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, May 6, 1998

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen. I declare the session open. In accordance with subsection 81 (4), votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 of the Estimates for the current year under the heading "Environment" have been sent to this committee.

[English]

Before proceeding with the welcoming of the minister and the officials, I would like to indicate to members of the committee who were present in Calgary on Monday and Tuesday that tomorrow morning we will have an opportunity to exchange our impressions briefly on the CERI conference.

Also, let me bring to your attention the fact that a few days ago the sixth report of the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee was produced. It looks like this, roughly. It's entitled Leading in the next millennium. It's a report of some importance, particularly to this committee.

Some of you may recall that we did a study on biotechnology a couple of years ago, albeit not in such depth as this report. Therefore there is a lot that we can learn and absorb from this particular document. I would invite members of the committee to let me know between now and the end of June whether you feel we should engage in a second round, in the form of a study of biotechnology from an environmental perspective, if not this year, perhaps in 1999.

I would also like to inform the members of the committee that we have received, through the offices of the Minister of the Environment, the response of the government to our harmonization report. It is in both languages, and I hope you will have the time to review it. It is very comprehensive.

This leads me then to thank the minister for that and to welcome her to the committee, together with her officials.

This is the second meeting of this committee on the budget. The first, as you know, was a technical one, for which again we thank the minister and the officials, because it was very helpful.

• 1540

[Translation]

I would like to thank the officials from the department who appeared before us. Their presentations were most useful. Today, we invite the Minister to take the floor. After that, I'm sure that members will want to ask her some questions.

[English]

So on behalf of all the members on the committee, Madam Minister and the officials who have come to the committee again, we are glad to see you in good form. The floor is yours.

Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to speak with the committee about my plans and priorities and ideas for the future.

Before I start, I would like to take the opportunity, although it might be redundant, to introduce my staff. With me are my deputy minister, Ian Glen; Sid Gershberg, president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, otherwise known as CEAA; Karen Brown, who is the assistant deputy minister for the Environmental Conservation Service; Rod Monette, the ADM for corporate services; François Guimont, the ADM for the Environmental Protection Service; and many other staff behind me who are here to help us all to understand the agenda of Environment Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I have tabled a deck, which I will speak to quite briefly. I don't want to make a lot of comments, but to be quite general at the beginning. I prefer to respond to questions and areas of concern of committee members.

As you said, Mr. Chairman, you received a technical briefing from people on my staff a couple of weeks ago, which referred to the report on plans and priorities for the period 1998-2001. I'm very pleased to follow up on that today, and to give you some information and background on my perspectives for the department.

What we face today in the department is a concern for our country's natural legacy and for its long-term well-being. We also have to be concerned in the department, as in any department of government, about what we would like to do, but also what we are able to do given our fiscal restraints. It doesn't matter what day or age it might be, we always have fiscal restraint, but it's of a special order in view of the program review the department has gone through over the last few years.

However, Canada's environment indeed is in better shape today than it has been for many decades. The challenge, however, is to convert the concern that Canadians have into action. I'm very concerned that we have communities across Canada, businesses in their boardrooms, and our economy faring better through action, both within Canada and around the globe. I feel very strongly that what is good for the environment can also be good for the economy, and I think there are many, many examples out there that would support this statement. We have to make sure that Canadians are aware of it and become excited, as I am, about the potential for improving our environment and helping our economy at the same time.

Through the program review process, we had suggested that we would reduce our budget in the department by a third, but in fact for various reasons the actual reduction has turned out to be a quarter. That has been a help to us in meeting the many challenges we have. We have been able to face and surmount some of the fiscal challenge because of innovative approaches we have taken.

I think it doesn't hinder any organization to be forced to go through a review process. You can find, through that review process, areas where you can make improvements, areas where you can bring in innovation and actually improve your ability and, in this case, protect the environment.

• 1545

I want to congratulate my department for a lot of serious and concentrated work they have done to go through the review process and yet protect our environment to the highest standards possible.

I continue to be committed to finding more efficient and effective ways to deliver our services without sacrificing important elements of our program.

Environment Canada is a very small department with a very big mandate. As the new minister in this department last June, after many briefings on what our department does, I was amazed at the complexity of issues and the broad scope of the issues. In fact, I realized very quickly that there's not much one person, the federal Minister of the Environment, or one department, Environment Canada, with the assistance of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, can do alone. We have to work with a broad partnership in this country, and there has to be shared action.

The reality is, just to look at our federation, that provinces and territories have jurisdiction in the environment, and in order to protect the environment to the highest level we do have to work with them.

It's very important for me that I inspire Canadian citizens at the grassroots to take on their own action, to learn about the environment, to understand the science of our environment in all areas, and to take responsible action to help me protect the environment.

I have a real sense about the rights of people, the right to be protected and to have a safe environment, a protected environment. But I also have a strong sense that we have to encourage Canadians to be responsible. They have responsibilities themselves to collaborate with us in protecting the environment. One of my goals is to work better with Canadians.

In my department we work with five basic principles.

The first of those principles is that for all of the work we do, with all of the science we do, in all of the areas where we work, we must achieve results. That will be a primary focus for me.

Second, our department, as most of you know, is a science-based department. I have to assure you that the basis for our science is sound and that it is sustained and that we have adequate science capacity in the department. As I said before, lastly on the science issue, I want to communicate that science to the Canadian people and help them to understand the risks out there and the actions they can take to protect the environment.

Third, I want to build partnerships, as I said, across this country. There's very little I can do on my own. I have to work, as I've said before here, with provinces and territories, with business and industry, with environmental NGOs, with municipalities and with Canadian citizens at the grassroots. Schools have an important role to play, as well as many different associations.

Fourth, I believe I must work to promote compliance and explore alternatives to regulation. Our department will enforce the law. As an incentive to compliance and to ensure that laggards are not unfairly advantaged, we're trying to work, as much as possible, voluntarily with different sectors, be it ENGOs, be it municipalities, be it business and industry. We have to make sure that the environment and citizens are protected, and we'll use regulations as necessary.

Finally, the federal government has to do its own part. We will seek greater coherence across our federal departments, as our objectives are related to health, to trade, to transportation, to natural resources, and to international action.

• 1550

As I reviewed the work in my department and, as I said, the large number of issues and the complexity of the issues, and feeling that it was extremely important to communicate the science, communicate risks in the environment, communicate the need for responsible citizenship in Canada, I decided that my four focuses of action had to be simple in order to be communicated. Thus, I have four themes I talk about regularly. I think each theme is linked to each other, but we can be clearer if we talk about them separately as well as how they relate to one another.

The four themes are climate change, clean air, clean water, and nature. These four themes do not necessarily—and they don't, in fact—cover everything that Environment Canada does, but for me they represent very important areas in which we can take action. We also are generally engaged in the notion of sustainable development, and of course our weather services are extremely important to the Canadian public.

On climate change, there's been a lot of discussion, as you know, on this issue over the last year. As I said to you before, to me it's very important that, as we discuss a very serious environmental issue, where we in Canada and the globe are confronted with serious risk, and as we take action to overcome that risk, the Canadian people understand that there is economic advantage. We have to recognize that addressing this issue is also a social challenge—and a political one, as we know.

Making Canada's commitment is going to require that we shift the way we use energy and that all jurisdictions in Canada work together. I had a very important meeting with Minister Ralph Goodale a couple of weeks ago with our counterpart ministers of the environment and energy for the provinces and territories. I was very satisfied and pleased with the resolution we came to in that meeting, an agreement to develop a national implementation strategy together, with that strategy to be concluded by the fall of 1999. At the same time, we will work on another track of early action and put in place a system to provide early credit for early action.

Our agreement understood that no jurisdiction would be prevented from taking that early action or making decisions about early action. It's certainly our intention to continue to promote early action with citizens across the country.

In the department we had been spending dollars on the climate change issue before the budget announcement of an additional $150 million, or $50 million for each of the next three years. We had budgeted to spend $20 million on climate change, over half of which was for research and development.

My commitments are to make the science and the implications of climate change better known to Canadians and to improve our capacity to predict changes in the climate in order to help Canadians prepare and protect themselves. I want to act internationally to help developing nations recognize their role in dealing with this threat to all of us.

On the issue—

The Chairman: Just a moment.

[Translation]

There seems to be translation problems.

[English]

Perhaps with your indulgence we will suspend for a few minutes until the technician arrives to make the necessary corrections.

• 1555

• 1601

The Chairman: The problem seems to be resolved. The floor is yours, with apologies on our part for the interruption.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I'm not causing this problem. It's not an environmental problem, though, right?

