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 25, 1998

• 1534

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.)): If everyone's ready, we'll get started.

I'd like to begin by welcoming the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Christine Stewart, to our committee. With her is her deputy, Mr. Glen.

Just as a bit of a switch from the schedule that was originally posted, I want to remind the committee that questions regarding overall policy are best suited to the minister and the deputy minister. And when we question the agents in the field, it has been suggested to me that we avoid questions about how they feel or questions of general policy and opinion and try to stick to issues that are more factual in nature.

• 1535

I'm just throwing that out to you. Obviously those words aren't precise, and we may get into debate as to what they mean, but it would be helpful.

Mrs. Minister, I turn the floor over to you.

The Honourable Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Thanks very much, Gar. It's a pleasure to be here before the standing committee in my first appearance as Minister of the Environment.

I wanted to take this opportunity to speak to the committee because I have some concerns about this particular issue that you're looking at right now, that of enforcement, and I wanted to share some of my concerns with you.

Some of you on the opposition bench have expressed an interest in my coming to this standing committee to talk to you, not just on this issue, but on the harmonization accord and so on that was signed, and, just in general, about my priorities and where I'm at. I wanted to touch on those just very briefly and perhaps put your discussions around enforcement in the context of that for your information.

I have spoken to the government members on a few occasions and haven't had an opportunity to be on the record in front of the whole committee. As the federal Minister of the Environment, I have four priorities: clean air, clean water, climate change, and our natural heritage. And government members have heard me say that many times.

It's my responsibility to do everything I can on behalf of the federal government to protect our environment to the highest standard possible. And I am very interested in the work of this committee and how you can, through your research and through your reports, help me to improve how the federal government protects our environment to the highest standard possible.

To move on to the harmonization accord, your report that you presented to the government and to me was, as you know, quite late in the day in terms of the negotiations around the harmonization accord and the subagreements. It was something that had been in negotiation for some years, actually before I even came into this portfolio.

It had been hoped and expected that I would have the opportunity—which I took up in January—to meet with my provincial and territorial counterparts in November, which was before your report came out, in order to discuss the harmonization accord and, if it was to be, to sign it. But because of the climate change agenda, we had to cancel that meeting and it was put forward at that time, in agreement with my provincial and territorial counterparts, to January.

Before I had my meeting in January, I read your report very carefully because, as I said, your decisions and recommendations are important to me. However, I had gone through a lot of discussion around the harmonization accord and the subagreements, and I felt that in fact the harmonization accord and the subagreements, as they had been altered and developed, were manageable, and that in fact, as they represented principles and guidelines for action for the federal government and the provinces, we would have the authority and maintain the authority.... We agreed to protect the environment to the highest standards in that accord.

But the harmonization accord and the subagreements did not include all of the issues that were of concern to you. Overall, you wanted to delay, and I'm saying that delay was not on the table.

One of the things you were concerned about was enforcement. You wanted to see enforcement put in the context of inspections as a subagreement. Enforcement will be one of the first subagreements that the continuing work will address. So I said to my own government members of this committee that for me, your work on enforcement was very important, and that enforcement as an issue should be looked at in the broadest context possible of government policy. In other words, you should look at all of the acts that have something to do with enforcement issues that affect the environment and protecting the environment to the highest standards possible.

• 1540

You also had said that you were concerned about how citizens would become involved in the process of monitoring the harmonization accord and the subagreement implementation agreements. You expressed concern about there not being anything specific about how we would coordinate with our aboriginal peoples, and you expressed some concern about accountability.

I raised all of those issues with my provincial and territorial counterparts, and we agreed that we would define those elements and include them in an annex to be attached to the harmonization accord and that we would come to an agreement about that.

I also said I wanted the accord and the three subagreements we signed to be reviewed within two years' time, and that was agreed to by everybody. This means we have an awful lot of work to do, because the harmonization accord and the three subagreements only articulate principles and guidelines. We have to actually put into effect and sign on to implementation agreements that reflect those principles and guidelines, and we have to start seeing some results.

So we have a very short time-span to begin to see some results on what I think can be a very important and helpful accord and subagreements. But, as I said, you also expressed concern about the issue of enforcement, and you wanted to see what the contents of a subagreement on enforcement would look like, because of course there is a relationship of inspection to enforcement.

The work of this committee is very important to me, and I look forward to hearing your recommendations. My sense is that there is frustration in the committee and in this country with regard to enforcement. How do we do enforcement? What does enforcement mean? What are the methods we have of enforcement? What works? What doesn't work? And sometimes there is a strong impression that it doesn't work, for various reasons. If it doesn't work, why doesn't it work?

As I say, I'm interested in your reflections upon this, and I would hope that we would be able to review your recommendations and incorporate them as much as possible into the development of a subagreement to the harmonization accord on enforcement.

The other reason I wanted to come here today was simply to say to you that as Minister of the Environment, in the system of responsible government that we have here in Canada, I am responsible to the Parliament of Canada, and I'm responsible for reporting to you, members of the standing committee. I welcome the opportunity to come here and speak to you about environmental issues and questions you may have at any time.

As the chair has just said to you, when it comes to issues of direction that the government is taking or questions of policy, I am here to answer or try to answer or to discuss these issues with you. But when it comes to the management and administration of environmental legislation, regulations, and policy, that is the responsibility of my officials. When they come here, they can respond to you on issues of fact, but it is not their responsibility to try to justify and uphold government policy and directions.

I'll just leave my comments at that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): The minister has advised me that she only has about half an hour to be with us. If there's no objection, I would suggest we go to five-minute sessions, but I'm in the committee's hands.

There's silence on that issue. I'll take it as consent.

Mr. Gilmour, we begin with you.

• 1545

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you for coming before us. We've been wanting to have you here for quite some while.

We only received 40 minutes' notice that you were going to be here. I understand that, as a minister, your time is quite constrained. However, with the witnesses we're going to have before us, it's a delicate subject for any government.

I would hope that your reason for being here is one of interest and not one of intimidation, because I believe all of us want to hear the witnesses. We want to hear the straight goods, as it were. From the witnesses' point of view, if there are any reprisals or anything along that line, it would not speak well of the government or the minister, and we in the opposition would like to hear about it.

I hope it's open and above board. I would appreciate the minister's comments that should the witnesses be straightforward—and we hope they will be—the department will not go after, shall we say, anyone who is direct and speaking in the interests of the country.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Absolutely not. As I said, I have some concerns about the committee reviewing the issue of enforcement, but I want to say before this committee what the responsibility is of my staff. I will not be here while my staff are answering your questions. I expect my staff and I advise my staff to be as open as possible with you in communicating with you the facts of what happens. This issue is the issue of enforcement.

I also ask you to respect the fact that my staff are not responsible for policy or for making reflections on policy. That is the government's responsibility; that is the minister's responsibility. At times, if you don't understand that principle clearly, staff can be treated unfairly and be expected to answer questions that are really not within their authority to answer, and it puts them in an embarrassing situation.

They are here to answer you as amply as possible, from their own experiences, about facts, about how they see enforcement working. I'm sure all of us have difficulties in our jobs. They can speak to the facts of where they might see some improvements being possible within the context of their day-to-day work. But certainly I have no interest in taking reprisals against anybody.

I just wanted to clarify for the committee what the responsibility is for any of my officials who come before the committee.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I appreciate those comments, and I think the witnesses will as well. However, facts can be moved around, and it could be up to interpretation of what some of the witnesses may regard as a fact.

I fully appreciate what you're saying on policy. The policy is between us as politicians. The regulations, for example, are for the witnesses.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Please make the comments to the chair.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do you have one short second question?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: No, that's fine for me for now, thank you.

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

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank you for appearing before the committee. I too think that it's a pity that we didn't really have any time to prepare. I learned that you were coming hardly more than an hour ago. But all the same, I will ask you a question about an issue that you are very familiar with, since you have discussed it with your counterparts on several occasions, that is, the environmental harmonization accord.

I am sure that you are aware that Quebec has not signed this accord. Quebec set three prerequisites for signing this agreement. Specifically, the government of Quebec asked that Quebec's exclusive areas of jurisdiction over the environment be recognized and that any ensuing legislation or amendments reflect this historical request from Quebec.

In this regard, you will probably be tabling amendments to the CEPA soon, and probably a bill on threatened species will be coming up later.

• 1550

Will the bill to amend the CEPA respect Quebec's requests for exclusive jurisdiction over the environment, as provided for in the Constitution?

Ms. Christine Stewart: I'm sorry, but I cannot reply in French.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That's all right.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: As for the harmonization accord in general, a very important principle of it is that we are working together—provinces, territories, and the federal government—to protect the environment to the highest standards possible. In signing an implementation agreement, we come to an agreement about which government is going to take the first responsibility for protecting to the highest standard possible. But we also agreed in the accord that no level of government would give up its authorities to protect the environment.

If the authority, whichever level takes the first responsibility for maintaining an agreement, is unwilling or unable for some reason to protect, within six months' notice the other level of government that is party to the agreement can get out of the agreement for the purpose of protecting the environment to the highest standard possible. Those are very important principles, and in fact, as you have stated yourself, there's a conflict between the vision of Quebec and the vision of the other provinces and territories and the federal government in that regard.

Another principle of the accord and the subagreement is that whatever level of government not be impeded from putting other legislation in place. With regard to the CEPA legislation, I've worked very hard at listening and talking to all sectors across Canada, including provinces and territories, to try to get rid of irritants but protect the environment to the highest standards.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My other question is about the important issue of climatic change, faced by my generation, which we'll have to deal with over the next few years. First of all, on behalf of the people of Quebec, I would like to thank you for your efforts in Kyoto, during negotiations that were not easy. I think that we have to look at both realities, and I'm among those who believe that economic development and the environment can go hand in hand.

