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, February 26, 1998

• 0903

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): This committee is meeting pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). We will begin immediately since there will probably be a vote at 10:15.

[English]

Unfortunately, our proceedings will be interrupted by a bell around 10.15, which will somehow cut our proceedings this morning in half, or into two parts. It is only one vote, so we should be able to come back within 25 minutes, but it's always a nuisance, and I apologize for that. We will therefore be here until noon.

Secondly, a document has been produced by the department this morning, and the clerk is going to distribute it so you are better equipped. It is entitled “Environmental Protection Enforcement Program: Total Person-Years by Component”.

We concluded yesterday with Mr. Stoffer, and we will resume with Mr. Pratt, whom we congratulate on his achievement with the National Archives and the retention of jobs for people with disabled characteristics, which was announced this morning on radio.

• 0905

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, several people were involved. It wasn't just me.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): You could fix that up later.

The Chairman: Because of time, it will be desirable this morning if we try to switch from ten to five minutes. I know this will be difficult.

Would you like to start, Mr. Pratt, please.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin with a question to Mr. Glen. It's more of a philosophical question, about the bigger picture in all of this.

Yesterday Mr. Bigras expressed a view that frankly I'm diametrically opposed to, about the federal government removing itself from the environmental jurisdiction. Personally, I suppose, from my standpoint at least, I see the environment as a national priority. Obviously we've heard on many occasions that air pollution and water pollution do not respect particular boundaries. It seems the more we delve into these issues, such as Kyoto and climate change...these issues are more big-jurisdiction issues than smaller-jurisdiction issues.

That having been said, the government's approach is obviously one of attempting to use federalism to its best advantage. I suppose the beauty of the federal system is that it does allow for experimentation and allow people closer to a problem to respond to it.

In connection with harmonization, and especially the issue of environmental enforcement, would you see any circumstances arise over the next few years where you would have to recommend to the minister...? Could you see yourself ever recommending to the minister that from the standpoint of our environmental standards, environmental protection, harmonization just isn't working and we have to revisit the whole exercise and reconsider?

Mr. Ian Glen (Deputy Minister of the Environment): I would rather give it a try first and see what the progress is in the first two years. The expectation and the commitment of jurisdictions to work with us allow me at this moment to say that if we all try and have the common goal I believe they are committed to with us, we will make progress. In essence, I won't have to be in a position to say this is not working.

I certainly agree with you that the task, not just at the enforcement level but more broadly, of dealing with environmental programs is becoming clearly more national and international. But often the effective action we have to ensure others are working on with us is quite local, either in the provinces or in local areas where the particular problems exist.

At this point, Mr. Pratt, I'm probably not being as forthcoming as you want, because you're asking me to anticipate a failure when my task is to try, with my colleagues, to make something work. At this point, no, I don't envisage coming back and saying it's a failure. But it will be a challenge for all jurisdictions to make this happen well.

Mr. David Pratt: Let me rephrase that a little. I'm looking at it as well from the standpoint of national standards and the fact that we could have ourselves in a situation over the coming years where we have such a patchwork of enforcement standards that what is happening in British Columbia could be light-years away from what is happening in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick—that sort of situation, where through the best efforts of both the provincial and federal government we're ending up with too many systems across the country. Do you see that as a potential problem?

• 0910

Mr. Ian Glen: You raise two things there. One is national standards. This is what all jurisdictions would agree would be the appropriate standard we would try to address and achieve. The commitment expected by the government is that we strive for the highest of standards. So it is not, from our perspective, an initiative where we're wishing to be driven to the bottom but to try to maintain high standards.

The second point, and the one that is a challenge for Environment Canada and is a challenge for other governments as well, is the capacity to deliver on that. That's a different issue, and that will be a challenge. We anticipate in the enforcement area that one of the very next subagreements that would be worked on under the framework of the harmonization agreement will be enforcement, and how we in fact effectively address that to high standards in capacity will be one of the concerns.

Mr. David Pratt: On the issue of that subagreement, my understanding is that it may take up to 18 months to pull that together. Do you not see a problem as far as the gap that exists right now?

Mr. Ian Glen: In my memory, and I don't have the document with me, it initially and in the most recent annex for work ahead—the pieces to be worked on in that framework—located in both columns. It was sort of one possibly within three years and then less than 18 months.

The commitment of governments coming out of the recent meetings was to move enforcement up and work quickly on it, partly because all ministers agreed to a two-year review period, as Mrs. Stewart mentioned to members yesterday. It would be my desire to see the inspection and enforcement, which are complementary pieces, worked on very much during this year.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, do I have time for another question? This would be to Mr. Gonthier.

Mr. Gonthier, yesterday I heard you express some concern with the percentage of calls you could adequately respond to. Can you give us any sort of a figure in terms of what percentage of calls for environmental enforcement you're able to respond to in a manner you would feel is adequate and what percentage have to be sort of shoved to the side because of other priorities?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier (Chief, Inspections and Investigations, Quebec Region, Environment Canada): We assign a priority level to all of the calls that we receive. For example, when there is an incident involving the environment, Environment Canada's emergency service intervenes and, if an inspection or an investigation is required, we then step in. We ask our employees who are conducting planned inspections under lower priority regulations to take care of these more pressing calls.

Perhaps I gave you the impression yesterday that we didn't intervene, but that's not the case. We answer all calls. We simply postpone planned activities required under regulations with lesser priority.

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: Okay.

The Chairman: We have now Mr. Charbonneau, Madame Carroll, Mr. Casson, and before my turn comes I will ask those who are in charge of Mr. Knutson's questions from yesterday if they will want to do that shortly. Is that what you are expecting?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Casson, please.

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

My question is along the same lines as Mr. Pratt's. It has to do with the percentage of response that you do. If you get a thousand calls, how many of those see one of you go out and investigate or follow up? Did you indicate that they are all followed up on?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: In what way? Are there phone calls? Are there site visits? Is there a variety of things you do? Can you explain that?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Depending on the calls we receive, our office intervenes and we can also count on resources from other regions, as well as from the provincial and municipal governments. Depending on the circumstances, we may very well turn to our provincial colleagues and see if they can step in, if the matter pertains to their regulations.

When the situation falls under federal jurisdiction and it's up to us to intervene, we do.

• 0915

If a call is forwarded to us, we take it. If the call pertains to a federal regulation, we conduct an inspection or an investigation if necessary. We answer all calls.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson: Is there a file then started on every call? If it comes to you, do you start a file and track it, or if it has to do with provincial, do you just push it off to them and there's no follow-up?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: If we turn a file over to the provincial government because its regulations apply as well as ours, we do a proper follow-up to ensure that an inspection is conducted. If it is a matter that does not pertain to federal jurisdiction, we still do some follow-up but we do not send an inspector. That's the difference between the various requests we receive.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson: I have one more question, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Krahn, you mentioned yesterday that when you have to priorize it causes some problems. You indicated that you've left agriculture and ranching relatively untouched. So if there is a call to you that points out something going on in either one of these areas, do you not respond, or do you not receive these calls? Would you explain that a little further?

Mr. Peter Krahn (Head, Inspections Section, Pacific and Yukon Region, Environment Canada): There are two basic types of issues. One would be an emergency type of issue and the other would be like a chronic problem.

An emergency issue.... Let's say it's ranching and they have a fuel storage tank for their tractors and that falls over and spills into a creek. That becomes a very high priority and we dispatch our people to it. If we can't get someone from Environment Canada, we call the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; if they can't then we try to get someone from the provincial government. We try to get someone there to deal with it. Sometimes the provincial government can reach a sight far sooner than we can, because we only have an office in Vancouver and one in Prince George. But when we get there we may take over the situation.

The others are the kinds of chronic situations I'm referring to in agriculture and ranching where you have a winter feed lot next to a stream where the cattle have been all winter, building up manure, and then a spring thaw comes and it begins to wash into the river. We haven't really been able to touch that situation at all.

Other issues with respect to agriculture that are related to livestock, basically stripping the riparian zone, the stream side, of vegetation and eroding the banks, those kinds of areas we really haven't touched.

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

Mr. Dave Pascoe (Manager, Emergencies and Enforcement Division, Ontario Region, Environment Canada): I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but I don't want you to leave here with the impression that every case that gets referred to us does get followed up, because clearly there are more cases than we can cope with. That's not to say that we don't document every one. For every case that's referred to us, whether it be by a phone call or a tip or any other source, there's an occurrence report done on it. But clearly there are a number of them we cannot follow up on.

Mr. Rick Casson: When you say that there's a response of some sort, does filling out an occurrence report classify as a response of some sort?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Technically, no, it doesn't. It's an action, but it's not the right kind of action.

If it's a regulation the province could perhaps take on, something like a Fisheries Act case, then we would call them and ask if they are going to be looking at this. If they do, that's fine. It doesn't serve any purpose to duplicate what's going on. If the province can do it with their resources because they are much closer to the problem, then that solves the problem as far as we're concerned. We would still follow up on it to see if they have in fact done something.

If it's a case, though, where it's one of our own regulations—and by one of our own I mean a CEPA-type regulation, which is not typically handled by the province, like ODS or NSN or exporting hazardous waste—where there isn't another agency we can pawn it off to if we don't have the resources, then it basically sits in a file until an investigator is freed up. But if an investigator isn't freed up over a period of a year or two years, that file just gets closed, because after two years too much time has gone by and you can't take enforcement action. It would be unfair to go back to someone after two years and say two years or three years ago you did this, and it was wrong, and therefore we're going to prosecute you or warn you.

• 0920

You have to understand that clearly there are too many cases for us to manage with the resources we have.

Mr. Peter Krahn: We can't give an exact percentage figure yet. I'll just leave it at that.

Ms. Nadine Levin (Senior Policy Officer, Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, Environment Canada): It's also worth noting that in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as well as in the Fisheries Act, but certainly in CEPA, there is a limitation period that says we can only bring an action that we can prosecute on summary conviction within two years of the minister becoming aware of the violation, and the minister in this case would be an inspector or Mr. Pascoe.

If we wish to proceed by indictment, where we're talking about penalties of something like $1 million a day, then there is no limitation. But if we wish to proceed by summary conviction—and many of the offences we proceed on are by summary conviction—we must do it within two years of the minister becoming aware of the violation.

So when Mr. Pascoe says after two years he may have to close his file, that's one of the reasons he has to close his file.

The Chairman: Before my turn comes up, would you please answer Mr. Knutson's questions?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I make a brief point of order?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yesterday we agreed we'd finish at 11 o'clock, and every answer opens up a new area of questioning, at least in my mind. I'm just wondering if we can rethink when we're finishing.

The Chairman: We have the room until 12 o'clock.

The Clerk of the Committee: Until 11 o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Can we change it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: Do people need to make travel plans or changes? I also think we may need another day. Maybe they can make arrangements while we vote—not now, but while we're voting.

The Chairman: First of all, we have to make sure the room is available beyond 11 o'clock. The clerk will endeavour to do that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Before we get into my questions of yesterday, on this last point of files being closed for lack of resources, do you track that? Do you publish a number as to how many just expired?

A witness: We don't publish a number.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: There's not a lot. In one given year there may be ten or so that we just close because we haven't looked at them.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I don't know what “a lot” is.

Mr. Peter Krahn: I'd explain that we have recently instituted an enforcement activities tracking system. It's called NEMESIS. It's now very user-friendly. It has become operational in the last nine months. So we can start developing an electronic tracking system so we can handle that data question much better.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay. Let's go back to last night's questions, the main one being, can you help me build a case that you need more money? Just a factual case—not opinions, not feelings, just the facts.

Mr. Ian Glen: We're all sensitive that we work with the hands we're given and we appreciate the interest you have in the hand we've been given, if I can be careful with it that way.

What we are trying to do is see if we can draw some illustrations of “if”. What might that do in certain areas? A number have tried that to see whether that helps address the facts. It's not just what we have; we're also trying to see what we could do if we did have.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The other issue here, Mr. Glen, is when Parliament passed the law, it presumably did it with certain expectations, and I think when Parliament passed the law, they expected Atlantic Canada to have more money than a single MP's office.

If you take the salaries out of my budget, then factor in all the stuff the House of Commons pays for, such as telephone and heat up on Parliament Hill, I probably have about $150,000 for O and M, operations and maintenance. In fact I probably have more, just for my single little office. I mean no disrespect to what I do, but I think what Mr. Aggett does is a lot more important and a lot more serious.

• 0925

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I just wondered if there is...it sort of screams out to me that—

Mr. Ian Glen: That's a policy question, Mr. Aggett, so probably just don't answer.

Voices: Oh, oh.

A voice: You're speaking for yourself there, are—

Mr. Ian Glen: He was trying to say yes, at what he does with what he's got, and let's hear what our gang has to say and see if that helps.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Let me start with this material, then, because it's close to my heart. Let me also set aside the Fisheries Act for now, because apart from the pulp and paper effluent regulations, which I think are very good regulations and have unquestionably done an excellent job in terms of cleaning up that particular problem, the other regulations are in a pretty sad state.

Let's put that aside for now and just look at CEPA. If you take a look at some of the new regulations.... And I'll exclude things like PCB storage, because when that came about there was a great effort made in terms of establishing and inspecting storage sites, and I think for the most part we have that in hand now, in that the storage sites are in good order and we have resolved that kind of problem. It hasn't gone away entirely, but it's certainly well managed, I think.

Let's start turning towards some of our new regulations. I think it's important to state here that these regulations are the non-provincial regulations, the non-harmonized regulations, the ones that are clearly.... And it's not a secret, it's a statement of fact, I guess: these have been stated as regulations that the feds would maintain, the border types of regulations, the export and import of hazardous waste regulations, the regulations that deal with manufacturing and importing and things like that.

So I refer to things like new substances notification regulations. I refer to things such as the national pollutant release inventory, and let me use that as an example.

With respect to the national pollutant release inventory in Ontario, we're not quite sure how many people that applies to, but right now, as far as we're concerned, it's over 1,000. It's into its first year of enforcement this year. We issued close to 90 warning letters for late reporting. An inspection of a reporter to the NPRI takes four to five days and involves two people. If you figure that there are 1,000 companies, and nine inspectors just to do that, you can see that it will take several years in terms of having that whole base inspected.

If you add to that new substances notification regulations, and in Ontario we have at least 500 industries that would be subject to them, that is an extremely complex regulation, and I would say doing the kind of forensic audit required would take at least a week. Okay. You have 500 there, and then for ozone-depleting substances you have the same order of magnitude, and for export and import of hazardous waste, again the same order of magnitude.

If you have read the Attorney General's reports on export and import of hazardous waste and ODS, you will know that certainly Ontario and Quebec are linked on this. I would say that Ontario and Quebec are the prime regions in the country for NPRI, new substances notification, export and import of hazardous waste, and ODS, because that's where the industry is.

