ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 10, 1998

• 0901

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Middlesex-London, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're considering chapter 4 of the April 1997 report of the Auditor General of Canada on the control of transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.

I'd like to begin by welcoming everyone here. Your normal chair, Mr. Charles Caccia, has asked me to chair this morning. I'm the vice-chair of the environment committee.

With us today are: Brian Emmett, commissioner, environment and sustainable development; Wayne Cluskey, principal, audit operations; and Daniel Rubenstein, principal, audit operations.

From Environment Canada we have Deputy Minister Ian Glenn, who's no stranger to the committee, and François Guimont, assistant deputy minister.

From Revenue Canada we have Earle Warren, acting director general, major project design and development, and Craig Turner, director, admissibility programs.

Mr. Emmett, we'll begin with you.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner, Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your welcoming remarks.

I'd like to make a very brief statement.

Today modern industrialized economies like Canada's produce large amounts of hazardous wastes. A large and sophisticated industry, along with a regulatory regime, have grown up to ensure these wastes are reused, recycled, or disposed of in ways that do not harm human health or the environment. Proper disposal can be expensive, up to about $10,000 per truckload, but it is worth it to society to avoid the consequences of uncontrolled dumping.

Disposal of hazardous wastes operates on a global basis. We both import and export wastes to other countries, primarily the United States. More than 600,000 tonnes of hazardous waste imports and exports cross Canada's borders each year, with more than half destined for recycling. Improper disposal of hazardous wastes such as batteries, contaminated fuel, solvents, pesticides, and medical waste could jeopardize the quality of the environment and the health of Canadians and others.

[Translation]

Significant concerns exist that other countries, particularly those in the developing world, may not have good ways of treating hazardous wastes. Therefore, Canada entered into an agreement, the Basel Convention, by which developed countries, globally, will try to prevent the export of hazardous wastes to developing countries that might not have the facilities to handle it properly. Canada was motivated primarily by concern that our wastes not cause harm to people or to the environment in vulnerable areas. Nor did we want Canada to become a destination for the uncontrolled dumping of hazardous wastes.

The work that is the subject of today's hearings was a departure for us, it was the first time that we audited the implementation of a major international environmental agreement to which Canada was a signatory.

• 0905

[English]

It will not be the last time. We expect this to be a major part of our forthcoming work program.

We found in our audit that domestic regulations to control the export and import of hazardous waste have been implemented and include features beyond what was required by the Basel Convention. We found that Environment Canada has made a good start in establishing the administrative mechanisms required by its own regulations.

However, we also found that even though these regulations have been in place for over five years, Environment Canada has yet to vigorously enforce them. This is an important issue given the volume of traffic, the incentives for illegal traffic, and the potential risk to health, safety, and the environment.

To date, the chance of getting caught is minimal and the penalties have not been significant. Environment Canada inspects only a small number of shipments detained at the border by customs. For example, in the same three regions we examined there were a total of only 21 border inspections in 1995-96, yet approximately 14,500 truckloads of hazardous waste crossed the border. During the same period a total of 12 samples were actually taken. These were taken in one region only, the Ontario region. Environment Canada does not have the equipment to test samples from suspect shipments and it is difficult to prosecute an offender without a sample for evidence.

[Translation]

There is little chance of detecting illegal traffic of hazardous waste at border points. If Customs officers at the border are to identify effectively shipments that they suspect contain hazardous waste, they need more training and there needs to be an increased inspection effort by Environment Canada.

It is even more difficult to detect the present of hazardous waste at rail yards or marine ports. At the marine ports of Montreal and Vancouver, virtually no containers coming into the country are inspected for a potentially illegal shipment of hazardous waste. Furthermore, relatively fewer rail containers are examined, whether import or export.

[English]

There are practical measures that could be taken today to improve the government's enforcement effort. For example, Environment Canada has agreed there is a need to make better use of intelligence data to profile and target potentially illegal traffic. We were consistently advised by Revenue Canada that it has the capacity to effectively use Environment Canada's information if it is provided. Environment Canada, Revenue Canada, and the RCMP together have agreed that there is an urgent need to better coordinate federal enforcement efforts.

Ten months have passed since our audit. This hearing provides an opportunity to review the extent to which the commitments made by departments in their responses are being translated into concrete action.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Ian Glenn (Deputy Minister, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In addition to François Guimont, the assistant deputy minister for environmental protection, I also have with me Ian McGregor, who is the director general for national programs, and Vic Shantora, who is director general for toxics, which is a terrible title to have for a job—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ian Glenn: —and pollution prevention. That last part is more constructive.

I thank you for inviting us here today. I really take this as the first of a number of sessions either this week or throughout next week in which we'll deal with sessions that will include our colleagues in the auditor general's office and other witnesses as appropriate.

The subject today is one that we're concerned about in terms of finding the advantages of working with the auditor general. This clearly is one of the areas where there is an advantage since there is a need for monitoring and auditing of the progress being made.

• 0910

About our initial reaction to the auditor general's chapter, we do feel it's a valid snapshot of the department and the state of the program to date in terms of progress made and the quite significant need to advance further and generate cooperation across agencies to advance this....

At the same time, we do find we're an organization that has been recognized internationally for probably advancing, as Brian said, beyond the minimum that was required and putting in place the legal regimes to accord with the Basel Convention. One could say that's good, but again, we say more needs to be done.

The mechanics for notice and manifest review process are in place and are working. We believe compliance promotion has been pursued with modest success. We've developed and implemented a more flexible database system to ensure accessibility and usefulness of the data to agencies that work with us. Again, despite that, more needs to be done.

Certainly enforcement of the export and import of hazardous waste regulations is becoming more a departmental priority, one we need to focus on to “get it right”. In doing so—and in this case we appreciate the comments from the auditor general's office—we remind ourselves that compliance with the regulations is the goal, and enforcement is a tool for compliance. If you can comply with the regulations, that's the objective of the exercise.

A dramatic increase in inspections is needed at the borders, but we have to ensure we do that in a cost-effective and of course successful manner. We need to augment our capacity, and we need to do it in a multi-pronged approach. That approach will involve enhanced training of customs officers in identification of potential illegal shipments, which will allow more effective border checks. Strengthening our tracking capability through the use of informatics will lead to identifying the trends and spotting potential non-compliance, hopefully then targeting compliance promotion or enforcement action in an efficient way.

We need to engage in better intelligence gathering. This is not unique to the environmental field. It's endemic to many areas of government regulation or control that have a trans-border aspect to them.

Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, Mr. Glenn is reading from a text, and I wonder whether, as a minimum courtesy to us, he could distribute the text from which he's reading. It would make the meeting much more productive and useful, and more professional.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We can have it photocopied. If he doesn't have the text—

Mr. Charles Caccia: This is a courtesy that can be extended to this committee, Mr. Glenn.

Mr. Ian Glenn: Mr. Caccia, I apologize if it offended the committee. I'm more than prepared to wait while the documents are distributed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): How much do you have left?

Mr. Ian Glenn: I have just a couple of points and then I could share it with members.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Okay, we'll have the clerk pick up the text.

I understand Revenue Canada is in the same position.

Mr. Earle Warren (Acting Director General, Major Project Design and Development Directorate, Customs and Trade Administration Branch, Revenue Canada): Yes, that's correct.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Maybe we could have that photocopied.

Mr. Earle Warren: We don't have a text with us, unfortunately. There was a misunderstanding about whether we were actually making opening remarks or not. They will be oral opening remarks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Will you be reading them or will it be just from your head?

Mr. Earle Warren: From my head.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): That's fine, then.

Mr. Glenn.

Mr. Ian Glenn: From my head?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Or perhaps one of the others, if they want to speak from their head.

Mr. Ian Glenn: We were encouraging approaches that would ensure that in advancing a proper compliance regime we would get involved in better training of the organizations both within and beyond, organizations that would partner with us. We would advance our efforts both internationally and domestically to deal with intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing. That includes occasions to work quite profitably with the FBI in the States and with other agencies connected to INTERPOL; training; compliance promotion; and advancing, hopefully, with new legislation to increase powers that could be available to inspectors through the reintroduction of the CEPA bill.

• 0915

I'm trying to recall this. I read it on an airplane last night. Perhaps you'll wait for the round table.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Would you like to add something? Your body language looks as if you'd like to add something.

Mr. Daniel Rubenstein (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, to be a bit more specific on the training, Mr. Glenn mentioned that we're going to be developing—we're working at this between now and the end of the fiscal year—a self-guiding tool that's going to be utilizable with our colleagues in customs. So it's self-training using computers, if you wish.

On top of that, we want to sit down with at least three borders so as to have better interaction between them and our people in increasing their awareness and capacity to deal with potential export or import problems at the border.

On the intelligence capacity, we have one dedicated person in the office of enforcement, in headquarters, dealing with that issue. This is a new position, and we're going to be having discussions with our regional offices. I know they are thinking of doing the same thing in two areas for connection purposes. I'll be raising this topic with the other regions as well to see if that continuity could be put in place between headquarters in that position and the regional offices, where the actual delivery of enforcement programs is taking place.

The intelligence capacity is going to be branched back into our colleagues in customs. On that point, we want to increase our partnership with customs people. We have a senior management steering committee that was put in place following the auditor general's remarks, conclusions, and observations to follow through on the various conclusions that have been made.

I'm saying this because the steering committee is not only looking at the existing MOU of 1989, but we are planning to renew that MOU to expand it and make it more inclusive of the things that have been picked up with the auditor general on intelligence gathering, a better capacity to analyse, border inspections, etc., and things of that nature. So there's going to be a renewal of the MOU. We would like to do that within this fiscal year. As for the partnership aspects beyond customs, we want to link back also into the RCMP, as was mentioned.

So the point I'm making here is that we're looking at partnerships within the country and partnerships with the United States, which would be very specifically the U.S. EPA, U.S. Customs.

U.S. Customs is very important. One of the points made by the auditor general is that, on the export side, there seems to be more of a challenge. As you know, customs people are specialized more on imports; exports are a bit of a challenge. So we would like to think that by having an MOU with U.S. Customs, the export angle of the issue would be covered. So as for U.S. EPA, U.S. Customs, we have already had a meeting with them and we would like to move quickly on that.

Internationally, which is a third layer, we are working with INTERPOL. We are part of their subgroup on hazardous waste. This is a new subgroup, because the illegal shipment of hazardous waste is recognized under Basel as being an issue not only for Canada and the United States, but for other countries as well.

