PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 26, 1998

• 1536

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), we are considering chapter 27 of the December 1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada, “Ozone Layer Protection—The Unfinished Journey”.

Today we have as witnesses Mr. Brian Emmett, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I'd like to especially welcome Mr. Emmett today because this is the first time he has appeared before the committee as the commissioner. He appeared, I think, once at the in camera meeting when this report was tabled and he answered some questions at that time, but this is the first time he has appeared in an open meeting.

Welcome, Mr. Emmett. We look forward over the years to great things from your office.

You are also accompanied today by Mr. Wayne Cluskey, principal of the audit operations branch; and Mr. John Reed, director of audit operations branch.

From Environment Canada we have Mr. François Guimont, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection service; Mr. Vic Shantora, director general, toxics pollution prevention directorate; and Mr. Bernard Madé, acting chief, chemicals control division.

From Public Works and Government Services we have Mr. Bruce Lorimer, director general, architectural and engineering services.

From Health Canada we have Mr. Rod Raphael, acting director general, environmental health directorate, health protection branch; and Dr. Yvon Deslauriers, head, lasers and electro-optics unit, non-ionizing radiation section, radiation protection bureau, health protection branch.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Could you repeat what you said about ionization? Don't look at the paper.

The Chairman: I don't think I will. I got through it once.

We still start with the opening statement from Mr. Emmett of the Office of the Auditor General. Mr. Emmett.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your welcome. We very much welcome the opportunity to be here today to discussion chapter 27, “Ozone Layer Protection—The Unfinished Journey”.

Ozone depletion has been linked to increased skin cancer, eye cataracts and other human health problems. More than 60,000 Canadians developed skin cancer in 1997. Of these, 3,200 will have melanoma, and of these 660 are expected to die. Because of its northern location, Canada is one of the countries at most risk from the effects of ozone depletion.

[Translation]

In dealing with ozone-depleting substances in the early 1980s, the government was faced with a number of challenges: taking action in the face of scientific uncertainty, the need for global controls, and the need to build bridges to lesser developed countries. The result was the signing of the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances, in which Canada played a key role.

Our audit found that Canada had chosen an appropriate approach to address the problem.

Ozone depletion is a global problem and Canada has been pursuing a global solution.

• 1540

[English]

Domestically, Canada has successfully phased out its manufacture and import of CFCs, and most are no longer a significant part of our economy. The federal government has implemented the regulatory regime agreed to under the Montreal Protocol and Canada has met or exceeded all its international commitments.

However, we did find inconsistent inspection practices by Environment Canada to ensure compliance by companies. In addition, our audit found a lack of leadership within the federal government with respect to the management, replacement or elimination of ozone-depleting substances.

Our report, in addition, notes that recent surveys indicate that 50% of Canadians still do not use sunblock or otherwise protect themselves in the sun, and there is no formal strategy on the part of Health Canada to encourage behavioural changes in this area. The federal and provincial governments should be doing more to advise Canadians of the health risks associated with ozone-depleting substances.

[Translation]

The problem of depletion of the ozone layer is still a real one. Let me single out two important problems. First, government officials from developed countries, including Canada, report a loss of momentum in ozone layer protection, due in part to the perception that the problem has been solved. If this misconception is not corrected, the ozone layer will continue to disintegrate and the harmful effects of radiation will continue to increase.

Second, the role of developing countries is becoming more and more important. For example, the Montreal Protocol gave developing countries until 1997 to meet many of the targets we have already met. However, even with this longer period, several have indicated that they will be unable to do so. In addition, some countries with economies in transition are already in default. The ultimate success of the Montreal Protocol will be determined by practices for managing ozone-depleting substances in developing countries.

[English]

The Montreal Protocol demonstrates what can be achieved with diligence, cooperation, patience and persistence, but the job is not finished. Finishing the job will mean that the federal government must set a good example by managing its own inventories of ozone-depleting substances and having an inspection program that ensures proper management of private sector inventories. It will also mean directing available resources to those activities that maximize benefits to the recovery of the ozone layer. The federal and provincial governments will need to work together to ensure that they have consistent and complementary regulations. Finishing the job will also require Health Canada to emphasize the necessity of covering up adequately in the sun, using sunblock or other health protection measures.

Finally, we need to work with developing countries to help them meet their obligations. This is in our interest as well as theirs.

In summary, to finish the job the federal government must resist a sense of complacency. In my view, ozone depletion remains a high-priority problem that directly affects our health. We've made great progress, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The journey is still unfinished.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I will be delighted to answer any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Emmett.

Now we're going to hear from Environment Canada. I think the statement has also been circulated.

Mr. Guimont.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Environnement Canada): We are glad to be here today to answer your questions.

[English]

Canada has been working to understand and address ozone depletion for a good period of time, as much as two decades, 20 years. Our scientists and policy makers have contributed significantly to addressing this global issue. We're very proud in Environment Canada of the work that has been done both domestically and internationally—being champions of and forcing through the Montreal Protocol, and getting agreement on it.

• 1545

Significant progress has been made on the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances. We have reduced Canada's supply of such substances by 96% in less than a decade.

The 1992 national action plan is an example of a successful federal and provincial partnership. The plan addressed Canada's obligations under the Montreal Protocol, and in addition, it went beyond the requirements of the protocol by addressing emission reductions.

The tasks identified in the 1992 national action plan have been implemented and all provinces now have mandatory recovery, recycling and emission reduction requirements. I was pleased that the Auditor General's report recognized Environment Canada's efforts to coordinate this complex harmonization issue. As the Auditor General's report notes, however, there is still some work to do, and we do acknowledge that.

[Translation]

Significant progress has been made on the phase-out, as I already mentioned, thanks to our partnership with the provinces. We also worked with developing countries under an existing multilateral fund. Canada is not the only country involved, but we are part of it.

