[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 7, 1996
.0834 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
We're starting today's work in the company of the Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Mr. Tony Clarke.
[English]
Would you like to introduce your officials, Mr. Clarke? Welcome to the committee.
Mr. Tony Clarke (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two director generals with me today. Jennifer Moore is the acting director general of regulatory affairs and program integration, working largely in the socio-economic aspects of regulations and also working with the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation. Until yesterday David Egar was the director general for the national programs directorate, which deals with emergencies, enforcement and assessment. He has moved on now to the air portfolio and their pollution prevention directorate to deal with climate change and all those other nasties. These are the two people who will help me today, Mr. Chairman, if I am unable to answer some of the questions you will ask.
.0835
The Chairman: And the other people in the room are also from the department?
Mr. Clarke: I have a number of people back there covering most things. They're interested in hearing what I'm going to say, sir, and what you're going to ask.
The Chairman: Do you have a statement?
Mr. Clarke: I don't have a written statement, but just let me position the environmental protection service vis-à-vis other services and programs within the Department of the Environment.
I think you've already met with Bob Slater and the conservation group and also withGordon McBean and the atmospheric group.
Environmental protection deals largely with such interesting subjects as MMT and PCBs, climate change and air toxics. We work with the Canadian environmental industries to help them in technology development and diffusion into the broader environment, both home and abroad.
We are the enforcement arm of Environment Canada. I shouldn't say we respond as much as we used to in the past, but we certainly work with a variety of partners out there in preparing for emergency response. Largely we come into play in terms of atmospheric change, toxics, enforcement, emergencies, technologies and know-how. That sets the context of us versus conservation and the atmospheric people, but I should say we all work together very closely as a team.
The people who work in EPS represent a wide range of disciplines. They're chemists, technologists, engineers and economists. Most of them look at their pay slips every two weeks and see that they're supposed to work 37.5 hours a week. I think many of them are working fifty to sixty hours a week. I guess that's just symptomatic of the times we're in. We're doing a lot more with a lot less.
We can be proud of the results we are attempting to deliver. We may have fallen short here and there, but in the main, if you ask us about whether we are producing, I think we'll be able to say yes.
Those are my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. We're open for questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
[Translation]
Do you want to go first, Mr. Asselin?
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Yes, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are for Mr. Clarke. On page 17 of the 1996-1997 Estimates part III, under Environment Canada, it says that the programs will undergo a cut of over 30% representing a decrease of $230 million in Environment Canada's program for the coming year. There is also provision for staff reductions of about 1,400 employees and the elimination of certain key programs.
I'd like you to tell me which are the key programs that are going to be cut, which of the programs whose funding will be maintained at their present level and which will enjoy increased funding. My greatest concern is still those key programs slated for elimination.
[English]
Mr. Clarke: You've referred to the $230 million that will be cut. That is from Environment Canada's total budget, not just the environmental protection program. In the entire department, 1,400 PYs will be eliminated.
Some programs that have been eliminated include the contaminated sites program and the PCB program. Those are the two major ones in my area, anyway, that have been eliminated. Certain other programs have been deemed to be priorities and have not been cut, such as enforcement. I'm not aware of any program that's getting more money. Every program has been cut back in relative terms, except for enforcement.
.0840
Those are the things that spring to mind right now in terms of cuts and eliminations.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Clarke, I'd like to put a second question to you. You mentioned the decontamination of sites contaminated by BPCs, amongst others. In his 1995 May report to the House of Commons, Canada's Auditor General criticized for the federal government concerning the decontamination of polluted sites in Canada.
More particularly, the Auditor General emphasized that Environment Canada had not made a complete inventory of contaminated sites in the country nor of those for which the federal government is responsible. No national action plan was put forth to decontaminate those polluted sites that are still a risk for health and the environment. In his opinion, taking into account only those polluted sites under federal control, their decontamination will already cost over $2 billion.
How can the federal government both eliminate its funding for decontamination of polluted sites and the destruction of PCBs while stating its formal intent to put more money into decreasing the risk the environment presents for human health?
Mr. Clarke, you'll understand that the election campaign is over. That sort of rumour might circulate during an election campaign to lead the people to believe that the government, if it is elected, will respect its commitments. Our prime minister gives evidence of this every day in the House of Commons especially during question period; raising his Red Book high, he says that the government will respect its commitments.
Here, we have the action plan of Environment Canada drawn up by the past Minister of the Environment, Ms Copps, where we have schedules that were established after the government was elected. Amongst other things, it says: "Completion, for March 1996, of the national program on contaminated sites. Results: elimination of all PCBs stored in federal sites and remediation of high risk contaminated sites". This is the beginning of May and those forecasts were made for March 1996.
There are many other dates. During the second round, we will have the opportunity to put further questions on the environment program.
Mr. Clarke, I have a very simple question. How can the government say it is concerned about the state of the environment and the health of the population while laying off so many staff responsible for the supervision and monitoring of the environment and slashing budgets so deeply? In my opinion, it's neither consistent nor responsible.
[English]
Mr. Clarke: Thank you. The contaminated sites program was a five-year, $250-million program. It was always a joint federal-provincial program, a cooperative program, because the responsibility lies in both jurisdictions to clean up the sites. It was not solely a federal responsibility. The $250-million program was meant to lever and to work with the provinces to go to a $500-million program over five years to deal with the highest-risk sites. That was done through agreements with the provinces.
.0845
We could not have put together a national inventory on our own. We had to have the cooperation of the provinces. I'm not here to place any blame on anyone. I just simply wanted to say that putting together a national inventory -
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): You may certainly lay blame on the provinces if you wish.
Mr. Clarke: No. I was just saying that putting together a national inventory was a little bit harder than we had anticipated.
With the federal-provincial agreements, many of the provinces did not sign until the final year of the agreement, so it was very difficult to get at some of the high-risk sites in some of the provinces.
It was not meant to be the be-all and end-all for all contaminated sites in Canada. The federal government was showing some leadership in attempting to try to get on top of this particular problem.
There was $50 million there for technology development, and I think that worked extremely well. Yes, we believe there's possibly about a $2-billion liability out there in terms of contaminated sites.
Right now, let's just say that within the federal government, we're working better than ever before with the Department of National Defence and other departments that have these sites. There's an ongoing planning committee. We are identifying all of the federal sites that need to be cleaned up.
We've cleaned up quite a few of them in the last five years. We've cleaned up 34 sites. We've assessed another 11 sites. In fact, it's better than that. We actually assessed 325 federal sites, and18 federal sites were cleaned up.
All of that is to say that the statement you quoted in the action plan was probably taken a little bit out of context. Maybe it should have been a bit clearer than it was stated. It talked about the national contaminated sites remediation program being completed by March 1996.
What I really meant to say was that we had identified about 30 or 40 key sites in Canada, and we're devoted to cleaning those up, but not the hundreds of sites across the country.
The other result is that all federal PCBs in storage will be destroyed by the end of this year. I'd like to think that perhaps we are on target in that regard. I have some numbers to that effect somewhere here. I think that by the end of this year, all of the PCBs in storage at federal sites will be incinerated. The Department of Public Works and Government Services has a contract, and we're sending just about everything to Swan Hills. So by the end of this year, I think we'll have that particular result.
The Chairman: What Mr. Asselin is saying in essence is that the action plan - let me put it carefully here - leads the reader to conclusions that are inaccurate in a number of boxes by way of the language that is used. It creates the impression that the results have been achieved, rather than the results being a target. I'm referring to the English text of that action plan. You could find at least six or seven of those boxes in which you would really wonder about the way it was prepared. You will understand why Mr. Asselin is asking these questions. Go ahead please.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Clarke, the ex Minister of Environment, Ms Copps, made the commitment to eliminate them before the end of March 1996. You have just told us they will be completely eliminated before the end of the year. Are you prepared to resign as Assistant Deputy Minister if this has not been settle by the end of the year?
[English]
Mr. Clarke: I would point out to the honourable member that this was Ms Copps' action plan.I must admit that sometimes things get lost in the shorthand when you try to put something down in four or five words.