Just quickly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Glenn has spoken about compliance promotion. There was a lot of analysis carried out by the auditor general on the so-called manifests. We know we have to invest more time, energy, and understanding on what those manifests mean in terms of information being present or absent in order to be able to go more upstream and to the people who are generating and shipping hazardous waste for either recycling or final disposal. So that's going to be an area on which we're going to be putting more emphasis. We're going to be using computer-assisted tools, if you wish, in order for us to be more efficient in that area.

Just quickly, I have one last point on technology. This is also a thrust that we would like to see being promoted inside the department. I'll explain myself on this. There are a lot of diversified wastes—something like 3,500 different ones—that fit the so-called definition of hazardous waste. It would be good—that mandate was given to our technology people within the department—to invest effort and energy into looking into what was done internationally in terms of technologies that would be assisting people at the border, or our own people, to better understand or track what those wastes are.

Now this may not be what I would call a short-term effort, because the wastes are very diversified, but it's an area that we want to get our hands around. Is this something, technology-wise, that we can develop that would assist our people in doing their job or customs people at the border?

• 0920

That would be the key thrust, if you will, of where we want to put emphasis.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have with me—and I'll file this with the clerk—essentially an action plan that details what it is the department is committing to do to answer the various conclusions and recommendations by the auditor general. I have this in both official languages.

There is more specificity to the so-called environment action plan in terms of dates and time lines in completing the things I've briefly mentioned in my introductory remarks.

So I'll file this with the clerk. It can be distributed to the members of the committee.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): All right.

I'm sorry, did you want to make some opening comments, or do you just want to answer questions?

Mr. Earle Warren: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Revenue Canada assists Environment Canada in administering this legislation at the border. As indicated by Environment Canada, our two departments are working together very closely to implement many of the recommendations in the AG's report through the interdepartmental steering committee that has been created.

As was already mentioned, we're working on the development of a new MOU, memorandum of understanding, between the two departments, addressing enhanced training for customs inspectors, intelligence sharing, and other enforcement issues.

We're more than willing to answer any questions.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We'll start with Mr. Gilmour.

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

Mr. Glenn, I guess to start off with, this isn't new. It's been around for five years. What is the problem? Is it manpower? Is it money? Is it political will? Why is there such a huge discrepancy between what should be done and what's actually being done?

Mr. Ian Glenn: I thought about that last night. Part of it—and it's endemic to the environment area at this time—is resources, trying to ensure that you're using what you have effectively, across the full array of activities we have to engage in. That's not a new concern brought to this committee. You've sensed it before. You've been anxious and concerned about it as well.

I think part of it—and I would certainly lean to the people who have worked more directly on this file—is just appreciating well enough how in fact you engage, both domestically and internationally, to deal with what is the greatest concern, the illegal traffic, and the degree to which you put in place a successful compliance program and have a way to ensure that the ones who in essence comply with the law can be administered effectively across the borders.

That's the start-up. The other part of it, then, is in the basic areas of law enforcement—the capacity to know what's going on; the capacity to both train and then share intelligence to effectively advance the agenda; and to get the people who are not complying with the law.

This is an area that during the last five years has been evolving. Resources will—

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Excuse me. It's been evolving, but I mean, 21 samples out of 14,000 at one area.... I'll take my home province of B.C. This will go also to Revenue Canada, because the ports police have been changed around and manpower has been reduced.

It's a freewheeling system out there. I don't think you really know the problem. Do you know the extent of the problem?

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): To answer this question I'll go back to the issue of samples and inspections. In our assessment there are two key things we have to put emphasis on if we want to succeed at the border in dealing with illegal transboundary shipment. Both intelligence and intelligence gathering are critical, and absolutely a priority. To get organized on this will take intelligence to do it properly.

• 0925

As you may imagine, it's not a matter of Environment Canada only. We need to be able to work effectively with customs, the RCMP, our colleagues in the United States, U.S. EPA, and customs. That's the first thing. Intelligence gathering is imperative.

The second thing is the partnership aspect. Let me explain myself. We have 60 people who are empowered under CEPA to carry out inspections, investigations, across the country in various regions.

The point I want to make is that customs on the border is like the muscle, if you wish. They have more people than we do.

What we need is that perfect relationship between Environment Canada having a capacity to work with customs in feeding them the information, the intelligence, that has been picked up by the auditor general. The flow of intelligence between the two is not sufficiently there yet and we have to work at that. The point I'm making is le jumelage, the relationship between Environment Canada's capacity and customs being there on site, the two together, should be giving us the outcome we're looking for.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Fine, but I'm getting all the nice buzzwords of priorities and partnerships and working together. Do you know the extent of the problem?

Mr. François Guimont: By the very nature of the fact that this is illegal traffic, there is a challenge in getting a feel clearly for the extent of the problem.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Do you know it or not? Do you know the extent of the problem, or are you just guessing?

Mr. Ian Glenn: Mr. Gilmour, let's start first with the fact that there is a part of this traffic that's permitted, that is legal. First of all, you have a regime that has permits for both import and export, where a high volume of traffic is in essence licensed, and it's administered successfully. The dilemma in dealing with the illegal end of it is, I'd say, no, we don't have a full grasp of the extent of it. But that's endemic to any area of law enforcement. When do you have other than rough estimates of what percentage of traffic in and out may in fact be illegal? I don't have numbers here with me for you today.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: From the auditor general's point of view, what did you find? Did you find there was no information out there, that they were basically guessing at it, or what is the state of the situation?

Mr. Brian Emmett: If I could give a preliminary answer and perhaps call on one of my colleagues to elaborate, I think the answer we found was we do not know the extent of the problem, and we too identify the need for better cooperation with law enforcement agencies in the use of intelligence information to target inspection. But certainly we feel there's too little a level of effort in terms of inspection and sampling at the border.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Just to clarify, is the major concern imports or exports? In which direction is the major concern?

Mr. Brian Emmett: In terms of our obligations under the Basel Convention, I believe it's exports. We have obligations under the Basel Convention to export only to countries and to facilities that can properly handle waste.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Is the illegal movement mainly going out or coming in?

Mr. Brian Emmett: We don't know that. Again, it's one of these things that is difficult to tell.

Mr. Ian Glenn: I think we would say—and this is intuitive, not by quantification—the export regime is the weaker of the two.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): On reading the Auditor General's statement, I realized something even before arriving here this morning. Your Department appears to be as overwhelmed by this problem as it is by the issue of contaminated federal sites. You appear to be unaware of the extent of the problem, namely the lack of coordination and the absence of enforcement.

My question is quite simple. You've just said that you would like to see new legislation which would confer new inspection powers on your officials. That's what you said. What you're in fact doing is tossing the ball back into the legislator's court by hoping to obtain more powers. Isn't the real problem enforcement? It seems to me that you have the powers, but that the inspections are not being done. Am I right?

• 0930

Mr. François Guimont: I will answer your question by trying to put things into perspective. The Auditor General has quoted some figures on the inspections that are being carried out and I have here the figures that were supplied to me by the Department, that is by the officials responsible for enforcement.

I think it's important to look at the figures. During 1997-98, a total of 87 inspections were done at the borders. I have the figures here. We're talking about all borders. If you like, I can give you a breakdown by province, but the overall total is 87 inspections.

Let's look at the number of sites inspected. A site is the location where, for example, a manufacturer of certain products plans to get involved in either export or import operations. We visited 168 such sites in 1997-98.

Let's look now at the number of inspection actions. For example, if we receive a call from Customs' officials informing us that they have a shipment which they wish to know more about, then we help them out. We were involved in a total of 185 actions of this nature.

What I'm trying to get at here is that the types of inspections conducted are quite varied. Overall, we conducted 440 inspections over the course of a year, including site and border inspections, and were involved in a number of enforcement actions as well.

Mention was also made of samples taken. When a problem arises, we take a sample to ascertain if an offence has been committed. According to the figures for 1997-98, a total of four samples were taken, resulting in two investigations and one conviction.

I would like to put things into perspective one final time and make it clear that in 1995-96, a total of five samples were taken. The overall number of inspections has increased substantially from the 1995-96 level. In fact, there were a total of 256 inspections in 1995-96, compared with 440 in 1997-98. This is clear proof that we are stepping up our efforts in this area.

We recognized that there was a problem in terms of the import and export of hazardous waste. The situation was not as clear as we would have liked it to be and we therefore increased our effort to understand and manage the problem.

Finally, I would just like to say that at the national level, regulations are our number one priority. A national inspection plan dictates certain priorities and in response to the challenge we face, we have made these regulations our number one priority.

In no way are we claiming that the situation is ideal. That was not at all my intention. I'm simply trying to make you understand that the Department is making enormous efforts to understand and manage the situation at the borders together with our colleagues from Customs Canada.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I understand, but despite all of these efforts, what explanation can the Department give for the fact that some regions in Canada, in particular the Montreal region as we saw this past fall, have become major black markets for certain products, including CFCs?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question with 100% certainty. Let me explain.

Tomorrow, we will discuss the movement underway to deal with substances that contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer, as well with hazardous waste. I will not be any better prepared tomorrow, but I do think that we must increase our efforts at the borders, forge more partnerships and, let me repeat, enhance our intelligence capacity, a critical factor in dealing with companies which move goods between Canada and the United States, so that we can find out how they operate. By doing this and by working in partnerships with others, we should be in a better position to resolve all of these problems. However, once again, there is no perfect solution. Unfortunately, that's how it is.

[English]

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

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, looking at the report from the auditor general, first of all I see there was a 1994 report from the revenue department that concluded that.... There were a few conclusions, but among them were these: that a large amount of illegal hazardous waste is moving across the Canadian border, that there's a proven involvement of organized crime in the waste management and disposal industry in the United States, and that illicit transport or movement of hazardous waste will increase.

• 0935

When we went visiting various towns and places in Canada on the CEPA review, the testimony given to us by some of the investigators and inspectors of Environment Canada told us that illegal waste dealings are proceeding almost under their eyes. They gave us a little sketch of illegal trade in gasoline by organized crime, trade that was taking place across the border almost in the open.

