[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
.1540 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, as you can hear, the bells are ringing, so this session may be a little short.
My name is Jean Payne and I'm vice-chair of this committee. Our illustrious chair is with us today, but his voice is not quite with us.
I want to welcome Mr. Robert Slater and the other members of his team. I believe you have a presentation to make.
The order of the day is pursuant to the order of reference dated March 7, 1996, consideration of main estimates 1996-97, votes 1, 5 and 10 under Environment Canada, conservation services. I believe this is the third meeting we've had to date on the main estimates on conservation services.
With that, I think we should begin immediately so as not to waste any more time.
Mr. Robert Slater (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Conservation, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I do not have a prepared text, but I would very much like to introduce my colleagues. First is Ralph Daley. Dr. Daley is executive director of the National Water Research Institute at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington. Rosaline Frith is director, Reporting Branch, State of the Environment. Louise Schwartz is the financial management adviser. David Brackett is director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service. Stephen McClellan is the latest recruit to our team. He is director general and he has just changed the name of his organization to Ecosystems and Environmental Resources. And Karen Brown is director general of the Ecosystem Conservation Directorate.
I would simply like to make two or three brief points by way of introduction. The first is in relationship to how the department has organized itself in a way different from last year. There's a bit of transition from last year's reporting arrangements to this year's reporting arrangements to you.
The second thing I'd like to mention is the priorities of the various parts of the organization and the things we're placing particular emphasis on this current fiscal year.
Last year when you looked at the main estimates for the environmental conservation - and I'll use the word "organization" because the organization consists of a number of parts - it consisted of an environmental conservation service, which is the headquarters component that I am responsible for. The environmental conservation program included at that time components from the various regional organizations of the department, the five regional offices. Putting all that together, the headquarters component and the regional components, you ended up with the conservation program.
This year, as I think you've encountered in discussions with others, we no longer talk about the environmental conservation program as such. Instead we talk about the work in a variety of different areas, 10 or 11 of them described in the action plan for the department. You'll notice in there two categories within which environmental conservation spends most of its efforts. I'll just mention those for emphasis. One is biodiversity and wildlife, and the other is ecosystems.
In biodiversity and wildlife you will find work in support of the Biodiversity Convention, our work to support the international convention and the work we do nationally in support of that convention. You will also find all of the wildlife management programs we are engaged in. These include the regulatory programs like the management of migratory birds, but they also include work with the North American waterfowl management plan, for example, for the restoration and conservation of ecologically valuable wetlands.
.1545
On the ecosystem side you'll find our work on ecosystem science. As you know, the Department of the Environment prides itself on the quality of its science. We believe it is a very important national asset, and it's one we are proud to have such a large part to play in.
Science is undertaken in that area, but we don't just stop at science. We try to convert it into strategies for action, and we also put in there what we colloquially refer to as our flagships - in other words, those priority ecosystems where we try to bring all of the actions of the department together for the benefit of the environment. I'm referring to the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes work, the Fraser River, the northern rivers basin work and the Atlantic Canada action plans - the coastal communities program.
Clearly the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the development of a federal piece of endangered species legislation is right at the top of our list of priorities, but we have a great deal of important work under way in all the areas I referred to.
We also participate widely in the toxics work by providing scientific advice for the control of toxic chemicals. We provide advice on the environmental effects of various forms of air pollution, from thinning of the ozone layer through to climate change effects.
We also engage very substantially in providing information to Canadians. The centrepiece for our work there is clearly the State of the Environment reporting work, the third national report being in the process of being distributed right now, and through that some innovative work we are doing using the Internet, what we call the green lane on the information highway, to get our information out to Canadians and others by those means.
The final point I'd make in terms of priority deals with water. Over the past few years there have been a lot of changes across the country in all governments with responsibilities for water management. The federal government is one of those, but so are provincial governments and municipal governments.
The minister has made it clear he wants to attach a higher importance to water as an issue. We're discussing closely with him right now how best to do that. So bringing a renewed focus and renewed energy and vigour to the management of the water file is another one of our priorities.
I have not tried to be exhaustive. I hope that's given you a flavour of our work and our priorities.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. That was fairly timely, Mr. Slater.
Before going into questions, we have about four minutes left on the bell, so we will adjourn until following the vote, which will probably be about fifteen or twenty minutes.
.1550
Mr. Slater: Madam Chair, I recall now one of the ecosystem flagships I forgot to mention is the Arctic. I would be very remiss in this audience, I know, to not mention that.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We will adjourn for the vote and return back here immediately after the vote.
.1550
.1612
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I think we're ready to resume our meeting, following the vote.
At the time we adjourned, Mr. Slater, I think you had almost concluded your remarks. I don't know if you want to add anything else. Also, I would like to give you the opportunity, if you want it, for one of your other director generals to speak or give a presentation at this time.
