ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 2, 2001

• 1113

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.

As you know, under Standing Order 106, our first order of business is the election of a chair. I'm prepared to receive nominations to that effect at the moment.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I nominate Mr. Caccia for chair.

The Clerk: Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): We're going to have some nominations, but first I'm seeking unanimous consent that we proceed by secret ballot, and I think perhaps we could have a little discussion on that alternative. We had some discussion among the parties before the committee meeting convened this morning, and it's not particularly a point of contention within this committee. It has to do with a larger parliamentary principle that committees must be seen as independent and must begin to exercise their own democratic power. It's certainly been a long-term agenda item of our party to, where we can, have secret ballots so as to not only follow the law but have the appearance of following the law and exercising true democracy. Therefore, I'm hoping that we can have a secret ballot.

The Clerk: Well, first of all, I'll take the nominations. Is there more than one nomination for chair? I have one right now. If there isn't another nomination, a secret ballot would be ludicrous. Is there another nomination?

Madam Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): If there is no possibility of another nomination, I still think a secret ballot is in order, because we can have an affirmation of the chair. We could have a negative or positive affirmation of the chair, which I think in many respects would set a precedent for secret ballots on committees.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC/DR): So we're going to have a secret ballot on one nomination.

An hon. member: It doesn't exist.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That they agree, that the committee members agree.

• 1115

The Clerk: I will ask consent, and that basically serves the same purpose. If there is consent that Mr. Caccia be elected chair, I don't think there's any need for a secret ballot.

All I can do is receive nominations, anyway. I can't rule on this. Maybe when Mr. Caccia gets the chair, you can debate it and get a ruling.

Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The fact that no one is willing to put their name up against Mr. Caccia's does not necessarily mean that he has majority support of the committee, so a secret ballot can be still in order for affirmation of the chair if no one is willing to put their name up against him.

The Clerk: Okay.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Then I'll just solve the problem. I will nominate Mr. Bob Mills as chair, and then I would hope that we would be able to have a secret ballot and that we would also have a secret ballot for our vice-chairs.

The Clerk: Okay, we'll do the chair first. Now I have two nominations. Is there consent from the committee to have a secret ballot?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Clerk: We do need consent. There is consent, obviously.

All right. The first ballot will be on the first motion, which is to elect Mr. Caccia as chair, and I will have ballots sent around.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Or we can elect Mr. Mills as chair.

The Clerk: No. We have to vote motion by motion. The first motion is on Mr. Caccia. We'll go around, and you vote yea or nay to Mr. Caccia on the first motion. Obviously, if Mr. Caccia wins on the secret ballot, there's no need to have a secret ballot on the second motion. Okay?

• 1120

The results are in, I've read the ballots, and Mr. Caccia has been voted chair of the committee. I would invite Mr. Caccia to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Thank you for your vote of confidence.

We will proceed with the next item, which is the election of the vice-chairs.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I nominate Mr. Bob Mills for vice-chair of this committee.

The Chair: Bob Mills has been nominated. Are there any other nominations for vice-chairs?

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I nominate John Herron for the position of vice-chair.

The Chair: Mr. John Herron has been nominated.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I nominate Karen Kraft Sloan.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Are there any further nominations? Should nominations be closed? Agreed. We'll proceed with the secret ballot, then. Is there consent that we proceed by secret ballot?

A voice: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed.

It is proposed that the first ballot take place for the selection of the opposition vice-chair. Is that agreed upon? Agreed. We'll proceed.

We will proceed then by voting on the motion for Mr. Mills as one of the vice-chairs, and the ballot will therefore indicate yes or no.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's my understanding that we'll do the same with government vice-chair.

The Chair: Correct.

• 1125

Mr. Mills has been elected as the opposition vice-chair. Congratulations. This election makes it unnecessary to proceed with a second motion.

We'll proceed now with the motion for the vice-chair on the government side. There is only one name that has been proposed. Is there consensus that we affirm the election of Madam Kraft Sloan?

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'd prefer to have it done by secret ballot.

The Chair: We'll proceed by secret ballot.

Ballots have been counted, and Madam Kraft Sloan is elected as vice-chair. Congratulations. The elections are thus concluded.

Before bringing witnesses to the table, in explanation of this brochure you have, this Eco-Industrial Network is currently developing in Canada in the following locations: Sarnia; the Soo; Calgary; Saint John, New Brunswick; Tiverton; Halifax; Alberta; and Regina. It is a very interesting initiative that is in its infant stages. The brochures were given to me in Toronto over the weekend, and I thought you might find it interesting. It is just for your files. If you wish to contact them, I will be able to distribute their newsletter to you at our next meeting.

• 1130

Today we have people waiting for us, so I'm seeking your consent in bringing the witnesses to the table so we can hear the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Would you please come to the table. We welcome you. This is a yearly historical event.

We have at this time a new commissioner. The report has been distributed; opening remarks are being distributed now.

Without any further delay, Madame Gélinas, we welcome you and your officials.

[Translation]

The floor is yours. Welcome to our committee.

[English]

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): First of all, congratulations on your reappointment, and the same thing for the vice-chairs.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear again before this committee to discuss my report to Parliament, which was tabled earlier this morning.

With me are my colleagues Neil Maxwell, Dan Rubenstein and John Reed, who will be able to answer your questions along with me after this brief statement.

This morning, I would like to present a relatively brief yet significant presentation: first, I will discuss the follow-up we did on the 1998 commissioner's report on climate change; then, I will talk about our audit of the federal government's management of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin which, as you can imagine, go beyond the geographic region we focused on; finally, I will report on the progress of departments and agencies toward sustainable development and on a study on the social dimension of sustainable development.

As I mentioned last June, I also have a chapter on the environmental petition process. It contains a five-year progress report, and presents the process and its use in simple terms. Without getting into details, I find the petition process extremely useful and one that I intend to promote.

As a way to introduce my first report, I have a chapter that shares my point of view and some of my concerns. I also go back some 15 years to better understand how sustainable development applies to Canadians today, how it applied yesterday and how it will apply tomorrow. Using this year's audit, I examined whether the government is on the right track to attain the goals it has set.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to climate change.

This year we followed up on an audit we did three years ago, in 1998, concerning how the federal government was addressing its climate change commitments. What we found was that while there has been some important progress by the government, action is still at an early stage.

Meanwhile, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise significantly on a path that is far from sustainable. The gap between Canada's emissions and the Kyoto target continues to grow, while the time remaining to act shrinks. Canada is already 15% above 1990 levels.

What needs to change? On the management side, improvements are needed. For example, the government's Action Plan 2000, which outlines measures for the energy, transportation, and other sectors, lacks clear targets showing how each measure will meet the plan's goal of taking Canada one-third of the way toward its Kyoto target.

• 1135

As well, the information provided in sustainable development strategies and other documents tabled in Parliament on departmental action is fragmented and piecemeal. This makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the overall federal response to climate change.

Responsibility for deciding whether to meet the Kyoto commitments rests with the government. The government has said that climate change requires action now, and that it remains committed to meeting its Kyoto target, with the majority of emission reductions being achieved at home. Clearly, a great deal remains to be done if this commitment is to be met.

The government has played an important role to date, but efforts are still at the stage of setting national action into motion. For example, the sectoral or regional sharing of the full Kyoto target remains to be considered. This raises a critical question. At the current pace of the action, can these commitments be met?