In any event, you're all aware of the fact that in trying to find sites for the destruction of PCBs, it was a very difficult task. We weren't able to find any sites, except for Goose Bay. We did destroy 3,000 tonnes of PCB wastes at Goose Bay, but just about every other attempt to find a site to get rid of PCBs failed. We spent millions of dollars. No one seemed to want these things in their backyard. Until Alberta opened up the border, I think about a year ago, we simply had no place to go.
.0850
Now that the border is open and now that Eco Logic has another process, I think we have the capacity and the capability to get rid of our PCBs. The whole process is now in motion and moving very quickly. We also have Cintec in Quebec. Of course, as you all know, the United States has opened up the border. We haven't done so as yet. That issue is still under debate with the minister and the cabinet.
The Chairman: Merci, Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Forseth, would you like to follow?
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you.
The estimates state, I think on page 41, that operationalization of the amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act is expected by December 1996. Can you tell us whether the anticipated date for the implementation of the amended CEPA can be met, or is it even realistic at this point? Can it be operationalized within the current budget projections and the time limits, or will there be special overrun requests?
Mr. Clarke: I'll answer your question very quickly and then I'll amplify. We do not believe CEPA can be promulgated by December 1996. We expect to go for cabinet direction vis-à-vis drafting of the bill by midsummer. We expect to be able to table the bill in the House early next fall. No doubt this particular committee will get involved in terms of examination of the bill, but I suspect that will take somewhat longer than three months. I presume we're now looking at perhaps the spring of 1997.
In terms of operationalizing CEPA, we have done a number of analyses as to the potential costs. We seem to be zeroing in somewhere between $5 million and $6 million. It's extremely clear that if the new CEPA places the increased responsibilities upon us that are expected and if the costs are in the vicinity of $5 million to $6 million, then Environment Canada will have to cut something else in order to make that happen. There are no more funds at the centre; funds have dried up at the centre.
Mr. Forseth: All right, we'll leave that one for now.
The estimates state, I think on page 42, that a computerized tracking system for transboundary movements of hazardous wastes was to have been implemented by March 1996 and that a national inventory and profile will be produced in 1996-97, covering wastes and facilities.
I have three points. Can you tell us whether this tracking system is in place as scheduled? Is the development of this national inventory and profile on schedule? Can you tell us about the general progress towards the national goal to achieve a 50% reduction in hazardous wastes requiring disposal by the year 2000? Also, can you discuss the operations of the industry-led hazardous waste minimization committee?
Mr. Clarke: The tracking system is in place. In fact it's being tested right now. The national inventory is on schedule, to the best of my knowledge.
In terms of the status of the reduction of 50% of hazardous wastes by the year 2000, that was hooked in with the hazardous wastes committee you referred to. That was a committee of industry and the federal government and some provincial governments. It was primarily a voluntary initiative. I'm sorry to say that this committee was not terribly successful in being able to galvanize industry to be able to report on the amount of hazardous wastes that were being generated. We've had a bit of a problem with establishing a base line. In any event, Environment Canada is now looking at the national pollution release inventory to see what can be done in that regard.
.0855
In short, I cannot tell you that the 50% reduction objective will be accomplished by the year 2000, but we're working on it.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you very much.
A lot of Canadians have been hearing in the press, especially lately, a lot about problems with air pollution. I have two questions for you. First, there is a Health Canada study on air pollution effects. Was the focus of that study metropolitan Toronto or did it look at other urban areas? How does a study like this affect the operation of Environment Canada? What are the triggers in Environment Canada? Do you start to do something about it or prepare a strategy to deal with it? How does that operate? What is your relationship with Health Canada in this regard? Can we get a copy of this study?
My other question has to do with the Canada-U.S. regional ozone management plan. I am wondering if you could just give us an overview of that.
Mr. Clarke: The Health Canada study was done largely with respect to vehicles in urban areas. It was done across Canada. They looked at a number of cities, not just Toronto. I think Edmonton was included. I'd have to double-check it, but I think there was at least half a dozen cities. I could be wrong, though.
The study has been going on for about 15 years. It has to do with hospital admissions, particularly during smog periods. They have extremely good data. The study showed very clearly that the costs were somewhere between $11 billion and $30 billion. I'm sorry, I'm getting a bit mixed up here. Let me start all over again.
You asked about the Health Canada study that you've been reading about in the papers. They have done studies over the last 15 years in terms of hospital admissions. They have been able to show that as smog increases in the summer months, hospital admissions rise, so costs to the health care system go up. They've been able to make a very, very good correlation between smog and hospital admissions.
That study is available, and in fact it might be an interesting presentation if the expert from Health Canada were to come here to make that presentation, because it is full of interesting information.
We work very, very closely with Health Canada when it comes to things such as air quality and air quality objectives. Ground level ozone, in particular, is something we're looking at right now. There is an ongoing federal and provincial study, which includes Health Canada. We're looking at the current ozone standard in Canada. The objective we have is 82 parts per billion.
The studies that have been done show very, very clearly that 82 parts per billion, the one-hour maximum, is probably too high and has to go lower. The Americans are at 120, and they are looking at their standard too.
Through the national committee, which is looking at air issues, we would expect a recommendation, certainly early next year if not later this year, that the ground level ozone standard in Canada be reduced. I can't tell you what the number will be, and I wouldn't want to speculate, but we suspect there will be a recommendation to take it down from 82 to something lower.
.0900
Actually, the health studies show that you can go down to zero ozone and you can still find an effect. But there is a threshold concentration. There is no safe level, but policy-makers are going to have to make a management decision. Now, that's not going to be easy, because if you draw a line at 40 or 50 or whatever, that means those people who are the most sensitive aren't going to be looked after. So that's going to be a challenging task.
The other challenging task, of course, is that a lot of our ground level ozone smog, particularly in this area, the whole southern Ontario corridor, is imported from the U.S. The whole attempt at trying to engage their markings on this regional ozone study was to try to integrate the efforts between the U.S. and Canada, because it doesn't make sense to work at these two things in different ways. We are the receptors; they send the stuff into the air. That study is moving along quite well, and some day we hope that the study area can become a management area that would have implications for transboundary management in the regional lay of sheds in terms of transboundary sheds.
These are areas we did not deal with in the past. We have tended to deal with our own problems. We have gone down to the United States to try to push them into dealing with their problems, so that we can improve our situation up here. Now we're talking of moving together in a transboundary way, so some new ground is opening up.
That study is moving along extremely well. The study has in fact been enlarged to include the37 states east of the Mississippi, and we are part and parcel of the discussions that are going on down there. I would hope that sometime in the foreseeable future all eastern North America could be managed in a rational way to get at the ground level and smog issue.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Inhalable particulates is a problem that seems to have had more recent focus. I'm just wondering why this problem wasn't studied in the past and what we might be doing about it federally.
Mr. Clarke: Inhalable particulates are on the radar screen now to the extent they have never been before. I'm not quite sure why it was not studied that much in the past. I think there have been studies, but I think that there has been a growing awareness that this poses a serious problem.
I think Health Canada studies in this area are probably a leading edge. Once again, they have done some excellent work. You should know that under the national air issues coordinating mechanism, which is a federal-provincial mechanism that I referred to earlier, we are currently looking at some sort of a Canadian standard for these particulates - very small particulates, usually less than ten microns, down to two and a half microns. So we're looking at the possibility of a national standard, again within the next year or two years, and strategies to reduce this particular pollutant.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Given your position with the NAFTA centre in Montreal, I'm wondering how air pollution as an issue is studied or looked at or how we are trying to work towards the reduction of these issues in the three countries. You were just talking about the hope that we would have an air management strategy for eastern Canada and eastern United States, so I'm wondering how Mexico fits in with this as well.
Mr. Clarke: We're moving more cautiously in that area. We're trying to look at standard methodologies for the measurement of air pollutants. That's a problem. We all measure things differently. The first thing I think we have to do is to ensure that the science and certainly the facts are all the same - we're talking apples and apples and not apples and oranges. So we're looking at methodologies and we're looking at monitoring and we're setting up programs to achieve those objectives.