You know how many inspectors we have. You know how many investigators we have. You know we have no intelligence officers. And very clearly, with respect to the things that relate to crossing ofinternational borders, whether it's ozone-depleting substances or the export and import of hazardous wastes, it is crucial that we have that intelligence if we're to inspect and investigate and enforce those laws.

We cannot continue to deal with other enforcement agencies, whether they be in the United States or Canada, whether they be provincial police, federal police, state police, customs or other people, because we're looked at to a large degree as a laughing stock because we don't have the resources and we don't have that intelligence to go along with it.

The Chairman: Thank you. Madam Carroll, followed by Mr. Charbonneau, followed by the chair, and then we'll put you down for another round.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my apologies. I hope the question I'm about to ask has not already been asked, but like so many, I had an 8 a.m. meeting and didn't get here on time.

My question is for Mr. Krahn.

• 0930

Thank you for an excellent presentation yesterday. It was very good, very insightful. I had the opportunity to read most of it again last night.

I just want to draw your attention to page 3 of this summary. I think you touched on it. Again, my apologies if this has already been addressed. You can tell me and I can get the answers from my colleagues.

What struck me was just the numbers in that. Obviously it's impossible not to be struck by them. In the last 10 years the number of sites to which federal regulatory initiatives apply has risen from 5,600 to over 17,000. In British Columbia there are 7 full-time inspectors and 3 investigators to cover 17,000 sites.

Secondly, I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting on the final sentence in that paragraph, which says the common inference that there is overlap and duplication of effort between federal and provincial enforcement agencies is not supported by the available data. It seems to me “overlap” and “duplication” are two buzzwords here, so they caught my attention right away. If you wouldn't mind just elaborating or giving me a little more insight, I would be most grateful.

Mr. Peter Krahn: The big jump from 5,600 to 17,000 involves the implications of the fuel-related regulations under CEPA and when I started to consider the ramifications of what would be required in agriculture and ranching. We're coming up to the conclusion of the Fraser River action plan. That plan identified, among other things, the agriculture and ranching industry as one that was having a significant effect, equivalent to say forestry and that sort of thing.

I spent a good time last year going out in the field and talking to various farmers, those who were implementing good practices and those who weren't, and I realized there's a huge workload to be done there. I can't yet really consider that program with the resources I have, but I do know roughly what I would like to do in that industry.

The second one is the inference of overlap and duplication. I'm going to relate an incident that occurred on Thursday last week. I went to an open environmental forum. The provincial Minister of the Environment was there, along with the various critics. The question of harmonization came up at that meeting. I heard word for word what the provincial minister said. It was that we have to eliminate the situation where two inspectors from different agencies show up at the same stream.

I did not comment at that time, but I can tell you that in a huge percentage of the situations we deal with if I can get a provincial inspector, a DFO officer, and one of my inspectors to show up at a site, I will maybe have enough resources to deal with all the legal issues that are involved. More than often we get only one or we have to delay it, or, as with agriculture and ranching, we'll leave it to another year, when maybe we can get the funds.

That brings me to another point, the general impression of what is done in enforcement. It seems there's an impression that all we do is go out there and bust heads. In order to enforce effectively, we work a lot in compliance promotion and that sort of thing. In the report, if you read further, I am not trying to put excessive criticism on the agriculture and ranching industry. I also point out that in order to reach those broader problems effectively, we will probably have to get further involved in the front-end compliance promotion issues, but with the present resources we would not be able to do that effectively.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You would not be able to do that.

Mr. Peter Krahn: No.

The other thing about the 5,600 and 17,000, and this will probably also answer Mr. Knutson's request about finances, facts, histories, and trends.... First of all, I recognize that we in Canada face budgetary constraints. I face those at home. I am simply going to illustrate to you the facts of my division.

• 0935

Until March 31 of this year I will have an inspection budget of slightly over $1 million and an investigations budget of $346,000. That includes both salaries and operations and management.

On April 1, 1998, as a result of the Fraser River action plan coming to an end, I will lose $300,000 from my inspections budget, for a drop of 30%. The investigations budget will drop from $346,000 down to $255,000. That comes mostly out of O and M, not salaries, so I will be losing 38% capacity.

We average between 400 and 700 inspections a year. So if you take the average of 500—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Could you go a little slower, please, with these figures? They're really important.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Okay.

The investigations budget starts at $346,000 and will drop to $255,000, or 38%.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And the number of people?

Mr. Peter Krahn: I don't know if I can keep the number of people the same. I haven't had time to deal with that yet.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Can you tell us the number of people now?

Mr. Peter Krahn: It's ten.

With respect to the ability to inspect, our average is about 550 inspections per year. So I would expect that to drop down to about 385.

At any given time, we have 25 investigations in progress, on average, so that would drop that down to about 15.

I'm looking at about 50 regulatory initiatives when you include the actual regulations under CEPA, the regulations under the Fisheries Act, and the subsection 36(3) applications of the Fisheries Act. So that's where that number of 17,000 comes from.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: After a budget all these statistics fly around. I just want to make sure I'm really clear here. You have 17,000 sites that require inspection?

Mr. Peter Krahn: That are potential inspection targets.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And you are able, with your staff contingent, to get to 550 inspections per annum?

Mr. Peter Krahn: Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Carroll.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau, please.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with our witnesses certain more general aspects of their mandate and their work. They have already provided us with a great deal of information leading us to believe that we are a long way from being able to implement the legislation fully. Already, many regulations are not really being enforced throughout the country and there are a lot of problems.

I'm trying to see where we, as legislators, could intervene to improve the situation and to ensure that the officials working throughout Canada have the means to do their job better. Where could we intervene? Would it be in the area of political will? Could the legislation be improved? My guess is that in a few weeks we will be able to examine this issue when we review the new version of the Act. Are there some regulations that need to be improved? It seems to me that there are.

Yesterday we were told that certain regulations had been drafted several years ago and that it was not always easy to enforce them because they had not been properly drafted. It's more difficult for the legislators to amend the regulations as such because they don't see them until much later. However, perhaps we could still do something here by being more vigilant.

As legislators, we can always make representations to the government and to the Minister of Finance in order to obtain a bigger budget. That's another possibility. Should we be trying to change your mandates? As far as I know, the Department of Environment is responsible for preparing policies, bills and regulations. I would also say that the department is responsible for promoting voluntary compliance. This promotion is done through public awareness; the department wants to try to promote enforcement on a voluntary basis, in many respects. At the same time, the department is also the environment police.

• 0940

As legislators, could we intervene in some fashion to clarify this duality that exists within the Department of Environment? On the one hand, the department has to promote education, voluntary compliance and partnerships and, on the other hand, the very same people, or at least the same department, has to turn around the next day or the next month and say: "We are now going to proceed with inspections, investigations, etc."

Moreover, yesterday one of your representatives told us that he had played the two roles in the space of only a couple of months. Is that a source of conflict? Some witnesses here have told us about the department's cultural resistance to law enforcement. One witness talked about cultural reluctance. Could the deputy minister tell us whether he has ever seen evidence of that and whether or not there is a little bit of confusion within the Department of the Environment caused by its enforcement role and the way that it may impact on the other activities it pursues in order to attract people and convince them that they should be complying on a voluntary basis?

If this is the case, could we, as legislators, do something to untangle the web? Should we give some thought to creating a new organization, as has been already recommended? Should we establish an agency that is separate from the department, one which could look after enforcement? Everybody would understand the role played by the agency and it would be clear-cut. This agency would not be involved in education, its employees would be like the traffic police, when they stop you, it's to make you pay and not to educate you. Other people explain that it's bad to drive under certain conditions, but these are not the same people. The ones who stop you don't discuss matters: you either pay or you go see the judge. Would it be good to separate these activities? This is something that we could do as legislators.

Finally, there are some issues that come under your purview and we cannot really intervene. Yesterday, one of you told us that now, with the same staff, with the same people as before, there are calls, files that are opening, things that are taking place. This is a question of the internal organization of the department, and we cannot intervene directly in such a matter. Could you, however, make some suggestions pertaining to the culture, mandate and the creation of a new organization so that we can help you?

The Chairman: Mr. Glen, the floor is yours.

[English]

Mr. Ian Glen: I'm trying to decide which question.

The cultural one came up a week and a half or so ago, when I was here. Was there a cultural divide within the organization? In essence, was there one part of the organization that did not, in the views of the people on the enforcement side—and I say in their professional views, not their personal views—appreciate the role they had? I'd encourage my colleagues here to answer that. I think, in fairness, that's a question they'd like to respond to.

I'll step beyond whether there is a public education role in enforcement or whether this is really a conflict of roles for them. Going into the broader area of Canadian policing and what now gets more generally referred to as community-based policing, I think police forces would say there is a public education role that brings with it compliance with laws. In an enforcement community—I think Peter was alluding to this a bit—there is what they call compliance education, which is very much a part of ensuring enforcement, or in essence compliance.

I'd like to go back to the other one, in fairness to the colleagues. From their professional perspective—and I'm taking care to phrase it properly so they're comfortable in how they might answer—what would be their view, from their workplace, of what appreciation the rest of the organization might have of that role of enforcement, as a function? If that would help go to your question....

Who wants to take a run at that? Dave or Peter?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't think the problem is with them.

Mr. Ian Glen: No, but in fairness to Mr. Charbonneau, he's asking if there is a cultural problem. From the perspective of the enforcement people, it's fair to allow them to offer their professional view from where they sit.

• 0945

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Not only the enforcement people. From the perspective of the mandate of the department as such, there is a kind of conflicting mission.

Mr. Ian Glen: That's fair, and I'll come back to that, if I may.

Mr. David Aggett (Manager, Office of Enforcement, Atlantic Region, Environment Canada): I'll try to answer the question.

I don't want to make this a long story, but in 1988 we had the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act come in. At the same time the enforcement and compliance policy was implemented. A lot of people who had done little enforcement to that point were recruited to become enforcement people within Environment Canada.

For about a two-year period there were a significant number of prosecutions. In fact, at that time I was an inspector running the ocean dumping disposal control program in Atlantic Canada, and in the first two years I personally had more prosecutions than the rest of the country put together. That's not to demean anything other regions were doing. It was easy to do. We could cherry-pick. There were an awful lot of violations out there because there had been so little enforcement.

About two years after the implementation of CEPA we started running out of easy targets and we became a little more sophisticated in some of the targets we were able to go after. Some of these targets, in the minds of management within the department at that time, were sensitive. We started looking at R versus R issues. We started looking at large industry sectors which had powerful lobby groups.

Mr. Gar Knutson: What does “R versus R” mean?

Mr. David Aggett: That's the government versus other government departments.

What happened was that as enforcement officers we had become used to having free rein to enforce the legislation as we felt it should be enforced. The departmental officials at that time, senior management, got cold feet. They started to get complaints from industry associations and from other deputy ministers and those kinds of things, so the corporate culture chilled towards enforcement. As a result I think you've seen the graphs of the numbers of enforcement actions decreasing on an annual basis for a number of years.

In all fairness to the present management of the department, most of the people who were in the department in senior management positions at that time are no longer there. We've seen more of a turnaround in recognizing enforcement as a legitimate use of Environment Canada resources to achieve compliance and protect the environment.

What you have unfortunately not seen is a dramatic increase in the number of enforcement actions. The reason for that—not the only reason, but the principal reason—is that now we're dealing with a much more sophisticated level of regulation, a more sophisticated level of criminal activity, if you will.

In the good old days I could go out with my radar and binoculars and catch ocean dumpers any day of the week. It was a matter of taking one or two statements, a couple of photographs, laying charges, and the prosecution getting guilty pleas. Now we're averaging about three search warrants per investigation. In our City Sales & Service investigation, in our Corner Brook Pulp and Paper investigations, we executed five search warrants in several different provinces, including the province of Quebec.

So while the investigation numbers are not much better than they were a few years ago, the amount of effort we're investing in them has gone up significantly. But again, that's simply a reflection of the difficulty of doing these investigations.

Mr. Ian Glen: May I just complete the sentence from my end? I think you were asking about it at both levels.

There's no doubt from the management perspective there's a challenge. It's not a conflict of roles. It's in essence how you try to progress to the appropriate end point, which is compliance with the requirements of law, and, rising above that, just good corporate commitment—and I say “corporate” in the broadest sense—to maintaining a clean environment. What is the balance there? Are there pressures put on me, as the deputy minister, or on the organization, to try to do things in a non-enforcement way, non-enforcement in the sense of I'll investigate, I'll lead to charges? I don't know, from the political level, but I'm saying surely yes, we do have industry associations, whatever, coming to us and saying, we want to play ball, back off, work with us.

To the degree that this is an opportunity to advance in a non-narrowly stated enforcement way, I encourage that. We have to encourage it. The reality is if you can get to the end point that way, against the resources we have available in the department, enforcement or elsewhere, we'll try that.

David has gone through a very difficult challenge for us. I tried to address this when François Guimont was answering a question several weeks ago by saying you have to understand that through program review we didn't cut in this area. I interjected and said that's accurate, but it's not the complete answer.

• 0950

The complete answer is that the work is getting harder. It's not just that there's necessarily more of it. From the data you gave me, yes, there is more of it, but what you're trying to address—-and I'll say this in a non-pejorative way—isn't the “no-brainer” stuff. It's more complex. It's more difficult. The bodies and organizations you're dealing with are more sophisticated in trying to do this, particularly if you're getting into the organized crime area of it.

That's where we need to make progress, and that's where the competency of these individuals and their capacity to work should not be addressed in the sense of their not doing enough. They're being entirely professional, and in the department we're trying to address that. That transition is costly. I'm not making a pitch—I'll leave that to Mr. Charbonneau and you people, as you wish—but those are the challenges.

I want, as the management cadre of this organization, to ensure that enforcement and respect for the enforcement function is there, and to meet those challenges as best we can. It does mean we have to be strategic. We can't advance on all fronts at the same time, so where are the areas where the priorities are ones we need to address? It will then involve trying to improve the training. We heard quite well yesterday from people. Some of our training is not just of ourselves; it's of other agencies so they can partner with us and expand. A lot of the transborder stuff will be that way, getting into whether we have the more sophisticated equipment that we may need to assist in the testing and to ensure we have the validity of the evidence we need to lead the prosecution.

In all of those areas we have to, in a more comprehensive way, ask what we can do. At two levels, what can we do with the resource base we have, and where, balanced against other pressures, can we increase the resources and do it effectively? That's a challenge that the management cadre brings down to this organization, but elsewhere. It's tough.

But is there an anti-enforcement bias in this organization at the moment? As deputy minister, I say no, there isn't.

The Chairman: Thank you.

This morning several of you have already indicated the wish to go for a second round. I will read the names briefly: Mr. Casson, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Clifford, Mr. Stoffer, and Madam Carroll. We'll start the second round very soon.

There are a couple of questions I would like to ask as well. First of all, I'd like to indicate to Mr. Krahn how much I appreciate his report. Like Ms. Carroll, I read it last night and found it very informative and helpful.

