PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 14, 1998

• 1531

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)): We have a quorum for receiving evidence, so we'll start now.

Inasmuch as we had a meeting about the ozone layer a couple of months ago and we asked the witnesses to come back, I think I should make an opening statement and acknowledge what we heard before.

Chapter 27 of the Auditor General's report of December 1997 presents the findings of an audit that was done of the federal government's implementation of the Montreal Protocol and other controls on substances that deplete the earth's ozone layer. The committee decided that this is an important issue. Accordingly, we met with Mr. Brian Emmett, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, and officials from Environment Canada, Health Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada on February 26 to explore this subject further.

Toward the end of that meeting, committee members indicated they wished to continue examining this issue and requested that a second meeting be held. It was felt that a second meeting would provide the witnesses with an opportunity to explain to Canadians the risks associated with ozone layer depletion and the steps their departments are taking to reduce these risks. Accordingly, I welcome the witnesses back before the committee and look forward to their testimony and answers to our questions.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I would like to introduce you one by one.

We have with us, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Brian Emmett, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development; from Environment Canada, François Guimont, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection service; from Public Works and Government Services Canada, Bruce Lorimer, director general, architectural and engineering services, real property services branch; and from Health Canada, Rod Raphael, acting director general, environmental health directorate, health protection branch.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Emmett, would you would lead off with a five-minute opening statement? Thank you.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to highlight again just how critical the ozone layer is to the health of all Canadians and the preservation of our environment. Ozone depletion is a serious global environmental problem, and because of its northern location, Canada is one of the countries most at risk from ozone depletion.

[Translation]

Without that protective layer, plants and animals are damaged, and public health is threatened. Ozone depletion is linked to serious health problems such as cataracts and cancer. More than 60,000 Canadians are estimated to have developed skin cancer last year. Of these, 3,200 will have melanoma and, of these, 660 are expected to die.

This is why Canada has attached a high priority to preventing ozone depletion and played a creative and respected role in the global effort to reduce the use of ozone-depleting substances, such as CFCs.

[English]

Ten years ago, Canada, along with more than 160 other countries, signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances. We believe it is important for Canadians to know how well Canada is doing. Are we living up to our obligations and promises? Are our efforts achieving our objectives? Are our efforts enough to protect and rebuild the ozone layer so that it, in turn, can protect us and our children from the harmful rays of the sun?

• 1535

We were first struck by the fact that 50% of Canadians do not protect themselves from the sun. Information on solar radiation is readily available in an understandable form, the UV index, so that people may take appropriate precautions, but there is no formal strategy on the part of Health Canada to get people to change their behaviour.

Second, we noted that Canada had met its international commitments to stop making or importing ozone-depleting substances. At the same time, the federal government lacks an overall up-to-date strategy for managing its inventories.

Finally, Environment Canada has the job of inspecting companies that handle these substances, and we found that its efforts were inadequate, insufficient, and inconsistent.

My biggest concern, however, is staying the course. Ironically, a degree of success on this issue has led people to believe the problem of ozone depletion is solved. It is not. The harmful effects of solar radiation will continue to increase, doing irreparable damage to us and our planet, if we do not continue our efforts. Our work is only half done.

[Translation]

Finishing the job means that Health Canada must be more effective in educating adults and children about the ways to protect themselves from the sun.

Finishing the job means the federal government must review its overall strategies for policy, enforcement and management. It must set a good example by managing its own inventories of ozone- depleting substances.

Finishing the job will mean using effectively the resources available for ozone layer recovery. The federal and provincial governments will need to work together to establish priorities for action and to ensure that they have consistent and complementary regulations.

[English]

Finally, finishing the job will require Canadians to work more closely with developing countries to ensure we all meet our commitments. Ozone depletion remains a high-priority problem that directly affects our environment and our health. We have made great progress, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The journey is still unfinished.

This committee can play an important role. You can emphasize the dangers of complacency among individual Canadians and among departments. You can obtain a commitment from a department that action on ozone depletion remains a priority and that departments develop specific plans for dealing with the problems identified.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I and my colleagues would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Now, from Environment Canada, Mr. François Guimont...if you would, please, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions. I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that my notes are available in French and in English. In a way, it's a follow up on the presentation I made to the committee a few months ago. I brought a few copies for committee members who would like one.

With me today is Mr. Bernard Madé, Head, Ozone Protection Program Section in my service.

[English]

I also have with me today Dr. Wardle, who is the chief scientist for the ozone layer protection program.

[Translation]

In my presentation, I'd like to cover five important aspects of this program: the science-action question, the initiatives taken by Canada to counter the depletion of the ozone layer, the challenges we face in terms of enforcing our regulations, as noted by the Auditor General Office, the leads we're exploring to make the program more effective and, finally, what Canadians can do to support the program.

[English]

First, on the science-action question, 90% of all ozone is concentrated 15 to 35 kilometres above the surface of the earth. This is what is called the ozone layer. An important physical property of ozone is that it absorbs ultraviolet-B radiation very effectively, protecting the earth from most of these damaging rays.

• 1540

At the beginning of the 1980s, scientists identified some disturbing and unusual changes happening in the ozone layer. They found that at certain periods of the year there was an abnormal thinning of the ozone layer, especially over the Antarctic. Scientists came to the conclusion that to a great extent, ozone depletion was the result of human-made chemicals interfering with the natural ozone cycle. Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, proved to be the leading cause of ozone depletion.

In 1987, 24 countries, including Canada, signed what is known as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. There are now 164 parties to the protocol. The department has provided domestic and international leadership over the years through the conception, development, and implementation of the Montreal Protocol.

In 1992 Canada launched Ozone Watch, a weekly report providing Canadians with up-to-date information on the status of the ozone layer. We also created the UV index program, which provides daily information on the intensity of the sun's ultraviolet radiation.

[Translation]

Second: domestic initiatives. Our international commitments must be supported by concrete actions at the national level. These are outlined in the National Action Plan of 1992 which was published by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

The National Action Plan is a concrete example of federal- provincial parternship. We used this plan to not only act upon Canada's commitments as a party to the Montreal Protocol, but we went further by trying to reduce emissions of pollutants.

Actions outlined in the National Action Plan of 1992 were implemented and right now, all provinces require that emissions be recovered, recycled and reduced.

Very recently, on January 29, 1998, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has endorsed a renewed of the National Action Plan. The revised document takes into account the Auditor General's recommendations regarding the first version.

Important progress has been made towards eliminating ozone- depleting substances, which we call ODS. For instance, Canada has reduced its supply of ODS by 96% in less than 10 years.

I was quite happy to see that the Auditor General has recognized Environment Canada's efforts to act as a coordinator to deal with the complex issue of harmonization. However, as noted in the Auditor General's report, there is still a lot to do and I'll come back to that when I describe the challenges we face.

[English]

The third point is implementation issues. Regarding the implementation of our regulations, the Auditor General report notes, and we acknowledge, a challenge in our enforcement of the ozone-depleting substances regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are moving assertively to address this issue. In February I tabled an action plan to address enforcement and other issues highlighted by the auditor.

To improve enforcement and address the challenges of smuggling of ozone-depleting substances, Environment Canada is in the process of strengthening cooperative arrangements with national and international partners and exchanging information with the enforcement community. Enforcement of ODS, ozone-depleting substances, regulations is a priority within the department.

Notwithstanding these observations made by the Auditor General, there have been success stories in the enforcement of ozone-depleting substances regulations. As an example, the recent close cooperation between Environment Canada and U.S. agencies has resulted in the conviction of a Canadian who is now serving a two-year jail sentence in Georgia for illegally importing CFCs into the United States. In a second case, charges have been laid by both the United States and Canada against City Sales Limited and the owners of this New Brunswick firm. They were charged with illegally importing approximately 70 tonnes of CFCs into the United States.

Turning to other challenges facing us, one of the aspects we must now address is the conversion of existing equipment and the destruction or safe disposal of CFCs that are still in use. This includes equipment and ozone-depleting substances owned by the federal government as well as the private sector.

I am pleased to report that we have started working on a strategy for the disposal of unneeded ozone-depleting substances. Stakeholder consultations have already started, and a discussion document will be developed for further consultations in the fall. As indicated in the renewed national action plan, Environment Canada will develop the disposal strategy with provincial ministries of the environment. The national action plan calls for the disposal strategy to be in place by the end of 1999, but Environment Canada will do its best to complete it sooner.