Mr. Slater: No. If it's convenient, when an appropriate question comes up, they'll join me at the table.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): All right. We'll go right into questions, then. We'll begin with Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): I first would like to say that between the 1994-95 budget and the 1997-98 budget adopted this year by the Finance Minister and the government, there was a program review that resulted in costs of about $230 million, which represents approximately 30% of the budget of the Department of the Environment. Did these significant reductions in staff and budget adversely affect the Environmental Conservation Service and prevent the Department of the Environment from attaining its objective?
.1615
I would also like to know which objectives or programs you had to abandon following budget cuts.
[English]
Mr. Slater: Thank you.
The budget cut to the department was not, as you know, uniformly applied across the organization. It was not applied uniformly to responsibility centres nor was it applied uniformly to programs.
The environmental conservation program was in program review. One was in fact cut by some 40%, so that constituted a very large reduction to the organization.
When we were faced with having to make those cuts, we tried to be extremely careful to make them in a way that we could maintain our contribution to the most important things and, regretfully, get out of some other things we had thought important at one time but could no longer afford under these new circumstances. I don't think there was any part of the organization that didn't get scrutinized.
We took a series of hard decisions. Those decisions meant we eliminated the less essential portion of practically all of our work. Every program was subjected to a lot of scrutiny and a lot of peer review by colleagues sitting around a table.
In addition to that, we eliminated some programs. We eliminated an environmental innovations program. This was aimed at supporting innovative ideas that third parties brought to us that were in line with the interests. We have phased out a large program of cooperative research with universities, which was developing ecosystem science with universities.
While we're phasing out those areas in terms of being financed by Environment Canada, we are working hard with the granting councils to get them to adjust their priorities so these important programs can continue. The fact of the matter is there is no budget in Environment Canada to support those.
We have made those sorts of adjustments, and they go right across the entire board.
The one I know will be of interest to you is a large reduction in the State of the Environment reporting area. The decision was to eliminate the State of the Environment reporting organization, which had been in existence for a number of years. Equally, we are trying to still maintain a capacity to provide the sort of constructive, highly regarded reports that came from that particular organization.
In order to be able to do that, we need to change the way we look at the State of the Environment reports in the department. So rather than, for example, limiting state of environment reporting to the work of a particular organization, we're trying to see how well we can make the entire organization of Environment Canada a state of environment reporting organization, working to the high standards that I think this group has established for us.
.1620
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Following that vein about budget cuts and program review and so on, I would like to ask specifically about the environmental conservation service. Have reductions really hindered efforts in that sector? Please assess the hindrance and also describe where we're going with this in the future. Obviously a cut necessitates a new set of realities and projections for where we're going.
Then take that same question and put it over to the issue of contributions to NGOs and describe what's happening there. What is happening with their continuing role in conservation of species and biodiversity and so on, and where are we going? What are the future prospects in that sector with the new reality of funding cutback?
Mr. Slater: The changes I referred to were specific to the environmental conservation service. If I could then translate that into what we're doing with the environmental non-government organizations, we do a great deal of work with them. In particular, I'd identify the Canadian Wildlife Service as having perhaps the most extensive set of partnerships with non-government organizations anywhere in the Department of the Environment, and we have very many in the department. I'd make reference to initiatives such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the RENEW program for endangered species as examples of the very high dependency we have on partnership arrangements.
Many of those partnerships in fact were developed after 1984, when the organization suffered a significant budget reduction. To ensure that it still met the objectives and results that people wanted, it found that it had to develop partnership arrangements to effect the sort of collaboration necessary to reduce government contribution and budget. You could still achieve the result, but you had to create partnerships with a very large number of organizations. With this sort of reduction, extending and expanding partnerships further is one of the key approaches we're trying to take to ensure that we achieve the results that have been listed.
Mr. Forseth: I'd like to follow up on what's happening with the Green Lane. Environment Canada's site on the World Wide Web on the Internet includes various applications related to Environment Canada service. I take it that it's there, but things are been done with it; it's being improved or expanded or whatever. I would like you to talk a little bit about that. What are the feedback loops about its utility? Do you have any independent evaluation on how it's doing and whether this is really something to pursue? We can get carried away with technology, but I'm looking for independent feedback loops that say this is a worthwhile enterprise.
Mr. Slater: You are right. We've made a pretty fundamental decision to invest heavily in what we call the Green Lane on the information highway because we think that more and more it will be the way people will get access to the sort of information we are very eager to provide them. We have put the latest version of the state of environment report on that system. Chapter by chapter, it's being put there. We're working on putting all our information on the endangered species legislation proposal on there, so people don't have to wait to receive it through the mail. They can very rapidly gain access to the current version, the current thoughts, and they can talk to other people who are similarly interested.