Next I would like to talk about our work on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River basin. This audit was conducted for many reasons. First, the basin is a critical environmental resource for the world. We have an obligation to manage it well. Second, 16 million Canadians depend on the basin for clear air and drinking water, and for personal health, employment, and recreation. Third, the basin is a sustainable development laboratory, in a way, testing the government's ability to achieve its goals of economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental health.

The audit focused on the four main subject areas of water, agriculture, species and spaces at risk, and fisheries, and looked at dozens of issues in those subject areas. It has also examined the government's management of its regional ecosystem initiatives and its relationship with the international joint commission, a critical institution for Canada.

Our audit set out to answer three seemingly simple questions. What is the state of the basin? What is the federal government's role and performance in these subject areas? How can the government improve its performance?

In terms of specifics, I would like to present just a sample of the key findings.

Unstable and declining funding to departments has impaired their ability to meet mandated responsibilities. Federal plans to restore environmentally degraded sites are incomplete and unclear.

The government does not know if the water Canadians drink in the basin meets the national guidelines it helped develop. Canada does not have nationally enforceable standards for drinking water.

The problem of how to safely manage manure from livestock operations is getting worse. Yet the government has no action plan to meet its objectives to control the problem.

Almost half of the endangered and threatened species in the basin, under the federal government's jurisdiction, do not have recovery plans. Only 10% of these species have stable or improving populations.

Despite its constitutional and legal responsibilities for protecting fisheries in the basin, the government is unclear about its role relative to that of the provinces.

Invasive aquatic species, such as zebra mussels, are a serious and growing threat to the basin. The government relies largely on voluntary guidelines and U.S. regulations to control them.

• 1140

Over the past few decades, there have been some remarkable environmental successes and improvements. My report credits the federal government for its role in contributing to these improvements. Yet, despite these successes, today's best science describes the overall state of the lakes and rivers as being mixed. While some aspects of the basin are improving, others are deteriorating right before our eyes.

As we look ahead a generation, the Canadian population of the basin is projected to grow by three million people, and GDP is expected to be 60% higher. This growth will increase the demand on the basin's waters, land, fish, agriculture products, sewage treatment, parks and wilderness areas, housing, energy, and others. This brings us to the main finding of the audit and why I'm so concerned.

The future of the basin is at risk. Federal efforts have lost momentum. The leadership, innovation, science, and diligence that served the basin in the past have diminished. There is an overwhelming sense of complacency and resignation, instead of urgency and inspiration.

[Translation]

Our overall conclusions emphasize four major themes.

First, important matters are being left to drift. Key domestic and international commitments are not being met. Priorities and commitments and the resources allocated to them are out of sync. For example, many of Canada's international commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement have not been implemented.

Secondly, long-term, basin-wide strategies for key threats are missing. On key issues there is no co-ordinated and consistent federal voice in the two regions.

Thirdly, scientific research monitoring and measurement systems are impaired. There are major gaps in the information needed to make quality decisions in areas like wet lands, soils and fish habitat.

Fourthly, the federal role is changing, and waning. The government seems afraid to tackle the tough issues. It is not using the authorities and tools it has at its disposal. It relies, increasingly, on partnership to meet its objectives. The audit has raised fundamental questions about the government's role in overseeing the actions of its partners and in providing assurance that federal and national objectives are being met.

None of these bode well for the future. I believe that the federal government is simply not ready to confront the many challenges of the 21st century. This is especially true in the area of water, where I believe there is an opportunity for parliamentarians to play a leading role in dealing with this crucial environmental, social and political issue.

There are two other points I would like to make about this audit.

First, although we focus on a specific geographic region, there are national implications. Many of the issues and federal programs examined are national in scope. Managing the quality and quantity of Canada's fresh water, achieving sustainable agriculture, protecting species and spaces at risk, ensuring vibrant fisheries, and effectively governing regional ecosystems are challenges that affect the entire country.

Second, while departments agreed with our recommendations, my views on their responses is decidedly qualified.

The Great Lakes audit clearly shows that the federal government has yet to adopt sustainable development. The path we are following is not sustainable.

The third part of my report focuses on managing for sustainable development, especially with respect to the government's sustainable development strategies.

• 1145

We recently completed a three-year audit on the first generation of sustainable development strategies. Once again we audited sustainable development management systems and the information reported on sustainable development. We also looked at how some departments had assessed their first strategy. And, like my predecessor, we studied the social dimension of sustainable development.

[English]

Our findings for the sustainable development management systems and the information reported on sustainable development are as follows.

Best practices have taught us that having a management system in place does not necessarily guarantee success; however, the absence of a working system increases the chances of commitments not being met. In my opinion, a management system is a meaningful indication of a department's capability and intent to honour the commitments it has made in its sustainable development strategy.

The audit highlights the characteristics that separate leading departments, like Natural Resources and Industry Canada, from the others. These are, for example, senior management commitment; recognizing that the process is ongoing; allocating resources; and including the basic components in a management system.

We noticed a link between the level of interest shown by senior management, the quality and timeliness of performance reports submitted to management, and the quality of the management system.

Of those departments that ranked the lowest, I'm concerned to find the Department of Finance, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in this group, especially since they play a significant role in the government's sustainable development program.

Some say that everything departments do is considered sustainable development because their mandates are to ensure the well-being of Canadians; however, their claims must be accompanied by concrete action.

Departments and agencies report on their progress toward sustainable development. This information allows Parliament to gauge whether the departmental strategy objectives are on track. I'm concerned about the relevance of the performance information reported to Parliament, because, based on our audit, few departments and agencies adhere to the Treasury Board secretariat guidelines. Only 25% of departments strictly apply these guidelines. Since 1998, the federal government has made progress toward its sustainable development goals at a rate of about 12% per year. We have not, however, audited this assessment.

[Translation]

These audits and our previous audits indicate that some departments take the central agencies' guidance and directives more seriously than others.

This raises a few questions. What is the incentive for departments to do more and do better? Do any coercive measures exist? Are the central agencies showing leadership when dealing with this government priority?

These questions are crucial because sustainable development strategies are an important means of ensuring that departments pay more attention to sustainable development. And this leads me to one final question—a question on many minds. As the government prepares to report on its progress toward sustainable development at the Johannesburg Earth Summit next year, will it be able to show convincing progress?

[English]

My mandate is to measure progress and to report to you on sustainable development systems; however, each and every one of us shares the challenge of guiding Canada down the road to sustainable development. In this regard, I see your committee as a continuation of my reports—a place where debate and questions will take place.

Mr. Chairman, in June, you asked me if there was anything specific I needed to fully carry out my responsibility. After much thought, I feel that what is most important is the support and involvement of your committee in the issues I report. Working together, I see great opportunities to advance the federal sustainable development agenda. Committee hearings and reports on selected chapters would greatly help me in my work. Your committee could also assist me by asking departments for clearer commitments to address the deficiencies I report and for updates on the action they have taken.

• 1150

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I look forward to your questions and to continuing our dialogue.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Gélinas. I appreciate very much your report.

For those who are new to this committee, it might perhaps be desirable to stress the fact that the commissioner is an officer of Parliament reporting yearly. The commissioner is located in the Auditor General's office. The commissioner is independent from government. The commissioner belongs to us parliamentarians. And finally, the commissioner is the force in the federal jurisdiction to implement Our Common Future, commonly known as the Brundtland report.

We'll now start a round of questions. There are 14 of us around this table. If we could keep our questions to five minutes each we might be able to make one round before people begin to drift to question period.

I will begin, as usual, with the official opposition, Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Bigras, Mr. Herron, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Reed, Madam Redman, Mr. Savoy, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Mills, please.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your report. It will take many weeks to get through it all and really digest it.