On to the second theme. I was talking about my themes—climate change, clean air, clean water, and nature, and I wanted to move on to clean air.

You probably have heard and have used the figure yourselves that an estimated 1,500 Canadians die prematurely every year as a result of smog. Many more—many more—are hospitalized, and children and elderly are particularly vulnerable. These are some of the reasons that clean air is a very important issue for me.

Significant improvements have been made in air quality, but growing economic activity, energy consumption and automobile use all mean that we'll have to work harder together to make improvements in the future. I believe together, with all of the partners, we can halve hospital admissions in Canada attributable to poor air quality by 2010. I would like to make this the focus of my clean air agenda.

In 1998-99 Environment Canada's expenditures related to clean air will exceed $50 million, more than half of it on research and development. The plan I'm putting into place focuses on the following actions:

1) that Canada-wide standards for ground-level ozone particulates and benzene are in place;

2) that we take action on vehicles and fuels, particularly new regulations on sulphur in gasoline, which is a major source of health-threatening pollutants;

3) that we put and have in place an acid rain strategy for post-2000;

4) that we have continued pressure on the U.S. to make reductions to air pollution, which accounts for half of the pollutants experienced in Ontario; and

5) that we have continued support for science and information activities so that Canadians understand the risks from poor air and the steps to avoid it.

On the theme of clean water, 36% of Canadians feel they must filter their drinking water. This is an astounding statistic for me, because I don't think it was very many years ago that we all felt in Canada you could turn on the tap and drink clean, safe water. In 1998-99 Environment Canada will spend nearly $75 million on the clean water theme, a third of it on research and development to reduce the releases of toxic substances that threaten water quality.

Again, we have made significant progress in reducing toxic emissions into the environment, but I want to ensure that Canadians enjoy the highest standard of clean water in the world.

My commitments in the clean water area are as follows:

1) the passage and implementation of the new CEPA to strengthen the pollution prevention activities of industry;

2) to broaden the participation in the ARET program, which has proven to be successful in reducing the flow of toxic substances from many firms and industries;

3) to put in place Canada-wide standards for petroleum hydrocarbons, mercury, and dioxins and furans;

4) to carry out continued international efforts to reduce or eliminate the flow of persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals into Canada; and

5) the restoration of water quality through our successful community-based watershed initiatives that occur within the Great Lakes basin, the St. Lawrence and Fraser rivers, and northern river basins.

• 1605

On the theme of nature, Canada is a steward of 20% of the world's remaining natural areas; 9% of the earth's renewable fresh water; 10% of its forests; and 25% of its wetlands. This heritage enriches Canadians culturally, materially and spiritually, but we all know that our heritage experiences many threats. Our goal must be to leave our children a Canada at least as rich in nature as the one we inherited.

In 1998-99 Environment Canada will spend about $35 million to protect and restore habitat, and over $20 million for migratory birds and endangered species, a third of the total for research and development.

My commitments include, first, protecting species at risk. I will work closely with my colleagues to obtain a firm national commitment to the full protection of species at risk, and work together to implement recovery plans. I intend to reintroduce the federal endangered species legislation.

The second goal will be to protect habitat. By 1999 Environment Canada will increase by 6% the habitat protected outside of national parks. Equally important will be our efforts to promote resource stewardship among the forestry, mining, agriculture and fisheries sectors.

One of the questions that is asked from time to time is whether or not Environment Canada's resources are sufficient to do the job I've described. For my part, I will make sure that Environment Canada gains as much leverage as possible out of its resource base. This means continually assessing our progress to ensure that our resources are allocated to the highest priorities and to long-term opportunities.

I also look forward to continuing to work with this committee and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to provide leadership, to ensure, first, that the environmental expenditures of government contribute to measurable results, and second, that all the resources of government contribute to the national goal of sustainable development.

But I think it's important to ask another question—that is, shouldn't we really be asking whether all Canadian organizations, public and private, are doing and spending what they should to sustain the environment? This goes back to the theme of responsible citizenship.

I have until now focused exclusively on Environment Canada, but an important part of my portfolio is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, or CEAA. The agency's president, Sid, is here with me here today to answer your particular questions on issues of the agency, but I'd like to take a few moments to describe the new strategic vision we have chartered for the agency.

High-quality environmental assessments contribute to informed decision-making and thereby support sustainable development. Our international partners have praised Canada's leadership and success in the environmental assessment field, but I want this momentum to continue, with an emphasis on improving the efficiency, effectiveness and predictability of environmental assessments.

In this regard I want the agency to play a stronger, more assertive leadership role, with an emphasis on results and client service. Most importantly, I want the agency to build upon its environmental assessment science and research capacities. It is also important that we monitor and communicate to Canadians the environmental, economic and personal benefits of environmental assessments.

Given that the environment is a shared responsibility, I have asked the agency to develop agreements with provinces and various aboriginal organizations and to enhance its presence in the regions.

In particular, the agency will continue to improve existing partnerships with industry, academic institutions, and environmental groups.

Finally, public accessibility and involvement will be enhanced.

As we start the new millennium, I want to be able to look back and say that as Minister of the Environment I have accomplished three things.

First, I contributed to achieving real results on the real problems Canadian care about, and that science tells us are important.

• 1610

Second, I showed strong environmental leadership by rebuilding partnerships with provinces, re-engaging industry and ENGOs in a constructive dialogue, and mobilizing communities to take action.

Third, I demonstrated to Canadians that the linkage of environmental issues to our health, growth, jobs, and unity agendas is one that cannot be taken for granted.

I will only be successful to the extent that I can mobilize Canadians to apply their energies and talents to the achievement of shared goals. Over the next few months I will be discussing with Canadians the priorities I've put before you today, by encouraging them to be involved in taking action within their own communities.

I look forward to working with all of you on this committee and with people across the country to build and pursue a shared agenda for a sustainable future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

There are several members, I'm sure, who want to ask a question. May I ask perhaps that in fairness to other members you cooperate in controlling the questions to five minutes, so that we have a second round, if the minister will be with us for a second round.

As usual, I will start with Mr. Gilmour.

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

Before I start, I understand, Madam Minister, that congratulations are in order. You have a new grandson today. We tend to forget that our families were there before we got here, and they'll probably be there when we're finished this.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Congratulations.

I'd like to start on the climate change estimates.

Before 1997 the government invested over a $100 million in direct spending each year to combat climate change, so you've got $100 million on the books. In the last budget another $20 million was added, and in the budget we have now, another $50 million. We are now up to $170 million dedicated to climate change, and I recognize that some of that goes to Natural Resources. But that in effect is one-third of the budget of Environment Canada; it's not small change.

In the 1994-95 estimates, they promised to address global warming science, and I'll quote:

—activities designed to reduce scientific uncertainties, assess socio-economic implications for vulnerable regions of Canada, and provide advice to decision and policy makers on response strategies

The estimates for 1995-96, and I quote:

Research and work on the science of climate change continues to expand our understanding of key climate change processes.

On page 58 of these estimates it says:

Research will continue on defining climate and socio-economic scenarios;— These studies will help to better understand the interaction between climate and society, assess economic opportunities and identify sectors vulnerable to global warming, and develop policy options for regional action.

It says, and I bring this to your attention, “The final report for the projects in figure 14 is due in late 1996.”

Now we have asked consistently in this committee to have the studies brought forward. We've consistently been stonewalled; they're saying the studies are not there. Now this is the 1994-95 estimates, the 1995-96 estimates.

We now have money that's going in this budget, and yet we have precious little in front of us to be able to assess where the money has gone and what we're getting for it.

I would therefore ask that the minister table before this committee where this $170 million has been spent, the allocation between natural resources and environment, and the budget for the future portion of this $50 million. In my view we haven't seen it. We have asked for it in this committee, we have asked for the studies, where we're going, the scientific evidence, and we have yet to receive it.

Your comments, please.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Yes, I'm pleased to respond. It's not only Canada, although Canada has played a leading role in being engaged in science and research around the issue of climate change. Certainly our Atmospheric Environment Service program is very very highly regarded around the world for the work it is doing, but we work in collaboration with scientists and researchers internationally.

• 1615

One of the products that has come out of the research we have done was our Canada study series, which was tabled last fall. I think you have seen it.

In fact, there was one volume that looked at the nation. It was basically trying to put in simpler terms some of the outputs from scientists. One study looked at the effects of changing temperatures on Canada as a whole. There were five regional studies looking at the impacts on specific regions. It was extremely important.

Scientists around the world agree through the International Panel on Climate Change that there is enough evidence to say that man-made contributions to the atmosphere in terms of burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. There's enough evidence of this that we must take precautionary measures and preventive actions.