.1625
It's clearly an emerging technology. It only works and will only sustain itself if good information is put on it, which means people will start to rely on it as a dependable and effective information source. We are committed to working in that direction.
It appears that relative to other home pages, information sites, the Environment Canada Green Lane is highly regarded. We receive a number of national and international awards in that regard, which is very gratifying. I think in the last 12 months we have been running at about 10 million to12 million "hits" - that's the expression for people gaining access. About half of those are from Canadian sources, the other half from...I can't remember, maybe 80 countries around the world. When we compare notes with other countries we find that we are probably more experimental and creative and more inclined to use these new technologies than most other countries.
Mr. Forseth: You said that people can talk to other people. Can a user actually talk to experts from Environment Canada rather than just other people down the line?
Mr. Slater: That's possible right now. In fact, in attempting to make sure that we're meeting the needs of people using this, last year we completed an extensive survey. How would you like this information to be organized? What would you like to see on it? How would you like it to work, etc.? It's a very effective technique for gaining that sort of contact with the public.
We also had an experimental application for it at the GLOBE '96 Conference. We sent a notice around to all members pointing out a thing called "GLOBE Week Live", where you could click on that section of the home page and find out about matters of interest occurring at the GLOBE '96 Conference and trade show in Vancouver.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Adams, did you have a question?
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): You have Dr. Daley with you and you mentioned an emphasis on water. I wonder if either you or he would care to comment on the department's capacity in the area of monitoring water, water quality, water quantity, and research based on that monitoring, particularly in light of the demise of the sister institution, the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): There are two people joining us at the table. Could they introduce themselves for the record?
Ms Karen Brown (Director General, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate, Department of the Environment): I'm Karen Brown. I am Director General of the Ecosystem Conversation Directorate.
Mr. Ralph Daley (Executive Director, National Water Research Institute, Department of the Environment): Good afternoon. My name is Ralph Daley. I am executive director of the National Water Research Institute.
Ms Brown: To answer your question, we are involved in a whole range of water activities in the department, monitoring being among them. We do everything from in-stream hydromet monitoring through to water quality monitoring that is done in specific sites, particularly within the flagship organizations that Dr. Slater referred to with the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.
.1630
We have a very extensive research capability with respect to the Great Lakes. We have the National Water Research Institute in Burlington. We also have another research institute in Saskatoon, the National Hydrology Research Institute, which looks at things largely northern but with respect to hydrological cycles and extensive regional programs.
We certainly have experienced cuts and downsizing in a wide range of those program areas, but in some cases we're looking at being more efficient in how we deliver effective services to monitoring sites and hydromet stations. Examples are cost-sharing arrangements with provinces and with some of the utilities that use that information extensively. We're trying to maximize our use and maximize our partnerships.
The Freshwater Institute is one of the key areas in the experimental lakes area. It has a long-term data set with respect to monitoring, and in particular some data sets with respect to acid rain and a variety of other issues. From the information we have, the program reductions in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will maintain that observatory data set and the monitoring programs at the experimental lakes area into the future.
Mr. Adams: Could I interrupt at that point? There are programs and there are institutes and institutions. One can protect them or one can't, but within them there's a certain built-up expertise. So we're going beyond the monitoring now to the use of the information.
The expertise - and I know there are two ministers here - is national. With Dr. Daley being here, I wonder what has happened to some of the individuals, some of the top-class scientists, who were involved in the Freshwater Institute. Has your ministry been able to do anything to deal with that?
Mr. Daley: We have taken advantage as best we can of the program review opportunities. There's a substitution process. Several of the people - not from the Freshwater Institute only, but from the Great Lakes laboratory in Burlington as well - will be coming over as substitutes for some of our staff who either wish to leave or are near retirement. So we have been able to, to use the word loosely, rescue a few.
The other thing I would add is the cuts are only starting, and I'm told quite directly by the senior managers in research that it's unclear how the cuts will take place in Fisheries. There's still opportunity for a lot of the expertise to remain there when the program review process is all done.
Mr. Adams: One of my colleagues has asked me to ask you about the implementation of the Pearse report of 1986. Have you completed the implementation of that yet? Where are you on that?
Mr. Slater: It is not the sort of report you would ever completely implement, because a lot of the advice is continuous advice. In fact the minister was asking the same questions, because he met Peter Pearse when he was out in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago.
Following the report in 1986-87, the government of the day did produce a federal water policy, which was issued in 1987. It had a number of basic features to it, including things like going for full-cost pricing of water. It emphasized the federal role, but it also did speak to a broader set of issues relating to the way Canada, as a nation state, managed its precious water resources.
There is a lot still to be done if one is to implement all of Mr. Pearse's and his colleague's recommendations. That's exactly the sort of review we're undertaking right now. In conjunction with an excellent report that came from the Canadian Water Resources Association, an inquiry was completed within the last few months, led principally by Jim Bruce and Bruce Mitchell - the two Bruces.