[English]

The Auditor General's report notes, and we acknowledge, weaknesses in our enforcement of the ozone-depleting substances regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[Translation]

We acknowledge that there are some problems with smuggling. As I shall explain in a moment, it is a difficult issue to deal with, but we are implementing some measures to address the problems.

[English]

As the Auditor General notes, effective enforcement of ozone-depleting substances is pivotal to meeting our commitments under the Montreal Protocol in curbing smuggling. To improve enforcement and address the challenges of smuggling of ozone-depleting substances, Environment Canada is in the process of strengthening relations with national and international partners, developing an intelligence capacity, and improving the exchange of current information with the enforcement community. The enforcement capacity has not been reduced in the department, despite program review reductions. Enforcement of the ODS or ozone-depleting substances regulations is a departmental priority.

Notwithstanding the weaknesses noted by the Auditor General, there have been some success stories in the enforcement of the ozone regulations. These are recent examples.

Recently, close cooperation between Environment Canada and the U.S. agencies has resulted in the conviction of a Canadian who is now serving a two-year sentence in Georgia for the illegal import of CFCs into the U.S.

In a second case, a recent case, charges have been laid both in the U.S. and in Canada against a company called City Sales Ltd. and the owners of this New Brunswick firm. They were charged with illegally importing approximately 70 tons of CFCs into the United States.

Turning to other issues raised by the Auditor General, I would like to note that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has recently accepted the renewal of the 1992 national action plan. This action plan has been filed with the clerk, together with the actions we're going to be putting forward vis-à-vis the recommendations made by the Auditor General. So those two documents outline actions that are ahead of us.

Just to summarize in a nutshell what is contained in the renewed national action plan, which was sanctioned by the ministers of the environment in Newfoundland on January 29, there are a number of measures in there that essentially respond to a number of the points made by the Auditor General:

- The issue of cost-benefit analysis will now be considered and covered in the new national action plan.

- The issue of better defining roles and responsibilities for the various tasks being outlined in the national action plan has also been detailed.

- Objectives and outcomes have been put forward in the national action plan. This is another step forward in addressing the Auditor General's concerns and comments.

- Measuring and reporting on performance will also be based on the objectives that are outlined in the plan.

- Consultations on strategies for the destruction and disposal of ozone-depleting substances will be taking place in 1998. Members should understand that it's not just a matter of curbing production of new ozone-depleting substances, but it's also a matter of managing existing stocks, whether we talk about CFCs or other ozone-depleting substances.

Environment Canada is moving forward with the issuance of a contract to prepare a discussion paper, which is customary in the business we're in. That discussion document will be presenting options for stakeholders to consider and consult upon, and we would like to move from that discussion document to interaction and ultimately to putting in place a strategy to destroy and replace CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

• 1550

This, Mr. Chairman, covers the essence of the points I wanted to make. I will be more than glad to answer your questions.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now we'll ask Mr. Bruce Lorimer from Public Works for an opening statement.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer (Director General, Architectural and Engineering Services, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. With me today is Bob Davidge, who is the director of environmental services for Public Works and Government Services Canada. He'll be able to assist me in answering any questions you may have later.

We believe that Public Works and Government Services Canada, as the largest federal custodian and an important service agent, has a significant role to play within the federal government with regard to ozone-depleting substance management, which ultimately impacts on ozone layer protection. The nature of our role can be expressed in terms of the vision statement of the real property services branch: “to be recognized as adding value to achieving client and government objectives through the delivery of the most timely and affordable real property programs”.

Within the context of this vision statement, we believe that Public Works and Government Services Canada has three primary ways in which to contribute: by participating and contributing at the interdepartmental level to form policy and regulatory direction, by facilitating good management on the part of other custodians, and by striving to eliminate our own ozone-depleting substances within our inventory. In the next few minutes I will address each one of these, although most of my emphasis will be on ozone-depleting substance management in our own inventory.

At the interdepartmental level, representatives from Public Works and Government Services Canada have actively participated in the Federal Facilities ODS Regulation Working Group. The purpose of this interdepartmental group has been to prepare the draft federal halocarbon regulations and to stay apprised of federal ODS management.

[Translation]

As for our role in facilitating good management on the part of custodian departments, a good example is our work for Transport Canada. We were hired to prepare their ODS Management Strategy in August 1994.

Transport Canada has since implemented this strategy and has successfully interfaced the inventory database we created into its environmental Management System.

[English]

The third area of our responsibility focuses on our own backyard. Within Public Works and Government Services Canada, the most common application of ozone-depleting substances includes air conditioning and refrigeration systems, which account for the majority of CFCs and HCFCs. Halons are used primarily in fire protection systems and extinguishers.

As mentioned in chapter 27, Public Works and Government Services Canada developed a CFC management strategy in 1992. In 1993 we also developed our halon management strategy.

The CFC management strategy was based upon the inventory of Public Works and Government Services Canada's large chillers, which was conducted in 1990. At that time our department owned a total of 122 chillers, containing approximately 106,000 kilograms of refrigerant. Consistent with the directions provided in the 1992 CFC management strategy, most of these CFC chillers have now been either replaced, converted or upgraded to improve containment and recovery of the refrigerants. Implementation of the remaining management plans should be completed by the end of this year. Additionally, we have upgraded our maintenance procedures to conserve refrigerants.

With respect to halons, the management strategy commits us to phasing out halon systems. While most of the halon systems that are present in our facilities are owned by the tenants, we have helped various departments to phase out these systems.

Chapter 27 expressed some concern regarding the priority that departments place on ODS. I would like to address this issue up front.

In our department we have developed and implemented a strategy that is based on the cost-effective environmental management of these systems. In some cases we have contained existing equipment that uses CFCs, in others we have converted the equipment to use alternative refrigerants, and in still other cases we have entirely replaced the equipment that used CFCs.