Could you comment on yesterday's budget? I have to tell you that in my part of the world, we were disappointed. President Clinton and others recently made a number of major commitments about how the American government was going to deal with this major challenge. I believe that the amount we heard in yesterday's budget was ten times lower.

Is that acceptable to you? I was reading this morning's Globe and Mail and I don't want to repeat some comments about the Minister of Finance that are very tough, but according to some groups, the oil lobby has Paul Martin eating out of their hand. Could you tell us whether the measures that were announced yesterday are enough to deal with the important issue of climatic change in the years to come?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: With regard to yesterday's budget and how it impacts on our climate change agenda, the funds that were announced in the budget yesterday—a total of $150 million at $50 million per year for three years—is money the federal government has put on the table to develop a national action plan. We know there's going to have to be a commitment of further funding.

You asked the question in the context of the American proposals. The way we set budgets is very different. The American President's announcement of $6.5 billion is a proposal. That proposal is vetted by Congress in the United States, and that will be a fight, whether or not they're able to achieve and maintain $6.5 billion and the way the president has described he would spend that $6.5 billion.

• 1555

Anything that goes into a Canadian budget is approved and is available to start action on. With respect to the $50 million that we have for each of three years, Minister Goodale and I are proposing to spend that in five different ways.

First of all, we have to build the foundation of cooperation and partnership with all the partners who are going to be implicated in this across the country, starting with citizens at the grassroots, with communities, businesses and industries, municipalities, and the provinces and territories. They're all partners. We have to build the foundation with them. We've already started this process. I think it's well underway. We will have a further meeting with our joint ministers of energy and environment in April, we hope.

The second is a program of public education and engagement. It's very important to get the buy-in necessary.

A third is to work to define, both domestically and internationally, the mechanisms that we agreed to in Kyoto, such as emissions trading, joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and the definition of sinks. We'll have to be working on that at home, but we'll also have to work in the international community in order to do that.

We have asked all of our partners, provinces and territories, business and industry, to share with us and with each other their best practices, because a fourth area we want to get started on immediately is some quick-start initiatives, which will share with the Canadian public and sectors some of the initiatives that have already been taken and have shown significant reductions and where the cost-effectiveness is very good. And sometimes those initiatives are cost-neutral. We want everybody to know about them so they can get started on them quickly.

We'll also do some pilot projects in retrofitting in co-generation projects with some municipalities, but they will be pilot projects. We'll do some research in analysis of major challenges and opportunities as the different sectors see them in this country, so we can get the best bang for our buck when we start investing big dollars.

The fifth area on which we have to work is the international community, with developing nations in particular. In January, I visited China, and from Chinese ministers that I met with for the first few sessions, I heard the same rhetoric we heard in Kyoto. And when they finally stopped those lines and we had a chance to discuss, my sense was that the developed nation community, Canada included, did a very bad job in trying to help them to understand what our objectives were and how this could be a win-win for everybody, including developing nations. There is a lot of work to do there.

So that fund is building a national action plan, but there will have to be other funding in order to reduce our targets. We don't want to be in a command-and-control position. We want to work in partnership and find the best ways to achieve our targets, but we have to do it very quickly. The prime minister has put in place a secretariat to help Minister Goodale and I, who will co-chair this initiative from the minister's side.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I have Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Herron, Mr. Pratt and Mr. Charbonneau with questions. And could I just ask everyone to make their comments through the chair?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will make a comment through the chair, just a brief comment, because I heard my very good friend, Mr. Bigras, mention to the minister that she should be careful to respect

[Translation]

Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over the environment. Is that it? Well, I would like to point out to Mr. Bigras that

[English]

there's no such thing.

[Translation]

The environment is without question a shared area of jurisdiction. Because of their jurisdiction over natural resources, Quebec and the other provinces naturally have an immense role to play, but the federal government is entitled to monitor the atmosphere, navigable waters, international agreements, the fisheries and native territories. I would point out to my colleague that the specific issue of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the federal government was entitled to directly monitor enforcement of the Act.

• 1600

So, Quebec does not have exclusive jurisdiction in this area. It is a shared area of jurisdiction, and no two ways about it, the federal government has a major role to play in this area.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I don't see the need for a comment, but—

Mrs. Christine Stewart: No. I agree totally that environment is one of the most significant issues—it's not unique, though—where there's no respect for political boundaries. Environment is or isn't, and we have to work together as much as possible.

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

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is a good news story for the minister to actually appear before this committee. I think it's very important that we continue to develop that sort of relationship. In particular, we have individuals on perhaps the other side of this table who have a fair amount of respect within the environmental community, both as former provincial environment ministers and from a federal perspective. I think they bring something to the table, so I encourage your participation with this committee in that regard.

When I wrote to you on February 3 about.... It was a quasi-invitation to come to the committee and talk about harmonization. The premise of it was just that I think there were some very constructive concerns in that report. And I think out of professional courtesy in that regard, it could have been more advantageous for us to have met before the signing in January. Other committees did meet in January, whether it was the fisheries committee and that sort of thing, and I know I would have hopped on a plane to talk about that particular file. I think we may have missed an opportunity to go out and do that, but that's what's happened in the past, and we can move on to the future.

It was mentioned earlier that we have CEPA to discuss, and later on we have endangered species as well. Since those are major pieces of legislation, I would definitely encourage you to perhaps chat with us beforehand on those pieces of legislation as well, to help build that kind of relationship. That's sort of my first point in that regard. It's not necessarily a question—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): It wasn't through the chair, either.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, my first question builds on the climate change initiative.

Do you know if we are planning on having some meetings with Russia and the Ukraine with respect to caps on emissions tradings before the caps are actually set in November?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: It's the intention of Canada. On my return from Beijing, I went to Washington, and it's certainly the intention of the United States as well to get all of the international community engaged on all of the mechanisms that we talked about in Kyoto. That includes getting the developing world, the countries in development, to talk about the initiatives that they can take and the commitments that we hope will be there in the future, and hopefully by the time Buenos Aires comes around.

My agenda in January absolutely precluded my coming anywhere near a committee because of my prior commitments, but I am always happy to come to the committee to discuss issues, and I will be happy to discuss CEPA and CESPA when the time comes.

Mr. John Herron: I am a little curious about the Russian and Ukraine issues because those are very delicate issues in terms of the caps.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: A meeting is taking place in Washington at an officials' level next week and Russia has been invited to participate in part of that meeting. Certainly they will also be invited to meetings at a ministerial level, and I will be there taking opportunities to discuss with them. I think an important principle coming out of Kyoto was that the nations signing on to the Kyoto protocol have said that the majority of the effort to reduce emissions must be taken domestically.

Mr. John Herron: Right.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: It's an important principle.

Mr. John Herron: I agree with that principle.

• 1605

Building on that comment, with respect to last night's budget and talking about the issue of climate change and how it basically dominated the Canadian agenda for a number of weeks, from a political perspective.... I know when I met with members of industry after Kyoto, they were really looking forward to some kind of sign of early action from an incentive-based approach, in terms of taxation measures that could be initiated as opposed to just program spending in that regard. I know that on a first-hand basis industry is dying to actually see an incentive-based aspect of it—that kind of signal with respect to early action that we perhaps did not see in last night's budget.

We have to get our own domestic house in order, first and foremost. We learned that from acid rain.

Although the budget was tabled, is that going to be a principle? Industry is desperate for that kind of sign of early action, not just spending.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: You hear two sides of the argument. For us the most important side of the argument is that we are not prescriptive as a federal government, telling people the way we're going to do it and how they're going to do it. We want to be more collegial and sit down in partnership with everybody.

As an example, last week Minister Goodale and I met with the Canadian Electrical Association. As we have done with the provinces and territories since Kyoto, we have said that we want to hear what they consider to be their major challenge or two, their major opportunity or two. For example, for the electrical association, and we would say this to every association, “What's the major challenge the electrical association sees? What's the major opportunity the electrical association sees to reduce greenhouse gases?” Within the electrical association you have natural gas, nuclear, coal, and oil. They have lots of challenges within their own sectors. So we want to hear how they analyse and where they can see the greatest opportunity.

The finance minister has said he does not want to put in place an incentive. If the incentive wasn't there, the action would have been taken anyway. Since Kyoto we've seen a lot of action being taken by many industries with no incentive there at all.

On the other hand, he doesn't want to see incentives put in place where the moment you withdraw the incentives, you go back to square one again.

So we're really looking forward to listening to all of the partners—municipalities as well—about where they feel our money as a nation is best spent. It's our hope and our talk since Kyoto. We believe that federal financial commitments will leverage other funds from other sectors as well.

Mr. John Herron: Just a quick question on harmonization. During the harmonization hearings, the head of CEAA stated to the committee that there would not be any amendments to CEAA as a result of the harmonization accord. Simply put, do you support this position and ensure the committee that these statements are still correct?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Yes, I certainly do. As I said, the principles and guidelines in both the accord and the subagreements are that we protect to the highest level possible, that authorities of both levels of government remain on the table, alive, and that if the lead government is not seen to be fulfilling...then with six months' notice you can take your own authority.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mrs. Minister, it's 4.10 p.m. I still have Mr. Pratt and Mr. Charbonneau.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I should be on my way, but first of all I would like to apologize for being here on such short notice. I would be very happy to come back again on longer notice and discuss whatever issues you would like to pose. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

• 1610

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

I'm going to take this opportunity for a one-minute break. We'll turn over the chair to Mr. Caccia.

Could the next round of witnesses come to the table? It will take us a minute to sort out the seating and then continue on.

• 1611

• 1619

[Translation]

The Chairman: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will resume the meeting.