I guess the one message we get from it is that despite the priority stated for sustainable development by the government in 1993, we should look at its lack of leadership and commitment, which you seem to demonstrate in a number of areas. The particular area that most concerned me as I went through this document this morning was the lack of scientific backup for so much of what's there. You seem to reconfirm one of the worst fears we have.

I'll come in with a couple of specific questions. First, concerning the ratification of Kyoto, which appears to be going to happen shortly after the Marrakesh meetings, there seems to be a total lack of realism about looking at the economic impacts this might have on our economy and on our future. I think all of us agree it's a serious problem. We need to address it and come up with solutions. But it needs to be in a realistic way, and we have to tell Canadians what it really means to them to ratify and deliver on the promises of reducing carbon dioxide emissions 25% by the year 2010. You don't seem to address that part of it. I wonder if you could answer that, please.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I have to tell you first that the chapter on climate change is a follow-up chapter. We were looking at some of the recommendations we made in 1998 to make sure the federal government is progressing on them. At that time it was much more a question of suggesting that the department rethink its own strategy about how we will achieve the reduction.

So you are right, we didn't look at that particular aspect. But on the other hand, based on the audit work we did, the scientific basis is there. We looked at what—if I'm right in English—the EMG group did. There is still a lack of information that the bureaucrats need to get and to gather.

But more importantly, the point we raise in our report is that there is a lot of information available. The problem is there's no way to get all this information together to have a good overview of what is going on at the federal level with respect to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the recommendation and the reply we get, the department will continue working hard on that to gather the information and give us Canadians and parliamentarians a very good overview of what is going on and what they are achieving.

• 1155

Mr. Bob Mills: The other area that seemed to me to be obvious by its omission was the whole idea of air quality. I particularly refer to—and you and I have been communicating on this matter—the projects in B.C. and the huge effects that 12 power plants on the Washington and B.C. border are going to have on an already very stressed airshed. That, of course, could also apply to southern Ontario. The many concerns about air seem to be lacking in your report as well. I wondered why. Is that something you're going to focus on in the future?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We have done in the past some work on air quality. We will be following up on that in the coming years. You're right, we haven't looked at that specifically in the follow-up report, but, as I said, it was specifically focusing on the commitments the department had made in the past.

One of the other things we raised also in the climate change report is that we don't know at this stage how the federal government and the provinces will share the pie and figure out who will have to do what and in which sector. This is also something we will follow up in 2003.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

How's my time?

The Chair: Your time is up.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, as regards chapter 6 on climate change, I'm looking at your exhibit 6.3, on page 27, which essentially summarizes the progress achieved by the federal government for each aspect of Canada's Implementation Strategy. What strikes me in looking at this summary is the fact that the federal government has not obtained a passing grade for any category, namely, it has not achieved satisfactory progress.

My question is as follows: giving your observation that, as far as role and responsibilities, costs and federal measures are concerned, a passing grade has not been achieved, a passing grade meaning, at the very least, that satisfactory progress has been made, do you believe, given this situation, that we will be able to reach the objectives established at Kyoto for 2010?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I raised this question myself in my opening statement. At the rate we are going, we very clearly have some grave concerns about our ability to reach the Kyoto objective. We also state that we could agree to some efforts, given that most of the reductions will be taking place in Canada, in accordance with the government's commitments. Some action could be initiated more quickly. What is of most concern is the fact that time is going by, and we are all very cognizant of the fact that energy consumption in Canada is on the rise, as is our greenhouse gas emission.

Consequently, on the basis of our audit, we are saying that things are progressing, but slowly, whereas time is increasingly becoming of the essence.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have another question. You talk about measures in this table. We know that the government has established what is referred to as the Action Fund for Climate Change. Last week, the Auditor General reported to the Public Accounts Committee on all of the funds and foundations. Unless I am mistaken, she had very harsh words for the way these funds and foundations were managed and for the results achieved.

Do you feel that the measures that have been implemented, and more specifically the Climate Change Action Fund, will provide us with the means to achieve the targeted objectives? If I'm not mistaken, the Auditor General was quite critical about this last week.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There are two things here that must not be confused. First of all, we have to see where the money is being spent on the issue of climate change, and secondly, there are the measures themselves. Indeed, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada is conducting an audit to examine how these funds are being managed, insofar as it's possible to get access to some information. As you know, it is not the Office of the Auditor General who audits the foundations.

• 1200

With regard to the very specific issue of climate change, it has also been noted that of the one billion dollars earmarked for climate change, in all categories, $400 million is spent outside the departments, notably in funds and foundations to manage the programs. We did not audit these programs. We will be able to do some of them in the course of a follow-up exercise or in the course of a specific audit, but in some cases, such as the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, we do not have the authority to conduct an audit.

If we look at the measures overall, I would say that right now, we're not even in a position to know all the specific measures that the federal government intends to implement to achieve the strict objective of one-third reduction by 2008. We have general indications, but we have no specific targets about how to achieve particular reduction objectives. So we still have a long way to go to find out what the effect of the measures will be.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Herron, followed by Mr. Comartin.

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

I'd like to refer to section 3.4.10 in your document, where you go into the point that the Food and Drugs Act would clearly provide a mandate for the federal government to help establish enforceable drinking water standards. That would dovetail with efforts the Progressive Conservative Party has advocated, but also with Senator Grafstein, when he's been talking about the Food and Drugs Act also.

Could you clarify to the committee why you see that matter as exclusively in the purview of the federal government?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: What we're saying is that the federal government has a role to play with respect to drinking water. Health Canada has put in place a set of guidelines that should be considered by the provinces, even if it's on a voluntary basis.

On the other hand, we gave the example you raised as an example of what should be, or can be, or might be the federal involvement, specifically with respect to drinking water. If it can be done in the case of bottled water, it can certainly be done with respect to drinking water. This may be the decision the government will take to move forward with securing drinking water in Canada. We don't know. We were just giving it as an example of what can be done.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you very much, because that really dovetails with the motion we had in the House of Commons last May that called on the Government of Canada to go in that particular direction. You're showing here that the federal government clearly has leverage to go and do this, and it's a matter of finding political will as opposed to having the capacity to do it. I'd encourage all members to think about that main motion in that regard.

My second line of questioning, just very briefly, is this. I really like one aspect you brought forth in your report about making Parliament work better. What I mean is it's 47 months since we went to Kyoto. We still really don't have a consensus among the provinces for a strategy in that regard. It's 47 months later, and we still don't have a tradable permit regime with the Americans. We knew that we would probably replicate what we did with acid rain in that regard.

It's now 47 months after, and we really haven't sent a clear signal to industry about what rewarding early action means, so I want to compliment you on that aspect of.... I come from a business background, meaning that if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. So reporting to Parliament with a clear plan on climate change would have given us the capacity to push the government along.

Is it your view—because you've used the word “piecemeal” in your report—that there is not a plan in place today that could ensure Canada would obtain its Kyoto target?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There's a plan in place, no doubt about it—we highlight it. But in our business what we say is what gets measured gets done. We have to make sure that we and the federal government will be able to track the progress and report to us, so that we can see exactly what is going on.

• 1205

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

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I may, on your first question, I invite you to look at the reply Health Canada gave us about the suggestion we were making—it's paragraph 163.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron, for staying within your five-minute limit.