• 1555

[Translation]

Since developing the CFC Management Strategy in 1992, Public Works and Government Services Canada has spent over $4 million on implementing the strategy. This is very low considering the size of the inventory. To complete the implementation process will require a further expenditure of $1,8 million. The strategy was developed with the intent of fulfilling our environmental obligations to the best of our ability given limited resources, while ensuring that funds were still available to contribute to the management of our other environmental issues.

[English]

Through our sustainable development strategy, we have committed ourselves to meeting and/or exceeding relevant ODS regulatory requirements and phasing out the use of ozone-depleting substances to respond to the deadlines laid out in the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its subsequent amendments.

Our targets include: to economically phase out CFC use from our chillers, to reduce refrigerant losses from chillers to a maximum of 4% per year, to complete implementation of the 1992 CFC management strategy by 1998, to economically phase out our own halon systems, and to help our clients economically phase out their halon systems.

The final issue I would like to bring before you pertains to the new alternative forms of delivery contracts that have recently been signed by our department. Under this system, the private sector will be managing many of our assets. While this removes our department from most of the hands-on responsibilities of daily facility management, it does not eliminate our responsibility to demonstrate environmental leadership in the management of these assets.

Therefore, as with many other environmental issues, ODS management has been integrated into the performance evaluation of these contracts. Under the alternative form of delivery arrangements, contractors are required to provide nine environmental reports. Of these nine reports, three pertain to ozone-depleting substances. This is indicative of the extent to which Public Works and Government Services Canada is committed to proper ODS management.

[Translation]

In closing, I would like to reiterate my department's support for the management and elimination of ODS. We have been proactive in containing, converting and replacing our equipment, in a cost- effective and sustainable manner. We will continue to facilitate good environmental management by providing assistance to our clients, and by participating in related initiatives regarding this subject.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now we will hear from Health Canada, Mr. Raphael.

Mr. Rod Raphael (Acting Director General, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's very important for us here today to recognize the importance of this subject: the depletion of the ozone layer and, as the commissioner has noted, the potential impacts with respect to health, particularly the most serious impact with respect to skin cancer.

The department believes it is very important to take a population health approach within our addressing of this issue and to recognize the partners that we need to have with us on this issue, as the commissioner has noted. We see the 50% mark, as noted by the commissioner, as evident not of success but of the fact that we need to do more work. In the background notes we have given you, we have summarized some of the activities we have undertaken in the past few years.

It's very important, I think, to note the point from the commissioner on the lack of a formal strategy to address behavioural changes that are required. Health Canada has taken that recommendation from the commissioner and is now assessing public education programs within which we might redirect resources towards this important issue. As well, we are discussing with our partners—provincial agencies and governments, health professionals and radiation protection officials across the country—initiatives under which we might partner in a more effective manner to take action on the 50% that remains to be protected.

• 1600

I think it's also important for us to recognize that the public education is an outreach based on sound and solid science. Through our efforts within our department and in collaboration with our scientific partners at Environment Canada and others, we strive to further refine the information with respect to the scientific basis for action. Dr. Deslauriers and I would be happy to answer questions concerning our activities.

[Translation]

In our department, we are very proud of our program, but it is obviously lacking some essential resources. And also,

[English]

it's very important for us to have partners in the effort who also bring to the table different expertise.

I wish to note for you our experience in some of our programming outside of this area but in the area of protection of children. We note that the traditional modes of having information change behaviour—or what we thought were the traditional modes—may not be the most effective. We have to look at the entire family, including extended relatives, and we have to look at where families are getting their information on health protection.

The example I am alluding to comes from looking at the safety of children's products. We note that it's quite often the grandparents who have a great influence on the safety of children and who are able to influence parents to take particular action to safeguard children. In this respect, we are looking at some of our efforts in our seniors programming to reach across the intergenerational barriers to see if we can have a concerted effort on that 50% that the commissioner has duly noted remains to be acted upon.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Raphael.

Mr. Mayfield, eight minutes, please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking each of you gentlemen and your departments for coming here today to discuss with us this subject.

It's probably repetitive to say that what we're talking about is the health of not only human beings but other species. Some of them are experiencing genetic changes and mutations as a result of radiation, it would seem.

I look at the Auditor General's report and I see that there is a lack of leadership being provided by the federal government. I notice there is an absence of inspections being made. I understand this is a cooperative thing you're doing, that you can't do it all yourself, and that the provinces are involved in this national action plan.

I am wondering what the relationship is between your bodies and the provincial bodies that are responsible for looking at this problem and solving it. I would like the Environment people to answer, please.

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

On the question of our relationship with the provinces and how we operate, the first point I would make is that the Montreal Protocol sets some responsibilities for Canada, and the way we have handled it federally is to deal with the question of import, export and scientific activities. Through the work we have done with the provinces, they have agreed to take on the responsibility for emission control, recovery programs and recycling programs.

So that is the interface, if you wish. We are looking at what's coming into the country and what's going out of the country formally. We also have enforcement responsibilities, obviously, because if we are controlling import and export, that means we want to be active at the border. We've left...and it's not “left” in the sense of saying “You do this”. Through a cooperative arrangement back in 1992, which was updated just a month ago, we left the emission control, recovery and recycling programs at the provincial level.

• 1605

The working group that has put together both the first and second action plans, through dialogue and discussions, agrees on a set of measures to support these three activities at their level. They take on responsibilities and they regulate, and it is fairly consistent across Canada. Ten provinces have a regulatory framework in place to discharge those three points I have made. One territory, the Northwest Territories, has it as well, and the Yukon has a guideline in place. Essentially there is, through that dialogue, a level playing field on the actions supporting those three areas.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have eight minutes and then I give up on this, so I need to push you a little bit.

How is the plan working? How is the cooperative relationship working? What are the benefits that are being shown? When I see a lack of leadership, I wonder why it's falling down, why the aggression needed is not there. What are the deficiencies in this? What are you doing to improve it?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General has clearly said that the Montreal Protocol, in directly discharging a responsibility domestically, is a success story—I'm using my own words here—from a federal-provincial perspective. So it is working. That's my first point.