[English]

I've been informed by the clerk that the first witness who wishes to speak this afternoon is the deputy minister, followed by Mr. Hollier, the chief of regulations and strategy, followed by Mr. Martin, and so forth.

Let me say a couple of words of introduction to establish an atmosphere of trust and cooperation here. This is not a McCarthyian approach today; it is an approach inspired by parliamentarians who have looked at the yearly report of CEPA over the last five or six years and have seen a serious decline in the activities in the field of inspections, investigations, warnings, prosecutions, convictions, and the like.

• 1620

Since we are soon to embark upon the next CEPA legislation—the proposed bill—it seems desirable that we find out how the present bill works with respect to its implementation. Therefore, since we produced the last report—it was on Kyoto, I believe, on December 8—we have been doing some reading on this subject and have put together an approach, with the help of the clerk, which also includes a meeting with the people in the field.

Let me say two words about the two realities that are quite typical when it comes to head office and operations: the people at the top and the people in the field. That, according to experience, applies to immigration, to customs, to foreign affairs. It applies to almost every endeavour in which there are people who plan and design systems and people who apply them.

Over the years we have noticed that there are two realities: the reality at the top and the reality at the bottom. The two realities at times can be quite different, not because one side or the other has a theological inclination that differs from time to time or is at variance with the top or with the bottom, but because realities in the field, be it on the floor of the factory as compared to the board of directors, or be it, as in this case, those who are implementing the legislation as compared to those who are designing the organizations, do vary and do differ, with the best of intentions.

This has actually been the object of studies by all those who have been engaged in industrial and human relations. It's nothing new; there is nothing unusual and nothing to be afraid of.

We are today, therefore, trying to establish the reality in the field, as we have established the reality at the top with previous witnesses. I'm sure everyone here who is a witness today will do his or her best to provide that reality to the best of their knowledge and to the best of their conscience.

Having said that, I will invite Mr. Glen, the deputy minister, to make a statement, followed by Mr. Hollier. Mr. Glen, welcome.

Mr. Ian Glen (Deputy Minister, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And no, I don't have a formal statement to make.

In kicking this off from our side, I just want to say that we do welcome the opportunity for staff in the field to come, quite frankly for the reasons you stated quite well. It is those realities. What in fact is being designed? Does it work? How better could it work? This is information that we feel the committee deserves to have good answers to, but we also need to be enlightened on that as well. That is a challenge, so I appreciate your comments.

The staff that are here, invited by you, I would hope would be sufficiently representative of perspectives, certainly people at headquarters but more critically the headquarters voice that goes out to the regions, and then hear it from the field. Questions to them will help all of us as we advance the administration of CEPA or for preparation of the new one.

The other part is that in being here today I want to be here to assist the members of my staff. If they feel somewhat awkward about how much they can or cannot say, I can actually coach them so that there is comfort. It goes in part to a concern Mr. Gilmour raised before, so we make certain they have that latitude you were encouraging through the minister.

• 1625

Questions of me I'm more than willing to take. Quite frankly, I think this is the time for our staff to have access to you and to be heard—play it that way.

With that, we turn it over to Patrick Hollier. Patrick, I think you're going to kick it off for this group.

[Translation]

Mr. Patrick Hollier (Chief, Regulations and Strategy Division, Environment Canada): Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to tell you about what is going on in the field.

My name is Patrick Hollier. I work at the Office of Enforcement at headquarters in Hull. I am the Chief of the Regulations and Strategies Division.

I will briefly explain to you what the Office of Enforcement does. We do not have an operational role as such. Our role is to coordinate and consult. We provide support to the regions, which are responsible for enforcing legislation in the field.

The people are spread around geographically. I see that there was a geographic shuffle in the West. There must have been an earthquake or something, with the Prairies now being west of British Columbia. I will let them introduce themselves later. First of all, I would like to make a little presentation to explain why we are here, the kind of statements we are going to make to you and the kind of questions that we can answer. I will start off in English.

[English]

The people who are appearing before you today are directly responsible for the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the environmental protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, which contain the famous subsection 36(3), and the regulations. Their role is to discover violations or possible violations to the act and to take the necessary actions to ensure compliance with the legislation, with a view to protecting the environment, the health, quality of life, and in many cases the livelihood of Canadians. They are the front-line people who face ground-level reality day after day. They are therefore well placed to appreciate the legal risks and the environmental damage that can result from inadequate enforcement activities. As front-line staff and enforcement professionals, they will tell you about their experiences, their successes, their failures, their concerns, and their ideas.

[Translation]

They will speak freely, reporting on the wide range of conditions, issues, shortcomings and challenges that characterize environmental law enforcement in the various regions of Canada. If their statements, at times, appear to contradict those made by other departmental officials, you should be aware that these statements are not meant to criticize government policy decisions. They are meant, however, to outline any structural and operational impediments to their ability to apply these policies.

Environment Canada managers and front-line staff all share the same mission and the same objectives: to do our best to protect and improve the quality of Canada's environment. We will answer your questions and try to address your concerns, to the best of our professional abilities.

First, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Peter Kahn, who will be giving our presentation on the position of enforcement along the continuum of compliance.

[English]

He will be illustrating the more theoretical aspects of his presentation, which will be short, I'm told, with some case studies that demonstrate what can be done if enforcement is applied in a rational and smart way.

[Translation]

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hollier.

Is Mr. Kahn the first front-line soldier?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Let's call him a lieutenant, but he does have a lot of experience in the trenches.

The Chairman: We will now hear from Mr. Kahn.

[English]

Do you have any notes to distribute?

Mr. Peter Krahn (Head, Inspections Section, Pacific and Yukon Region, Environment Canada): I can distribute a copy of the paper. I presented it just this afternoon to the minister and the deputy minister, so it is still considered a draft. I hope to review some of the essential findings of my work. If you consider it a draft and take it in that context....

The Chairman: Could we have it so we can distribute it? Is this the one that we have a copy of here?

• 1630

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Mr. Chairman, I believe that what you have is just an executive summary. Mr. Krahn is now giving you the full document with all the pearls of wisdom that had to be edited.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: We apologize. Because of the time delay we did not have time to translate the document. It's a lengthy document, and it's a draft document as well, but we will make sure that the French version is made available as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Merci, Mr. Hollier.

Mr. Peter Krahn: It's a great privilege to be here. I'm quite excited about this opportunity. I left Vancouver yesterday in quite a hurry and was working very hard on this paper. I was very concerned about one thing: I forgot to tell my son to cut the lawn before I left.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Yes, I had to get that in there. And I live on the other side of the Rockies, which block a lot of winds that come from the east. So there are certain advantages to being there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter Krahn: I did not know the context of what I would be talking about, but I'll give you a little bit of background on myself before I get into the presentation. I've been with the department since 1983, before the inception of the enforcement division. I started off in toxic chemicals management. I've written about 30-odd papers about that—this is the latest one—which include environmental law enforcement. I've instructed in environmental law enforcement for Environment Canada as well as in the United States, and in Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, and China on various issues there.

I've been involved in several hundred inspections and have made probably between 30 and 50 legal investigations. As I speak, I am currently actively involved in one investigation.

When you go through that you get to see the development of Environment Canada and its enforcement division. And I can honestly say that it's been a real challenge.

I have had the opportunity to document some of the things I've observed. I created this study, “Enforcement vs. Voluntary Compliance: An examination of the Strategic Enforcement Initiatives Implemented by the Pacific and Yukon Regional Office of Environment Canada”, which covers the period from 1983 to 1998.

I give a fair number of presentations, and the one thing that people very rarely understand is what we do in compliance and enforcement. As a young engineer, I began in the toxic chemicals management division, and I was told that our responsibility was to look at the end of the pipe, that we would set the levels and that industry would make the changes. I was told that by both our department and the industry group.

I didn't necessarily believe that at the time, and I went on-site and took a number of photographs. These photographs, which I will pass around, basically depict some of the things I saw at one of the industries we had in British Columbia. I'll use this industry as an example as one of the case studies and will relate two others to it.

Basically, this industry used a toxic chemical called chlorophenyls, which is toxic at 30 parts per billion. That's 30 eyedropper drops in 1,000 barrels of water. They used this in such a quantity at about 108 lumber facilities that they were producing over 250 million cubic metres of toxic effluent every year.

• 1635

The first phase of the enforcement continuum involves scientific assessment of the problem. That is the first step. Once we had the scientific assessment, we met with basically the cream of the crop in the industry, those who were forward-thinking and looking ahead to the future, and developed compliance measures, which would hopefully implement improvements.

We allowed the industry a time of voluntary compliance and a time to self-assess themselves. The first part of the graph shows the progress they made. They did a self-assessment and assessed themselves at 70% in compliance. We then initiated an inspection program and marked them at 34% to 40%. There was a small difference of opinion.

We then implemented a strategic inspection program, formalized it, cooperated with the province, split up the number of mills, and you begin to see a decline. But this industry was responsible for well over $4 billion in the provincial economy, and it also had many interests, so we couldn't get past a certain point. So we decided to initiate a strategic enforcement initiative and went after five of the worst offenders, eventually prosecuting two. That brought the level down to what you see here, but there were still changes that had to be made.

As a result, we worked with the provincial government and I provided the technical data to draft the regulation. Eventually the regulation was passed and the mills found ways to get out of using the chemical, to change to less harmful chemicals and include such things as increased storage time to help the problem. Eventually we achieved about 99% reduction.

That industry was also the focus of Greenpeace at the time, because chlorophenyls contain dioxins and furans, and the raw materials from the cutting process would often end up in the pulp mill program.