We have Mr. Comartin, Mr. Reed, Madam Redman, Mr. Savoy, Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Scherrer, and Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to Madam Gélinas and the commission for the work they've done. I think to a great extent it has confirmed what our party, and I think the environmental community more generally, has been saying or have certainly been suspicious of: that although we made some significant progress as a government for Canada in the 1970s and 1980s, as we moved into the 1990s, especially after this government was elected, the progress has been stalled, and in fact there is some regression going on.

In that regard, on Kyoto and the climate and the whole question of the impact we've seen on the ongoing programs and process, you said we're at 15% over where we were supposed to be. That was a 1999 figure. Do you have any sense of what has happened in 2000, and so far in 2001? Is that figure now at 17% or 18%?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The information in our report is that the latest data say 15% above.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But those data are as of 1999.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Yes. But we don't have anything newer than that.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is there any reason to believe it hasn't grown?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It has grown, probably, because we continue to use more energy. I don't think it's a clear direct link, but there's a link between energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission increases.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In terms of getting at this from the department standpoint, you obviously are less than satisfied with the progress being made in Finance and Indian and Northern Affairs, so I'm assuming you won't recommend they take over responsibility. But you are suggesting that someone should be responsible for the overall development of our response as a government to sustainable development.

Do you have a specific recommendation that you would make as to who should be monitoring, who should be enforcing, so the departments do get onside?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I don't think it's my role to point out a specific department, agency, or central organization to look at that.

I'll say two things, though. We will push very hard to have a leader who will be responsible to figure out what is going on. Moreover, what we are saying also in the report is that if there is a central agency, such as Treasury Board, to put in place guidelines, we would assume that at some point this same organization would control and monitor if the department is doing what it was asked to do, and if not, something should be done at least. They should ask questions, because otherwise I don't see how the department that is less performing than the others will find the incentive to move ahead and join the rest of the departments, the few departments that are really the leading departments at the moment.

One of the things this audit also shows us is the fact that it can be done. We have departments that show us it can be done, and they're not necessarily departments that are related to real environmental stuff. But you have departments like the industry department that do it. So if they can do it, the others can do it.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Did you get any response from the finance department as to why they were having particular problems? One would think with their ability to crunch numbers, they should be able to do this relatively easily. Did you get any explanation from them?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I will turn it over to my colleague, who will give you the details on that.

Mr. Dan Rubenstein (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): We had discussions with them, and the short answer is no. We couldn't get a crisp answer. There was some considerable dialogue with them as to what was wrong, and it took quite a bit of time for them to acknowledge the deficiencies.

• 1210

Our chapter 2 is really about good management, about getting specific, taking these broad goals and hardwiring them into your organization, and making individual people accountable and building it into their job performance. Finance just couldn't provide us with the evidence that they had done that.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I could add, Mr. Comartin, on that, I will give you a more straightforward answer.

What we found is that the finance department doesn't have any system. What they are replying to us, though, is that it's integrated into their overall system. And that's fine; they don't have to take a very specific management system; they can have different systems. But so far we haven't found any evidence that it was really integrated into their system, so we have different views on how they have put in place their sustainable development management system. So far we haven't found anything that proves they have a system that tracks sustainable development commitments.

The Chair: To the next round, Mr. Reed, followed by Madam Redman.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): In the interest of time, I'm going to have to zero in on a very small portion of this enormous undertaking you're involved in. It represents a frustration I think many of us have.

In 1996 the federal government signed memoranda of understanding with every province undertaking to purchase a percentage of its electric power requirements from green sources. Alberta was the only province to ratify that memorandum, and it wasn't until 2001—this year—that Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan signed on. Interestingly enough, in Alberta, renewable energy is taking off, not only by government purchase, which set the example, but private companies now want in on the game. It's a good thing to hang the sign over your door: we buy green. And that message is getting there.

The frustration I feel—because my major interest is in renewable energy, as many will know—is how to take a federal thrust and a good idea and get it into the hands of the provinces in a manner they will move on. Ontario, which represents the largest single engine of the economy of this country, has not ratified that memorandum. Is there any way you can help us?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I can't, but maybe my colleague can.

Mr. Neil Maxwell (Principal, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Yes.

We're familiar with some of the arrangements of which you speak. In this audit we looked at climate change and energy efficiency issues—not specifically at that one, though. I'd say clearly the problem you are outlining is one we did see when we looked at how the federal government is trying, with its partners, to move toward climate change. And I think the climate change file shows that it is a very long road. Progress is made, but there are still, using the example of climate change, a number of areas in which there still isn't key agreement.

Mr. Julian Reed: It seems the Americans in 1979 somehow were able to do something within the boundaries of their constitution when they brought in the PURPA law, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, which was an off-oil program that said to all utilities, private and public, that they had to purchase green electricity at a price not less than the cost of producing electricity from oil. It wasn't the very best program in the world, but the fact is the federal government was able to exact some influence on the utilities that were in all of the states. I don't understand why we can't.

• 1215

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It might be one of the measures the federal government will consider in the future to reach the two-thirds of the target that we will have to get at after 2008. I mean, they're as different there as elsewhere. There are a lot of tools the federal government can use to get to its commitment, but so far, I'm sorry, I cannot go further than that on your question.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Madam Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Commissioner, it's hard not to think, given the sheer volume of what has been written here, that little has been achieved in addressing issues concerning the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. To give a sense of the other side of the coin, can you summarize for us some of the more laudable achievements identified through your audit?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Do you want to hear about the Great Lakes?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Okay. What are the achievements?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There are a couple of things we have raised in the report, especially with respect to infrastructure programs and to building sewage plants. Also, there were a lot of good achievements with respect to reducing toxic substances. I'm thinking here of a regulation to control emissions from industry, and with respect to that, one of the good outcomes was that Canada has been able to reduce by 95% its dioxins and furans.

What other good achievements can we think of?

A voice: Lake Erie.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Lake Erie, right. To consider one, it is reviving a region, even if we're facing some new problems in this area.

Let's say it this way. If we look at the basics, from an historical perspective there have clearly been great improvements. But we are looking here more at what may happen in the future if we don't continue to do a lot of the good work we did 20 years ago. We may lose all the gains we made over the years, so of course there are some good, even remarkable achievements, and we stated that in our report. But there are a lot of other problems we have to face and deal with.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I appreciate that, and I'm cognizant of the fact that this is being televised and people may not be able to wade through this report, so it's good to hear a little bit of that balance.

You've identified challenges that face the federal government as we move forward into the future to make and sustain real progress, but I believe we need to involve institutions and communities at the local level as well. I guess I'm looking back; I came from local politics, and I know that there's a great deal of interest in the environment at that level of government. Can you highlight for us some of the government's lessons learned in animating and supporting this kind of local action?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I take the example of the Great Lakes, a lot of the programs that were put in place a couple of years ago were shaped in a way that local communities would be involved in that. The same thing has happened with respect to protecting spaces and species at risk, where we work on the basis of a stewardship program. There's no doubt that first of all the federal government cannot do everything and that it has to build partnerships. What we're saying, though, is that even if it builds partnerships, it has to be accountable for what is done in working with partners.

Mrs. Karen Redman: You talk about the fact that there is still a federal role, and I wouldn't argue with that, but let's look specifically at animating and supporting local actions. Just to look for partnerships would be the one lesson learned? Are there no others you can refer to at this time?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: John.

Mr. John Reed (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Again, using the Great Lakes as an example, I think one of the key lessons is obviously that you have to find local volunteers with a vested interest in wanting to make things happen at a local level. Our report talks about a number of examples where you have to support an initiative not just by finding people interested but by giving them the institutional support and the sort of program knowledge whereby they can begin to run with something.