The way it is done is that after people have discussed measures, they go into their own jurisdictions and deliver their part of the deal that has been made. If we look back, both in 1992 and in the new action plan, which goes beyond—even in 1992 the national action plan went beyond what the Montreal Protocol was asking for. The new, renewed action plan also goes beyond the latest elements that were agreed to last summer in Montreal when the conference parties sat together.

The point I am making here is that, to me, for a country to go beyond what legally is required internationally implies that cooperation is working.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: That's true, but the leadership within our own country that the Auditor General points to is what I'm speaking to. I would like you to address that point, please.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, that point speaks more to what I would call the federal house, and in the federal house we are coming forward with a set of regulations—regulations that are obviously legally binding—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: When will they be—

Mr. François Guimont: They will be gazetted in the Canada Gazette part I in May.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: At the end of May.

Mr. François Guimont: So for all intents and purposes the regulations are ready.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Is your department taking the lead of departments of the federal government in looking at this problem? I see Public Works has suggested that they are making conversions. There are problems with halon for fire suppression. I don't think that problem has been solved yet.

I do notice, though, that you're trying to keep your losses down to 4% a year. This may be good, but what we're looking for, what we're pushing toward, is the point where there are zero losses and zero storage. It seems to me that we have a way to go on that. I am also thinking of the inspections the Auditor General mentions.

What I'm looking for is how you are looking to yourselves and to cooperating with the federal departments and with the provincial bodies involved in this to make these improvements the Auditor General is pointing to.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I'll respond at two levels, the federal house first. We hope very shortly to have legally binding regulations—Canada Gazette part I in a matter of months. That means Environment Canada, as per its responsibility, will be carrying inspections of these sites, the same way we do at the border. That's the second point.

I believe the federal departments, through their sustainable development strategies, will be empowered to be very responsible vis-à-vis the regulation. I'd like to believe that.

I would also like to note that the federal contribution to what's in existence in Canada today, in terms of substance-wide ozone depletion, is between 5% and 10% of what is actually in existence. I want to say this because it's not a majority. I'm not saying it's significant, and I know there's a leadership responsibility, but it's not a majority.

The other point I would make has to do with border enforcement. That's your point about the Auditor General saying there seem to be problems at the border. The answer to that is the following. We need to upgrade our intelligence capacity, and we recognize we have a weakness there. Why intelligence? Because smuggling is not like walking into a plant and saying, you are discharging or exceeding the regulations and therefore you are getting a warning letter. We have to be better at going upstream, understanding how the operations are operating in order for us to be able to get the right people.

• 1610

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Do you have the resources to go to Customs and look at their documentation? Do you have adequate resources to do the inspections and the enforcement necessary?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, this was my second, very important point. We must have better partnership. I acknowledge that we need to renew our MOU, our memorandum of understanding, with Customs. It's multiple layers, so we need to have better relationships within Canada, and that means a better relationship with Customs and a better relationship through formal MOUs with the RCMP, for obvious reasons of intelligence and capacity gathering.

We have already begun a dialogue with the U.S. EPA and U.S. Customs on the point that we are controlling imports but not exports. We need to have the correlating efficiency on the U.S. side. We want to have formal MOUs with U.S. Customs and the U.S. EPA for intelligence capacity.

The third or last layer is international. We are working with INTERPOL, which is an international body that looks into investigative and intelligence-type gathering activity. They have a group specifically related to ozone-depleting substances, because the flow of smuggling is not only between Canada and the U.S.—it is there for sure—but there is also greater movement of these substances.

The efficiencies I'm speaking to are tied to being able to use the muscle of others—that's a better way of expressing it—to augment the impact of our enforcement capacity.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

Mrs. Barnes, eight minutes, please.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of our witnesses. You have a very important program before you, and I think you know that.

I'm concerned that, by your own intelligence and statistical gathering, 50% of Canadians obviously don't believe it's a problem if they don't even put on sunscreen when they go outdoors. I'm really concerned that you are telling me that in 1998-99 there's no budget to do public education in the way you've done it in the past, when you are telling me in the same breath that 50% don't get it.

I was lucky enough to spend a day or two in Montreal in September last when we had the anniversary of the Montreal Protocol—the international event. I spent some time listening to some of the delegations and touring the information booths. I actually discovered that a company in my own city was very instrumental in metred-dose inhalers, which is another aspect coming onto the market soon. Again, an education process has to go on here.

After that, after spending one or two days of educating myself a little bit more, I made sure that my next householder, which went out to every household in my constituency, had a little article about what each one of my constituents could do—very simple things. I talked a little bit about what the future holds and what happened in Canada. I would invite you to be a little more aggressive with the 301 federal representatives here, because we get four mailings a year and we could do our share of education. It's not going to cost you anything, except putting together something like a ten-percenter or some small article and pushing it on our offices. I think Canadians are concerned, and we are a vehicle of education.

We have other tools available to us. We have broadcast tools through cable channels. Remember to keep us in the loop, because we are not just representatives; we are disseminators of information. Sometimes I don't think that message gets through to the bureaucracy as well as it should.

My next point is with respect to the magnitude of the problem if the problem disappeared today. If we stop doing everything today, is it fifty years before...?

The Chairman: Nods don't quite make it to the record. Could we have a response, please, Mr. Emmett?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. Fifty years is my understanding.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Let's put that on the record. Give me a full answer so we can do a little bit of education for people who read the Hansard. Fifty years for what to happen, if we stopped?

• 1615

Mr. Brian Emmett: Perhaps I'll ask Mr. Reed to answer this from a technical point of view.

Mr. John Reed (Director, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): The 50-year estimate comes from the United Nations scientific community. It basically says that if every nation complied with the Montreal Protocol fully it would take another 50 years before the ozone layer repaired itself.

