ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 11, 1998

• 1539

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.)): I would like to welcome everyone.

On the panel today we have Brian Emmett, commissioner of the environment and sustainable development; Wayne Cluskey, principal of audit operations; and John Reed, director of audit operations. From Environment Canada we have François Guimont, ADM of the Environmental Protection Service; and from Health Canada, Rod Raphael, Environmental Health Directorate. Also here is Robin Round, campaign coordinator from the Common Front on the WTO; and from Friends of the Earth, Beatrice Olivastri, chief executive officer.

• 1540

We'll begin with Mr. Emmett and then go to Environment Canada and Health Canada.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner, Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here again. I have a very brief opening statement on the subject of ozone depletion.

Ozone layer depletion is affecting both human and environmental health around the world. Because of its northern location, Canada is one of the countries most at risk from the harmful effects of ozone depletion.

Ozone depletion has been linked to increased skin cancers, eye cataracts, and other human health problems. It's estimated that more than 60,000 Canadians developed skin cancer in 1997. Of these, 3,200 will have melanoma, and of these, about 660 are expected to die.

In dealing with ozone-depleting substances in the early 1980s, the government was faced with a number of new challenges: the precautionary principle, the need for a global approach, and the need to build bridges to lesser-developed countries. The result was the 1987 signing of the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, in which Canada played a key role.

[Translation]

1997 was the tenth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. How well have we been doing? This was what we set out to determine.

Generally speaking, we found that Canada had chosen an appropriate approach to address the problem. Ozone depletion is a global problem and Canada, along with more than 160 other countries, has been pursuing a global problem with a global solution.

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

[English]

However, our audit found a lack of leadership within the federal government with respect to the management, replacement, or elimination of ozone-depleting substances. We also found inconsistent inspection practices by Environment Canada to ensure compliance by companies subject to regulations for ozone-depleting substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We noted that the federal and provincial governments should be doing more to advise Canadians of the health risks associated with ozone-depleting substances and to develop coordinated strategies to minimize the destruction of the ozone layer. For example, recent surveys indicate that 50% of Canadians still do not use sunblock or otherwise protect themselves in the sun, and there is no formal strategy on the part of Health Canada to encourage behavioural changes in this area.

[Translation]

The problem of ozone layer depletion is still a real one. Government officials from developed countries, including Canada, report a loss of momentum in ozone layer protection, due in part to the perception that the problem has been solved. If this persists, the ozone layer will continue to disintegrate and the harmful affects of radiation will continue to increase.

Not until 1997 did developing countries become obliged to adhere to many of the control measures already in place in developed countries. Several have indicated that they will be unable to do so; some are already in default. The ultimate success of the Montreal Protocol will be determined by ODS practices in developing countries.

[English]

The Montreal Protocol demonstrates what we can achieve with diligence, cooperation, patience, and persistence, but my main message today and in the audit is that the job is not finished. Finishing the job will mean that the federal government must set a good example by managing its own inventories of ozone-depleting substances and having an inspection program that ensures proper management of private sector inventories. It will be mean directing available resources to those activities that maximize benefits to ozone layer recovery.

• 1545

Federal and provincial governments will need to work together to ensure that they have consistent and complementary regulations. Finishing the job will also require Health Canada to emphasize the necessity of covering up adequately by using sunblock and other health protection measures.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Environment Canada, then. Mr. Guimont.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Protection Service, Environment Canada): I am very pleased to be here today with my colleague, Mr. Bernard Madé. Mr. Madé heads the group responsible for the ozone-depleting substances.

[English]

Mr. Chair, I have filed with the clerk the introductory remarks I wanted to go through in French and English, but I'm planning to simply touch on a number of highlights, as opposed to systematically going through what was filed with the clerk. Please bear with me. I'll be using a cue sheet, as opposed to the actual speaking points.

As the Auditor General noted in his report, the ozone story in Canada and worldwide is one of achievement and determination. We feel that this is largely a function, but not solely, of Canada's leadership in that area. Why would we say that? How was leadership manifested?

There was the Vienna convention in 1985. We pushed on having the—

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): You said you had filed a document with the committee. What does it look like? I just wanted to make sure I have it here.

Mr. Francois Guimont: My speaking points, my opening remarks, have been filed with the clerk.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Does it say “background” at the top?

Mr. Francois Guimont: I'm looking at the clerk essentially to see if the remarks were circulated.

The Clerk of the Committee: They're in the process of being circulated.

Mr. Francois Guimont: Very good.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Francois Guimont: I can wait, Madam, if you wish.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: No, that's all right. I just wanted to make sure I had your document.

Mr. Francois Guimont: Very good.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Mr. Francois Guimont: As I was saying, there's the so-called Montreal Protocol negotiation. This took place in 1987 and was driven by Canada. When look today at the coverage, 160 countries plus is a measure of success in terms of people wanting to sign on to and take the obligations of the Montreal Protocol.

Looking at the CEPA regulations we have on the books, as the Auditor General picked up, they are pushing us forward. They're more stringent than what our international treaty obligations are under the Montreal Protocol, so there is proactivity in that area.

If we look at the so-called national action plan, the first one in 1992, which followed federal-provincial work under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the federal-provincial advisory committee, that too was an action plan that put us in a proactive mode vis-à-vis federal-provincial relations and vis-à-vis a continuum of actions that were required under both the Montreal Protocol at the federal level and at the provincial level.

Another element of leadership that has been picked up also by the Auditor General is the meeting of our requirements and reporting on those requirements under the Montreal Protocol. The UV index and ozone watch were the first in the world, and these are being picked up by other countries. I think this is also a measure of success and leadership.

We are in the top three countries in terms of our bilateral efforts with developing countries under the multilateral fund in terms of supporting projects. If I remember, we have been supporting 13 projects in seven countries.

There are new technologies to measure ozone depletion in the stratosphere, so there is also a science and technology aspect, which is also an expression of leadership.

The ingredients for that I think fall into three categories, roughly speaking. Our actions have been grounded in science. I think that's also been acknowledged by the Auditor General, both in terms of our contribution to the negotiations, as well as our regulatory approaches. The grounding in science has been inclusive.

• 1550

The Auditor General also picked up on the fact that stakeholders were—I remember the words—highly satisfied with the level of consultation that took place as we developed our positions, as well as the action plan. The overall Montreal Protocol, from a domestic and international perspective, has been very much results-oriented by the time lines, deadlines, and various phase-out dates. So this is also characteristic of the Montreal Protocol and the way we've been delivering.

This is not to say that there are no challenges ahead. There are two points I want to make here. We do acknowledge the points made by the Auditor General. So this is not to say that there are not challenges ahead.

In that sense, in keeping with what we did yesterday, we filed with the clerk a so-called action plan that essentially picks up each and every recommendation of the Auditor General. It explains how Environment Canada, other colleagues, and partners will be delivering on the various points picked up by the Auditor General.

The last point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the so-called national action plan, which we will also file with the clerk. The national action plan is fresh and new. It was adopted by the CCME on January 29 in Newfoundland.

This action plan essentially captures a number of very good points that were made by the Auditor General on the business of cost efficiency with respect to the various measures put forward, and the roles and responsibilities of both federal and provincial governments, i.e., who is responsible for what. The plan is very specific on that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do we have copies of that currently?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes. This is the action plan that specifically addresses the recommendations of the Auditor General. The national action plan essentially is the renewal of the 1992 first version of the action plan. So this plan is brand new. It was done following consultations with stakeholders and provinces. It was done following recommendations made to the CCME in 1995. From 1995 onward to right now, which is 1998, we essentially assembled the action plan on the basis of a number of points that the Auditor General picked up as related to roles and responsibilities, and objectives and outcomes. So this is very specific on that. It talks about reporting on performance. We're going to be monitoring the implementation every six months.

It should also be noted—as you go through the plan you'll see it's fairly clear—that there are a number of deadlines. The plan, instead of only singling out action on CFCs and halons, as an example, is more comprehensive in nature in touching ozone-depleting substances very comprehensively. This is another characteristic of the plan.

Mr. Chairman, these are really the key points I wanted to make for the committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do we have comments from Health Canada?

Mr. Rod Raphael (Acting Director General, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce Dr. Yvon Deslauriers, who is here with us today as the program expert and scientist in this area.

We previously sent through the clerk of the committee to you some background information about our activities. Again, I won't go through all the areas, but I stress that Health Canada considers action undertaken on ozone-depleting substances by the federal government to be important action on behalf of public health. Through our population health approach, in which we use the determinants of health, we also recognize the importance of changing behaviours, where possible, to reduce health risks.

As noted in the Auditor General's report, we are only now at a 50% acceptance level of the behavioural changes required, so need to do more work. Specifically, the deficit identified with respect to a formal strategy is being examined within the department using the framework detailed by the Auditor General in terms of directing appropriate resources through priority mechanisms and working with our provincial public health partners and other partners in the health professions and public education field.

That's it.

• 1555

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Did the Sierra Club want to make some opening comments?

Ms. Robin Round (Campaign Coordinator, Common Front on the WTO, Sierra Club of Canada): Absolutely. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today. I'm glad my mike is working today.

Sierra Club of Canada is a national member-based environmental organization that has been active in Canada since 1969, working to protect the integrity of global ecosystems. Our work involves research, education, and advocacy.

Both the evidence of and implications of the Auditor General's report are chilling and should be of grave concern to parliamentarians. While Canada's early leadership performance on ozone layer protection was admirable, it's clear it claimed success too early. I won't focus on those successes. They've been highlighted here, and they are legitimate. I will focus on some of the failures.