The climate change study we tabled last fall indicates, for example, according to the research and analysis that we have already, the impact that will occur or is liable to occur in the areas of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, water—severe weather events in general. It's broad in its scope. There are more particular data, but we have to understand that we have to do more research to become more specific so that we know better how to prevent the worst effects of planet change.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: That's fine, Madam Minister, but again we're talking about $170 million. This is not one study. This is a third of Environment's budget, to put it into perspective.

The University of Victoria has had $2.9 million for the last five years, a total of $11.3 million, and they are up front in managing climate change research.

Where are the reports? Where are the studies? Could you table those studies in front of this committee? I'm asking for the breakdown of where this money was spent and for those studies to be tabled in front of this committee. Will the minister do that?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'd be very happy to do a review of the major expenditures that have been made in the research and science on the issue of climate change. I can give you an outline of the major projects that were done, the value attached to them and who undertook those studies in collaboration with our department.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour, you will have your chance on the second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, if you please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): In the same vein, as regards climate changes, I would like for you to tell me about the strategy you are developing, among others, with your provincial counterparts. You had meetings with them and I would like to know where you're at. We learned, just two days ago, that some provinces are refusing to take their responsibilities relating to greenhouse gases. An Energy minister from the West said he would not ratify the Kyoto Agreement until he knows what its economic and other impacts will be on his province. I would like for you to give me a general picture of your relations with your provincial counterparts as regards the Kyoto Protocol.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I'd be happy to respond to that.

My sense—and it was certainly the sense of my colleague Minister Ralph Goodale—was that we had a very good meeting with our provincial and territorial counterparts. There are some provinces— there are some individuals everywhere in our country who are still concerned about the notion of the science and whether the science is reliable or not. The federal government's position with the global community is that there is enough science internationally and nationally to indicate that we must take action, that we must be cautious and do everything we can.

My sense is that most provinces, if not all, in fact, are willing to become engaged and to take action on the issue. We all agreed that we would engage in an national implementation strategy, which is to be developed for the end of 1999.

• 1620

I was also saying we really agreed to a two-track approach. We cannot wait to just do continual studies and analyses of how we're going to resolve this issue, but we have to take early action as well. There isn't a province where we don't see that some significant early action has taken place before now. Through the sharing of best practices, which we did at our meeting recently, we're trying to encourage each other to engage with our citizens across this country in actions that are the most cost-effective and beneficial.

Through our national implementation strategy, which we have all agreed to do together, we're trying to look at all of those initiatives that might be taken across the country that will reduce greenhouse gases. We're trying to analyse each one and do some comparison because it makes sense that we would reduce gases and achieve our target of minus six in the most cost-effective way possible.

The target is a significant challenge. The earlier we take action, the easier it will be for us to achieve our target, and my sense is we're all committed to doing that. Ratification is another issue that will be discussed at some date out there, but I signed the Kyoto Protocol last week in New York.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My other question has to do with the new CEPA, which provides for increased powers. I'm afraid that, even though we have a new act, resources won't follow. When we were examining programs, we found out Environment Canada's budget is going down by nearly 40%, even though the amounts allocated to application programs aren't going down. I would like for you to tell me about the new law and what resources there are, seeing as how we already have a law, but not sufficient resources to apply it. How can a new law, with more teeth, improve our environment, seeing that resources are not increasing and, in all likelihood, will keep on decreasing?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: One of the very important substantive principles of the new amended CEPA is that it focuses on pollution prevention rather than dealing with toxics at the end of the pipe, after the pollution has occurred. The emphasis is on pollution prevention. One of the reasons for there being a pollution prevention principle of focus is that it's better for the environment and it's cheaper to deal with pollution and try to prevent it before it happens than to have to clean it up after it occurs.

Within the legislation we have also developed plans to allow pollution prevention to occur, and it should be effective as a principle within my department as well. I would hope the principle of helping others and working with partners to prevent pollution will be cheaper for my department than cleaning it up afterwards.

Enforcement is an important issue, not only with regard to CEPA but to other legislation. We haven't diminished our resources, but I consider it to be a priority challenge to review how we do enforcement. If we make a decision to not reduce enforcement dollars because we see it is important, it doesn't mean we necessarily therefore reviewed enforcement to see if we could update it, as we did with every other element of the program.

So I'm very concerned that we review how we do enforcement, find out how we can do enforcement with new partners who are, in some cases, more sophisticated if we're looking at the transboundary movement of toxics, for example, and different issues that are arising now in our environment. We need new training for the people and personnel we have. I believe we can do a more effective job with the enforcement resources we have by using them more effectively and working in partnership.

• 1625

The Chairman: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Herron, five minutes please.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): My first question is related to contaminated sites. During committee we had a very informative session when we had Public Works and Government Services here and we actually discussed some issues. We understand there are over 5,000 known contaminated sites. When we were thinking that through—and sticking with your own priorities with your presentation—I asked a disturbing question: how many of those 5,000 contaminated sites do we know are actually hazardous to human health?

At the time, Mr. Guimont responded that it was an important, valid question. But I want to know what kind of resources or capacities we have, or what our plan is within the estimates, to be able to say we even have a plan to determine how many of those 5,000 sites are hazardous to human health.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: My understanding is that we actually have more contaminated sites than have been identified. There has been, through previous programs, remediation of a significant number of those sites, but there still are sites out there.

I would prefer to defer to one of my officials to give you more specific information. But I can let you know, in general terms, that we have a budgeted amount to continue to remediate contaminated sites. We've certainly developed a priority list of sites that will be remediated in this year's budget.

But I have a concern about some of our larger contaminated sites across the country that are not necessarily the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but are federal sites that need remediation. This is something the Auditor General raised as an issue. As Minister of the Environment, I'm trying to take some leadership to see how we can pool our resources as a federal government to deal with these important contaminated sites, no matter what federal department has responsibility for them.

François.

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Protection Services, Department of the Environment): Yes. I may add a few words, Mr. Chairman.

When I appeared before the committee, the point made was at two levels. We have a process in the department to have an inventory of the sites we have under our responsibility, and risk has been assessed for these area sites. We go through typical types of assessments to see where we should begin and where we should end. A number of resources have been set aside, based on the highest risk and going down from there, ultimately with the view to taking care of those sites we have under our responsibility. This is for Environment Canada.

With respect to the federal government, I have explained earlier there is an active working group, which includes a number of departments. The newest piece of action on this, which we believe will allow departments to be even more proactive on the issue of contaminated sites, is the Treasury Board commitment to move forward with a draft policy on accounting and reporting of the environmental costs and liabilities for these various sites that exist at the federal level.

If you remember the points I made earlier, the listing of sites and what it means in terms of liabilities will imply that departments from that point on will have to—as we do, and I'm sure they have already begun doing it—assess the risk under their responsibility and, in a step-wise fashion, move on to correcting the problems they have under their responsibility.

So I feel that draft policy, with a commitment to conform to so-called accounting for these costs and liabilities in 1998-99, will induce that movement on the part of the departments. This is taken care of through that working group, and we're part of that working group as well.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Can I say one more thing on that?

I'd like to go back to a principle and a theme of mine, and that's responsibility and responsible action. There's an awful lot of work being done by communities at the grassroots level to clean up contaminated sites as well. We work with them, and the work we do leverages other community resources to deal with some of these sites. So it's not just Environment Canada and what you see on a line in our estimates. That actually leverages an awful lot of other dollars and volunteer support to clean up some important contaminated sites across the country.

• 1630

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you.

I guess I'm a little concerned that the budgets, in an overall view, are declining while we're to rest assured that the department is able to come through with the programs and services at a high-quality level. If you throw the inflationary costs of everything, and the cost of life, into your department, the decrease is actually a lot more.

In light of that, you've instituted plenty of reductions. I ran out of yellow ink just trying to highlight the reductions in here. But in terms of your program recovery costs, the cost recovery costs, and your program review over the last few years—and this is with regard to one of the statements you made about science and research—science and research is fine, but it's no good if it's in the archives. There needs to be public access, academic access, industry access.

Your department has, I guess, neglected or stopped using the depository services program, which provided major access for schools, for institutions, for the public. It seems industry can afford buying the programs if it's a cost recovery, but the government is not here for industry purposes. We're here for the betterment of our society, of our children, and you must revisit that. Make that information and the access to it available to everybody in Canada, especially in light of the leading-edge change in climate change.

Climate change is so disputable among the provinces. We hear that in the media. I'm sure at the closed-door negotiations you hear that with your counterparts.