That 50 years has to be put in context, because there's no guarantee that every nation will comply fully. As the chapter notes, developing countries in particular are experiencing problems meeting their obligations. That's a best-case scenario, if everything goes well.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: To assist the developing countries in particular we've set up the multilateral fund. Can somebody explain the multilateral fund for the record?

Mr. John Reed: I guess I will. The Montreal Protocol itself recognized that there had to be participation by both developing and developed countries. The way the developing countries agreed to participate in the protocol was through the establishment of something called the multilateral fund. It is a fund that developed countries contribute to, Canada included, and that money is then used directly in developing countries to assist them in making conversions of technologies and facilities to either produce alternatives or to modify manufacturing facilities that use the alternatives.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Is it true, and I know it is, that we have substances in use commercially every day for which we have no alternatives yet—for example, the fire extinguishers on airplanes?

Mr. John Reed: Yes, that is true. The term “ozone-depleting substance” covers 90-odd individual chemicals and they have something in the order of 3,500 separate applications, everything from fire protection to refrigeration, solvents, medical devices. For the vast majority of those applications there are acceptable alternatives on the market, but there are some applications, such as the one you mentioned about fire protection in airplanes, for which no acceptable alternative has yet been found.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Chair, I just want to state for the usefulness of this forum that one of the reasons we bring people here is because they've done what we think is not as good a job as they could have. Another is to provide a forum for you to get your message out.

My eight minutes today is not going to be spent on questioning you but allowing you to talk more, because as part of the steering committee that said I wanted you here, that's why I wanted you here. I don't care who takes the time left. Tell the rest of Canada more about what's needed to be done here.

The Chairman: We'll start with Mr. Raphael from Health Canada.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Thank you. In response to the first point you made, we are reassessing our programming. At the time the information was prepared we took a look at the programming, and it's clear that over the years our programming has declined. The reason for that has been program reductions, reallocations, and cuts. I think we still have a strong science base, but the information programming will require an injection. Within the department we're looking at how we can twin the activities, because this is not the only information programming we're doing. It's significant, but there are other large ones, which include tobacco, AIDS programming, and so on. We are looking at piggybacking on some of those initiatives, but we're also combining our efforts with the provinces. We have a planned workshop to take place with the Canadian Radiation Protection Association, provincial officials, and health care providers. From that we will be going out to a broader outreach in terms of using community associations and the voluntary sector to double, triple, and quadruple the message-taking.

We realize we can't do it all. We realize that to be a good partner you still have to come to the table with something with which to partner with others on the other side. You can't just say we need partners. You have to be there, have a presence, have a program.

• 1620

Our department, in response to the Auditor General's report, will be doing that. We will be coming forth with activities with our provincial partners. We've already undertaken discussions with them, as with the health professional groups.

I think the basic message, as you have put it, is we're really only halfway, at best 50%. In the evaluation of the information programs, we need to look at some other modalities. It's not necessarily more of the same. It's also looking at the groups we don't reach, why, and rethinking our approaches.

So I wouldn't say it's just a case of putting more resources into the old type of programming. That's also a significant part of the work we're doing with our provincial colleagues and health care providers this spring.

The Chairman: Unfortunately we can't go right across all the departments, Ms. Barnes. We will run out of our eight minutes.

Mr. Mahoney, four minutes, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you. I would like to ask you about the education component, because it's my sense that the 50% figure might even apply to the House of Commons. Without being partisan, I've heard some members say they think a lot of this is political science rather than actual science, and that concerns me somewhat.

It seems to me if we're going to educate the Canadian public, the place where we really have to start is in the lower grades, in elementary school. I wonder if in either department you've done things along the lines of interactive software programs that kids might use in their computer programs at school, or if you've put together some kind of program teachers could use in certain classes, dealing in social studies or community studies or whatever. Do you have some stuff you could share with us on that?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes, we have initiated some of that programming and developed materials. There are brochures we have, and packages within science programs and social studies programs, as you have noted. But quite often our main focus has been to look at overall environmental issues and awareness. At the level you are talking about within the school system, some of that programming is going on, getting materials that are specific to those junior grades.

Where we have really run into problems, frankly, has maybe been with young adults, people between the ages of 18 and 35. We're experiencing similar problems in other health protection areas within that age group. They are not necessarily specific to skin protection and so on. They have a lot to do with our understanding how these groups behave, why they behave the way they behave, and the underlying belief structures, if I can put it that way, of people about health and health protection.

It demands developing different materials actually to focus on the sensitivities of these groups. It's more than just saying we're interested in the teenage males and the invincibility of teenage males and the kinds of ideas that we have around that and that we encounter in other aspects of health protection. It goes to how to influence them and what are the modes of influence within that group.

So the short answer is yes, we have some materials. I don't believe one set of materials meets all the needs. We're looking at some of the information we have and have garnered in, quite frankly, disease transmission areas and anti-smoking areas within that same group to see how we can actually influence their behaviour, because I think the key point the Auditor General and the commissioner's report show is that we need to be able to change behaviour. It is not necessarily to get information uptake but to see people actually changing their behaviour, using either sunscreen—and we plan to look at ways to monitor the utilization of sunscreen in various groups—or other protective measures, such as sun avoidance, which is also very important, where possible, for people during those peak periods.

• 1625

I will turn the rest of the question over to my colleagues from Environment Canada, who would be able to discuss some more of the larger-scale information programming in their meteorological service and the UV index.

The Chairman: We are now going to go to Mr. Harb, who wants to ask a few questions. We might have time to come back to Ms. Barnes and Mr. Mahoney's questions.

Mr. Mac Harb: It is more of a comment than a question. As human beings, I think we are the worst animals ever to have inhabited this earth.

The Chairman: Some of us.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, most of us.