Canada has no right to claim success when it can't ensure compliance with the protocol, when it can't enforce its own domestic regulations, when it can't coordinate its departments or green its own operations to protect the ozone layer.

The Auditor General's report reveals shocking failures in federal leadership, management, and accountability that must be remedied immediately. Failure of the federal government to meet its monitoring and reporting responsibilities under the Montreal Protocol calls into question the ability of Canada to implement multilateral environmental agreements and has disturbing implications for the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

The federal government's failure to get its own house in order and lead by example reflects hypocrisy and undermines its authority, its credibility, and its integrity with both the Canadian public and Canadian business. The inability of the federal government to manage and account for the national action plan and to achieve regulatory harmonization with the provinces indicates a failure of both process and commitment.

These failures over the last 10 years have ominous implications. The job is far from over. It's estimated that the ozone layer will not recover to pre-1980 levels for the next 50 years. Canada cannot afford its current level of complacency. Ozone levels over mid-Canada are now depleted by an average of 7% annually. UV levels are 8% below normal. Skin cancer rates are skyrocketing, in part because of UV exposure. Clearly the job is not over. We need a renewed call for action at the federal level to continue the job.

I'm going to highlight three issues that need specific federal attention over the coming years, and my colleague, Bea, will pick up on several others.

The first is equipment conversion. For most Canadians, the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, or ODS, has been relatively painless from an economic perspective. We just pick up a different aerosol container that doesn't have CFCs in it and it hasn't cost us a great deal.

The real costs are yet to come, when ozone-depleting substance supply dwindles and car air conditioners, domestic refrigerators, industrial chillers, and building air-conditioning systems are forced to convert to alternative technologies. The costs in some sectors will be very high. Canada as yet has no management plan for the management of these stocks.

I welcome the new reports that I see before us today. I remind the committee that it's been 10 years since we signed that agreement, and the auditor noted that there hadn't been any progress in that time.

Environment Canada has not provided end-users with incentives to convert equipment to acceptable alternatives. While CFCs are available, there is little incentive for business to convert, particularly when it necessitates a second conversion later if there's a transitional substance involved.

In my discussions with businesses in Manitoba and B.C. in the course of a public education campaign I conducted, domestic refrigeration and auto service technicians voiced particular concerns that high conversion costs coupled with lack of public education are already pressuring regulatory violations. Unless Canada develops an equipment conversion program that includes economic incentives and regulatory requirements, industry pressure to extend phase-out dates and illegal ODS smuggling will likely increase.

The second point is on destruction of ozone-depleting substances. When Canadians think of phase-out under the Montreal Protocol, they mistakenly assume that it means ozone-depleting substances are gone. They are not. Phase-out only means that no new substances are being produced. Every ozone-depleting molecule that was ever manufactured is destined for the stratosphere unless it is contained or destroyed. At present Canada's strategy is to contain and reuse those ODS through provincial and territorial recovery and recycling programs. But because this strategy prolongs ODS use, with inevitable leakage, only destruction will ensure ultimate ozone layer protection.

• 1600

Scientists estimate that CFC and halon destruction could lead to a 13% improvement in ozone layer recovery if undertaken globally. While Canada has demonstrated some leadership on assessing destruction technologies in the past, it currently has no plans for destruction and is not developing one.

Point number three is smuggling. Because new ODS supply has been cut in industrial countries but not in developing ones and because recycling programs are unevenly implemented where they do exist, and further because ODS-containing equipment is still in wide use, the black market in CFCs is exploding globally. The number of CFC seizures by customs departments in southern U.S. states is second only to illegal drug seizures.

Environment Canada and Canada Customs have been cooperating on these seizures, which is admirable—in particular one in which it worked with the U.S. in June 1997 to catch two Fredericton, New Brunswick, residents who were smuggling 85 tonnes of CFCs into the U.S. These are important achievements, but they don't go far enough. In 1996 Canada Customs identified 49 companies illegally importing into Canada, yet only one had been inspected by Environment Canada in the last three years.

As noted in the report, Environment Canada's overall inspection regime is at present insufficient to ensure compliance with CEPA ODS regulations. Inconsistent or non-existent data reporting, inspection irregularities, inconsistencies and gaps, inadequate staffing, reduced capacity—these are the order of the day. Canada's limited monitoring and inspection capacity coupled with an unwillingness to prosecute make it an easy target for smugglers in the future, perhaps even now. We simply don't know the level of smuggling that's going on.

These are just a few of the issues that confront us today. The question is, what is necessary to reinvigorate the ozone program? I'll just highlight four key points before I make my recommendations.

The first point is political leadership. Canada claimed political victory, as I said before, years ago, and it's been resting on dubious laurels ever since. The perception of victory leaves no political will for the continued vigilance that is essential to complete the task of ozone layer recovery. Without renewed political commitment and leadership, excellent reports by the Auditor General and his committee and this committee I fear will have limited use. Who will invest the necessary political capital to sustain the ozone protection program for the next 50 years? Will it be the environment minister? Will it be opposition parties? I put that question to you.

The second point is that federal departmental accountability is required. The report makes evident the lack of internal leadership and accountability at Environment Canada as well as endemic interdepartmental non-cooperation. While commitments made by departments in response to the audit are admirable, we have no way of being assured they will be implemented. If there is anything the audit has taught us, it is that federal departments are not accountable to the Canadian public.

Who is it who will be punished for the failure to meet commitments made over the last ten years? Will it be our kids, or will it be their kids? Only an external, independent, objective accounting mechanism reporting directly to Parliament can ensure that federal departments fully account for their responsibility to protect the ozone layer and the health of Canadians. Responsibilities must be clearly articulated, time lines for implementation determined, progress tracked, performance evaluated and program improvements made. Experience has shown this cannot be done internally.

The third point is that financial commitment is essential to improved performance. While criticism of the performance of Environment Canada and other federal departments to date is justly deserved, any directives to improve performance must be funded if it can be determined that performance failures resulted from budget cuts.

Environment Canada has had its budget slashed by 40% since 1995, thereby reducing its ability to monitor and enforce existing and new regulations effectively. If we expect improved performance by federal departments, we must understand how reduced capacity has contributed to the problem in the first place.

• 1605

My fourth point is that scientific research is necessary and it's urgently needed. The evidence that negative impacts of ultraviolet exposure on plants and animals is contributing to the loss of species and the economic productivity in agriculture, fisheries, and the forestry sectors is mounting. Yet Canada slashed its biophysical research budget by 75% between 1995 and 1997, and it may disappear completely in 1998—I suspect we'll hear in a week and a half. The current lack of impacts research is impeding the ability of parliamentarians to make informed policy decisions regarding stratospheric ozone layer protection. It is impossible to develop an informed, science-based policy response to ozone depletion when you refuse to fund the science.

Now our recommendations:

(1) In order to rebuild the political departmental momentum necessary to ensure Canada's ability to finish the job and ensure ozone layer recovery, the federal government should establish an independent external monitoring unit on ozone protection for the 21st century. This department should be given sufficient authority, autonomy, and resources to track commitments made by Environment Canada, Health Canada, and other departments in response to the Auditor General's report. This unit should provide an annual performance report directly to Parliament accounting for the implementation of commitments and highlighting policy gaps in emerging issues.

(2) The federal government should commission a report on the implications for ozone layer protection of continued federal budget reductions to Environment Canada and other departments. Research would pay particular attention to the capacity of Environment Canada to monitor and enforce regulations, to contribute to policy development, to educate the Canadian public, and to manage existing initiatives and undertake new initiatives.

(3) The federal government should commission a report on the biophysical and health impacts of continued ozone layer depletion on Canada, including an analysis of research needs, research priorities, and funding requirements.

The story of Canada's ozone protection program is a cautionary tale. With the signing of the Kyoto protocol on climate change last November, Canada committed itself to an environmental protection agenda that will be significantly more difficult to achieve than anything undertaken on ozone layer protection so far. Ozone was easy compared to what lies ahead. Canada made some mistakes with the ozone protection program; it also had some significant achievements. But it has a tremendous opportunity to learn from its mistakes and its achievements to more fully protect the atmosphere. Please do whatever you can as concerned parliamentarians and parents to make sure I'm not standing before you in another ten years talking about climate change. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Ms. Olivastri, Friends of the Earth.

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri (Chief Executive Officer, Friends of the Earth): Thank you. First of all, let me thank the committee for inviting Friends of the Earth to appear before you and to address the Auditor General's report: “Ozone Layer Protection: The Unfinished Journey”.

What I'd like to do is first of all note the very important role that your committee and your predecessors on this committee have played over the first decade of the ozone journey. In June 1990, the Standing Committee on the Environment recognized that “ozone depleting chemicals must be phased out, recovered, recycled, and ultimately destroyed.” It's actually a pretty good formula still for today. The same committee, back in 1990, called for a “declaration of war with all those elements responsible for depletion of the earth's ozone, which at the same time contribute to global warming”. War was to be waged on CFCs, halons, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride, HCFCs and HFCs.

Mr. Caccia, who I guess we'll miss at the moment, and other members of that 1990 standing committee stated that there were two major public policies that would be essential to the world's future: that all ozone-depleting substances must be eliminated from future use worldwide, and that all such substances must be recovered and destroyed. This is a familiar message. I just restate it to you as part of our shared legacy, let's call it, and something I believe we're all trying to still build on here.