Climate change and CEPA: I'm just learning about CEPA and pollution prevention. It's not only pollution control but also prevention, finding that our ports and our railroads are wide open access for waste materials and toxic materials to enter our country without detection. Let's get the resources back into place.

Sure, it's for financial reasons that this government has made these reductions in the program review, but what kind of leadership or support can we get, in light of our financial position now, to bring back the resources to a most important department, Environment, and retain our sustainable development?

The other one is alternative service delivery. We've monitored through the web sites the alternate services delivery in the atmospheric services. I see an increase in the budget, but is that to improve the services that were cut?

In northern Saskatchewan we get our weather reports from Winnipeg, and in northern Saskatchewan we depend on high-quality airplane service, and the weather is the most important part. We'll be going to the Yukon next week, and our weather service is going to be provided by southern British Columbia. What kind of vision does the department have in terms of bringing back these regional services?

There's water quality monitoring, data monitoring in northern Saskatchewan. In the Churchill River we had a major flood that was undetected when your department cut the positions. We have polluting industries in the neighbouring province of Alberta that impact the quality of our water in northern Saskatchewan, and we're not able to get data now. It won't be available any more. It'll be monitored out of Calgary, we're told.

There has to be something brought back to the regional services. You cannot centralize everything to the major centres. Can you bring back these services and programs in light of our improved financial statement, and what kind of assistance can this committee bring to give you a review of your program reviews, which should be over now?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: There have been reductions in the department—and we've talked about that—in light of program review. As I said, the predicted reduction was a third of our budget, but because of cost recovery and a few other initiatives, the reduction in fact is a quarter. The green plan reached its sunset, and that was also a significant contribution in past years to reduction.

• 1635

Most of the science we do is available publicly. I'll have Ian respond to what percentage is perhaps not available because of the imposition of cost recovery requirements. It's certainly of great concern to me that the Canadian public understands in a simple way what the science indicates with regard to, as I said before, risk and what responsible action they can take to get results for the environment, either protection results or improved environmental quality results.

So I can have Mr. Glen respond to that, but my sense is that we are doing very well.

With regard to your problems with weather services in northern Saskatchewan being available through Winnipeg, or Yukon available through Kelowna, the fact is, the atmospheric weather services are extremely sophisticated in terms of technology and science. We have sophisticated technical ways of getting data from the grassroots, from northern Saskatchewan, transmitted to Winnipeg, where you have expensive equipment, which is then put out to people in all regions and areas of Canada.

One of my concerns has been to assure that the information we have, which is becoming more and more accurate, more and more refined, is communicated and transmitted to Canadian citizens in an adequate fashion. So there's more than one side to the issue of weather. It's the research, it's the collection of data, and then it's the transmission of that data to people, making sure it is properly communicated. In fact, those functions do not require human bodies in every region of the country. The more sophisticated technology speaks to that.

To go to water quality, we did have to make reductions in some of the work we did in conjunction with provinces, but flooding issues, as I understand it, more particularly fall into the area of the provinces, and we were no longer able to maintain our partnership with them at the same level as before.

The Chairman: Thank you. I hate to interrupt you at this point, but Mr. Laliberte's time is well over.

I would ask the deputy minister if he would be so kind as to transmit his answer in writing to the committee. Thank you.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): In the brief time we have, first of all, Minister, I would like to wish you all the very best. Sometimes we appear in this committee to be very critical, but I hope you appreciate, as we mentioned to Mr. Glen and Mr. Guimont when they appeared, that what we are trying to do, frankly, is push the powers that be to double your budget, or at least increase it substantially.

I'm really sad when I see that a ministry that is really the one that carries defining issues of the next century funded for $0.5 billion. I think it should have many more resources.

I have one question about climate change. There was a report in the papers you mentioned that we wouldn't ratify before the Americans. It was a very brief report, and I'm sure, as these reports go, it was very summary.

Could you tell us, Minister, what happens if the Americans decide, because of Congress and its really slow procedures— Is it our aim not to ratify it before the Americans, or was it just to say, well, we have to negotiate with the Americans, but if we don't, we'll go ahead anyway?

• 1640

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Our objective as the government is to achieve our target and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But we have said we won't commit ourselves legally to something that will be extremely damaging to the economy. If we're the only country in the world that's taking the necessary action, to which there is an economic cost as well as an environmental advantage, we're not going to be out there alone.

So it's very important for us not just to watch the United States but to watch what the international community is doing. We are committed to the Kyoto Protocol. We want to draw more nations into that protocol, because obviously we can do everything at enormous cost to achieve the goal, but it won't have the impact we want on climate change. We have to bring developing nations to the table as well. Our objective is to have everybody anxious to take action on this, fulfil the achievement, and do something good for the environment.

We also recognize it's very important to watch not only what the United States says but what it does. The United States has a history of ratifying—as do other countries—certain protocols or conventions and not taking action. It also has a record of not signing but taking the action. Right now, my sense is President Clinton has every intention of achieving his target, and he corroborated this in a discussion with the Prime Minister in Santiago, Chile. As you know, he has already committed significant dollars in a budget, which he hopes Congress will approve, and we know how difficult that issue is. But my sense is the U.S. is taking a lot of action in trying to analyse, for example, the mechanisms of emissions trading and trying to engage other nations in the world.

At all the international meetings I have attended—and there have been several since Kyoto—climate change is the top-of-mind issue discussed, no matter what else is on the agenda. So far, Canada is doing quite well and there's quite a bit of interest in what is happening in Canada. We sponsored a trading of emissions forum in Vancouver with the White House. It was co-sponsored. It was oversubscribed, and we were very pleased with the attendance. Officials, business and industry attended.

One of the things business and industry told us is they want early credit for early action. It is a very high priority for Canada to provide them with early credit for early action because, as I said before, the earlier we take action to achieve our target, the easier it will be for us to do so. My sense is we're seeing considerable turnaround in business and industry in Canada. They pushed back before Kyoto but are now taking action post-Kyoto. They are very interested in working with not only the federal government but provincial and territorial governments to develop our national implementation strategy.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just want to have a sense that if the Europeans and the bulk of the nations that have signed the protocol were to ratify, we wouldn't wait for the United States and we would ratify.

There are two schools of thought. One says climate change actions might be detrimental to the economy and costly to us, while the other school of thought says it could be the greatest opportunity for us, business-wise and otherwise, to develop new technologies and become a leader in the field, as some nations have proven already.

I was wondering if we are going to use that tool of selling the idea to Canadians that it is a plus and a winner, rather than a Steve West formula, which is to say it will cost us billions and let's not do it.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: My sense is that it's already happening. Minister Goodale and I are having a lot of discussions with individual representatives of industry, but more commonly, with sectors of industry and business in this country. My sense is there is a significant number of business and industry representatives in Canada who understand the huge economic potential advantage for us, as a nation, if we get on board this as an issue very quickly.

• 1645

That's why they are asking for early credit for early action. Frankly, I'm looking for ways we can engage communities and citizens in their homes at the grassroots level in also becoming engaged and getting some early credit for their early action. The U.S. is interested in working with us on public education as well, and we will have a forum on June 15. Again, we had our emissions trading forum.

Some businesses, as you know, have already engaged in emissions trades, both within the country and internationally between Canada and the U.S. European nations at our G-8 meeting of ministers of the environment were very interested in the experience we've had. I'm extremely interested in getting the definition of early credit for early action, because it has so much significance for encouraging more action within Canada.

I also have to say I consider it to be probably the most revolutionary convention that's been negotiated this century with regard to developing nations. I think there's so much opportunity for them, and we didn't take the opportunity to help them understand that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Assadourian, followed by Mr. Charbonneau, followed by the chair.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Madam Minister, I'm puzzled. Ten or fifteen years ago we didn't have green boxes or blue boxes for recycling, and people dumped everything in one bag. Now you have paper recycling, glass recycling, composting and regular garbage. In every election campaign, every brochure of every political party talked about environment, environment, environment. But in the last election and the one before that, I don't recall anybody asking questions of any leader about the environment.

When we do a survey, the issue of the environment is maybe seventh, eighth or ninth out of ten. If you have 20 most important issues, it might be tenth or twelfth. Yet we know Ontario is the third worst polluter in North America. Why is there such a lackadaisical attitude about the environment compared to 15 to 20 years ago? Is it satisfaction that everything is okay—don't worry about it, we'll be okay—or is it lack of funds?

When you turn on the TV there are lots of documentaries about the environment, nature and what have you. People are more educated, but they're less concerned about the environment, it seems to me. I may have an answer for you.

My second question is, what kind of cooperation do you have with the cabinet ministers of say, natural resources or defence, with pollution going all over the country, and provincial ministers of the environment?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Those are two good questions.