Think about it. Over the years, everything we have done, we have done for ourselves as human beings. Over the thousands and thousands of years we have been around, we have never really done anything for our environment. I think in the 19th and 20th centuries the environment has been turning around and it's beginning to avenge itself, telling us, day after day and decade after decade, it's time for action.

I'm a politician and an engineer, and I look for solutions. I want to say that politically we have not seen many solutions around the globe. What we have seen is a lot of propaganda around the globe. I would say thank God for our public servants here in Canada, both provincially and federally. Not only are they providing leadership here in Canada but they are providing leadership around the globe, in a sense. Canada has become the country that has taken action on environmental issues.

That leads me to a question. When I think of the environment I think of trees, I think of fruit, I think of water. I want to find out if reforestation of the world, or part of the world, would have a positive impact on the ozone layer or a negative impact.

The Chairman: That would be addressed to Environment Canada?

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, that would be a good place.

Mr. François Guimont: I myself will venture on this one.

I don't want to be too technical. The very nature of reforestation is a phenomenon called photosynthesis, which is what we call fixing carbon in trees. This is the lowest common denominator, if you wish, in the food chain. This issue of reforestation, deforestation, and CO₂ balance is tied to the climate change issue, as opposed to the ozone-depleting issue.

The ozone-depleting phenomenon is one of substances that have a characteristic of being very stable. That is why CFCs were invented and put forward. They are very stable substances. They last a long time. They go up in the atmosphere and they interact in the higher atmosphere, and through a phenomenon they destroy the ozone, which protects the earth from UV radiation, for example, which comes from the sun.

Those are two different phenomena. I am not sure there would be a connection between reforestation or deforestation and ozone, but I stand to be corrected. I'm looking at my colleague, who is a scientist with our service. He may provide a further answer on this.

Mr. Angus Fergusson (Scientist, Atmospheric Environment Service, Department of the Environment): I'm a scientist with Environment Canada in Downsview, Ontario.

If you go back and think of the way the earth was formed and how the ozone layer developed, if you go back 4 billion years, you can imagine an atmosphere that was just filled with CO₂, methane, and ammonia. Then if you jump ahead 2 billion years, plant life started in the ocean. That's what made the oxygen. Oxygen rose and sunlight broke down the oxygen into ozone. Then the plants occurred on the earth and those plants used up more CO₂ and produced oxygen, which then broke down and helped form the ozone layer. If you put more plants on the earth, they're going to use up more CO₂ and produce more oxygen, which will help balance this natural balance in the atmosphere.

• 1630

So I would have to say that, yes, reforestation does help in that manner.

Mr. Mac Harb: Good question.

Mr. Chair, that's really a very important point, because if you look historically at what has been happening, as we have cut more trees around the world—in Africa, Asia, and everywhere else—not only have we created frustration that has caused wars, but we have created an economic mess in those societies. They have less rain as a result of that. It causes people to invade other people for their goods and services, and it has created a mess.

Canada is in the best position now, globally, to mount a campaign at the next meeting of this ozone layer business, and/or any meeting, in order to link the reforestation aspect to economic development around the globe. I want to put a buzz in our bureaucrats' ears that we have a lot to gain from that, because we have a lot of forestry resources and I think we can provide a lot of leadership to the rest of the globe on that. I want to find out if that's something you'd be interested in pushing at the next meeting, whenever that's going to take place.

The Chairman: We'll have a quick answer. Who attends the Montreal Protocol meeting? Is it Environment Canada again?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, we do lead the Canadian delegation, with Foreign Affairs.

I would ask my colleague, Mr. Madé, who has been closely tied to negotiations, if that aspect of reforestation was ever put on the table in terms of discussions of items that are put forward at the conference of the parties.

Mr. Bernard Madé (Acting Chief, Chemicals Control Division, Department of the Environment): I think the question of reforestation was raised and is an important element of discussion on the international climate change convention. I think it is the appropriate forum. As far as I'm concerned, and perhaps Mr. Guimont can confirm this, it is an important element of the strategies being discussed to address the climate change issue.

Mr. François Guimont: If I may, just to close the loop, Mr. Chairman, coming out of Kyoto certain flexibilities were put forward and agreed to between countries. The whole question of reforestation, which I understand is essentially to plant trees in areas where you have no trees.... Reforestation is an element that can be taken into consideration in the context of the Montreal Protocol.

The point I would make here is that, from the explanation of my scientific colleagues, there would be, through that protocol, an ancillary positive effect if there's a connection between reforestation/afforestation-type activities versus the ozone layer protection.

The Chairman: Mr. Mayfield, four minutes, please.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think I'd like to begin very briefly by responding to Mr. Harb. One of the reasons we make mistakes as people is that we have choices that other people don't have, and sometimes those choices are not good choices. For example, the kinds of chemicals we're talking about have been, I'm told, cheap and easy, and they were manufactured and used without realizing the consequences. Now we have the choice of trying to do something about that.

While we protect our people with the best education we can and encourage them to use the safeguards that are necessary under these conditions, I think it's important that we understand the seriousness of the problem and try to motivate people, including ourselves, to do something about it, to reclaim the ground we've lost and repair the damage that's been done.

I was asking last about whether you were able to dig into customs records and see where this stuff is coming in.

The other thing I'd like to know is this. If this stuff is coming in and if this stuff is being smuggled, there must be a demand for it here. I'm talking about not the regulated stuff but the stuff you're trying to track down and deal with. Are you able to identify those who need this and are prepared to take improper measures to get it?

1635

Mr. François Guimont: I would answer, Mr. Chairman, at two levels.

First, the commissioner did pick that up. We have had a tendency to focus on what I would call the bigger reclaimers of CFCs, the bigger companies, and we were not as coherent and consistent at going to what I would call the second-class type of people utilizing, for example, CFCs—a small outfit that recharges heat pumps and things of that nature. Now we're going to be much more systematic in getting the listing of the people involved in the purchase of existing stocks of CFCs—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Are you involved in getting into that now? Is that a process you've started?