When I look at the report and I see that Revenue Canada flagged it in 1994 and that all this time.... There's a discrepancy between some of the figures given by Mr. Guimont and the auditor general, but whichever way it is, I see that in 1995-96 one warning was given in the Ontario region, none in Quebec, none in the Pacific region; that no samples were taken in the Quebec region, no samples in the Pacific region. Between Revenue Canada and Environment Canada in 1995-96, over illegal wastes, there were 28 phone calls in the whole of the Quebec region, 24 in Ontario, and 5 in the Pacific region.

If you add the tonnage of this waste, you're talking about well over 600,000 tonnes of waste that goes across the border, and some of it is illicit. These two departments that are in charge of it make just a few phone calls a year between themselves. When I see you have 60 inspectors right across the country for CEPA, there lies the problem. If you have one dedicated person at head office for this, and maybe one more in the region, how can they monitor this huge transport, 14,000 truckloads in Ontario? In 1995-96, according to the auditor general's report, in Quebec there were 7,500 truckloads, nearly 300,000 tonnes, and zero samples taken. Even in 1997-98, when you improve your inspections, we will take only four samples throughout the whole year, and we know we can't get convictions from those samples.

It's almost like a flea looking up and trying to kill an elephant. It seems to me the facts speak for themselves.

The first question I would ask is this. According to the auditor general's report, in 1997 Revenue Canada and Environment Canada decided it was time to start a senior steering committee at the senior management level immediately. Is that in place now?

Mr. François Guimont: It has met on two occasions.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay. So that's one step forward.

Secondly, can you tell me what your enforcement budget is like from 1995-96 to this date, 1996-97, 1997-98? Is it going up? Is it going down?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I have three points to the very good questions that have been posed.

It's very important that the committee understand that border work does not automatically mean we're going to be catching people. I'll let my customs colleagues speak to this, but massive blitzes at the border, looking at trucks systematically.... My understanding, and I think the auditor general will also point that out, is that not only in Canada but worldwide, blitzes are not necessarily an efficient way of carrying out business.

• 0940

That brings me back again to the intelligence issue. If we want to be successful in this business, we have to learn to go upstream toward the people who are in the illicit movement of transboundary waste.

I'm trying to explain that the direct relationship between the number of people, the level of activity, at the border is not necessarily the only solution. This is very important. I must admit even for myself the natural reaction, when I got to the job and heard we had problems at the border, was to say, “Let's do blitzes. Let's go to the border and blitz. Open the trucks and look and sample.” The answer I got was that there are four places where you can go through at Lacolle. The people have CBs and there are action guys who move out. If you're in the illegal business it's easy, by having contacts with others, to divert yourself from one area to another.

When we talk about resources, inspections, and a blitz at the border, I'm not saying they should be totally excluded. They are probably still valid actions to take, but they are not the sole solutions. Intelligence has to be very important, and I'll certainly let my customs colleague speak to this.

The other point I would make just quickly is the steering committee has been operative and has met on two occasions. It is engaged in making sure the various recommendations are implemented and the various modifications to the so-called MOU are brought forward quickly within twelve months so we will become operational under the new MOU.

On the business of resources and the question of whether it has been stable or going up and down, Environment Canada, through program review, went through a reduction of roughly 30%, but in the enforcement resources nothing was cut. It is maintained as it was before the program review. As we speak today, the number of resources has not been decreased, as was the case for other programs, even to the average of 30%. So there has been no reduction in the case of enforcement capacity resources in Environment Canada.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Money and personnel.

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, both. There has been zero cut.

Mr. Ian Glenn: Can I speak to that as well? Sitting on a plane last night I thought about this. I'm always left unsettled about that. I think the more complete answer, in fairness to my colleague—because I've also read the material coming into the department that on the enforcement side there were no cuts—is that that's true, but the challenges got greater. So in relative terms are we keeping up? I'd say no we're not, and that is one of the challenges.

How do we balance our resources and get smarter with what we have? That challenge isn't unique to Environment Canada. I think Revenue Canada and other enforcement arms of government departments would say that was a challenge as well. That's why, even though it sounds weak to say this, partnerships across other organizations are critically important.

Gaining genuine interest by other countries and their law enforcement arms in transborder traffic has been a problem. You're dealing in the United States, for example, with a regime that hasn't even signed onto the Basel Convention on Capital Adequacy. So this isn't necessarily one of its law enforcement priorities.

That being said, we're now getting cooperation. So we're trying to find ways to protect the funding base as best we can. But I would declare to every enforcement officer or inspector in Environment Canada and beyond that we know the challenges have gone up. That's the complete answer.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have one last question to Mr. Emmett, but before that I'd like to refer you to the report of the committee on CEPA. We flagged a recommendation, which I think should be really seriously examined, that funding can come from dedicated fines. In other words, a portion of the money you recover from fines should go to funding the inspection team. I think this is what a lot of jurisdictions do. You fund inspection teams through the fines you get, so of course there's an incentive to be much more aware. I hope you'll look at this recommendation in our report, Mr. Glenn.

My last question is to Mr. Emmett. Does the auditor general have a base of comparison of what's happening on a tonnage basis or truckload basis of the record of enforcement and contraventions and convictions in the United States versus Canada? Shouldn't we be doing this?

• 0945

Mr. Brian Emmett: The short answer, Mr. Lincoln, is no, we don't, although we did spend some time with our American colleagues in doing this audit.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is there a value to doing this in the future so that we have a benchmark, so that we know we are doing well or badly or compared to the United States, which has the same problem or worse? Or maybe the revenue people could tell us.

Mr. Brian Emmett: I believe there is a value, Mr. Lincoln, and in future work we will in the normal course of events come back to this subject after two years and do a follow-up audit. At that time we will take into account the idea of looking at the U.S. experience.

Mr. Ian Glenn: Can I support Brian on that? There is value in trying to have “baselines”, if I can use that expression. At the same time, and it goes back in part, Mr. Gilmour, to your question, there is the nervousness law enforcement arms have about dealing with estimates of illegal activity. It's spongeable and you can sort of squeeze it, but you're not certain whether you have it.

One of the benchmarks we continue to have to use, either through education or compliance work with bodies that are legitimately in this business, is tracking the legitimate waste across borders. What is in fact being permitted? How is it being handled? And can we in essence get some measure of the overall industry that's out there? Then you try to monitor estimates of what could be illegal against that. You then bring in the intelligence of what you now know may well be coming not cross-border North American, but to North America and then cross-border.

Is there a value to a baseline in the future, Mr. Lincoln? Yes. Is there a concern that you can get hung out to dry on that spongeable illegal? That's one of the challenges any law enforcement arm has to address.

Mr. Earle Warren: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'll come back to a couple of the issues that have just been on the table. In Revenue Canada we have a commercial compliance measurement program where we actually go to a particular border site for a two-week period and do a statistically valid sampling of shipments that is exhaustively examined. In two years of the program we have yet to uncover an illicit shipment of hazardous waste, which doesn't say that it's not there, because that's quite obvious, but it shows that to a degree you're looking for that needle in a haystack in terms of the number of shipments that may be involved vis-à-vis the number of trucks crossing the border.

Really, from our perspective we believe the success can only come if we have the intelligence information. We have sophisticated automated processing systems now. We can target in advance of arrival of the shipment if we know the name of the company, the product that's involved, the exporter that's involved, etc. From our perspective what we really need is that intelligence information so that our targeting systems can select the shipment we need to examine. That's really the gap we face at the moment.

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

Mr. Charles Caccia: Mr. Emmett, in your report you wrote in section 410.4 on page 4-31:

we were not provided with a comprehensive analysis to indicate how Canada might remedy any potential inconsistencies between its policies and obligations,

I presume these are the international obligations we have under the Basel Convention. In the intervening ten months have you been provided with a comprehensive analysis?

Mr. Brian Emmett: No, Mr. Caccia, we have not received that. But we understand that it continues to be discussed at the WTO and at other fora.

Mr. Charles Caccia: When do you expect to receive it?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I do not believe we have a date on which it's going to be delivered.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Who will deliver it?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Generally the analyses of consistencies of obligations are done by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Who is in charge of that?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Dick Ballhorn.

Mr. Charles Caccia: When was the last time he was asked to deliver it?

Mr. Brian Emmett: We've spoken to Mr. Ballhorn about a number of areas recently. With respect to this, it would have been last year when we did this report. With respect to the issue more generally of how Canada enters into agreements and how the consistency of those agreements is checked, we are currently doing a report to submit to this committee in May on all our international obligations, and we've been discussing them with the Department of Foreign Affairs as well.

• 0950

Mr. Charles Caccia: Do you expect to have perhaps some clear understanding of the inconsistencies for this committee in a matter of months or years?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I'm not sure. This is an item that will probably be under discussion at a very highly technical level in international fora for some period of time, and I'm not sure it would be wise for me to attempt to put a date on that.

Mr. Charles Caccia: The Basel Convention is one we have ratified and one we have paid a lot of attention to in the past, and it's certainly an item on which our reputation abroad hinges heavily. Therefore it might be helpful if you could renew your efforts, Mr. Emmett, within the limited means that are available to you.

Mr. Brian Emmett: We certainly have as a priority on our work plan, Mr. Caccia and Mr. Chairman, the international agreements, which are very much a way of doing business these days—how they are negotiated, how they are checked, how they are ratified, and so on. Some of that work will be reported this May and will be ongoing for at least a further year.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Could you indicate to Mr. Ballhorn, on behalf of the committee, that we would certainly appreciate some information and conclusions on this subject before the summer?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Caccia, I can do that. I also note that, as I said earlier on, we will be doing a follow-up to this chapter next year, in 1999, and we can touch on those issues at that time.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thanks.

In your same report on the same page, the first bullet of the conclusion reads:

Environment Canada has yet to take appropriate enforcement action with regard to detecting illegal traffic in hazardous waste at the border and establishing the required intelligence capacity necessary for proactive prevention of illegal shipments.

Then you go on to say:

This is not the first time this Office has noted problems in the area of enforcement. In 1991 we reported that priorities for enforcement and compliance had not been clearly defined and that enforcement and compliance activities were not well monitored and evaluated.

Perhaps Mr. Glenn can give us some insight as to why it is taking so long.

Perhaps you were thinking about it last night as well, which would certainly please my heart.

Mr. François Guimont: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I was the one thinking about it last night.

Mr. Charles Caccia: You too, eh? It's amazing how many thoughts this committee can figure in the minds of witnesses.