.1635
We think we have a very solid basis of advice on how best to re-look at the water resource management issues we can handle within a very substantially reduced budget.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): I got in a little bit late, so I didn't get the start of Mr. Adams' question about the water issue. I wonder if I could just come back to it.
We have the Burlington centre, the Freshwater Institute and ELA, which are all subjects of this review, of cutbacks and so forth. When we were at the Arctic conference in Yellowknife,Dr. Schindler gave us information regarding a terrible drain of scientists and how many we're losing, especially the younger ones.
I was wondering if the big argument now in regard to transferring the freshwater programs to the Minister of the Environment is a question of money. Where is the cut-off? I understand from speaking to the present minister and the previous minister that the whole area of where the cut-off is to make the freshwater program viable within the Ministry of the Environment is certainly much higher in the view of your department than what the Ministry of Fisheries puts it at. In other words, it's probably 70% of what it is now, rather than 45%.
Do you see, as a proactive program to help the freshwater science and research, that the best thing would be for all these programs to be merged into the Ministry of the Environment and have more pressure put on the Ministry of Fisheries to up the ante? If that is the case, how do you see the essential need for the permanence of funding? How can we help you?
Mr. Slater: I know you and your colleagues are actively engaged on the file.
I think it was in last year's budget or in the budget before - I'm not quite sure which one now - that the government announced its intentions to consolidate many of its oceans-related activities in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its freshwater activities in the Department of the Environment. Following that announcement we initiated a set of discussions with our colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They were detailed and intensive, but ultimately they were unfortunately unsuccessful.
In November of last year the negotiations process we had under way, which was aimed at making that reallocation of responsibilities, was called off. We understand the current circumstance for this fiscal year is that those budgets in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have related to the freshwater science only for that portion we had under discussion, which was by no means the entire freshwater science undertaken by the Department of Fisheries.
We were not addressing the work undertaken in British Columbia and the Yukon. We were not addressing the work undertaken in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, neither were we doing it for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Actually the work we were discussing with them was in relationship to the Great Lakes, the experimental lakes area, and other freshwater science undertaken out of the Freshwater Institute but directed to the area south of 60 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
.1640
We certainly persuaded ourselves that it made a lot of sense to consolidate that portion of their work because it was the only portion of their work we actually were negotiating. It was not a full set of negotiations. We were quite persuaded that it made sense to move that to the Department of the Environment, that we could offer economies and efficiencies by consolidation. In fact, what we had were two extremely well coordinated sets of activities in the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We were each dependent on the other for the scientific aspect. The Department of the Environment deliberately did not have fisheries specialists because we relied on our colleagues for that freshwater fisheries expertise.
The issue is still alive. Negotiations can always be restarted.
Mr. Lincoln: I understood from the present minister that there were ongoing discussions.
Mr. Slater: Yes, I was referring to negotiations at the officials' level.
Mr. Lincoln: Oh, I see.
Where are we with the state of the environment report? Have we now reinstated, in principle, the state of the environment for the future, or is it going to fade away because a decision was made to kind of phase it out?
Mr. Slater: The budget decision of last year eliminated the state of the environment reporting organization. The organization exists at the moment because it's still producing the report and there will be follow-up work, but by the end of this fiscal year there will be no budget for that function.
We will not be able to reproduce the sort of document you saw in 1991 or the document, as I mentioned earlier, you're starting to see come out on the Internet. We believe it will be available in print form later this year. You will not, I think, see another version like that. We are trying to change the way we do it and produce something that we believe will be close, but it will not be identical.
Mr. Lincoln: Is there any way to dig into your little treasure chest somewhere to restart this and get us to help you get this thing going again?
Mr. Slater: Mr. Lincoln, I wish I had one.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Caccia.
Mr. Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Lincoln is raising a point of utmost importance, namely this state of the environment report. This is probably your most effective educational tool. If you give that up, you give up a lot. You lose a constituency; you lose the public. I would like to join in urging you to find solutions somehow to make sure that at the end of the next fiscal year, you can come before us and say you have succeeded. We know you are very creative in that respect.
I have a few questions for Mr. Brackett. In a letter from you to me in November you indicated that the Canadian delegation in Fort Lauderdale would oppose a South African proposal to down-list the population of white rhinoceros of 5,700 to appendix 2, and that we would also oppose the Norwegian proposal to down-list the minke whale to appendix 2. In that letter you indicated, however, that Canada planned to indicate support in principle for down-listing but to recommend deferral until the next CITES conference next year.
.1645
So could you please tell us, first of all, what happened on the opposition to down-listing the white rhinoceros, and, secondly, why the Canadian delegation decided to indicate support in principle for down-listing the stocks of minke whale to appendix 2.
