not worldwide, certainly in North America—it's not a traditional function. As the world changes and environmental crime becomes more global, the need for intelligence activity among environmental enforcement agencies will continue to grow. That's another reason why it's important for us and strategically needs our attention.

We have a very strong set of partnerships. Now the balances can be more between traditional enforcement and intelligence, and we're all sort of going along on the same path.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I've taken note of your answer. I don't know if the official who answered explained how these actions were any different from what was being done previously. This seems to be a continuation of ongoing actions. I seem to recall Mr. Guimont making a strong argument for the establishment of a genuine network on which the system would be based.

He explained to this committee that Environment Canada could not be present at all border points, airports and ports. He felt it was critical to get the active cooperation of staff trained elsewhere, whether by the RCMP or by Customs. He pointed out that major improvements were needed. I did not quite understand from the answer that was given to us whether any quantitative or qualitative improvements have been made.

I don't know whether you can reassure us on this score, Mr. Guimont, because your argument was a valid one. When shortcomings are brought to light, you say that the situation is complicated and that the cooperation of many people is needed. We mustn't come back in two or three years' time only to discover that Environment Canada is still acting alone, that the expected level of cooperation never materialized and so forth.

Are more efforts really going into this or is it really only more of the same? What kind of progress are you anticipating? Have additional resources been made available to you? Have you come up with new ways of getting out of this mess?

Mr. François Guimont: Let me refer to the action plan that we submitted to the committee when we presented our findings in response to the recommendations of the Environmental Auditor. The latter had identified shortcomings at the border in terms of the transportation of hazardous waste and substances that can affect the ozone layer.

One of the points that I emphasized was that blitzes did not necessarily produce the expected results. This is a learning process for our organization. We realized that in order to be more effective at the border, we needed to monitor even the smallest companies that transport hazardous waste for recycling or other purposes or other substances included in the Montreal Protocol which can still be exchanged.

The need to involve these companies has forced us to be more efficient in our dealings with our Customs colleagues and with our RCMP colleagues. In the action plan that we tabled to the committee, we provided details of new cooperation agreements that we want to renew, strengthen and clarify. The action plan also included target implementation dates.

• 1000

Therefore, to answer your question briefly, yes, we are tackling the problem with renewed energy. Judging from the auditor's analysis, we realize that we need to actively work at establishing partnerships. The solution does not lie solely in conducting blitzes at the border, but in improving our monitoring activities. Monitoring is not solely the responsibility of Environment Canada.

As Mr. Kimmett said, we recognize that internationally, there may be some illegal movement of certain substances and that monitoring is the key to more effective enforcement of the act.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What kind of resources will be assigned to enforcement efforts?

Mr. François Guimont: Our review, the Istana report, the minutes of proceedings of our discussions, along with the findings and recommendations of the auditor will all serve as input which will enable us, collectively, to decide which monitoring activities need to be carried out and to request additional resources for this purpose.

I cannot give you the exact figure at this time, because we have by no means reviewed all of the analyses done. This is in some way the rationale for our review.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Mr. Casson, followed by the chair.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): I have a couple of questions.

When you were here earlier, I asked if every time an infraction or a supposed infraction was reported to you a response was made, and you indicated there was. Subsequently, when we were talking to the enforcement people they led us to believe that doesn't happen. Infractions are reported, and if a case gets to be two years old and they haven't been able to get to it, it is taken off the books. I'd like a little more explanation on that.

Mr. François Guimont: I'll take a stab at it and let my colleagues, Guy or Patrick, add precision to the points I'll make.

The question that was asked of me and my colleague when I was here before the committee was, when somebody says there is something taking place, are you responding? Our policy says we have to respond and my answer is yes, we take action. Now, the action can be us contacting the province to see if it will take action or it can be a phone call to customs asking if it has some information on this case.

The point I'm making here is that the word “response” involves a broad spectrum. It can also include an inspection. It can also include an investigation, but it's not solely that. That's the first point I want to make.

The issue of the two years is more tied to the fact that after two years a case that has been investigated may not have the standing required to proceed to court. That is probably more tied to that issue, but I'll let my colleague Mr. Martin respond to that more specifically.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin (Chief, Inspections and Investigations, Department of the Environment): I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman.

The existing legislation provides for a two-year time frame for cases where we proceed on summary conviction. In cases where charges are to be laid, there is no time limit. The latter cases are of a much more serious nature. In such instances, the violations have a serious impact on the environment.