On the first issue of where people are with regard to the environment and their concern about the environment, historically we see that their interest, commitment and concern are cyclical. There are periods when their interest is higher and then it decreases. Certainly during the recessionary years in this country, people's concern for the environment slipped.

But frankly, since our second election last year, the polls have indicated a very sharp rise in interest on the part of Canadians for their environment. As politicians, we have to be very conscious of that and make sure our policies reflect the concern Canadians have. I see it as a very significant opportunity for us to move ahead on the environment.

In answer to your second question, I see a lot of growing interest and concern around the cabinet table among other ministers, with regard to their interest on environmental issues. I am trying to make the links with each one of them as much as possible.

• 1650

Frankly, I've had to devote so much time to the climate change file and just getting a deal in Kyoto and then getting the collaboration of the provinces and territories in developing a strategy that I haven't yet had significant time to work with my cabinet colleagues. I can tell you that they're all very interested and concerned about the climate change file per se, and I want to link these other themes of clean air, clean water and nature to their portfolios as well. For example, we're working on health and environment now because those linkages are politically extremely important to the Canadian people.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Monsieur Charbonneau, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan, then by the chair, and then we'll start the second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): First of all, I would like to ask the Minister a question on climate change. I would like to give her a chance to explain to us what is being done to prepare an action plan. The information I have is that Mr. Oulton has been assigned a secretariat and that, so far, the secretariat has announced eight round tables per subject. We know that your department and Natural Resources will be participating.

On April 24, you announced the establishment of a federal- provincial secretariat. We also know that the round table created a task force made up of 25 or 26 people with a certain notoriety. How does that all fit in? Where is the center of gravity of all those elements that must come together in order for an overall action plan to be developed or created. Where is the leadership in all that? Among all those players, who is bringing it all together?

Along the same line, what do you expect from us members of Parliament or from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development? Will you be asking for our committee's point of view at some time? Will you be asking our committee to do consultations, after which we would report to you? Do you believe that we parliamentarians will have a role to play in this effort?

How would you answer certain groups who say that this all takes too long? In the Fall of 1999, you'll have a plan proposal. Then we'll have to see what the departments and the government are going to do. That will take us into the year 2000.

I'll have a second question to ask later to the Chairman of the agency.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I missed the last part of your question. You asked for a comment about people who—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: How do you answer the criticisms of certain groups who say that waiting until the end of 1999 is too long and that things could be done faster? Why does it take so long? We know very well that, at the end of 1999, we still won't be done. You'll make a report and you'll have a plan proposal that will then have to be supported by other government agencies.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: To start with the final question, when we had our meeting with our provincial and territorial counterparts, the press gave all of the emphasis to the fact that the provinces, the territories and the federal government agreed to develop a national implementation strategy, and that was very significant, to give them their due. We did achieve that agreement. But they neglected the other track, which is that we also agreed to early action and to give credit for early action. So we have to—starting years ago—get on with this issue, and I certainly intend to try to give it as much emphasis as possible.

• 1655

In terms of the national structure and the federal structure, the Prime Minister has charged my colleague Minister Ralph Goodale and me to co-lead the national program to achieve our target. And we have responsibilities divided between us as to what each one of us will do.

Essentially, our objective with the $150 million put in the budget to help us develop our national implementation strategy is to do five different things.

One is to engage the provinces and the territories in all of the different sectors, including ENGOs, civil societies and municipalities. We're well started on that process.

Second, we have to do an analysis of all of the different activities we can do to reduce greenhouse gases, and we have to find out the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases. We can do that by asking provinces, the business sectors and communities to share with us what they see to be their major challenges and their major opportunities. We want to look at them more closely to see what we can do most effectively as a nation for the least cost.

Third, we have to do more science and research. We have to do public education. We have to do some pilot projects in areas where we think there might be opportunities; perhaps it's co-generation, for example, a specific kind of project. And we have to use those funds to engage the developing nations.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, with the blessing of the Prime Minister and Minister Goodale and myself, embarked on engaging the Order of Canada group of citizens to listen to the challenge and to come out with recommendations about how we can effectively engage Canadian public on this issue.

I don't know whether I've answered your question.

The Chairman: Merci, monsieur Charbonneau.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Perhaps one thing I didn't say was—

The Chairman: If he has an answer in reply, I will have to ask him kindly to do the same as in the case of Mr. Glen and provide the answer in writing. We want to give everybody a chance to complete the first round.

I will recognize you on the second round, Mr. Charbonneau.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

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

In a number of your priority issue areas, you talked about getting the public involved. I'm just wondering about what some of your plans are, whether you plan on working with communities or what it is you're doing to engage Canadians in some of these plans.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: That gives me the opportunity to answer the question I missed for Yvon.

I think there is a very important role for parliamentarians to play on this file. I want to give parliamentarians information, as I have in the past, but I want to continue to do this regularly with information that they can share with constituents. I want to develop different types of scenarios where members of Parliament can be engaged with the public.

Also, I would think that there can be a role for this committee on the climate change file, and a role for the natural resources committee as well, in seeing what feedback we can get from communities. As we have asked provinces and territories, businesses and industry, “What's your major challenge and what's your major opportunity?” We need to know more about this.

We've also asked—and we will continue to ask—for sharing of best practices, because some very good things are happening out there that not enough people know about. We want to get all the best practices out there and communicate.

Also, I want to work very specifically with communities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been extremely effective and I want to work in closer collaboration with that group. But I think the work I do with them can be supplemented very well or can be instigated by parliamentarians working through their constituents.

• 1700

Frankly, I see it as a non-partisan issue. It's something we should all be engaged with. Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast, say they care about this issue and are asking what they can do. We all have a role in helping them to understand that. That's why the upcoming meeting with the Americans is important. It's about public involvement, engagement and education on this file.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What kind of resources has Environment Canada committed to community or public engagement on this issue?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Out of the $50 million per year to develop the national implementation strategy, $10 million comes into Environment Canada's budget. I have to use some of that specifically to engage the international file to make sure we get the broad global community working with us, but a significant portion of it will be used to engage the Canadian public. On that front, I'm hoping those resources used to engage the Canadian public will lever other financial support from business and industry and from communities, ENGOs, the FCM, etc.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: What about engaging the public in the other priority areas that you were talking about, areas other than climate change?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: With respect to clean air, clean water and nature, I have some ideas in mind and I'm hoping that— Again, I think the most effective results are going to be achieved through engaging people at the grassroots. I would like to see communities taking on these four themes as their challenge. There are people in any community who will be more interested in nature and not so interested in clean air or clean water or climate change. I want communities that are active, and if you're interested in an endangered species, for example, I want you to understand how clean air and clean water affects species and how everybody works together to improve an integrated environment—sustainable development. I'm looking to the millennium as a focus for these kinds of initiatives.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Has there been an opportunity yet for the department to identify resources for some of these activities?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: We have resources within the department now, and of course there are additional climate change resources. I'm hoping we can look at the resources that are out there and try to draw them together in order to have a concentrated focus.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Minister, there are three items here, very briefly. One is not so much a question but almost a plea, and it's to inquire of you whether you would assist this committee in ensuring that a certain chart prepared by our researcher is filled out by your officials, possibly by the end of this week.

We made this request on March 20. So far we have not been able to receive information. It has to do with the enforcement of CEPA. The question is, of course, whether you could assist us in obtaining this information relatively soon, possibly before the end of the week. The clerk has the chart ready. To us it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming job. I'm sure that Mr. Guimont, if given the necessary green light, might do that.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I gather the department is still collecting some data, but they will try to have it.

The Chairman: Yes. It's been a month and a half and we would like to conclude this.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The second question has to do with the departmental library. As you know, it's a very fine institution. It was formed in 1973, I believe. It of course serves not only the department but the entire government system and, beyond that, libraries across the country and the public at large. As you know, its budget has been cut by almost 70%, yet we have been told by officials who appeared before this committee in the past when discussing the four business goals that one of the four business goals of the department is building a greener society through information and knowledge.

• 1705

I was very encouraged and I applaud your commitment this afternoon when you said one of your goals is to work better with Canadians. Therefore my question is, are you willing to look into the dire situation of your library, where almost no new material is being acquired in 1998 and it's receiving only a small number of client-funded subscriptions—its national information resource apparently is on the verge of extinction—to see whether it can be re-established in its strength?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I will commit to looking into this situation. I don't know the particulars of that, but I can say I think it's important we get as much of our information as possible digitized and available electronically to people. I'll look into the situation and do what I can.

The Chairman: We would appreciate it very much, and we'll be glad to make available to you, Madam Minister, the Canadian Library Association submission made on December 16 on this subject, when it raised this question with us for the first time.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Okay.