Mr. David Brackett (Director General, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment): I'm afraid my memory of the specifics of the Fort Lauderdale meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is not quite that specific. I would want to check to ensure I had the most accurate information on the outcome of the discussions in the scientific committee of that meeting with respect to both of those species.
I do recall that going into the meeting we had concerns from our analysis of the proposals, about the effects of those proposals on broader conservation concerns and also in respect to the minke whale in terms of coordination with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and their observer participation in the International Whaling Commission.
The Canadian delegation to CITES meetings does produce a summary at the end that indicates the results of the discussions and what the Canadian position had been, particularly if there was a recorded vote. I'm sorry I do not have those documents with me today.
Mr. Caccia: Is there any statutory request that the actions of the Canadian delegation at the CITES meeting be reported to Parliament?
Mr. Brackett: I am not aware, sir, that there is a requirement to report. For the last two meetings in particular that I have been associated with, the Canadian delegation has made a public report available to a broad mailing list of people who have expressed an interest and it is certainly available.
Mr. Caccia: Let me ask you then, Dr. Slater, whether, considering the broad and intense interest on the part of the Canadian public in matters related to whales and other animals in recent decades, you don't think the propaganda machine should include a document that would inform the public what it intends to do at the next meeting and should consult the public as to whether we should support a down-listing or an up-listing or a status quo and then having conducted a process of consultation whether the same branch you are in charge of ought not to inform the public through Canadian parliamentarians.
Mr. Slater: If I understand correctly, the specifics on whales are under the authority of our colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. But that being said, the general point you're making, Mr. Caccia, is one I've got considerable sympathy with.
Canada is a powerful voice in these organizations and the positions the Canadian government officials take to those meetings is one that is very important to a large number of Canadians. It's also a position for which there isn't a uniform view amongst Canadians. As you know, there's a very wide diversity of views among the Canadian public as to what the position of Canada should be at those meetings.
.1650
In most instances a pretty elaborate process of discussion takes places before the Canadian delegation receives its instructions. Those would typically involve aboriginal peoples as well as -
Mr. Caccia: No, not on white rhinos, for instance, and so on.
Mr. Slater: No, but on whales it does.
Mr. Caccia: How do you think it should be tackled by your branch?
Mr. Slater: We already engage on a fairly routine basis that when we take a position at a convention, it depends on the amount of public interest. Often very extensive consultation is associated with the development of that Canadian position.
Mr. Caccia: Have you consulted parliamentarians?
Mr. Slater: Yes.
Mr. Caccia: Have you consulted the public?
Mr. Slater: Yes.
Mr. Caccia: Have you published the results of the conclusion, of the end? I'm not aware of any publication.
Mr. Slater: I'm just saying generally.
Mr. Caccia: In a general or specific area, yes or no, is there something?
Mr. Slater: Generally when the Canadian government sends a delegation to a meeting, it's a public affair, it's a public event and it's on the public record. I can't tell you in terms of the precise preparations for CITES meetings. I'll ask David Brackett if he can.
Mr. Caccia: The event in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was an important one, but Canadians barely knew about it except those who participated in this type of decision-making. The point is that while these operations and these decisions are made by a very small group, the public out there and the representatives are unwillingly kept in the dark. Since your branch is in charge of information and the like, don't you think some light ought to be cast on this particular type of process?
Mr. Slater: I was saying that's a normal practice. Mr. Bracket advises me that - -
Mr. Caccia: Which is the normal practice?
Mr. Slater: To consult widely in the process of developing the Canadian position.
Mr. Caccia: That's what I thought. You don't consult widely. You consult the scientific community perhaps and maybe fisheries and oceans and other departments. It's the public at large I'm referring to.
Mr. Slater: There's a list of some several hundred people and organizations that receive information. It may not be adequate, but I'd be more than pleased to provide you with that list. It is an attempt to do what you're describing.
Mr. Caccia: So I'll ask my question again. Don't you think the public ought to be informed?
Mr. Slater: Yes.
Mr. Caccia: Good. Are you going to do something about it?
Mr. Slater: We do.
Mr. Caccia: No, you don't, because we don't seem to know. Therefore, if we who are at the centre of things don't know, evidently the public at large doesn't.
Mr. Slater: Perhaps I could provide through the chair a description of the process we currently follow. If there's an opportunity to improve it, we'd like to take advantage of your advice.
Mr. Caccia: On a second round, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia. We will move on toMr. Asselin on the second round. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: A few minutes ago, you mentioned the clean-up of the St. Lawrence, and I would like to ask you a question on that subject. On several occasions, the committee has voiced its interest in the financing and effectiveness of the St. Lawrence remedial action plan, which is a well-know ecosystem initiative. Where do we stand now with these initiatives? Is their financing adequate and guaranteed?