The multilateral fund for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which is financed by industrialized country parties to the protocol, was established in 1990 as a vehicle to provide developing country parties to the protocol with access to funds and for the transfer of non-ozone-depleting substances expertise and technologies.

• 1545

Canada's annual contribution to the multilateral fund is shared between CIDA, at 80%, and Environment Canada, for the remaining 20%. Under the rules of the fund, donor countries can reserve up to 20% of their contribution for so-called bilateral cooperation projects with developing countries. Environment Canada uses its annual 20% contribution for this purpose. Canada has undertaken the implementation of 14 such development projects to date.

The last point is public involvement. What can Canadians do to address the issue of ozone depletion? First of all we must protect ourselves and our children from ultraviolet radiations by using adequate sun protection lotion—

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I'd like to ask our witness to speak a little more slowly to make the interpreter's task easier.

Mr. François Guimont: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I will slow down. I'm more than happy to do so. I was pressed for time a bit, trying to fit everything in the four or five minutes.

A voice: Don't worry about that.

Mr. François Guimont: Very good.

I was speaking about what Canadians can do in protecting themselves, such as applying lotion and protective clothing. These obviously are things all Canadians have to do for themselves. It cannot be imposed.

Second, Canadians should also ensure that their car air conditioners and domestic appliances are serviced by certified technicians who will recover the CFCs when it is necessary to do so. This is a second measure Canadians can take.

One of the measures in the renewed national action plan calls for the provinces to prohibit by the year 2000 the recharging of car air conditioners with CFCs. This is a very bold measure, and we will need the support of all Canadians to implement it.

Canadians need to be aware of the issue of ozone layer depletion and the measures taken to protect the ozone layer. They need to show support for the strong actions identified in the national action plan, the one that was renewed in Newfoundland just in January, for the various measures now contained in that renewed plan to be put in place and implemented.

We have publications that explain all the aspects of the issue and we have a very comprehensive web site, which can be accessed via the Internet. I encourage everybody to do so.

[Translation]

At this point of my presentation, I'd like to ask my colleague, Dr. Wardle, who is a scientist, to give you an overview of two or three scientific aspects of the issue which, I believe,

[English]

will interest very much the committee. This is newer evidence.

Dr. Wardle.

Mr. David Wardle (Chief, Experimental Studies, Atmospheric Environment Division, Environment Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to talk to you.

I do indeed think you'll be interested in one aspect of the long-term considerations about the ozone layer from the science, and also I want to mention what we can expect for the ozone this year.

I hope everybody has the handout from me. Perhaps I will just wait a moment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): We will pause for a moment here.

Mr. David Wardle: Thank you.

Perhaps I could ask you to leave aside the turgid text I've written on the front page and turn to the first figure. My aim here is show you that we have measured ozone at many places in Canada, including Winnipeg, and this is the record of our daily measurements for last year.

• 1550

My main point here is to demonstrate that ozone is a very variable quantity, like temperature or anything else to do with the weather, and often when we talk about it we have to take averages for the future over time and over areas of Canada.

You'll notice that in Winnipeg it became as much as over four millimetres thick at some times, and sometimes less than three millimetres. That's only a look at one year of data. But I should say that if we, understanding as much as we do about it, examine the first part of the year, we are able to make a sort of prediction of what will happen over Canada for the summer, which is the important period for sunburning, as you know, of course, and we do that. This is part of our policy to give as much information about ozone values as we can.

We've made many predictions since 1993, and this year's prediction is that actually, for various reasons to do with atmospheric circulation, we're going to have an amount of ozone that is not very different from the average of what we used to get many years ago. But that is only this year, and ozone is variable.

We've had in Canada the benefit of measuring ozone for a long time, so we can distinguish these natural variations from what it appears mankind has done to the ozone layer. If you turn to figure 3, you will see the picture of ozone depletion over Canada for.... This happened in the last 15 years, and you'll see the record from starting just in 1960, and the conclusion of that is that, yes, it does vary a lot. In the last seven or eight years, it's been 6% below the average of what it used to be, which you know, of course. You'll notice even on this graph that at the very end there's a turn-up because we've been having some high values this winter, and we expect them like that in summer. That's how it is over southern Canada.

If you look at the fourth graph, figure 4, you will see that this is the concentration of the substances that we believe are responsible for a lot of the ozone destruction in the atmosphere, and you'll see very good news here. The two main ones are on this graph, CFC 11 and 12, and CFC 11 is already decreasing. So that's the driving force, at least the man-made driving force, of ozone depletion. We're already exhibiting some control on it.

Life is never quite so simple as that in nature, and I would like to show you now this rather new thing that has shown itself in the Arctic, particularly over the Canadian Arctic. Here again, if you look at figure 5—we're fortunate that people 40 years ago spent the money to start making these measurements—you see a quite different picture. Yes, it begins in 1967, but in the last few years its been dropping very sharply. We're now at something like 25% below normal over the Arctic area, and this shows itself especially in spring, just like the Antarctic ozone hole.

We know why this is in small detail; it's to do with cold temperatures. It was first suggested seven years ago by a British team that possibly global warming, which actually makes the stratosphere colder, which makes ozone depletion more effective, is playing a part here.

We saw these data these last few years, and we reported on them last year, and more recently, as you've probably seen in the newspapers, there's been a simulation of this effect by a United States model. These models are very error-prone, and we mustn't take any particular prediction as cast iron, but they are suggesting that the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, are causing this extra depletion in the Arctic, that it's going to get worse, and that the overall recovery is at the very least going to be 20 years later than one might otherwise have predicted it. I don't feel particularly comfortable making predictions 50 years into the future, but this is the best we see it at the moment.

So I'd like to leave you with this idea that we have an interaction of two problems that we all know about. Thank you.

• 1555

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): The only point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, is that most of us won't be there 50 years from now to see if he's right or not.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): You won't be? I was counting on myself.

Thank you, Mr. Guimont and Mr. Wardle.

And now from Public Works and Government Services Canada, Mr. Bruce Lorimer.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer (Director General, Architectural and Engineering Services, Real Properties Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada): Mr. Chairman and colleagues, before I begin I would like to introduce Mr. Bob Davidge, who is the director of environmental services for our department. He is with me today to assist in answering any questions there may be.

We believe that Public Works and Government Services Canada, as one of the largest federal custodians 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. Within this context, we believe that our department's role consists of three primary elements: elimination of ozone-depleting substances within our own inventory; providing services to other federal custodians to assist them to eliminate their ozone-depleting substances; and participating and contributing at the interdepartmental level to form policy and regulatory direction. In the next few minutes I will address each one of these roles, although most of my emphasis will be on ODS management in our own inventory.

When setting the course for managing the ozone-depleting substances in our inventory, Public Works and Government Services Canada adopted the phasing out approach reflected in the 1987 protocol on ozone-depleting substances. Unlike an approach based on immediate bans of these substances, which could force the use of untested materials, the Montreal Protocol's phasing out approach controls production, import, export, and certain uses of ODSs according to staggered deadlines. This phasing out approach, also adopted within Canada's regulatory regime, has provided incentive for new, well-researched solutions to be developed and considered for use over time.

[Translation]

In 1992, Public Works and Government Services Canada developed its CFC management strategy. Shortly after, the department's Halon Management Strategy was also developed. Both of these strategies were created using the phasing-out concept of the Montreal Protocol. Rather than immediately replacing all our CFC-using devices with new equipment using alternative substances, our department developed a systematic replacement, conversion, and improvement approach.

[English]

This cautious approach was taken for several reasons. The HCFCs, which are currently the most viable alternative replacement for CFCs in large air-conditioning equipment, are now recognized as target greenhouse gases. Clearly, replacing one environmental problem with another environmental problem is not an ideal solution. Also, the health risks associated with direct exposure to some of the new alternatives are much higher than the traditional CFCs. It is our hope that eventually alternative replacements for CFCs will be found that are more environmentally benign and safer for people.

In the interim, we have not sat still. Virtually all of our large chillers have received modifications of some sort, either to reduce their rates of leakages, to convert them, or to replace them. Our current CFC leakage loss target is about one-quarter of the recommended U.S. Environmental Protection Agency target.