• 1610

As the Auditor General's report notes, though, much work remains to be done at home and abroad before success is achieved. Friends of the Earth welcomes his report and its important points. However, the Auditor General's report is limited to an assessment of actions undertaken as per policy commitments.

When the policy is inadequate—and we at Friends of the Earth believe it to be so—the responsibility is yours, the committee's, and your elected colleagues'. We would look forward very much to this committee's efforts to renew and refocus Canadian public policy on ozone.

Canada's ozone policy right now is at a funny stage; we would characterize it as being micro-managed. In fact we think there's been a great deal of progress, but it is short of success. However, what we need now—and I believe we are capable of this—is a bold and holistic view of global environmental stresses, linking those with innovation and investments that can lead to very focused, very strategic, key, made-in-Canada solutions that can then be shared with our many international partners.

As the lead environmental group on ozone since 1987—and I must point out that Robin has shared this position in the past with Friends of the Earth—you might want to consider us one of the navigators on this ozone journey, to pick up your analogy on the report.

Ozone protection is considered extremely important by the more than 6,000 individual Canadians who support our work in Canada and our work leading the international campaign for Friends of the Earth International in over 60 countries, many of them in the south. I hope you will count on us to help you move forward policy as well as implementation recommendations in the ozone area.

After this first decade of work, this first decade on our ozone journey, developed countries have demonstrated broadly that they can and have, to a large extent, phased out new uses of ozone-depleting chemicals, as Robin pointed out. But we see a very menacing legacy still with existing stocks, and a key challenge is how to manage those stocks in Canada. I'll come back to that again.

However, the first legal requirement for developing countries is very close by. In 1999 we'll have the first legal requirement for a freeze on consumption of CFCs in developing countries. We would ask this question: how many countries will successfully meet this freeze? In particular, which I hope will interest you, is the question: how many of the countries that are our trading partners will meet this freeze?

Brazil, China, Chile, India, and Mexico are some examples of countries where we have, let's call it, done business in other areas. If they don't meet this first legal requirement under the Montreal Protocol, what are the prospects for recovery of the ozone layer in under 50 years? They will be very diminished prospects. And what will be the prospects for moving forward on an infinitely more complex set of agreements, such as the climate change ones?

So this is no time to scale down or drop back in our war on ozone-depleting chemicals. Although that analogy leaves me a little bit cold, let me suggest it's a time of responsibility and, as I hope to point out now briefly, opportunity to make peace, not war, with the planet.

I want to point out for you a few signposts that are coming up pretty fast, signposts that should influence Canadian public policy on the next leg of your journey. In the document I tabled, unfortunately at the last minute, there are some sheets that have some rather large print. I can use overheads if that's appropriate, or just speak to them. Just advise me which way you'd like me to go.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Given the crowd in the room, why don't you go with the overheads?

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: Okay. There are just three short ones.

• 1615

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Beatrice, could you make sure to speak into the mike as well?

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: Perhaps I can leave the technical fix to Mr. Knowles.

A voice: Mr. Knowles is not a technical person.

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: In this analogy of the ozone journey and the need to manage the legacy of ozone-destroying chemicals, I was happy to hear about the various efforts of Health Canada with respect to this, and I'm sure that our efforts in the past with the nurses' associations and so forth are part of your work.

In protecting Canadian livelihoods, though, one of the key areas—and I'm trying to compress these comments to just key areas—is this question of research, which Robin referred to as well. We'd like to emphasize what we need to know in order to make choices, for you to make choices, for farmers to make choices, for people whose livelihoods depend on the natural resource base in Canada to make choices.

Just to draw one example to your attention: soybeans, tomatoes, and canola losses. I believe soybeans are a crop worth something in the order of $2 billion a year. We can expect multi-million-dollar losses annually because we don't necessarily know which cultivars are the ones that will work best with the increased ultraviolet radiation. Getting to know this requires some field research. I understand that Agriculture Canada has what would be close to no resources—perhaps minuscule—with which to conduct any field research for a rather basic question about what kinds of choices a farmer should make if he or she is planting soybeans. And let alone soybeans, what about tomatoes, canola, and so forth?

In the next 50 years before the ozone layer can recover, we're going to have significant stresses on forest productivity as well, another area where we just don't know enough. And when you combine growing climate change issues, I would say we have an even stronger reason to be interested in the future of our forests and their productivity.

We have to look at these impacts now. We're suggesting that you as a committee consider a recommendation for an injection of $500 million into the ecosystem effect of the ultraviolet radiation research effort. This is a cross-departmental effort. It has run out of money. It ran out of money that was coming from the green plan. I believe it's down to, as I said, minuscule amounts. It's an example of very important cooperation among departments. It deserves and it needs financial support and I hope you'll recommend it and push it forward.

In this next set of signposts on closing the loop, what we call closing the loop on finishing the job around ozone-depleting substances and also removing the blinkers.... I'm sure you're aware that over the years we've dealt on a parallel track with many of the global issues. Ozone is over here: the Montreal Protocol. Climate change is over here: Kyoto. On areas that we may have in common, like HFCs, a substitute for CFCs, we have kept very separate considerations.

As Robin pointed out, when we get around to it, we're going to see tens of millions of dollars spent in Canada domestically—refrigeration, car air conditioning—and commercially. We need to be sure that the best choices in technology will be made, choices that both help to protect the ozone layer—listen, let's get multiple benefits—and help combat climate change. We also need to be sure that these chemicals are captured and not vented into the atmosphere.

• 1620

So it's time to move beyond what we do now, which we did very early on, before many or most other countries: we recovered and recycled. It's not enough today. We have to go on and, I would suggest, retire these chemicals from use and work very quickly to identify what an appropriate mechanism will be to dispose of them permanently.

You know from Environment Canada that there's a study under way to update the inventory of existing stocks of ODS, and there's another study that will look at new and available technologies for domestic and commercial uses. We welcome those studies. We're contributing in some small way to them as well. But while we're studying those questions, there has been, for example, a European-wide movement in the market. About 80% of the market in northern and western Europe has moved to hydrocarbon technology for refrigeration. What we're concerned about is that in our market situation we are captive to decisions, I would suggest, from our neighbours to the south, but we don't necessarily need to be. We should be looking for alternatives that suit our domestic and export markets.

We're calling for something that we hope you will welcome and call for, I'm sure, at a more political level than we can; that's the development and adoption of a Canadian ODS conversion strategy that includes retirement and permanent disposal targets. We would suggest as a schedule that we'd like to see this tabled by March 2000 so it would have time to take into account the findings of these studies that are under way. So while we welcome the studies, we want to see targets and schedules so that we take action, we create public policy, and we move beyond the existing work that has been done.

As well, we'd like to see the Prime Minister, since we know he's the leader of something called Team Canada, establish a task force that can recommend innovation and investment for domestic needs and export opportunities that will take into account those two global issues: the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gases. That's where I was referring to getting Team Canada on the ozone bus. I can't resist this analogy of the ozone journey.

In terms of building a strategic focus, it has been mentioned in the Auditor General's report that CIDA, which in fact provides the largest part of our contribution to the multilateral fund on behalf of Canadians, has had quite a minor role to date. We would urge that Environment Canada collaborate more strongly with CIDA and look for a number of strategic countries, focus on some developing countries where a long-term relationship on policy and technology support will bear some fruit.

Again, looking first at helping countries meet the early legal requirements, the freeze and then beyond that, and then bearing in mind what we're going to be doing in the future on climate change, that more visionary, holistic view will help us bring some strategic choices to bear right now.

We would recommend a priority on China and India, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico for reasons to do with scale of production and consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals; forward motions in terms of their policy work in this area so far; and, obviously, longstanding Canadian linkages on the trade front.

In addition, we would urge that CIDA undertake a review of its official development assistance programs to ensure that they are consistent with requirements under the Montreal Protocol, that there aren't any particular country programs that would perhaps be contributing to something we will have to pay for later to remove under the multilateral fund. I believe it would be appropriate for Industry Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to take this kind of urgent review as well.

If I may, then, I would respectfully suggest a couple of areas where the standing committee might wish to consider further discussions with Environment Canada and its partners, and this we are calling “strategic decisions”.

Very briefly, I hope in addition to looking at the actual recommendations of the Auditor General's report on how we've implemented our policy, you will also look at what our policy commitment is for the next decade, or three to five years, whatever timeframe you want to look at. I hope you will think about where the vision and energy in this country is to move this conversion strategy forward.

• 1625

I'm sure in other settings you've looked at how countries like Germany and Japan integrate their ODA, their trade, their research and innovation. I think the time has come now for us to do that as well, in dealing with ozone-depleting substances and technologies. Can we get two benefits for one investment? I'm urging you to think laterally and to think about ozone in connection with the work we must do on climate change and reducing greenhouse gases.

I hope you will look carefully for targets and schedules around things like conversions. Let's set some targets and schedules for ourselves. I think we've done a good job in the past in exceeding them. It has proven to be an effective way to go forward.

I hope you will look for and support the kind of research and information that Canadians need to make wise choices. I know the work is going ahead with Health Canada, but I'm very concerned about Agriculture Canada and the forestry service under NRCan.

A very critical part of anything to do with the conversion strategy is addressing the question of who will pay for ODS retirement and destruction. I don't have an answer for that, but I believe that's a critical question to deal with. We should, again, provide a timeframe in which this will be discussed and decided.