[English]
Mr. Slater: The funding we have for our contribution to cleaning up the St. Lawrence is provided for in the budget. The particular sum this year is some $16.5 million. It's never sufficient. We believe we could always do a better job if we had more money. It is a balanced contribution together with that of the province. We are always dependent on the budgets for exactly how much we will receive in the future.
.1655
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Could you tell me what actions you intend to take in the water purification projects? I know that the St. Lawrence river is the largest open septic tank in the world. All the municipalities that are not equipped with waste water treatment system discharge their waste directly into the St. Lawrence.
What agreements exist between the Quebec government and the municipal governments for waste water purification? After all, it is useless to spend $6.5 million in cleaning up the St. Lawrence if municipalities continue to discharge their waste water and if factories continue to dump their toxic waste.
What concerns me the most is that small municipalities do not have the financial means to set up waste water treatment systems, and so they are discharging their waste water directly into theSt. Lawrence or into the rivers that feed into the St. Lawrence.
I repeat, the St. Lawrence is definitely one of the largest open-sky sceptic tanks in the world.
Could you tell me how this sum of $6.5 million for the St. Lawrence is apportioned? Is it directed into studies, into concrete actions?
[English]
Mr. Slater: It's spent very much in areas of federal accountability, or federal authority, as it relates to other areas of these large ecosystem initiatives as we described them.
The expenditures by the federal government are principally in the area of scientific investigations to determine the precise nature and character of the problems. Also, because the science not only defines the problems but also tells us the sorts of solutions we should be aiming for, we're very heavily involved in that.
We're also very heavily involved in rule-making, dealing with the sorts of measures you've described, but we do that very closely and collaboratively with the Province of Quebec, because after all, the city of Montreal and other municipalities are under the authority of the province. It is very much a municipal obligation to spend the money to treat the sewage or to provide the clean drinking water.
We have been working on this partnership with the province. We look upon the program Vision 2000 as a really excellent example of partnership between the federal and provincial governments.
If I'm right, next week you are meeting with François Guimont, our regional director general, and also with John Mills, who's our regional director general for Ontario. So in one session you will be able to get into the real details of what is happening in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence system and how all of that collaboration amongst all of the parties is actually managed.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I wonder if you or Dr. Brackett would be able to provide this committee with a breakdown of those initiatives.
Mr. Slater: The initiatives within the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Yes.
Mr. Slater: Sure. I think my colleagues are intending to do that next week, when they meet with you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.
Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth: Legislative initiatives are mentioned in the estimates, so I would like for you to talk to me about what information is available about the proposed Endangered Species Act and of what type and to what extent are the consultations the department has performed in developing the act.
.1700
What are the projected direct costs to the ministry budget in the ensuing years, with its implementation? If we're going to have a piece of legislation, it's going to have some cost impact. So what are the projections for that? First of all, what will the consultation part involve - perhaps some costs around that - and then where do we go from here?
Mr. Slater: This initiative was launched by the former minister in November 1994. One of the first things we did was to create a task force with a wide variety of representatives from different interests on it - from industry, environmental groups, universities, conservation organizations. In fact, that group is meeting, we think, for the last time within the next few days.
That has been a most elaborate and constant consultative process. At the same time through that group we've had a series of regional meetings where we had discussions in all of the capitals of the country and other major urban areas. We've also held a number of national meetings where we've brought the results of all of the regional meetings and of the task force together.
We have issued a number of discussion papers - a discussion paper in November 1994 plus a proposal for legislation in August of last year, which represented an attempt by us to distill the advice we were receiving until that point.
In addition, we have had a large number of discussions with the provinces, who have important and large responsibilities related to wildlife management. We've had similar discussions with our federal colleagues, in particular the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has legal authority over fish and marine animals and would continue to have that accountability for those species under the proposal.
So those discussions have been extensive. We are currently having discussions with the minister as to the position he would like to take with respect to this legislation. As soon as he has made his mind up on that, I'm sure he'd want to discuss that with the committee.
The costs for implementing the legislation are clearly a function of the nature of the legislation. As we haven't taken decisions on the nature of the legislation, it's in fact very difficult to forecast the costs. However, we believe they will be in the order of millions of dollars a year. I must emphasize that the nature of the legislation will influence very substantially that final figure, but that will be a very important consideration.
Mr. Forseth: To follow up, if legislation, I believe, is coming fairly soon, some kind of budget projections and accommodations for this legislation must be made. I've heard estimates that for implementation it could be $4 or $5 million. Yet elsewhere I've heard that if we're going to get involved in compensation to landowners and really take care of that issue and not make the mistakes of the Americans on that sector, we could be looking at multipliers of that.
Mr. Slater: I think the United States spends some $50 million a year on its federal endangered species legislation over a smaller land mass. Indeed, exactly as you point out, if we were contemplating the Crown being responsible for compensation of people who figured they'd lost the value of land or for other prior decisions, then indeed the costs could be extremely large.