Our commitment to phasing out ODSs extends beyond our own backyard to providing environmental services to other departments. For instance, in 1994 we prepared an ODS management strategy for Transport Canada. On a day-to-day basis we regularly assist other federal custodians to reduce their own CFC leakage rates where we manage buildings on their behalf.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be really helpful to the public who are watching this not to use initials. I know they're very familiar and we all get in the bad habit, but a lot of people don't know what you're talking about.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Excuse me. That's a good point. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mrs. Barnes.

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: It's also a good test to know whether I know the full words.

• 1600

On a day-to-day basis we regularly assist other federal custodians to reduce their own chlorofluorocarbon leakage rates where we manage buildings on their behalf, and we often help other departments to replace fire suppression systems that use halon.

At the interdepartmental level, we also actively contribute to policy and regulatory development. For instance, we participated in the federal facilities ozone-depleting substance regulation working group, held last week, which prepared the draft federal halocarbon regulations.

As well, last week we co-hosted with the Office of the Auditor General an interdepartmental workshop to define common performance indicators and targets for environmental performance and sustainable development. One of the topics addressed was the reduction and eventual elimination of emissions of ozone-depleting substances. It is our hope that this will result in a federal chlorofluorocarbon reduction target similar to our own.

In closing, having highlighted our efforts related to ozone-depleting substances, I would like to leave with you a few examples of how our department is pushing the larger environmental agenda forward. To illustrate this point, I have provided a diagram that schematically shows the breadth of the environmental issues our department addresses.

We promote “green design” packages through training and awareness programs, and have introduced green concepts into our specification system—namely, the national master specification for use by private sector architects and engineers on our construction and renovation projects.

We provide and promote reduce, reuse, and recycle initiatives to our clients in management and operations of facilities.

We are actively phasing out our PCBs to the point where more than 70% of our sites are PCB-free, and we have played an instrumental role in the implementation of the federal buildings initiative. By 1999, when this program is fully implemented, we will have invested $ 60 million and created 1,200 jobs. This in turn will generate annual energy savings of $ 12 million.

[Translation]

Public Works and Government Services Canada has been proactive in greening our operations, including phasing-out the use of ozone- depleting substance materials. We are committed to facilitating good environmental management in our own inventory, as well as providing assistance to our clients, and contributing to interdepartmental initiatives. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Lorimer.

Now, from Health Canada, Mr. Rod Raphael.

Mr. Raphael, five minutes, more or less, please.

Mr. Rod Raphael (Acting Director General, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to address you and the committee today.

I'd like to introduce Dr. Yvon Deslauriers, who's from the radiation protection bureau within Health Canada. He can assist as well in answering any questions you may have.

I will begin with a short opening statement. I believe the committee has been given copies in advance.

Health Canada recognizes the need to continue, and to do more, to raise population health awareness related to ozone depletion. There is a need to involve more partners and bring more expertise into the process.

[Translation]

As noted in the Auditor General's Report, Health Canada assesses its public education program, reviews those factors which influence children and considers the possibility of combining its efforts with other public information initiatives. Health Canada analyses data on the 50% of the population which does not answer messages on health protection.

• 1605

[English]

The department is looking at integrating the solar ultraviolet public education program within other programs aimed at health protection for youth and Canadians at large. The public communication mandate of more general activities of the federal government could also be used, and should. For example, as previously discussed with this committee, MPs' influence and resources could be better used to inform people about the danger of ozone depletion and the advantages of health protection.

There is no doubt that resources are lacking for this program, and that there is a need to have different partners involved with for expertise, including community associations and provincial counterparts. The focus should be placed not only on existing programs but also on other alternatives in order to reach the 50% of the population that is not responding to the messages.

In the area of partnerships, I'd like to discuss new projects, which are proposed all the time, like the recent proposal, for example, from the Fondation québécoise en environnement, a non-profit organization. Their project, Ozone 1998, targets children seven to fifteen years of age in summer camps. They are collecting $ 175,000 from sunscreen manufacturers and government organizations to reach 25,000 children in the province of Quebec. Conditioning behavioural change in people before they become adults may be more efficient in reducing skin cancer incidence and its costs to the taxpayer.

Scientific knowledge is also evolving. It has recently been reported that sunscreens may not protect people as much as they were thought to. A recent epidemiological report from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research suggests that sunscreens may not protect the user from the formation of cellular lesions responsible for the development of melanoma. Consumers may have less protection than they think and expose themselves for a longer period of time than the actual protection provided would allow.

The department is looking into the implications of this recent study with respect to the skin cancer prevention information being provided by Health Canada to the public, and for regulatory programs on safety and efficacy of sunscreens. This is an active, ongoing assessment to determine the validity of these studies and any regulatory changes that might be required.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you very much, Mr. Raphael.

We will now go to questions. Mr. Anders, eight minutes.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you.

First I'd like to go to the AG's report. One of the things that's identified in the report, in paragraph 27.53, is the lack of a consistent approach in identifying companies subject to inspections. My understanding right now is that some of the identifications happen due to how much they're using ODS. Some of the other ways they go about it with are lists that are done within the department, etc. As a result of a lack of standardization, there is no common approach to this. We're wasting money in a sense, and as well, it's imposing a lot upon business. I'm wondering if you can comment on it.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, with all due respect to my colleague—he wasn't here at the last meeting because he is probably new to the committee—I thought the whole idea for us bringing these individuals today was in fact to educate us and educate the public on what it is they are doing. In fairness to our colleagues on both sides of the House as well as to our witnesses, if my colleague has a question specifically dealing with the AG's report, perhaps he could direct it to them in the form of a letter or at another meeting.

At this meeting, if it's possible, we want to focus on the educational part of things, just to hear from them in terms of public information for ourselves and the public. That's why we are televising the debate and the meeting today, so the public and ourselves will know what it is that's being done in these departments in this particular area.

An hon. member: That's what he just asked.

• 1610

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be educated and I'd like the public to be educated about a consistent approach to identifying companies subject to inspections. What's not educational about that?

Mr. Mac Harb: The purpose of the meeting is not for that. If you want to ask questions specifically in relation to the report, we can do it at another time.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, it is not the job of another member to tell another member—

Mr. Mac Harb: Is this a point of order, Mr. Chair?

Mr. John Reynolds: —which question he wants to be educated on.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Quite frankly, I noticed what was going on, but I did not think it was my place to in effect throttle the member, which is what it would appear to be. I think it's the place of another member of the committee inasmuch as we've already had a two-hour meeting on this. This was supposed to be an extension, and we're plowing old ground here with Mr. Anders. I can understand why he's doing it: he wasn't here before.

But we asked for another two hours with these witnesses, and I think we should try to plow as much new ground as possible. If you would try to do that, Mr. Anders, we would appreciate it.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I have a point of clarification. That was an all-party agreement to do this.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Yes, it was.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, this is new ground for me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Well, I'm sorry, but it is not for the rest of us. Mr. Anders, if you want to leave what time is remaining to you to think about what you'd like to ask, we'll go on to the next speaker. I'll give you the time back that you have left.

Mr. Rob Anders: Just to be fair, if you're alleging that old ground has been plowed, wouldn't it be fair to give us a good idea of what ground has been plowed so that way we can go on to new territory?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): No, I'm afraid everyone here has seen that ground plowed, and those who watch us at home have also seen it. I'm trying to get them as much information as possible, which was the intent, and it was agreed to by all parties.

Mr. Rob Anders: Here's what I'm going to ask, then. Mr. Reynolds points this out. Has this specific question been asked? And whether or not this specific question has been asked, has the entire AG's report been gone through with regard to this?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): The answer is yes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I just have a point of clarification for the member.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Yes, certainly, Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: The whole point was that all of the people around the table at the last meeting felt that there was a lost opportunity as this was not being televised so as to put some of this information at a very basic level before the public. About 50% of the public was not listening to the warnings, and it was very clear from the AG's report that there had been serious cutbacks in educational tools.

We decided to put those issues aside and invite this committee back along with the chair, who was John Williams, who was, at the time, a member of the member's party. We moved this around the table. We set it aside. The steering committee and the committee of the whole decided that this would be an informational meeting and that this group of witnesses was to come back with some of the tools to help the Canadian public understand what the dangers are and how we could help communicate that. That was the purpose of this meeting.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mrs. Barnes.

Mr. Anders, I'm afraid my ruling is that you're going to have to reform your question.

Mr. Rob Anders: Well, I'm attempting to do that, Mr. Chairman, if you'll bear with me.