No sooner had I presented the information that we had achieved these results than some samples were taken near the Harmac pulp mill on Vancouver Island and reported to contain dioxins and furans and chlorophenyls. And we had similar data. I was the first person to accept the samples from Harmac, put them in the back of a police cruiser, and deliver them to the Vancouver Airport, where they were sent to Ottawa for analysis.

That ushered in the pulp and paper dioxin and furan regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In this case, there wasn't a lot of lead-up and development time for good practices. This was considered a national initiative, and CEPA was used to implement the regulation. You can see the industry beginning to respond back in 1989-90, trying to find the technical measures necessary to achieve that.

In May 1992 the regulation was passed, but the mills were given the option to delay the levels for another two years. By 1994 the regulation came fully into effect and we had already implemented an inspection program. There were 17 facilities that were under this jurisdiction. All 17 applied for that delay, but came into compliance except for some minor glitches that were related to issues we couldn't really foresee.

During this whole period of time there was another industrial group, and this was the heavy-duty wood-treating industry. It's the one that makes your treated telephone poles, your landscape ties, railway ties, and that sort of thing. They also have similar problems to the first industry I talked about. They were given similar information; they had a code of practice and everything. But our resources were fully consumed in dealing with the anti-sapstain industry and the pulp and paper industry, and this industry was allowed to implement voluntary compliance. You can see how well they did over that period of years, basically from 1983 to 1991.

We then initiated an inspection program with no specific emphasis on prosecution. That brought the levels down a little bit, but it plateaued again. Once we had settled with the pulp and paper industry in February of 1994, I diverted the resources towards this industry. We inspected an unprecedented 85 times at the 17 to 19 mills in our province. We initiated six investigations, two of which went to court. One has been settled and one is still outstanding.

During that time period, each point on the graph actually represents another mill that decided they would go to zero discharge now that they were facing these kinds of issues.

I mathematically laid out all three industry groups onto the same curve. Basically, the flat line at the top indicates the results you can get with voluntary compliance as the only method. When we started the anti-sapstain program we saw an immediate result. When we started the pulp and paper program, that result followed. When we diverted the resources in 1992 and began with heavy-duty wood, the same curve occurred.

• 1640

These three are examples of 19 different industry groups we have worked with. They are reported in our annual compliance report, and it's also available on the Internet.

We looked at the compliance criteria for each of these industry groups and tabled them, whether they were regulated federally or were under a voluntary program. I'm sorry you cannot see this very well, but the final table shows that those that had a strategic compliance requirement by regulation and that had a directed enforcement program averaged about 94% compliance. Those that relied solely on voluntary measures were about 60% compliant.

Compliance enforcement goes through a number of stages. There's a lot to do with compliance promotion. Eventually you will get about 80% to 90% of the industry in any group to be in compliance, but you will deal with the last 5% in a strong enforcement manner, and 0.5% to 1% you will eventually have to prosecute. With respect to the anti-sapstain, that was two mills out of 108. With respect to pulp and paper, because they were in reasonable compliance, it was zero out of 17. With the heavy-duty wood it was two out of 19.

We now face a number of initiatives dealing with more diffuse sources, like agriculture, ranching, sewage treatment plants, urban development. Now if I look at the number of facilities the federal regulatory requirements apply to, it has increased from about 5,000 to over 17,000 sites. We have to administer that with seven inspectors and three investigators.

I put that forward as an introduction that you can make certain initiatives and you can direct resources in a certain way, but there are limits to what we can do. As a result, we work in a strategic manner. But it is not always easy, and on an average case it will take anywhere from five to seven years to effect a change in an industry. I present that just as an introduction so that you are aware that there is much work that is done in the prior years in developing compliance, working with the industry, but in the end we are the rubber on the car that meets the road. We're the first one to burn blue when the pressure hits. We feel the potholes in the legislation first. We spit the gravel out when things don't go very well.

Thank you.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could you mention the number of sites again, Peter?

Mr. Peter Krahn: It's increasing from about 5,000 to over 17,000 sites, without any new regulations coming in.

The Chairman: It's the second paragraph of page three of the summary.

Who would like to be next?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: David Aggett, from Atlantic region, will introduce himself and will speak next.

Mr. David Aggett (Manager, Office of Enforcement, Atlantic Region, Environment Canada): My name is David Aggett. I'm the manager of the enforcement office for the Atlantic region of the Environmental Protection Branch. I've been in my position since 1991. I report directly to my regional director. I have six staff who report to me—three investigators, three inspectors. In addition to those staff, I'm responsible for the quality of work of one other investigator in Newfoundland, an inspector in Newfoundland, and an investigator in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

My operating budget is approximately $150,000 per year to cover all inspections and investigations.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: $150,000?

Mr. David Aggett: Correct.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: My goodness—poor guy.

The Chairman: Mr. Aggett, do you have anything to circulate?

Mr. David Aggett: No, I don't. I don't have a formal presentation, but I'm prepared to answer questions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gonthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier (Chief, Inspections and Investigations, Quebec Region, Environment Canada): My name is Claude Gonthier, and I have been the Chief of the Inspections and Investigations section, Quebec Region, since last July. So I have been doing this job for eight months. Earlier, I had spent 13 years with the department, working on various programs: clean water, clean air, waste management and toxic substances, which has given me a rather broad view of all the various programs within the department.

I have been the section chief since July, and our report to the manager responsible for enforcement and environmental emergencies, who in turn reports to the regional director. I have five inspectors and two investigators working for me. My salary budget is $600,000, and the operating budget is $115,000. This represents about 16% of the figures you were shown earlier in the charts.

• 1645

In the Quebec region, we enforce 32 acts and regulations. Since there are only five of us, and we are expecting a sixth person to join us, we must operate strategically, and work according to priorities. In co-operation with headquarters, we set national priorities and then regional priorities when there are problems that we would like to target specifically.

In our region, over the next year, 10 of these 32 acts and regulations will be high priority, some will be medium or low priority, and 16 will not be enforced at all.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Sixteen?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: That's right, because they're very low priority. When you only have five people, you have to cut right to the chase.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Could you repeat that figure? Ten priorities?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Ten high priorities, nine medium to low priorities, and 16 acts and regulations that we cannot do a lot of inspections for, so we just don't go.

Between 75% and 80% of our staff—five people—are assigned to enforcing the five regulations that we think are the higher priorities among the 10. For the year that just ended, they were imports or exports of dangerous waste, the new regulations on new substances, the National Pollutant Release Inventory, the three pulp and paper regulations, and finally, the PCBs and ozone- depleting substances regulations. Eighty percent of our inspection resources are allocated to those six areas. With the level of resources we have, that's the only way we can work.

People ask us whether we respond to all violations that are brought to our attention. We do our best to respond to all cases, but we can only respond to all the major cases.

In the pulp and paper industry, we use all the tools we have under the federal-provincial agreement. In any event, we have been using them since last September to get interventions, and we are getting them.

Given the resources we have, we must set priorities, but we must also try to change people's ways of doing things, the ways of coordinating work between the regions and headquarters.

At present, we are working within the department to increase resources, decrease the number of regulations to enforce, change people's ways of doing things, negotiate partnerships and make the best possible use of federal-provincial agreements or operating agreements with the provincial government that are not yet official agreements.

I'm ready to answer your questions about these various matters.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gonthier. Now we will hear from the next soldier.

[English]

Mr. Dave Pascoe (Manager, Emergencies and Enforcement Division, Ontario Region, Environment Canada): I'm Dave Pascoe. I've been with Environment Canada since 1974. I've been manager of enforcement for the Ontario region for approximately ten years.

I made a presentation at the first stage of hearings when you visited the regions. My division has nine inspectors and six investigators, with an operating budget of around $500,000, exclusive of salaries.

Rather than giving any further details, I will respond to any questions you have or wish to ask.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pascoe.

• 1650

Mr. Mike Labossière (Head, Enforcement and Compliance, Prairie and Northern Region, Environment Canada): My name is Mike Labossière, and if I get myself into hot water, just for the record, it's Marc.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mike Labossière: I'm the head of enforcement and compliance for Alberta division in Environment Canada's prairie and northern region. The region is comprised of three other divisions: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and NWT. I will try to answer any questions about the other divisions, but obviously my knowledge is the strongest about Alberta division and the set-up there.

Within the region we have CEPA and Fisheries Act inspectors who have multi-disciplines. Our set-up is a little bit different from the rest of the country. We—and by “we” I mean the same inspectors under CEPA and the Fisheries Act—conduct inspections and investigations, respond to environmental emergencies, and are involved in compliance promotions through handing out brochures, information, and that sort of thing.

This arrangement was set up in response to the fact that the region is one of the largest regions in Canada, with 50% of the land mass. Our region is comprised of three provincial jurisdictions and one territorial jurisdiction. Our enforcement offices are located in Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, and Yellowknife. Approximately 15 inspectors cover this vast area, with most of them covering the three roles of inspection, investigation, and emergency response.

This set-up has its advantages and disadvantages. Its main advantage is the department's capacity to respond to incidents in such a large area in a financially responsible and expedient way. One downside in this set-up is the pressure on the individual to conduct their work. We are spread thin; the challenge is to prioritize our workload.

Of the 15 inspectors for the region, four are stationed in Alberta, including me. Three people answer to me. The way it is set up, I respond directly to the division manager, who in turn answers to the regional director of environmental protection.

Just recently we have relocated two of the positions from Edmonton to Calgary. This was a result of reacting to the need to work more intensively on border issues, such as the export and import of hazardous waste regulations and regulations dealing with ozone-depleting substances, and for easier access to Revenue Canada as a partner in dealing with some of these regulations. It also made more sense to position inspectors in the province strategically in order to ensure a faster response to environmental incidents.