Looking ahead at what country should be the strategic focus for our bilateral and multilateral work, I am very proud of what Canada has done to date on the bilateral stage under the Montreal Protocol. I hope we will do much more, and I would recommend simply that we be more strategic.

What kinds of Canadian products and know-how should be in the ozone backpack for Team Canada? What do we need to do to commercialize and bring forward some of these hard and soft know-how kinds of contributions that we have—hard and soft technologies?

Do we have a policy in place in Canada that will support the actual use of those technologies in Canada? Again I refer to hydrocarbon and refrigeration as a good case in point, and the work we need to do on what can be called either destruction or permanent disposal. We have a great deal of technical expertise in Canada. We have hosted a lot of the UN meetings on this topic, but we haven't chosen to go forward with it.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, and good luck with a very tough task.

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

We'll now begin the questions from the committee. Mr. Casson, did you have one?

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

There are numerous questions. There is quite a lot of information to be brought forward in an hour, and it's laid out here in front of us. It seems we have two problems: we have the problem that exists from what has happened previously, and we have to educate people on how to protect themselves from that, plus we have an ongoing contribution to the problem.

I have a couple of things, possibly for Mr. Emmett—I'm not sure if it would be for you or the Environment people.

One of your comments, your item number 12, was about the government managing its own inventories of ozone-depleting substances and having an inspection program that ensures the private sector does so too. What kinds of inventories does the government have? Is it just what is presently in the refrigeration units and things? Could you explain that?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is yes. It's basically what is in use today with existing technology. The total, according to our calculations in the paper, is about a million kilograms, distributed among different departments.

Mr. Rick Casson: I don't know if you can answer this, but how do you dispose of this? You can't burn it, I don't imagine. Do you just contain it and bury it, or what?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I'm not an expert in this area. You might ask John or maybe someone from Environment Canada to respond to that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Is there anyone who knows how you dispose of it?

Mr. Rick Casson: What's the process you're going to have to go through to dispose of these ozone-depleting substances? What's the method?

• 1630

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Anyone from Environment Canada?

Mr. Bernard Madé (Head, Ozone Section, Chemical Controls Division, Environment Canada): There are different technologies. The most common are incineration technologies. There are also chemical destruction technologies by which you would transform these chemicals into other more useful, more environmentally friendly chemicals. Those are basically the two types of processes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do all the countries of the world that are going to have to buy into this next year have the capacity and the technology to dispose of what they have? Maybe we can get back to what we discussed yesterday, transporting hazardous waste. How are they going to get rid of it?

Mr. François Guimont: If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me say that normally, under the Montreal Protocol, as we can see by the history from 1987 until now, countries have attempted to move on to production, import-export and putting allowances. That was what was on the table. There has been a systematic ratcheting down of the phasing out of the dates for various substances.

It's quite normal in the evolution of the protocol that the issue of being able to replace and destroy will come to the table at a given point. That is why countries have to prepare themselves for that.

But the point I want to make here is this: if technologies exist it's a matter of having this international dialogue in countries so as to be able to sign on to further commitments when the conference of the parties comes about and they again discuss where the protocol is heading. And countries, by agreeing to a set of new measures—that's the way I would express it—take on that commitment and as part of their treaty obligations they go back home and have to deliver on those commitments.

The point I'm making here is that it's obvious that with the multinational fund that exists as a mechanism to help developing countries move on to the commitments that they have to adhere to as per the Montreal Protocol as it is advanced, it would be supported in the context of the newer technologies and bilateral projects that would be able to be put forward.

My point is that now as we speak there is no specific requirement under the Montreal Protocol for what I would call “replacement or destruction”. And domestically, if you look at the second version of the national action plan, which, as I said, was tabled just a few weeks ago, we are gearing ourselves up to begin that dialogue.

A discussion paper, then, has been commissioned by Environment Canada, a discussion paper about conversion and destruction asking how we should go about it domestically in Canada. This is going to take one year and we would then like to see a strategy emerging out of that dialogue with stakeholders, with Canadians, in a year from that time. By the end of 1999 we should have in mind as a country what we expect to do on both destruction and the question of replacement—for example, displacing existing CFCs with other substances that are less ozone-depleting in terms of potential.

There's also a panel, if you wish, or a group, that will bring together parties to feed into that process, that discussion, in order to be able to shape what the Canadian approach and strategy should be by the end of 1999. Normally that would then become elements feeding into the way we would position ourselves internationally. That's the process we've been following, not only in that convention but for other conventions as well.

Mr. Rick Casson: Maybe I'll direct just one question to Health Canada. It's about the whole idea of educating people to protect themselves nowadays.

I've been involved somewhat with one local fire department that's put out little tubes of sunscreen with a letter stating what to do with it. Is there any emphasis on that, or are there any plans to continue the education process so people can learn more about this?

Mr. Rod Raphael: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to respond to that question.

Yes, there are plans being prepared now to continue those processes into the next years. We're actively seeking out partners such as those in your example.

But I think we also have a major challenge with the other 50% in terms of working on the public to use the preventive measures that are available, such as sunscreen and clothing and so on. We have to examine really carefully the approaches to get at that other 50%. It may not be as simple as placing more emphasis on the paths that we have taken to date, but looking as well at other ways to influence people, especially through public education that reaches vulnerable populations.

• 1635

We're very clear that we are not only interested in adults here but very, very focused on children. We have to look at the ways in which we can help educate families to protect their children and look at the influences. This is where our review of public education programs is becoming very important, because what we're finding is that in order to protect children within a family setting sometimes it's beneficial to get the information to a trusted person within that family circle, which can sometimes be a grandparent, an older community member, fire department, police department, or other agencies that are seen as trusted people to convey this information.

So the short answer is yes, our review is under way, and we're looking at putting in a renewed effort but also piggybacking on other things that we're doing within community education of public health with our partners that will to allow us to make gains within that 50% that's still outstanding.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I have two sets of questions. The first has to do with the CFCs inventories control and the second with a draft regulation that was submitted last fall by the government of Quebec.

Concerning the management of the CFCs inventories control, the people in Montreal were gearing up to welcome more than 160 countries for the Montreal Protocol, we heard that Montreal had become the hub of the unused CFCs, particularly those used in refrigerators, black market.

My question will be first to the commissioner, Mr. Emmett, and then to Mr. Guimont. Did you already know this situation was prevalent in Quebec? If so, did you perceive that reality as being part of the Pan-Canadian realities?

Mr. Guimont, when we became aware of that reality last fall, what tangible action did your department take for a stricter registration and control of CFCs inventories?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Bigras. Mr. Reed is going to answer your first question.

[English]

Mr. John Reed (Director, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We did not have specific knowledge of the province of Quebec being the hub of illegal smuggling operations, but we were broadly aware that smuggling was occurring through various points throughout Canada. Some of the information we had received was under criminal protection because there were investigations going on with the RCMP. But we were quite aware that there was a large smuggling issue, both out of the country and potentially into the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I imagine you decided it was not worth talking about it in your report. Is that your decision in the face of the information you received from the RCMP among others?

[English]

Mr. John Reed: We were not given specific information from the RCMP. Because it was under criminal investigation, they did not give us any detailed information other than the fact that it was occurring.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont: The first aspect of your question was dealing with what I would call the movement of CFCs. Within the Montreal Protocol, there was a production phase-out in 1996.

• 1640

It is very important to understand, and I know people recognize that, that the movement of the CFCs being used is allowed in Canada. Our inventories show, and I want to mentioned that because the question was also asked at the beginning, that there are 43,000 tonnes of CFCs. This inventory was made in 1993 and will be updated in 1998. We are updating the inventory presently. This update will enable us to compare 1993 with 1996. So, even if we are in 1998, we have to consider the information and take stock comparing those two sets of data, namely for 1993 and 1996.

This will show us if the stocks have increased or decreased. It's important. So this is the first point concerning the CFCs: there are 43,000 tonnes of them.

Has for halon, we have 3,000 tonnes of it. I say this in passing because these are two gazes that were highly used and still are.

As for the assessment at the federal level, it is not very precise. We will capture more specific data in the analysis we are going to make in 1998. In the federal facilities, this represents between 5 and 10% of those 43,000 tonnes. I know this is not a very precise evaluation, but it revolts roughly around 5 to 10%.

So much for the volume. As for enforcing the legislation, where do we stand? Members of the committee noted that there is some similarity between the challenge we have to face concerning dangerous wastes, the transborder movement and the situation of ozone-depleting substances.

A North-South movement is possible. It may be allowed. There is nothing illegal there and the basic elements are still the same; they are the ones I mentioned yesterday. We need a greater effort of intelligence gathering. That means working with Customs Canada. In this instance, the Auditor General noted, and this has been recognized by Environment Canada, that we have 174 relatively important operations for cleaning CFCs, reconditioning them and enable their reutilisation through new sales of course.

This group of companies, which I call the 174s, does not take into account the people who work with CFCs, who reload air conditioning units or heat pumps.

As for small operators, Environment Canada recognizes that we must—and I think that the Auditor General noted that—better understand that situation. This brings us back again to the question of intelligence gathering. We must have lists, know who those people are, be proactive through contacts. We do not necessarily contact everybody, but we set targets for ourselves concerning the risk assessment and we are more proactive in that intelligence gathering, which then enables us to target our law enforcement activities.

Some cases have been documented in New Brunswick and Quebec, and very strict sanctions have been imposed for the import and export of ozone-depleting substances. However, we still have work to do on that front, and I recognize it.