All right, I'm not referring to the AG's report now, I'm referring to the national action plan. Is this up for question?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): I would think it would be. I would think that would be a fair question.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Proceed.

Mr. Rob Anders: Here we go.

How much does the department spend on an annual basis to protect the ozone layer, and how and where do you report the results obtained through the expenditure?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to answer the question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Mr. François Guimont: In terms of the budget for 1997-98, the activities in the region, including activities at headquarters, research, and the various areas of the department, give us a total of 30 people working. Those are individuals with a salary total of $ 2.3 million, plus or minus, and an operating budget for supporting the people doing the work of $ 2.9 million, plus or minus, for a total of $ 5.2 million. So that is, if you wish, the expenditures for 1996-97 as it relates to the stratospheric ozone program.

The way we would report on these activities would be through the reports, priorities, and planning where we show, essentially, the forecasted expenditures against a number of entries.

Now, going by memory, the actual ozone program may not be singled out in the so-called reports on priorities and planning. If I remember, it's within an envelope called air issues. That's the way we report on the expenditures and the priorities under the program from year to year.

• 1615

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Anders, your time is almost up, but in all fairness, I'm going to award you an extra two minutes in the spirit of compromise and fairness.

Mr. Rob Anders: All right.

Say you're spending $ 5.2 million. Now the question is: how do you go ahead and report the results? How do you justify whether or not $ 5.2 million is working and whether more or less needs to be spent? What type of accounting is there for this? What type of judgment is there on the results?

Mr. François Guimont: As for the way we have been operating that program and other programs as well, we have international commitments that have to be delivered since Canada is a signatory to the Montreal Protocol. There are a number of international commitments.

We have a so-called national action plan, which has been renewed. Members will probably notice—we did circulate a copy of the national action plan at an earlier appearance before the committee—that this plan, as suggested by the Auditor General, does specify clearly who is to do what. It says federally what our accountabilities are, provincially what the accountabilities are, what is to be achieved, and what the milestones are.

Essentially, in the same way provinces are deploying resources in meeting those commitments, we in Environment Canada are deploying our resources in meeting the commitments that have been set forth in the national action plan, which has been sanctioned and agreed to by the environment ministers in Newfoundland in January 1998. We are systematically going through those commitments.

These commitments do have dates. As an example, we're going to be working at moving off CFCs for air conditioning in cars by 2000, if I remember. We have a number of dates that I'm looking at here in the plan, such as 1998 and 1999. Essentially, we have to shape our program along those lines and be able to deliver those commitments, those results.

Mr. Rob Anders: This is probably my last question.

With regard to the costs and benefits produced by the national action plan, how do you make decisions with regard to changes to the plan? How do you figure out, based on a track record, if you will, or a performance what you're going to be increasing or decreasing expenditures on?

Mr. François Guimont: This is an observation that was picked up by the commissioner. How do we know about the resources deployed against those results that we want to achieve? I did speak about the results we want to achieve, which are clear and transparent, with the public. How do we go about deciding where to start in achieving that result?

The department has undergone just recently a so-called internal workshop in March. It's very recent. The specialists sat down and went through an exercise within the deliverables that have to be put forward within the national action plan of deciding where to start in order for there to be some consistency in the actions taken and that the more effective measure is undertaken.

Now if I'm right, the results of that workshop will be put forward some time in the fall. It will be at the end of June, excuse me. So essentially, we've had the workshop. People have discussed what the members are asking, which is: what are the priorities, and how should we go about it? That will be essentially a report, if you wish, that will then be circulated to our people within the department for how to go about delivering the results that we have committed to within the national action plan.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

The next questioner is Mr. Laurin. You have eight minutes, including your usual last quick question.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: The commissioner of the environment said that we could not carry out enough inspections to ensure law enforcement. Can you assures us that you can improve the situation with regard to inspections while reducing costs? In your budgets, I see that the sum you propose to allocate to environment protection is reduced.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, since its a bit of a two- tier question, I am going to give a two-tier answer.

Regarding what I would call the intensity of our law enforcement activities, it is clear that in terms of ozone- depleting substances, the problem is two-fold.

On one hand, there are well identified import-export companies which have facilities producing authorized substances. We inspect these facilities as the risk involved and other criteria require. This is the most visible part of our work and the easiest to understand.

• 1620

Things become a little more difficult and complicated when it comes to enforcing the law and measuring our success in cases of illicit traffic. It's easy to see why. Visiting a facility with an import-export permit and ensuring that everything is done as it should is very easy. There are elements we can check. We can talk to people. But when it comes to illicit traffic, it's much more complicated because we are dealing with underground activities.

In this regard, I should mention what our department is doing to increase its capacity, which does not necessarily mean increasing resources, but rather working more efficiently. The department developed a capacity in terms of what is called intelligence gathering, a capacity to get a little more and not always obvious information. This is a first step. By developing, among other things, this intelligence gathering capacity, we are in a better position to discover any illicit activity.

Second, we have improved our cooperation with other people, other colleagues and other organizations which have more developed capacities than Environment Canada and which can complement our work. I am thinking, for example, of the RCMP with whom we are working on protocols to facilitate our cooperation. There is also Canada Customs, which can help us at the border and contribute to more effective enforcement activities.

But our initiatives are not only domestic. We also have established international parternships. The most significant, as you might have noticed when I talked about the two cases where we managed to nail people who were involved in illicit transfers, is with the United States. Our cooperation is two-fold, and it involves either the environmental protection agency, the EPA, or the US customs authorities equivalent to Canada Customs. These are the two parternships we have established with a view to developing memoranda of understanding.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Guimont, may I interrupt you? You talk about the complexity of carrying out inspections in companies involved in import activities and holding a permit to do so. According to the Auditor General, the way Environment Canada uses Canada Customs data on ODS-importing companies is not very consistent. In many cases, he says, companies importing very large quantities of ODS have never been inspected. What does the department intend to do to correct this situation? As I understand, Revenue Canada knows the name of these companies. Don't you want to use this information? Indeed, wouldn't it be useful to publish it?

Mr. François Guimont: You raised a very good point. Obviously, the commissioners' recommendations have not been useless. You are right and, as the Auditor General noted, we now have access to information provided by Canada Customs and processed by Statistics Canada. This information is gathered in Ottawa and sent to our five regions. Our on-site people now have information on the various permits which have been granted. This way, they can take action, which we did not do previously. This is not an initiative we propose to take; it's being done right now, as we speak. We have, in this case, corrected the situation.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I often see in my office people who come to complain about the poor service they got from some company specializing in air conditioning systems. Apparently, several companies sell that kind of system but use incompetent people to install them. Do you think it's serious enough a problem that we should consider requiring by law that the new air conditioning systems be set up by licensed technicians with recognized qualifications? Is it a serious problem right now or do you think it's only isolated cases?

Mr. François Guimont: In the context of the first National Action Plan—we now have a second version—the federal and provincial governments agreed that provinces should give priority to a number of activities. For instance, there was a commitment to carry out what we call leakage tests, as well as to regulate technicians training. As I recall, some 75,000 technicians were trained.

• 1625

The third initiative concerns the issue you just raised, namely the certification issue. This is regulated at the provincial level. So there is nothing random or voluntary about it. People can get their certification and be authorized to set up, modify or repair some systems. Now, even if there are certified people to do such things, we can still wonder whether non-certified people handle such systems? Obviously, it's much more complicated to determine how big the problem is.

Again, I come back to what I said at the beginning in terms of enforcement. In this case, we also have to rely on intelligence gathering, on our capacity to set up systems through our cooperation with our national and international partners, particularly the United States, and on our capacity to determine whether we can follow some leads to ensure that such situations don't happen.

Mr. René Laurin: What I really want to know, Mr. Guimont, is whether the fact that such systems may be set up by people who are not competent to do so represent any danger for the population.

I know there is a cost because people have to pay for work which has to be done all over again. However, apart from the economic side of the issue, when systems are badly installed, can it put people's health at risk and how? What kind of harm can it cause? I think the public should know about it.

Mr. François Guimont: I understand what you are getting at. I am really not the right person to talk about these harmful effects. Obviously, they will be linked to exposure to some substances which, in this case, would likely be CFCs. I'll let my colleague talk about that.