.0905
We're also looking at long-range transport of certain types of pollutants. You may be aware, for example, that DDT being used in southern Mexico does find its way into the Great Lakes system and into the Arctic. We are currently working with the Mexicans and the Americans to develop regional action plans, which we hope to have by the end of this year. The regional action plans are on four substances: PCBs - and PCBs do move through the atmosphere - DDT, chlordane, and mercury. Mercury moves through the atmosphere too.
We are looking at air pollution in terms of methodology, science, and data collection. We're also beginning to target specific things.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In light of the budget cuts with Environment Canada, now that we're suddenly talking about all these air pollution problems and the accompanying health costs, etc., are we raising levels of expectation in the public that we're going to be able to effectively deal with them? My concern always is around our capacity to continue to do the excellent science we've been able to do in the department.
Although some of these studies you've mentioned have been conducted by Health Canada, my concern is that we will still be able to do the scientific research that is so important. Once we get into dealing with these problems there are issues of compliance and enforcement. Are we raising expectations in the Canadian public that we can't meet?
Mr. Clarke: I hope not. Let me just say that both Health Canada and ourselves have gone through a rather exhaustive assessment of priorities. We actually have a joint management plan with Health Canada on the whole question of toxic substances. We got together and we planned to ensure that their priorities are our priorities and vice versa.
I think the science is reasonably safeguarded in terms of the expenditures that need to be spent to make sure that the science is there.
At the federal level we work a lot with our provincial colleagues in determining where, once we have the science, we go in terms of the policy response. We get into multi-stakeholder consultations. We talk with the Americans, we talk with our international colleagues, and so on and so forth. I think although we're stretched, we can deal with a policy of response.
The action in most of these areas rests at the provincial level. We do not have the levers at the federal level to make these things happen - not always anyway, although we have some.
In summary, although the budget cuts are stressful, I think we've chosen the priorities carefully. Clean air is a priority, and I think we can deliver. I would expect that by the end of next year we will have new national standards for ground level ozone and particulates.
I would expect that in the next couple of years we'll have regional smog management plans with Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and B.C. We're already setting the stage in terms of the U.S. through the regional ozone studies, the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Accord. We're placing them on notice that when the Clean Air Act comes up again in 1999, we're going to be pushing very hard to ensure that they understand they're polluting us and that certain things are going to have to be done. I'm hoping we do not unduly raise public expectations that we can't deliver on.
The Chairman: Thank you.
On a second round, Mr. Adams, followed by Mr. Knutson, followed by the chair.
Mr. Adams: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clarke, Mr. Forseth has asked you about the tracking system for transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. When I first read that part of our notes, I thought it meant all waste, but it obviously doesn't. It means waste that is industrial garbage, that kind of thing. I guess what happens is we track what's coming in and what's going out and net it out to see what's left.
.0910
The other waste comes in the atmospheric way, through transboundary transport of pollutants by the atmosphere. I wonder if you could give us some idea of how we monitor that, how we net out what's coming in and what's going out, and what sort of progress we're making in that regard.
Mr. Clarke: I'm not sure I can give you the definitive answer for this one.
We do have a monitoring network, both urban and rural. We do track high-priority pollutants. For example, we have good estimates of what's coming into the Great Lakes system from long-range transport of air pollutants like metals and various contaminants and organic pollutants and so on.
We do have a reasonably good sense of what's going into the Arctic too. What's not always clear is where it's coming from. It could be coming from as far away as Asia. It could be coming from closer to us, from Mexico, for example, or from the U.S.
In terms of the positioning of toxics and other pollutants in Canadian territory, the data is getting better. But in terms of what we're sending out...I'm not quite sure. I might have to take that under advisement and go back to see what we have. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what the net is. I'll have to take that under advisement and get back to you.
Mr. Adams: Has the program review had an effect on NAPS, the National Air Pollution Surveillance Network?
Mr. Clarke: Yes. We've had to rationalize NAPS. This is a federal-provincial system whereby we monitor air pollution. It's been ongoing for as long as Environment Canada has been in place. It is under stress. We've had to rationalize numbers of stations and we've had to move the measurements away from some of the old traditional things. We used to measure a lot of sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate carbon monoxide. These days no one talks much about those things. We're looking at other things, at benzene and things like that.
So the nature of the NAPS program is changing in terms of the pollutants it's measuring, and the numbers are shrinking. We're trying to ensure, though, that the priority areas, particularly in the cities, are being monitored.
Mr. Adams: In your service do you use a lot of initials and acronyms? I really wonder about that, and I thought I'd try to test our translators here.
So with respect to POPs, how are we measuring up to our agreements under the UNECE LRTAP convention?
Mr. Clarke: UNECE?
Mr. Adams: In a general sense, I see what we were just discussing as being driven by the conventions that we've made abroad. And as I understand it, the long-range transport of airborne pollutants convention of the UN Economic Commission for Europe is one of those.
Mr. Clarke: We have a good monitoring system that in fact includes the levels of PCBs in the Inuit in the north and the levels of DDE in whales and seals and so on. It also measures the concentrations of these substances in wild foods, for example. Because we have a good system, we recognized that there was a serious problem with persistent organic pollutants in Canada.
For some reason, I'm not quite sure why - I think the ES people can explain it a lot better - the stuff seems to drift up towards the poles, and then precipitates out into the land and water. Then it's taken up by the biota and is concentrated up the food chain. As a consequence of that, we pushed very hard to try to get a POPs protocol started in the UNECE, and right now in Vienna we are actually negotiating that. There are working groups in Geneva this week that are looking at POPs and heavy metals. We expect these protocols to be delivered by next fall.
.0915
Mr. Adams: It's a bit selfish to talk about netting out, because you're sort of looking for a clean environment for yourself. If we have a cleaner environment but it's all gone somewhere else, it is very selfish.
So we've mentioned garbage coming and going, and then we've mentioned the atmosphere. When we did CEPA, there was a lot of discussion about newly created substances. Would you care to comment on the principle of producer-importer responsibility for new substances introduced into Canada? As I understand it, it's a bit different, because it's a new substance that has been deliberately or accidentally created that proves useful so people start importing and exporting it. It's on page 68 of the estimates.
Mr. Clarke: There's a new substances notification regulation on the CEPA. Basically, it says that you can't introduce anything into commerce in Canada unless you provide certain types of information so that we can assess it as to its impact on the environment, whether it's toxic or not.
There are certain minimum data sets that have to be provided, and in fact we're quite busy. In the last year or two I think we've looked at hundreds, if not thousands, of new substances people are trying to bring into the country. We have shifted the onus back onto the producer. The producer must provide the information to prove that the substance will not be detrimental to the Canadian environment. I think that's working quite well.
I think people understand that things out there that are persistent bioaccumulating toxics are just not going to be allowed into this country. As a consequence, I've been told that of all the substances we've looked at in recent times, only three of them have been ``refused'', if I can put it that way.I think the message is out there. People are not putting in substances they know are ``heinous'', as we call them. They know they aren't going to get past the environmental security screen, so the things being introduced appear to be a lot more friendly in terms of the environment.
The producer-user principle that's been espoused by the standing committee and in CEPA appears to be working quite well, at least with respect to new substances.
Mr. Adams: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson is next, followed by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm a new member to the committee, so you'll have to excuse me if these questions seem a bit introductory.
On the issue of evolving national standards for ground-level ozone, is the enforcement mechanism federal or provincial?
Mr. Clarke: The science is the best science we can do in this country or that we can find anywhere else in the world, and it's done largely by Health Canada and Environment Canada. In Canada that usually translates into an air-quality objective. It's loosely known as a national standard, but it is the national standard, if I can put it that way. It still is an objective and it isn't put into law as it is in the United States, for example. We do things slightly differently around here. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's the different way we do business.
Mr. Knutson: Is that a major difference?
Mr. Clarke: It's a major difference.