Also, I want to congratulate you on reminding us collectively in this room about the content of the KPMG report of 1996, which is I think as valued today as when it was produced.

Like Ms. Carroll, I also was struck by the figures on page three in the summary. I learned a lot from your emphasis on the role of analysts, which is an aspect I was totally unaware of.

Maybe the first question should be this: Have other regions as well developed a strategic enforcement initiative? Perhaps you, Mr. Martin, are able to answer that question.

Mr. Guy Martin (Chief, Inspections and Investigations, Environment Canada): Could you repeat the question, please?

The Chairman: Have the other regions also developed a strategic enforcement initiative of the kind that British Columbia, the Pacific, and Yukon have?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin: This is more of a regional issue. We have a national plan. We establish national priorities. But the type of work that was done in British Columbia, which was given high recognition by the Enforcement Office...

[English]

The Chairman: And this national plan, where is it? Can we have a look at it?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin: I'm referring to the national inspection plan.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, and where is it? Can we have a look at it?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin: No, because this document is protected until the end of the exercise, namely, until March 30th. We will then prepare a report pertaining to this plan and we will be indicating the number of inspections conducted during the months of May and June.

• 0955

[English]

The Chairman: Is that the kind of document you would rather not circulate, even after March 31?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin: Mr. Caccia, we would simply prefer to obtain the regional data so that we will be able to draft a valid report. We are waiting for the data for the last few months, and then we will draft the report. This is a report in which we will be indicating the resources used for each of the regulations.

[English]

The Chairman: Let me ask, then, Mr. Pascoe, does Ontario have a similar plan of the kind submitted by Mr. Krahn?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: No, we don't. Mr. Krahn has only 17,000 sites. We have far more than that. It would be too difficult to do it.

The Chairman: What would be the prerequisite in order to develop a plan?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: We use the national inspection plan. Each region has a component of the national inspection plan, called the regional inspection plan. That documents, regulation by regulation, for both the Fisheries Act and CEPA, which regulations we're going to use as targets and which resources we're going to devote to them in a given year.

What it does not include—

The Chairman: Does the national plan include the plan you prepare?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Yes. Each region prepares—

The Chairman: So you prepare a plan, but it is prepared in Ottawa.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: No, it's regional. Each region prepares a component of the plan. That's then sent to Ottawa, and Ottawa puts together the national plan for all of the regions.

The Chairman: Then what is the difference between your plan and Mr. Krahn's plan?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: The majority of the 17,000 that Peter was talking about are potential violations in terms of section 36 of the Fisheries Act. We don't include that within our plan; we only include the actual regulations.

The Chairman: Mr. Krahn.

Mr. Peter Krahn: We go through a two-stage process. First, there is the national inspection plan we receive from Ottawa that gives us what are national priorities. To that plan I will add what I consider to be the regional ones. Most of them, as Dave said, are under subsection 36(3). Within those, I will, with my inspectors and pollution abatement advisers, pick one or two that are the most important, where we will get the biggest bang for our buck, and then we will go after those. Ottawa has respected that. I haven't been hindered in that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, yesterday in your intervention you made reference to suggestions that were made in the past for improvements. You said you made suggestions for improvements in the past. What is the nature of those suggestions? Can you share them with the committee?

Mr. Guy Martin: It was always, certainly, in terms of resources. We also discussed structures and intelligence-gathering. We had a report done by a specialized consulting firm—it's always better when it comes from outside—on the minimum resources we need in intelligence.

This report can be made available to the committee.

The Chairman: Perhaps when it comes to resources, the deputy can answer this question.

If tomorrow Treasury Board, in a moment of unusual enlightenment, were to call you up and say, “Ian, what is at the top of your list, and how much do you need?”, would you then go for the additional requested 490, 495, as in this chart you distributed this morning, or would you go for a different set of figures?

Mr. Guy Martin: This chart was made—

The Chairman: No, I'm asking your deputy.

Mr. Guy Martin: Oh. Sorry.

Mr. Ian Glen: I was looking forward to the answer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ian Glen: Can I scope it to “...if this opportunity of great enlightenment brought with it resources to enforcement”? Because in fairness, I think the committee recognizes that there are pressures across the department in other areas as well.

With regard to enforcement, in fairness, I wouldn't use that document. I think it would be time-dated. It was an effort—and Nadine may want to speak to this—to try to identify in essence what would be the optimum resources, at that point, to a formula as well.

• 1000

I would want to take stock with the regions and with our national enforcement component and ask what we could effectively do if resources were not the issue.

The Chairman: Can you give this committee an idea of what you would then in essence request?

Mr. Ian Glen: No, I can't, because I wouldn't know it today.

The Chairman: When would you know?

Mr. Ian Glen: I would have to sit down and plan with my colleagues here and others, and ask what is a fair and honest request for additional resources if those resources were to be assured.

The Chairman: Is that item a top priority with you?

Mr. Ian Glen: It's one of a number. I can't say it's the top, because I have other pressures we're dealing with.

The Chairman: In the top five?

Mr. Ian Glen: Again, I wouldn't offer that today. I'd want to—

The Chairman: In the top ten?

Mr. Ian Glen: I'd want to discuss it with my minister.

The Chairman: In the top ten?

Mr. Ian Glen: Same thing; I'd want to discuss it with my minister to assure—

The Chairman: So it's not a top priority item.

Mr. Ian Glen: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying—

The Chairman: Well, you may have to make up your mind. Is it or is it not?

Mr. Ian Glen: It is a matter of great importance to me, but I would have to respect the need to deal with my minister on where effectively resources should go to address the government's agenda. But this would be in the priority list, yes.

The Chairman: So do you want to leave the impression with this committee that this would not be a top priority item?

Mr. Ian Glen: I think I've just answered otherwise. I said it would be a priority item.

The Chairman: It would be.

Mr. Ian Glen: Yes, in my mind we have to ensure that we have an effective enforcement regime.

The Chairman: Fine, I'm glad to hear that.

Mr. Ian Glen: One of the points that came out in the reference to the KPMG report that you mentioned, Mr. Chair, is one that professionally I agree with. The facts show quite well, and it is one of the challenges when we deal with industries and individuals to ensure compliance, that there's a demonstrable capacity to advocate that regulation and enforcement of regulation does deliver results.

So we're challenged, when we're dealing with people or organizations, to say let's do it in a voluntary way. We will encourage voluntary approaches; it's an effective use of our resources to be put to other things. But the bottom line, and a point of advocacy I will use in many forms, is you can't deny the fact that it's more often a regulation or the enforcement of that regulation that generates the momentum to the results you want. That will be a cornerstone of how we advocate the future.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin, when it comes to enforcement actions as they emerge in the course of your normal work, is there a possibility for management interference?

Mr. Guy Martin: I would like to defer that question. I'm not prepared to answer that question, sir.

The Chairman: And why?

Mr. Guy Martin: Because it's a difficult question and it puts me in a position where I could be sanctioned.

Mr. Ian Glen: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I can help, because I'm management in this scenario. I don't want to have Mr. Martin in a position of discomfort. Ask the question again, and I'll see if I can help. We're not trying to be evasive. I want to be sensitive to the concern he may feel. The question was...?

The Chairman: In the discharge of his work at the national level, is there a possibility for, let's say, management interference when it comes to decisions related to enforcement?

Mr. Ian Glen: So the question is whether the organization is structured so that—

The Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Ian Glen: I'm trying to help.

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Glen, you have to try to understand, not to help.

Mr. Ian Glen: Okay.

The Chairman: The question is very clear. Is there a possibility for management interference when it comes to a decision as to whether to proceed with an enforcement action or not? To me it seems a fairly straightforward question, but if it isn't, then explain to us why it isn't.

Does someone else wish to answer the question? Mr. Krahn?

• 1005

Mr. Peter Krahn: My body is still on Vancouver time, and I was lying awake last night watching the sheep walk across the ceiling...and there are some very big sheep in Ottawa. You have to keep your sense of humour when you are in this business, and I've thought a lot about this question, because I thought it would be asked, so I will offer my comments, with certain restrictions.

First of all, I'm not going to identify any particular person, name or year, or even the government that was in power when these things occurred.

I have learned a lot with my work with Environment Canada, and I have seen things develop. And the things that I didn't know or understand when I started with this job, I have learned by going through the school of hard knocks. I have come to realize that there is a lot of education required, education of the public, of the government officials and of any minister that is sitting around here. And any one of you could be ending up in our minister's shoes today, so I say this as advice to you. That's the context in which I want to speak to you.

At one point, an official came from Ottawa, called us into a meeting room, and told us our job was to make the minister look good. We were given a list of things on how to do this. I'm not going to give you the year or the context.

I sat there and listened to that list, and being somewhat facetious, I said, “Well, that may be true, but the order was wrong.” And I decided that if I had ten inspectors, as I do now, or twenty, or got two because that was nationally required to reduce the debt, I would set a goal to achieve a positive result that protected the environment and the citizens of Canada. If I could demonstrate that, as I have tried to do in the report, then at that time the minister would look good.

If I were to get twenty more people, I would need time to gear those people up. And I'm going to give you some background so that you understand this, because I have found this is true, from the elementary school classes that I have made presentations to all the way to university.

I'm calling this “Enforcement 101”. You have asked what you could do. First of all, I want you to understand that environmental laws are criminal statutes. When you have a statute for which you can issue a $1 million fine per day or through which you can deprive someone's liberty for up to five years, that's a serious thing.

The standards that we have to work under, the evidentiary standards, are equal to those that apply to a human murder investigation. We have to apply that to the work that we do, and learning how to do that does not come in a single course or a single year.

When we have been required to read the Charter of Rights to a farmer, a homeowner or a company executive in one of the highest boardrooms in Vancouver, or when we're executing a search warrant, we are under the obligations of the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights to protect the rights of that citizen, and that's a very serious matter.

I want you to understand that our role is to collect all the evidence in a manner that complies with the standards set out by the charter. We work very hard to do that.

We then have to organize this information, put it into a brief with our recommendations, possibly suggest charges, and supply that to the Department of Justice. It's the Department of Justice that decides whether or not we lay a charge. And then it may be necessary for us to stand up in court and testify and put our reputations on the line.

So when you get the inevitable calls—and I'm going to pass a piece of paper around which I have also used in demonstrations—about government Gestapo goons, at least you will know who they are talking about.

In one case—and I have to write this down—which was as late as 1996, we were trying to explain what we do and what happens in R versus R.... And this can happen at a municipal level, a provincial government level or in a federal department. Sometimes when you get into these situations, the senior officials and/or the person you are reading the Charter of Rights to do not understand that you are protecting them. They will write letters to you and pick up the phone and there will be industrial executives who come to your door and say “These Gestapo goons are showing up and harassing us”.

• 1010

We tried to explain that, and the response of one official was “Thank you for conveying the investigators' views. However, I have no sympathy for those who think that an efficient and effective administration of justice means always”—and I underline that line—“adversarially withholding information and perhaps operating on insufficient information.”

You need to understand clearly that when we gather evidence, it is evidence, but it does not necessarily mean the person is guilty. That comes at a later stage. That misunderstanding exists from elementary school all the way through to members of Parliament. If I can do anything today to educate you on that, that is a goal I wish to achieve.

The Chairman: On the second round, Mr. Casson, please.

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

I appreciate your frankness. It seems you're up against a huge problem here.

One of the tables you handed out today, and this goes back to 1993, indicates the extent of this problem as far as inspections are concerned. In 1993 you did 1,749 inspections and you should have done 6,580, according to a level that would be acceptable.

One of the areas we talked about the other day was the export and import and movement of hazardous goods. We were told one mode of transportation was never inspected. In that case the time between inspections would be 72 years, so whoever is moving it in that mode would have 72 years to do it. I'm certainly not placing any blame with you people.

We're talking now about a new CEPA coming forward. An endangered species bill has been tabled and there is the possibility of that coming back. We're looking at global warming issues; some kind of regulations. Are you going to be expected to enforce those acts as well, or will there be more resources? What is the point of putting out more legislation if we can't enforce it? To make a law that lies there and does nothing is not a law.

I don't know who wants to respond to that.

Mr. Ian Glen: I can, because it is a dilemma. I think within our gang here.... They are not doing the wildlife side; there are others. This is more the environmental protection side. But yes, the department has people who are involved in wildlife enforcement as well. Within our gang we clearly work with the provinces.

You're dealing with the conundrum. At a certain point, if you can address it in one way or another, our own view, as that of persons who are public administrators within the authorities we work with, deregulating is not the answer. That's why I said earlier I believe in certain circumstances regulations are not only proper but probably the most effective tool to draw people to the environmental results you want. That is another way of solving the workload dilemma these people have. It's not one we advocate. The positions I would advocate to the minister or to the government obviously would be of a different order. But that is the challenge.

Mr. Rick Casson: When the decision is made to move ahead on a prosecution, some costs are associated with that. Where does that money come from for the government side?

Mr. Guy Martin: The regional budget for investigations covers the cost of the investigation. For the cost of prosecution it's a fund covered by the office of enforcement. In some years the money was in the region and now it's in the office of enforcement, if it's for agents. We have also a certain number of federal prosecutors, but we have to cover the cost incurred by them.

• 1015

I don't know if I answered your question.

Mr. Ian Glen: Let me try it a different way, but this is my perspective, where I am. There are allocations to the regions or the particular spots within the regions to do certain functions and finance their activities accordingly. I would expect that in absolute terms, lack of money to pay for justice agents, for example, to assist in a prosecution in that budget does not rule out taking potential prosecution. So in absolute terms, that would be the wrong way for us to administer it. It would be not just a challenge but a responsibility to see where we could resource it from another pool.

At the same time it creates attention both in that organization—the narrower one—and also in the larger one as to how much we can actually do. Prosecutions are expensive and they also are the end point, the most extreme. There are circumstances where, as deputy, I would say “I don't care if it's an expensive prosecution; this prosecution has to proceed. This is the action we must do.”

But I would allow others to pitch in as to whether prosecution is a big financial burden or whether there are actually other aspects of activity that are probably more expensive or a bigger drain.

Dave, what's your sense?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: We're up to about $150,000 to date this fiscal year in terms of legal fees to prosecute. The revenues we've taken in, or that the Government of Canada has taken in, are about $140,000. If anyone here could find a way of diverting those revenues from going to the general revenues and back to Environment Canada, and particularly to the regions that initiate the prosecutions, we'd be most grateful.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Krahn, did you want to say something briefly, please?

Mr. Peter Krahn: As an example, with the strategic initiative on heavy-duty wood, which is identified in the report, of the total budget of $600,000 that I spent on that program, $500,000 was allotted to the investigation, which required the coordination of 18 people. At one point I called on the assistance of the provincial government. I was advised, because they too feel the same constraints we are under, that their inspectors could only show up between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and that this investigation had to be done when the tides and the rains and everything occurred. So there you go.

The Chairman: Thank you.

A voice: What about the prosecution?