Regionally and in the Alberta division, our focus is on the export and import of hazardous waste regulations, ozone-depleting substances regulations, the national pollutant release inventory, new substances notification, and the PCB regulations. Manitoba and Saskatchewan also enforce the pulp and paper mill effluent regulations. In Alberta, our Fisheries Act responses tend to be more focused on federal land, since in Alberta we have an administrative agreement for the control of deleterious substances under the Fisheries Act.

In instances where an alleged violation of federal and provincial legislation has occurred, we will decide whether there is a federal or provincial lead for the investigation and under what legislation the charges will be laid. Joint investigations and inspections occur with enforcement and inspection staff, with provincial and federal departments working side by side.

In the past, Environment Canada had strong scientific and technical skills, but few inspectors with strong enforcement backgrounds. This has changed in the past five years, with the hiring of individuals with an enforcement background and many years of field experience in investigation. This change has worked well to expand Environment Canada's enforcement capability.

This is where I came in a few years ago. I've been with Environment Canada now for about five years. I spent fifteen years with the Province of Manitoba in the natural resources department as a fish and wildlife officer, forestry officer, and park warden. So my background is in enforcement.

• 1655

The challenge we see in Alberta is the fact that we wear many hats and there are so few of us. The benefit to it is that we basically have our fingers in everything. The downside is that we very much have to prioritize how we do work.

As a good example, recently we embarked on a project with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the three first nations of treaty areas 6, 7, and 8. We are training an individual to work under the registration of storage tanks, a federal piece of legislation. The hope is that we will train an individual who will go back to the first nations community to help us in the enforcement of environmental legislation and build up their capacity. The challenge is that the people who do the training are my inspectors, who are also investigators. A project like that does take time, and again, it's a matter of prioritizing what we do.

The project appears to be a success. We are barely eight or nine months into it and there's a potential to increase those numbers a couple more.

I don't have a package prepared, as Peter did. I would leave it to the group to ask questions instead, and if I can answer any of your questions, I will.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Labossière.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

[Translation]

Mr. Martin, you have the floor.

Mr. Guy Martin (Chief, Inspections and Investigations Division, Environment Canada): Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee. My name is Guy Martin, and I am the Chief of the Inspections and Investigations Division et headquarters. My role is to coordinate regional efforts and to support the regions in enforcing the legislation.

Among other things, every year I have to draw up the national inspection plan. The Auditor General has made comments on the number of inspectors in his reports. This is a major challenge that is causing us a lot of headaches. I think you'll understand that with our resources, we always try to prioritize our interventions strategically.

We have to enforce some 32 regulations and acts, with some 32 inspectors in five regions. These people are working flat-out and are very devoted to their work. If they weren't, they would not be able to continue in their jobs.

It's tough, but we have to reach a number of objectives. There is a great deal of room for improvement, and we are the first ones to admit it and to suggest changes to our superiors.

The largest problem we are facing has to do with the structure. This is my own personal observation, and it may displease the department.

• 1700

Given the natural resources and the diversity of the regions, it makes a lot of sense to have a regional structure, but the standardization of enforcement causes us a great deal of trouble. There are improvements to be made in that area as well.

I won't go any further than that. If you have any questions for me, I will be pleased to answer them.

The Chairman: Could you distribute your suggestions for improvements to committee members?

Mr. Guy Martin: I think that the improvements we are suggesting are always available from the department. We frequently discuss these changes with our bosses. We frequently update our requests. I guess you can see, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not very good at dodging an issue.

The Chairman: We certainly hear you, Mr. Martin. I asked you the question because I was wondering if you had had any discussions among yourselves and whether you had written down any proposals so as to facilitate discussion with your colleagues.

Mr. Guy Martin: We often talk about problems and improvements to our ways of doing things and carrying out tasks. Naturally, we always bear in mind the existing level of resources in our discussions, but we have major problems when it comes to standardizing enforcement.

The reality is that we have five regions plus headquarters. To operate with Patrick Hollier's new mandate, we use enforcement strategies in very specific areas, with very specific regulations. At this time, we are negotiating contracts with the regions— because we do not have any direct authority over the regions—to promote enforcement of the law.

In some cases, some regions send out letters of warning, whereas other regions do not, even in exactly the same situation. As for the fundamental principles of enforcement, it is pretty difficult to take action when different regions report two different structures.

The Chairman: Mr. Hollier.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Mr. Chairman, were you trying to find out whether we had carried out studies to set sufficient resource levels to enforce various regulations and acts?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: When the CEPA came into effect, of course studies had to be done to determine the necessary levels. When NAFTA came into effect, studies were done to determine the additional levels that would be needed to enforce legislation effectively and fairly. As well, each time a new regulation is suggested, we try to identify the additional resources that will be necessary in what we call a "regulatory impact analysis statement." These are public documents. If you have a look at them, you will see that in general, we specify that sufficient resources do exist that will be reallocated, or words to that effect. But these figures do exist.

• 1705

The Chairman: So, there is a study, and we would like to get a copy of it for the committee members.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I will do my best.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Chair, I believe we missed one speaker.

The Chairman: Madame Levin.

[Translation]

Ms. Nadine Levin (Senior Policy Officer, CEPA Office, Environment Canada): My name is Nadine Levin. I am a Senior Policy Officer at the Canadian Environmental Protection Act Office, but in the past, I spent six years as the Chief of Enforcement Management at the Office of Enforcement.

[English]

I've been seconded to the CEPA office, where I'm involved in responding to the committee's review of CEPA and the drafting of Bill C-74, of which you're familiar. Principally, I worked on part X, which is the enforcement chapter, to provide new mechanisms and tools for enforcement personnel. I would also point out to you, if you've looked at the bill at all, that the scope of the legislation is much greater and the areas in which enforcement will have to take place are much more numerous.

[Translation]

So, enforcement staff will have greater responsibilities. Priorities and strategies will also change, because we are going to end up aiming for new priorities. We still have the same problem of strategy, national consistency and predictable enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as well as the Fisheries Act.

[English]

I'm perfectly happy to answer any questions you might have about Bill C-74 and the things in it to help enforcement advance in the future and any questions you might have in the area of enforcement. I worked in the enforcement office for six years.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Levin.

Mr. Gilmour, please.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I know you weren't in the chair when the minister was here, but if we go back to the original rotation, by my calculation at least the opposition will have had five questions to one for the government. I don't think that's necessarily fair under the circumstances. I was the next one on the list.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt, I appreciate your intervention. We have now moved to another subject, though. We usually follow this procedure whereby we recognize the opposition first. What happened before was in relation to the minister. Unfortunately, we couldn't complete the list, but that was certainly not something the chair could prevent. On this subject matter I think I will stick to the present sequence, if you don't mind.

Mr. Gilmour, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my previous life I was a professional forester. I worked in the woods in British Columbia. A lot of it was fisheries issues, with the bottom-line, people-in-the-field fisheries. Many times, as Mr. Caccia has said, what the field officers and I were dealing with was distinctly different from what the district office had in mind. So I really appreciate your being here, and I hope you'll be candid with us; I hope you'll be open with us. Should there be something that's very sensitive that you may not wish to divulge, we're all open to the brown envelope route, so please feel free.

The other day we had some witnesses, and I guess, Peter Krahn, this will probably deal with you because it's British Columbia. The issue they were talking about was sewage outfall. You may be familiar with on the Clark Drive outfall in Vancouver. Charges were brought forward, but the provincial government stayed them.

• 1710

My question is for all of you. Where do you see the roadblocks? We recognize that there are budget constraints and people constraints, but are there areas within the department that constrain you? Are there areas within the regulations and the legal system that constrain you? Where are the roadblocks? Could you lay them out for the committee?

Mr. Peter Krahn: I'll describe the way our office is established. We have what's called a pollution abatement division. Originally, when I was dealing with technical matters, I would deal with pollution abatement—that is, working with the industry in developing technology and compliance and getting things implemented. We have also established an enforcement and emergencies branch, which has an inspections division and an investigations division.

So in theory the way things would work is, if industry X had a problem, pollution abatement would be the first group to work with it, and if they could make suitable progress with it, then fine, you might see the curve come down. But if pollution abatement could not make acceptable progress, they may turn the file over to the inspections division and the investigations division. That is one way we come about initiating enforcement at stronger and stronger levels. The other way is if the inspections and investigations division come upon it by their own inspection routes.

In the case of sewage treatment and outfalls, that matter is still largely in the pollution abatement division and was not handed down to us for action.

There was a different case, which revolved around Annacis Island. The outfall was known to be toxic and we had done surveillance on the outfall, and that was considered by the Minister of Fisheries to be an issue. An example was that the mayor of Richmond contested that and was quoted as saying “What will they do, charge us?” Mr. Tobin instructed, through his department, for our division to go out and collect the legal samples. Subsequently the money was found, the construction started, and my utilities bill went up $25. So there are different ways of things happening.

If we have a high workload, we may ask the pollution abatement division if they can deal with it a bit longer, if possible.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Are the problems internal, then, between passing it from pollution to enforcement? Or are they once you get into the legal system?

Mr. Peter Krahn: In the case of sewage treatment and waste water treatment—and I deal with that in the paper—it is basically representing the next stage we are heading into. The three things I showed you were point sources—big, toxic discharges of industrial groups. We're now moving to the more diffuse sources in terms of things such as sewage treatment, and there really is not a policy put in place on how we will go about dealing with sewage treatment or combined sewers, as with the Clark Drive outfall.

So it is a top-down directive. Although there are individual cases where you have a spill situation, if there's a chronic condition or something like that, we do not necessarily have the administrative directive to deal with that issue at this time.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay.

To the whole group, are the regulations adequate? Are they enforceable? Those are what you have to deal with. The policy level is what we deal with as politicians. Where are the holes in the regulations? Are they strong enough? Are they full of holes? Where should we be directing our actions as politicians?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: I don't think we can answer that in a blanket statement. Some regulations, usually older regulations—

Mr. Bill Gilmour: We're dealing with enforcement.