It's not legally enforceable by law. Nevertheless, because it's being worked on federally and provincially and there is consensus, there is an expectation that the governments that have worked on such an objective and standard will take it seriously and will ensure programs are put into place to meet that standard.
Mr. Knutson: For my own education, then, take me through what's likely to happen if we set this national standard and there's a rough consensus on it. Presumably we would agree that given the commercial imperative of businesses, they don't react unless they're forced to. How do we make them comply? Or is it just that the automobile companies say they'll bring in the same standards of pollution control as they have in California because it's easier to make cars that comply with other jurisdictions anyway? I guess I'm asking if the standards make a difference and if...
.0920
Mr. Clarke: We have authority at both levels of government. Where we have authority at the federal level, we use it. For example, with automobiles, we can pass national standards in regulation for vehicle technology. We can pass national standards in regulations for fuels. We are doing one right now for benzine. We're doing one right now for low-sulphur diesel. Transport Canada is currently writing standards for higher-technology vehicles.
So where we have federal authorities and where it makes good sense to have national standards we use them, as with automobiles, which are a North American product, and as with fuels, which again are right across the country. There are shades of variation here and there, depending whether you're in the middle of Saskatchewan in the middle of winter or not.
There are other authorities at the provincial level, though. It's a mix. So when we agree on a national standard or a national objective, the feds and the provinces get together and they devise an action plan. Everybody's responsible for a piece of that plan. Sometimes there's good political adherence to that plan. B.C. is pretty good that way, if I can give an example. Others are not all that good. They make plans but they don't quite... So we just keep pushing, using moral suasion, if I can put it that way.
Mr. Knutson: Do the standard and the plan come out coincidentally?
Mr. Clarke: No. We do a socio-economic analysis of what the standard means to industry, to the economy. We have to do that. We can't shut down North America, if I can put it that bluntly. We have an understanding of whether the standard is economically feasible or not and what it means, and then the plans normally follow from that.
Mr. Knutson: Fair enough.
I'll take you on another line of questioning. You mentioned you work quite closely with Health Canada. I'd like to know whether you work closely with the finance department, reviewing issues such as subsidies to businesses and our taxation policies and their implications for environmental practices. Again, I'm new, but I imagine the main industry culprit here would be the oil and gas industry. In other words, are we promoting oil and gas industry through our taxation policies, with a negative effect on our environmental well-being? Is that an issue for Environment Canada?
Mr. Clarke: It is an issue for Environment Canada. We do work with the finance department. We have been pressing them in recent years to look at a more environmentally friendly tax regime.
Mr. Knutson: Is that public or behind closed doors?
Mr. Clarke: It's largely within the federal community. We don't -
Mr. Knutson: Am I part of that? Do I know what you're doing?
Mr. Clarke: It's not secret. We can tell you. It's just that we don't go out there and necessarily create a constituency to go pound on the doors of Finance. As a bureaucrat around town I might not be appreciated if I did that, to be blunt.
Mr. Knutson: But you're also saying you can tell me if I ask you?
Mr. Clarke: Absolutely, and we have a lot of reports that have been made. We have a lot of information on the files open under access to public information.
We do press Finance. Our success in pressing on Finance has had mixed results. It's at the low end of the spectrum, although things are changing slowly. Mr. Martin has introduced certain things in the budget. Let's just say the playing field for oil and gas and renewable energies appears to be getting a little more level. The subsidies and grants are disappearing. That's success. It will take time, of course, to create the totally mythical level playing field, but I think it's coming.
The answer to your question is we work closely and we're trying very hard.
The Chairman: You may want to be totally frank here and say that if the subsidies and grants are being reduced and disappearing, the question is whether it's because of a regime of cuts or because of a change in attitude to the environmental issues. I wouldn't want Mr. Knutson to be led to believe that all of a sudden the Department of Finance has seen the light.
.0925
Mr. Clarke: My staff are shuffling behind me.
It's probably a bit of both: cuts and deficits, and less so, perhaps, seeing the light. But my minister was here initially. I get the sense from my minister that he intends to engage Mr. Martin in a more visible way, and that's good.
The Chairman: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): I have a couple of questions relating to the international treaty on endangered species and the ability of our country to fulfil those obligations. There have been a number of concerns, one of which is the structure enforcement officers are now operating under - their inability to do their job because of the lack of a clear line of organization within the structure. Could you tell us, please, how that is going to be addressed, if it is going to be addressed at all?
The second thing is, as you probably are aware, sadly, our country is one of the top ten or twelve countries being used as a conduit for illegal animal products on appendix 1 of CITES, such as rhino, black rhino, tigers... At present our enforcement officers are unable to deal with this very serious problem. Are any efforts being made to buttress our enforcement abilities to be able to fulfil our obligations under CITES?
I understand about $12.5 million was earmarked for enforcement of CITES, and of WAPPRIITA, and that has never been applied where it was meant to be applied. Are those moneys going to be applied to hire the appropriate law enforcement officers for that, and is the ministry going to be supportive of the regulations for WAPPRIITA? That's a mouthful.
Mr. Clarke: We like to think there's a clear line of authority within Environment Canada to deal with enforcement. For a couple of decades wildlife enforcement was separate from pollution enforcement. They are somewhat different jobs. Wildlife enforcement officers go into swamps in the middle of the night and catch hunters and they wear guns and face people who have guns. There has been a history of some violence there from time to time. Pollution people go and they knock on the door, they take some samples, and if you're in violation... It's a slightly different thing.
Still, the question has always been raised at Environment Canada whether we could amalgamate the two lines of enforcement and look for any synergies and efficiencies that could be had. About two or three years ago we decided to try that experiment.
The line of accountability is clear. It came up through people such as David Egar, myself, and the deputy. There was no confusion about who was responsible for enforcement. I suspect, though, the change in culture and change in practice created some concern in certain quarters in the department. Be that as it may, let me say the lines are clear and the Wildlife Service is used by us in an advisory capacity.
Let me give an example. If you're smuggling CFCs or rhino parts into this country and you're involved with the RCMP, INTERPOL, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or whoever, the procedures, tactics, and processes are pretty well the same. You can train people to do those sorts of things: sting operations, undercover operations, and so on and so forth. I agree, it's pretty hard to get a pollution inspector to identify a rhino horn from something else. But even then, in a very preliminary way, it can be done.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are some opportunities for efficiencies. We view the Environment Canada enforcement force as a group of 100-odd people, although I'm never quite sure precisely what the number is. I think it's about 107 enforcement people, and altogether about 160-odd with inspectors, who could be used on the wildlife side of things too.
.0920
Mr. Martin: Sorry to interrupt you, but that is part of the central problem - the inability of the wildlife officers to be similar to what exists in the United States. That's what I was hoping we would be able to do. I hoped we would have some of our wildlife officers train along the model that they have at the Fish and Wildlife Service down there, where they're far more aggressive and have the ability to do what you just illustrated.
Mr. Clarke: You'd be happy to know that through the North American Commission on Environmental Co-operation we have recently established a trinational enforcement group - Mexico, the U.S., and Canada - and that's precisely what they are doing. They are meeting. They hold seminars. They're training one another. They're bringing a North American approach. Canada has been known as a country of convenience. Yes, things are laundered in through here, but we are attempting, with our own customs people, to make that a lot more difficult.
You talked about the $12.5 million. The $12.5 million was Green Plan money five years ago. I'm not quite sure what happened to that money. Not all of it was put against the CITES regulations, but in the main I think that by bringing the enforcement groups together we have a critical mass that can do the job.
Mr. Martin: On an unrelated topic, but an important one, global population growth rates are having a huge impact on the natural resource depletion of both sustainable and unsustainable resources. Briefly, are you working with CIDA, perhaps, to address this fundamental issue that affects virtually everything we do in this committee and what is going on in other committees - the whole implication of rampant population growth, depletion of resources and the pollution that comes out of that?