Mr. Peter Krahn: The prosecution is still under way, though.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, followed by Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Stoffer, Ms. Carroll, and Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you. I just want to shift our focus away, because it's becoming very clear that you're faced with a very difficult situation in terms of spreading thin resources against a problem that's becoming not only more prevalent but more complex.

I also want to point out that I feel the more you learn about the situation or the closer you are to it, the bigger the appreciation you have for the seriousness of it. That puts you people in an extremely frustrating position. We sense that in the testimony at all levels. I think everybody is feeling that; they are just dealing with different pressures.

I want to talk a little bit about where we might go from here, specifically in terms of trying to make the argument for additional resources and how we as legislators might approach that. I want to touch on one point, though. When we put the information together—and I'm looking at the chart, and I don't really want to get into the details too much—one of the flaws I see of trying to extrapolate a calculation that tries to determine the number of successful court cases based on using a model like this is it's rather incestuous in the sense that the number of interventions or inspections you make is going to affect the behaviour you're trying to test.

If you're taking a very small sample size and extrapolating based on that, we could make these numbers look a lot better. And I think if we're going to make the argument that I think has to be made in the economic sense, we could tweak this model a little and make this thing look a little more realistic.

• 1020

Unfortunately, if there's a culture out there for which the chances of inspection are slim, then the risk-reward calculations the business sector is making, let alone the organized crime sector.... I think the culture is going to affect those decisions, and we're reducing the risk in their calculations.

And if you're capable of prioritizing, so are they. They probably know where you're going and what you're going to do. I'll say this off the cuff, but we might be better off just going purely randomly and having more hits, given the resources you've got. But I'll leave that.

My point is this. Is there any way we can calculate the costs of non-compliance in a way that's arguable? So when we make the pitch for additional resources, we're making an economic argument, and we're saying “Here's what the cost of not doing it is, and here are the benefits of doing it.”

Mr. David Aggett: I'd like to comment on that because I do have a concrete example that I'd like to use. A number of years ago we had a problem with a textile mill in Nova Scotia. It was discharging a truly lethal effluent; its effluent was capable of killing fish.

We worked with the provincial Department of the Environment in Nova Scotia to deal with this. We didn't take any action on prosecution. The province approached the company and said that it and the federal government wanted the effluent problem fixed and asked the company to tell the province what it was going to do.

Six months later we got a thank you letter from the company's representatives. The letter said that thanks to us giving them an “incentive” to take a look at their effluent problem, they hired a consultant who reduced their in-plant use of chemicals by 54%. In five years, those savings will completely pay for their treatment facility, they wrote, and after that it's all profit in their pockets.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's just what I'm talking about. If we can prove.... And I honestly believe that if we can't make the economic argument, we're going to have to incorporate a fuller view of accounting. If we can't make the economic argument, it's an uphill battle. But I think the economic argument is there to be made. So if you could supply us with that type of information, and if we could maybe look at the models that you have in place for costing, then I think we're in a stronger position. We're not going cap in hand. We're not trying to change the culture of the people with the sharp pencils overnight. I think we can win this argument in their terms if we can just get a little broader view of what's going on and get a handle on the costs of not doing things.

Ms. Nadine Levin: I was just going to say that part of the problem that you have, of course, is what the monetary or financial value of a component of the environment is. For example, how do we do valuation of a water resource?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I would suggest we err on the high side.

Ms. Nadine Levin: Okay, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers apparently developed models for this in 1984. There was a study ongoing at least two years ago in the environmental conservation service, through a consultant, to attempt to do valuation of water resources in Newfoundland. Perhaps we could look into what the status of that study is and what the findings are. That might help you get an idea.

It's very difficult to in fact determine what the costs of doing nothing are when you don't know what the cost of your resource is. What damage is being incurred? What would it cost to remediate that damage? What would it in fact cost us a country as a whole to fail to remediate or control or prevent that damage and have that resource continue to degrade?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes. I think the dilemma is that if we don't get a handle on estimating those costs, we're going to realize them.

Ms. Nadine Levin: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So we have to do something.

Mr. Ian Glen: That's the dilemma I would see. We can try to help educate you, and I say “educate” in the best sense of the term, either by using examples like the one David did, where we use the intervention methods, soft or hard, which over time we've been able to determine there has been a benefit from, in the highest order and in a broad way.

The other part is what the purpose of a regulation is and what it is we're trying to prevent. That's where Nadine was going with this.

• 1025

I'll take a scenario. We would have a particular perspective because we are there to protect the environment. That's the resource we're there to focus on. An operator of a plant could say, well, that's fine, but we're going to shut the plant. Well, we can't own the job loss consequences. That's not within the purview of what we're all about. Do those issues come into play? They probably do in a fashion in terms of asking what is a constructive way of getting compliance while still allowing the mill to go.

Our factual presentation to you will, by necessity, be somewhat imbalanced, and that's just the challenge. But I'm quite prepared—and there will probably be others as well—to provide to you some good, living, breathing examples of where enforcement or using regulations has advanced constructively, or where the absence of it has created a cost.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Glen.

Mr. Pratt is next, please.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a couple of days ago we heard from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund about situations where private prosecutions were pursued by that group only to have the charges stayed by the provincial crown. I'm wondering if there are any instances that you're aware of where the department has pulled together information and passed it on to the provincial crown as well, only to have the charges stayed on the basis of either economic development considerations or R versus R considerations. Has anything of that nature come up?

Mr. David Aggett: When we investigate an offence, our crown briefs go to federal prosecutors and they have the option of prosecuting or declining prosecution. Only in the case of something like a private prosecution does the provincial justice have the opportunity to turn that down. Certainly in my part of the country that's never happened.

Mr. David Pratt: I'm just thinking of situations where you may have become aware of provincial regulations being violated, turning that information over to the provincial crowns and having the brakes put on the process.

Mr. Peter Krahn: I can give you three examples.

The first example was a private individual who basically created a landfill on his property that ended up leaching into the most productive part of a salmon-bearing stream. He dealt with civic officials, who eventually brought in the provincial officials, and eventually I was called by the mayor and we initiated an investigation. We dealt with almost three months of trial and proved the offence technically, but the interference and the conflicting information given by the other officials in the junior levels of government created a situation called government-induced error, and the judge made a decision that he had been duly diligent and that it was the confusion of the officials that related to that.

The other issue I think you brought up was Clark Drive the other day.

Mr. David Pratt: Yes.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Where there are numerous accommodations made that allow a situation to go on for a prolonged period of time, the possibility of government-induced error greatly increases. The evidence that was collected in that case by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund again would have probably proved the technical case, but the government-induced error portion could not have been dealt with. In other words, they would not have been able to get a conviction. That's why it would be quashed. The reason Justice looks at it is to ask, first of all, is there a charge here, and then, is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction?

So the third example was the one I alluded to yesterday, which was the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant. In that situation, regardless of all the years of negotiation that had gone on between the various levels of government, a letter came down from Brian Tobin—and we called them the clear-the-deck letters. Basically it said, regardless of what has gone on before, this is going to be the situation now, and if the situation does not change, our officials will show up and conduct enforcement. That means we're starting on a new playing field, and you have to do that first and allow a reasonable time for the person exercise due diligence, and then carry on.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

Mr. Lincoln, please, followed by Mr. Stoffer, Madam Carroll and then Mr. Gilmour.

• 1030

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a really useful exercise from a really constructive point of view, because I think it will have pointed out that we need to push really hard for the ministry to get more resources. What we are trying to do is use an elastic band to drive a tractor. It's just crazy, and it won't last very long.

I can see Mr. Glen's dilemma. When you have a dollar and it takes $5 to do your job, where do you put that dollar and how do you stretch it? It's almost impossible.

I would remind Mr. Glen, in case he isn't aware, that in the case of enforcement, at the time we were talking about the CEPA review, we nearly lost enforcement altogether, because at the time the ministry had decided to put all that money somewhere else. I tell you, it was just due to a lot of pressure on the minister, at the time Ms. Copps, that we saved enforcement and we saved the budget. If you look at the record, that is true. This is why we're so scared that one day, because of a lack of resources, we're going to cut back enforcement further.

When I look at Mr. Krahn's report, it's very dramatic in regard to voluntary compliance versus risk enforcement. In his figures, where he is taking 19 different groups of regulations, voluntary systems produced 60% performance versus 94% on average where the regulations were backed with inspection programs. So I think it's pretty dramatic.

I looked at page six of his report, which says:

Figure 4 shows that the period of voluntary compliance resulted in negligible or unsatisfactory changes in the quantity of pollutants discharged in the anti-sapstain industry until the stronger inspection and investigation initiatives were implemented.

He says further that as long as stronger enforcement resources were diverted, both to the anti-sapstain and pulp and paper industries, voluntary compliance and limited special activity resulted in negligible changes in the discharge of acutely toxic effluent.

In effect, I think if anything proves what we have been trying to say, it is that unless you have enforcement to back voluntary compliance, all the industry telling you to back off and so forth.... Of course they'll tell you to back off. That's what they've been telling us: just leave it to us.

There are a lot of white sheep. A lot of industry does wonderful work, and I think we all agree, but there are black sheep as well. They might be in the minority, but, boy, do they ever pollute.

I really would like to ask Mr. Krahn, given that we need enforcement resources to back up the voluntary compliance programs, which we have to have—if we are realistic, we have to have them—how will you be able, given your 17,000 sites, and given the fact that it's getting much more complex now...? We have the NPRI involved, which I understand in B.C. poses another problem because of the lack of resources. How do you and your friends—Mr. Pascoe and the others—do when your budget is going to shrink by 38% and 30%? What do you do? How can you carry out investigations and prosecutions when it takes that much money to prosecute just one-third? What do you do?

Mr. Peter Krahn: That's why we call them strategic initiatives. You pick the one that will achieve the greatest resource return. You also have to get better at publicizing what you do.

I am working on some communications issues that I hope to initiate. When we get fines and things like that we try to be creative with them. We ask the judge to actually minimize the amount that goes into general revenue and to distribute it to environmental groups. The most recent example was a case where $15,000 went into general revenue and the judge allotted $35,000 to be distributed to elementary schools and environmental groups that would begin the public education process and would also go into the streams and actually build facilities. So I'm looking a generation ahead, regardless of what I'm left.

• 1035

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just have one last question, for Mr. Pascoe and Mr. Glen.

I think Mr. Pascoe hit the nail on the head when he said that no matter what we do, whether we devolve under the harmonization agreement or any other kind of agreement, we're going to be left with federal regulations to implement for ozone, for import-export of hazardous waste, and for the NPRI especially, and with a field of activity like this, with toxics becoming far more complex, like the endocrine disrupters and so forth, we haven't even started touching the edge of it.

And you said something, Mr. Pascoe, which really made me feel very badly about what you have to do. You said that you are looked at by your colleagues in customs as a laughingstock because you have so few people, that you have one person in intelligence or something like that.

I was going to ask Mr. Glen about two recommendations we made in the CEPA review. One was to centralize the inspection office so that there would be one standard action plan. Whether it's Mr. Glen's or some other plan, one would apply. There would be one central data collection system and so forth and so on. Secondly, we made the suggestion that all fines come back to DOE for enforcement. That second one was rejected by the government. Are you prepared to back and make a recommendation to the minister that we revisit these two issues?

Would Mr. Pascoe or anybody else tell us whether you still agree with these recommendations?

Mr. Ian Glen: Yes, tell us from your sort of professional spot in the organization.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Okay. I think we've really responded to both of them, to the first one in terms of developing the national inspection plan—I think that goes to what the recommendation of the committee was—and to the second one, I think, in terms of data management, if I understand correctly, with the development of NEMISIS, which took over from the old EATS database, and which has accomplished the goal of that particular recommendation.

And I must say that this new data system, NEMISIS, is an excellent enforcement tool. It's only been operating for six to nine months. We're still working with it. It's still getting new things added to it and being tested, but it is a dramatic improvement over what we've had in the past. It will provide us with the ability to generate enforcement statistics and track enforcement actions. It's a very good tool that the regions use and that our headquarters people use as well.

With respect to the last one, yes, I think it's just a.... And we do the same thing Peter did. When we took on Transport Canada at Pearson Airport, the fine that was levied to Transport Canada was $2, $1 for each charge, but $140,000, the actual penalty, was put right back into the environment to improve the creeks that were damaged by the release of fuel from the airport and to prevent future fuel spills from damaging that particular part of the environment.

We do the same kind of thing. It's creative sentencing, I guess, if you want to call it that. But by the same token, the very large amounts of money that are going into prosecutions now in terms of the legal bills from both crown agents and our own lawyers are coming out of the department. It just seems to me it would make sense if that money was somehow returned to the department.

Mr. Ian Glen: In terms of the first one, I reacted as you did, Mr. Lincoln, to what David said, that we're sort of laughed at. I didn't like hearing that either. It troubles me. I don't think it was directed at customs. I think he was was saying that the community sort of says that we are not up to them—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'm sorry if I mentioned customs.

Mr. Ian Glen: Yes. I think in fairness to our customs colleagues, they have some problems as well. But this is a concern. I've worked in other law enforcement organizations that have suffered the same criticism from time to time. I don't like hearing that.

• 1040

In the area of intelligence gathering, I think we do believe we're vulnerable and we need to do more and improve, and that will bring with it, hopefully, a heightened respect from other players. I think other organizations that work with us—and I've heard this personally from individuals in law enforcement agencies in the States, one of the voices particularly being the FBI—respect Environment Canada's capacity to help everyone understand the transborder issue better than they had taken it seriously for awhile. We're making good progress on that side.

On the other issue, there are two levels, if I may. The creative sentencing one I was made aware of reasonably early on in coming to Environment Canada with a case in Newfoundland, and I thought it was actually quite ingenious. The judge was declaring quite a significant amount of money to go into the local community for activities—at that one mill in Corner Brook, I think it was. I thought, that's not bad, because it's an effective way of skinning the cat when you're in a situation where you may not be able to have laws that return moneys; rather than to general revenue, they're dedicated, go back to a certain function.

I wasn't aware of the other recommendation. You brought it to my attention in the hearing several weeks ago. I can say I have raised it with the minister and it's an issue we have under consideration.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Glen.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Glen, with all due respect, sir, I don't think my children's future is any better today or will be in five years from now than it's ever been. I feel very afraid for the children of Canada, for the environmental protection that we are just not giving them.

I had a question for all of you: does the government place economics over environment? Your response to Mr. Jordan about the mill explained quite simply and quite clearly that it is economics over the environment. It is quite clear that the Government of Canada places economics ahead of the environment. I find it absolutely unbelievable that you're worried about a mill and the jobs but you don't care at all about fish habitat or anything of that nature, about where that effluent goes into the streams. One of the priorities of DFO and Environment, from what I've heard over the years, is the protection of fish habitat, and unfortunately that's been evaded here.

Mr. Krahn, your response to the chair has been very evasive. I'm sorry you didn't get much sleep last—

Mr. Ian Glen: Mr. Chairman, excuse me.