The flip side to that is that they need ongoing support. The lesson learned is that you can get local people going with local structures, but many of the issues communities are confronting go beyond just that community. They need certain kinds of support: expertise, scientific support, and leveraged funding governments at higher levels can provide.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Redman.

• 1220

We'll have Mr. Savoy, followed by Madame Kraft Sloan, Madame Scherrer, Mr. Tonks, and the chair.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for that presentation. It's certainly very interesting.

I come from a background involving contaminated sites and water quality, and I'm quite concerned with a couple of the points you made. You mentioned that in terms of civics your key findings were that federal plans to restore environmentally degraded sites are incomplete and unclear. Also, the government does not know if water Canadians drink and the Great Lakes basin in Ontario and Quebec meet the national guidelines we as a government helped develop. You're right to go on to say that Canada does not have nationally enforceable standards for drinking water.

The dilemma we face and where we could use some advice in both those situations, in contaminated or environmentally degraded sites and in drinking water, is that we don't have constitutional authority. The provinces basically have the authority to implement clean-up guidelines in cases of contaminated sites and drinking water, so constitutionally we're in a very difficult situation. I'd like to have your guidance on how we as parliamentarians can try to enact a process to deal with those two issues where we don't have constitutional jurisdiction.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: With regard to this area of concern, we have treaty obligations to deal with that. We have highlighted a couple of things that haven't been done but should be done in the future, and we have to say that nothing has been done so far for the last 15 years with respect to areas of concern and contaminated sites in Quebec.

On the other hand, as to drinking water, I was saying earlier that even if it's a provincial responsibility, we can certainly work with the provinces defining clearly what their and our roles are and give support to them. We can even enforce drinking water standards if the federal government wants to. So we have a couple of hooks where we can get involved more heavily with respect to those two things.

When we talk about areas of concern, what you will see in the report is that only one site out of 17 has been delisted. Unfortunately, there's a lot of work that needs to be done, and even now on the Quebec side we don't even have a plan to decontaminate a site. This is an area where a lot of work needs to be done, and the federal government has to work with the provinces and figure out who will do what and how fast we're going to do it.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Presently we have the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, where the federal Minister of the Environment meets with the provincial ministers to look at jurisdiction and the Constitution and to decide on actions. We make recommendations to the provinces, but to respect their authority we try to work with them through the CCME. We say to them that these are our standards as we see them, the Canadian drinking water guidelines in CEPA, for instance.

You said we can work with them, but we have no authority. We don't have any right to tell them what to do. That's a dilemma we face and is something that is a challenge for all of us as parliamentarians. If there were any other suggestions you had on how we could work with the provinces to make them implement stricter guidelines on water quality and contaminated sites, I'd be happy to hear them—very happy.

Mr. John Reed: I just want to comment on both aspects, because everything we looked at in this report has some element of shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. You're dead on in the sense that there's always going to be some overlap between the jurisdictions.

In the case of the areas of concern, though, this is something that is clearly within the federal purview. This is a direct fallout from an international treaty Canada signed on behalf of the country, knowing full well that it needed municipal, provincial, and other stakeholder support to get it done. So again, as the commissioner said, we're not saying the federal government has to do it all, but having signed an international treaty, it certainly has an obligation and has to have a program in place to make sure the job gets done.

• 1225

With respect to drinking water, we tried not to wade into whether this is a constitutional matter or not, but we did make a specific recommendation that talked about the need for Health Canada to at least work with the provinces and talk about whether there is a need for nationally enforceable legislation to see whether that's going to bring a greater level of consistency in the quality of water across the country.

If you're interested, you could look at the response from Health Canada. They in effect have agreed to at least promote that dialogue. So that might be an avenue where you could support those efforts.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Madame Kraft Sloan, followed by Madame Scherrer.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm referring to your very large document—and I'm going to enjoy delving into this in more detail. As a member of Parliament from the Great Lakes basin, I'm really pleased that you've done all this very fine work.

I'm looking at page 192 in the section on protecting and recovering species at risk. In paragraph 5.2.10, you refer to the Species at Risk Act, which is currently before the committee and we should be starting clause by clause fairly soon. You say:

The proposed legislation would also incorporate the National Accord provisions on developing recovery plans, making the plans mandatory.

This is a good thing

However, the legislation would not make their implementation mandatory.

As someone who has heard lots and lots of witnesses on this particular issue, I have always found it odd that while recovery plans are mandatory, their implementation is not, and I wonder how this will affect the recovery and protection of endangered species or species at risk.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I guess it's part of my job to make sure that the implementation will take place and follow up on the report here. What else can I add?

Would you like to add something?

Mr. John Reed: Implementation is always the challenge here. I'm not sure if the question is, what can be done within the context of the legislation? That probably isn't something on which I can be too specific. But I think the findings of our report basically say producing a plan is one part of a long process, and if you don't have some way of ensuring that specific accountabilities are assigned adequate resources, ongoing reporting of those results, measurement in the environment, if you don't finish that loop of implementation and put in some rigour around those aspects, you may end up with a lot of plans without a lot of implementation.

So there may well be opportunities within the legislation or within departmental programs to put a lot more rigour around the implementation chain of that loop. That's a comment you could make about just about any action plan, whether it's for species, water quality, agriculture, fisheries, and so on.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I'll go further to say that this is a little bit the story of the Great Lakes report—a lot of goodwill, a lot of commitment, a lot of policy that has been written, strategies, but very little implementation.

This is critical; this is key. We have to find a way to track and report on the progress, and if there is correction needed, we have to make sure the department will take that into account.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: As you pointed out, about half the recovery plans have been implemented. But I guess the start of putting rigour into the process is making sure that there is a mandatory requirement that plans be implemented. It only makes common sense.

But I have another question, with reference to something you said in your presentation. I don't think I'll get all my questions answered in this first round, so I'll have to ask you in the second round.

On page 5 of your presentation, you spoke about the changing role of the federal government, and its waning role as well. You said:

The government seems afraid to tackle the tough issues. It is not using the authorities and tools it has at its disposal. It relies, increasingly, on partnerships to meet its objectives.

• 1230

Earlier you said that if you enter into a partnership, that's one thing, but the federal government still has a responsibility to carry these things out. Could you add further clarification and explanation around the authorities and tools that the federal government could use a little more regularly, as opposed to just entering into partnerships?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I don't think it's my role to get into specific suggestions on what the federal government should do in some areas. Nevertheless, I can use two examples to show the parallel.

With respect to sewage treatment plants, the federal government decided to use a tool that was a financial incentive. On the other hand, when it came time a couple of years ago to deal with toxics, the federal government decided to go with a regulation. So they have different tools they can use, and depending on the tool, the outcomes, the impacts, may be quite different.

If we take another example, maybe the fishery one, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for fish habitat management. What we see is that even though they have that clear responsibility, DFO has done almost nothing with respect to that. So they don't need to have a mandatory mandate to do something; in this case they have it, and they haven't done anything. They have to specify their role and responsibilities, figure out what the priorities are, how they're going to get there, and act. You have a good example here. It's much more a management problem and also having the resources and all the tools to move ahead.

One of the things that is also missing is all the scientific information to make good decisions, which is a major, critical aspect that should be looked at.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I would just say very quickly, Mr. Chair, that “partnership” often sounds like delegation, devolution, and abdication of responsibility. Thank you.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We are saying in the report that the federal government has more facility to translate or to ask others to play its role than to do it itself.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan.