Mr. Clarke: We are working with CIDA, and we do have memorandums of understanding on environmental cooperation with a number of countries out there. We are trying to promote our technologies where they will be helpful, either in terms of pollution prevention or in terms of the sustainable use of natural resources, to try to introduce sustainable practices into the developing world. We are doing that, maybe not as much as perhaps we should, but there are other departments that are doing that too, like Natural Resources. So, yes, we are doing something.
Mr. Martin: Thank you.
The Chairman: There is an opportunity for a second round of questions, which will start very soon; however, there are a few questions from the chair. First of all, I have a brief comment.
In your 1995-96 estimates, the objective of your activity at EPS is described as follows - so I'm going back one year:
- To ensure that Canadians understand the underlying causes of environmental pollution and
work together to develop and implement pollution prevention, control and remediation
response strategies which promote environmentally responsible decision-making and sustain
human and ecosystem health within the context of a sound prosperous economy.
.0935
That leads me, then, to my question, which is in essence this: In last year's estimates, you had an estimated $165 million in environmental protection activity and some 994 full-time persons, but this year you have reorganized the whole blue book - not you, but the system - and discombobulated the parliamentarians in the process. Can you tell us what the related comparative figure in this year's budget would be if it had been prepared under the system of last year's budget? I ask this so that we know how much you have lost, and also so that we know where, really, the cuts have taken place, taking into account the fact that earlier you said there had been no cuts to scientific research and the like. Can you do that?
Mr. Clarke: Mr. Chairman, are you speaking only of the EPS budget, or are you speaking of -
The Chairman: Just EPS. We know that last year it was $165 million and 994 full-timers. What are the corresponding figures this year? Wouldn't you want to know that yourself?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I have it in this brief. It's just a question of finding it. I know we're at about $160 million this year, precisely.
The Chairman: So you are $5 million below?
Mr. Clarke: It's about that. This is probably, I'm sure, the consequence of year two of program review one. We lost most of our money in EPS in year one. Most of it went then. We're actually now at - I have the exact number in here somewhere - $160 million, and that's across the country.
The Chairman: So you lost $5 million in terms of funds. What about in terms of people?
Mr. Clarke: In terms of people, not a lot. Well, I should be clear about that. In EPS, we were reasonably flexible. We had a lot of terms and contracts as opposed to full-time employees. That was because we had so many sunsetter programs, like PCBs and contaminated sites and so on. So we did lose people, but most of those people were contract and term.
The Chairman: What is the number roughly?
Mr. Clarke: All in all, through program review one, the entire environmental protection program was going to lose about 110 PYs, of which about 80 were in headquarters and 30 in the regions. We lost about half of that in the first year and very few this year, but there is another peak next year.
So you still have about $160 million, and the number of people across the country is about 900.
The Chairman: So you lost about 94 people. All right, can you now tell this committee where the losses have occurred? What specific types of services were they in?
Mr. Clarke: In regard to the details, Mr. Caccia, I wouldn't want to be all over the shop on this one. What I have here in 1995-96 is 994; I know 1996-97 is somewhere in here. I can't put my hand on it right at the same time, but I can get back to you on that one.
We have not lost 94 people between last year and this year. As a program, I don't think we've lost any more than maybe 10 people.
The Chairman: But you lost $5 million, so it would be interesting to know what is -
Mr. Clarke: But a lot... Five million dollars -
The Chairman: Well, anyway, if you can provide the committee with the requested information, it will be helpful.
Mr. Clarke: We will do that.
The Chairman: In introducing Jennifer Moore, you said she is in charge of socio-economic aspects of the regulations. Could she perhaps elaborate on the social side of her role briefly?
Ms Jennifer Moore (Associate Director General, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment): Sure. In terms of my responsibilities within the Environmental Protection Service, there is a group of economists that I manage and that does the regulatory and impact assessment for regulations. In terms of social aspects, we are not doing detailed qualitative analysis. At best, we are sort of describing social context. I would say that the primary focus at this time remains on the economic side, but more and more we are looking at the social aspects in terms of the broader work we're doing in terms of sustainable development and other things.
.0940
The Chairman: Don't you think that you should engage yourself in a qualitative analysis in order to give a meaningful sense to your role, which I think is very laudable?
Ms Moore: Yes, certainly we are engaging that to the extent that we can and the resources with which we're working. We're trying to develop partnerships with others, both across government and in other areas, to put more emphasis on the social side. To be very honest, from my perspective, it's still a weak area, but as best we can, we are trying to increase that. It is an important part, particularly as we move more into the sustainable area.
The Chairman: Let's hope that perhaps at estimates next year you can give us a stronger message on that particular role. Can we hope for that?
Ms Moore: Indeed, I think you can hope for that. We are working on it.
The Chairman: Thank you.
As for a POP protocol, you told us, Mr. Clarke, that in fall 1997 we might have a POP protocol. Would you know what will be the general level of agreement, the substance of that protocol? This is also in view of the fact that recently in Yellowknife, and then in Inuvik, all the people involved in the Arctic had a tremendous political interest in POPs, in the reduction of that type of pollution, and the recognition that the Arctic is under the gun from POPs-related pollution coming from the south, east and west. What are you aiming at in your negotiations?
Mr. Clarke: First of all, Mr. Chairman, there are some substances out there that we all know are problematic, such as PCBs, for example. DDT would be another, and toxaphenes. Mostly, it's a lot of pesticides.
In North America, at least in Canada, we have identified about 12 to 14 of those substances we think should go, period. So I think one of the initial thrusts, at least from our standpoint as Canadians anyway, is that we're going in there to say that these 12 to 14 substances should be put on the hit list immediately.
Of course, this is going to cause some challenges, I suspect. DDT, as you well know, is used for malaria control in tropical countries. I am not quite sure what the reaction will be. I do know that many in the developing world are interested in getting rid of DDT, like the Philippines.
We are talking about UN/ECE first, and UNEP and global second. Let me just say that I think we'll be going after those 12 or 14 substances I talked about. There may be others. Other than that, I'm not quite sure where we're going.
The Chairman: That's not very reassuring, but perhaps you could let us have on one or two pages at the most, an update for the members of this committee as to where we stand in these negotiations and what we are aiming at. It's a kind of interim memo.
Mr. Clarke: We can do that.
The Chairman: That will be very helpful, because that would equip us in conversations with colleagues abroad.
The next question, briefly, has to do with the fact that in less than ten days the Irving Whale will be gradually lifted, hopefully successfully, from the bottom of the St. Lawrence. Has the department conducted a risk assessment of this operation?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
The Chairman: Is that available?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
The Chairman: Would you circulate it, please?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
The Chairman: Is the content of the barge PCBs and oil of industrial consumption, or is it more than that? In other words, are the reports in the press accurate in indicating that there are some6,800 litres of PCBs and an unidentified quantity of diesel oil?
Mr. Clarke: The barge contains crude oil, I believe.
The Chairman: What quantity?
Mr. Clarke: I'll have to double-check that. I can get that information back to you.
.0945
Some of that stuff has leaked, of course, over the years, but I think they have a pretty good fix as to what the quantity is. There are PCBs in there, separately. You may be right, it may be about6,000 or 7,000 litres. There was some speculation that it may have leaked into the oil also, but that's not proven.
So there is oil and PCBs. We can get you the exact numbers as we understand them in terms of the estimates.
The Chairman: Why are we lifting the barge?
Mr. Clarke: The risk assessment that has been done, which you will get, indicates that this is the best way to get the PCBs out of that environment.
The Chairman: Is there a linkage between the damage the PCBs would cause if leaked and the health of the crab industry?
Mr. Clarke: That's one of the factors in why we would like to have the stuff up and out of there, period. The potential effects on the aquatic environment and the fishery if it stays there... Oil has been leaking. I am not as au fait with this as I could be. It's being run out of Atlantic, but I can get you the information you require.
We'll definitely give you the risk assessment, but I want to assure you that Environment Canada scientists - not policy-makers - did the risk assessment. In their view, it was the most cost-effective and environmentally sound way to get the PCBs out of that area: raise it and get rid of it.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
For the second round, Mr. Asselin, Mr. Martin, Ms Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Knutson.