The Chairman: Just a moment, Mr. Stoffer. Mr. Glen.

Mr. Ian Glen: I just feel I need to respond, because I think I was misunderstood.

Mr. Stoffer, in fairness, I did not say we put jobs and mills over this. I said you have to understand what it is we focus on. So in fairness, I was saying we do focus on the environmental consequences and what we then must address through regulations.

So I apologize if I was misunderstood. I wasn't trying to put an imbalanced hand at all on behalf of how we administer matters in our department.

The Chairman: Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Krahn, in regard to the letter to the editor that you sent around, I've never considered people who enforce environmental regulations as goons. I believe that comes from the industry and probably some of the employees of those industries.

When you or your people go to a site and you're determining whether or not there's been a violation of an environment act, I'm very appreciative of the fact that my tax dollars enable you to do that job. And if somebody writes a letter to the editor indicating otherwise, I would just strictly ignore it and do the job that you're doing.

It's unfortunate.... As a representative from Nova Scotia, I did ask a question yesterday on Sheet Harbour and again privately on Ultramar. If you could possibly get back to me on that at your convenience, I would greatly appreciate it. You don't necessarily have to do it today.

Also, for the representatives from Quebec, yesterday we asked for a breakdown by acts on the priority, medium and low areas—for a written submission on that. If it's at all possible to hand that to the chair or the clerk of the committee at your convenience, I would appreciate that as well.

My last question, just to make it simply clear—and this is for each of the five representatives—does the EC's enforcement program have adequate human and financial resources to ensure proper environmental regulations? This is for the reps, and it's a yes or no question, please. Don't politicize your answer, please. That's what we do. Do you have the adequate human and financial resources to do your job properly?

Mr. Ian Glen: I'll answer on behalf of all of them, because I think the fair answer—and I think it's becoming abundantly clear to people—is no. Thank you. And that's one of the challenges that we have within our organization.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

• 1045

Perhaps it's time now for a brief break for five minutes, which will also allow us to move to Room 705 across the hall so that we can continue with the balance of questioners: Madam Carroll, Mr. Gilmour, Mr. Knutson, and then myself.

This meeting is suspended for three minutes.

• 1048

• 1057

The Chairman: Order. Our next questioner is Madam Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Actually, Mr. Chair, the bulk of what I was going to ask got covered by the incisive questioning of previous questioners and equally incisive responses.

I just want to ask one question. When we're talking about the cost of these prosecutions, which I know must be horrendous, did we ever have in-house counsel rather than going out to federal prosecutors? I guess it sounds redundant, but we know it isn't, because we use a lot of federal prosecutors who are not. And was that at a time when we had budgets that we long for today? Have we thought about going back?

It seems to me that the cost of these prosecutions is a major ingredient impacting on the discussions we're having this morning—not particularly with Regina v. Regina, but generally as we prosecute the private sector as well.

Ms. Nadine Levin: The Department of Justice has regional offices all over the country, and they do have crown prosecutors available to use. If one is not available, our regional offices have to ask the Department of Justice to seek a crown agent to carry out the prosecution.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: So Environment Canada uses the Department of Justice or crown-appointed local federal prosecutors.

Ms. Nadine Levin: That's right.

Mr. Ian Glen: With the advice and guidance of those regional offices as well. You can well have scenarios in which what we would like, if it's available to us, in many of these situations is continuity of the expertise they gain from doing prosecutions. They understand the complexities of this particular work, and they can apply it to the next prosecution. So often across governments there is not a worry but almost a lament: Gee, I wish I could have had that prosecutor again; we spent a lot of time training him to the complexity of the case. That is a challenge; it's a management challenge, which we have to be attentive to. But the Department of Justice does facilitate the prosecutorial service.

• 1100

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Are you in favour of having in-house counsel? Mr. Krahn, if you had your own lawyers working with you in your regional office who learned your style, learned your approach, learned the strategy, learned national and regional priorities, had done it before, wouldn't you move things more quickly? Wouldn't you be a more coherent team, as well as in Nova Scotia? I mean, they're yours; they're in-house counsel. They're in the office next to you.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Yes, we had almost that kind of relationship with the Department of Justice. You need a kind of crazy lawyer to take on these cases.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's okay; I'm married to one.

Mr. Peter Krahn: To give you an example, I was walking down the hall with a provincial crown—in this case we were working together—and he pointed out to the prosecutor in front of him, who was a woman, “Lucky her, all she's got is a murder case”. We have to prove the invisible; that's really what it is. And you cannot do that. So it takes a while for a prosecutor to learn the ins and outs of doing this kind of thing.

We do have a sort of in-house civil counsel right now, but she is only partially available. When we go to an actual prosecution file, there used to be a major budget to supply crown prosecutors, but now that also comes out of our enforcement budget. I get charged by the phone call, basically. So that also starts coming off.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: She's in your office? She's a part-time in-house? You pay for her dockets, her time dockets?

Mr. Peter Krahn: Yes. We have a budget to get an in-house counsel who helps us a lot on civil litigation issues, because environmental issues now.... Even just buying a plot of land requires title searches that involve environmental issues. And our in-house counsel is also dealing a lot with R versus R and native lands and that sort of thing.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Right.

Mr. Peter Krahn: But she does not deal with prosecutions. The prosecutions are dealt with by justice lawyers. If you can get the two or maybe two and a half who are experienced and skilled and have a desire to get involved with this, who don't want to take the easier murder cases, then you're lucky. But if you don't get those, then you get franchise lawyers. You really are taking your luck in your hands then.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have just one last question, and I do appreciate the information. It seems to me that the Department of Justice, by definition, is dealing with a plethora and a full spectrum of every conceivable kind of case—not every, because there are some they don't. So it seems to me that it's just good luck when you're able to keep an affiliation or relationship with a particular team who have gained experience and are particularly sensitive to our regional issues. It seems to me that the region would really come into play here considerably, just talking of the two coasts and fisheries and the kinds of companies, native, Nova Scotian.... Though I'm an Ontario deputy, I have some background there, and I hear it in the discussions this morning.

It just seems that it would be more valuable to have your own lawyers in-house in the region with Environment Canada.

Mr. David Aggett: I can add just a little bit of perspective to that.

The Department of Justice does recognize the ongoing training and education needs of its lawyers, and we're finding, at least in our region, that they tend to give the environmental cases to one or two lawyers so that we're not re-educating the DOJ lawyers all the time. So it's good that way.

Also, we had a recent change where we pay the Department of Justice for the use of their prosecutors, so they're more reluctant to refer our cases to external agents. So now in fact we're getting more direct service from DOJ prosecutors than we were in the past. So that situation is improving.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's good.

Mr. Ian Glen: From my perspective, when I hear in-house, I hear within the government's own employ.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That's not the way I meant it.

Mr. Ian Glen: That's not the way you meant it.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm talking about Environment Canada in-house.

Mr. Ian Glen: Okay.

Now, with respect to working collaboratively with the Department of Justice, they are not insensitive to the challenges of our work. Whether it be my colleague the Deputy Minister of Justice or out across the regions with our staff, we try to ensure there's an effective arrangement.

• 1105

If I sound defensive, I'm not critical of the Department of Justice. The point we feel you're making—and it's valid—is this is very technical work, and it's not easy work to be put into the context of a prosecution. It requires training of everyone. It requires training of our staff to gather the evidence effectively and maintain continuity, but also just understanding how to prosecute is a challenge. There are lawyers who are specialists in it or who are acquiring more specialization in it, and we encourage that.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: And indeed, don't misunderstand; this is obviously.... Gosh, it seems I always need to come in with a preamble. There's no criticism at all here of the Department of Justice. Being fairly well acquainted with the legal profession, I'm only too aware of how difficult it is. We're talking about economy. We're talking about trying to give you the resources you require.

Also having considerable experience, as I do, with what they call a boutique type of law firm, which is a civil litigation law firm, and seeing that function vis-à-vis a full-service law firm, it's just a whole different thing. We have an expertise at that law firm, because we have done certain types of litigation again and again. We stay up on CLE; that's the field we cover. We're the best. So it seems to me that's the kind of thing that would greatly enhance you.

There is no negative downside for anybody else, nor did I take your remarks to indicate that.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: In Ontario region, we use crown agents more than we do justice department lawyers, because the majority of our cases are away from Toronto and the majority of the cases in Toronto are drug cases. The Justice lawyers handle a few of them, but for the majority—the ones in Thunder Bay or St. Catharines that involve pulp mills or the ones up in Timmins that involve the Fisheries Act—we get a new crown agent each time, because a different law company is assigned.

You're right; you have to educate them as to what is a pulp mill. It's a very long process and it's very complicated, and a number of the lawyers say exactly the same thing Peter said: “I wish I had a murder case, because it's much easier than understanding how a pulp mill works”.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, exactly so.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: So you're right.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I really appreciate it, and I think Peter says it well. You explained to us how careful your prosecution has to be vis-à-vis the charter. You have to have the lawyer working right along with your team.

Thanks.

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Don't be sorry. This is very helpful. Thank you.

To complete the second round, Mr. Gilmour, followed by Mr. Knutson and the chair.

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

I think most of us understand that there are many areas where pressure can be brought to bear. Mr. Aggett was talking about the corporate culture and how they can bring pressure on. Mr. Krahn spoke of the local mayors and councils, which can be.... Interest groups can bring pressure to bear on you as to whether or not you should be pursuing an issue.

I'd like to go around the table and ask this question to each of the five people: Have you ever been pulled off a case due to upper managerial action or interference and been told not to pursue a case? I'll start with Mr. Aggett.

Mr. David Aggett: The short answer is yes. The—

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. Carry on. I just want to go around the table and then come back to you.

Mr. David Aggett: I'd just like to make one short comment: not within the last couple of years.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Yes.

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Not in the last eight months.

Mr. Peter Krahn: I can't think of a specific instance right now, so I'll just pass.

Mr. Guy Martin: I'm not in the field any more.

Mr. Mike Labossière (Head, Enforcement and Compliance, Prairie and Northern Region, Environment Canada): I've been with Environment Canada for five years and I'd have to say no.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. That speaks well.

Mr. Ian Glen: Can I answer as well? I haven't either.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay. You understand the direction of my question: Are you allowed to basically do what you want to do? That speaks relatively well. In the yes cases, I'd like to hear a couple of shots.

And Peter, did you want to say something?

Mr. Peter Krahn: Yes. Earlier on, when we dealt with the anti-sapstain industry, I wrote a report concerning that, and it was locked in a cabinet for two years. That was at a time when the regional director level just didn't know what to do with this kind of thing and we did not have a lot of experience with investigations.

Subsequent to that, there have been difficult situations largely related to issues on native land, because of the federal lands works and undertakings problems. That's being addressed in CEPA.

• 1110

Things have been steadily improving. It's really more a restriction based on a resource being available to pursue a case rather than being told not to.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: David, did you want to comment further?

Mr. David Aggett: Did you want examples? Is that what you're looking for?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If you have some.

Mr. David Aggett: My preference would be not to name specific companies, but I had an R versus R case where the prosecution was halted. I had a case with the federal government versus a provincial crown corporation and that was halted. I had a case that would have implications for a rather fragile industry and that case was halted. Again, these are historical cases; these are several years old.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: We understand that you have a large grab bag out there to look at and narrowing resources. Who makes the decision about where to go, which areas? Peter said into the sapstain or into the pulp. Do you have the leeway yourselves to do that? How much freedom are you given to pick the areas that you feel are the highest priority?

Mr. Guy Martin: Maybe I can answer that.

[Translation]

Naturally, the national inspection plan focusses on certain types of industries who provide us with information on compliance. It's the regions, the inspectors and the regional choices, bearing in mind national priorities, that result in our inspectors verifying compliance. It is in part the compliance verifications done by our inspectors that determine, along with the whistle blowers and the complainants, when an investigation needs to be carried out. This is how things happen in most cases in all regions. Did I answer your question adequately?

The Chairman: Mr. Gonthier.

Mr. Claude Gonthier: I wish to make a comment. At the start of each year, priorities are set nationally. I could give you a good example. Last year, the Fisheries Act was not given high priority at the national level. This is why Mr. Krahn added the Fisheries Act to the priority list in his region. I was not in my current position in my region at that time, but we did not add the Fisheries Act to the priority list in our region given the available resources. Accordingly, the regions do have some latitude. They can add to the national priorities. When regions decide to give priority to regulations or legislation at the national level, they indicate this in their annual plan.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Levin, yesterday you made reference to regulations being written in such a manner that they became unenforceable. In your professional view, what regulations are on the books now that are unenforceable because of the way they've been written?

Ms. Nadine Levin: One regulation I worked on, and the office of enforcement made recommendations about, was the regulation dealing with diesel fuel. For that regulation, rather than having a standard method by which one would determine what are the constituents of the diesel fuel and whether any one person's product in fact meets the requirements, there are something like four or five methods. This is a very difficult thing for our regional people to enforce and it is something I certainly recommended against. I'm on the record, so this is not a secret to anybody.

If you have more than one method and you have to establish to what degree the results are comparable or to what degree there is equivalency between the results obtained by one method rather than another, it's a very difficult thing to in fact determine beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard, that there has been a violation.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right. I understand that.

• 1115

Ms. Nadine Levin: That's one example of a regulation that, for enforcement purposes, is probably very difficult to enforce, or maybe not even enforceable.

Mr. David Aggett: I'd like to make a comment here. This puts us in a very difficult position. A large proportion of industry complies with their perception of what a regulation says. If we in turn publicly identify regulations with which we might have difficulty enforcing, they might simply say, why should we bother doing it?

Ms. Nadine Levin: That's the ultimate downside of trying to provide an answer.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think you make a good point. I'll withdraw the question then, and maybe at an in camera meeting we can come back to this issue.

Mr. Ian Glen: If I can assist the member, as I heard it the other day, I'm basically on the same wavelength that I believe you are on, which is not necessarily an absolute; that's the greatest concern. What is truly unenforceable from the perspective of these people is something I want to learn from them. The other is, which ones are difficult to enforce? Leading the same way, can we pull ourselves together and make them properly enforceable? In essence, can we ensure that there's a standard of writing and setting of these regulations so we don't have this dilemma? The answer for me as a manager is yes, we have to take that one on. That was a worrying comment I heard from my colleagues.

I do share with them the other concern. If we have those and there is within our capacity the will and the ability to remedy that, I'd just as soon parties that otherwise think these are pretty good don't know where we're vulnerable.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate that. Perhaps it was imprudent of me to raise it in a public forum, but I did, so let's not say any more.

Mr. Pascoe, you've made a reference a number of times to Mr. Krahn enforcing the Fisheries Act and suggested that's something he does that you don't. Can you enlighten me on that?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Sure.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Briefly? I only have five minutes and I have two other questions.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Okay. There are two reasons. One is within our region, using CEPA, we have more than enough to keep us busy on NPRI, NSN, ODS, and exporting—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Your region is the province of Ontario.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: That's right. We have too many industries in that lump to keep us busy, without even considering the Fisheries Act.