The Chairman: I think it is in the interest of the department to look into this matter.

Finally, within the five minutes still allowed to the chair, I will ask the question that has been almost customary every year since 1994, namely: when are we going to have a water policy flowing from the Pearse report of 1986, a report languishing on the shelves, which has been promised by your predecessors and by the predecessors of the present deputy ministers and which has been raised at every budget meeting and now is made much more urgent in the light of the latest developments in Ontario?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on your good advice, I got hold of a copy of the Pearse report you referred to. I have read through it and have had some discussions about that and see that in fact the department has fulfilled on several of the recommendations that are in the Pearse report.

But I also have a lot of concern on fresh water and its use, its protection as a critical resource. I know my department has been engaged for the last month in doing a review of our freshwater policy. As was mentioned in question period today, the department intends to go out this summer and engage the public and provinces on these issues so that jointly we can develop appropriate strategies, because this past week we have seen the importance of this when a gap arises.

The Chairman: Thank you. We hope the department will come back soon from that venture, and we wish them well. We would like to see perhaps some tangible substance before the end of the summer.

We are now on the second round, and we will follow the same procedure. Mr. Gilmour is first.

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

Back to my original questions on the science of global warming, I would like to see the reports from previous budgets, previous reports that this committee cannot get its hands on: 1994-95, assess socioeconomic implications; 1995-96, define climate and socioeconomic scenario. This is what we're talking about and you're talking about with your counterparts in the provinces. But there have been past studies. Can we have those past studies tabled before this committee?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: I will have to let the deputy answer.

Mr. Ian Glen (Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment): We'll do our utmost to try to bring together a catalogue of reports for the committee's use. The estimates may well identify prospective initiatives that may not have delivered all of what the words could have said on the way in. That's our challenge.

You mentioned earlier the University of Victoria, and money there, and what have they done? They are definitely into the climate modelling activities, and what we may do is try to at least ensure we bring matters that illustrate the nature of the work and what they're doing.

On all other reports, I wasn't aware we were holding back on those, so we'll do our utmost to provide that type of material to assist the committee.

• 1710

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I appreciate that, Mr. Glen, because in previous hearings we had asked for the material and it wasn't forthcoming.

In my last few minutes I'd like to go to the Fur Institute grants. It's a section within the environment ministry, and from the 1993-94 budgets up to date, the institute has received $1.8 million and nearly a doubling in the last year.

I've asked this question a number of times: what are we getting for that $1.8 million? It would appear we're just getting a better mouse trap, so that's not good enough. What has the Fur Institute received nearly $2 million for over the last five years?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: As I understand it, the work of the Fur Institute has been very important and of great concern not only to the federal government but to the provincial governments as well. They are an institute or agency that has been helpful to the Government of Canada, for example, to deal with the fur boycotts we've been experiencing in Europe and the underlying causes of those boycotts—traps, trapping, good practices, and so on.

So there has been research and development of appropriate technologies and so on, which has been important. But they've also done some PR work on behalf of all the governments of Canada. Perhaps my deputy can give give you or Karen a little more information on that.

The Chairman: Be brief, please. Time is running.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: If Mr. Glen wants to give in writing a brief report and summarize what they have done over the last five years—

Mr. Ian Glen: Yes.

To assist the committee, the money used in the last number of years had a certain purpose to it, and there was no doubt that the activity related to trying to ensure market certainty for the fur industry in Europe. So we'll try to track that.

In terms of the money that's allocated for the Fur Institute next fall, we'll do that in a written response as well.

I think there's a very easy answer to explain what's happening.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'd like to come back to the question Mr. Caccia asked a while ago about water. You told us that water is an important part of Canada's cultural and spiritual heritage, and you were entirely right. You said that water was a relatively important part of world resources and you were right on that too.

At Point 3 of the document we received, you talk about international action on water purity. We learned, yesterday or the day before, that the Ontario Environment Ministry has undertaken a study on exporting water from Lake Superior to Asia. Canadians will perhaps be surprised to hear about such a project but, in Quebec, this kind of project has been on the drawing boards for several years now. These projects have been put on ice for a number of reasons, including profitability.

My question is very simple: in your opinion, where does the federal government's responsibility start and end in this matter?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: This is a distinction between provincial and federal responsibilities. We do have provinces that are indeed carrying out some exportation of fresh water right now, but they're not drawing that fresh water from international waters such as the Great Lakes system. So the federal responsibility is very much engaged on what we do with fresh water when it's in these international water areas.

But overall we have a concern about fresh water in this country as a very significant, important and valuable resource, and we want to work federally with the provinces to develop coherent policy on fresh water so that we assure a secure fresh water resource for the future.

With regard to the particular incident of this past week that brought into question the authorities' ability to take fresh water from an international body and export it somewhere else, as the foreign minister said in Question Period today, he's requesting the United States, through Secretary of State Albright, to refer the issue to the International Joint Commission, a bilateral body representing our two nations, to review that and to come up with some recommendations for October of this year.

• 1715

So that work of the IJC will be complementing what our federal government is doing in terms of our own concerns, policies, and recommendations about fresh water, and how, as well, we work coherently with provinces and territories on these issues.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Have you finished? Thank you.

Mr. Herron, if you please.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: I'll list a series of questions and see how well I do, since my first five minutes went quite quickly.

Mind you, time flies when you're having fun, I guess.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Herron, you'd better be careful.

Mr. John Herron: My first question relates to the $50 million allocated in this year's budget with respect to climate change. During the CERI conference we went to in Calgary just the other day, the specific question asked was where is this $50 million going? The Deputy Minister of Natural Resources said clearly that the money had not been allocated in terms of where the money would be going, so this is the first news we've heard that there's been some allocated in one specific direction.

As you mentioned, $10 million would be allocated toward your role from an international perspective and toward your role with respect to the climate change file.

I see this as a very important issue. It is very clearly a non-partisan issue. It's an issue that actually affects our country's competitiveness in the long run as well. If the other countries allocate the necessary funds to make their industries more energy efficient, that will have very negative implications on a country that relies so heavily on being an export- and trade-driven country.

My concern is that the $50 million that's being allocated is going to be tied up too much on international perspectives, maybe public awareness, a lot in process, and at the end of the day isn't going to do anything with respect to early action or quick starts or whichever language you want to actually use.

I think it would be more prudent for us to be able to show a really significant sign, a tangible sign, to industry in the last budget to be able to say that there are going to be very aggressive, significant tax incentives for research and development on renewable energies, research and development on energy efficiency, and for the incorporation of renewable energies.

The second point I wanted to touch on ties into my first question. What I was concerned about was not just contaminated sites but contaminated sites more specifically from the health perspective.

In the AG's report that came out in December of this year, there were concerns over the failure of Environment Canada to report to Parliament, “on progress made to date on PCB destruction and to provide a realistic assessment of risks and costs”.

He goes on to state that the amount of federal PCB waste in storage and the number of sites has been reduced, but the storage sites are beginning to fill up again with PCBs coming out of service. This is particularly of concern due to the difficulties at Swan Hills, where 113 tonnes of PCBs were actually shipped after the initial halt sign came out in December of 1996.

So my question is, what specifically are both the costs and the plans to dispose of future PCBs? That ties into the human health aspect, which I was trying to touch on as well.

So it's the climate change on $50 million, and PCB allocations: (a) where are we going to handle our PCBs, and (b) the cost involved.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

Very short.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: With regard to the $50 million, as I was saying, $10 million has been allocated to my department, mainly because, as I was saying, Mr. Goodale's and my responsibilities are divided.

Mr. Goodale is specifically responsible for the domestic implementation. Among other things—this is a simple division—I'm responsible for public education and the international engagement. Of course, we're all going to be working collaboratively, but Mr. Goodale, in the national implementation, has to draw in the other departments of the federal government: transportation, agriculture, and fisheries and oceans. The list goes on and on, because there are so many different sectors that can have a significant impact.

• 1720

A lot of this funding is to help us understand where we need to put further federal resources. For example, you mentioned incentives. Many different incentives have been proposed. We need to analyse those different incentives to make sure that if we're going to put an incentive in place, it's the best incentive.

The finance minister is very concerned—I think I said this here before—that we not put an incentive in place whereby if the incentive hadn't been there, the action would have actually taken place anyway— or provide an incentive whereby the moment you withdraw the incentive, a company, for example, would revert to their previous—

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]— The analysis needs to go across departments, but it also will fund the issue tables that business and industry and communities will become engaged in.