.1705
That's why I'm making the point that we're operating on the assumption the budget for this legislation would come out of the existing budget of the federal Department of the Environment. So we are not aiming for the most expensive version as you can well appreciate.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I'm trying to frame two questions concerning that. I've gone through the briefing notes we have here, Mr. Slater. I'm still a little confused about them, but the department has obviously changed its way of heading these things up.
In one of them I see that a healthy environment is one of the business lines. Then it says, safety for environment hazards, and then a greener society. Would I be right in feeling a healthy environment is where conserving Canada's ecosystems comes? It seems to be in the breakdown.
Mr. Slater: Most of it, but not all of it.
Mr. Finlay: What relation has that $84.9 million - 35.9% of the healthy environments' budget - got to the acquisition and the setting up of the protected areas, wildlife areas and significant ecosystem areas that we have said we would do? The latest report card last week would suggest we're not being graded better than C in that regard. Is that where that money is put in the budget or am I wrong?
Mr. Slater: Environment Canada's contribution to the protected spaces campaign is indeed found in that area. It's mostly on biodiversity and wildlife. It includes the national wildlife areas, the migratory bird sanctuaries and also the financing of the North American waterfowl management plan, which results in protected areas.
I should also have mentioned the Ramsar sites under the Ramsar convention, wetlands of international significance, and most recently some protected areas developed on a North American basis for the monarch butterfly. All of those activities are found in that column.
However, I'd be misleading you if you thought that was the federal government's contribution to protected spaces. I think a lot of the protected spaces and the Canadian parks, the national parks system, are the primary emphasis of the World Wildlife Fund's assessment of the Canadian performance.
Mr. Finlay: Excuse me, Madam Chair, are any other departments involved in that? Is DIAND providing money for those sorts of things?
Mr. Slater: Yes, we believe eventually a large number of departments will be involved. There's a variety of different gradings for levels of protection for protected areas. The highest level of protection is found in a national park where specific legislation by amendment to the parks act protects a new national park. So that's the very highest level of protection.
Then you go down - I think there are four categories - to the last one, which is really where probably some people would think provincial parks might fall into that category. Some people would believe some of our areas would not be sufficiently secure and sufficiently divorced from what they would consider interference.
.1710
So our estimate of the Canadian national performance on protected areas is that about 8% of the Canadian land mass at the moment is protected. Because the World Wildlife Fund has set the bar at a different height, they've got a different number. We think the proper number is about 8%. On that basis, a goal was set at 12% as the ultimate goal for the protection of spaces.
It's important to note that just having an area is not in itself sufficient. The areas have to be representative of the important different ecological zones in the country.
Mr. Finlay: Yes, I understand that. So you're saying you think we are at 8% now.
Mr. Slater: That's our view.
Mr. Finlay: Have you any comment about the article I read just this morning or actually yesterday in The Globe and Mail with respect to the loss of three species of frogs in Yosemite National Park, which is a protected area? I know - and I think we all do - that the spring peepers don't peep like they used to any more where I live. I know they haven't come up with an absolute answer. But have we any baseline studies in that area that would yield a similar result?
Mr. Slater: I'll ask David.
A voice: The frog expert.
Mr. Brackett: There are number of studies under way with CWS researchers, particularly in the Ontario region, looking at the question of declining amphibian populations and trying to find the causes for those declines. We have put together a network of researchers across the country, both from within the department and from other interested agencies and universities. They are linking into an emerging international network because this problem of declining amphibian species seems to be happening all over the world. In fact there were some discussions about that at the biodiversity portion of a recent meeting where the wildlife services of Canada, Mexico and the United States came together for an annual session. We're increasing the communication among the experts on a North American basis to see if we can find out why you don't hear as many spring peepers peeping and if we can turn that around.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Recently in attendance at this committee was the executive director, I believe, if I recall correctly, of the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation. At that meeting I believe I raised a concern about some of our habitat as we look at it in terms of migratory birds that move north-south. While we're spending a great deal of money here to protect the ecosystem here, we don't control where these species go in the off-season.
How does the department ensure the well-being of these species? How do we protect these species when their migratory patterns take them outside of the Canadian territory? What are we doing about that? Are we looking at where they're going and what's happening there?
Mr. Slater: Absolutely. You raise a very good point that migratory birds spend a good proportion of the year outside the country. So if they're not vibrant populations outside the country, they won't be inside the country.
.1715
I can answer in a few ways and I'll ask David Brackett to provide more detail. The first thing is that the most important relationship we have in terms of migratory birds is with the United States. The Migratory Birds Convention Act was signed in 1916 and has eluded updating since that time. However, last year we initialled a protocol to amend the convention. On the U.S. side the protocol is making its way through the Senate. On the Canadian side, because we don't have to do that sort of thing, we're ready for signature. It adds important provisions in dealing with aboriginal peoples and I think it's a real improvement in that aspect.