I was trying to answer your question regarding the possibility that non-certified people work on these systems. There again, as with any illicit activity, it is very difficult to have a precise notion of the extent of the problem. The best way to do it is to go step by step, through our cooperation and our discussions with our partners anything having to do with intelligence gathering.

This is not a perfect answer, I agree, but as with any illicit activity, it's quite a challenge to know precisely how big is the problem.

Mr. René Laurin: But do we know at least which jurisdiction is responsible for that?

Mr. François Guimont: It's the provinces. Certification and the various training courses available to technicians are offered at the provincial level. For example, as I mentioned earlier, if I am a resident of Ontario and if I ask that my car air conditioning system be recharged, normally, a leakage test will be done first and then, a specific and regulated process will be followed. These are the safeguards which have been set up following discussions between the federal and the provincial governments. At the provincial level, there are regulations which are essentially similar from one province to the next.

Mr. René Laurin: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Laurin, you're well past your time. Next round.

Mr. Myers, eight minutes.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'm very interested and somewhat concerned about the figure of 50% of Canadians not aware or at least not protecting themselves and such. I wonder if you've done any sort of analysis or survey as to why that's the case. What's behind that? Do people just not want to think about it, or are there other reasons why that's the case? Can anyone help me out on that?

Mr. Rod Raphael: We've done some surveys over the last four or five years. We haven't done any specific survey in the last year or two. The issue, from our analysis to date, shows a general awareness coming up to the 50% level, but within certain segments of the population we believe there is maybe an invincibility complex that it won't affect them necessarily. There may be other elements related to body image and so on, with respect to the sun.

We're doing some analysis now, not to look at the success in terms of the first 50%, but at the challenge that's ahead. Some of the early information we have is showing it's a combination of factors. It's not any one thing when trying to reach these people. The information is there; we know it's there.

• 1630

For example, one of our publications is called “The Sun, Your Baby and You”, from Health Canada. We've distributed over two million copies of that publication, so we know it's out there. Through community programming, it's part of prenatal information kits.

What we're finding with respect to the timing is that there's a gap between that information being part of prenatal information and being part of parental information for the toddler who gets out there at the age of eighteen months or two years or three years. The information may be provided at an inappropriate time. Maybe it's most useful.... Most people are protecting newborns in terms of this information, but as well, once children begin to go through the many developmental stages, I think the information needs to be reinforced.

So it's not just a case of having more information, it's also the timing and reinforcing. We feel that reinforcement of the information is necessary, maybe by having it come through several different channels to—in the case of a young family—the parents.

In my last appearance before this committee, I referred to an example which we found to be innovative in terms of programming health and safety within the family setting, and that is the use of seniors and grandparents, reaching across generations, whereby young parents are often reinforced in their decision making and their habits by information provided through a trusted individual or family member, that being a grandparent or an elder within their community setting.

That's the information we're finding now. There are alternate routes we can use in order to reinforce the information we have. We think the basic information we have is scientifically sound. As I said earlier, we are investigating some recent developments in terms of protectiveness of sunscreens, but I think it's important within the success of the first 50% to note that we need to have reinforcement and that reinforcement comes from a variety of channels and routes.

That's why we're looking at our panoply of public information programming. It's not a case of having independent silos of public information programming. People are people. They don't necessarily react differently to individual pieces of information. They react to them in their own self-interest and with the information they have in their personal situations.

We believe we can reach them through a variety of means by piggybacking onto existing programming. This is why we've begun a serious examination within the area of public information programming to see how the materials we have, one of which is “The Sun, Your Baby and You”, can form part of other deliverables in terms of community programming.

It's also important to note that we are looking at the potential development of new materials as well, not just at reinforcing with existing materials. It will be an undertaking that is really feedback from understanding how people react to information. That analysis is under way now. There is some elementary surveying going on and the bringing in of expertise to inform on this topic is happening right now.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I take your point about having to expand and build on existing programs and such, but in order to do that, have you done any analysis in terms of the costing that's required or the resources that are required, in terms of what you need to get the job done?

Mr. Rod Raphael: We have done some preliminary estimates of that, but I think they are, if I might say, costed in a rather unidimensional manner in terms of government doing or government trying to do everything in this area.

We realize that it's very important to build on partners and partners who come forward, like the example of the Fondation québécoise en environnement, which is out there organizing outside of government, using our information with our cooperation and collaboration. I think such partnerships offer us the opportunity to put forward a reasonable amount of money from government to stimulate, direct and assist what is truly a community-programmed event.

• 1635

The estimates we have now would bring us into our previous information programming of upwards of $ 400,000 up to $ 1 million, in that range, which was what our programming was at up to about maybe four or five years ago, but we're looking at not programming it the same way. We're looking at programming it differently in terms of arranging partnerships and buying into the existing methodologies and mechanisms out there. Potentially we can save on costs in terms of attempting to duplicate. I don't think we ought to be duplicating the type of proposal that has been brought to us.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): One last quick question, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Is the education system one of your partners and are you, through curriculum development and such, getting involved in the schools at both the secondary and elementary levels?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Yes, we're there already. We have major inputs into that in terms of science programming and health promotion programming, which we are going to be using for this. The key element, though, is that this refers to reinforcement and that will assist us in terms of reaching the young people, but there's a gap in terms of teenagers and young adults. We have to look at exploring that. There may be some other elements or aspects of their information that—

Mr. Lynn Myers: Very quickly, who is this book, your book, Ozone Science, intended for?

Maybe I should ask Environment Canada. Who is this intended for?

Mr. David Wardle: I edited that. That's a statement of the scientific status of ozone research and effects at this time. It's really a statement of what we know, and we need it for ourselves, if you will, but we find that a lot of other people like to read it. It is not meant as an educational thing in the sense that you're talking about.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

Mr. Rod Raphael: If I could add something to this, we do have another publication that we're updating, not only “The Sun, Your Baby and You”, which is specifically for young people. We have an insert which was published in the Reader's Digest in 1995. It has already reached another four million Canadians. In terms of trying to reach the other 50%, we are looking at bringing it back and updating it with the lifestyle information we've now gained.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Raphael.

I know this is a complex subject, but I would ask the witnesses to condense their answers, if they could. That way we can get more questions in and bedevil you more than we can if you give long answers. That might tell you something.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to congratulate the witnesses on the material I've read. It is a great feat to get 50% of the people in this country understanding what a problem is, especially when you think of the millions of dollars we spend on alcohol and tobacco advertising to educate people. Yet with alcohol, nowhere near 50% of the people realize it's bad for them, and with respect to tobacco, in this country we still have a large percentage of people who smoke. With the amount of money you had, you've done done a tremendous job.

I would just like to ask one question to start this off. What participation do you get? As a former environment minister in British Columbia, I used to always look at the duplication between the provincial governments and the federal government. I wonder what duplication there is in this area. Is there any working together by the provinces and the federal government?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll give an answer from the environment perspective. To our minds, this program is a very good example of harmonization between the federal government and the provincial governments: we are not at the same place at the same time doing the same things. Federally, we're looking at production, import and export. Provincially, they're looking at emission reductions, recycling and reclamation. These are very distinct and very complementary. One supports the other.

I will also quickly say that our basic obligations are delivered through what the federal government is doing in production and import-export, and the further actions we have taken—because we are going beyond what the Montreal Protocol is asking as an international piece—are largely related to the actions taking place on the ground through the provinces. To our minds, this is an example of harmonization and cooperation without overlap and duplication.

• 1640

Mr. John Reynolds: I noticed in the AG's reports they're not quite as positive as you are about the harmonization working so well, and I know from my experience when I was a minister of the environment, it didn't work all that well. I thought there was a lot of duplication.

I would like to ask you two specific things. On chlorine and auto emissions, what effect do they both have? In regard to chlorine, you're talking here about chlorine from rocket exhaust, but I'm thinking of the millions of gallons of chlorine being used in sewage treatment plants and other things across Canada, in the water basins, where it's being pumped into oceans. What effect does that chlorine have and what effect do auto emissions have on the ozone layer?

Mr. David Wardle: The main point about chlorine is those things we make that of their own accord diffuse up into the stratosphere and do their damage there. So really, the main contributors are the two you know about, the two refrigerants. They account for maybe 60% of the damage, and that's how it is. There's a lot of chlorine that even comes out of volcanoes and does not make it up into the upper atmosphere and therefore does not count.

Mr. John Reynolds: What about auto emissions?