Mr. François Guimont: But seriously, I'll give just a bit of background here, and it's quite important.

Basel came into force in 1992, and we signed on to it, so we had to be able to backstop with our regulation in 1992. The office of enforcement, this unit that exists in headquarters with ramifications in the regions, was put together in 1993, so that's five years ago. So when I look at 1991, I'm not saying the conclusion or the observation was not a valid one, but we've been organizing ourselves in that office of enforcement from 1993 onward.

The key thing on priorities, evaluation, and how we do enforcement is tied to our national inspection program. That national inspection program is a protected document, because it explains how the department is going to go about setting priorities, targeting, and achieving its enforcement goals and approaches. This document is a piece that is adjusted on a yearly basis, based on regional input, and it sets some priorities based on risk and other characteristics as well.

This is not to say it is an evaluation of the program, but it is an evaluation of the priorities that are tied to the program for the various regulations we have on the books, 32 of them, under CEPA and the Fisheries Act.

As I said earlier, right now the priorities—and they can be shared with the committee—are as follows. The first one is import-export hazardous waste. The second one is new substance certification regulation; that's our second priority and also an area we need to get our minds around. The third one is ozone-depleting substances, and we're going to be talking about that tomorrow. The fourth one is the national pollutant release inventory. Questions were asked on enforcement related to provisions of the NPRI, so that's our fourth priority. And the fifth one is pulp and paper.

• 0955

The point I'm making here is that these priorities are adjusted, and they are adjusted based on how the risk is assessed at the end of a period and how much we have done, how much we have achieved vis-à-vis the risk we are trying to handle. Essentially that's what the plan does.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, there's something here that I'm missing. All this is now the object of intensive discussions, which is great and fine, but this issue of enforcement has been highlighted since 1991, and in addition to that, the report is 10 months old. How come these discussions and actions have intensified only in recent weeks? What happened in between?

Mr. François Guimont: The question was posed to us, “What is it you've been doing over the last 10 months, since the auditor general's report was filed with Parliament?” I filed an action plan with the committee clerk.

Obviously the moment these recommendations and observations came up, we got organized. It is input. If there is a challenge or a problem in that area, we're going to focus on it. That action plan I tabled outlines very specifically the various tasks we're doing to meet all of the auditor general's recommendations. We're not challenging one. We're all saying these points are good points, there is a challenge, and we need to address it properly.

As for the work on the import-export hazardous waste, it's not for just a few weeks that we've worked at refocusing our effort as a priority. It is something we picked up in the department, I would say, probably just before the auditor general came out with his report. And the ramping up of the numbers I provided shows that effort. The ramping up started in 1995-96 and continued up to right now, 1997-98, as I mentioned, at 440 for what we call global inspections.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Well, your CEPA statistics, which are not before us today and which we will leave for another meeting, certainly do not show a ramping up. If anything, they show a ramping down. But we will leave that for another occasion.

My final question, Mr. Chairman, is very brief. One of the talking points by the deputy minister on page 3 reads:

Within the federal government we are discussing new working agreements with Revenue Canada (customs) and the RCMP.

When will these discussions come to a conclusion and when will these agreements come into effect?

Mr. François Guimont: I'll go to the action plan to identify the actual dates. For the revised MOU in place, it would be within a year. The revised MOU would be with customs. As I explained, this renewed customs MOU is broader; it's going to be more complex. It touches on intelligence and other types of activities beyond what we had before.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Do you mean December 31 of this year or January 1 of next year? Can you give us a date? How long will you be discussing and when will you be concluding an agreement, and when will it come into effect?

Mr. François Guimont: I would like to think it is feasible to work this out this fiscal year. It's important, and we have to put the necessary horsepower to get it through.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Do you mean March 31, 1998 or March 31, 1999?

Mr. François Guimont: Sorry, the calendar year, so that would be by next January 1, 1999.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

Mr. Ian Glenn: Perhaps I could add to that, Mr. Caccia.

Just doing an MOU, in essence saying we have an agreement with another department, is something I could commit to doing in a month. That's not the goal of the exercise. It's to do one that in fact effectively can be implemented across those organizations.

As for the work with Revenue Canada in customs, I'm very confident in saying we're already seeing it in the same fashion. The challenge is effectively trying to work—and I'll use the RCMP now as an example—in ways that also address or reflect the pressures they have in broader law enforcement. The MOU is really then a platform to get on and actually, as you would like as well, achieve results.

• 1000

Mr. Charles Caccia: If you look at page 3 of the action plan that was distributed this morning, the revised draft MOU will be completed by spring of 1998. Is Mr. Guimont referring to another document on page 3 under the heading “Management Response and Action to be Taken”, where the date of completion is also spring 1998? Are we talking about two different items?

Mr. François Guimont: No, there is one MOU that we want to renew. That is the customs one and—

Mr. Charles Caccia: Did you change the date this morning? Can you make up your mind?

Mr. Ian Glenn: I'll speak again to that. The MOU—

Mr. Charles Caccia: Is it spring 1998 or not?

Mr. Ian Glenn: It is spring 1998 for the actual MOU. What I'm concerned about is coming back before this committee some time after December of this year and saying, okay, what progress are we making? What in fact has actually happened? Not just what have we agreed on paper to do, but are we making any progress? On that one, I am quite comfortable in saying we can commit to coming back next year and saying here is the progress in arrangements with both of these bodies as a starting point. I would hope, quite frankly, that we could include others. We might share with you what arrangements we would have in conjunction with customs with our U.S. colleagues. It's that progress that I think this committee deserves, not just whether we have a piece of paper that says we have a memorandum of understanding, but rather what has it actually effected. On that one, I would be quite prepared for us to account for ourselves post the end of this calendar year.

Mr. François Guimont: If I may add, Mr. Chairman, I got a bit confused here and it is because we have another MOU with the RCMP. That one is to be ready by winter of 1998. So the spring one is for customs and the RCMP one is for winter 1998. That was your original question, I believe, Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

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

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I just have a short question and it is something I wasn't able to get out of the document. With respect to the actual penalties for illegal shipment, how severe are the penalties in this nation compared with the other OECD countries, from a legal perspective?

Mr. François Guimont: We don't have the answer here. We could get back to the committee with a comparison of what CEPA provides us with in terms of potential penalties versus a selection of OECD countries. We could file that with the clerk.

Mr. John Herron: I don't claim to be an expert with respect to illegal trafficking of anything, but my comment is that there are perhaps individuals who aid those individuals who really profit from this crime. If the deterrents were stronger, I think that would prevent certain individuals from even participating in the process.

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

Mr. John Herron: I guess my final point is that if the deterrents are strong it would prevent people from participating in the process and perhaps that would be somewhat helpful for your enforcement.

Mr. Ian Glenn: To the general thesis that Mr. Herron is advancing, I agree with it. At a certain point, if you have a scheme where there can be a cost-effective way for the transporters, if you have a way of getting your permits and moving the substance across the border, why would you then engage in illegal trafficking? What is that black market and what value is there to it? Penalties can be a disincentive; I agree with that as a general thesis. What we want to do is come back with better information in terms of what are the other parties to the convention doing in their domestic imports.

Mr. John Herron: I think we should be tough on crime, right guys?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I'm tough on the causes of crime.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Is there general agreement that one measure of our progress would be the number of successful prosecutions?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I think we would certainly look to that as an indication of progress. We do need measurable indicators.

• 1005

I agree with much that Ian has said about compliance and so on, but there are two factors in this equation. One is the risk of detection and one is the level of the penalty, which has been pointed out. The risk of detection and the level of the penalty, multiplied together, are the deterrent effect. We would like to see the risk of detection increased through better use of strategic intelligence, more inspections, and so on. So we would see the number of successful convictions as an indicator.

Mr. Ian Glenn: I would say it's one. I would hope another indicator of success—and this is against what you estimate to be the trans-border traffic—would be the amount that is in fact occurring through permit. That's another indicator, a compliance factor to judge whether people are complying with the requirements of law and shipping in accordance with them. Prosecutions, guilty pleas—I don't know whether there's a distinction in the end, but parties that are apprehended and plead guilty, leading to convictions—are one. Size of penalty possibly could be one.

I'm attracted to Mr. Lincoln's suggestion, when I look back at the old CEPA thing, about the degree to which that turns back into the system, but I would be nervous about the size of penalty necessarily being the benchmark. I would be more inclined to use as one of the indicators an effective enforcement program, in essence successful prosecutions, meaning the outcome of apprehension and charge leads to the conviction. It certainly is an indicator.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): The number of prosecutions or guilty pleas or convictions or whatever in 1997 was...?

Mr. Ian Glenn: With guilty pleas, eight. In 1995-96 and 1996-97 eight would either be guilty, leading to conviction, or prosecution.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): So if it's higher than eight for the next twelve months, or higher than four, I guess, averaged over two years, we could see that as progress.

Mr. Ian Glenn: That could be one indicator. As I said, increased traffic coming under permit would be another indicator of progress. It would be one. I wouldn't want to hang my success record entirely on prosecutions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): But if it dropped to zero....

Mr. Ian Glenn: I would say increased inspections leading to actual detection would be another valid indicator.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Well, if you're inspecting and you're detecting, are you not prosecuting?

Mr. Ian Glenn: Not necessarily. That would be a general comment on broader law enforcement. You wouldn't necessarily prosecute. You might well have some arrangement made with the transporter to ensure compliance in the future.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): On the one hand we're talking about the villains, or the committee is trying to talk about some villains, and the concern about CFCs in Montreal, or bad guys.... We're not talking about the guy who for whatever reason...the paperwork was wrong or late or something, but there was no mal-intent. But we agree there are some villains out there and presumably we need to do a better job in trying to prosecute them.

Mr. Ian Glenn: Including—and this is where I would add a qualifier to prosecutions—ones in which we would be comfortable in saying it truly had an impact on the interest of people in illegally transporting these substances. You might well be selective to ensure you're in essence going into an area of organized crime and seeing whether more can be taken to a successful outcome. But it's fair to say prosecutions would be one indicator.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): So in fairness, we can look to them to go up over the next twelve months from a baseline of about four.

Mr. Ian Glenn: That will depend on detection. You still have to catch them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Well, we can look for detections to go up.

Mr. Ian Glenn: Yes, to the degree that Mr. Guimont indicated this is an enforcement priority for us, I would hope that does mean, since it's a leading priority, our success rate will go up. But you can prosecute only what you can find.