[Translation]
Go ahead, Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin: Assistant Deputy Minister Clarke, the only results promised to us today by these estimates of programs on the environment, the only concrete and certain results are staffing cuts, a budget slashed by $230 million and programs being eliminated. That is a certainty, sir.
With all these cuts in staff, operating expenditures and programs, is it your impression that your role as assistant deputy minister is still the same as in the past? Does the future seem promising in the area of the Department of Environment's responsibilities vis-à-vis the protection of the health and safety of the Canadian people?
Do you think you can attain the objectives you have set? Do you feel comfortable working with such decreases affecting both staffing and budget?
This morning, it's clear that you're fighting on two fronts: the government in front of you and your public servants behind.
All those cuts - I'd like to know it because you're not the only ones - are being imposed by the minister? Does the decision come from the minister, the deputy minister or officials? Who decided to cut while still going ahead with the programs and making people believe that more is being done with less?
The Chairman: Your questions are very political, but I'm sure that Mr. Clarke...
Mr. Asselin: ...will be able to answer.
The Chairman: ...knows very well how to deal with political questions. However he must thread with caution.
Mr. Clarke, the floor is yours.
[English]
Mr. Clarke: Thank you for trying to protect me, Mr. Chairman.
The minister ultimately makes the priorities and decides on the cutbacks. The staff do the analyses. We put up the pros and cons. It's essentially a question of priority setting, and that's a ministerial prerogative. The cutbacks are then taken to cabinet. That's a government decision. So it's all up there. We do the analysis and try to give the best information we can.
.0950
As to whether I'm comfortable, no, but then no one promised any of us a comfortable place in government. We're quite challenged. We seem not to be able to drop anything off of the table. To be blunt, it always comes back on the table.
So we're doing more with less. I think I alluded facetiously to the fact that we still get paid for 37.5 hours a week, but nobody has had a pay raise in several years. Nobody gets paid overtime, but we're working very long hours. But then industry is doing the same thing too.
So this is just the nineties. Most of us are in this business not for the money but because we believe in the environment. Some of us have worked a long time in this business. I've worked for more than thirty years in this business, and I believe in it. That's why we're here.
I believe, though, that we could choose our priorities a lot better, as we are attempting to do. While the future may not be all that rosy in terms of the quality of life for bureaucrats, I must say that we are focusing better on the priorities we have to deal with as a federal government. The only question is whether other levels of government will pick up on the things they're supposed to do, as they should. But I think we've got our priorities right.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Thank you. One of my major concerns is the safety of people. Many weather stations are going to be closed all across Canada. I have a list of them here under the heading: "Schedule of Environment Canada Office Closing by Region". These offices are mainly weather stations. Now, we know that it's often important to have advanced knowledge of the forecast established by those stations. If violent winds are being forecast, people don't put out to sea. The same thing holds for other situations.
All across Canada, 56 stations will be closed and eight of them are in Quebec. Many of those stations are located in airports. Provision is being made to invest $3.8 million to update equipment that usually uses radar. I'd like to know how Environment Canada and Transport Canada are getting along. We know that the government, through the Ministry of Transport, is getting ready to privatize many of those installations, especially airports.
Is the government going to invest or has it already invested funds in for the modernization of those installations located in airports which will be privatized within a year? What is going to happen to Environment Canada offices, especially the weather offices? Have you made any provision for the rental of sites to continue using your equipment located in privatized airports?
[English]
Mr. Clarke: Mr. Chairman, although I'm part of the senior management team and I have some concept of what's going on with the weather offices, I think I'm going to have to duck this one, in the sense that I'm not the right person to respond to this. I can take the question under advisement, and I can get back to you with the details.
I do know that we are closing weather offices. There was an assumption that all the weather offices we had out there were essential in the first instance. If you look at the map, I'm not so sure that was true. The business of cutbacks has forced us to look at the distribution and the location of many weather offices. Also, newer technology has come along. I know there's some concern about that technology.
Just let me say that I'll take the question under consideration, and I'll get back to you with the answers. That's more in the preserve of my colleague in the Atmospheric Environment Service.
The Chairman: That's fine. The question was raised at the time Dr. Slater was here with his group on the same subject. If you can provide Mr. Asselin and the committee with an answer, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Clarke: Okay.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Martin, if you please.
.0955
[English]
Mr. Martin: We touched on this in the last series of questions. One of the reasons that Canada is one of the top countries in the world for laundering of illegal parts of endangered species is that it's known as an area where enforcement is lax.
Can you tell us what the maximum penalties are for poaching and for the smuggling of illegal parts? If you can't tell us now, that's fine, if you wouldn't mind letting us know.
The Chairman: Mr. Martin, just to let you know, we had the Canadian Wildlife Service here last week. That is the group of people who are knowledgeable on that subject. Certainly your question is fine, but maybe you want to flesh out that question with others so that they are on record, and then Mr. Clarke can ask the CWS to provide you with the answers.
Mr. Martin: If you can't answer, that's perfectly fine, but if you would let us know that would be appreciated.
The reason I ask is that previously we had penalties I think in the range of $3,000, and it was recommended that those levels go up to a $100,000 fine and up to five years in prison. My question really is whether it has gotten to that level.
As you know, the amount of profits one can derive from these are huge, from parrots from South America to rhino horns at $75,000 a kilo. If our penalties have been commensurate with the value of these products, that would be good for us to know because if they haven't then we can do something about it.
Mr. Clarke: I'll get you the precise information.
I do know that way back when I was the director general of the wildlife service it was unconscionably low. We managed to have those fines raised and I think they are being raised again. I do know that with respect to endangered species, they are up there probably close to $1 million now. You confiscate equipment and the fines have gone up, but I'll come back to you with the exact numbers.
The Chairman: In May 1994, this committee spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the legislation. It was Bill C-23 or Bill C-24. We did increase the fines, but I don't remember the figures exactly. If you ask one of the researchers in your bureau they will be able to get you very quickly the substance of the fines as they were changing at that time.
Mr. Martin: Thank you very much.
The other aspect you touched upon, sir, was the aspect of trying to improve the enforcement, and we discussed this earlier. There seems to be a little bit of a debate here over whether our enforcement officers should be involved in facilitating and training. Do they get involved in the sometimes very dangerous aspect of being law enforcement officers in the true sense of the word? As you know, the trafficking of these materials and parts of animals is intimately entwined with the international trafficking of narcotics.
Are you working with the RCMP? Is there a cooperative situation there? Is there a conflict there or do you see ways in which we can improve the ability of our enforcement officers to do their job in the truest sense of enforcement? Do you see a role for the RCMP or do you see them expanding their role?
Mr. Clarke: We work very closely with the RCMP. We have been developing intelligence networks that are much better than we've ever had before in recent times. We are well plugged in, as I said earlier on, with INTERPOL. We are well plugged in with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others. It has been a priority for us to develop this intelligence system.
I think you will note that in recent times, enforcement actions have actually been more successful. I may have the numbers in here. We are finding and catching more people. I would hope that's part of the intelligence system we've put into place.
I've mentioned that we're also working with the Mexicans and the Americans now more than ever before. We are trying to put a sort of cordon around the North American continent, and I expect things will get better, much better.
.1000
It's absolutely true that we don't have the resources compared to say the United States of America. That is true. But now we're trying to create a regime that will work together, and I think it will help.
Mr. Martin: Thanks very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
The clerk has refreshed my memory. In May 1994 we went into the bill and the fines, and we increased them from the amounts that were recommended to us after second reading. So we went well beyond the government's recommendation at that time. If you're interested in details as to what happened, I'm sure the records -
Mr. Martin: Don't worry; I can find that out. Thank you.
The Chairman: It's legislation now. It was proclaimed at least a year ago.
Ms Kristen Douglas (Committee Researcher): It was passed, but not proclaimed.
The Chairman: It was not proclaimed?
Ms Douglas: I understand it's being proclaimed very soon, possibly this week.