The work with Customs Canada and the RCMP is being done at the continental level and by this I mean over Canada and the U.S. This is absolutely necessary if we want to understand correctly, through the mechanisms I described yesterday, and to give ourselves the tools that will enable us to be more efficient in our fight against smuggling.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My second question is very simple. It has to do with the draft regulations which was submitted to several groups last fall by the government of Quebec. Did you hear about that project and do you think that it could be integrated into an harmonization process such as the one that is part of the actions you took following the Auditor General's recommendations?

• 1645

Mr. François Guimont: In fact there is generally an harmonization through Canada and I think that the Auditor General noted it. A few differences still remain, but they are minimal. But rather than saying “minimal”, I should say that we are going to characterized them. As you can see in the action plan, we committed to review the different regulation regimes in the various provinces in order to be able to properly characterize those differences.

So there has already been a commitment. There has been a federal-provincial discussion and provinces said that they agreed to go through that process through an existing committee. They are interested in seeing the analysis and the differences. Therefore, we will be very happy, when that material is available, to file it with the clerk for distribution to the committee members.

Lets talk about Quebec more specifically. At the provincial level, the regulation, even if there are some differences, is relatively homogenous concerning coverage. In the Quebec regulation, there is one aspect for which we decided to adopt a two-tiered approach. We first covered what we call the recycling and reduction of some uses. But there is one characteristic concerning the leak detection systems before reloading a unit. This is covered by the provincial regulation, but in the case of Quebec, this is not mandatory as we speak. This is what you alluded to.

It is the question of leak detection and the obligation to train those who are reloading those units and detecting leaks. Those two characteristics are being studied through the Quebec regulation system. Quebec preferred to go that way rather than doing it in one shot as was done in the other provinces. So that second part is being studied in order to make it regulated rather than voluntary.

In fact I do not want to infer that there is no leak detection in Quebec, but this is done on a voluntary basis instead of being regulated as is the case in other provinces. It's the same thing for staff training.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Is that all?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes.

[English]

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

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

Mr. Guimont, in your presentation you spoke about acknowledging some of the enforcement weaknesses of the ozone-depleting substance regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I'm wondering if you can comment about some changes we could make to CEPA that might help you on the enforcement side, and if any of the other witnesses would care to comment on that.

Mr. François Guimont: There are two points I would like to make on that question.

Yesterday we spoke of new enforcement tools that normally should see the day through retabling of Bill C-74. In regard to these tools—I'm going by memory here—I spoke about the issue of ticketing, the issue of analysts being with an inspector, being able to get a search warrant electronically as opposed to going to a judge. These tools would help, whether we're dealing with hazardous wastes or, as an example, ozone-depleting substances. These are helpful tools.

On the question of regulation—because I make a distinction between regulation and enforcement and the tools in CEPA—there were some points made with respect to the federal family, the federal government.

I spoke about the 5% to 10%. We are moving forward with a regulation and we are planning to have this set of regulations that will bring the federal government to the same level of regulation that exists in the provinces. We're planning to have that forward in part I of the Canada Gazette in six months from now. The work has been done with federal departments to consult. The point I'm making here is that ultimately binding requirements that are similar to the provinces' will be.... I mention that because this is regulatory and this is coming forward.

• 1650

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Was there anyone else who wanted to comment on that? Yes.

Ms. Robin Round: I think the binding requirements on the federal side are absolutely critical, especially considering that after ten years of participation in the protocol, the federal government is the last, or will be virtually the last, to get on board with regulating its own facilities formally.

In terms of enforcement, I think we also have to look very carefully at capacity, and I think that was highlighted in the Auditor General's report—not that we can do something specific through CEPA, but in terms of budgetary allocations, etc. I'm sure Environment Canada can get very specific with the number of individuals out there enforcing thousands of companies dealing with CFCs, and particularly at the border. I think problems around federal-provincial infrastructure for data collection, the issue of harmonization, is really critical when you start to talk about smuggling, because there are different regimes in every province and territory and ways to track and penalties for violations. Those are going to make it extremely difficult when smuggling increases, and it already is. So I think there's a certain urgency around the harmonization of those regulations, particularly on tracking, because there isn't adequate data collection at this time.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

Given that we're in the post-Kyoto period, and if you use the journey metaphor we have the post-Kyoto path and the unfinished journey of the ozone layer protection program, how can we meld these two issues and areas together to start receiving greater results in terms of the financial and other resource investment that we've been putting into these programs and what might be coming out of post-Kyoto? How can we work together with these two programs?

Mr. François Guimont: As we gear up to deal with the Kyoto challenge, there is a recognition in the department that certain actions on climate change will advance other agendas on our table. Taking action on climate change, as an example, we're going to be able to deliver partly. It's hard to say exactly to what extent until you see the measures you have to put forward, but on our smog agenda, on acid rain, as an example. So there is what I would call collateral effect, positive collateral effect.

I was reflecting when I was listening to the presentations, the very good presentations that were made on the collateral effect with respect to ozone depletion substances, and it's a bit different. Let me explain myself. In the case of ozone-depleting substances, what we find is that as we have transited from ozone-depleting substances with a fairly high ODP, ozone-depleting potential, as we have transited then from the bad guys to not-so-bad guys, like halon, to CFCs—well, it's not the same thing, but halon and CFCs, to HCFCs, etc.—as the ozone-depleting potential decreases, we're picking this up, we see that the newer substances, which have zero ozone-depleting potential, have a global-warming potential. The curves are crossing, if you wish.

The problem is that there's a connection with what I would call the climate change agenda, but it's a connection with the effects to the issue, which is a global issue as ozone. And I'm still searching in my mind the collateral effect that may exist as we push the climate change, the Kyoto agenda, forward, and I don't see it as much. One is related to energy production and consumption and the other one is substances that are highly stable, that are fairly inert—they're not with the ozone layer obviously inert there—and I don't quite see the connection there. I see one from a chemical perspective in the context of reaction with climate change and the ozone layer, but in terms of action on the ground, I'm still perplexed as to what that collateral effect may be.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We'll talk to you at some future date as you work through this.

The NGOs wanted to make a comment, and then Mr. Emmett.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to make one comment in response to Mrs. Kraft-Sloan's observations.

• 1655

We heard a number of very impassioned and ringing calls for leadership and new policy. My linking of the issues is in a slightly different way. I think it's from the point of view of the gap that we've noted in a number of areas between promise and action and the bridging of that gap that we need to do across things like ozone, climate change, and others, along with good management.

We need to translate promises into action in a much more systematic way. We need to apply the principles of sound management across all these areas. We need to establish who is going to do what. When are they going to delivery on their promises? How are we going to know when those promises are met or not met? What are we going to do if those promises aren't met? What's our fall-back plan?

I think we need to start getting much more systematic and much more prosaic. With my background in government, I would be the last one to argue for the necessity for clear and inspiring policies and leadership, but we also need to pay a lot more attention to the nuts and bolts of day-to-day management on the ground to actually get these things done. This should be the focus of our efforts.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I'll recognize you in a second, but the one issue you're not mentioning is the capacity. The NGOs were saying that perhaps Environment Canada is simply under-resourced and that the real culprit in this are the decisions were making at a global budget level.

Mr. Brian Emmett: I take the point, Mr. Chairman. I guess our view is that capacity is a combination of resources and efficiency. In many ways, the arguments over budgetary levels and so on are ones that are appropriately resolved in the political arena. Our reports tend to focus on areas where we think things could be done better within existing resource envelopes.

For example, you'll notice that in our report, our comments on enforcement are focused on more coordination and a more effective use of existing resources.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): So you don't buy the argument that we just don't have enough money or people?

Mr. Brian Emmett: It's not, Mr. Chairman, that I don't buy the argument, it's just that I think probably in the current situation we need to look first at what efficiencies are available within the resources we have. Often when we look at that, we find that substantial efficiencies are available to us.

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: There are two areas I'd like to bring to your attention where I believe there is some synergy between the two areas of ozone and climate change.

The first and most obvious area is the use of HFCs as a substitute for CFCs. At the moment, our substitution of this chemical is not really high. The conversion out of existing equipment has been pretty slow. Bernard would know better than I what the actual use is to date. But there's a very active debate, not just dialogue, about what the implications of HFCs will be as we have more and more of them. Again, which side of the debate do you want to come down on?

At the moment, while we have a commitment but not a huge use of it, we still have time, I would argue, especially with the study under way on alternatives, to make some very good choices about substitutes for CFCs that can be, first of all, non-ozone-depleting, of course. But HFC is in global warming. It's a greenhouse gas. It's in the basket, even though at a minuscule level, of gasses agreed upon at Kyoto that we would have to reduce.

We can still choose to save ourselves some effort at some time in the future by making a different choice right now. We have, I believe, some work under way that would allow us to look at that. So that's one very focused possible one.

The second thing is putting aside this question of what the substitute chemical will be. Take any large city. We have a large amount of commercial chillers. Let's take coolers in a hotel or a food processing plant. We have a lot of refrigerators. We have a lot of air conditioners, cars, mobile ones, whatever.

If you take chillers, they have a 20- to 25-year lifespan, and they have a high capital investment to replace them. When we replace it, or the company replaces it, why not first make the best choice for the ozone? Second, make the most efficient choice in terms of energy use by reducing the energy use. Now this is very holistic thinking, but that will be a contribution in the climate change issue.

• 1700

Our electric utilities should be looking at this as part of their thinking of what they're going to do as well.