We have Madame Scherrer, Mr. Tonks, the chair, and then a quick second round.

[Translation]

Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Gélinas, first I would like to ask you about the wording of the report or about how it was constructed. Let's take if for granted that the concept of the environment is a horizontal one within the federal government and has a considerable impact on virtually all departments.

In the various documents, some information can be found in many different places. For example, when we look at the highlights of the commissioner's viewpoint we see that one of the problems—and you also mentioned this—is the fact that it's very difficult to obtain specific information from several departments or agencies on the strategic plan that they have implemented, on the way they've proceeded or on the results they obtained or progress that's been achieved.

I find your report quite harsh. When it was being drafted, did you rely solely on the information that you had at your disposal? If that is the case, you may have some information missing. It is also possible that if you did not have the information or relevant documents from each of the departments, you took it for granted that nothing had been done. Is it possible that in each of the departments, things have been done that you did not take into account in the conclusions of your various reports?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I don't think we should confuse the different reports. In the case of the report on the management of sustainable development, it's important to say that we did not audit the results. Up until now, we examined the processes, because three years ago, when we began to look at strategies, we did have to allow the departments enough time to go forward with their strategy, to implement measures and to quantify concrete results. We're not at that point yet. That's the next step that the commissioner will undertake.

• 1235

Moreover, the audit of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River focuses on results. Its contents are supported and verified. Unless we see evidence to the contrary, it contains no errors. That has also been verified by the departments. They provided their response. If there had been errors, they would have been corrected a long time ago. Therefore, these are two completely different approaches.

Thirdly, in the case of climate change, this is essentially a follow-up of the recommendations we'd made in 1998. We do not redo a complete audit in which we examine all aspects of climate change. We see whether the recommendations we made at the time have been followed up and to what extent progress has been made.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have a brief question about what Ms. Kraft Sloan said earlier regarding the role of the federal government and the fact that the government seems afraid to tackle the tough issues. Could I ask you to list those tough issues in order of priority? What are the problems that are recognized as being tough issues?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I won't list them in order of priority because it's not my role to do so, but you can take a look at the table of contents of the report on the Great Lakes. Still, I could cite a few.

There's the issue of agriculture. We state clearly that we're not in a position to say that agriculture in the basin is sustainable. We say that in the area of fisheries, we're not familiar with fish habitat. We don't know what the status of fish habitat is in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. That's very basic. We give the example of invasive species. That's a growing problem. We're not in a position to put a finger on the problem, to define it clearly and to act accordingly.

There are a number of priorities there. There is the question of water. Water is the source of all life. If in 2001 we have a water policy that is essentially a rehash of the 1987 policy, well, we have a problem on our hands and it's important to take a close look at it. The federal government has some responsibility for all those aspects.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: As Commissioner of the Environment, I think that at some point you could establish priorities.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The indications I've given you about what's at stake could not be any clearer, notably with regard to the Great Lakes Basin. The information currently at the disposal of the commissioner, Canadians at large and the federal government would not even enable us to list these issues in order of priority.

The data basis is deficient and we don't know where we are headed. We tell the federal government and the departments concerned to sit down, talk to one another and define priorities. It is the role of federal departments to define priorities, confirm them and go forward with an action plan. My mandate is to produce reports based on the information that I'm giving you. Afterwards, it's up to the departments and the federal government to make the decisions and to define priorities. It's not up to me to define them.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Scherrer.

[English]

Mr. Tonks. We're very happy to have you on our committee.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. I'm interested in following up on the points my colleagues made with respect to Kyoto and your analysis under climate change that the federal government will need to reduce emissions by 25%, and that in 1999 we were 15% above 1990 levels. That's quite a state of environmental desperation we are in, in terms of climate change.

You were asked whether there was a plan in place, with respect to Kyoto. Your answer was yes, but what gets measured gets done. You just indicated that the collection of data, in terms of its methodology and the availability of it, is not good.

• 1240

What role do you play, as the commissioner, in making sure that data is collected, analysed from the same methodological consistency, and then used as substance for your report?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: First of all, when you refer to data like 15% and an increase of 25%, these are not my numbers; they are the government's numbers.

When I talked about data availability, it was specifically with respect to the Great Lakes. So far, the information we went through shows us that we have a good scientific basis for climate change. So we're not in the same situation, with respect to climate change.

There's good data collection. There are a lot of measures that are available. Now the federal government has to figure out which measures will be put in place and how those measures will make us reach the target.

Mr. Alan Tonks: In terms of partnerships and a strategic plan—if it exists—I take it there is an allocation of responsibility in that plan back to provincial and municipal authorities. Is that correct?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Let's go first with the Kyoto agreement. This is an international agreement, so the federal government is responsible for reaching the commitment it made.

On the other hand, the federal government agreed a while ago that to achieve the target it will have to work with the provinces. But now it's up to the provinces to figure out how they want to reach their part of the target.

At this stage, we don't know what part of the pie the different provinces will have to deal with. Also, inside the provinces—or if you want to look at it on a national basis—we have to figure out which sectors will have to make a bigger effort than others. So far in our report we're seeing that the electricity sector and the transport sector are the ones that are producing the most important greenhouse gases.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Pursuant to that, I'm more interested in process and accountability and closing the loop. I'm trying to understand this, having come into it fairly cold. Do each of the provinces have a commissioner for sustainable development, or an entrenched and accountable entity that is charged with statutory powers similar to yours?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The answer is no, except for Ontario. Ontario has a commissioner of the environment, who in fact tabled his report yesterday. The commissioner of Ontario deals with provincial matters.

Nevertheless, in each of the provinces we have an Auditor General's office, and the Auditor General may, if he wishes, look at some environmental issues. He does something similar to what I do at the federal level. Beyond that, this is a very unique position. So far in the world I have a colleague in New Zealand, and I think that's it.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Would it not be appropriate under the circumstances, where there is a public report and a process, to change that and, through this report, close the accountability and make further recommendations? The recommendations could be something like: there should be similar statutory responsibilities in each jurisdiction; there should be part of a strategic plan; and that the Council of Ministers of the Environment should report to their legislatures, as we are reporting to the federal government.

Once you have the methodology, would that not be...or is that a political thing? I mean, I'm just asking the question out loud.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I'm not in a position to suggest those kinds of things.

Mr. Alan Tonks: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, that is very clearly described in the legislation that governs the duties and responsibilities of the commissioner. So what you're posing is a very important political question, no doubt.

• 1245

Madame Gélinas, in your very comprehensive report on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, you devote pages to the absence of a federal freshwater strategy. You indicate on page 139, in paragraph 3.7.15:

Throughout the 14-year life of the Federal Water Policy, the government has never formally identified its top priorities or decided how it would put them into effect in Canada's freshwater bodies. It has not reported any progress made since 1992 towards implementing its Federal Water Policy.

Can you give the committee an explanation as to why we are in this predicament?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There are probably two aspects to that question.

First of all, the departments are working in silos, so they are all doing pieces of things that relate sometimes to their sustainable development strategies and sometimes to their policies and programs within the department. But the problem here is that we don't have a clear vision of, first, what the federal government wants to accomplish in the basin and then get all the partners—and here I use “partners” with respect to the department—together and figure out, as Ms. Scherrer said, what the priorities are.

Moreover, I can tell you a little bit of the story with respect to policy. The federal government put that policy in place in 1987, and so far nothing has been done over the last 15 years to deal with that.

Two years ago the federal government decided to revisit the strategy, and essentially what they are giving us is a remake at some point of the 15-year-old strategy. With all the threats that face the basin, I really think we should completely revisit this policy and make sure that....