The Chairman: Well, then, it's a very timely question, Mr. Martin. Thank you very much.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I understand a study is being undertaken, with participation from Environment Canada, on the human biological and economic effects of climate change. I'm wondering if you could give us an overview of this study: when it was started, what's happening right now, who's involved with it and what are some of the stages and phases.
Mr. Clarke: I'll have to get back to you on the details. I don't have the details at my fingertips. Suffice it to say I know there is work going on.
We are very concerned about the impacts of climate change on Canada. We know that although we're only 2% of the problem, the impacts will be far larger than that in terms of the findings of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We have done a lot of scenarios in Canada as to what the IPCC findings might mean for us.
There has been a lot of speculation about rising sea levels and all sorts of dramatic statements have been made, but this study is to try to begin to more definitively state what climate change effects would be on people, agriculture, forestry, the boreal forest, wildlife and ecosystems. We need this to be able to galvanize people into realizing this is a serious problem.
Climate change is occurring right now. There is some urgency to it, and we don't seem to be able to get the message across. So we need more definitive data. We need better information. We need to let people know better how their ox is going to be gored.
Canada's national interest is more than just the oil and gas industry. It's what happens to the duck factory in the southern prairies. If those wetlands dry up, what happens?
I will get you the details.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Do you know who's doing this in Environment Canada?
Mr. Clarke: It's largely being done out of the Atmospheric Environment Service, and I think Ian Burton is leading it.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In Toronto?
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: And you're working with Health Canada as well, or another department?
Mr. Clarke: We're working with Health Canada. We're trying to galvanize Health Canada from the standpoint of possible disease vectors up here as the temperature warms up. They are doing some work. I can't tell you that is one of their highest priorities, but they are devoting some time to that work too.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, but I understand that as we have increases in temperature, the opportunities for disease that affects human health increase. We've been blessed with a colder clime, although some of us may not think we've been blessed.
To say Canada is only 2% of the problem I think diminishes the real impact of Canada's contribution to the problem. When we're saying 2% globally, what's Canada's relationship to other countries? We're fairly big contributors to the problem, even though it's only 2%. In relationship to other countries... Do you know what I mean?
.1005
Mr. Clarke: Obviously I touched a wrong nerve. I wasn't trying to say that because we're only 2% of the problem we're not a large contributor. I was trying to say some people say because we're only 2% of the problem we don't need to be proactive on climate change; we don't need to show any leadership; we should just wait for the U.S. or others to take the lead. That's the point I was trying to make.
In fact, the impacts on Canada will be very significant. We have more to lose than say tropical countries. As a consequence, we should be more proactive. But getting that message out is very difficult. This study might help.
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, please.
Mr. Knutson: I'm going back to my earlier questions about dealings with the finance department and trying to be sensitive to the dynamic, for lack of a better phrase. Let me ask a general question. In the age of results-based management, whose job is it to identify where the finance department issues are in environmental concerns within your department? Who has that responsibility?
Mr. Clarke: I think it's shared. I certainly have part of that responsibility. I think the ADM of the conservation service has that responsibility. I think the associate deputy minister of policy and communications has that responsibility. It's a shared responsibility.
I certainly know within EP, the environment protection field, we have looked at a large number of possible economic instruments to fix certain environmental problems. Then, of course, we have to go hat in hand to the finance department, if I can put it that way, to convince them this is a good thing. Usually they have three or four questions they ask right off the bat. Is this going to contribute to the deficit? Is this going to contribute to jobs, negatively or positively? Is this going to have an effect on the GDP? Somewhere along the way we come along with ``Is this going to have an effect on the environment?''
They're very hard taskmasters. They have several criteria we go up against. But it's our responsibility. We have to do it. We have to be proactive. Waiting on them I don't think will do it.
Mr. Knutson: Is there an issue you would say would represent a particular disappointment in judging the finance department's response? Does one stand out where you think they should have acted and they haven't?
Mr. Clarke: I'll respond this way. I think climate change is a fundamental, long-term, possibly tremendous, environmental catastrophe. I think this is an area where we have to look at economic instruments. We cannot do this simply through technological advancement, although there are good promises there, or regulations or voluntary approaches. Those all have a role to play, but a carbon-intensive economy has to be looked at in terms of economic instruments, at least to nudge people along in the right direction.
We've had some difficulties in trying to bring some things into that orbit. Unfortunately - and I'm probably being more honest here than I should - the whole issue of a carbon tax seems to raise its ugly head every time one talks about economic instruments. That's where we get to within five seconds of raising the economic instrument word. And of course a carbon tax is a no-no in the west, at least on production.
What that does is it cuts off a lot of good discussion on other types of useful things this federal government could do in sending signals. One of them, just as a matter of interest - and Jennifer can speak more to this than I can - is the bus pass. I don't think it would wreck the budget, I don't think it would do much for the deficit, but if you were to make bus passes tax-exempt, that could be a good signal. Simple ones. But it's tough getting the attention of the group over there.
.1010
Mr. Knutson: Okay, so we have a huge issue in terms of a carbon tax, and we have the bus passes, a simple issue that's not so huge but is still significant. What kinds of things fall in the middle?
Mr. Clarke: In the climate change study I think we came up with something like 84 measures that could make an improvement in terms of moving things forward. They may not all be economic instruments, but in one form or another they would have an economic impact. For example, you could improve the national building code. There are quite a few examples out there, and if you're interested in some of them, we would be happy to send you some material.
Mr. Knutson: Fair enough.
Mr. Clarke: Okay, we'll do that.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Knutson. Next is Madam Payne, followed by Mr. Steckle, or the chair, or both.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for coming in late. It was one of those situations... I can't be in two places at one time.
I think my question probably has been partly answered here. It may have been brought up before, but my overall concern is the effect... We know about the studies on climate change and the overall effect in terms of water warming or cooling. The general effect on the ecosystem is very important. What effect are the budget cuts we're looking at having in terms of being able to move forward on the various effects it will have? In fact, I'm more concerned with the cooling and warming of water as it relates to fisheries and life in the oceans.
Mr. Clarke: It's true that science has been affected in the department, including this area you're looking at. But I think it would also be fair to say we've attempted to safeguard the key important research required on the climate change file, because climate change is a priority in the department.
I've been given every assurance by the atmospheric people and the ecosystemic people that the research we need in order to be able to develop good policy - the science and policy linkage - will be there and is being done. It is a priority.
We have dropped things in other areas. We don't do as much stuff on acid rain any longer, for example, not that it isn't still a potential problem and that it isn't still a problem... And we are monitoring, but we're just monitoring on a very reduced basis. I think we'll get the science we need in order to make the policies we need.
Mrs. Payne: I gather you're saying to me that in fact this area is at the top of the list, so to speak.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, it's at the top of the list.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for being late. I was en route to Ottawa this morning.
How do I make the argument that we have a global warming problem a compelling one? It's May 7, we have hardly come out of the doldrums of winter and we've missed spring...or is it yet to come? How do we convince people?
I come from an agricultural area where acid rain... The obvious has happened. We know because of what we've seen evolving over the years in terms of crops. But less emphasis is being placed on the acid rain issue now, and we obviously haven't completely controlled what's caused that problem.
.1015
How do we reconcile that for those who ask us whether global warming is really a serious problem, given the fact that we've had some fairly normal summers? Last summer was a little warmer than normal, but we've had a colder winter. And last December 17, probably to convince anyone that we're in a global warming pattern, would certainly not...it'd be pretty difficult to make that a convincing argument.
Speak to that for a moment. Or where is this happening?
Mr. Clarke: Okay. We should have had Gordon McBean from the Atmospheric Environment Service here.
The Chairman: He was, and he also elaborated on this theme two weeks ago.
Mr. Clarke: But let me say that all of the scenarios, all of the modelling being done suggests that this type of weather is not unusual for a global warming scenario.
Eastern Canada in large measure is expected to be a bit cooler. The prairies are expected to be a lot hotter. Sometimes we confuse global warming with weather and with what happens locally.I think that this past winter was one of the colder winters on record overall. I know we suffered in Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, it may not be a bad idea to have Mr. McBean and his scientists give a presentation on global warming and climate change. I think you would all find it extremely instructive. It's beyond my capability.