Most offences of an administrative nature are dealt with on summary conviction and are therefore subject to the two-year time limit. Lack of resources is the reason why in some instances, offences were not dealt with within the prescribed time limit for laying charges.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson: I suppose that's an answer, but it leads us to another more broad question. The Government of Canada has all of these regulations and all of this legislation that is to be enforced to protect the environment, but if we are not perceived to be enforcing that to a level that's acceptable, are we open to litigation? Are we going to a point far enough in enforcement to say, yes, we are doing that?

• 1005

In some of the things we've seen, there are areas brought up where there are no inspections to do with transporting hazardous waste, a certain aspect of the industry. So are we indeed leaving ourselves open as a country, as a government, to litigation from inside and outside of Canada? It's a broad question, but....

Mr. Ian Glen: It's a broad question. If I may have your indulgence, I'm going to add a bit more of your first question to this as well.

In answer to a question, Mr. Pascoe said there are things where we don't follow up completely and we close the file and we just don't.... So I wanted to close that circle. David said that, and I think most would agree. There's almost a natural ending point to some files, that they're not meriting further work. So they'll do what François or Guy said, but David also said...and there are ones where we just close them. We just haven't done anything further; we've stopped. I think that won't reassure you, but it'll be consistent with what you're saying.

On the other one, I've learned from my colleagues as well, when I've sat here while they've been answering questions, as to the broader question in terms of the adequacy or the completeness of what regulations we're enforcing, at what time, and at what pace, some of it is judged, as Peter Krahn tried to illustrate, by our satisfaction as a degree of compliance. We believe it's occurring anyway. So you're always sort of determining what areas need more aggressive action or not, and our priority setting assists us. National or regional priority setting helps on that. So we're prepared to engage on all of the regulations, as we feel appropriate, to advance compliance.

Does that make us vulnerable in precise legal terms? I don't know the answer entirely. I do know that the capacity to litigate nationally, the North American concept or one could say the American concept to litigate to get action—there could be a vulnerability on that. I think what we have to do is be satisfied that we're acting as responsibly as we can within, in essence, the management or enforcement regime that we put in place.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Going back to your very helpful letter, Mr. Glen, you mention in the last paragraph of page 1 that you will eventually, at the right time when the review is completed, discuss the next steps with the minister. It is fair to assume that you will be discussing financial steps as well, a broad basket of steps that will emerge from the review.

Let me point out, in reply to the question by Mr. Knutson, that three months is a pretty long time to be waiting for.... I don't want to sound too simplistic, but it would seem to me that perhaps a review could be conducted in a matter of six weeks if there is the will to roll up sleeves and get the job done and have it completed by mid-May, rather than by the end of June. And then comes the summer, and we would talk about the fall, and then things lose momentum in this, if it were to take three months. However, this is an internal matter that cannot be judged by an outsider.

Mr. Glen, in discussing with the minister, it seems to me—and I never thought the day would come when I would offer unsolicited advice to a deputy minister, but I am—that preceding that, you may want to raise the whole question of program review and reduction of budget in the committee of deputy ministers, to get some sense of the general attitude of the entire system there.

We are now in the third year applying budget cuts in light of a situation that is three years old. Circumstances have changed economically in terms of the revenue of the Government of Canada, and critical issues have emerged, particularly in the field of enforcement.

• 1010

Therefore it doesn't seem to be unreasonable to discuss whether the third-year program review cuts are still so essential and necessary and to determine under which circumstances certain departments might have a reasonable case to make for not being subjected to this final Chinese torture. If the deputy ministers were to engage in an exercise of that kind and identify the areas that, in year three, under changed circumstances, require attention and a different financial treatment by Treasury Board, you would find, I suspect, some sympathetic sentiments in some of your colleagues, particularly your colleague in the Department of Foreign Affairs, to mention one.

I'm just offering this suggestion, which is triggered by your final paragraph on page 1. I don't know whether it will buy me a cup of coffee with 10¢, but nevertheless I feel it ought to be made. It seems to me we are out of sync at a certain point in this three-year exercise, that we are still implementing decisions that were justifiable, urgent, and part of a context that is now rapidly vanishing—the context of deficit elimination. We are not only seeing the end of the tunnel; we have come out of the tunnel virtually, thanks also to some very clever acrobatic feats in accounting, as we all know.

Anyway, I will leave it at that for what it is worth. I don't want to put you on the spot for comments on that.

Going back to Mr. Casson's question of a moment ago, he's pointing to a very important direction. I appreciate the difficulty you have in assuming the potential for challenges or litigation on international agreements, but definitely there is something there that we ought to be fully aware of and that should make our arguments vis-à-vis Treasury Board and other internal institutions stronger. We could run the risk of being sued for regulatory negligence. I don't want to belabour this theme any further.