That's part of why we're dealing with partnerships across other organizations. We're improving that overall capacity to detect this traffic.

• 1010

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I hear the qualifier.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned organized crime, and this is an area where Environment Canada must work with the RCMP. This is not an area we have a natural capacity in, obviously, so it's imperative we have that relationship with the RCMP if we want to crack it open properly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I wonder if I could ask Environment Canada what they think of the proposed cost-recovery program of the export-import as a source of funding for....

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the cost-recovery work the department has begun in this area is based on the fact that we feel, in line with government policy—Treasury Board, that is—people able to receive shipments in that area are receiving a specific benefit, if you wish. In that sense, we are working at developing a cost-recovery scheme. We want to make sure the cost-recovery scheme is fair and equitable, that it differentiates between hazardous waste going for final disposal versus hazardous waste going for recycling versus waste simply transiting through Canada.

What I'm trying to say here is that the fees we're considering have to relate to this reality of disposal, recycling and transit. That's the first point.

The second point I would make, briefly, on this is we are completing our consultation. We are not there yet. There are still some challenges that need to be addressed and we're talking to companies involved in that business. The overall comment I would make is that what we are looking at now, in terms of fee structures versus the manifests that are being produced by companies and sent to us, because of the relationship between the two, would be augmenting the cost burden by 1% of the total amount of resources that exist in the trading business right now. So 1%, we don't believe, would be inducing illegal traffic. We don't believe 1% would be sufficient for that. That's our evaluation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Is this cost-recovery money earmarked for enforcement?

Mr. François Guimont: No, the cost-recovery money essentially would be providing for coverage of the people dealing with the manifest. This manifest business is a very important piece of equipment feeding into our enforcement unit, but the dollars are not cost recovered for enforcement. The dollars are cost recovered for what I would call the manifest aspect, the so-called 35,500 manifests a year that we're handling.

Mr. Ian Glenn: It goes back to help cover the cost of running the permitting program, not the enforcement program.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Right. I understood that.

The last question deals with amendments to the new CEPA. I'm not an expert on Bill C-74. Was there a change in Bill C-74 from CEPA 1988 to help you with enforcement? If there wasn't, are there changes in the language of the new bill, the new CEPA we're expecting in the next month or so?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I'll go by memory, but I'll try to be as precise as I can. What is being proposed in the new CEPA in terms of allowing for better enforcement tools is what I would call a ticketing capacity. If, as an example, an inspector sees an offence on the spot, he would be able to do something. That's the first thing.

The other thing is there would be a capacity for us to obtain—and I'll use my own words here—search warrants electronically. So that would be more efficient; quicker, if you wish. Also, an inspector would have the capacity to be accompanied by an analyst. That would help in terms of certain situations where the question arises about whether something is a hazardous waste and how the inspector should go about sampling it. As I said before, there are 3,500 of those hazardous wastes, so it's not like PCBs. PCBs are PCBs. This is really a continuum of various things, so an analyst would be able to be with an inspector.

• 1015

Those are by memory what I would call new elements that would help our inspectors on the ground when they carry out their duties, their responsibilities, under CEPA.

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

Mr. Glenn.

Mr. Ian Glenn: I made a comment earlier, which may have been misconstrued somewhat, that if we had the new CEPA we could solve the problems of the world. That wasn't quite what I was saying.

We have a practical problem now. As Mr. Guimont said, there were provisions in the bill in the last session that did give inspectors greater capacity to be effective in the work. The care is that the bill hasn't been reintroduced, so it's not a finished exercise yet. But I think it's fair to share with this committee that we don't anticipate any changes on those provisions. In essence, where we are looking to try to increase authorities for inspectors, that would continue to be an intent to the government.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Charbonneau has been waiting patiently.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I'd like to come back to a question that you raised and I would like some clarification as to the Deputy Minister's answer. You indicated that inspections are being carried out and that the presence of hazardous waste can be detected at the border, but that such detection did not necessarily result in any legal action being taken. If I understood you correctly, discussions can result in other arrangements being made.

Could you explain that to me again?

Mr. François Guimont: In response to an inspection, a written warning may be issued. This is one recognized form of action. An inspector may issue an order. A formal investigation may be held during which the facts are examined, the case referred to the Justice Department and then on to a court.

I want you to understand that there are a number of ways of handling a given situation. An inspector must choose the way in which he would prefer to deal with the offence.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, the last time I tried to pull that trick with the police was when I was pulled over for going over a little over the posted speed limit. I told the police the police that I hadn't set out to break the law, that I was distracted a little and that I would be more careful next time. However, the outcome wasn't what I had hoped for.

Two years ago, I encountered a problem with Revenue Canada. My accountant had neglected to include a statement, which meant that I owed $200 in taxes. I tried to explain to Revenue Canada that next time I would be more careful and that I would get a new accountant, but I struck out again. I was told to pay up and the matter would be discussed later.

Explain to me then why it is that when it comes to environmental matters, we can debate and write letters.

[English]

Mr. Ian Glenn: You could be dealing with extremes: you're satisfied that the person was in essence quite unknowing of the requirements and you're satisfied putting them into a compliance regime—better educated; that that is the future.

You could deal with the other extreme. The other extreme could well be that the party that through inspection you find is carrying these goods could be part of an intelligence operation with you to in fact deal with a much bigger problem. That's very common in the law enforcement area.

Those are two extremes, but there's always an element of a judgment required of inspectors and enforcement officers as to whether you proceed with prosecution or not. It's not an absolute.

As to your own personal situation, it might be the luck of the draw.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You've given me a fine idea. The next time I get stopped for speeding, I'm going to say that I was really trying to have the person behind me caught.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Charbonneau, are you finished?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In any event, there is no answer.

[English]

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

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Emmett, in your report you indicate on page 2, item 8, that virtually no containers coming into the country are inspected for potentially illegal shipments of hazardous wastes. Then you say, “and relatively fewer rail containers are examined”. If there are no containers examined and fewer rail containers, I would imagine there's absolutely no inspection of rail at all.

• 1020

Are you the right one to answer?

Mr. Brian Emmett: There is no inspection of rail that we know of.

Mr. Rick Casson: If you were into the business of transporting this stuff illegally, that would be something that would be handy to know.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Or anything else.

Mr. Brian Emmett: I suspect that if one is involved in the transportation of it one does know that loophole.

Mr. Rick Casson: One thing that keeps coming up is intelligence, the collection of information to give us an idea of the extent of what's happening. We have registry programs for toxic materials produced and used. How extensive a system do we have to put in place to keep track of this on a worldwide basis?

There are hazardous materials leaving Canada; there are hazardous materials coming in, in all different sizes and shapes. Some of it could be very small and be quite dangerous. What form would this intelligence take? How would it be gathered? Who would gather it? How would it be used to help the situation?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I'll ask my colleagues to respond.

Mr. Wayne Cluskey (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): It would be gathered in various ways. I think our colleagues from Revenue Canada and Environment Canada could talk a little bit about how they go about it.

One of the problems with systems is, when is enough enough? Are you spending $2 to control $2? It's very difficult to say.

The departments have to look at the extent and try to get a better handle on the extent of the problem before they can really determine how far they should go with what kinds of resources, and so on.

In fairness to the government in Canada, it's a difficult situation. Our colleagues in the United States—EPA, FBI and so on—indicated the same kinds of problems, because they have the problems, particularly with the drug trade as well. So it is a very difficult question to answer. There is no definitive answer.

One of the parts of intelligence that we found was a big part of the American effort was profiling the likely villains—I think that is the word that has been used—and getting a sense, so you begin to suspect who might likely be the kind of people. Again, it's a very difficult situation, and I believe the United States think they intercept only about 5% to 10% of drugs coming in. There is no hard and fast number. There is no system that is effectively collecting that kind of data that we were able to determine.

Mr. Rick Casson: Then how will we ever establish the extent of the problem?

Is it impossible?

Mr. Ian Glenn: With certainty, yes. You always live always with estimates in this area. You try over time to ensure you've got a strong data collection capacity across countries and across the industries, including working with parts of the industrial sector that want to cooperate with you, to get a measure of what you think are the quantifiable limits of this activity and then what amount of it you would estimate to be beyond the legal transport of it. That, regrettably, is a difficulty that exists across many areas of law enforcement.

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

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Somebody I know in the freight forwarding business was telling me that, because of the evolution of the computer systems and so forth, the manifests and the documentation for shipments have now been, for purposes of paper, upgraded, to the extent that only one shipment, one truckload, every so often is checked by the customs. I think in the report you refer to this, that in some places they have collection boxes where these trucks just deposit a copy of the manifest and in some places there are no collection boxes, so the trucks go through virtually without any stop.

Can you tell us if that is a current position? I ask this because this friend of mine tells me that, to his knowledge—and he's in that business—on average only 1 in 27 trucks gets stopped and checked.

• 1025

Mr. Earle Warren: For clarification, are we talking import, export, or both?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I guess both. I would imagine it would be both.

Mr. Earle Warren: I believe the reference, particularly with respect to the boxes whereby one would deposit export documents, relates to export shipments only. The reality is that Canada Customs does not, as a matter of course, have any resources assigned on a regular basis to the export lanes. Since a particular year—I can't recall the year, but I could find out—we have had an agreement with the United States on statistics. The United States import statistics are used as Canadian export statistics, and vice versa.

As a result, we don't expect a report for the vast majority of transactions leaving Canada any more. So reports are on an exception basis. For example, they're required because the goods on the highway are in transit through the United States to a third country. That's the only time that customs or Statistics Canada would require any kind of export reporting. In the case of other departments, if there's a requirement to deposit an export document, then, to be honest, it's essentially voluntary at that stage, unless there's a blitz or some other activity taking place in the export lane. As a matter of course, the export lanes are not staffed or resourced at the border.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What about imports?

Mr. Earle Warren: On the import side, all import transactions are put through our so-called ACROSS system, which is an automated release and targeting system. Based on targeting and analysis, either a random sample is selected for examination, or if for any reason there's a match on targeting, then that particular shipment is taken for examination.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Something on page 4-25 came up very loud and clear during the CEPA hearings. In 4.80, it says:

Operational enforcement personnel repeatedly advised us that they believe there is a cultural reluctance to embrace enforcement within Environment Canada.