Mr. David Wardle: They do not contribute directly to the chemical depletion of ozone. The only impact they have is in the global warming. I don't know what proportion they are, compared with the other factors.

Mr. François Guimont: If I may add quickly, as my colleague explained, auto emissions will have a climate change contribution through what we refer to as carbon dioxide emissions, CO₂ emissions. There's a number of other constituents that will produce urban smog. Urban smog is what we refer to more technically as tropospheric ozone, as opposed to stratospheric ozone. It is ozone—I understand that—and it is a combination of auto emissions, in part, together with other compounds called volatile organic compounds, which when combined together under the effect of sunlight—if I simplify things—will produce what we call urban smog.

Urban smog is a situation we are tackling in the department. It's called ozone as well, but it's a different issue, if you wish.

Mr. John Reynolds: We're here to educate the public today. It's good to let them know what those differences are.

I wonder if you can tell us if everybody in your department drives a car fuelled by natural gas, or are you still using the old-fashioned fuel? Or is there a mandate to the government for all their vehicles, that they be switching from gas, which affects this area, to a natural gas product, which is certainly abundant in Canada?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, our department is responsible for procurement of fleet. There is a program for replacement of traditional fuelled vehicles with natural gas. Unfortunately I don't have the details on that with me today, but I can provide them to the committee.

Mr. John Reynolds: Do you have any idea of the percentage? What is the number of cars in the federal fleet, and how many would be run by natural gas?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: I'll have to provide the numbers for that following the meeting.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

Next is Mrs. Barnes, for four minutes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you, and welcome back to our witnesses.

As a young mother, I always used to slather my kids with a lotion, and now I see them as teenagers never seeing the stuff. If I buy it, it sits on the shelf. Even though they know from their childhood days what the problem was, and they were conditioned in a certain way, changing behaviour is different from having knowledge. Changing behaviour seems to me the most difficult at your target zone, which is those teenagers and the young adults. That's true whether that's smoking cigarettes, taking drugs, doing all those things that are not so good for us.

Who is working toward some interdepartmental programs that go at changing behaviour and go beyond informing?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Maybe I can begin that answer in terms of the health perspective. We work very closely with Environment Canada on the development of things such as the UV index and information programming with respect to The Weather Network, and now, the Discovery Channel.

• 1645

Through an MOU, we've just joined with the other natural resources departments. It was once just Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Health Canada has now joined that process and is now working toward a combination of information available with those partners.

We also have, in a federal-provincial dynamic, an advisory committee on population health and working groups within that advisory committee. That's a deputy-level body of deputy ministers of health across Canada. We're cooperating with them in terms of, as you said, joint programming, and also to make sure, and ensure, that there isn't any unreasonable overlap and duplication in the programming.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: One of the things we asked you to bring today was examples of how we could reach out, as members of Parliament, to our own constituents.

I notice it's Environment Canada that has produced this UV or ultraviolet index. Is this in every school in the country, and if not, how can we get it there? Because I think that would be a good starting point.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I'll address this question.

This is a very good point. Our plan with this poster is to reach out to 3,000 schools. Obviously it's not one poster per school, but we want to reach out to 3,000 schools, which is a good, significant number.

We want to hear what happens with this. Is it well received? Is it understood? Is it used? What kind of impact are we having? We then want to plan an expansion of that program next year, which is to reach out even further.

So that's going to be a key tool in getting the level of sensitivity in schools. Kids are a bit more—or a bit less, depending—open to responding to this issue. That's a primary tool we're using right now.

We have had other tools in the past, such as CD-ROMs and publications, but this is the newer tool we're using right now.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I think this would have a better chance of working if....

Do I have any time left?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): You have about a minute.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Okay.

If I were six years old, how would you explain the ozone to me?

Mr. David Wardle: May I try that?

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Go ahead—and I'd love to be six years old.

Mr. David Wardle: I've been doing this longer than most people, maybe.

I wouldn't do it, because that is not the main issue. The main issue is looking after ourselves from the sun, and I would not mix the two things together. We all need to keep out of the sun.

That's how I would start. I'm not going to take it further.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Health Canada?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Not wanting to sound contrary, I think we have to explain the sun and the beneficial elements of the sun for the planet we live on. We need the sun on this planet. The key is to protect and preserve the planet, but as well, we need to be outside, and you as a six-year-old need to get out and play. You need to be active. You also need the sun for your health. The sun must hit your body to create some essential vitamins for you.

So I would like to tell you that you shouldn't be afraid of the sun. The sun is part of our environment. It's part of how we live. But we need to protect ourselves against overexposure, against being burned by the sun. I think it's that element that we would want to get across to a child.

Children at that age can become very frightened of something, and we don't want to have children indoors all the time. Canada is a beautiful country. They ought to be outdoors, enjoying the outdoors. But in the case of enjoyment of the outdoors, there are steps that have to be taken to enjoy it properly so that you can also protect your health.

I think that's the way we would want to be talking to children about the sun and living within the environment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Raphael.

Mr. Harb, you are next. Four minutes.

Mr. Mac Harb: I want to reiterate what my colleagues indicated in thanking you for coming in.

Thanks to Environment Canada, because you have been pioneers not only here in Canada but also internationally in trying to promote sustainable development and the protection of the environment.

• 1650

My question is twofold. First, when CFC goes up in the air, does it go straight up vertically and hit certain spots and start having an effect, or does it go up and twirl with the wind? And if it does twirl with the wind, does that mean in places such as Europe, for example, if one country is transmitting more CFC, it's going to affect the ozone layer of another country? Is there any international standard, if that's the case, in order to deal with who does what? Not only a standard, but is there a mechanism for enforcement, and who does the enforcement?

Mr. François Guimont: On the science aspect of CFC and how it migrates, I'll let my colleague address that, but I'll go to the second part of the question.

The Montreal Protocol sets out obligations. When countries sign on to it—and there are 164 countries—they undertake the obligations spelled out in the protocol. Essentially then a country, by signing on, has to honour those commitments and will go back domestically and backstop that with proper actions, which have to be legal in most cases—not in all cases, but in some cases, for certain provisions.

It is the responsibility then of the country in question, as the Auditor General picks up in the report, to report back their reporting mechanisms under the protocol. So the signatories to the protocol have to come back and explain very systematically what they've done to discharge their responsibilities.

As I mentioned, if I remember, somewhere in the Auditor General's report it says Canada has met all the various obligations that have been adhered to through the signing and ratification by Canada. But there's no enforcement per se in the context of what I would understand as being enforcement domestically for those regulations that are backstopping those international obligations.

Mr. Mac Harb: And the second part?

Mr. David Wardle: You're quite right; the CFCs do wander around for a very long time in the lower atmosphere and slowly get up to the upper atmosphere. As a matter of fact nothing happens until they get above the ozone, and then they're destroyed by that ultraviolet light that the ozone protects them from, as well as us. That takes a long time, and that's precisely why they last 50 or 100 years. They're not destroyed until the winds happen to take them up to 40 or 50 kilometres high.

The corollary of your point is also absolutely true: what we emit in Canada affects the south pole and what the Australians emit affects us.

Mr. Mac Harb: Finally—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): One very quick question.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, absolutely, 30 seconds.

I wonder about the possibility of having a small bilingual pamphlet, simply written for a grade eight student, that can be available for members of Parliament so we can pass it around in our constituencies. Is that available now, and if not, are you planning to develop some sort of brochure that we could make available in our offices?

Mr. David Wardle: In my own group—and I would like my colleague to talk about this as well—we did “A Good Ozone and a Bad Ozone” some years ago. Maybe it's time we did something else. I would like to address that pamphlet. We have another very necessary task in this education: we have to educate the educators. We even have to educate ourselves to know what we do, and that's the beginning of the process.

Mr. François Guimont: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll just add an element of precision to the statement I made earlier on. My colleague was explaining to me that under the Montreal Protocol there is a subgroup that does an overview of the various reports filed by countries. They essentially look at what was filed to see if it's in keeping with the commitments required under the protocol, and may make recommendations to the conference of the parties—that's the body essentially responsible for the protocol—if there is deviation from what the commitment should be. Then sanctions can be taken, but through the conference of the parties.

• 1635

So it may not be enforcement the way we would understand it in the context of domestic legislation, but there is a consequence if the commitments are not met by the signatories to the protocol.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

Ms. Caplan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you. It's been really excellent.