Mr. François Guimont: We have started that. It's outlined in the action plan. The first step in that process is one of developing the so-called list of utilizers of these substances and circulating that—that's intelligence gathering—to our regional offices. That has to be the first logical step, so instead of simply having the bigger-type companies...we not only have those, but we have the secondary people involved too.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: And you're well along in that program, are you?

Mr. François Guimont: We have started, in all fairness, as a result of the commissioner's observation in that area, but we are moving ahead. In all fairness, I would have to go back and check when these lists will be ready. I could file that with the clerk. I don't have the time line here with me.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I wonder if you could report back to the committee on that, please.

Mr. François Guimont: I will.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: This is not simply a Canadian problem; it's an international problem. I'm wondering what leadership Canada is playing in controlling this problem in other parts of the world. It's not ours to control in other parts of the world, but we can encourage, help, assist. What leadership is Canada providing in that? Along with that, are we tying some of our trade agreements to this type of control?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, on the first part of the question, how do we help the developing countries to be weaned off those substances, because they are in large part signatories to the Montreal Protocol, the answer is in the multilateral fund, and I just want to put it in perspective. It's important. The fund is something like $466 million U.S. This is a fair amount of resources. It goes by tranches of three years, and we are now in the second tranche, between 1997 and 1999.

Let's talk about Canada's portion—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Up to $1 billion has been spent on this. Is that correct? You said $466 million, I believe.

Mr. François Guimont: The replenishment level I have here is $466 million. My understanding is that this would be for the second tranche of the replenishment period. So it's almost half a billion.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: All right.

Mr. François Guimont: Canada's portion of this is done through a UN scale. Our contribution is $17.1 million U.S. Within that, it's $5.7 million per year. So the total for the tranche is $17 million U.S. that Canada is contributing to the multilateral fund.

Earlier my colleague explained that 20% of the resources we put forward can be tied to so-called bilateral programs with a country. So we match with a country, for example, on a technology that we want to help them either develop or install in their country. It's not just straight cash; it can be a bilateral program, up to 20% of the sum. We have had 13 bilateral projects with a number of countries, and that puts us in the first three countries that contribute to the multilateral fund in the number of bilateral projects that have been sponsored.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

I'll move to Ms. Caplan. The reason I'm moving on is that we expect the bells to ring and I'm trying to give people an opportunity to ask questions.

Ms. Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'd like to follow along, if I can, on the theme of my colleague, Sue Barnes, and that is the need for public education, the fact that we have so many ministries participating. Obviously there's never a good way to get the message out so that everybody hears it.

I remember many years ago being involved in a massive public education campaign at the beginning of the concern about AIDS. I think the campaign was something like $7 million. I listened to the people who were proposing the campaign. A piece of literature went to every door, we were in newspapers, on the radio, there were television spots. The whole thing was to raise public awareness, public consciousness. They told me at the end of this eight-week campaign, if I remember correctly, there would still be 5% of the public who had never heard of AIDS and did not have their consciousness raised as to what they could do to protect themselves.

• 1640

So I am aware of what the challenge is. I know it's not enough to send a brochure to the door. You have to have a multiple strategy to raise public consciousness and make them aware of, first, the issue, and second, what they can do about it.

Sue was talking about the use of householders and ten-percenters, and you talked about the resources available. I think it would be very helpful—and I'm talking now for all the MPs in this House—to be aware of what the resources are and perhaps to use our resources and our desire to make our constituents aware of the problem. Let us know who good speakers might be to come out to town hall meetings or open forums. Let us know what videos or materials you have available. Frankly, I don't think a brochure coming to the door is going to matter much. As much as possible, it has to be a direct engagement.

That's a request. Could you let us know what is available and what we could do to be part of giving our constituency information they need, so not only can they protect themselves but they can participate in engaging in protection of the environment and starting down that track? You say if everyone did everything they had to do today, it would still take us 50 years to repair the damage, so we know this is not something that's going to disappear overnight even if we all were engaged in this.

I've been amazed at the public participation in things such as Earth Day. Sometimes it's just engaging the population, and it's a challenge. I think I speak for all the members I've ever met. I think they would like to be able to facilitate and to help wherever they can in delivering information that is valuable and important to their constituents.

I will just go back to the other point I made. I am a grandparent.

An hon. member: No!

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes. Actually, I'm expecting my fourth grandchild in May. The oldest is three and a half.

I found your comments about the influence of grandparents very interesting. I'm wondering where that comes from. I didn't realize I was so influential.

The Chairman: And not only on Parliament Hill, obviously!

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I know my children never listened to me, so the fact that my grandchildren might....

I'm interested in what studies you might have.

Mr. Rod Raphael: That experience comes from our child safety initiatives across our health promotion and programs branch and our health protection branch, specifically the use of certain tools such as our safety calendar over the years, and also some particular work we've done in conjunction with various private sector groups. One is the Hudson's Bay Company.

The particular experience we're referencing is the baby safety week at The Bay. You've probably heard of that. It's interesting to note that the majority of the purchases being made during that week in terms of products we look at from the point of view of safety—cribs, strollers, and what not; large purchases—are being made by the grandparents, who are exerting an influence on the safety environment of the young children.

Previously we found, I think two years ago, with our information bulletin on lead in mini-blinds, that a number of contacts we had—I think we had a total of close to 400,000 contacts on that, from across Canada—a significant number were seniors and grandparents, who clearly, from the information they gave us, were in a position to influence the environment of young children. They had young children coming to stay with them for the summer holidays or they were purchasing materials to go into their children's homes, making up the room for the baby or the youngster. They were influenced by the information and contacted us to explore the options they had in purchasing materials that might be in the environment of their grandchildren.