We have a policy here that doesn't have clear orientation, has no funding to implement it, and no clear roles and responsibilities. If we look at all the things we said earlier this morning, as long as we don't have clear roles and responsibilities, who will implement the water policy?

If I'm right—John, correct me—there's no lead minister to implement the policy, so once again it's like having a policy that falls into the cracks. We have bits and pieces of things that are done by different departments, which may affect the policy positively or negatively, but nothing has been done with respect to the policy itself.

The Chair: In your view, which department should take the lead in developing this new vision?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There shouldn't be one leader; there should be a group of departments, the ones that we clearly highlighted here as playing a major role. So Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, of course, Health Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should get together and get their act together and figure out what needs to be done and who will do what.

The environment is becoming too complex to just leave in the hands of Environment Canada. Environment Canada is dealing with a lot of things. When we get into agriculture or fisheries, the lead departments in those areas need to be at the table working together to figure out how we should move forward to protect the basin.

• 1250

The Chair: Thank you.

In another part of your report dealing with sustainable development and management systems, you have identified four departments as showing real progress, namely, Industry Canada, National Defence, Natural Resources, and Transport Canada.

In your opinion why are the other departments not giving good examples of real progress? I'm referring to page 6 of chapter 2 of your main points, and in particular points 2.1 and 2.4. You are referring to the fact that eight departments could not show us they have management systems. Is that because there is no clear directive coming from the level of the deputy minister?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I will present that to you the other way around. When we look at those who are doing well, we clearly identify that the senior managers are involved in the whole process. They haven't just done things once in a while, but they are involved as on an ongoing basis. They ask for results. They are following the process. They review what the departments are doing. So I suppose it's a major incentive for the bureaucrats to move ahead with some of the work that needs to be done.

If you look at figure 2.4, you will see there are different reasons why the departments are not moving as well as they should be. We can get into these details, but certainly senior manager involvement is a key element for moving ahead with the strategy.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Second round is Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Bigras and by Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Bob Mills: As we've discussed before, communication is so significant when it comes to the environment. It is something that the environment department and many others fail to do properly. I commend your report in that you want to promote more involvement by Canadians in the issues.

I would like to pick out a couple of areas regarding communication and involvement, particularly as it relates to the provinces. One of the biggest arguments for our climate change has been that we're going to use sinks. Yet if you ask the agricultural community or the forest community what that means, what might that cost us, who will absorb those costs, and so on, they haven't got a clue. It seems that we've failed bitterly in the communication of what that means. Yet internationally we've been pushing that point. That was part of Bonn and I'm sure will be part of Marrakesh and so on down the road.

Of course our government has also pushed strongly on developing the tar sands, where we will absorb huge amounts of environmental debt, if you will, while most of the benefits will go to the U.S. Since it is not a part of Kyoto, there's no possibility of credit changing. Yet the government has indicated that it will be doing that. But you can't do that with somebody that's not a member.

So, again, you come back to communication and a great deal of misunderstanding. How are we going to fix that so that the communication becomes clearer?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: One of the ways to communicate better is to gather the right information and then express it in such a way that people will understand in clear terms what needs to be done. I raised that issue in this year's report. We need better reporting to Parliament. This information will be used by Canadians and this is key.

With respect to climate change, we have a great deal of useful information and many programs that deal with communication. I don't know exactly what is going wrong if you are left with the impression that the federal government is not communicating as well as it should. However, if you look at the dollars that are devoted to public awareness and public information, significant effort is spent in this area. Once again, it is important to have good information in order to determine what is going on with respect to climate change in the various sectors—agriculture, industry, transportation, and so on.

• 1255

We will see what measures can be carried out at the local, provincial, and federal level. Then we can have a clear picture of what is going on and what can be done.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to the highly relevant questions asked by my colleague Savoy earlier regarding drinking water.

On page 98 of the English version of Chapter 1 of your report, at point number 3.1.23 on drinking water, you state clearly: “Drinking water is primarily a provincial responsibility.” You can't get any clearer than that.

A few minutes ago, you spoke to us about the need to work and dialogue with the provinces in order to reach clear objectives. However, and this is pretty basic to your recommendations, you want to see clarification of Health Canada's responsibilities in this matter. You have suggested that there be co-operation with the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Subcommittee on Drinking Water, and you wind up by very clearly saying that we need nationally enforceable standards for drinking water. I find that there is something of a paradox between your initial statement and one of your recommendations.

My question is therefore quite simple. Where do you think that the responsibility of Health Canada or of any other federal department starts and where does it end? That does not seem clear in your report, at first glance.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: That cannot be clear because it is up to the Department of Health and the various partners to define their roles and responsibilities. It is not my job to define the roles and responsibilities of the provincial and federal governments in an area such as drinking water. What I want to emphasize is that the roles and responsibilities are imprecise. So, let us begin by deciding who does what, and then we will be able to determine how to approach the water issue and divide up some of the responsibilities.

Health Canada has conducted a great deal of research in the past to establish standards and benchmarks for drinking water. Currently, it is the prerogative of the provinces to apply them or not. However, as the federal body responsible for health, there are some things that Health Canada could do, one of them being to verify the extent to which its guidelines are applied by the provinces and to report to Canadians on the quality of drinking water in Canada.

I myself do not see any paradox there. I am in no way saying that Health Canada or the federal government should interfere in provincial jurisdictions, but each has its role. Let us define it; let us complement each other. There are so many environmental issues that I am convinced of the need for complementary efforts on water matters, as well as on many other issues that we have spoken of here.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: But in your report, you plainly say that Health Canada should clearly state its responsibilities. Could you spell out for me the responsibilities of Health Canada regarding drinking water, in your opinion?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It is not my job to say what Health Canada's responsibilities may be. It is up to Health Canada to say what its responsibilities are, according to its statutory mandate, and to ensure that everyone has the same understanding, based on its mandate. As I mentioned earlier in connection with other aspects, this is a common theme running through the whole report, whether we are dealing with agriculture, fisheries, health or water management. What we have here is shared management responsibility and, in several respects, we do not know who does what because the roles have never been defined. When the time comes to report results, it turns out that no one is carrying the ball, no one is accountable for the results. Therefore, the first step, when dealing with water, as when dealing with fisheries or agriculture, is certainly to define the responsibilities, to reach agreement with the provinces and to ensure that all the players do their part to protect the environment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Mr. Comartin, followed possibly by Madam Redman, Madam Kraft Sloan, Madam Scherrer, Mr. Tonks, and the chair.

Mr. Comartin.

• 1300

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, are we stopping rigidly at one o'clock? My clock tells me it's one o'clock now. Or are we going on a bit?

The Chair: Lead the round.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

Madame Gélinas, Lake Erie—it's in my backyard—was at one point declared dying, and it's not very close to dead. It's been seen in the environmental community as one of the success stories, that we brought it back and it is fairly vibrant.

I've been getting reports—and I think yours confirms this—that in fact we're now going in the opposite direction with Lake Erie. It's beginning to deteriorate again. I think the classification was “mixed deteriorated” at this point. Can you tell us what that means? What is happening to the lake, and what needs to be done to reverse that trend?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: The major problem is phosphorus, but I cannot give you the details.

If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I will have John give the details on that.

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

As the commissioner said, phosphorus and nutrients were the original problems in Lake Erie. Back in the seventies, controls were put in place on detergents and obvious sources, and those had effect.