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Yes, we're dealing with enforcement here. Some regulations are harder to enforce than others. Some of them were written with less input from enforcement-knowledgeable people, and therefore, through the structure of the regulation itself and due to the evidentiary rules, we have a difficult time enforcing them.

I can't offhand give you some examples. Maybe my colleagues can. That's one case, and maybe Nadine Levin can take up on this.

• 1715

Let me first tell you about a second example of where regulations are hard to enforce in what I would call a consistent way. We're dealing with some federal House regulations. This is through no fault of any of the drafters; it's just that the provisions of the old CEPA call for concurrence from federal departments in order for the regulation to apply to them. If they don't concur, the regulations don't apply to them, and that's it. So we can still enforce the regulation for the ones who concur, but not for the ones who don't concur.

Nadine Levin can be more eloquent on this. Provisions of the new CEPA put an end to this need for concurrence and therefore will apply equally to the whole regulated community. This is for CEPA. Under the Fisheries Act, basically there are few regulations. What really applies, or maybe what should apply, from an enforcement point of view is the general prohibition.

We are working on an enforcement policy. It has not been approved yet, but the problem is not a regulation or lack of a regulation. The problem is just going about and acting on the information we may have as to a violation of the general prohibition and then deciding to enforce or not to enforce, depending on all kinds of priorities and other reasons.

Ms. Nadine Levin: When I was working in the office of enforcement as chief of enforcement management, one of the things I did was work with program areas such as commercial chemicals, export and import of hazardous wastes, etc. to draft regulations that would in fact be enforceable. We worked very hard to do that, and many regulations were drafted in an improved manner.

The difficulty is that structurally, the office of enforcement provides a role of guidance. If the office of enforcement says this particular provision is not written in an enforceable way—and as people from the regions know, I used to provide my comments to the regions and the regions would also comment on the enforceability of regulations—the office of enforcement has no way of imposing enforceability on drafters of regulations. We present our comments and give our counsel and advice, but the regulation may in fact still be in some ways deficient.

I'm working right now on federal hazardous waste regulations, and we're working certainly very hard with the program area. In this case the program area is very anxious to have an enforceable instrument, and hopefully, with all the regions assisting, that's what we'll have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.

It has taken ten minutes for this intervention. We have nine names here, which at the same average would take us, for the first round alone, to roughly 6:50, without counting the second round. So I'm inclined to suggest that we continue our meeting tomorrow morning, once we reach six o'clock, more or less, because members of the committee I know have also other commitments this evening. Unless they are desperately determined to finish tonight, I would be inclined to send out a smoke signal that we sit tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.

Mr. Ian Glen: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to inform you that all of these people have made arrangements so they can be available tomorrow morning.

An hon. member: Great.

The Chairman: Fine. Thank you. Then we will proceed accordingly. We'll adjourn around six o'clock and resume in the morning with the same list.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, please go ahead.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'll be brief. A few months ago, we learned that Montreal had become a kind of black market for dangerous substances. I think that we mustn't hide this fact. I heard about it at the same time as everyone else.

Mr. Gonthier, I saw that one of your main priorities was enforcing regulations having to do with imports and exports of dangerous waste.

• 1720

I have three questions. Was action taken in this area? Do the current provisions allow you to take strong enough action? Do you have sufficient human resources to deal with this problem properly, which is a Quebec problem, a Montreal problem, unless I'm mistaken?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: When I arrived at Enforcement, last summer, I reviewed the previous years' activities and I learned that the imports/exports regulations were a priority that year. I was pretty surprised by the information that had been given to the Auditor General, which he mentioned in his report; in particular, he spoke about the lack of inspections in previous years.

So we increased our resources and we shifted resources as well so that we could intervene more in the area of importing/exporting dangerous waste. We did a lot of inspections at customs stations, and we made Revenue Canada's customs officers more aware of the problem, because they are the ones who serve as our eyes at the border.

For example, the Auditor General's report said that customs officers had called 28 times in one year, but between September and February, we received 92 calls. We have established mechanisms so that they understand their role properly. We can intervene at customs stations 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

We set up some working groups. That's nothing new in government, but this time, we set up an intervention group with the people from Revenue Canada in the Montreal area to analyze information and to conduct joint operations at customs in order to root out illegal traffic. At customs, we inspect people who request permits or those who try to get around the regulations somewhat.

As for the real illegal trafficking, we set up a working group that meets with the people from Revenue Canada once a week. We analyze information and carry out joint operations. This group is for both dangerous waste and ozone-depleting substances.

As the Auditor General's report recommended, we have begun carrying out inspections at postal, marine and railway customs stations, not just at border points for ground transportation. So, we have shifted resources internally, and we said to ourselves that at least we would be consistent with our own list of priorities and step up interventions. At present, I think we will be making a great deal of progress, thanks to the number of interventions and their quality, both in terms of checking compliance and discovering illegal trafficking in these substances.

The Chairman: Is that all?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Yes sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Guy Martin: I would like to add something to what my colleague Claude was just saying. The CFCs problem is caused by the situation in the United States, where it is very profitable to smuggle CFCs because of a tax that they have in that country. This problem is not just in Quebec, it is in all of eastern Canada. It's present in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and in Ontario. There have also been a number of isolated cases in western Canada, which we just learned of recently.

You must understand that the customs officers do the best they can, but large amounts of goods go through these border points in very short periods of time.

As Claude pointed out, we have given customs officers in Quebec a great deal of training. We have also trained American and Canadian customs officers along the entire border. We have trained at least 500 customs officers in all. Our people in Atlantic Canada, as well as those in the Prairies, the Pacific region and Ontario, have done a great deal of training to make the officers more aware of this problem.

• 1725

However, the problem is still twofold: you have the goods that go through the normal customs channels, and then you have people trying to get around customs, which is much more difficult to deal with. This problem forces us to seek out information, which we then analyze. It means we have to create partnerships with the other departments. It requires a great deal of effort, and yet, our resources are very limited.

At present, we have one person whose only task is to gather information. You mustn't compare us to other departments. When you are in a partnership, that means give and take. You supply information and you receive information. When you have nothing to supply, you can't expect to receive a great deal of information.

Even so, we have had some great success. We work with the Americans, and with pretty much everyone. In the Atlantic provinces, we took legal action against a major CFC smuggler, thanks to our people in the Atlantic region who worked very hard on that case. It was a complicated case, and we took the fellow to court. He's now in prison in the United States.

[English]

Mr. David Aggett: We expect him to be sentenced to jail within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Guy Martin: And there's also a Montrealer in jail in Pennsylvania for smuggling.

So we have a lot of effort and we're trying the most with the resource we have. We're trying a lot.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[English]

We have now Mr. Clifford, followed by Mr. Jordan, Mr. Knutson, Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Charbonneau, Ms. Carroll, and the chair.

Mr. Clifford, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you for calling me by my first name, Mr. Charles.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Sorry.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): May I make an intervention, please?

The Chairman: Certainly.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I have to attend a 5:30 meeting, and since I have been guaranteed that all our witnesses are coming back, I now understand my question will certainly not make it before six o'clock, so I'll ask it in the morning.

The Chairman: Tomorrow morning? Fine. At nine o'clock.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you. I look forward to that.

The Chairman: Fine. Thank you.

Sir Clifford.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Sir Charles, if I may, listening to the various witnesses, I must say I am full of sympathy and a lot of respect for them for what they do with nothing.

I was just thinking, Mr. Aggett has a budget of $150,000, and as MPs, our budget, outside of salaries, for people in the cities is $115,000. So with a little more, you have to run an enforcement of 32 regulations. I feel a lot of sympathy for you. I think you guys are doing a great job under terrible circumstances.

We were trying to suggest to Mr. Guimont when he came that we are on his side and the DOE side. If by any chance we could hear you don't have enough resources, which we hear for the first time today, because Mr. Guimont told us “Oh, no, we have enough, we can do with that”.... It's because he didn't want to say you don't have enough. If we could hear very loud and clear that you don't have enough, and you have a lousy budget for the staff, then we could go to Mr. Martin and say there's evidence there—from you, from you, from you, from you.

So I'm very glad to get it brought up that you have a lousy budget and far too few people. One person in intelligence—it's unbelievable—for 32 regulations. So I have a lot of sympathy for you.

I'm very, very glad that you came, because I think it gives ammunition now to be able to fight for more money for the department. And it's not the fault of Mr. Glen, or the minister, or anybody. It's the fault of not enough resources financially for the department.

I'm also glad to hear that our recommendation for a centralized enforcement office, with a centralized data system, with a centralized training program, with environmental laws under the DOE's jurisdiction rather than the justice department, was warranted. I'm sorry, I hope it will be new CEPA.

• 1730

I'm sorry as well that one of our recommendations under the CEPA review, that fines be dedicated to defending the enforcement office, was rejected by the government, which is very sad. I don't see why they should reject it. It would be a great thing to build up the enforcement office.