The next item I would like to inquire about very briefly, possibly with Mr. Hollier, is whether he would agree that certain additional powers are needed, such as the status of an investigative body for Environment Canada's enforcement group and peace officer powers for CEPA.

Do you have any comments on that? Or Mr. Martin or whoever?

[Translation]

Mr. Patrick Hollier (Chief, Regulations and Strategy, Department of the Environment): Regarding the powers of peace officers, Bill C-32 proposes to grant more powers to investigators, although not the full powers enjoyed by peace officers. Pursuant to Bill C-32, inspectors may be granted new powers in relation to those powers awarded to peace officers, including the power to detain vehicles in transit. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of granting investigators powers that are similar to those held by peace officers, but rather to grant them certain specific kinds of powers.

We are currently examining the whole issue of what an investigative body does. Certainly this would prove useful to the process of gathering intelligence from other enforcement agencies, by virtue of the status that this would confer upon us, on the one hand, and on the other hand, because certain information is difficult to obtain and hold on to because of the provisions of the Access to Information Act.

• 1015

I certainly feel that there would be advantages to having more powers in these two areas. I've talked about the operational aspects. I will now turn the floor over to one of my colleagues who will discuss some of the other aspects involved.

Mr. Guy Martin: These powers, I might add, are essential to our operations, particularly our intelligence gathering services, for which I currently have responsibility. When we obtain information from other investigative agencies, we must be able to protect that information, something we can only do if we have the status of an investigative body. If we cannot safeguard information, it will be difficult for us to acquire that intelligence ourselves or to obtain it from other agencies.

Agencies recognized as having the powers of peace officers, namely police forces in the United States and U.S. Customs services, are very reluctant to share information with us because we do not have the status of an investigative body.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Glen, perhaps you can help us here in connection with the report we have to write. In the information note that deals with assessment of enforcement costs, there is one section that really puzzles me when it comes to cost to enforce regulations. This is as we are enforcing under the present act. Can you find it, please?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, just to be sure, this is the so-called cost to enforce regulation as taken from RIA, the regulatory impact analysis?

The Chairman: “When Developing and Promulgating a Regulation” is the title of the note. It's one of the notes you provided us with. Did you find it?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes.

The Chairman: If you go through that...I'm addressing these boxes where the answer is “no statement”: asbestos mines and mills releases; chlor-alkali mercury release; chlorobiphenyls; chlorofluorocarbon regulations; and then moving on to the next page, federal mobile PCB treatment; fuels information regulation number one; ocean dumping regulations; ODS substances; ODS products; phosphorus concentration; prohibition of certain toxic substances; pulp and paper, mainly the former; and pulp and paper mill effluent chlorinated, which requires 20 additional person-years.

So for most of the items I mentioned so far, there is no statement, except for pulp and paper, where it says it requires 20 additional person-years. Then, on toxic substances expert notification, there is no statement. Then, on chlor-alkali mercury liquid effluent, there is no statement in the 77 regulations. And then how is one to interpret that very long statement that follows?

On meat and poultry products plant liquid effluent, again, there is a very long statement to the effect that there will be no additional costs in terms of human resources. On metal lining liquid effluent, it's the same. There is no statement on petroleum refinery liquid effluent. There is no additional cost to government on potato processing plant liquid effluent. Pulp and paper effluent will require 58 additional person-years.

• 1020

How are we to interpret that picture?

Mr. François Guimont: There are a number of explanations to this and they don't all fit in the same area, so I'll systematically go through it.

This information was filed with the committee, that being the tables showing the resources that would normally come with the so-called regulatory impact assessment statement.

We also gave the committee an explanation of why there are certain areas where there's no mention of where the resources would be, and I'll go through it systematically but quickly.

Around 1987, the so-called RIASs were more cumulative in nature than quantitative, so there was not a quantitative statement saying, as you just mentioned on the pulp and paper regulation, x number of people are required to undertake the management of that regulation. That is—

The Chairman: Allow me to interject here. If you have filed that information with the committee and I have missed it, could you recirculate that document so we can save you the time now?

It would be helpful to know if we have an explanation for the required 20 additional person-years for pulp and paper and mill effluent, chlorinated, and any other item in this note that indicates additional person-years are required. Is that part of the review you intend to launch, or has this already been taken care of?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, the answer to this is on two levels. The 20-odd PYs you're talking about are for the so-called dioxin furan under CEPA. The other one, 58, is the pulp and paper regulation under the Fisheries Act. The two of them are in a package called the pulp and paper regulatory package.