In the couple of minutes I have, I'd like to, for the people who are watching and listening, zero in on two things I've heard, but in the keep-it-simple mode.

If there were two messages coming out of today, what I've heard as the first message is enjoy the sun, but protect yourself from getting burned. The way you protect yourself is by being aware of what the UV level is. Teach your children to wear a hat, cover up, or wear lotion, and think about it. It's more of an awareness: be aware.

Is there any other message on “protect yourself” that we should give to people, in very simple terms? Sun is important to us, but we want to make sure we don't overdo it, for ourselves and our children, because by overdoing it, not only do you get burned and it hurts you, but it could cause disease. Do I have all the messages there?

Mr. Rod Raphael: That's the basic message and element from the health perspective, in terms of having people enjoy the outdoors and needing to be active outdoors as also a beneficial activity for their health.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: So while you're running or playing to get in shape, make sure you also take care of yourself by covering up with lotion, a hat, sunglasses, or a shirt, just to protect yourself from getting burned and overexposed to the sun. That's one simple message: protect yourself from overexposure, from overdoing it.

It's like anything I tell people. You know, you can really overdo exercise. Any good thing can be.... You get a strained muscle if you do too much, so you have to think about these things.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Moderation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Moderation. That's the message on exposure to the sun. If you can't do it in moderation, then protect yourself with gear, a hat, or lotions.

The second message I've heard today is about the things we can do as individuals to protect our umbrella. I call the ozone our umbrella. If we poke holes in it, it's going to be bad for us, so there are certain things we have to do to protect it.

What are the three or four things we should do individually to be aware of how everybody can make a difference and protect our environment and the umbrella called the ozone that's up there protecting our world? Can you give me three or four things that we can tell people?

Mr. François Guimont: You were looking at a second message overall and then a couple under that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right.

Mr. François Guimont: The second message obviously is the fact that the journey is unfinished. The Auditor General did point that out, and I thought it was a very good way of saying it. What that means is actions still need to be taken.

There's good news. Our scientists are showing that the concentration of certain gases is going down. That is good news. But we still have CFCs in use, and it's quite normal. We went from a world where CFCs were produced to one where we stopped production. We want to have less of these substances. That's only one item. There are other substances as well.

So the journey is unfinished and we want to stay the course. That's the second broad message.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: How hard is it, as an individual, to be aware of those things that are harmful, whether it's the old aerosols that have been phased out or what? It's the awareness.

Also, it's not only the unfinished journey. My sense of this is that from each generation, this is going to be a continuing journey. It's hopefully never going to end. We're going to have to maintain that information from generation to generation. Just as we talk about the stages of an individual and having their consciousness raised at different stages, I don't see us ever being in a position where we forget about it. Do you?

Mr. François Guimont: The success is going to be measured in years—I think you're right—both in terms of the actions we have to put in place and also in terms of the actual natural repair of that umbrella you're describing.

• 1700

You were asking what kind of specific action Canadians could take. Earlier I had a very good question on certification of technicians. If somebody is coming to your place because you have a problem with your heat pump or some other equipment requiring certain of these gases, to make sure that a person is certified is a tangible and reasonable step to take.

On the same thing, a number of measures on the renewed action plan are going to be reaching, in the sense that federally and provincially, people are committed to moving ahead with what I'd call that work plan or action plan.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, but people who are watching us want to know what they can do. Are there things that individuals should be aware they can do when they're making choices? It's a very good message that says if you're doing work on things that have to do with heat pumps or gases, make sure the person working on it is certified and qualified. Is there anything else you can think of that we should be telling people that they as individuals can do that will make a difference, or should we just leave it all to the scientists and go about our merry way and not worry about it?

Mr. François Guimont: The reason I'm musing a bit, if I may, is largely because the actions in the action plan require action by provincial governments—regulations exploring new ways of doing things. I've explained that we're going to be entering into a period now of exploring how to move off CFCs. People will be consulted.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Maybe one of the things people could do would be to ask their provincial members what they're doing to implement the plan.

Mr. François Guimont: They could be supportive of the action plan, yes. Certainly this is, in our mind, something where we have an agreement, and the more support there is behind it, the more quickly and effectively we're going to be able to put those measures in place.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Reynolds, please—four minutes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Guimont, you said that we still have CFCs—chlorofluorocarbons—in use. What do we still have them in use for in Canada, and when will they not be in use any more?

Mr. François Guimont: We have them in use in air conditioners, as an example, and in older cars. We have them in refrigerators, as another example—those types of applications, if you wish, from when CFCs were very popular. This infrastructure, if I can call it that, is still in use, so that's where CFCs are in use.

Your other question is, when are we going to be moving off that? I explained earlier that our consumption has gone down in the sense that we haven't been producing new CFCs since 1996, and there are some controls on import and export.

As far as the existing stock, what we're looking at now through a discussion paper—that's the way to go about it, that's what the action plan is looking for.... We are consulting with stakeholders as to how to go about the better way, to consider options for moving off the existing stock of CFCs as they are used in existing equipment. But that's going to be a transition.

The discussion document is going to be coming out. People will have a chance to read, think, interact with people, suggest des pistes—areas of investigation as to how to go about it.

As I said earlier, our intent is to be able to have the basic structure of how to go about moving off CFCs by 1999. If we can do it more quickly we will, but the time line in the action plan is one of having the basic construct of how to go about this shift, this transition, in place by 1999.

Mr. John Reynolds: Will the United States have the same date and time in place as Canada?

Mr. François Guimont: My colleague is simply saying no. I am not sure if there is a similar pass in the United States. I know though that under the Montreal Protocol, which involves the United States as well, there are discussions in terms of what we will do, as an example, with these existing stocks of CFCs. It's what I would call an emerging dialogue, if I use my own terminology.

Mr. John Reynolds: Isn't it a problem right now? I know in British Columbia people who have the older cars can't get the material to redo their air conditioning because of provincial regulations. All they do is drive across to Bellingham and get the cars juiced up for their air conditioning and drive back across the border.

The provincial government took a stand and banned the product in that province, but it's still.... And of course, we live in a country where 80% of our population is right on the American border. If we don't have the same rules as they do, are we not just wasting our time, unless we can sit down with them and say, let's go for it together on the same problem?

Mr. François Guimont: I will make two points on this, Mr. Chairman. That allows me to speak a bit about harmonization. The member came back and explained that it was not maybe as precisely described as I was expressing it earlier on. This is an area where B.C. and New Brunswick moved ahead of other provinces in banning the refilling of air conditioners with CFCs. It's an element of something that is not harmonized between the provinces, but it's not that it was backward; it was forward.

• 1705

The point I'm trying to make here is that in the plan, as I said earlier, now we're trying to get the commitment from the other provinces to move in a direction where the CFCs for air conditioning would be left out. If I remember right, it's by the year 2000. That's right, the year 2000.

On your point about moving across the border, I go to the point made by another member about what Canadians can do. That's an example. If the temptation is there to go south and get this juiced up on CFCs in the United States, this is a tangible action that a Canadian can take, which is one saying “I understand why they're saying I should not be using CFCs and I'll do it the right way”, which is doing it the way the country is moving towards. And B.C. was, along with New Brunswick, as I said earlier, one of the two first provinces to move in that direction.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): One final question. Make it a very quick one.

Mr. John Reynolds: I have one for the Auditor General's staff. A good example was just this case here, where British Columbia moved ahead on one issue, which is helping the ozone, which we're talking about here today and the whole situation around it.

Have you ever looked at the idea of analysing the Ministry of the Environment in Canada, plus all the provinces', see how we could harmonize it so we could make it all work together? There are ten different departments in the provinces, and then the territories and the federal government. From being there in the province I can see duplication in my own staff versus the federal staff, and I can see stories in newspapers coming out about how the provincial environment ministry did something good and the feds didn't like it, so they issued a leak about how bad it was, and vice versa. It works both ways.

I think the Auditor General's staff is showing us a good example in this area right now. But they should be doing some work in analysing and showing Canadians how we can save some money by either having one big department for all of Canada or ten separate ones. I'm not an advocate for either one, but I think it should be looked at by the auditor's department.

Mr. Brian Emmett: We have in fact received a request from the committee on environment and sustainable development to undertake an examination of the equivalency agreements under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We've said yes to the chairman of that committee, and that report will probably be coming out in my 1999 report to Parliament. We are going to be active in that area.