On a household level, if you have a 10-year-old fridge, it has CFCs in it. If you were to have some reason to buy a new one, you would get a more efficient fridge today than the one you bought 10 years ago. The fact that it may also be an improvement, if it's leaking or whatever, for the ozone level is how these things come together.

So on a purchasing basis, with households, businesses, and the 64,000 federal facilities we have, all of these are opportunities to bring these two things together in a very tangible way.

It's not big-picture management maybe, but Canadians often think the ozone job is done, but it isn't. They know there are going to big choices to make around Kyoto, so why not show that there are some very positive and constructive things to do?

Ms. Robin Round: I think actually hooking the two issues together is one of the keys to reinvigorating the ozone debate, because Canadians do think it's over. That's because of the interrelationship between climate change and ozone depletion, whether it's the offsetting of global warming as a result of stratospheric cooling or it's the decrease in CFCs offsetting global warming. There's lots of feedback and interrelated aspects that can be made very clear. I think Canadians are confused about the relationship between ozone depletion and climate change. Most think ozone depletion causes climate change. As I say, while there are implications, they think that is the cause.

So I think that in the context of the energy and resources that are going to be put toward climate change in the coming years after the signing of the Chernobyl Protocol, I think overlapping those two issues provides excellent opportunities on ozone, because everything is connected to everything else.

I think public education is actually the key area because of the things Beatrice has said about the use of transitional substances. We've been very concerned for a number of years now because the alternative in auto air conditioning, once we get rid of CFCs, is HFCs, which has a significant global warming potential. We need to mobilize the Canadian public to say no to that and to find alternative solutions. This solution is coming from the big three in Detroit. There are other solutions. There have to be other ways for car air conditioning so that we don't effectively substitute one environmental problem for another. It's an area we really need to devote some attention to.

I'll just give you a sense of what we're talking about here. There are actually roughly—you can certainly correct me on this, gentlemen—13 million automobiles in Canada, 60% or more of which have air conditioning in them, which amounts to about 14 million kilograms of CFCs. So it's not insignificant.

We could have a significant impact in terms of educating Canadians on it and create public pressure that's essential to move industry on this. I think that's one of the keys here. As I mentioned in my brief, from conversations with auto service technicians in Manitoba and British Columbia, they're saying the public doesn't know enough about these issues. They're saying they won't pay for the conversion, so they want them to just top this stuff up. We need to be very clear about the relationship between climate change and ozone depletion as we educate people that it's not acceptable. They are going to have to make some economic sacrifices here on both these issues in the future.

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: The other thing is that for some of these areas, I think there are opportunities for the Canadian development of the technology.

Take the appliance sector. We haven't had much of an appliance industry for a long time. Woods makes a freezer. Woods is a company that almost went with hydrocarbon technology a couple of years ago. They supply Sears, which has 30% of the major white-good appliances. So Woods is watching what's going on and saying that they didn't go that way. They thought about it. If they were given some signal that this was a time to look, they would look.

So Woods is a Canadian company that would be in a position to do well by doing what we think is a particularly right thing. They're also very aware of energy conversation in building up their foam, and all this sort of stuff.

I think there are some opportunities with the distributors. The people who sell appliances are interested in what's going on now too. So we have a market opportunity too.

Mr. Rod Raphael: I'd like to respond to that question by Ms. Kraft Sloan to say that Health Canada believes it's very important to always examine the health benefits with respect to certain strategies that may be being discussed, thought about, or employed around energy use and really, in the vein of going towards some comprehensive action on the improvement of air quality.

• 1705

What we're finding, as you've heard from my colleague Mr. Guimont and others around the table, is that there are linkages between the various issues. And I think when we talk about educating the public and informing the public, we really have to bring forward information around the potential long-term health benefits that are there to be realized, moving from today into the future, around the various strategies that are being discussed.

We have been involved for a number of years with the particulate matter issue, which I think is coming forward clearly in the next little while for some resolution and national action, and it's going to be very topical to be looking at realizing health benefits. Whether we talk about Kyoto or comprehensive air quality, I think the way to convince the public of the action we're talking about taking on these various issues is really to show them what they're going to be saving, not in terms of dollars and cents and economic choices but there are health choices that are going to be made in this area and we need to have appropriate research around these strategies, and in a way, heads-up information so that we do not replace an existing problem with something that we don't know much about and maybe move down a road that we shouldn't.

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

I have Mr. Herron, Mr. Lincoln, and Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'm picking up on the same points that have been discussed a little bit with respect to integrating our strategies on climate change and ozone depletion.

To Mr. Guimont: There has been a fair amount of discussion since Kyoto about how the leadership or management of the climate change issue is going to take place with the government, and I've even heard comments that there is a possibility of having a climate change secretariat of some form. Why not make it an atmospheric secretariat with respect to ozone and climate change and integrate those two together? Although they're very serious issues on their own, you could even look at acid rain as something that would be a natural fit for it as well. Wouldn't that make a little bit of sense? Has there been any discussion on that?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, as a bit of background on that question, which is a very fair question, if you look back a couple of years—and I'm thinking of the years of acid rain—acid rain was handled through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; that was the forum. It was the same for ozone depletion. It was very much an area where ministers of the environment took charge of the agenda of the file and moved forward.

With climate change, a few of years ago—and I would be hard-pressed to give the years, but I think it was about four years ago—there was a recognition that more and more, especially because of climate change, one could not be totally efficient in dealing with these air issues—especially climate change, in this case, because it's very global—only through a CCME forum.

That essentially gave rise to the so-called joint ministers meeting of both energy and environment. It's like a progression that took place. That gave rise to a structure called NAICC, the National Air Issues Coordinating Committee. That structure does exactly what is being suggested. It essentially brings the two key players, environment and energy, and puts on the table not only acid rain, smog and stratospheric, but also climate change. This was done for three basic reasons. There are some research aspects that obviously are connected, the collateral effect, as I explained. In order to be efficient, there was a recognition that it cannot be solely an environment file being pushed; you have to have the other side of the coin, being the energy file, and the players, the decision-makers, being at the table. It was also done by the pooling of the issues. When that committee deals with an issue it has a work plan that is comprehensive in nature, as opposed to being only one item.

• 1710

When NAICC, the National Air Issues Coordinating Committee, sits down there is a working committee of ADMs, then there is a steering committee of DMs, then there is the joint ministers meeting. You have working groups, and the working groups obviously focus on those different air issues with a view to connecting them together.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): This question though is about this secretariat we're hearing rumours of.

Mr. John Herron: Yes. I understand that in order to get anything done in this particular federation we live in you have to engage the provinces and as many stakeholders as possible. I think that's just one of the parts. It's the way the country has traditionally operated.

Specifically speaking, when it comes down to leadership and management, the first question might be whether there is going to be a secretariat for climate change. The second question is whether there a logical consideration to make it more of a secretariat for atmospheric issues, including ozone, including climate change.

Mr. François Guimont: We are proceeding with discussions on how to get organized on post-Kyoto. This includes moving into a national action plan with the full participation of the provinces and the federal government, designing what it is and how we're going to go about developing the measures that need to be taken in order to meet the commitment.

There is a recognition that in order for that process to be effective we need to be able to bring the stakeholders, the people who can make a difference on a number of files and a number of issues. These discussions are proceeding right now.

Nothing has been fixed in the sense of my being able to share with the committee the way the process will be unfolding. We are having discussions with our provincial counterparts. Some of these points were made at the joint ministerial meeting that took place in January where deputy ministers asked that a number of ADMs, federally, provincially, put their minds to how this process with a number of principles and characteristics of inclusiveness, etc., would be—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): There is a press release. What's the date on this?

John, have you seen this? In the last paragraph it says the government is establishing a federal secretariat.

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps not. So on that topic....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. François Guimont: This is the proper way to do it. I would like to thank Mr. Lincoln for helping me here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Perhaps you can take the message back to David Oulton. He's not here, is he?

Mr. François Guimont: This came out today, so the secretariat is meant to be a template where—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do you think it's a good idea to add ozone into the mix?

Mr. John Herron: Atmospheric...could you bring that to the minister?

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, all right, I can raise the question.

Mr. John Herron: When I went to the tenth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol back in the fall, one thing I was shocked about was the lack of science that was actually engaged in on a biophysical nature. There have been comments that the level of science has perhaps gone from a substantial level during the green plan era down to a very minimal level at the moment.

My question may be more to the NGOs. Is there a certain amount of money that needs to be spent with respect to that sort of issue?

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: First of all, the answer to a certain number is no. I said $500 million. I wish it could be, but it probably is way too much.

What I was referring to was the amount that was available in the first year of the green plan commitment, which is just under $500,000. When you think about $2 billion for one crop in a crop year, then I still think $500,000 is pretty ludicrous to do any kind of meaningful research.

• 1715

In some informal discussions, I understood there was one particular scientist doing some of this work who raised $5,000—that's all he could get—to do field research, and had very little of his time assigned.

So there's this margin from where we are now, close to zero. I would be surprised if Health Canada felt they had adequate funding for what they need to do either.

Ms. Robin Round: We have to look at where moneys have been spent in the past. Canada spent $14.2 million building an observatory up on Ellesmere Island to observe the problem of ozone depletion. Canada has been excellent. It has invested a lot of resources in monitoring the situation and it is a world leader on monitoring ozone depletion. The problem with that is we've spent our resources looking at the problem from a science perspective. And we've done a great job of it; I'm not criticizing that end one bit. But we have to start re-channelling those energies into assessing the impacts.