The first point that is very important to pay attention to here is that these resources are not solely meant to carry out enforcement. It is what we call administration of the regulation. If some analyses are needed, there are obviously some enforcement/inspection-type responsibilities. But EEM—environmental effects monitoring—resources, which were part of the package, allow us to discharge a responsibility. An area beyond what I would call simple enforcement is also factored into these resources.

So the number of actual resources going to the enforcement group are not exactly reflective of that number we have here. This is a very important point to bear in mind.

The second point I would make is this. The original influx of resources going to the regulation—and you will probably remember the paper from Peter Krahn, where he showed clearly that the regulated community, when a regulation comes into place, very quickly will do its best to comply with the regulation. The point I'm making is this. To administer a regulation like this, the original influx, with time, will be shifted to another area, another regulation. This is why we have our national inspection plan, which will strategically put the resources to the higher-risk area based on the assessment we'll carry out.

The point I'm trying to make here is this, Mr. Chairman. These RIASs are not meant to be cumulative; that is, 58 plus 20 plus 20 plus.... There's a point in time, obviously, where the number of regulations have to match an increased number of enforcement people in order to carry out the inspections and the responsibilities, either through people or efficiencies. The total figures of the RIASs are not meant to be cumulative from one to another, because with time, the regulated community will be complying and you can then shift your resources to those new regulations coming in.

The Chairman: Keeping in mind that the regulated community, once the word spreads that you're shifting your troops from one sector to another, will then know the abandoned sector and it is free—

Mr. François Guimont: But, Mr. Chairman, they don't know that. Let me go through it.

The Chairman: They're not that naive, are they?

Mr. François Guimont: Even if, as an example, pulp and paper may not be a top priority now—and I'm not going to say where it is in our priorities—it doesn't mean that three years from now it may not be back at the top, for whatever risk reason we will have assessed through the information we're gleaning from the pulp and paper mills, as an example. So it is not static. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

• 1025

The Chairman: Yes. I don't want to take up too much time because there are many people who want to go for a second question, but I have to ask you this very briefly.

In a reply to Mrs. Kraft Sloan or Mr. Knutson, you dealt with a note coming from the Ontario region. I would like to know—perhaps you can put it in writing, because Mr. Pascoe is not here—what are the reasons when an exemption is extended to some of the regulatees. I'm referring to the fact that the Ontario region had zero prosecutions. We'd like to know the rationale for that.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can reply to this. As for the exemption that Mr. Pascoe was referring to, I'm pretty sure—I'm not totally positive—that it had to do with leaded racing fuels regulations. We did put that on hold for various reasons. There were some economic reasons, but also there's the fact that the U.S. EPA at that time was considering what they should do with their own regulations, and we wanted to be in sync.

The Chairman: Well, if you could put it in writing, it would be very helpful.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Yes.

The Chairman: We'd like to examine that.

Then there's the note that deals with a zero rate of recidivism. This could be good news, but it could also mean something completely different. Namely, we might have no way of checking whether there is a rate of recidivism, because we don't have the resources to check.

But what puzzled me is this: why is it that after eight or nine years of CEPA's existence, Environment Canada is currently identifying those offences that will be ticketable? The question is why was it not done before, since this is not a new regulation? Maybe you might want to think it over and let us have an answer in due course.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: I can give a part answer, at least. One of the concerns about ticketing in the past has been the fact that the—perhaps Steve could help here—Contraventions Act, which allows for the handling and processing of ticketing across Canada in cooperation with the provinces, hadn't passed.

Second, the limits in certain provinces for the use of a ticket was quite small. It was $100 or less. As a result of that, there was a concern that the use of ticketing for applications of environmental offences would be seen as too small and inappropriate for the seriousness of the offences that we would tend to use them for.

Now I understand that the limits have gone somewhere between $300 to $500 per province, and that we would have the right to issue a ticket every day. So there's a fair amount of flexibility there in terms of how you might use ticketing in the future, regardless of the size of the company. At $500 a day, it starts to hurt almost anyone.

That's part of the background to it. There are some other factors that I can't give you the details on, but we could send you something on them.

Mr. Steve Mongrain: My understanding is that the Contraventions Act was passed by Parliament but it has not been put into force. It was passed some time ago. For that reason, we maintained the provisions in Bill C-32 for ticketing. It could have come under the Contraventions Act. It appears to be in limbo. We therefore maintained it in Bill C-32. The authority is there.

The Chairman: That's reassuring.