They mention that there are two philosophies. One is to use awareness and education, and the other one is to focus on deterrence through enforcement actions. He says in 4.81:

Overall, when we compared the current practices with the practices described in Exhibit 4.3, we concluded that current enforcement operations have significant gaps in the areas of detecting illegal traffic at the border and providing a deterrent to illegal transboundary movements of waste.

He goes on to say:

“How long does a regulation have to be in place to be vigorously enforced?”...it will have taken almost five years for the Department to put in place a robust enforcement program for these Regulations.

In 4.62, I notice that the auditor general says that Environment Canada officials do not sample:

In one region with heavy volumes of hazardous waste traffic, Environment Canada officials do not sample and do not have testing facilities or a mobile laboratory available. In one case, involving a Canadian exporter, the case didn't proceed because there was no sample of the illegal shipment, and hence no physical evidence that the illegal export took place.

If you look at the summary of that on page 4-25, when it describes the constraints to effective enforcement under Environment Canada, it mentions the limited enforcement resources, which we have discussed, limited broad-based sanctions other than prosecutions, which means only warnings, and a lack of sampling, equipment, and intelligence infrastructure.

You talked about the intelligence portion of it. They talk about a cultural reluctance to embrace enforcement and definitional issues. I was wondering if you could tell us whether, in your review and the new methods you're putting into place, you are attending to this, including the cultural reluctance to embrace enforcement and also infrastructure, such as equipment, lab equipment, and so forth.

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, on the two points made by Mr. Lincoln, on the business of samples, it's important that I go back at it again. It's not a small issue.

• 1030

As I mentioned earlier, the way our people look at import-export hazardous wastes is that we have a family of 3,500, and probably more, different wastes. A lead acid battery coming through the country or going to the United States is one thing. Taking a sample of that, if it's an illegal shipment, is probably not too difficult, if you see what I'm getting at. But there are other types of wastes—various types of liquids, biomedical wastes, and things of that nature—for which we need to do more training in this business of sampling, doing it properly, having the sample and being able to carry through with the so-called continuity of evidence. There is no question about that, both inside the department and with our relationship with customs colleagues. When we take a sample we need to be able to process it properly—to analyse it, if need be—and to process it in the context of ultimately a prosecution, if that's the course of action we are taking.

The point I'm making here is that, once again, if I compare this with either PCBs...which is exactly that. You take your sample of oily sheen and ask whether you have PCBs there. If the answer from the lab analysis is “yes”, then you have your continuity of evidence as you move forward.

In the case of these hazardous wastes in a truck, it's a different kettle of fish to handle. There's a recognition of that. The action plan does speak to the fact that the business of analysis and samples is something we need to understand and get our minds around properly.

I'm not saying we're there yet. I'm saying this is an area where we need to invest, and invest properly, so that when we move ahead and prosecute we are equipped with the proper facts and realities.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you need lots of equipment to sample?

Mr. François Guimont: You see, the equipment is tied to the complexity of the substance you're dealing with, and the analysis is tied to exactly that.

In terms of PCBs, we have labs at Environment Canada that can actually carry out the analysis very precisely and will have good standing before the courts.

If we deal with a black lacquer of some kind, for example, and we carry out this analysis, we may have to go to an outside lab. I do appreciate that we may not have the capacity to analyse this if it's a sophisticated or unusual type of waste. We need to go through these properly in the sense of finding ways of making sure that when samples are taken we can carry out the analysis properly so that we have the continuity of evidence as we move forward for prosecution.

Mr. Ian Glenn: I'll speak to the cultural relevance.

This is not unique to Environment Canada, this concern as to whether an organization that's trying to advance a compliance regime should put all of its eggs into the prosecution basket. Whether that is the way to go is a debate in many law enforcement units of departments administering laws. There is a balance that has to be struck.

In terms of our present approaches, we're not denying the value and the importance of successful prosecutions, and whether it's chilling the marketplace that way.

So that was with regard to your question earlier, Mr. Knutson.

To the enforcement community, to the inspections community, to effectively advancing a compliance regime—that's a cultural problem I'm aware of. I'm not in the camp that it has to be all of one and not of another. It is an effective balance that has to be struck.

When you're engaged in extensive prosecutions, quite frankly, you can tie up your resources sitting in court against being out effectively on the road, or wherever it is, doing day-to-day work that could advance compliance. It's a balance that has to be struck.

It's a cultural problem. I've become aware of it in the short time I've been in the department. I've worked in other organizations that have had law enforcement units as part of their organization. It existed there as well.

In fairness to enforcement officers, what we have to acknowledge is, yes, there is the proper time to in fact advance to the fullest use of your authorities. That's legitimate. But it's not always that way.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you.

The federal government has responsibility for regulating the import and the export of hazardous wastes internationally, as well as the interprovincial shipment of hazardous wastes. This would mean that federal inspectors are the ones responsible for undertaking inspections and sampling and things like that. It's federal inspectors, correct?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In Mr. Glenn's opening remarks he referred to the harmonization accord and the subagreement with the provinces. There is one subagreement on inspection. How will this process be affected by this subagreement on inspection?

• 1035

Mr. François Guimont: Two points, Mr. Chairman, just to address the way the system works, because it's important when we're talking about Canada receiving wastes or exporting wastes. The three copies of the manifest, for the shipper, the hauler, and the person receiving, come to Environment Canada, which then dispatches them to the provinces.

I say this because the provinces are working with Environment Canada on the basis of the exporting country doing what we call “prior informed consent”. The shipment is going to go out on the basis of the receiving country, the importing country, giving consent for the goods, if I may call them that, to come in. So when we say it's federal inspectors at the border, the answer is yes, but that does not exclude the provinces from being in the loop, in the sense that when we get the manifest, we pass that manifest down to that province, and the authority in the province has a chance to see if that facility that will be receiving the goods, the commodities, is a properly regulated commodity, etc.

The fact here is that federal control at the border does not exclude provincial action on that site, which is regulated by a province. This is important to understand.

That brings me to the issue of the harmonization agreement, more specifically the subagreement on inspection. The subagreement on inspection has been signed off in Newfoundland. One other item that may be coming up is the issue of enforcement.

There is a relationship, as you may imagine, between enforcement and the logical continuation of inspection, which is enforcement action if need be. We are getting our minds around how one would dovetail, potentially, the enforcement, or an enforcement subagreement, with an inspection subagreement. But in what I've just described, which is the federal role at the border, the manifesting done with Environment Canada, passing that information down to the province, there is an area in controlling for federal-provincial cooperation. There's an area for that on the manifest aspect. I would say secondly, because these facilities are operating within provincial jurisdiction, there is also place on the intelligence side for cooperation between the federal government and the provincial.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: For the commissioner, just so I can understand what you've said.... The subagreement on inspection will then involve the provinces more than they have been involved in the past; it will delegate to the provinces inspection duties they haven't had in the past. What exactly are you saying? If they are already involved, then why do we have to have a new agreement?

Mr. François Guimont: On the inspection subagreement, as it is for the other agreements, including the umbrella harmonization agreement, there is no devolution. It is a matter of working together federally, provincially, to ensure there are no gaps. Creating a continuum is the idea, so there is greater efficiency in, in this case, carrying out inspections, so we avoid gaps that are always a possibility. But there is no devolution of responsibility for inspection.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, that's not what my question was. I thought one of the ideas was to get rid of overlap and duplication with the harmonization agreement. Are you saying there were overlap and duplication with inspection?

You've talked about the provincial involvement. I'm trying to understand better how the provincial people are involved now and how it will change after the implementation agreement is signed.

Mr. Ian McGregor (Director General, National Programs Directorate, Revenue Canada): To our knowledge there's no duplication at all in hazardous wastes. We've clearly been focusing our efforts on import-export activities. To the extent that the provincial people are involved, they are involved in the local facilities, and it's primarily in a health and safety context, so we have some cooperation between them. What we're hoping for, based on harmonization, is that we can smooth out all of that process and we can have a single flow of information back and forth. We're attempting to avoid some gaps, to the extent that there might be some. At the moment on export-import, to my knowledge, there's no duplication at all.

• 1040

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Where's the gap right now then?

Mr. Ian McGregor: There's a potential gap between the time something comes into the country and the time it gets to the eventual facility. Our process now in place should avoid that through the forms that are used, but there's never a guarantee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Why do you have to sign?

Mr. Ian McGregor: We don't need a harmonization agreement just necessarily specifically for one area.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It seems to me that if you were concerned about how your information is flowing between the federal government and the provincial government regarding this particular activity or particular issue, you would do some kind of an analysis and you would make your system more efficient. You don't need to have a harmonization subagreement on inspection for something like this.

Mr. Ian McGregor: No. This wouldn't be one of the issues that would have pushed us to a harmonization agreement, by any means.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So the subagreement on inspection has been signed. There will be an implementation subagreement on inspection. How will it change what the federal government does and what the provincial government does vis-à-vis inspection on the import and export of hazardous waste?

Mr. Ian McGregor: I don't know if we can predict that yet, I'm afraid. We will be in discussions with the provinces in terms of how best to move forward in harmonizing our activities, but I can't prejudge at the moment how it will apply to this specific regulation.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What is the department thinking? You must have some thoughts about what you want to do.

Mr. François Guimont: If as an example we look at the statistics that were provided by the auditor general, when you look at the manifests and the number 35,500, that comes in three pieces, so you have to multiply by three. The three pieces are in line with what I said: shipper, hauler, and the person receiving.

If I remember correctly, there is always a bit of a weakness on the receiving end, especially if it's export, because it's a company outside of Canada and all of that.

If I transpose that, because there is a bigger flow of hazardous waste from the United States to Canada than vice versa, being able to work with the province in the context of an inspection subagreement—we do business at the border because that's a federal responsibility—and being able to have a better relationship, a clear relationship...if an inspection subagreement helps on those sites receiving the waste, and not only receiving, because if I remember correctly, thirty days after the waste has been received there has to be another piece of paper coming back to Environment Canada explaining how the waste was either disposed of or recycled...these sites are provincial sites and that relationship between the federal government and the provincial government could be helped.