Does it take $14.2 million? Well, gees, we had no problem with allocating that for an ozone monitoring station. Maybe that's what we need to start the budget off on for research.

I've been working with scientists. In fact three years ago I was up in the Arctic looking at impacts on freshwater ecosystems, and we had to pay part of our own travel to get up there. Colleagues in the science community are telling me we may go very close to zero in terms of resources this year.

So we need hundreds of thousands of dollars to start the thing off, at the very least. Millions are really on the scale of what we need, given the impacts we're talking about here.

Again, the Montreal Protocol is science-based. It's hard for you, as policy-makers, to be making effective decisions on what kinds of solutions we need, what kind of legislation we need, if you don't know what those impacts are. It becomes a chicken-and-egg situation. You can't make those decisions if you haven't done the science.

Mr. John Herron: I just have one last quick question. I think methyl bromide is responsible for 10% of the depletion of ozone. Is there any substitute that we could engage people to use today? Pardon me for my ignorance on that.

Mr. Bernard Madé: Yes, there are some substitutes, but it's a complex issue, because it's not going to be possible to find one substitute for all the uses. It's really use-specific.

In certain cases, the challenge is to replace this chemical with other methods of growing or processing food. This is what we tend to encourage: not going from one chemical to another, one pesticide to another, but moving towards reductions in the pesticide use altogether.

Now, in certain cases there's a need for a pesticide to be used in certain areas, and in these cases there are alternatives either being studied or starting to be used for specific uses. There are still some areas where research is still out, but there has been a lot of progress in Canada and abroad on this issue.

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

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel a bit bad. Mr. Guimont is such a nice guy, and every day he's the fall guy who has to pick up the ball and look at all these reports that are very depressing. I hope he doesn't take it personally, but we have to do our job and he has to do his job. And I don't envy his job, because when he read this report, he must have felt just as depressed as I certainly did.

It's just a story of horrors every time you read about inspections. There have been only 24 ODS inspections over three years in Quebec and Ontario, which contain the greatest number of manufacturing enterprises by far. That's eight in each year. Then somewhere else it says Environment Canada has a whole inspection regime and clear planning process for determining which companies to inspect in consistent inspection coverage of the regulated community, two of 31 companies with ODS permits in Ontario inspected, etc., etc.

• 1720

I think what also comes out loud and clear is a lack of federal stewardship and federal accountability. I think it's also brought out by the Sierra Club brief.

I read your responses to the Auditor General's report, and I see there's a national action plan that's going to be put in place, and that many of the recommendations of the Auditor General have been accepted in principle. But the national action plan will come in at the end of 1999.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with Mr. Emmett that resources don't play a part in there—that we have to say okay, let's take our existing resources and see what we can do with them and see what we can do best. The results show that we're doing very badly with existing resources. You show you have 68 inspectors for the whole of Canada to do transboundary monitoring of dangerous substances—ODS work, the rest of CEPA work. Sixty-eight people—I mean, how far do you spread them? Yesterday, when looking at transboundary, we saw zero inspections in the west, and just a few here and there.

It seems to me there are two big problems. Number one is the fact that the federal government is less and less accountable for its actions and keeps passing away and passing away because it has a lack of resources itself. It depletes its own resources, and then it's stuck with them. So we declare these committees, we form NIAC, we form all these things, and we pass it on and the other guys pass it on. For instance, somebody told me today that Quebec has gone from fifteen inspectors to four and has cut its environmental budget by over 50%—and Ontario, too, by a huge amount.

I'm wondering, throughout it all.... I asked Mr. Glen once, and he wouldn't reply to me. He said it wasn't his business to reply. I asked Mr. McCauley the other day, who told me on the NPRI he had a small staff, and I said “Well, do you need more resources? Tell us, and then we can tell the finance minister. We'll have some leverage. We're on your side.” He said “No, no, I'm okay”. He was scared to kind of say “Well, yes, I need another two, three, or four people”.

Mr. Guimont, given the chance, how many inspectors do you really need at the federal level to do a really crackerjack job, so that we don't bother you like this every time you come? Can you tell us that? Has your department looked at it and said “Okay, I've got 68 now throughout Canada, and I'm just swimming against the current and trying to survive, but if I had x number, maybe I would do better”? Could you tell us what that would be?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I should have corrected this imprecision, and this is meant to be proper with the committee. Yesterday I spoke of 60 inspectors—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Sixty? Today you spoke of 68.

Mr. François Guimont: Yes, and I know that in the document it is 68, and I want to correct that. I should have done that at the beginning. Let me explain. Yesterday I said that of the 60, three positions were vacant. When they are filled, that brings us up to 63. The 68 number unfortunately reflected the fact that five managers out of the eleven—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): You're giving a side point to a question.

Mr. François Guimont: But I just wanted to make sure anyway—

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

Mr. François Guimont: —so that we don't get into imprecision here. It's important. It's 60 made up of 32, 17 and 11, just to be clear.

On the business of more, I am with Mr. Emmett on this. We had discussions internally. When I look at the statistics on the border inspections—zero, three, etc.—we have to take stock of this. What I mean by this is I saw the stats on the manifest issue, and we're correcting the manifest issue. I mean by this on hazardous waste, we can do better in terms of accessing the information. The first point is that: accessing and understanding the information. And we can do better. If you ask me—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): This question is far more general, though.

Mr. François Guimont: —how can you do better, I can't say right now. We have to go through this exercise of finding ways of better accessing the information.

• 1725

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So do you have enough people?

Mr. François Guimont: I say right now that with the resources we have in view, the non-reduction in program review, the answer is yes. So until we go through a proper exercise, a good, rational exercise of looking at how we do business, accessing the information, intelligence, reaching out.... As I explained yesterday, reaching out—customs, the U.S. EPA—is not just a matter of doing more blitz. The Auditor General himself says blitz doesn't function.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Guimont, I'm not asking specific questions. Okay, you've answered that part of it. I'm asking: What do you say to Mrs. Round and others who say that because of the huge depletion of the financial resources of the ministry, the science efforts...?

In his report, Mr. Emmett concludes by saying in his last paragraph:

27.137 We believe that the effectiveness of future federal efforts could be strengthened through the application of science-based priority-setting tools and processes and a balance between potential domestic and international actions.

How can we do that if we keep depleting our scientific base as well as all the other key instruments of the ministry? We can't say we haven't done that. I myself know some of the climate change people I worked with in UN delegations and stuff are not there any more, and I know why they left.

So is your reply the same, for instance, with scientific people? Are we not depleting our resources to the point that it doesn't help you function properly to carry out all these commitments?

Mr. François Guimont: On science, Mr. Chairman, I will reply with numbers, since, in part, science should be based on numbers. My answer is a genuine one.

When we look at the ozone program, the specifics on the resources are as follows, and you'll see, sir, it's not just numbers being thrown like that. In headquarters we have a group of eight people who are doing what I would call the policy work, the work of regulation. This is Bernard Madé's team. With eight people, we have resources of $1 million. That's the program on what I call the policy aspects, the regulation.

On the research aspect, both the atmospheric environment research component and the conservation aspect of the ozone work, the biophysical impact, UV-B effects on aquatic ecosystems, we have twenty person-years, twenty research people, twenty versus eight. That's the first point I want to make. Secondly, when you look at the resource impact of those twenty people, because they work with a budget in order to carry out field work, for example, what you have is a budget of about $4 million.

The overall resource in the ozone program is $5.2 million, with thirty people overall. There were reductions, but the reductions were not on science. The reductions in the science envelope or aspect of the ozone program have been minimal.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): If I could cut you off there, I think Mr. Lincoln and I share a similar view.

Somehow, say the military gets the message out that they need more money, they need better equipment, they need more stuff. We never really hear that message from Environment Canada. So if someone were to come along and say we're going to triple your budget for enforcement, do you think that would be a waste of money? Given that you're going to be smarter managers, you're going to figure out, you're going to be really good, but do you think...?

We're standing here saying you've only done four prosecutions, and maybe you can manage yourselves more efficiently, but at the end of the day maybe you need to do more prosecutions and maybe somebody needs to say yes, we need more money. You're in front of a parliamentary committee. We're asking the question as directly as we can. We're trying to be helpful and not always criticize the department. So we're sort of giving you this lob and saying go ahead and hit a home run; say you need more money. But there seems to be a real reluctance to simply say....

I don't know, would tripling your department be a waste or not? Would we get cleaner air, cleaner water, and cleaner down the road, or would...? That's the essence of the point.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I don't want the details. The essence of my point is this: When I go and tell Mr. Martin that the Department of the Environment has been depleted far too much, and he hears your testimony and Steve McCauley's and Mr. Glen's, he'll say to me, well, look at what the environment people themselves say.

• 1730

Either I'm not reading this right or it seems to me you have to really fight for more resources if you believe the environment ministry is a key ministry. It's now the smallest of all the government departments financially, and I don't think that's right.

Next time you come, Mr. Guimont, if you could give us a chart showing that you will beef up some of the areas, we'll be very happy to fight for you. We might not get anywhere, but we'll get a little further than if we don't get that, for sure.

I have one last point. You mentioned acid rain and ozone and the CCME. I was part of the CCME. In fact one year I was chairman of it when it happened, the acid rain and the ozone. But I think action took place because the CCME was a small thing. Now we have the NAICC, we have a management committee, we have a steering committee, we have this, we have that, and what happened with climate change? We couldn't agree, the federal government at the last minute didn't have a target, the provinces were saying one thing..... When we got back from Kyoto, the provinces were tearing their shirts in public, they said the federal government betrayed them, and so forth.