Then there's the issue of the prairie and northern regions where the person-years are not 16, but 15. The thought that crossed my mind is that this region is as large as Europe. Of course, to have 15 people in charge of that territory, particularly with the mining activities north of 60, it is a very disturbing figure. But again, it comes under the question of funds, I suspect. So we'll leave it at that.

Finally, as for the Istana report—Mrs. Kraft Sloan already dealt with that—it's two years old. Two years ago, the departmental data gap was already brought out. So do we understand correctly from your answer that you are now moving on bridging that gap? And if so, when will you have bridged that data gap outlined on pages 7 and 8?

• 1030

Mr. Dale Kimmett: I'd have to refer to pages 7 and 8. Or, when you're referring to the words “data gap”, are you referring to the resource issue?

The Chairman: I'm referring to the report.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: Yes, I understand, but you said “data gap”. I'll have to refer to the report.

The Chairman: It's 2.3.1 on page 7, and is entitled “The Departmental Data Gap”.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: I'll be with you in a moment.

The Chairman: It's about the absence of a nationally accepted standardization in the area of data management and control. It deals with the question of...well, I won't read paragraph after paragraph. In light of your answer to Madam Kraft Sloan, it would be helpful if you could let us know when the departmental data gap will be bridged. It's on pages 7 and 8 of the Istana report. Or if you can't answer it now, could you do it then in writing?

Mr. Dale Kimmett: I've scanned that section quickly, and what I glean from it—and correct me if I'm wrong—is that with respect to a data gap it's talking about the ability to collect information and to store it and to retrieve it.

The Chairman: Yes. The question is when.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: My answer is that NEMISIS is in place and it will fulfil 75% to 80% of this requirement. It is in place now.

The Chairman: And the total requirement?

Mr. Dale Kimmett: The total requirement can be met with an addition to the NEMISIS system, which is a specific piece of computer software that deals with the pure information-gathering aspect of an intelligence capacity as defined intelligence.

The Chairman: And can you provide this committee with an answer—if you can do it now—as to whether you will implement all the recommendations of the Istana report, and if not, which ones you will not?

Mr. Dale Kimmett: I can't answer that, but I'm sure that's what we'll be looking at in the context of the overall study and the review of our program.

The Chairman: Thank you.

For the second round, Mr. Gilmour has gone, so it's Monsieur Asselin, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Knutson, Madam Kraft Sloan, Monsieur Charbonneau and Mr. Casson.

Monsieur Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: My question is a follow up to Mr. Martin's reaction to a question put by a Reform Party member.

I assume that Environment Canada operates according to the "polluter pays" principle. Can you tell me how many cases are currently before the courts? Are polluters merely threatened with a fine or with some other action? Are we serious when we impose these fines and summon offenders to appear in court, or are we simply making threats? Can you tell us exactly how many cases end up before the courts each year and whether these polluters are small businesses as well as multinationals? You stated that charges were laid in serious cases where the environment was affected.

I would like to know if any charges were laid in the Irving Whale incident, in the hopes that this would prompt a cleanup of the ocean bottom. Is this case currently before the courts? If it is not, is the Irving Whale incident about to fade into oblivion because of delays or procedural errors?

Mr. Guy Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with all of the details of the Irving Whale case. As a recall, this incident occurred in 1970. The matter was brought before the civil courts, not the criminal courts. Perhaps I could get that information to you later.

• 1035

As for the size of the offending businesses, I can certainly tell you that we make no distinctions between small, medium-sized and large businesses. You should also note that charges were laid against certain federal departments, including Transport Canada, in connection with Pearson airport, and against the Department of Public Works, in connection with unauthorized dredging operations. Charges have also been laid against large corporations such as Hydro-Quebec and Alcan for dumping PCBs. It makes no difference to us. When we are advised of a problem, we take action and we do not distinguish between small and large companies.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: You agree with me, Mr. Martin, that the Irving Whale is a serious incident.

Mr. Guy Martin: Absolutely.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: The spill had an impact on the environment.

Mr. Guy Martin: Indeed it did.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Charges were in fact laid. Since this ecological disaster occurred in 1970 and the Irving Whale was raised two years ago, the courts should have ruled by now. I assume that Irving should be held responsible for decontaminating the seabed.

Mr. Guy Martin: I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question at this time. Perhaps I can give you an answer at a later date.

[English]

Mr. Ian Glen: We are presently involved in civil litigation over that matter in order to recover the costs with respect to the Irving Whale operation. It is a matter that is presently before the courts.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

[English]

I have to interrupt this second round of questions in order to put forward two items. First, the clerk needs the permission and endorsement of this committee for its members to participate at the Calgary gathering called by the Canadian Energy Research Institute. We discussed this the last time, but we need a specific motion permitting to seek the necessary funds for members to attend. I would like to entertain a motion to that effect.