I'm with Mr. McGregor on this. We need to work it through, but that could help by closing the loop better on what I call the “manifest aspect” of transport of hazardous waste. That is a potential advantage.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Commissioner, if the province—and it's not clear exactly what the province is going to be doing or what the federal government is going to be doing vis-à-vis this issue—were to take on more responsibility for inspection duties around the import and export of hazardous waste or around interprovincial shipment of hazardous waste, would that make your job more difficult or easier? Will it affect your job in the future in terms of doing audits like this and creating reports?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I don't believe it will make our job more difficult. We are planning on undertaking work on federal-provincial agreements. We are planning on establishing relationships with our provincial counterparts and developing an expertise in that area, but whether a responsibility is delegated or not it remains a federal responsibility. We would continue to have a responsibility and an ability to audit and report on it.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So even though something is being undertaken by the province and an activity has been delegated to the province or there has been agreement with the province to undertake something, you will still be able to audit. Will you have access to the provincial records and information that you need?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I'll ask Wayne Cluskey to respond.

• 1045

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: There are some yeses and nos. The ability to audit what the federal government has done is clearly within our mandate. We would not be able to walk into a provincial ministry of environment and ask to see its records. That would be totally outside our mandate. That's why, as Mr. Emmett said, we try to work closely with our provincial colleagues.

One question we certainly would ask of the particular department—in this case Environment Canada—would be “How do you know that the provinces are doing what they're supposed to do in terms of what you have delegated to them?” We would, to put it bluntly, put the department on the spot as part of an audit, but we could not go and ask to see information from the provinces. That's not within our jurisdiction.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So you have no guarantee that you will be able to access provincial information when it comes to some of these agreements.

Mr. Wayne Cluskey: It's not even a question of no guarantee. We just do not have the right. They might give it to us willingly if we asked, but it's not likely they would, particularly if it's apt to be an embarrassment. We do talk to provincial officials in the various ministries, so we try to get as much information as we can within the limitations of our mandate.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Caccia, Mr. Herron, and Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Charles Caccia: On page 419 of the report we learn that as far as taking samples in the Quebec region in 1995-96, the figure is zero. In the Pacific and Yukon region the figure is also zero. In the Ontario region it is 12. Is that a cultural question, in your opinion? Why are no samples taken in the Quebec region and in the Pacific and Yukon region? If you can't answer it right now, you can provide us with a reply in writing.

Mr. François Guimont: I'll give an answer and we'll complete it in writing, if need be.

If samples were not taken it implies that situations did not occur where samples could be taken. That is, it was not necessary for customs to have an Environment Canada person go there, look at the situation and determine they were facing something that was probably illegal or outside the bounds of the regulation, take a sample and proceed to analysis. It did not take place because it didn't have to take place.

Mr. Charles Caccia: That is a very creative answer and I compliment Mr. Guimont for it, but I think there may be other reasons. I would prefer to give you the time to explore it more in depth, because Quebec has a much larger tonnage and an equivalent number of trucks...than Ontario. If it decides not to take samples, as well as in the Pacific-Yukon region, there must be a more complex reason, which I would be very glad to be instructed about, if at all possible.

My next question has to do with the fact that we just learned there is a subagreement on inspection but no subagreement on enforcement. Why is there no subagreement on enforcement?

Mr. François Guimont: The original work on harmonization started with the so-called umbrella agreement and the idea of them moving forward with a number of subagreements. Instead of embracing everything at once, I'll give examples. R and D—

Mr. Charles Caccia: I realize that, but you have three subagreements, one of which is on inspection. Since enforcement is somehow the logical continuation of inspection, why is there no subagreement on enforcement?

Mr. François Guimont: I was getting there, actually. The three subagreements have been signed off, and there is what I would call a work plan of other subagreements to be developed and signed off down the road. Enforcement is one of them, together with other subagreements.

Mr. Charles Caccia: When do you expect the enforcement subagreement to be signed?

Mr. François Guimont: That's a good question in the sense that this has been put.....

Mr. Charles Caccia: I don't need to be complimented on the quality of my questions. I would like to know when it will be signed.

Mr. François Guimont: I was trying to be proper here.

Mr. Charles Caccia: You're doing very well.

Mr. François Guimont: Thank you. I appreciate it. I'll take the compliment.

Seriously, the ministers have slated these things to be negotiated, but there's no time line to it, Mr. Caccia. It means we will have to sit down as a department with our provincial colleagues and decide how and when negotiations.... That's what it means, because nothing has yet been done in these areas.

• 1050

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We were going to do a review in two years. Maybe we'll just see how the current body.... Maybe we won't sign anything for the next two years.

Mr. François Guimont: I understand your point, Mr. Chairman, but I wouldn't be in a position now to say that after two years it's going to begin. I know it's on the table. We have to get our mind around what it means from a workable perspective to handle this and doing good with the existing subagreements that have been signed off, so that in 24 months, in the two-year review, we can show that progress has been made.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

My next question has to do with page 4 of your action plan, the last bullet in the right-hand column:

Based on this assessment, recommendations to be prepared on Canada's ratification of the ban amendment, taking into account environmental as well as economic considerations.

The question is, to your knowledge, does the Department of Finance take environmental considerations into account?

Mr. François Guimont: I feel the question would probably be better off posed to people in finance—

Mr. Charles Caccia: Or perhaps the onus of the question should be turned around to say, why should the onus be on the Department of the Environment to take into account economic considerations if the Department of Finance does not? You may want to reflect on that point.

Mr. François Guimont: I was going to say, Mr. Caccia, that these departments, together with Environment Canada and DND, have to come forward and develop a so-called sustainable development strategy.

Mr. Charles Caccia: But you are not the Department of Finance; you are the Department of the Environment, and your main mandate—actually, your mandate—is to promote and advance environmental considerations, don't you think?

Mr. François Guimont: In the context of sustainable development, yes.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes, and in the context of sustainable development you take the economy and social considerations into account.

Mr. François Guimont: Which are the two other factors in sustainable development together with environment, yes.

Mr. Charles Caccia: So if you want to go to sustainable development, you have to add to this bullet social considerations as well. But if you want to stick to the mandate of your department, then leave it to the Department of Finance to promote its economic considerations, because once you go down that slippery road you will find yourself giving economic considerations precedence over environmental considerations. This is just an observation from a conceptual point of view.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to ask these questions. I would like only to conclude by saying that in the last page of this report, on page 4-32, for which I congratulate Mr. Emmett, under Environment Canada's response, the last paragraph reads as follows:

The proposed revision to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will go a long way to ensure that Canada has a rigorous regulatory regime to meet its international commitments regarding the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.

We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to the study of this CEPA bill, to see in the bill this commitment by Environment Canada fully reflected.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Gar Knutson): You're welcome.

I also note that the auditor general's office has said that even when you have the regulatory laws in place, it takes five years to put a regime in place. I just throw that out as a perhaps unneeded aside.

Mr. Herron, Mr. Charbonneau, then Mr. Laliberté.

Mr. John Herron: My question is similar to the parliamentary secretary's with respect to concerns over harmonization. There was a fair amount of dialogue earlier with respect to the inspectors having the capacity to do their jobs. There was a concern that we didn't have the capacity of inspectors on the ground perhaps to be able to do as much detection as we would like them to do.

To make it more simple, is it your feeling that we will have more or fewer inspectors under harmonization with respect to tracking the transportation of hazardous goods? More or fewer?

• 1055

Mr. François Guimont: From a federal perspective, at the border I don't think the continuum between ourselves and customs will involve the provinces directly. I think they see that as a federal responsibility. This is not to say they are not welcome to help in providing intelligence, as I mentioned before. But federally, at the border we want to be working with customs, RCMP, ourselves, obviously, as being responsible for the regulation.

I'm not excluding provincial support in some shape or form, but this is not what I think is intended or the way the provinces would be looking at it in the context of import-export at the border. I'm talking here very specifically about at the border.

Mr. John Herron: I refer to the document sections 4.25 and 4.2, where they actually talk about the domestic regulatory regime. Part of the way down into that paragraph of 4.2 it says the interprovincial and international movements of hazardous waste are regulated at the federal level, which you just spoke about, whereas the interprovincial movements of hazardous waste are regulated at the provincial level. So the concept of harmonization is to have better teamwork on this issue.

The report goes on to state in 4.25 that the primary objective of this audit was to determine whether Environment Canada, in coordination with other federal departments and the provinces, has established an effective and comprehensive regime to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

I guess what I'm trying to allude to is that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Even if there isn't more of a coordinated process between the provinces and the federal government through inspection on this particular item—because that's what we're talking about—we won't necessarily see any measurable improvement, because the provinces have to take ownership of this issue as well.

Mr. François Guimont: If in the context of the discussion on the implementation of the subagreement on inspection there is room to provide for better continuity between federal actions and provincial actions, it's going to be on the table and we're going to be pushing for that. It cannot be a federal priority, as I said it was at the beginning...and at the same time ignore that if there is a continuum that can be created with the provinces when we discuss the subagreement on inspections. It's just that the way import and export are set up, it's very border intensive, or intelligence intensive; which brings us back more into the so-called sites and facilities, which may involve some provincial responsibilities or capacities. But we need to explore that with the provinces.

I'm not excluding it. I'm saying if it's there, if it's available, it should take place, because it will increase our intelligence capacity.

Mr. John Herron: So your bottom line is that if it's done the way you envision, we could have more bodies on the ground, cooperation between the federal government and the provinces to have more intelligence and ultimately more enforcement inspection on—

Mr. François Guimont: If a provincial role in the area of intelligence, if a provincial role in the area of their carrying out site visits, because they are regulated provincially, allows for increased capacity in the area of import-export and being able to control that, the answer to your question is yes.

Mr. John Herron: I would be more comfortable with the wording “when the provincial role”, as opposed to “if”. We wish you well in that regard.

Something I'm a bit fearful and curious about is that section 4.3 refers to how misdirection could occur when a shipper states that a load is going to a designated treatment facility but the load is ultimately dumped by the side of the road or shipped through Canada or the United States to an unspecified third world country. The Basel agreement refers to the fact that the hazardous goods have to be received by a country that's capable of handling them in a proper manner. Out of curiosity, is there any kind of discovery where a particular OECD country was perhaps redirecting shipments from other OECD countries to developing countries? Would that discovery be a large problem?

• 1100

Mr. François Guimont: Just a bit of factual information on this, for the committee: the bulk of the traffic, more than 90%, is with the United States. The other portion of the traffic is with OECD countries, but as you may imagine, if 90% plus is U.S., it is a small fraction of OECD. But I'm not excluding that. And we are, through the so-called ban decision, not trading with non-Annex 7 countries, which are developing countries that may not have capacity to handle waste like that.