This said, I would like to ask you, Mr. Gonthier.... And I realize the circumstances you're working under. So you're saying that 16 regulations

[Translation]

are not being enforced. Could you tell me whether the regulations having to do with the release of asbestos from asbestos mines and extraction plants are among the 16?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: No.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are they being enforced, yes or no?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: They are being enforced.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Are you doing the enforcement or is it Quebec?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: In the case of asbestos mines, the regulations have been enforced for a long time in partnership with the Quebec Ministry of the Environment. There are provincial regulations that are identical to ours, namely two fibres per cubic centimetre of air. We take turns doing inspections. For example, there are two asbestos mills in Quebec that come under the regulations. There are 63 sources of airborne emissions to be sampled. Last year, we sampled 43 of them.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just wanted to know—

Mr. Claude Gonthier: I just want to give you a good idea: each year, we sample two thirds of the sources.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: For example, what about chlorine plants that release mercury? Is that regulation among the 16 or not?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Yes, it is among the 16, but there is no chlorine plant in Quebec that comes under that regulation.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: And what about liquid effluent from mines and smelters?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: As for mines and smelters, the companies prepare a monthly report which they send in to us. We analyze the monthly reports, but we have not gone beyond analyzing the data. We are looking at the issue. For example, in 1996, there were 30 mines that came under the regulations, and they sent 30 monthly reports to us.

In the 360 reports, we found nine instances where the companies exceeded the seven standards that are found in the regulations. So it's not a major problem. We classify that as a low priority, and we just follow up on the administrative reports. We save our inspection resources for the regulations that are being broken more often.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'll ask you one last question. It could be for you or for the other witnesses. The other day, Mr. Guimont was telling us, as he was explaining how a computerized data system operated:

[English]

We've set up information through a computer system. That's where the money went. So instead of physically collecting information through the mill, the mill manager, or whoever is in the mill, punches a computer and files the actual information they are requested to file with the government on a monthly basis. The information goes to Quebec—this is the pulp and paper—and within five days the information is fed back to us.

[Translation]

And the other day, it was rather interesting, a witness came and told us that he had been looking for

[English]

information through the Access to Information Office on pulp and paper, how it works as between Quebec and yourself. I've got the letter somewhere in my deck here from the Office of Access to Information. They reply and say that the Quebec region has told us it will take 489 hours to file the information, which is 61 days. Monsieur Guimont said that within five days the information is sent to us, yet a letter from the Access to Information Office says it's 61 days.

[Translation]

Which one is correct, Mr. Gonthier?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: Both are correct.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Both are correct?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: The access to information request was for 1995 data, but the electronic system was not in place at that time. So, we had to go back to the monthly reports that the 62 plants had sent to our department on paper, get the information, process it and pass it on. It took us a lot of time to extract the 1995 and 1996 data. The electronic system has been operational since 1997.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: But there are 25 mills in Ontario, and he says that it would take 60 hours. Why is that?

Mr. Claude Gonthier: It would take 60 hours?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Pascoe?

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Sir?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In Ontario, the access to information for exactly the same thing for 25 mills said Ontario will use 60 hours, and I think a few hours in the Maritimes for fewer mills. In Quebec it was 489 hours, 61 days. What is the difference between picking up the information in Ontario and in Quebec?

• 1735

Mr. Dave Pascoe: We have the information in our office.

Mr. Claude Gonthier: And we did not.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You didn't.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: I have to admit that in 1995-96, under the federal-provincial agreement, there were problems with report distribution, because everything was done on paper. The information was sent to the 16 regional offices of Environment Quebec, and there they had distribution problems.

We got the access-to-information request, and I was told when I took over my position that the work had involved going through 62 files from 62 plants, finding the dates of missing reports and contacting the Quebec environment department, regional offices and, in some cases, the companies in order to obtain the missing reports. That was what took so much work.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Which brings me to close up my part, because Mr. Charles is going to give me hell. But he called me by my first name, so maybe he'll be sort of indulgent, kind.

Yesterday or the day before we had Mr. Swanson from the Ministry of Fisheries testify here, and he admitted that the fisheries reports were deficient by at least one year and maybe two years. In fact, if you strictly add up, it works out to be four years, because information received for the first two years is deficient because the data is not according to the statutory requirement of the law because the data has not been received properly from the provinces. He admitted that the reason was—in fact I've got a letter from the minister that confirms it—that the data is not coming in from the provinces in a way that respects the requirement of the statute. And so we hear from every region.

Is that a problem that you have, that the provinces that have signed these pulp and paper agreements under the Fisheries Act are not reporting the data so that the publication can be done under the Fisheries Act?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: With respect to the pulp and paper agreement, we have been saying since last September that the agreement contains mechanisms that we will use 100% and if we do not get the information we need, the federal government will have full latitude under the agreement to obtain that information.

Things have improved greatly with electronic transmission of data. We have also succeeded in getting the Quebec environment department to intervene with companies that were not meeting federal requirements. We have that information, we analyze it and, under the agreement with the Quebec environment department, we can tell them that we are not satisfied with the measures taken with respect to one plant or another and ask the department to take action.

This arrangement has been in place since last September and I think that things are improving.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, but you have to admit, Mr. Gonthier, that when you get the information the horse is out of the stable already. The cat is out of the bag. In other words, if you don't get it at the time, when you go back six months hence, the pollution has happened. Isn't that the basic problem?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Gonthier: I realize that that was the case for the 1995 and 1996 data, but not for the 1997 data, which we were able to get very quickly.

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Is that the same position elsewhere?

Mr. Peter Krahn: In British Columbia we have been issuing several mechanisms. We did have a pulp and paper agreement with the province, which expired over the last year. It's been under renegotiation.

However, under the first agreement, the data that we received was not at all the quality that I would have expected. But it also required that we have some resource to administer that agreement. And I have to admit that, as I showed on the graph, I diverted the resources from pulp and paper because the pollution of dioxins was down and I knew this other industry was a higher priority, and if I asked for more paper, the pulp and paper mills would produce more paper.

We have what's called a single format data reporting system, which was initiated under that agreement, by which the mills can now electronically submit data to both the provincial government and the federal government. We use that to update our annual compliance reports, which are published and available on a web site. I have an address card here that you can sit down and look at. It may be slow getting into the web site because the server is somewhat antiquated and it takes a while to get on.

We do not have an existing agreement now, so some regions are doing partial inspections on behalf of the federal government and submitting partial data. I guess it is the next challenge for me to try to decide whether I deploy more resources to do that or go after something, as was mentioned earlier, sewage treatment plant or agriculture or ranching.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan, please.

• 1740

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just make one comment.

I want to thank you all for being here. I think it's very, very important that we do get a sense of what's going on in the field. Operating at the level we're operating at, in terms of trying to interpret legislation, when we see enforcement there's an expectation on our part of what's going on and what that involves. If that expectation is out of alignment, then I think it's critical, if we're to do our role, that we know that. So I want to thank you for being here.

Just as a bit of a side story, I think when we discussed this meeting and I was trying to figure out how this meeting might go and what questions to ask, Mr. Gilmour talked about brown envelopes. I remember at the time I think I might have said something along that line as well and had a good laugh about it. Mr. Gilmour mentioned it again today, and I laughed again, but I'll tell you I didn't laugh quite as much as I did a week ago.

Having said that, I have a question for Mr. Hollier. Those pictures you took—

Mr. Patrick Hollier: That was Mr. Krahn.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Oh, sorry. The pictures you took of the waste being dumped in the river, did the company know you were there and did they know you were taking those pictures?

Mr. Peter Krahn: Yes. This indicated, I guess, the shoestrings we were working under. I was working as a toxic chemicals researcher to define the problem. I basically gained the confidence of the mill to say “We need to know the information, and for the time period I'm considering this a research project”.

We then supplied the data back to the mill so that they knew what they were facing. And two years later, when the situation had not changed, I showed up at the door with a search warrant in my hand and prosecuted the same facility.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So at the time you took the pictures you were just wandering around the lumber yard.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Well, it was a strategic study that I was conducting for research purposes that allowed me to walk. We don't generally just wander around; we have very little time for that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. And that brings me to my next point. When I hear words like “prioritize”, you know, it means different things to different people. Clearly we're talking about a situation where official resources are stretched. So if I were on a hill with a telephoto lens, I could have likely got the same pictures you did of that mill.

I don't want you to comment on policy, but I'll ask you this. If we had citizen interveners who were very concerned about the environment and who were out and about doing this sort of thing, are they apt to be fighting for parking spots with our inspectors at some of these sites?

Mr. Peter Krahn: No, I think there would be considerable parking.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thank you.

That's it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please—unless there are some comments. No comments? Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): With the time I have, I'd like to give our witnesses an assignment to maybe come back with some of these answers. I could ask one question and everybody could give me their views.

If I were interested in making a case to the Minister of Finance and the government as a whole highlighting where the department is under-resourced from the position of enforcement, what the gaps are between expectations of Canadians, which are on the rise—certainly our own polling shows that expectations over environmental protection are much more prevalent today than they were a few years ago, and they're rising.... What facts—and I emphasize the word “facts”, although it could be anecdotal facts, but I'm not looking for your opinion or your feelings—what facts could you bring forward from your own professional experience to help me make the case that your branch or the particular branch of your department needs more money? Maybe we can deal with that tomorrow. Where are the gaps? Are there some prime examples in your own professional capacity where you just get up every morning and say “God, if I only had the money I could cover these gaps”, but you don't have the money, so we have huge gaps?

• 1745

I'd like a few comments on the history of enforcement in Environment Canada. Is our level of enforcement activity the same now as it was ten years ago? Is there a trend of declining in terms of enforcement activity?

Mr. Krahn used the term “administrative directive”, and I wasn't sure what that meant. Does that mean that before...? Parliament has this curious sense that when we pass a law it gets enforced. Is there a thing called an administrative directive that has to come into play as well before a law that we pass gets enforced?

Mr. Peter Krahn: I can give you an example. With respect to the enforcement of the PCB waste storage regulations, prior to the drafting of the PCB regulations there were no criteria for the storage of waste, which eventually led to the Saint-Basile-le-Grand fire. After that fire occurred, we were directed to inspect every facility in British Columbia, which at that time numbered over 1,100 facilities or known sites.