The other thing is that in the province of Ontario, if we have a potential Fisheries Act violation we normally defer to the province. In other words, we will speak to their enforcement people and ask them if they are doing something on it. If they are not, we'll look at it. If they are, we back off. We watch what they're doing, and if they're going to address a particular incident, we'll back up, because we don't see the point in having two levels of government involved in it.

It's an extremely large area to get into, and you've heard Peter say 17,000 potential sites for the Fisheries Act in his region. You have to take a look at Ontario and consider that there is the same number there, at least.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Again, I don't want to get into a debate because we don't have time, but when the Parliament of Canada passes a law it seems we pass it to be applied uniformly across the country. On the one hand, we've got the federal government enforcing a Fishery Act section in British Columbia but not in Ontario. There seems to be a bit of a patchwork here. I understand the issue about money, but from a parliamentarian point of view it seems we're applying the rules differently in one part of the country than we are in the other. If we agree that this is a criminal law matter—if the Supreme Court of Canada said environmental protection is an extension of the criminal law—then that's pretty serious.

Anyway, I didn't want to make that speech.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: I can't disagree with you. It's not a patchwork just with the Fisheries Act; it's a patchwork with CEPA as well. Given the regulatory base, if we in our region have 1,000 people who are subject to NPRI, we know darn well that we can't enforce that within one year, whereas another region that has maybe two industries that apply to NPRI can do it very easily in a year. So it's going to be a patchwork, irrespective of whether it's CEPA or the Fisheries Act, because the resources aren't laid out in the same way the industries are laid out or in the same way the regulations are laid out. The resources aren't assigned that way.

Mr. Ian Glen: Is it fair to also add that some of the patchwork may come from the realities to be addressed in the particular regions and what industries are more prevalent or not? Some of it is deliberate; some of it is by circumstance.

• 1120

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, but coming from a riding on Lake Erie, I think fish are important.

To Mr. Gonthier, the other day we had some testimony from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund that violations by pulp mills in Quebec are not being prosecuted. One mill had 98 violations in 1996 alone. I don't know if you're familiar with the facts or with Sierra's testimony the other day, but given this evidence, why are department officials suggesting that duplication occurs, that overlap occurs? I would like your comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: The data used by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund indicated that, in 1996, 61 pulp and paper plants had exceeded the toxicity standard 189 times. We obtained information about the action taken by the Quebec Department of the Environment under its provincial regulations. I can tell you that the provincial government took enforcement action for all of the plants that were of concern to us in 1997. These were proper law enforcement activities, including notices and letters of warning. In 1997, we completed the analysis of the data. During the course of this year, we observed that this excess amount had been reduced by 50 per cent, with more than half of this reduction coming from one plant alone. The provincial and federal governments still have to take action in the case of a few plants that continue to be a source of great concern.

I can assure you that, as a result of the mechanisms we implemented last September with the provincial government under the federal-provincial agreement, we are obtaining, not all of the information because we are still missing some, but more and more pertinent information enabling us to evaluate the measures taken by the provincial government and to determine whether or not such measures meet the requirements of our regulations. We have already had discussions with the provincial government. The two levels of government are going to take whatever steps are required in order to remedy such situations faster.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: So you're optimistic?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Yes. I would add that I am optimistic because, at the regional level, we decided to get the most out of the agreement currently in effect. We will require and not simply obtain all information that we need to receive and we will take all required action.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay. I assume my five minutes are up.

The Chairman: Yes, but you could ask one more question and then we'll go to third round. Or I'll put you down for a third round.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'll raise this question to Mr. Glen.

We've had two views from your officials, one from Mr. Krahn today that the whole issue of overlap and duplication is a myth, and that it would be great to have inspectors from both levels of government appear at the same site at the same time because of the complexity of the issues. Yet we've heard evidence that the harmonization agreement is designed so that you don't have inspectors from two levels of government show up at the same time, because that would be considered a waste.

Perhaps it's an unfair question, but to me you can't reconcile both views. Either the person at the ground level is right or not. But all the evidence today and yesterday seems to be that there isn't overlap and duplication; if anything, there are huge gaps.

I ask for your comments.

Mr. Ian Glen: Okay. Well, I hope in the end we're both right. The approach under harmonization is not driven entirely by the concern of overlap and duplication; the approach would encourage that where another jurisdiction can effectively take that on and address the problem, that's the goal. It would maximize, through efficiencies, the resources we have across both jurisdictions, and we have to give that a good shot and make certain it goes. It's one of the reasons we're trying to ensure that there is a quality standard that will apply and that it's not an abdication across but rather a sharing across.

• 1125

The area that would concern me most—and this is me as a public administrator looking at it—is the effectiveness of the action. Peter said, quite frankly, when you look at the nature of things that have to be done, more of us in there doing it is part of the challenge. Is the capacity there to do it effectively, and how do we work across our jurisdictions to ensure that happens? That is a significant challenge, but in basic principle, do you need two people there to do what one could effectively do behalf of both? The thesis I'm prepared to try to put in train is, yes, you can do it with one as opposed to two, but effectiveness will be the issue.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Do I have another question?

The Chairman: No, but I can put you down for a third round.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, please.

The Chairman: All right, we have four questioners for the third round and to complete the second.

I'm thinking of further time two weeks from now, when we start writing a report, which might be entitled “The Credibility of the Law”, but maybe better titles can be proposed, of course. It's just a trial balloon. But it would interest me to know from you people.... You may recall what we wrote in our report on the federal house. At that time, the situation left very much to be desired, particularly in the Department of Transport, the activities in the airports, particularly the Department of National Defence north of 60 and so on.

Are you able to tell us today—and if not, could you put together a brief outline—where we are in the federal house, and can you indicate to us which departments are most reluctant in cooperating? When they are reluctant, what is the procedure you follow?

Mr. Ian Glen: I'll answer, but not constructively to the moment. I don't think we would be in a position, in a complete and even way, to do that. I think almost a composite would have to be drawn together. I do defer to my colleagues, if they feel from their perspective there could be some indication today, but in fairness I would want to, in essence, do a report that thoughtfully responded to your question.

The Chairman: Would you be prepared to put something on paper, even if it is in a composite form?

Mr. Ian Glen: Yes, I think we could give it a try. It is an awkward moment, because within the federal house you don't want to be in a situation where you're overtly critical of another department. But what you're asking is what's the score card, if I can put it in simple terms, and I think we can take a run at that.

Is that fair, Nadine?

The Chairman: When there is an alleged breach by a federal department, Mr. Glen, what route do you follow to convince your colleagues in the department where the breach has taken place so as to achieve compliance?

Mr. Ian Glen: Me personally in the R. v. R. process? I've had only one occasion in the time I've been here where a matter advanced to the stage in the choreography of R versus R where I've called a deputy minister colleague to apprise him of the fact that a warning notice had been given to his department in a particular area and to encourage his engagement to see if the matter could be resolved before we proceeded further. On that one occasion the response was very quick, and within a day and a half I had a response back, saying the matter was being taken care of and we would now be in compliance. But I've had only one occasion where I've had—

The Chairman: You're satisfied that your colleagues are cooperating and that they are implementing the CEPA legislation in their respective departments?

Mr. Ian Glen: I put it into the R versus R, which is when you're at the point where you may well have to proceed to ultimate prosecution. That instance certainly satisfied me that with that particular department there wasn't a problem.

• 1130

The difficulty I have experienced and have had some discussions with other deputy ministers or their senior staff on is the challenge they have to, in essence, find the resources to address some of the particular contaminated sites issues they have to be in compliance. In fairness to them, they're trying within their resource restraints to put in place or put in train scheduled initiatives to address their contaminated sites. That declared, known problem area is what they're trying to work with.

The Chairman: Do you have any further comments, Mr. Hollier, since this may be in your area?

Mr. Patrick Hollier (Chief, Regulations and Strategy Division, Environment Canada): Right now, we have one regulation, a recent one on federal storage tanks, that applies federally, where we have concurrence from most departments. A couple haven't concurred—

An hon. member: Which ones?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I can think of Transport Canada.... I forget who the other one is, but Transport Canada for sure.

Right now, we're discussing another regulation, which deals with landfilling of hazardous waste. Negotiations are ongoing and progressing.

There are other issues, though, that are not necessarily related to regulations or to the development of new regulations that are also being negotiated. I don't think I can discuss them right now. Again, they deal with the disposal of hazardous waste. This is at the policy development stage in negotiations, so I would rather not get into that.

The Chairman: On this partnership with the RCMP and customs, in your opinion, what are the limitations to this type of cooperation? It sounds all right on paper, but when it comes to the practical work, can you see limitations, and what are they?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: There are several issues here. Partnerships are a two-way street. If a partnership is going to work, both parties are going to give as much as they receive. This is a question of knowledge, will, resources. It sums it up; it's a two-way street.

I'm not sure we have the ability or the capacity right now to really deliver on any commitments we might make towards such partnerships.

The Chairman: When will you have it?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I don't know. We've been discussing all kinds of issues in the last two days. Resources are one. Some people alluded to the fact that we are looked upon by other agencies in a rather derogatory way.

The Chairman: So we're talking about a paper partnership.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: No. It goes beyond that. We have partners. We have operational partners. We work with the RCMP all the time. We work with customs. We work with the U.S. EPA, the FBI. Operationally we have very good working relationships. There's only so much we can do.

The Chairman: Ms. Levin.

Ms. Nadine Levin: The thing that I think everyone should remember is that partnerships are in fact a very valuable tool and so are memoranda of understanding. But if we sign a memorandum of understanding with customs, for example, the Department of National Revenue, they also have their own legislation, which they are required to enforce because they have a mandate. I believe customs has nearly 60 pieces of legislation that it assists other government departments in enforcing, as well as having to enforce its own legislation.

• 1135

It's the same with the RCMP, who are provincial police in eight provinces and in the territories—soon to be three territories. These are partners who provide a service to us or where we can work together on things, but they also have their own mandates, their own legislation to enforce. That is true also if we have partnerships with provinces or other legal entities that have mandates and have legislation to enforce, and their primary objective is not to enforce environmental legislation, so—

The Chairman: They're burdened by other commitments as well.

Ms. Nadine Levin: Yes.

Mr. Ian Glen: Could I very briefly add to that?

The question I ask myself and that I pursue first of all with Commissioner Murray of the RCMP—and I'll put it in crass terms—is where are we in their hit parade of priorities? In essence, if we are effecting a partnership with them, is the work of my department really of serious import for them against their other pressures? That's an honest question to put to him and I expect an honest answer.

I don't think, quite frankly, we will be high on their hit parade. That's what I anticipate. That's a challenge for me and it's a challenge for our colleagues in that partnership.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Martin, earlier in the morning you said there are certain consultants' reports on the question of suggestions on how to obtain additional resources, intelligence, and the like. Can you make these reports available to this committee?

Mr. Guy Martin: Sure. This afternoon I'll ask some people at the office of enforcement to send you and the committee a copy of this report.

The Chairman: In writing our report, we'll have to say something about intelligence and analysis, particularly as touched upon by Mr. Krahn. Would it be fair to conclude that one intelligence officer per region is the minimum required, as well as one analyst?

Mr. Peter Krahn: I haven't taken the opportunity to consider our needs, so I cannot give you an answer either way.

The Chairman: When will you be able to do that?

Mr. Peter Krahn: Well, if I make it a priority, within the next week or so, I will ask other colleagues back at my office what they consider.

The Chairman: Could we have a similar commitment by the other regional people on this question of intelligence-gathering and analysis, one per region?

Mr. Ian Glen: I'll answer for everyone. The answer is yes. What you're seeking is, from their professional perspective, what's that balance they think they would need of intelligence capacity to support their inspection work. We'll try to do it as a composite and provide it to you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is it also fair to conclude that it is almost your unanimous consensus that no new regulations ought to be given to you people without the necessary allocation of funds and resources? Is that a fair conclusion?

Mr. Ian Glen: It's a tough one for me to answer.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: We're looking at five nodding heads.

Mr. Ian Glen: Were they?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ian Glen: Well, Mr. Chair, perhaps we could let the record show that Mr. Gilmour was keeping count and you have your answer.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Earlier this morning, Mr. Pascoe, you said the other regulations are in a pretty sad state. Can you elaborate quickly?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: If you take a look at the age of the regulations, that's all that needs to be said. The ones under the Fisheries Act have been there for pretty much as long as I've been with the department, which is 24 years. Things change.

I don't want to go any further than that, because of the discussion we had earlier in terms of jeopardizing the integrity of the regulation, or what the regulated community thinks about the regulation, by what answer I give here.

The Chairman: Did you want to make any further comments on recommendation 125 of this committee report?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Do I want to make...?

The Chairman: Yes, any further comments?

Mr. Ian Glen: The difficulty all of us have is that that was a recommendation put in to the government for its consideration, and the policy wheres or whys on it are difficult for us to respond to. Quite frankly, the minister should be responding on that.

We tried to deal with this yesterday, to prepare ourselves so we could be as forthcoming as possible.

David, from your perspective as a line operator in the enforcement area, what model might be of more value to you? That's perhaps another way of asking it.

• 1140

Mr. Dave Pascoe: I think the model that would serve the enforcement community better than the existing model is one where the regional enforcement managers, those with hands-on control of the enforcement resources, report through some sort of national system.

The reason I say that is because I think it would go a long way in terms of ensuring more consistency in the application of the law across the country, whether it be inspections or investigations or prosecutions or what have you. But it complies more with our enforcement and compliance policy in terms of fairness, consistency, and predictability in the application of the law.

I guess what I'm saying in terms of recommendation 125 is that based on what I have seen, I think it would serve the organization more to have, as I said, the enforcement managers reporting through some structure that is perhaps set aside in Ottawa, that looks after enforcement and is not clouded with also looking at the compliance promotion side of the job. There would be a distinct separation between the enforcement resources and the hand-holders or the compliance promotion people or whatever you want to call them. The goods guys are separated from us, the bad guys, if you want to put it that way.

The Chairman: That's very helpful the way you put it. Thank you, Mr. Pascoe.

Mr. Gonthier, a few minutes ago you said that in the last eight months you have not been asked to be pulled off a file. What was the pattern before the last eight months? Can you give us some examples?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: I wasn't in this position at that time and therefore it would be very difficult for me to tell you about the decision-making process followed by regional management in previous years. I am not aware of the details. When I was talking about the last eight months, I didn't mean that we had done away with all the bad practices since then, but that I wasn't in this position beforehand.

[English]

The Chairman: In which way have you changed?

[Translation]

What changes took place?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: As I told you, I am not really aware of the details. I looked at the period preceding the law enforcement measures with the eyes of someone who was outside of the program. I could use the example of people who promote compliance. I cannot really comment on the way that these people did their work before. I can, however, tell you that in the eight months that I have been in this position, regional management has never asked me to abstain from working on a file.