With regard to PCBs, I think that's a little more difficult because of the Swan Hills difficulties. Yes, PCBs have been growing in storage right now because we don't have—this is as I understand it, but I'll ask others to speak to it—a way to deal with and process PCBs in a safe manner right now.

We have been trying to engage the United States bilaterally about looking after PCBs. We had cross-border problems. At the moment we're stalemated by the U.S., which wanted our PCBs to so for processing in the United States but now doesn't want them. I've spoken to my counterpart, Carol Browner, in the U.S. We're trying to resolve this issue, but it is difficult.

My officials may have something to add.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Your time is up, so if there is a reply from Mr. Guimont, it will have to be in writing, because there are other people waiting.

Mr. François Guimont: Okay, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Can we continue our debate?

[English]

Mr. François Guimont: I can address some of the points made by the member.

The Chairman: If you can compress it into one minute, go ahead.

Mr. François Guimont: I should compress it into one minute? Yes, I'll do my best in one minute.

At the federal level, we have had an action plan. Public Works and Government Services were coordinating with departments that wanted to contribute to the destruction of public PCBs. Swan Hills was used for that before Swan Hills was closed down.

That bring me to the second point, which is that an assessment has been carried out. It's proceeding, and a report is to be filed shortly—I don't have the date—as to whether or not the movement of federal PCBs to Swan Hills should happen again. So we await this assessment in order to see whether this facility could still be used federally.

From an Environment Canada perspective, our PCBs have been destroyed. The point of the minister is accurate. As PCBs are taken out of commission, they will have to be stored again for destruction. Right now, I don't know if by what we have destroyed we're still stacking up PCBs from a DOE perspective, but it's possible that this is the case. So that would be another point.

As for the 113 tonnes handled after Swan Hills was closed, I'll have to look into this. I don't have the information here.

As for the issue of capacities, I've spoken now about DOE PCBs and federal PCBs, but there are also provincial PCBs. What I mean by this is that provincial PCBs are owned by provincial jurisdictions as well as industries and things of that nature. These people are looking for outlets for destruction. Swan Hills is an option when it is reopened, at least from our perspective.

But there's also the border issue, as the minister mentioned. There's also, within provinces, some capacity for mobile incineration and other things that are sanctioned in the sense that they would meet regulatory requirements both provincially and federally. These can be used for that, but that's within the provincial jurisdiction.

So that's pretty much the scenario for PCBs.

• 1725

The Chairman: Thank you.

I have now on the list Mr. Laliberte, followed by Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Charbonneau, and the chair.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I have a question for Mr. Gershberg.

Considering the joint federal-provincial assessment panels that have been happening, the assessment agency direction is to streamline time lines, but some of the panel members, including aboriginal participants, have resigned in protest specifically for streamlining time lines. They compromise adequate information when you streamline and take less opportunity for witnesses to appear, and there are insufficient review times for the return of some of the data and the requested information.

The minister mentioned that client service is a high priority with the department. My question, Mr. Gershberg, is: how can you explain client service when your duty is to conduct environmental assessment for communities, the government, and the safety of this public? In addition, industry is now paying for some of this reviewing progress. How can you answer some of this?

Mr. Sid Gershberg (President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): With respect to the procedures for panels, the minister tabled in the fall a set of procedures and guidelines with respect to the running of panels that had been developed over a number of years with the regulatory advisory committee, which is a multi-stakeholder committee that includes environmentalists, aboriginals, provinces, federal departments, and so on. This was to try to get a set of procedures in place with respect to panels to make the process efficient and predictable, and also to give sufficient time for public input and participation with respect to, for example, notification on appearance at panels and so on.

As I say, this was supported by all the communities. We feel this will go a long way to regularizing the panel procedures we have.

I think the resignations you talk about are things that have happened some years ago, and I think there was a sense that we did need a set of procedures that everybody could buy into. They're now in place. Hopefully, when the next set of panels are constituted, we'll use these new procedures that we think will well fulfil the whole issue of public participation.

With respect to cost recovery, that hasn't taken effect yet, but it may well do so before the next panels are constituted. They will follow the procedures for establishing panels. They'll follow rigidly the requirements under the act that have not changed at all with cost recovery. The minister will appoint the members of the panel and will determine the terms of reference. The panel will use, basically, these procedures and guidelines that have been established by the minister.

We feel the independence of the panel will be completely preserved and that the imposition, if you wish, of cost recovery will not in any way affect the conduct or fairness of the panels.

The Chairman: Please make it very brief.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In the context of the resignations, there were fewer than there were two years ago, and it hasn't been that many years ago.

In light of the Spanish fiasco right now, I think we ought to have a lot of caution on the assessment of the projects and industry's expediting or streamlining these assessment projects. The responsibility is yours.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte. That was very helpful.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I'd like to follow up on what Mr. Laliberte said as well on CEAA regarding federal government projects and screenings. I see the Diavik mine in the north where the screening had all sorts of huge elements in it, including dikes and explosives in Lac de Gras.

• 1730

At the same time, there was a reference to the minister under a really wonderful caption. I think this captures everything that Mr. Laliberte was trying to say. It was from a DIAND official. It said:

At this time, the proposed project will not be referred to the Minister of the Environment for mediation or panel review. We do not presently have a clear indication that the environmental effects of the proposed project will be uncertain or significantly adverse or that there is significant public concern.

As for the draining of the lake and all sorts of some 130 elements that were pointed out in the proponent's application, DFO admitted that they had only made a very brief survey of it and that the application was not complete, yet there was no reference. I was going to ask you, can you tell me when the department intends to promulgate regulation 18(3)? Also, why in all this time have the various federal departments never used section 28 for a referral to the minister?

Just as a brief question, what's the process that's going to be used to take care of what I think are deficiencies in that sense in the review? What's the process you're going to use for the review that's coming up in 2000?

Mr. Sid Gershberg: Yes, Mr. Lincoln, I think I'll try to take each of your four questions in sequence. With respect to Diavik, the actual decision with respect to the nature of the environmental assessment to be undertaken has not been taken yet by the department. The project has been scoped as a comprehensive study. The department is now looking at whether they would conduct a comprehensive study or in fact refer the project to the minister for a review panel. That decision is under review by the department.

I understand there was a consultation meeting with stakeholders held on April 29 in the north to review the project and the issues around that decision. So we are expecting a decision to be taken probably within the next week or two with respect to the nature of the assessment to be undertaken, but as yet, that hasn't been finally concluded.

With respect to regulation 18(3), the departments, as you're aware, under a screening—not a comprehensive study or panel—do have some discretion as to the nature of the public participation they would support.

We have been looking laterally at regulation 18(3). Very frankly, we've had a number of priorities in working with the regulatory advisory committee with respect to, for example, the inclusion list and other regulatory issues. We haven't had an opportunity—as you know, the act's only three years old—to focus on regulation 18(3). However, we have recently begun to look at regulation 18(3).

We talked to the Canadian Environmental Network and to the regulatory advisory committee with respect to public participation on the screenings. CEN indicated that they would canvass their own members to look at their experience and views with respect to regulation 18.3, and at public participation more generally. RAC has also said that they would want to start taking a look at that.

I think the timeframe, to be frank, would be in the context of a five-year review. So they would try to get some data and look at it over the next 18 months with respect to possible changes, if that's deemed to be required.

With respect to section 28, as you're aware, that's a discretionary power that the minister has to intervene, particularly on screenings, to elevate a particular project to a panel. That's always a difficult issue. I guess all of the cases that have come forward over the last number of years have gone to ministers for their review.

The pros and cons of a particular case have to be put, such as the extent to which there is sufficient public concern, any significant adverse environmental effects, and the nature of the environmental assessment that has already taken place, either at a screening or comprehensive study stage. Then decisions are taken.

• 1735

I think so far—there has only been three years of experience—it's true that there hasn't been a case, but every case is looked at very seriously. When a minister will decide to invoke section 28 is hard to predict, but certainly every case is looked at very seriously.

With respect to the five-year review, we have just begun to think about it. We had a meeting about two months ago with the Canadian Environmental Network, with the environmental assessment caucus of the network, and we spent a fair bit of time at that meeting talking about the process for engaging in the five-year review. At our last regulatory advisory committee, the multi-stakeholder committee, in March we also had on the agenda the five-year review. We're still at the process stage, determining what is the nature of involvement, what are the kinds of things we need to do, what kind of studies do we need to do. As you know, the review is only going to be kicked off in about 18 months, but we are already beginning to look at the kinds of work we need to do to get ready for launching the review.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Gershberg, some time ago, the premiers of Quebec and Newfoundland announced a vast hydroelectric project for Churchill Falls. Since this project is the result of an agreement between two provinces, does your agency have a role to play in the environmental evaluation do be done on these projects? How are you going to proceed to ensure that there is a satisfactory environmental evaluation process? Given that the harmonization agreement has not been signed by Quebec, how are you going to proceed?