• 1645

The Chairman: Mr. Lorimer, you haven't had much to say this afternoon, but I understand Public Works and Government Services maintains a large inventory of these ozone-depleting substances. The Auditor General has pointed out that the government has to take a leadership role, and more can be done and should be done to take a leadership role to demonstrate not only to Canadians but to Canadian business and other people around the world how important it is to get on top of this. What new initiatives is your department taking to ensure that the government demonstrates leadership in inventory management of these ozone-depleting substances?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: About ozone-depleting substances specifically, I can read out a list that gives you the progress we've made with our major chillers, because of course the major chillers have the greatest quantity.

Of 110 chillers across the country, we have converted 30 from CFCs to what we now believe are safe substances. We have contained 56. We have replaced 15. We have 4 remaining to be done this year.

The Chairman: Thank you. As I look at paragraphs 27.84 and 27.85 of the Auditor General's report, they have been critical of the “minimalist approach to the management of ODS, uneven implementation in departments and inconsistent treatment of common issues”. We're talking here about government-wide direction on these environmental problems, and what they are saying, of course, is that it's not just the Department of the Environment, it's not just the Department of Public Works, it's not just the Department of Health, but who takes, or should be taking, the lead role to coordinate government-wide responses and initiatives to ensure we're demonstrating leadership.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, I think in establishing policy it would be Environment Canada. Committees are established with delivery departments such as ours.

The Chairman: My point is that it's fine to say policy is Environment Canada and delivery is your department, but each deputy minister runs his own little fiefdom, the way I understand it. What deputy minister has the authority to tell another deputy minister he or she has to jump on board? Which DM has the authority to take the leadership and say “It falls under my umbrella and I'm going to move this issue forward”? Does anybody have that authority?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: I will have to look to my colleagues to answer that question. I believe the coordination is through a committee. I don't believe any specific deputy minister has that authority.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I would say the answer is at three levels. The first one is that every department has to have its sustainable development strategy. Supporting the sustainable development strategy, which is really looking at the way it's operating, etc., it has to have its own environmental management system. My colleague is probably referring to components of their environmental management system. Every department is empowered to deliver the business through a publicly available sustainable development strategy, which is to be reviewed by the commissioner. To my mind it's a very formal process.

There is a principle in sustainable development. If we want to achieve sustainable development, if we want to move in that direction, we have to empower everybody. It's not a matter of one enforcing it in the other. I guess the same thing is true at the federal level. It's a matter of being able to see each and every department assume its responsibilities vis-à-vis the environment.

• 1650

That's the first thing. The second thing is that our deputy minister chairs a sustainable development committee of senior DMs.

The Chairman: He's the person we look to to provide that coordination.

Mr. François Guimont: For a number of issues related to sustainable development and the environment. This is a forum where discussions can take place.

The third way leadership is manifested is through what I explained at the beginning, the passing of a regulation that provides for what I would refer to as a level playing field, so what is done on the outside, not federally or federally-provincially—what we're expecting of companies, etc.—will now be brought in at the same level federally through that regulation, which is going to be gazetted sometime in May.

These three elements combined imply to me that the federal system is fully accountable for the things it has to do about ozone-depleting substances.

The Chairman: Let's hear from Mr. Emmett.

Mr. Emmett, your report speaks of a minimalistic approach in management, uneven implementation in departments, inconsistent treatment of common issues, and lack of leadership on interdepartmental initiatives. What should be done?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague from Environment Canada has raised an interesting point, and that is whether the decentralized approach, giving each department the obligation to look after its own ozone-depleting substance inventories, will actually work. We are charged with looking at sustainable development strategies. There's no requirement for those strategies to contain a department's plan for handling its sustainable development strategy. It's entirely within the mandate of the department.

This is an area I worry about a great deal. One of the key functions of government is to set the rules for others. When I see the government falling behind the best practices of others in the private sector, I think it is time to worry. I attach a great deal of importance to this area, and I think it's time we had a consistent, centrally driven inventory management process throughout the government.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Emmett.

I think what I'm hearing around the table is that this is a good-news and bad-news story. There's a lot of good news, because Canada has taken the initiative and recognizes there are problems that have to be addressed and we are addressing them. At the same time, there are areas that have some concern and need to be addressed.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to make a suggestion to the committee and perhaps the steering committee. This decentralization of authority to see a project driven is not limited to this problem. We discussed the same problem when we were looking at the millennium problem and getting the computers updated. I'm wondering if this is a more general problem throughout the government and the various departments and this committee might spend some time looking at it.

The Chairman: We can raise that in the steering committee.

Mrs. Barnes, do you have a comment?

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I'll just follow along. I certainly think there's an opportunity for this committee to do some public education. Following up on our talk just now, I've canvassed my committee members. I'm prepared to invite these gentlemen back to a televised hearing, so they can put a little more on the table and more Canadians can listen to it. From my side and that of the steering committee, we're in total favour of bringing them back and trying to get a televised room.

The Chairman: The transcripts of this hearing are available from the clerk for the benefit of the witnesses if they want to follow up on what has been said and what has been requested by the committee members.

The clerk will be in touch with your offices to arrange a date when he can have the Railway Room. Mrs. Barnes has promised it will be available to us.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: It's not in my control, Mr. Chair. It's totally out of my control.

The Chairman: We will endeavour to have the Railway Room and to have it televised, to try to broadcast the good news that Canada does have and is trying to demonstrate a leadership role in this particular area. You can expect to be contacted by the clerk. We'll be returning to this issue another day.

For everyone else, of course next week is a break week. On Tuesday, March 10, at 3.30 p.m., it's on chapter 35, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, on reserve capital facilities maintenance, and chapters 23 and 36. There were three issues about Indian and Northern Affairs, and we are wrapping them all up into one larger debate.

• 1655

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Which three chapters?

The Chairman: Chapters 35, 23, and 36. I'm sorry, chapter 35 and chapter 23 of the 1995 report.

On Wednesday, March 11, it's the normal briefing by the Auditor General.

Gentlemen, we have to run. We have bells. Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.