Within the organization, there are of course what I would call internal problems. I recognize that these problems exist; however, these are not problems that occur because you have been asked not to work on a file. As my colleagues said, these internal problems which I am referring to result from the presence, in the same organization, of other individuals who promote compliance and who have close ties with the regulated industries or groups. Since the same groups took initiatives to promote prevention and voluntary compliance, they are sometimes tempted to use law enforcement as a stick to obtain voluntary results.

In addition, there are all the dynamics triggered by the federal-provincial and federal-federal administrative agreements that are problematic. The logistics don't really prevent us from doing our work, but they do sometimes make life difficult.

I could give you an example. Recently, we wanted to send a warning to a federal department. According to our decision-making process, the decision is made at the regional level, but in consultation with the head office. We had to wait two months before we could get any comments from the head office because this was a delicate issue, and a warning finally issued by a regional office was late by two or three months. As I said, we did do our job, but we were delayed.

• 1145

These internal problems in the way that we are currently operating do make life difficult. Given the resources at our disposal, we don't need such problems.

Recommendation 125 would be one way of minimizing these problems, however, we are currently examining others internally.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there anyone who wishes to comment about the two months that elapsed in order to get a reply back to the regional office?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin: I would answer by saying that usually, the Enforcement Office gives priority to letters of warning or to directives sent to the industries. We have to see what type of letter of warning was sent. Obviously, in some cases, the national office asks us why we do not institute legal proceedings instead of sending a letter of warning. This is always a regional decision. In the decision-making process, it is the regional director who makes the final decision.

[English]

The Chairman: It would be helpful to this committee also to know a little bit more about the ratio of non-enforcement to enforcement staff in the regions. Could someone supply us with this figure in the next week?

It would also be helpful to have some comments, if not now, perhaps in writing—whichever way you prefer, of course—on paper work. Is the extent of paper work such that it creates unnecessary burdens, or is it something that is not worth commenting about?

Mr. Ian Glen: Certainly in my office I complain about it all the time. I think it is something that's worth responding to.

In doing your enforcement work, are you paper-burdened? In essence, are there processes that quite frankly have no utility to the work you're trying to do?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: You're looking right at me, so I'll answer.

Mr. Ian Glen: No, I'm looking along the line. You're looking right at me.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: There are some paper burdens that are required for us to meet headquarters' requirements in terms of the information processing and alerting the system and stuff like that. But I would say, based on my understanding of this new NEMESIS system, that almost all of those are going to be eliminated, because managers in headquarters can access NEMESIS and can find out information about what we're doing on a given inspection, investigation, enforcement action, what have you, which will alleviate any of that need.

[Translation]

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Another obstacle preventing us from making a decision is the decentralized nature of the decision- making process, which allows the Enforcement Office at headquarters to act merely in a consulting capacity. The final decision to enforce a regulation or to take any type of action whatsoever is made by the regional directors. If you want to enforce the legislation consistently from coast to coast, consultation has to take place and, generally speaking, this takes a great deal of time.

[English]

The Chairman: As a last question, Mr. Labossière, of all the questions that have been asked, would you like to offer any comments from the perspective of the region you represent?

Mr. Mike Labossière: As far as the reporting lines and as far as the paperwork?

The Chairman: On any topic you wish to choose.

Mr. Mike Labossière: Yes. I just wanted to say that I've listened to some of the responses from my colleagues from across the country and basically felt myself agreeing with just about everything that was said. If there's a scenario where we do get additional resources, the strategic and intelligence end of it is where I would like to see the focus.

• 1150

I've listened to Peter Krahn's initiative in B.C., and it's with envy that I look at it. I wish we had intelligence to help us basically do the same thing, as well as prioritize the resources we have in place today. Also, because of new regulations coming downstream, it just emphasizes the need for an intelligence system—strategic intelligence as well as tactical and operational intelligence.

So for me, speaking for the Alberta division, but I know I'm reflecting as well the thoughts of the other divisions in the region, yes, that is definitely one of the areas in which we would like to see a thrust. I guess that's what I'm getting at.

Our region is presently looking at hiring one strategic officer from within existing resources. So again you can see some of the difficulty that's going to cause. You know, we're working with existing resources, so again it's shuffling, prioritizing what we have. But I suppose what it does is emphasize the need to go in that direction.

I guess that's about it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Labossière.

Third round, Mr. Clifford Lincoln, followed by Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Gilmour, and Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, before I asked a question about our recommendation regarding enforcement. Maybe I didn't make it specific enough. What I was referring to was recommendation 125. In there, if we look at 125, it says the committee recommends that:

Environment Canada revise its enforcement approach under CEPA pursuant to the principles of independence, consistency, effectiveness and transparency. Specifically: an independent enforcement office with regional branches be established within Environment Canada that would report directly to the Minister of the Environment or the Deputy Minister.

Then it says CEPA enforcement compliance policy should be revised, etc., and it talks about a centralized data bank.

Mr. Pascoe, you replied to me, but you never, if I recall, addressed specifically the independence of the office responding to the deputy minister. I realize that was.... Maybe you avoided it because it was a policy question.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: I didn't avoid it. I must have just not understood what you said.

Did my answer to that last question, Mr. Caccia's question, handle what you wanted, or was there more?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, no, I think that clarified it. I was just wondering if it was because it was a policy question or you misunderstood.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: I misunderstood. I did not know that was part of your question.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So the way I understand it, you are in agreement with recommendation 125.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I would ask a question of Mr. Krahn and Monsieur Gonthier in regard to pulp and paper and the devolution of enforcement and harmonization of enforcement.

In regard to B.C. specifically, the provincial government is now a big owner of pulp and paper mills. They own MacMillan Bloedel. They've just bought Skeena Cellulose. Is there a conflict of interest in regard to the provincial government and its inspection service? If tomorrow you are going to turn the inspection over to the provincial government, isn't there an inherent problem there when two large establishments are owned by the province?

[Translation]

Mr. Gonthier, during the CEPA review, we were told that Quebec refused to have Quebec inspectors certified under the federal Fisheries Act. I never succeeded in getting a very clear answer to this question. This is what some people told me.

I was even told that because of the situation, in certain instances where some pulp and paper mills were causing direct pollution, they were merely given warnings when in fact much more stringent action such as legal proceedings should have been taken. Could you answer these two questions?

• 1155

[English]

Mr. Peter Krahn: I'll try to couch it in general terms first and see if I can answer your question.

In my experience, I have found that when company X is in trouble there are numerous reasons and that most often the environment will suffer.

If company X is bought out by company Y, company Y gets entagled in company X's mess. This principle I have found when municipal governments get involved with developers of industrial estates, and it would apply at the provincial level and at the federal level. So I anticipate that any government that invests in that manner you described will find itself in a difficult conflict of interest. Whether that will actually occur, I cannot say at this time.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Have you had any experience of this being a problem, Monsieur Martin?

Mr. Guy Martin: Maybe it would help....

[Translation]

In the case of Quebec Hydro, for instance, which belongs to the province of Quebec, the matter went right up to the Supreme Court even though the file was relatively straightforward. Once the lawyers had read the file and the summary of the evidence, they all said that there wouldn't be any problems and that Quebec Hydro would be pleading guilty. We went through four difficult years and we wound up before the Supreme Court. Quebec Hydro presented its defence, however the attorney general for Quebec also intervened in the defence. This is an example that may assist you in understanding the system.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Exactly. You have answered my question well. Therefore, there certainly is some potential for a conflict of interest.

Mr. Claude Gonthier: The provincial inspectors, under the federal-provincial agreement, are not designated under the Fisheries Act. Under this agreement, they don't have to be designated because the agreement was designed as follows: the provincial government enforces the more stringent provincial regulations on pulp and paper mill effluents with respect to the TSS and BOD standards. If they want to use provisions similar to section 36 of the Fisheries Act, they have the Loi sur la qualité de l'environnement (environmental quality act).

So the agreement was based on that principle. Provincial inspectors conduct the inspections and take action in accordance with their regulations. They give us all the information so that we can see if the steps they have taken in accordance with their regulations, which are stricter, are in accordance with federal regulations.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Gonthier, I have one last question for you. Is it not true that section 36(5) of the Fisheries Act is much stronger, because the onus is reversed? It is not used enough. In the case of Tioxide, for example, it was a last minute deal. Section 36(5) was used, instead of the provincial legislation, precisely because they realized that section 36(5) was much stronger. Is it not true that today section 36(5) is not being used because of the situation flowing from that agreement?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: In the case of pulp and paper mills, what is at stake are the regulations on effluents and not section 36 of the Fisheries Act. For 1996, the year the data was reported by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, they took 14 notifications of infraction and launched two suits against six corporations that exceeded the standards by 80%. It was the first year that the new water treatment systems were in operation. That is why the government did not go any farther.

Under the agreement, the provincial government, according to what I have been told, takes steps in accordance with its regulations to deal with plans that do not comply with its regulations. That includes the plants that do not comply with the federal regulations. That is how the agreement was set up. For my part, I work within the agreement, and I can see results.

• 1200

Mr. Guy Martin: As regards Tioxide, I would like to remind the committee that section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, dealing with the general prohibition, was used.

I will give you a brief overview. For about 20 years, the province had tried to get Tioxide to comply, but that never happened because of a host of problems, influences, etc. At the end of the 20 years, after issuing two conditional certificates authorizing the construction of a pilot unit and a full-sized effluent treatment facility, which were never built, the people from the province asked, but perhaps not officially, the people from the federal government to apply section 36(3). That is what we did.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Stoffer, please, followed by Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I kind of wish you were the Speaker of the House. I'd get more questions, that's for sure. Thank you very much for this.

Mr. Glen, you mentioned R versus R. I recommend you folks change it to E versus E, economics versus environment, when it comes to issues of that nature.

In my own perception, when the deputy ministers of the various departments get together, I just can't see or imagine the deputy minister of environment going up to the deputy minister of industry and saying, “You bad people are not following the regulations properly; you must adhere to them.” I can just picture them being completely ignored.

You questioned someone about an environmental or a regulation concern and they got back to you. Did they get back to you verbally or did they actually write you a response that you quoted was satisfactory?

Mr. Ian Glen: I won't deal with your imagination. I'll try to deal with the actual case without declaring the parties.

Under the process that is in play for R versus R—and R versus R is sensitive because it's basically the federal government charging the federal government—where I feel there is not a response that is satisfying our environment requirements, I have a role in that process to go across to my colleague and, quite frankly, give them last warning before we get into a mode where I stand back and allow the prosecutorial process to work.

I called that individual, because it's my own preference to call rather than write. I think quite frankly the impact is better. The response was very supportive on the call, and the response following that was very quick—quick in the sense of going down to the organization and within 24 hours the person was back and said “It's being addressed.” I confirmed, through our own organization, that that was accurate, and I was satisfied that we had effectively brought a department into compliance in a way that our own office would be satisfied as well.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So the response was direct?

Mr. Ian Glen: It was direct to the person, and the response I got from that person is what I would expect of my colleagues at the deputy minister level.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But that was only verbally. Is that correct?

Mr. Ian Glen: It was an effective means of doing it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The question, sir, with all due respect, is quite clear. Nothing was in writing in this particular case you are talking about? Is that correct?

Mr. Ian Glen: In terms of the engagement of our department—I'll say it with care—at a lower level in the organization across to the department, there was a warning letter sent. I knew what paper had been provided to this organization—in fact, it was in the Ontario region—what information had gone and now was available, and I used that directly in my discussion with that deputy minister.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good.

To Mr. Pascoe, you mentioned a bit about the Fisheries Act, and you said things change. I'd just like to add to that. Things do change: fish die and unfortunately jobs are lost.

My real question, and the last one I have before I leave—I do want to thank each and every one of you for altering your arrangements in coming here today—is to Mr. Hollier. With the problem of enforcement—you have to go to the justice department, you have to go to this department—would an arm's-length agency for enforcement within the environment department be either advisable or acceptable in your terms? Would it work in terms of enforcing the environmental regulations within this country or within the various regions? Would an arm's-length agency of a cooperative nature between the judicial aspects and our environmental aspects work?

• 1205

Mr. Patrick Hollier: That kind of model would certainly have its merits. I guess it would have to be tested. It would seem to make life easier in terms of making decisions that are strictly at the judicial level or that are strictly related to the application of our enforcement policy. Again, this might be only a partial solution, only one model, for the problems we face.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chairman: It is always with some trepidation that I recognize Mr. Gilmour, in light of what Mr. Stoffer said earlier.

Mr. Gilmour, followed by Mr. Knutson to complete.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I'd like to go into the concept of two people doing the job versus one. When we had the harmonization hearings we had a number of people come forward and say they could find no evidence of any area where there was duplication, and yet here we're seeing that there are areas of duplication.

I'll go back to my previous life when I used to deal with fisheries, the federal DFO and the provincial MOE. They took great pains not to be on site at the same time. They worked very well together to make sure that either one of them who showed up took all the information that satisfied both arenas.

Mr. Krahn, you're saying that in the Clarke Drive outfall case the reason it couldn't be prosecuted is because too many levels of government got involved and the crown...I forget the terminology used, but basically there were witnesses at cross-purposes.

My bottom line is, wouldn't it be advantageous to work to have one individual, whatever the level is, do the job? First of all, you've got scarce resources. Secondly, you have this court situation where you may have conflicting arguments. I think it just makes sense to have one individual where you can do it and do it right.

Mr. Peter Krahn: I'm glad you asked that question, particularly of me.

There are instances where you can have a duplication, and I'll give you an example. A provincial inspector showed up at a pulp mill and the next day a federal inspector showed up at the pulp mill. That's duplication. It should not have happened. That's the kind of situation that will send a Scud missile to the minister in Ottawa, which comes back to my desk and I have to deal with it. We have by and large worked those kinds of things out.

There are situations where.... I'll take the pulp and paper regulations as an example. Initially there was such a demand from the federal government to ensure that the regulation was enforced that it required our resources to get it done at the frequency that was required, which could not be met by the provincial government.

As the pulp and paper regulation came into compliance, we have withdrawn steadily each year the number of inspections done by the federal agency, but we still want to maintain a quality of inspection and we will attend sometimes with a provincial inspector to verify that the inspection is being done. We also reserve the right to attend independently of a provincial inspector to ensure that what was done in our absence is also at an acceptable level.

So it's a quality control measure, because we cannot abdicate our responsibility under the federal legislation. It's a matter of fine-tuning that occurs, and this sometimes take a few years.

Some situations develop when a junior agency, such as a municipality, with staff with far less experience is assured that they can make this happen. This happened to me in an individual's case in a municipality. I remember specifically the alderman standing up and saying, “I don't see how we can lose”, and I could think of a thousand ways, and they did. So there are experience levels that happen.

We have scarce resources. As I drew them out of pulp and paper, I applied them to the heavy-duty wood, and I could not get the help I needed from the provincial government.