There are two points I would make on this. I am not aware of any shipment of Canada to developing countries, and I am not aware of shipments transiting through Canada to OECD to developing countries.

Mr. John Herron: Okay. That's somewhat comforting, I guess.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Make this your last question.

Mr. John Herron: Something Mr. Lincoln referred to is that in terms of education on the shipment of hazardous goods—in that same section 4.30, they call it “Illegal traffic: deliberate false statements”—if we had more education about the actual deterrent under the law for individuals, and more enforcement and prosecution, wouldn't this ultimately deter some of these individuals who are perhaps trying to get away with this on the “Gee, I didn't know” or “I didn't think it was that big of a deal” approach? I think more education would be very healthy in that particular instance. That's just an observation.

Mr. François Guimont: When the import-export of hazardous waste regulation came through in 1992, the department came up with a document to actually do compliance promotion, to tell people that these are the obligations you have to comply with if you are in that business. I know this is from 1993, and we're updating that. In the action plan we want to do more promotion, because we have a feeling that people need to understand their responsibilities. With the responsibilities come the consequences of not meeting the responsibilities. This is part of the dialogue you refer to as being education—we call it compliance promotion—that people have to be aware of. In that sense, they have to understand that if they don't meet the requirements of the law, there are consequences to that.

Mr. John Herron: Are we taking it almost to the ground level, to the actual individual trucking companies or shipping companies, and that sort of thing?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Myslicki is the so-called authority in the department under the Basel Convention.

Mr. John Myslicki (Chief, Transboundary Movement Division, Hazardous Waste Branch, Environment Canada): The information—the fact sheets and this manual—was distributed to all the players involved in transboundary movement, including the exporters, the trucking companies, as well as importers. We also have a home page where the companies can obtain up-to-date information on the export and import of hazardous waste regulation.

Mr. John Herron: It would be helpful during these educational courses if some of them have black pants with a yellow stripe down the side. That would be quite helpful—meaning the RCMP.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have some questions for Environment Canada representatives and I hope their answers will help me to get a clearer picture of the situation in Quebec, as observed by your international or interprovincial control system.

With respect to imports and exports between Quebec and Canada or Quebec and the United States, do you have the figures to show whether Quebec is a net importer or a net exporter of hazardous waste to Canada or to the United States?

Mr. François Guimont: I do have that information and if you would give me a moment, I will find it for you.

If my memory serves me correctly, Quebec is the largest importer in Canada, compared to the other provinces. I will try to find these figures for you.

• 1105

[English]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, since it is 11 a.m., maybe the response could come later in written form.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): No committee is coming into the room after 11.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont: I have them. Canada imports 23,500 shipments totalling 466,000 tonnes per year. Generally speaking, these 466,000 tonnes break down as follows: 60% go to Quebec, 38% to Ontario, 1.5% to British Columbia, 0.1% to New Brunswick and 0.1% to Saskatchewan. Quebec was the largest importer of hazardous waste in 1996.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: This figure of 60% represents over 250,000 tonnes.

Mr. François Guimont: In essence, yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What about exports?

Mr. François Guimont: A total of 198,000 tonnes were exported to the United States. However, as I mentioned earlier, we are not talking only about the United States. I'm looking for the exact percentage, but I can't seem to find the figures.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Are you talking only about Quebec here?

Mr. François Guimont: No, I'm talking about overall exports. However, 32% are exported by Quebec, whereas Ontario exports 43%. The situation in this case is somewhat reversed. Ontario exports more to the United States than Quebec does, whereas Quebec imports more from the United States than Ontario.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to know if these figures account for the difference between exports to the rest of Canada and to the United States, and imports to Canada and the United States. The figures that you quoted, namely 466,000 tonnes and 60%, are Canadian figures. What you're saying then is that these 466,000 tonnes come from the United States or elsewhere.

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, 99% of the material does.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Is there any way of knowing how much waste other provinces ship to Quebec, and vice versa?

Mr. François Guimont: I understand what you're getting at, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Perhaps that's a somewhat complicated question to answer right here and now, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps we could be supplied with a written answer.

Mr. François Guimont: Certainly. I will send that information to the committee clerk.

If I understood correctly, you would like more specific information on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste between Canada and the United States, as well as on the interprovincial movement of waste in Canada. I will get that information to you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes, I would like information about the interprovincial and international movement of hazardous waste. I would like to know if Quebec is a net importer or net exporter of this material. If the answer is different for the United States or for Canada, this will be apparent from your figures.

I would also like to know if you have any data on the volume of hazardous waste handled in Quebec, that is on the amount of waste disposed of or recycled there. Do you have that information?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, we do have that information and I will get it to the clerk who can pass it along to committee members.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I greatly appreciate your efforts to provide us with this data which will be more accurate than the figures we have received up until now.

[English]

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

Mr. Laliberté.

Mr. Rick Laliberté (Churchill River, NDP): In terms of detection and enforcement, what is the number of inspectors that are assigned to this operation?

Mr. François Guimont: The number of inspectors we have for CEPA and Fisheries Act regulation is 60 across the land. Of these, we have 32 full-time inspectors, 17 investigators—those are two different functions—and 11 managers, if you wish. The 60 could have 3 more people added, because there are some vacancies right now. So, in reality, my understanding of the numbers is that we have 63 people in the enforcement group. But 60 actual bodies are carrying out either inspections or investigations as we speak.

• 1110

Mr. Rick Laliberté: Is the headquarters in Toronto?

Mr. François Guimont: The headquarters is in Hull at Place Vincent Massey.

Mr. Rick Laliberté: Are they regionally dispersed, or are they all from headquarters?

Mr. François Guimont: The headquarters unit is part of what we call the office of enforcement. The people are divided among the five regions of Environment Canada: the Atlantic region, the Quebec region, Ontario, the prairie and northern region, and the Pacific and Yukon region. I have the breakdown of these 60 people—inspectors, investigators and managers—per region.

Mr. Rick Laliberté: There's an item here called sampling—lack of sampling equipment and intelligence reports. Following Mr. Charbonneau's angle of questioning, when you're picked up for speeding, the evidence is there. A new way of catching speeders is the photograph.

Why couldn't you sample without triggering anybody? You could sample at the ports or points of entry, keep the data on what point it was from, and prosecute later. I'm assuming you sample when you want to prosecute and use the evidence as you go along, or do you sample a bunch of train or ship containers, which seems to be a weak point in our link?

Mr. François Guimont: There are two points I would make on this that go back to my introductory remarks when I spoke of our so-called action plan—training, intelligence, and a better partnership. One of those I mentioned is technology.

Two months ago we explored in the department whether there are technologies that exist or that we could develop or think about that would assist the people at the border. I heard your point about cameras and all that, but are there technologies that would help us be more effective in knowing whether we might be facing something illegal in those shipments that would increase our capacity to enforce? That's the first thing.

There is the technology. I can't promise anything there because with the diversity of waste streams—potentially 3,500 plus—it's very tough to have one technology for every one of them. But what are other countries doing, and is there something we could do domestically to explore that?

On your point about the sampling, my understanding of enforcement actions if you're faced with a situation where you believe it is an illegal shipment—the manifest says its lead acid batteries and it looks like biomedical waste—is that normally the investigator-inspector can take a sample, and that sample needs to be analysed to see if it fits the definition of what we have in the regulations. It has to be kept in order to be able to provide for that so-called continuity of evidence. When we move to the next steps, once we determine we have a case that we're referring to Justice Canada for action and prosecution and the judge or attorney asks where the evidence is, whether it has been maintained properly and if we're sure it is biomedical waste and not another waste, we can properly answer these questions. We can say we're convinced this is a hazardous waste for the following reasons and it's been analysed, and we can speak to the continuity between the time the sample was taken and the time we're before the court.

Mr. Rick Laliberté: In the context of the inspectors, what is the number of possible points of entry into Canada?

Mr. Earle Warren: We're talking about several hundred points of entry.

Mr. Rick Laliberté: Do you mean 300, 500 or 900?

Mr. Earle Warren: It's in the 300 range. But as we know, the vast majority of these are coming into the country at three or four border crossings.

Mr. Rick Laliberté: On the harmonization issue, is the problem that our ministers or the CCME—our association of environmental experts—can't define hazardous waste? Is that the problem?

• 1115

When you use the words “sign off”, it's kind of scary, since we're still recovering from the harmonization signature here. It sounds like devolution: you sign off your responsibility as a national regulatory body. So those terms are very touchy in some of our ears.

Maybe you can define the definitional problem that CCME is having and your view of what “sign off” actually meant in your terms.

Mr. François Guimont: CCME was active in the area of hazardous waste before harmonization. There is a working group on import and export of hazardous waste, in the same way as there is a working group—and I'll talk about it tomorrow—on ozone-depleting substances, to make sure that we have congruity in our approach on either ozone-depleting substances or hazardous waste.

One of the key elements of that working group under the CCME on hazardous waste has been so-called definitional aspects related to hazardous waste, and very importantly tied to our Basel obligations, which are reflected in our import-export regulation under CEPA. What Mr. Myslicki has been working at is to create certainty and convergence in the way hazardous waste is being defined across Canada, still meeting the hazardous waste definition of Basel.

This has to do with making sure that when we have waste shipments, as they are manifested to Environment Canada, going to a province, or waste transiting from provinces to another point, there is continuity in the way we are looking at what is a hazardous waste. Is it recyclable hazardous waste, or is it for final disposal? That has been CCME work, which has been going on, I would say, for three to four years. There's still work to be done there, there's no question. It's not finalized.

As Basel evolves, and at COP 4, conference of the parties of the Basel Convention, there are some definitional issues that internationally need to be resolved in the same way as we are doing that domestically, and these are evolving on parallel tracks so that they are consistent.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Can Environment Canada table the numbers on how many enforcement people you have and explain to us what they do and the difference between an inspector and an investigator? We're planning to look at the whole issue of enforcement as a preliminary study to the new CEPA. Could we get that within the next couple of days?

Mr. François Guimont: We will do that, Mr. Chairman, certainly before the end of the week.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): It doesn't need to be more than a couple of pages.

Mr. François Guimont: I understand.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I would like to thank everybody for coming.

Tomorrow afternoon we will do the ozone layer.

The meeting is adjourned.