Mr. Casson, are you willing to put forward a motion to that effect?

Mr. Rick Casson: No.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I might move it.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, this would be a motion to the effect that this committee requests the necessary funds to attend the gathering in Calgary. The authorization would be required for ten members, five government and five opposition, to travel to Calgary for the purpose of participating in the Canadian Energy Research Institute conference on climate change on May 4 and 5, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. That is the motion that has been presented.

Could I have a mover?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I so move.

Mr. John Finlay: I so move.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay, Madam Kraft Sloan.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We now go back to the St. Lawrence River. If there is a will to do so, we could entertain a motion in connection with the dredging.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to table the following motion: that, in the opinion of the committee, the Minister of the Environment ensure that an environmental assessment, pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act, be carried out before any decision is taken regarding the dredging of the St. Lawrence navigation channel between Montreal and Cap à la Roche, and that the chair forward this motion to the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

And I have the motion

[Translation]

in French as well.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I'm sorry, but I'm somewhat troubled by this. Could we possibly set a deadline so that this environmental impact study does not drag on indefinitely?

The Chairman: This environmental study will get under way immediately if we pass this motion. The Quebec government has officially requested a study and we have already discussed this matter.

• 1040

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Are you telling us that you are presenting this motion this morning at the request of the Quebec government?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, not at Quebec's request, but at the committee's request. I'm saying that the Quebec department decided to ask the federal department to carry out an environmental assessment.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: However, you stated earlier that the Quebec government intended to request an impact study, but without going through Fisheries.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, this is a federal undertaking. Quebec cannot undertake an impact assessment which oversteps its jurisdiction. We are talking about the St. Lawrence. The federal government has jurisdiction over this international waterway. Therefore, it has to get involved. That is why we are proposing that the committee ask the environment department to conduct an environmental impact assessment jointly with Quebec and to hold public hearings.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there other questions?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm sort of new to the whole language of assessments and impact studies, but my understanding is that in a little community like Port Stanley, if they want to dredge they have to have an EA. Are we asking for an impact study or an environmental assessment?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'll tell you what it is. We are asking for a full environmental impact panel, including public hearings under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, which the Minister of Fisheries decided to bypass in favour of a decision to go ahead with this project, without assessment.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But there was an assessment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: One person is saying there was an assessment and another of my colleagues is saying there wasn't an assessment.

The Chairman: Ms. Kraft Sloan and Mr. Charbonneau.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I may have this confused with another issue.

The Chairman: I hope you will not create further confusion.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It was my understanding there was an assessment done.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: There have been no public hearings under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I was told that the environment department provided some expertise in terms of the study and the decision made by Fisheries and Oceans. Could the deputy minister tell us the extent to which the Department of the Environment has been involved in this matter? Then we would have some idea of our starting point this morning.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any official who wishes to comment, in light of what Mr. Charbonneau has asked?

Mr. Ian Glen: I'd have to go back to check because I know the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has been involved in this, and at one point people in our Quebec region were involved, but I don't have the details. I apologize.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Excuse me, my information is that there have been consultations with various groups but there have been no public hearings. There has been no formal environmental impact assessment with public hearings according to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is triggered there if the minister will invoke the act. But the minister decided, according to his authority, to bypass the act and make a decision to proceed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman...

Mr. Gérard Asselin: To which minister are you referring?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?

The Chairman: You do.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'm prepared to support the motion presented by my colleague Mr. Lincoln. However, the port of Montreal and an economic development agency have requested my support for this project which affects Montreal East. When I questioned them, they maintained that Environment Canada had been consulted and that there were no problems. I support this motion because it will enable us to get to the heart of the matter. However, Environment Canada still has some doubts. It seems that the department has been involved in the process up until now. What exactly has been the nature of its involvement? That should be an easy question to answer.

• 1045

[English]

The Chairman: It seems as if consultations have taken place, but there is a big difference between consultations and assessments, particularly when it comes to the disturbance of sediments, which is apparently going to take place very soon.

Secondly, as chair, I don't see any difficulty in putting this motion to a vote, because if it were to turn out to be redundant, it would be just redundant. But if it is relevant—because only consultations have taken place—it might be very helpful.

So unless there are further questions or comments, I will put the motion to a vote.