One of the big sources of phosphorus now is the growing non-point pollution from the agriculture sector.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is it from fertilizers or from the manure?

Mr. John Reed: It's from both, really. A lot of different stuff is being put on the land, and it's all making its way into the drainage basin and into Lake Erie. All of these things have an effect.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do we know how bad the situation is now, in Lake Erie specifically?

Mr. John Reed: In a qualitative way they say it's deteriorating. I'm not sure how to answer the question about how bad it is. One of the things we point out in the chapter is that they have a tool they could be using called “lake-wide plans” that are there not just to focus on the lake itself, but to back up and look at the surrounding land, and categorize all of the major sources of pollutants, and figure out which one should be dealt with first. As we say in the chapter, that process itself is behind schedule.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, because Madame Gélinas, I've just been informed, has a press briefing at 1:30, perhaps we could make a quick conclusion, with one brief question each.

Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Commissioner, one of the highlights of your report is the lack of petitioning by Canadians. I wonder if we could take this opportunity to highlight that process, if it hasn't already happened, so that people watching know how they can have their concerns responded to.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Absolutely. And if I may add to one of the points you raised earlier about the big report, we also have a video, giving the essentials of what this report is all about that, that can be made available.

I'm quite happy to table a chapter that describes a kind of user-friendly approach to the petition process. As I said the first time I came here, petition is probably the wrong word. We are essentially thinking of sending a letter to the commissioner on any concern, preoccupation, or question that any Canadian would like to raise with respect to how the federal government is doing with different environmental and sustainable development issues. I urge Canadians to use that very useful and simple tool to get a response from departments within 120 days.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Is there a web access? Or how would they get the information about where to write to reach you?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: We have a web access. Unfortunately, at this moment we are not able to give all the information on petitions that we were expecting to give, but very shortly all the information on petitions we receive will be available on the web. At the moment, people can at least access information on how to present a petition to the commissioner. Yes, it is available on the web.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Could you give us that website?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: It's www.oag-bvg.gc.ca.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you very much.

• 1305

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to follow up on some questions regarding gaps in science. I think it's absolutely crucial that we have well-funded, independent, public-interest-based science to make good public policy decisions.

One of the things I had noted in your section on scientific research and monitoring, etc., is that not enough information is collected for the public and the government to know whether the state of the basin is getting better or worse overall.

At one time, Environment Canada used to put out a fabulous document called the State of the Environment Report. Unfortunately, they're not able to do that any more. I think it would be incredibly useful to initiate or re-initiate that program, because it seems to me some of the things you're talking about in this section could be addressed if there were a continual update of the State of the Environment Report. I'm wondering if you could comment.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: With respect to the Great Lakes report, let me highlight the scientific information that is missing, just to give you a sense of how bad it is.

We're missing information on species and on species at risk. We're missing information on fish habitat. We're missing disparate information on ground water, on soils, on water quality, and on invasive species. We have bits and pieces of information, but nothing, in most cases, upon which to base a good, informed decision.

We really have to get a way to gather all the information, and I know there is a process in place. There's a special committee in the federal government figuring out how we can upgrade the quality of the data information. But for me, not to have the basic information to take informed decisions is really a drama, and this is part of our key findings concerning the Great Lakes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I suggest that it's not just the Great Lakes basin, that there are other regions in Canada suffering from a similar problem, particularly in the north. I do a lot of work with the Arctic parliamentarians, and it's my understanding that a lot of the very fine Arctic science done a number of years ago is science that not only Canada, but the rest of the world, is still relying on, and we need some real updates in that area. So it's not just about the Great Lakes basin, but about other parts of Canada as well that we need this information. Is that correct?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: You're absolutely right. If we talk about ground water information, we know there is no information at all available. It's not specific to the Great Lakes. This is why we were saying at the beginning of this presentation that you have to look at the Great Lakes report beyond the geographical area we are dealing with, because there are many national issues we need to deal with.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Very quickly, and again in terms of the process and the accountability, where there is an international treaty or an agreement signed with our provinces—for example, the CEPA agreement, that talks about alternative sources of fuels—do you see it as within your methodology to interconnect the commitments that were made and the impact they are or are not having on the stated objectives of the agreement? Do you see that as within your methodology?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If it's an international agreement or an agreement that the federal government is part of, yes, we can go there.

Mr. Alan Tonks: So that obviously includes provincial agreements.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Yes, if the federal government is part of it, as in the case of the Great Lakes, where we have a Canada-Ontario agreement.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. Specifically, my colleague Mr. Reed indicated respecting the renewable resources component of the CEPA agreement that we have not had an opportunity to peruse that whole report. Is that in this report then?

A voice: No, we don't have it.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: One thing we never did in the past, but we can consider it in the future, with respect to some shared issues, is to work with our counterparts in the provinces to look at an issue overall, from the federal side and also from the provincial side. But we have to work with our AG colleagues to be able to do that.

• 1310

Mr. Alan Tonks: I think that's very important, because what gets measured gets done, as you say.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: That's what I believe too.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

I have a very brief question on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We have a business plan, a federal action plan, and an implementation strategy. We would like to understand how they fit together. In addition to that, we would like to know what remains to be done, in your opinion, before Canada can ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Maybe you can go first, with the link between the three, and I'll finish.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: Yes, I'd be happy to.

Of those three things, you talked about the national implementation strategy, the national business plan, and the federal government's Action Plan 2000. The national implementation strategy is at the highest level here. It's a strategy that covers all of the country. Part of that implementation strategy was the development of a first national business plan, which is the second element. The third element, which is Action Plan 2000, is the federal government's contribution to that national business plan.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: So what needs to be done? I would say, first of all, act rapidly. Move into action as soon as possible. There are some measures that can be implemented, because we know most of the reduction will occur in Canada and not abroad.

We also have to figure out who will do what, who will be responsible for what. We have to share the pie and figure out the provincial role and the federal role with respect to reducing emissions. We need that to move ahead with implementing the measures. This is a critical part.

Considering the information that I got with respect to what will be done abroad, a small portion of that will be considered, so we don't have to wait for ratification to move ahead in Canada in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A lot of other countries have already moved ahead and implemented the measures.

So I think the bottom line, the conclusion, is to start implementing measures as soon as you can, because time is running against us.

The Chair: Conversely, in order to ratify, does Canada have to reach a certain plateau of implementation, or is that not required?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Sorry, I don't understand your question.

The Chair: What is required from Canada in order to ratify?

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Neil, go ahead.

Mr. Neil Maxwell: The question of how much implementation should happen before you ratify is certainly one of the central issues here. I think most people would argue that to ratify the agreement you want to make certain that you can meet the commitments you're making. Certainly that's one of the basic principles we use when we approach any of these areas, including climate change.

The Chair: So is that under discussion at the present time? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Neil Maxwell: As the commissioner had noted, there are certainly some key areas. We talked about a number of these in our report that remain to be done. As the commissioner said, probably the toughest nut to crack is the question of burden sharing. How will that full Kyoto target be split among the various parties within Canada?

It is hoped the federal government's Action Plan 2000 will take us one-third of the way to Kyoto. As the commissioner mentioned, we have some concerns about that plan, particularly the absence of targets for individual measures of the sort that would give you confidence that the plan can in fact take us a third of the way to Kyoto.

The Chair: That was very helpful. That ends our round of questions.

• 1315

Madame Commissioner, we congratulate you and your staff, your department, your collaborators for the very fine report and the good work you're doing. On behalf of Parliament, we thank you and look forward to having another meeting with you soon. We wish you well in your difficult enterprise.

Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.