The directive came down from Ottawa that this was a priority, and we conscripted people from virtually every department that we could to put five or six or seven people into the field to do that. Then that regulation passed from an interim order to a complete regulation, and that's a regular part of our program. We are currently now down to about 500 or 600 sites and we're moving PCB waste storage to destruction facilities.

Coming back to the example of the sewage treatment plants, there is no such directive that allows us to do that. If there were, I would have to withdraw resources from other initiatives in order to achieve that.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Are you saying that there is a law, there is a regulation, but you just haven't been told to enforce the law?

Mr. Peter Krahn: Apart from the regulations, I have identified about 55 initiatives.... General provisions of the Fisheries Act allow that “No one shall deposit a substance which is deleterious to fish into a place where it may enter or does enter water frequented by fish”. So you don't have to have a specific regulation.

Agriculture, auto recyclers, bulk loading, dairy processing, fish processing, general industrial, storm water, municipal, pesticides, ready-mix concrete, ship repair, wood preservation and anti-sapstain are not covered under federal regulations. We simply use subsection 36.(3) in general, contaminated sites. There's no specific regulation. So the beauty of the Fisheries Act is that it does apply in a general sense. But when you have a limited amount of resource, you look at what is the top priority and deal with that.

The example I give in my paper is that pulp and paper has reduced its toxic effluent discharge by some 99%. Research now indicates that other chemicals that are either natural or artificial, such as endocrine disrupters, would become a priority. They'll take effect over a long period of time, disrupting organisms. But I have to look at the agriculture and ranching industry. And I'm not criticizing them; I'm simply saying that there are thousands of kilometres of stream banks that have been completed destroyed and eroded and there is no place for the fish to even live. So do I concern myself about something that may affect fish in a few generations, or do I try to have a place where the fish can actually live? Right now I cannot address that issue.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Maybe you can reflect on this tonight and tell us tomorrow what you think the main gaps are.

Mr. Peter Krahn: Many of them are actually listed in my document, when you get a chance to read it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm curious to know about Lake Ontario as well. We had the head of the region for Ontario, and I asked him what happens when Ontario Hydro dumps nasty stuff into the water. At the beginning of the answer his sense was that you go and you see the Ontario government. I'm confused as to whether we use the Fisheries Act in B.C. and maybe we don't use it in Lake Ontario. Why wouldn't we? If a company has a permit from the Ontario government, we're not even monitoring what permits they get from the Ontario government.

Living on Lake Erie, I have an interest in the Great Lakes basin, but I know that's far too much for ten minutes.

• 1750

I also have an interest in the Alberta clear-cutting; that's got a lot of publicity. Presumably they're killing fish too.

There just seem to be an awful lot of stories where polluters are going unregulated, uncharged. So I'd like to talk about the gaps tomorrow.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: Do you want an answer now or tomorrow?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No, tomorrow.

Ms. Nadine Levin: Something that perhaps is worth understanding about the Fisheries Act general prohibition provisions is that general prohibition is constructed so that no one shall deposit a harmful substance to water where there are fish. The regulations are constructed as exceptions to the general prohibition. The regulation says this much is not deleterious, and anything above a certain level is deleterious.

The unenviable position that facilities licensed by provincial governments find themselves in is that provincial permits, certificates of approval, or certificates of authorization do not constitute regulations within the meaning of the federal Fisheries Act. So a provincially regulated facility may have a permit in whatever province and operate in complete compliance with that permit and still be in jeopardy of violating the federal Fisheries Act because of the general prohibition.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It seems our administrators on Lake Ontario have made a decision that that's not their business.

Mr. Dave Pascoe: That's not the case. If you want an answer now I can give it to you. If you want to wait until tomorrow, I can do it then as well.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'd prefer tomorrow.

The main point is I'd like to know the argument for more money from the finance minister. Maybe some of these examples can come into play then.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before calling on Mr. Stoffer, followed by Mr. Pratt and Mr. Charbonneau, may I ask Mr. Glen, the deputy minister, is it your intention to be available tomorrow morning?

Mr. Ian Glen: I'm hoping to be able to be here with my colleagues.

The Chairman: Because there may be some questions, definitely on my part. I would like to know whether you will be present.

Mr. Ian Glen: I'll undertake to be here.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Unfortunately, it will not be in this room. It will be in Room 701 in the Promenade Building, 151 Sparks Street. It's a nice little touristic walk past the flame, past the Langevin Building, and then turning right on Sparks Street along the beautiful shopping strip there. At nine o'clock in the morning it is a very interesting, active part of the city.

Mr. Stoffer, please.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and on behalf of the New Democratic Party I wish to thank all the witnesses here today.

I have a couple of questions, but first a statement: that is, with CEPA coming up, I honestly believe that if the MAI goes through without tougher environmental changes within Canada, it doesn't matter what you do; it will be overridden anyway.

To Mr. Lincoln's concern, sir, I believe it's honestly the minister's responsibility to see that her or his department has enough resources to do the job. To simply say it's not is unacceptable.

Also, to Mr. Knutson, I concur with you: if we had paid more attention to environmental concerns many years ago, we probably wouldn't have this meeting today.

It's clear that the low staffing levels are contributing to a crisis in enforcement. This leads to targeting some regulations. You can enforce some and not the others, depending on what it is.

I have a question for anyone, and this can be answered tomorrow. What are the regulations or sources of pollution that are now being targeted, especially in B.C., with respect to water pollution, with respect to air pollution, or land erosion? Which one is picked, especially in British Columbia, and which one is put on the back burner as well?

Also, would Mr. Gonthier from Quebec please provide a written breakdown to the committee, if possible, on high, medium, and low priority areas, especially the 16 areas that are not covered?

To Mr. Dave Aggett, sir, it is quite obvious that on a $150,000 budget it is almost impossible that you'd be able to enforce land and water protection within Nova Scotia. As you know, we have the most toxic site in North America, the Cape Breton tar ponds. And the fact that we're sitting here talking about that is an absolute disgrace to the Canadian people. I certainly don't blame that on you per se, sir; it's just the system and the way it's set up.

• 1755

There is one more pressing issue. The town of Sheet Harbour has that beautiful river that goes through it. Just recently a gentleman in Truro was given permission to dam that river and sell the power to Nova Scotia Power. From my information, one afternoon environmental assessment was done on that project—one afternoon.

There isn't one person in the town who wants this river dammed. It's also a major fishery source. It's also a major concern for the people in tourism. That the department could have rubber-stamped an agreement to allow a dam to be built there this summer is completely unacceptable.

Sir, if it's possible if you could have time to come up with those answers for tomorrow.... And I encourage this department to put the kibosh to that immediately.

You may know that I'm on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I must say on behalf of all fisherpeople in this country that it's an absolute disgrace what we have done to the habitat of those salmon. Nobody here has mentioned the words “who's speaking for the fish?” In fact, on your submission right here it says “in many cases the livelihoods of all Canadians”. Well, who's speaking for the fish? Not one person here has said a word about the fish. We won't have fisherpeople if we don't have fish, ladies and gentlemen.

My concern to you.... I know it's certainly not the front-line people, because I know if you had the tools and if you had the resources to do the job you would do it. I have full faith in the fact that you would do it. But it's always been my perception, long before getting into politics, that when it comes to environmental concerns or in fact the environmental department within government, it's always near the bottom of the list. Whereas finance, industry, and everything is at the top, environment is at the bottom. If it were reversed—and I'd like to get your opinion on it—and if environment were the top department in government, we probably wouldn't have this meeting today.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. If you had attended the meetings of this committee as diligently as Mr. Laliberte you would have heard that question asked by many members of this committee on other occasions.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. I just wanted to be on the record again, sir.

The Chairman: We appreciate the fact that you want to be on record. I'd just like you to know that that expression is not new around the table of this committee.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

The Chairman: Is there anyone who would like to answer the question?

Mr. Patrick Hollier: Mr. Chair, just in response to the honourable member, one of his questions puts us in a bind. He's asking for us to reveal what our inspection priorities and targets are for this coming year.

This is an enforcement protected document. If we reveal this in public, we're giving notice to the regulated community either that we're going to do something about them or we're not going to do something about them. So it's a bit difficult to actually give that answer for the present year.

Now, at the end of the fiscal year this document will not be protected any more, and then we can release it and you can get a backward look on the situation as it happened in this, the present fiscal year.

So do you understand the bind we're in?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I understand. It's unfortunate, but I understand.

Mr. Ian Glen: I was going to try to take advantage of the break to discuss with our colleagues how in fact we could try to answer the thrust of the question without compromising that very concern. We'll try to do that. I think you're trying to get some measure of what I would call what's not getting done or not getting addressed. We'll try.

The sensitivity expressed by Mr. Hollier, and I think Mr. Gonthier would agree with it, is a legitimate concern we'd have from an enforcement perspective.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Glen.

The next one is Mr. Pratt. Would you like to do it now or start tomorrow morning?

Mr. David Pratt: I'll wait until tomorrow. People are tired.

The Chairman: Then we'll start tomorrow morning punctually at nine o'clock, with Mr. Pratt, followed by Mr. Charbonneau, by Madam Carroll, by the chair to complete the first round. And of course we will also deal with the answers to the questions by Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Stoffer, followed by Mr. Glen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but seeing how this meeting was open camera, is it possible that for the first part of tomorrow morning's meeting it could be open camera as well, just for the first part?

The Chairman: It is already.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It is for tomorrow, as well.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. So it's not in camera.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Glen.

Mr. Ian Glen: I just need guidance from the chair on how long for tomorrow. Some people will have travel schedules. Is it two hours?

The Chairman: It is probably going to be nine to eleven, as far as I can forecast.

• 1800

Mr. Ian Glen: Okay.

The Chairman: We thank you all. We wish you an enjoyable evening. We'll see you tomorrow morning. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.