Monsieur Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: When Mr. Lincoln said that the minister had decided to proceed regardless, to which minister was he referring?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I did not say that the minister had decided to proceed regardless. I said that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was legally entitled to decide whether or not to ask the environment department to undertake a comprehensive environmental assessment and to hold public hearings, pursuant to Canadian legislation. He has the right to decide whether or not to proceed and to hold consultations.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: As someone who is concerned about the environment, I wouldn't want any corners to be cut. You mentioned an environmental assessment and public hearings. With this motion today, will we be able to go ahead with dredging operations in the ports of Montreal and Quebec City?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That will depend on our findings.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: How long will it be before we know?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: That will depend. Dredging the channel, even only by one foot, could have serious consequences because sediment will be stirred up. For the most part, this sediment is toxic. No study was conducted to determine what impact this could have on the shoreline. The channel is being dredged to allow for larger ship traffic. We need to know what impact this will have on shipping in the St. Lawrence.

Those of us who care about preserving the ecosystem in the St. Lawrence should at least be aware of the consequences. We're not saying no, but we would rather see an environmental assessment done and public hearings held.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the urgency of the situation. Do we absolutely need to make a decision today, or could we simply meet early next week, which would give us time to obtain further information from Environment Canada? We could adopt the motion next Tuesday at the start of our meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, you're taking on a responsibility that is fairly large, because should the dredging start on Monday we will not have been able to register our message as a committee while there was still time.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we should treat Mr. Asselin's suggestion as a motion to postpone this decision until next week and we should vote on that. And if that fails, then we can vote on the main motion.

The Chairman: I have no motion before me except the one moved by Mr. Lincoln. If Monsieur Asselin wants to move a motion to continue the debate next week, he can move that as an amendment, but I repeat—

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: If that is indeed the procedure that we must follow, Mr. Chairman, then I will table a motion. In any event, I would also like to suggest that we postpone any decision until next Tuesday and that this be the first item on the Environment Committee's agenda next Tuesday. In the meantime, the committee should obtain all information relevant to this matter from both the federal and provincial environment departments so that it can make the best possible decision.

[English]

The Chairman: Monsieur Asselin is moving that we adjourn the debate until next week at the earliest opportunity. Are you ready for the question? Those in favour, please so indicate.

• 1050

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would also like Environment Canada to supply us with all relevant documents. That's important.

[English]

The Chairman: Fine. Thank you. All those—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chairman, we are voting on the amendment to delay the discussion?

The Chairman: To adjourn this particular item until next week.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you. We proceed now with—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Having voted to take up the matter again next Tuesday, I would like the department to provide an answer to the question that I raised earlier regarding the nature of the consultations and of the involvement of the department and its officials in the Fisheries and Oceans decision-making process.

The Chairman: Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I would like Mr. Lincoln to give us a copy of his motion.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, of course.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the lead on this, and it was they who were responsible for whatever has been conducted here, so I think it's important that we get information from DFO.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't know if there's a requirement to put that in the motion or not, or whether we can just do it as a request to the clerk.

The Chairman: We'll take a note. Thank you.

We'll now resume the second round. We still have on the list Mr. Lincoln, followed by Mr. Knutson, Madam Kraft Sloan, Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Casson. No? We have only 10 minutes. Who is ready to go for the second round?

An hon. member: I am.

The Chairman: Just a moment, there's the same list as before.

Mr. Lincoln, are you finished?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes. I have to leave right away, so I won't be back.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, would you like to go ahead?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would like to put a question before I leave, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: All right. Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Based on the answers you gave when you compared Quebec and the Pacific-Yukon, with an approximate budget of $1.5 million, there were 16 positions for the Pacific-Yukon and eight positions for Quebec. You indicated that another position had been found, bringing the total number of positions in Quebec to nine, three of which are vacant, but funded. Further on, you state that there is no significant difference in the way the legislation is enforced in these two regions.

However, I see a difference: in the Pacific and in the Yukon, 16 persons are already on the job, whereas in Quebec, three positions are funded, but vacant, this despite the fact that this region has many problems and the largest number of pulp and paper plants in Canada.

What explanation is there for the fact that given the terrible shortage of resources, we have vacant, funded positions? How long has this been going on?

[English]

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I'll let my colleague from the Quebec region answer. He's in a better position to answer the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: As you pointed out, there are six inspectors on duty in the Quebec region and two more will be hired at the beginning of the summer. Two investigators are also on duty and another one will also be hired at the beginning of the summer. The difference between the Quebec Region and other regions is that all of these activities are being handled by a single manager in the Quebec Region, rather than by several assistant managers, as is the case elsewhere.

As for the pulp and paper sector which has 62 plants in Quebec, these figures do not take into account provincial inspectors who carry out inspections or provincial investigators who conduct investigations.