[English]

Mr. Sid Gershberg: Yes, Mr. Charbonneau. Of course Churchill Falls is not yet a project, although we anticipate that it will be. Our expectation, and we are gathering data now, is that there will likely be a trigger, probably a Fisheries Act trigger. Because this habitat is likely to be affected, that would trigger the act and therefore require a full environmental assessment. That's probably a year or two away.

Because of the nature of the groups involved— obviously in addition to the federal government there's the Province of Newfoundland, and as you're aware, we're involved right now in a joint review with the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of Quebec on Voisey's Bay. I'm aware that the chairman of Hydro-Québec has been quoted publicly, I believe, indicating that he would hope we could have a harmonized process with the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland so that we wouldn't duplicate the situation.

Our hope certainly would be that if we engage in a full environmental assessment, as we expect to have to do, then it would be a joint assessment with the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of Quebec. And, I might add, we will have to consider how to involve the aboriginal communities that are involved, and there are a number of them that would have a direct interest in the project and certainly would want to be fully involved in the process. So we'll have to make sure we do that as well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is that all?

[English]

Madam Kraft Sloan, no questions?

I have two questions, one of which has to do with international obligations.

Might I inquire whether, as the minister, you are satisfied that we our fulfilling our international obligations? In particular, I am referring to the Basel Convention, which deals with the transport of toxic material. I hear rumours, which I would like to think aren't correct, to the effect that Canada is dragging its feet when it comes to implementation of the Basel Convention and that we tend to align ourselves with those who are reluctant in its implementation.

The question is would you be willing to review Canada's performance in the implementation of the Basel Convention and assure yourself and possibly also this committee that we are not playing a negative role?

• 1740

The other question, if I may do it at the same time, is very short. It has to do with the management of nuclear waste. In regard to the most excellent Seaborn report, the panel appeared before this committee. We had a terrific session with them. The question is simply when do you expect, with Mr. Goodale, to provide a reply to that report?

Mrs. Christine Stewart: To deal with the second one first, it's Mr. Goodale who will have the primary responsibility for responding to the Seaborn report.

I personally found it a very interesting report, given what's happening in my own constituency with regard to low-level radioactive waste. In fact, we've gone through in my constituency a siting task force process, which is more or less what the Seaborn report was requesting before any decisions would be made on high-level radioactive waste. I'm hopeful we can have an early solution—early after 10 years—to the low-level radioactive waste problem as a result of that siting task force process.

With regard to the Basel Convention and other international conventions and agreements that Canada is party to, in general we are regarded as playing a leadership role in the world with our commitments. In terms of the Basel Convention in particular, I can't say that I am an expert on the Basel Convention, not having as of yet, as minister, attended any of those meetings, but I consider transboundary movement to be a very serious issue. I know that we are looking at persistent organic pollutants and metals at the moment. I'm not sure that's Basel Convention, but I know we have exceeded the requirements of those two protocols.

I have a concern, I can say, in general about the work in my department, and I've indicated this broadly. I feel we have to be more engaged on the international environmental agenda. I'm very encouraged by the role of the new executive director, Dr. Toepfer, of the United Nations Environment Programme, who is not only taking over that program but is tasked to chair a committee to look at all the UN and international agencies, institutions, secretariats and so on to try to bring some coherence into the international community.

Frankly, my experience so far has not been salutary. There needs to be a lot of work on coherence and a new way of managing the international environmental community, because we can do all the work in the world possible in Canada domestically, but we're very vulnerable to what happens internationally. I think we could do more in a leadership fashion if those different international agencies, secretariats and institutions were functioning a little better.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions on the third round?

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam Minister, in the debate on climate change, there are often discussions about the possibility of exchanging emissions, credits or emission rights between companies in different countries or between companies in different sectors. Can you tell us what your interest in that area is, among others, considering that if there is an exchange, there is no reduction? One company exchanges its credit for another's emissions. Where is the advantage as far as the overall reduction of greenhouse gases is concerned?

• 1745

What is the advantage of this scheme, seeing as how a number of companies or industrial sectors are considering adopting it, that might lead to a reduction of emissions for our neighbour, but not for Canada.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: For Canada, we see it as a very significant mechanism in terms of our being able to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. But emissions trading, by our definition, is not the trading of so-called hot air greenhouse gases that at some previous point were reduced, or capitalizing on that; it must involve the real substantive reduction in greenhouse gases.

If you can look at one particular trade, the trade of Suncor, which for millions of dollars purchased a reduction in greenhouse gases from Niagara Mohawk, a hydroelectric generating company that has low emissions, they have guaranteed that they will take action to further reduce greenhouse gases with the investment provided by Suncor, and if it's cheaper for Suncor to reduce greenhouse gases through an investment with Niagara Mohawk than it is through their own activities, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't do it.

But the reduction has to be real and it's not necessarily an international trade. We are also committed, as a country, to making sure we have significant reduction taken domestically.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That would be a reduction in the United States. Niagara Mohawk is an American company.

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: So, instead of reducing its emissions, Suncor Inc. buys the right and it's the other company in the United States that reduces its emissions. What does that do for Canada?

[English]

Mrs. Christine Stewart: But I could see it's possible that 49% of the reduction of greenhouse gases to meet Canada's target could be achieved in the developing world, and I will try to outline this notion.

A company in Canada that has a very good environmental technology in terms of its ability to reduce greenhouse gases can go to a developing nation, where they don't have much in the way of sophisticated environmental technologies, look at an existing company and say to that company, “Look, we can put this piece of equipment in your company and reduce greenhouse gases by x*to tonnes. We know you don't have the ability to invest in this equipment yourself, so we can go into a joint venture, or we can buy royalties in your company for a limited period of time and share the reductions.” The developing nation would get a credit for reduction, but they would share that reduction with the company that invests.

This is why it's extremely important for the international community to work this out, and this is why there is so much advantage for developing technologies in Canada to meet our own challenges and then having a market abroad to help developing nations reduce as well.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if—

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, and then we'll conclude.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Okay.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: My question is on the alternative service delivery study that's being conducted with the Atmospheric Environment Service. Is this driven by Environment Canada or is that a Treasury Board bigger policy driven to try to commercialize and eventually privatize these services? That's totally against the grain of such essential services, and research and development that's being done. Could you simply drop that thing, just carve it out? We don't need it.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: No, I think there are alternative proposals for alternative service delivery, and in fact we look forward to parliamentarians taking a role at looking at that.

As to the particulars of your question, I'll turn that over to Mr. Glen.

• 1750

Mr. Ian Glen: The initiative is one that Environment Canada took on itself. We sought to have the support and collaboration of the Treasury Board. They have a broader lead in the general area of looking at alternative means of delivering government services. This initiative is not being cast as one that would involve privatization—in essence, selling off beyond government at all. It recognizes, in the present study, that we're dealing with what we would call a public good and a public good that Canadians expect of government.

What it is trying to do is to determine whether, by either structuring or locating with a certain degree of difference from a normal departmental structure, we could ensure the necessary improvements required in the delivery of weather services in the future, ensure that we have a stronger capacity to deal with its capital infrastructure planning longer term. Perhaps there would be some variations on the human resource management for the weather service or, as we're casting it now, the atmospheric environment prediction requirements.

No, it's not selling off beyond government. That model could be considered. It has been considered internationally and has been applied in some other countries. The most current one is New Zealand. That's not where our present study is located.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Is it a pet project?

Mr. Ian Glen: I wouldn't call it a pet project. I'd call it a project that in some people's minds has been there for quite a while to happen.

As deputy minister, I initiated the present study last year. We're hoping to conclude consultations and the shaping of advice. I would be engaging with my minister at that time. We're looking currently at a track going into the summer.

Mrs. Christine Stewart: Already, environmental weather services are being provided privately by for-profit companies around the world, and it's creating very serious problems. As the federal government, we consider there's a safety aspect to this. We do have to look at all aspects of the service we're now providing and at what service is legitimate and what service is perhaps better provided somewhere else. It's a very serious issue, and that's why we're engaging the public as broadly as we can on the issue.

The Chairman: Thank you.

All right. This brings to a conclusion this very informative afternoon.

We want to thank you, Madam Minister, the sous-ministre, and all the officials in this room, for your appearance and for your wide-ranging answers in depth. We hope to have another opportunity at the appropriate time, and we thank you again for this interesting afternoon.

This meeting is now adjourned.