• 1210

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Guy Martin: I would like to draw a case to your attention. A representative of a large corporation called me to complain about an inspector. I asked him if the inspector was abrupt, if he was not gentlemanly. He said to me: "No, no, your inspector was fine. I just do not like his policeman role. I told him that it was his job to work that way. He said to me: "Yes, but a provincial inspector came to inspect the site two weeks ago and did not find any infractions. Everything was okay." This involves storing PCBs. At that point, I told him that our inspector had a checklist, that he went through the checklist and that he conducted his inspection by verifying if each of the compliance standards was respected. That is how we measure compliance, under these specific regulations. He then said to me: "That is precisely what I do not like. He had a checklist. It is the role of a police officer." He was doing his job.

I concluded from that that our fellow's behaviour was excellent, that he had conducted an excellent inspection and that the provincial guy did go to the site. However, there is a difference between conducting an inspection and visiting a site.

I wanted to draw your attention to that case.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Knutson, to conclude, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions, but I'll just sort of forewarn you about what my last one is. I'll ask it first and ask people to think about it.

Given the minister's framing of what's appropriate to ask people in your position, and given that the deputy minister is here to answer questions regarding policy, I'm curious about something. From your point of view, is there a question we should have asked that we didn't ask? Are there issues we perhaps skated over that we need to go into in more depth?

At the end of the day, we're trying to be helpful to the department and help highlight the importance of its role in terms of improving environmental protection for Canadians. That's my final question.

More specifically, Mr. Pascoe, on this issue of water quality in Lake Ontario and in the Great Lakes in the province of Ontario, I'm—perhaps cynically—a skeptic about Mike Harris and the performance of his government. That's sort of my starting point. But that aside, do you think it makes sense for the federal government to monitor the permits the provincial government is putting out allowing people to put stuff into Lake Ontario or Lake Erie?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Do I think it makes sense for us to do it?

Mr. Gar Knutson: To monitor the permits, the number of permits. For example, if five years ago they issued 100 permits and this year we find they've issued 1,000 permits, wouldn't it be worth exploring why they are doing that?

The Chairman: Also, this goes back to newspaper reports from two weeks ago to the effect that the Ontario government does not see anything wrong—I suppose you are drawing from that—in increasing the amount of effluents because the feeling is that this will not affect the concentration.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: It might be easier for Ian to say what you've done.

Mr. Ian Glen: Okay. I guess I would maybe disagree with what was said, because in those two cases, I wrote to both of those companies to advise them that irrespective of what the province said and irrespective of any permits or certificates of approval or director's instructions, the requirements of the Fisheries Act and any other federal legislation still stand, and they have to be complied with. Whether or not they meet those permits is really immaterial to me. If they're not complying with the Fisheries Act, then they're in violation of the federal Fisheries Act.

Mr. Gar Knutson: But you said in your earlier testimony that you don't have the resources to enforce.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: That's correct.

• 1215

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we're writing them a letter telling them they'd better obey our laws too, but you're telling a parliamentary committee that....

That aside, I can come to that, but in terms of the big picture, the whole issue of harmonization opens up the question of whether the provinces are going to comply with some national standard and buy into it.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Sure. I think it's very important that not only the provinces but the industries within those provinces recognize the fact that federal law still applies, irrespective of what the province is doing.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I appreciate that. In terms of the issue of monitoring the provincial government, do you think it makes sense, in terms of measuring whether they're living up to their side of the bargain, to monitor the number of permits they issue? I thought it was a simple question, but—

Mr. Dave Pascoe: It's not really, because it makes sense to monitor something if you're going to do something with the information you monitor. If it's just for the sake of finding out what permits they're issuing and we're not able to do anything with it, then it makes absolutely no sense. What it's doing is taking resources away from something we could actually be using them for; it's the same guys we have to do it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: The federal government has indicated that at some point it may have to step in if it feels the terms of the harmonization agreement aren't being lived up to.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Sure.

Mr. Ian Glen: But that's a different step. That's with respect to our own laws and the arrangements made to provinces to assist in enforcing our laws. If we're not satisfied with the standards or the expectations we would have, we still retain the right to go in and use our own authorities ourselves. We're not in an exercise of monitoring the provinces. We will continue to make assessments of whether the agreement is working to effect the results. It's a different issue.

The Chairman: In order to exercise that right of stepping in, the monitoring of the permits would have that particular intent, namely to come to the conclusion of whether or not the federal government ought to step in. This is the line of thought Mr. Knutson was pursuing.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think it makes sense, because it's evidence of a certain mindset. Even that aside, I think if we're going to spend money on a Great Lakes clean-up fund—and I'm just speaking hypothetically. For all I know, the provincial government is doing a jim-dandy job. But if we're going to spend money on a Great Lakes clean-up fund, it would make sense to know whether that money's going to be spent well, to know if here on the side the provincial government is giving permission to dump a whole lot more stuff into the Great Lakes.

I understand you've sent these two letters. We get into this whole issue where if a company acted in good faith and they thought this permit allowed them to do what the permit said you could do and then the federal government comes along and lays charges—and by the way, maybe you haven't sent them a letter. I guess it raises the point. Are you going to be sending every company that gets a permit a letter, saying by the way, you have to be in compliance with the Fisheries Act? If you don't monitor the permit, you can't do that.

Is it just because these two companies were in the newspaper? Why did they get a letter and not other people who are getting permits?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: What we want to do is send a letter to every company that's regulated in the province. For the companies that are not regulated, we're trying—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Regulated under the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Regulated under the Fisheries Act or CEPA—to advise them again that they have to comply with the federal law.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Isn't everyone regulated under the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: No, they're not. They're controlled under the Fisheries Act, but they're not necessarily regulated. Fisheries Act regulations would be things like pulp and paper, petroleum, things like that. We would write to those companies specifically because they are regulated.

What we have also done with the province of Ontario—I'm not sure whether it's in all of their permits, but we're talking to them now about it—is to have a phrase within all their permits that says specifically that this does not allow you to deviate from federal or municipal laws. Some of those permits do in fact say that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I might add that this of course doesn't apply only to industry but to other regulated communities, such as municipalities. I'm not talking necessarily about the ones who are already treating water treatment plants, but the ones who are discharging raw effluent into the rivers and lakes and oceans.

• 1220

Mr. Gar Knutson: And is there a lot of raw effluent going into the Great Lakes?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Not the Great Lakes.

Mr. Dave Pascoe:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sometimes?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Sure.

Mr. Gar Knutson: And presumably they're open to charges under the general prohibition of the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: But we don't have the resources to go down that road.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Well, we do from time to time.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fair enough.

On the issue of Alberta and the clear-cutting in the northern part, that's gotten some publicity on television and.... Are we regulating fish up in northern Alberta?

Mr. Mike Labossière: I'm not aware of any complaints coming in directly to our office as far as subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. Most of the—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Can I just jump in? Do I take it then that you're implying that your office is complaint-driven?

Mr. Mike Labossière: No, no. The department we get involved in with the forestry practices is the DFO with the habitat protection, as well as the provincial department. So I know what you're saying, but I think the questions would be better asked to the proper department.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm just a simple parliamentarian, but on one hand I hear people telling me that in British Columbia Environment Canada enforces the Fisheries Act, and in Ontario they're saying we would enforce it if we had the money. Now you're saying go talk to DFO in northern Alberta.

Mr. Mike Labossière: No. Just to clarify, we will respond to subsection 36(3), which is the deposit of deleterious substances to the fish-bearing waters.

Mr. Gar Knutson: General prohibition.

Mr. Mike Labossière: General prohibition, yes. We would respond in particular to complaints; we do not ignore the complaints. But the forestry practices you're talking about is habitat protection, which is DFO.

Ms. Nadine Levin: That's another section of the Fisheries Act, section 35. And the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is empowered to authorize.... Well, there's a general prohibition that no one destroy, alter, degrade, etc., fish habitat without an authorization from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We are not involved in enforcing that section. So if the clear-cutting that you're describing is having an influence on destruction or alteration of fish habitat, it would not be Environment Canada that would be looking at that question.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So we don't consider logs falling into the river as a deleterious substance?

Ms. Nadine Levin: Oh, that's different—could be.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Logs and sediment could be considered deleterious substances.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We've made probably a rational decision that we're going to treat it as a breach of some other section that we're going to refer to another department.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Sometimes you have to make that decision—

Mr. Gar Knutson: Yes, sure.

Mr. Peter Krahn: —depending on the facts.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I would go back to my final question, just for the panel. I appreciate this kind of difficult exercise—it's certainly been difficult for the deputy minister—in trying to get at the truth without suggesting that anybody in the federal government is acting in bad faith or without trying to bring embarrassment on a political level or a personal level. At least we on the government side are trying to do that. The opposition may have a different agenda.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Easy now.

Mr. Gar Knutson: In any event, I'm just wondering if when you go home today you are going to be saying to yourselves, boy, I wish those guys had asked me this. What would that question be?

Mr. Peter Krahn: I wrote down three points.

Regarding your recommendation 125, I haven't read the full recommendation, but I've picked up the gist of it. Basically, I would say it's important to have all the essential elements needed to enforce the law. If you take things and put them in a special group and all the elements go with it, even just practical things like investigators' labs, lab staff, and experts, or definitely have access to that.... Right now we have to use outside experts against companies that do consulting for them because we have lost many of our in-house experts. That's one factor.

With respect to agreements, it was brought up that provincial inspectors do poor jobs. Well, I can assure you that federal inspectors are capable of doing that as well. That's a quality issue that we struggle to maintain all the time. I would not want to leave this and have it published in the paper that we have said that all provincial inspectors do lousy jobs. We have very, very competent counterparts.

• 1225

With respect to a provincial agency that is fettered by a conflict of interest of the provincial government, I think it is important that there is an alternate—that is some duplication, as you referred to—that can help out when needed to assist the provincial agency with the conflict.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I would add one element. Because technologies change all the time and because situations get more complicated all the time, one issue that is critical in ensuring this quality of enforcement is training. I would call it more than training; I would call it ongoing learning. This also requires attention.

Ms. Nadine Levin: One thing about regulatory design.... One of the things we put into the pulp and paper effluent regulations when we revised them was a requirement for the industry to do environmental effects monitoring. That would mean the industry would be providing data for us after a three-year period on the environmental effects of their effluent. That assists in determining if there has been any environmental improvement, no environmental improvement, status quo, or worsening of the environment.

In terms of regulatory design, I think it would be a good idea to put emphasis on activities that regulatees undertake to self-inspect and to provide a certain amount of data on the effects of their activities. The department itself also needs to maintain its resources to do environmental effects and base-line monitoring so it can develop the appropriate limits to ensure the environment is protected, whether this is land, air, or water.

Mr. David Aggett: If I were a member of this committee, one of the questions I would like to ask is are there federal government departments out there that are responsible for protecting the environment that are at the same time in a conflict of interest position.

As an example, if we had a department of widgets that was responsible for the health of the widget manufacturing industry in the country who also had within their legislation the responsibility for ensuring the widgets didn't cause environmental degradation, is it appropriate for them to have both of those mandates? Have they been put in a position of asking themselves, if we enforce the environmental side we actually can injure this industry?

You probably, without a great deal of thought, can identify some of those kinds of departments out there.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Aggett. Any others? Mr. Glen.

Mr. Ian Glen: I'm not going to suggest questions you should have asked.

I just wanted to go to a point that was raised yesterday. I would say it was raised in a humourous way, so I'm responding in a thoughtful way and not in any way pointing comments at particular individuals. It was a comment on brown envelopes, the capacity of how we learn and how we don't learn.

My sensitivity—and once again you would be surprised I actually thought about this last night—was particularly to this group in the enforcement area. They're a very professional group, and they don't engage in that practice; that isn't one. But beyond them in Environment Canada, we, instructed by our minister and on our own as well, want to share with the committee in the proper way as much information as we have latitude to provide. That's a commitment we've made to you.

The exercise of brown envelopes is a difficult one, because since coming here I've heard from time to time that the department has a reputation for that. I would say I don't believe that's true. I believe it's an organization that works within the bounds of conduct expected of them. If there are difficulties in getting information from us that you feel is needed, please address them to me and we will.... I think you'll understand where I'm heading. This gang is a very professional gang.

The Chairman: This is a very appropriate theme on which to conclude our meeting today.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If I may comment, seeing as the brown envelope comment is mine.... If I've inferred any ill against any of the witnesses, I do apologize. That was not the intent. I certainly apologize if I've attacked your integrity.

• 1230

The point was that if there are areas—and I think you've been very forthright—my concern was for you, protection of you from the bureaucracy, shall we say. I just wanted you to feel that the protection, as much as we can give it, is there. But there was no inference implied or intended.

Mr. Ian Glen: And we take it that way.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Ian Glen: Mr. Caccia, we've made undertakings to get back to you on a number of things. If I may, just to coordinate within our own house so it comes back effectively, I'm going to be asking François Quesnel, who serves as the normal go-between, to try to do the lists with the clerk so we make certain it's clear. We understand the time constraints we impose on you if we're slow getting back, so we'll try to pull together a number of those undertakings as quickly as possible.

The Chairman: Certainly we appreciate that very much, and also the way the meeting has proceeded and concluded.

Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Martin: I apologize, Mr. Caccia. In my previous remark concerning Trioxide, I said that over the past 20 years, we had never succeeded in bringing Tioxide into compliance. That may have perhaps insulted Mr. Lincoln who, I believe, was Minister of the Environment at that time.

In his defence, I can say that personally, I believe Mr. Lincoln was one of the best Quebec ministers of the Environment. And he was the one who set up the first enviro-police in Quebec. So if there were any remarks in that respect or if people think that Mr. Lincoln let Tioxide do as it pleased, I can tell them that that was not the case, in my opinion.

The Chairman: That is very nice of you, Mr. Martin, and we thank you.

[English]

Ms. Nadine Levin: Mr. Gilmour and others have raised several questions about overlap and duplication. We did do a chart comparison of Bill C-74 and existing provincial legislation, if it would help in your analysis. It's strictly a factual comparison. No attempt was made to seek out provincial policies on how they apply or what priorities they assign to various sections of their act, but that comparison does exist.

The Chairman: All these interventions at the end are very touching, and we appreciate them.

In writing our report, as you will have already noticed, we will pay considerable attention to recommendation 125, the agency. We will pay certainly a lot of attention to the additional requirements. And of course the quality of our recommendations to Parliament and to your minister will depend very much also on the kind of advice we will receive from you.

Therefore we would certainly appreciate, for those areas where there's been perhaps incomplete information—and I'm referring in particular to additional requirements—if you were to come forward and provide us with your latest views and assessments as to how we should provide the kind of service, through you, on which Canadians and the public interest depend.

We appreciate very much your time and effort and the expert knowledge you brought to the table. We appreciate the work you're doing daily, and we'll do our best to match your expectations. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.