In addition, we engage in a lot of work on a Latin American basis. Much of it is informal and much of it is undertaken in collaboration with wildlife management agencies in other countries. It also involves a substantial number of non-governmental organizations.
I'd like to make reference to an example of that, the Swainson's hawk, which is a threatened species in Canada. Some of its population winters in Argentina. In Argentina they were using a pesticide to control the grasshoppers that were the food of the Swainson's hawk. The pesticide was so potent that the hawks were falling out of the air dead.
We were alerted to this through the network of wildlife agencies and non-governmental organizations. We sent experts down. We sent some money to assist in analysis and to offer the Argentinians a solution. There's an excellent example of a threatened species in Canada that would not have survived if the pesticide management regime in Argentina hadn't been fixed.
Mr. Steckle: That's encouraging.
I have a short question about a point that comes up on page two of the estimates. It suggests the action plan for the conservation of biodiversity in the prairie wetlands is being developed and that this was expected to be released by March 1996. Where are we at on that?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Excuse me. I wonder if I could ask for a very short reply to this and then I will have Mr. Caccia ask his question, because we have a 15-minute bell here now.
Mr. Slater: I'll have to get back to you on that specific. I'm sorry.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Caccia.
Mr. Caccia: I suppose Mr. Steckle's question is a supplementary, since there is a reference on page 52 of the estimates to the management of the North American waterfowl management plan. Do you have the funds to prevent situations such as the 40,000 migratory ducks that died last year in the central part of Mexico from taking place again?
Mr. Brackett: Very briefly, the North American plan would not deal directly with that situation in Mexico. It is dedicated to acquiring, improving and securing habitat in all three countries, but Canadian dollars under the plan are not directed to Mexico directly.
However, on the Silva Reservoir incident, we are working with the commissioner on environmental cooperation and with staff members of the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Canadian cooperative wildlife health network that's shared between Environment Canada and each of the provinces and territories is providing a veterinary expert. As well, we are working with the United States and Mexico through the commission to try to ensure the Silva Reservoir in particular is not a problem again and that we have a disease warning and rapid response system in place so we can minimize the effects if and when another outbreak takes place.
Just as a supplementary to Dr. Slater's answer on the protocol to amend the Migratory Birds Convention, I would note that while it has received approvals here in Canada, it awaits ratification in the U.S. Senate. In fact, it would then be laid before both houses of Parliament here, as required by the amended Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Mr. Caccia: I have two quick questions that could be answered in writing by the officials to the committee if they cannot be answered today.
.1720
Given the fact that according to some publications, such those of the Humane Society of Canada, the Humane Society of the United States, and the International Humane Society, for every bear killed legally one is killed illegally, to the tune of some 22,000 on each side a year, and given the fact that the famous Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act was approved in 1992, regulations apparently have not yet been promulgated and we are in 1996. When will they be promulgated?
Mr. Slater: Within two months.
Mr. Caccia: Two months. Will you invite us to an opening of a champagne bottle?
Mr. Slater: Several.
Mr. Caccia: Okay, we have your word. So it will be on July 1, right, on Canada Day?
Mr. Slater: We can certainly try to organize that for you.
Mr. Caccia: My next question has to do with the endangered species legislation. Will the legislation be presented before the summer?
Mr. Slater: No.
Mr. Caccia: Will it be presented in the fall?
Mr. Slater: That's certainly the minister's hope.
Mr. Caccia: What month are you aiming at?
Mr. Slater: As soon as possible.
Mr. Caccia: Will it be before the Christmas recess?
Mr. Slater: The minister hopes to be able to table it in the fall. So it would be before the Christmas recess.
Mr. Caccia: The proposed drafts, we understand indirectly, would cover only endangered species on only 4% of Canada'sland mass. Is that correct? If it is incorrect, what land mass do you plan to cover?
Mr. Slater: That's rather long. Are you coming back after this, or is this the end?
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): This will be the end of the testimony.
Mr. Slater: The proposal for discussion of last August has in fact been discussed very substantially. It has prompted a large amount of discussion - some support, some criticism, a lot of suggestions for improvement. We're going through that process right now.
As I mentioned, the advisory task force to the ministries is planning to have its last meeting within the next few days. They have a very large number of changes to suggest to the minister. How it addresses issues of habitat is central to their recommendations.
I'd simply note that the issue of land use, which is what we're talking about, is a very sensitive one from a jurisdictional point of view. Being able to meet the needs of the species and at the same time respecting the Constitution and jurisdictional distribution of powers is the challenge for all of us, I believe. So that is where we're at.
Mr. Caccia: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Dr. Slater. I want to thank you for joining us here today and also the other members who have joined us. Unfortunately, we have to adjourn very quickly and go to the next vote. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.