I really think our problem today is we have too many of these things, too many big things, too many harmonization agreements. Every time we move now, we can't even move a foot without having a committee structure where all the provinces get together with the federal government and nobody agrees.

Maybe we should come back to a smaller structure where the federal government is going to be accountable and we'll have arguments. I had a lot of arguments with McMillan, but in the end we did things. I don't get the sense now that we're doing things as fast and as decisively as we used to. I hope it happens.

I happen to agree 100%, Mr. Herron, that if we had a national atmospheric fund to include ozone—and I hope, again, you put this on your shopping list—we'd be very happy to fight for it for you.

Mr. François Guimont: I have one point, Mr. Chairman, on the business of big versus small.

When I look at the CCME, when I look at the JMM, there has to be a balance indeed. We want to be inclusive, and that's a characteristic that has been picked up as a good characteristic. But being inclusive and making sure you have the partnership.... If you look at the federal-provincial working group on ozone, I think people, generally speaking, would say the national action plan's votes in 1992 and right now are good things. I don't think it's a negative package. That was done through federal-provincial discussions.

There has to be a balance. I hear you. The point is you have to consult and include people, but there's a point in time when you have to move ahead. It's striking that balance. But there's another thing. Having the people in early in the process also bears advantages. Sometimes you have a feeling of advancing, and all of a sudden there is an issue coming at you that may derail you. So once again there's a balance there in terms of inclusiveness.

It's a matter of striking a balance on the two fronts: being able to have the right people at the table, but not losing sight of the ball, which is being able to advance your goals. You made a good point on acid and ozone: when you have discussed and people have understood, it's time to move.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Laliberte is the last person on the list.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I must applaud my colleague, Mr. Lincoln, on the angle of questioning. I was going to raise that same question to similar people, but we didn't get the answer. Maybe I'll go to the NGOs and ask them the same question.

You have raised this point that more research and more inspection is required. We had a report of 60 inspectors, maybe 63 if they're filled. I talked to customs officers. They have 3,000 officers. This is a huge country. It's humongous. We can't pretend to be a small state with a small budget. We have to rationalize here. From Vancouver to Montreal, from Inuvik to Iqaluit, we have to protect the state of the environment.

The Auditor General has listed all these discrepancies between promises and action but is not willing to say we need more resources. Environment Canada is not willing to say that either; they say they can do it within.

• 1735

From the NGO perspective, what do you see? Do you see more resources, or can they do it within their...? You have had some experience, a relationship, with Environment Canada over the years. Is it adequate?

Ms. Robin Round: The answer is no, it's not adequate.

In conversations with Environment Canada officials over the years, they've made it very clear that they're being...it's death by a thousand cuts, small cuts, over years. We're up to 40% now. The points that you and Mr. Lincoln raised are absolutely correct. They need more resources.

I support the arguments for increased efficiency. You don't throw money at it. That's why we're recommending some kind of a study on this, or a commission of some kind or a report to evaluate whether that's what's going on.

But the short answer is yes, more money is needed. Those budgets have to be restored. Part of the deficit dividend has to be restoration of funding to protect the Canadian environment. Canadians want it. We have to be lobbying for it and Environment Canada needs to be fighting for it. I wish they were doing it more strongly.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think the research and development wasn't addressed, and I applaud Bea for at least raising a target. I think that's what the committee's begging for. Environment Canada should have courage. Give us a target. The Auditor General—you show us an angle of a promise and a journey to an action, but it takes resources to get there. We realize that, but the lack of resources and the cuts we have received in this department in the last few years have been enormous.

The agenda of Kyoto is humungous. It's an uncharted area, and it's the same thing with ozone. We're switching to a new gas of HFCs here. It goes to a different basket and now we have to attend to it in a different way. Our young people and children and adults have to change their way of life and to be aware. Health Canada is asking us. There are multi-departmental issues that come into play here.

I think the leadership.... Somebody has to have a vision. I think that's what Clifford, Gar, and all the people are saying here. What's the vision and who's going to create this vision? We can do it, but we need help.

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

Ms. Beatrice Olivastri: Thank you.

The department can do a lot more with money, of course. A lot of work is possible with the strategic use of money—not just dumping a lot in, which of course is not going to be done these days.

I want to offer one example, because I find it really frustrating in some ways and very positive in others. We've had a chance to work with the technology development directorate, and within that the one that deals with the bilateral programs. We had a very exciting opportunity to work with Chilean enforcement people—the people who deal with agriculture and customs and so forth. In Chile the NGOs have already worked with CONAMA, the environmental agency, on customs training and things in endangered species.

To do it on ozone, they have a relationship, and they're very excited. Under the Montreal Protocol I think we have a chance to do a world-class exchange—Canadians, government, customs people, NGOs, Canada-Chile exchange.... It's very exciting.

We can do those kinds of things because Canada has a training package on ODS for customs agents. But I don't think it's out there far enough in Canada, and I'm feeling a little on the edge that.... Are we where we should be in our own customs training, those 3,000 people and what they need to know to be able to deliver?

I think there are lots of these opportunities. One that I'm excited about, whereby providing some additional resources—and I would suggest that your training packages for enforcement officials and your relationships with customs need a big injection of money—will show great dividends and will give us a lot of things we can do with developing countries, which need to do these things too, as part of the big smuggling issue.

I kind of think of leverage as we go along. A little money will go a long way. A lot of money used right can go a long way, but I'd be happy to start with a reasonable package.

• 1740

As far as I'm concerned, the priority for the protection of Canadians' health and livelihood is this research budget on UV effects. It would be a real crime if that disappears, and I think it's close to having disappeared.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In expressing my frustration I also wanted, in context, to applaud the Auditor General of Canada for their efforts. You have coined and given us a snapshot of a number of issues we'll be dealing with, and you've done well. Without this document this dialogue would not be in this context. But it's a snapshot. The vision I'm talking about is a moving picture; it's alive; it's the environment; it's interconnected. We're interconnected to everything as living beings.

You are sending us warning signals of our promise and our inabilities, and we're challenging the department. That's the frustration. Lets perhaps raise our targets a little bit. Perhaps we've just lowered them too much.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Laliberte.

I wouldn't want to leave the committee with the impression that I'm very flinty-eyed and hard-hearted about resources. In some ways our job is to divide problems into different component parts.

Bea and Robin spoke very passionately about two aspects of the ozone agenda. One was resources, money, vision, and the other was accountability, which did not get discussed a great deal. In some areas our mandate runs to focusing on these documents that bring some of the accountability issues to the table that we can build on. Our mandate does not run into resource issues and it's not our job to have views in that area.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Can you comment on capacity?

Mr. Brian Emmett: We will comment on capacity. The Auditor General will be coming out with a report in April on the downsizing process in the federal public service.

I worry about capacity with respect to the environment and the government just from personal observation, from trying to conduct studies and trying to talk to people about the facts in them.

We phone people and ask when they would be available to meet. Tuesday at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. That's not a good signal. That's a bad signal that people are being overworked, and the potential for burn-out and that sort of thing is there. That rings alarm bells in my mind, but in some ways they're a little bit outside our mandate to comment on too directly.

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

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, the points that have been raised around the table are very important, key, fundamental points. The points that Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Laliberte have raised build on what the commissioner has said.

We have to understand where the real focus of the blame might be, and it's on the political side. There was a political need and a real fiscal need to get rid of the deficit and to go through program review. We did that, we've been doing that, and we are feeling the effects of that. I can appreciate the frustration from the members of the committee when people from the department don't say we need more inspectors, we need more money. I'm not sure that is something they can easily say publicly.

I think we can go to some of the comments the commissioner said.

I, for one, have had very positive interactions with people from Environment Canada who work very hard and put in long hours. When I hear that people don't get holidays and don't get weekends off, there's something wrong. As the political side, we have to look to our own responsibility and understand how we have played a role in the decrease in capacity.

• 1745

I don't think we always have to put the official side to the wall, in a position where they may not be able to freely talk about these issues. It is very well reflected in the documents that have been brought forward by the commissioner, and I commend you on the work you have done. This is a new position.

I was on the committee that wrote the original report, and I've been very pleased to see what has come out of it. It's difficult to step into a new position, and you've done some very good work.

We have to commend you on that work and we have to understand what your mandate is and what you are able to comment on. Other than doing some more background research ourselves, I don't think we need more of an indication to know we have to get some more resources for this very important department. It has to be done on the political side.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I won't quarrel with you.

I just want to say to the officials that it would be nice if I ever heard officials say “You're only going to get four prosecutions under the current amount of resources, because to do more prosecutions I'd have to lay off a scientist”. I've never heard an answer that clear. Perhaps you have reasons why you can't give us clear answers.

To me, the sky isn't going to fall if the deputy minister or ADM comes and says we run an efficient shop. Presumably, if you run an efficient shop, then the only way we're going to get more prosecutions is if we cut back on public education, if we cut back on science, or if we cut back on something else. If you were to say that, we can draw our own conclusions and then we can make the argument a lot clearer.

As soon as you introduce the statement that we're going to manage better, it seems to me, by the same token, that you're saying you don't run an efficient shop. I don't believe that. You do run an efficient shop. If people are working till 8 p.m., then you're probably overly efficient, you've probably gone beyond the line of being efficient.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan sums it up well. Unless there's a violent objection perhaps we'll finish on that point so people can go home.

This meeting is adjourned.