Mr. John Reynolds: Excellent.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two more questions.

Paragraph 27.85 of the Auditor General's Report reads as follow:

In our opinion, the federal government has failed to provide direction and has missed or ignored available opportunities to do so, including the 1995 Guide to Green Government itself. And like some foreign governments, the government of Canada does not routinely include its own operations within the ambit of regulated ODS end-use controls.

I'd like to know what you think about this comment. It seems that the government finds it difficult to observe its own regulations.

Mr. François Guimont: My answer will be short and precise. There will be a regulation applying to the federal house, a federal regulation, under CEPA, the Canadian Environment Protection Act, which will be published in the first notice of the Canada Gazette in July.

Mr. René Laurin: Isn't that the one which was going to be published on the 1st of May?

Mr. François Guimont: We had a few small problems. We now expect that it will be published at the end of June or at the beginning of July. I hope that in a few months, we'll be in a better position since we'll have a regulation which—I insist—will apply to the federal house and will essentially cover elements provinces have dealt with within their own jurisdiction.

Mr. René Laurin: Okay, thank you.

My other question is directed to officials from Public Works and Government Services Canada. Apparently, the department has not managed to produce an inventory of all ODS or—so that the people who are listening to us understand what we are talking about—ozone-depleting substances. Does the department have such an inventory? And what are its objectives regarding the reduction and the elimination of these stocks?

[English]

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Yes, we do have an inventory of chlorofluorocarbon-containing equipment. The inventory exists at three levels: first of all, major or large chillers; then roof-top air-conditioning units, which would be a mid-sized kind of unit; and then many offices have smaller refrigerators and other kinds of refrigeration equipment that also contain CFCs.

• 1710

In reference to one of the earlier questions, we do require that any repair, any replacement, any new installation is done by qualified, certified repair people or installers.

The smaller equipment, as it becomes dysfunctional, has to be replaced. It will be done in accordance with environmental guidelines and disposed of appropriately. Mid-sized equipment must be maintained by the appropriate certified repair people, and as it comes time for replacement it will be replaced with appropriate materials. The larger equipment becomes more problematic. A dilemma is created because we believe there are problems with the replacement materials or the replacement substances for CFCs.

Most of the hydrochlorofluorocarbons do far less damage to ozone, but still are significant contributors to the greenhouse effect. And some in fact are highly toxic, particularly when compared to CFCs.

In addition, there is also an issue of efficiency of these materials when placed in various kinds of equipment and there has to be an appropriate marriage of the chemical and physical properties of these materials with the equipment they're placed in.

The answer, to come to the conclusion, is that we have adopted a process of a cautious approach. Where we are replacing equipment, we do replace it with equipment using the appropriate substance. Where it is not essential to replace, we contain, and we contain with a minimal leakage rate of 4%. And the intent is that as more appropriate materials come on stream, and we hope and understand they will, we will then undertake replacement at a later date.

Mr. René Laurin: How many years will you need to do that?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: I can't predict how many years are required to do that, Mr. Chairman. We're dealing with products that are designed or created by industry and manufactured by industry. Basically, we believe we need a better understanding of the impact of the materials that we have now, because new information has come to light regarding the greenhouse gas contributing nature of some of these materials and the toxic nature of some of these materials. And there has to be further investigation in the appropriateness of these materials.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Anders, please, and you are the last questioner.

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand right now that there is no one person who's in charge of communicating the risks of UVB radiation to the Canadian public. There have been concerns about this. I'm wondering whether or not there's going to be somebody put in charge of implementation of that particular strategy and whether somebody will be responsible for it, whether there will be somebody specifically assigned to deal with that issue.

Mr. Rod Raphael: Within Health Canada, the responsibility for this work falls within two of our lines of business. One is our health promotion and programs line of business as well as our management of risks to health line of business, both of which have been reported on in terms of our report on plans and priorities to Parliament.

In terms of putting a particular individual or group in charge, the lead on communication with respect to health risks is generally shared, but a majority of the activity occurs within our health programs and promotions branch. They have well-established networks involving communities as well as provincial and local organizations and government officials.

• 1715

So I recognize the wording in the Auditor General's report in terms of a lead individual or lead area identified, but I think there truly is a matrix of activity in this area. Through the activities of senior officials, assistant deputy ministers of both health protection branch and health promotion and programs branch, I believe there is a successful attempt at coordinated activity.

Mr. Rob Anders: All right.

On an annual basis, how much does the department spend to raise public awareness of the risks of UV-B exposure?

Mr. Rod Raphael: With respect to the budgets in Health Canada, specifically the item of how much we spend with respect to UV-B protection or communication of those risks, it is probably less than $ 200,000, in that range. That has been reduced over the years from the budgets we had about three or four years ago, due to sunsetting of certain resources within the envelope.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Reynolds, my colleague, previously brought up the idea of converting some of the federal fleet to natural gas. He said that was tried as a project in British Columbia, and it was much more fuel-efficient and better on the environment and what not. That's one idea.

What has the federal government done in terms of providing direction, in the sense of a bully pulpit idea, that it leads by its own example? What is being done?

I understand in 1995 there was a guide to greening the government itself. What has been done to green the government itself? If we're not moving toward putting the fleet on natural gas, are there other things that are being considered? What's being done?

Mr. Bruce Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, there is, in fact, a program for using natural gas for fleet vehicles. As I mentioned earlier, I will provide information on this as soon as possible. In fact, I'll make the phone call as soon as the meeting is over.

As to the other kinds of activities we have within our organization, we have supply operation services, which is responsible for procurement of a wide variety of products and systems for the government. They do have a green procurement program.

Within real property services, we have a number of programs. For example, I mentioned earlier the national master specification, which is a set of documents that describe the kinds of materials and systems that go into new and renovation construction products. This system is used on all of our projects and national defence projects and is available for use by the private sector.

We're issuing packages of information to all federal employees who are located in our buildings on reuse and recycling of materials within the office. We are, for example, working with the Canadian Construction Association and Industry Canada to develop standards and processes for sustainable demolition. The main intent of that is the reuse of existing materials, rather than filling up landfills.

We work with industry on a number of areas for energy savings. As Mr. Wardle has pointed out, global warming does have an indirect impact on the ozone depletion.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. Anders, I'm afraid you've used up your time.

Mr. Rob Anders: May I ask one last question?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): One quick question.

Mr. Rob Anders: In 1992 there was a national action plan, as well. There, I believe one of the criticisms or one of the potential faults was that there was a lack of demonstration of the expected benefits and costs.

I've read in the documents today that there's an assessment in terms of what types of cost savings will be realized as a result of implementing a plan. But if the plan is not implemented, has there been anything done to assess what types of costs there will be for not implementing it?

• 1720

I've heard talk today about the savings that will happen in health costs, in terms of melanoma and this type of thing—health savings—but has anything been done to determine what will happen if we don't do anything and we march along the path as it currently stands? If the problem is supposed to be getting worse over time, what will happen if we don't implement the plan? What if it's not successfully implemented? What is the cost?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll make two points, Mr. Chairman.

The original national action plan had some elements that could be ameliorated. They were picked up by the Auditor General. The new plan does have more clearly set objectives and timelines and sets out who's going to do what—what level of government specifically.

On the question of cost, if a regulatory action is to be taken, this regulatory action, as per the plan, needs to be backstopped by a so-called regulatory impact analysis statement. That regulatory impact analysis statement is to show the costs and the benefits of taking or not taking direct action.

So that's my better way, at least for the time being, of explaining how costs and benefits would be factored into a decision as we move forward with the regulatory initiatives to deliver on the new national action plan. Those regulatory-type analyses have been done for previous regulatory-type initiatives that were taken under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

At this time I'd like to thank our witnesses. The two meetings you've been here have been two of the most valuable meetings we've had in a long time, and I appreciate your coming back and I'm sure the committee does, because let's face it, our very existence on this planet depends on listening to your advice and your warnings. So thank you very much again.

I also would ask you, Mr. Anders, to thank Mr. Reynolds. He brought to the table much expertise. He would have made a good witness down at the other end of the table. So I wish you would thank him for us, please.

To the people at home watching, our next televised meeting is Tuesday, May 26, and it's on information technology preparedness for the year 2000—in other words, how we're going to squash that year 2000 bug.

To my colleagues, thank you for attending. This meeting is adjourned.