• 1055

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: How long have these three positions been vacant?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: I've been working in this division for less than one year, but to my knowledge, these positions have been vacant for over two years.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Isn't its incredible that at a time when everyone agrees that there is a shortage of resources, positions like this remain vacant for two years. It defies logic. It's quite likely that this has been going on for over two years. When I think of all the inspectors and all the investigators that we need, well...

Mr. Claude Gonthier: These positions have been vacant for almost two years now. In 1993-1994, 14 persons were responsible for conducting inspections and investigations in the Quebec region.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Fourteen persons in all.

Mr. Claude Gonthier: The numbers fluctuated as a result of the departure of certain persons. It took us a while to replace them.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In any event, if ever you are in need of staff, I can send you stacks of curriculum vitaes. I receive some every day. However, I find it incredible that we can afford to keep essential positions vacant for two years when we are told that there is a shortage of resources or funding.

I have one final question for Mr. Guimont.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Apparently the health committee is waiting outside, and there are a couple of other housekeeping items, and I don't want to get Mr. Charbonneau angry. So—

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's not being angry, just waiting our turn.

It was a very good question. We have a lot of very competent people to be hired by the department. The money is there. What's the problem? What's the problem in hiring them, recruiting appropriate people? What is the real reason behind this?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Briefly. Mr. Glen? Anyone?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer this. This is a situation that normally should not be taking place. Obviously when you have a vacant position, it's normal to take a window, a couple of months, just because of the process of transparency as per the Public Service Commission's requirements. But two years seems to be too long.

I think Mr. Gonthier is very clear. He's addressing the situation, and that's the best I can answer.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a very brief question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Will the answers be brief?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

[Translation]

Thank you for giving us this course calendar. I would like to know how many people enroll in these classes?

I also wanted some clarification on the question of the movement of hazardous waste between provinces and between Canada and the United States. I didn't hear anyone answer the question. Is someone preparing an answer?

[English]

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

Mr. Dale Kimmett: The report on the transportation of dangerous goods—

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Not dangerous goods; hazardous waste, between provinces and with the United States.

Mr. Dale Kimmett: What is your question?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Where is the report?

Mr. Dale Kimmett: Where is the report? On hazardous waste? I'm sorry, I'm at a loss here. You asked for a report on the activities related to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act between the provinces?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We had an exchange of views and questions about that, and Mr. Guimont took the commitment to prepare a report about the trans-circulation between the provinces and Quebec and the United States. Is it going to come?

Mr. François Guimont: It was filed with that information, Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Chairman. It was filed with the committee.

I remember the question quite vividly. You wanted to know what was coming from the United States, Quebec, and so on.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have asked the clerk about getting that information to me, but so far, I've been out of luck.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Did you have a second question, Mr. Charbonneau?

Mr. Glen wants to jump in.

Mr. Ian Glen: No, I don't want to jump in. I just want to say that we can assist in finding that information.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): But the clerk has it.

Mr. Ian Glen: Then we'll assist so that Mr. Charbonneau is comfortable that is what—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): You'll assist the clerk.

Mr. Ian Glen: Yes, we'll assist the clerk.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Charbonneau, is there a second question?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Were courses actually given and can you tell us a little bit about them?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I will try to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. We have drawn up a training plan for this year. I don't have the plan with me, but I could send along a copy to the committee.

• 1100

As I recall, we are planning to give courses on subjects like pollution, toxic substances, the new substance notification and so forth. We are planning to give at least two courses on pollution in several regions over a period of several weeks. We will also be giving courses on wildlife next year. We will be happy to send the training plan to you.

[English]

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

I have a couple of housekeeping items, first a message from Mr. Caccia. The chair informs members there will be a meeting next Tuesday morning to study draft recommendations and give final drafting instructions to staff, who will draft the report to be ready for consideration right after the Easter break.

Do you want to make any comments on that, madam?

Ms. Monique Hebert (Committee Researcher): Ideally, any further undertakings made this morning should be forwarded to the committee as soon as possible, given the tight schedule under which we're asked to prepare the report.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): The second matter is the report of a nuclear fuel waste management and disposal concept environmental assessment panel. The report has been circulated to members. It should be in your office this morning. The panel members, Blair Seaborn, Lois Wilson, and Douglas McCreath, are available to testify next week. The chair would like to advise you he will be setting up that meeting as well for next week, probably on Wednesday.

I would like to thank the officials from Environment Canada for appearing before us today. We look forward to seeing them again.

The meeting is adjourned.