But just as a matter of interest, last week we had a multi-stakeholder meeting with a whole variety of stakeholders out there, industry, ENGOs, municipalities, and so on and so forth.Mr. McBean gave - and I hate to say this because you don't have three hours - a three-hour, question-and-answer slide show on what's happening out there globally. It's scary. A colder winter in Ottawa is consistent with what's happening out there right now.
This is part of the challenge. How do you translate this to the man or the woman in the street who says ``That was a terrible winter, five and a half months of it. Give me a break!''?
But I think you should look at the signs. There should be a seminar of some kind. I think you will find it very interesting.
The Chairman: We had a very interesting presentation from Jim Bruce in November or December. Mr. McBean also touched on the subject at estimates time two weeks ago.
But Mr. Steckle is quite right. There is an indication of interest from new members of this committee and also from many members who are not with this committee. I was wondering whether perhaps you could arrange a seminar organized by the department, to be held under your auspices, to which parliamentarians of both Houses and of all parties would be invited. An update could be given and questions could be answered questions in detail, for several hours. Maybe that could be a regular feature once every year.
Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Clarke: We would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Now, briefly, I have a few nuts and bolts questions here to conclude with.
Going back to the new format of your budget, have you received any feedback from interested parties as to whether the new format is helpful or whether it is confusing and is causing difficulties? If you have, what have the comments been so far?
Mr. Clarke: Mr. Chairman, as far as I know I'm only aware of two client groups right now, the standing committee and Treasury Board. Treasury Board has driven us towards this business line way of expressing ourselves. They seem quite pleased with it. The standing committee obviously seems to have a slightly different view. Those are the only two client groups that I'm aware of at this time.
We haven't had any feedback from ENGOs or from industry or from anyone else out there about this format. I could check into the system, but I doubt that there is...
I do appreciate the fact that it makes life very difficult in terms of the crosswalk... The business lines have been a conscious push by the centre to have us dictate what our businesses are, what our priorities are and what results we're planning on achieving.
.1020
Just in passing, I should tell you that it has made the department more integrated. There's no doubt about it. Now I sit around the table with the ADMs from AES and the ecosystem side of things. There's no doubt we're more integrated as a department, but I can tell you that some of the transaction costs are quite high too. Maybe that's part of doing business.
The Chairman: I would like to pursue the questions by Mrs. Kraft Sloan, Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Steckle on carbon dioxide, but before doing that I have a few quick questions.
In the estimates, on page 68, there is a reference to the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report expected to be completed by the end of 1995-96. Is that report completed, and can you make it available? Most of us have not seen it yet.
Mr. Clarke: I'll have to check into that, sir.
The Chairman: All right. That would be very helpful, in the light of recent discussions at this table jointly with the committee on foreign affairs on the significance of the Arctic and the necessity of establishing an arctic council and all the political steps that will eventually follow.
The next question has to do with a national strategy for managing hazardous air pollutants, which are mentioned in the estimates. When will that see the light of day?
Mr. Clarke: I think we're expecting to have a draft strategy towards the end of this year. The provinces and the federal government, with multi-stakeholder groups, are currently looking at what the art of the possible is, and I expect that something will be coming forward sometime in this budget year.
The Chairman: On CEPA, the government, in reply, indicated that there are an estimated 23,000 substances on the domestic substances list and that these would be categorized with respect to persistence, bioaccumulation, inherent toxicity, and so on. I'm told that regulations are being prepared. Again, when will these regulations be completed and announced?
Mr. Clarke: Let me start by saying that we're already beginning to categorize the 23,000 substances. We have a specific work plan aimed at that. Just as a matter of interest, we don't need regulations. We're doing it anyway, and we're well into that particular categorization.
I should say that the recommendation of the standing committee gave us the necessary oomph to get on with doing it. We always knew that it had to be done, and I guess we're now doing it.
I'm not sure what regulations you refer to, Mr. Chairman, but we'll be happy to give you a status report as to where we are vis-à-vis the categorization of the 23,000 substances.
The Chairman: The regulations are related to criteria for persistence and bioaccumulation.
Mr. Clarke: Okay. You recommended that there be criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation, and inherent toxicity, I think. We are working on persistence and bioaccumulation. However, I'm afraid to say that, on the inherent toxicity side, my scientists tell me that this is a challenge that is quite difficult to do, because of the inherent properties of so many substances out there, the response by so many different types of organisms, and time lines.
I'll be happy to have a scientist come to this table to explain some of the challenges of coming up with that single definitive inherent toxicity criterion. It doesn't have to be single.
The other thing I'm told is that there is a fair bit of judgment -
The Chairman: Before we leave that aspect, lead is a good example of where there shouldn't be much debate, even among scientists, on its inherent toxicity. The same can be said of most heavy metals. Where does their reluctance come from then?
.1025
Mercury is not something you would drink for breakfast, either, nor is arsenic. History has taught us over the centuries that certain substances are inherently toxic. So I'm having difficulty in following the reasoning of the scientists advising you.
Mr. Clarke: I don't want to be facetious, Mr. Caccia, but if I drink too much alcohol I'll be dead too, or I'll get desperately sick -
The Chairman: That's why it's at least regulated.
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
The Chairman: So we all agree.
Mr. Clarke: With inherent toxicity, I'm being told, it's very difficult to come up with numbers that could be put into regulations, because judgment is applied to this particular aspect.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'd be more than happy to bring some scientists before this table to try to explain -
The Chairman: Let me draw to your attention the fact that in the case of Holland and Denmark, for instance, lead is banned, period. So what is the problem with us?
Mr. Clarke: In this country many uses of lead have also been banned. The question is what is the magic number you put on inherent -
The Chairman: What magic number? It's zero -
Mr. Clarke: Ah, I see.
The Chairman: - in the case of those two countries and in the case of other countries that belong to the OECD. Only Canada goes to the OECD and subscribes to the strange notion that it should be done voluntarily. Why did we ban it from gasoline, then?
Mr. Clarke: We banned it in gasoline because, as you well know, lead was detrimental to urban area air quality -
The Chairman: Because of its toxicity to children.
Mr. Clarke: I think what's happening here is we can put a number on bio-accumulation, we can put a number on persistence, the amount of time a substance stays around in the environment. But if you're suggesting - and I don't want to be presumptuous - inherent toxicity is zero, we will have a problem with putting that into regulation, because most things are inherently toxic.
The Chairman: Why didn't they have a problem in other jurisdictions, such as Holland and Denmark?
Mr. Clarke: I'm not aware that they have inherent toxicity criteria in regulations. I'd be happy to look for that. They have banned things, and we have banned things, based on our experience of the effects on people, ecosystems, and so on and so forth.
The Chairman: All right.
Cases are brought to our attention of the Export Development Corporation engaging in activities in other countries, by way of its subsidies, which are environmentally not desirable. Who in your shop watches the Export Development Corporation, and what communications do you have with them, if any?
Mr. Clarke: I'll have to go back and check. I'll have to take that under advisement and get back to you.
The Chairman: We'll leave the Canadian environmental industrial strategy for another day.
To conclude with carbon dioxide, as you know, a year ago Canada came out of the Berlin conference with a commitment for stabilization by the year 2000. Is that right?
Mr. Clarke: Out of Berlin? The Berlin mandate says the world, and certainly the annex I countries, the developed countries, will get together over the next two years and work out some sort of a legal instrument, perhaps a protocol, which will take us towards reductions of emissions of carbon dioxide. Towards the end of next year, presumably the conference of the parties will decide on some legal instrument that will take us towards a reduction of carbon dioxide by a certain timeframe, which moves beyond stabilization.
The Chairman: Exactly. But before reaching the phase of reduction, we have to reach stabilization, as we all know. In the case of Canada, I'm told we are running at minus 13% by the year 2000.
.1030
We have some cities that have launched some very interesting carbon dioxide reduction programs. At the federal level we seem to rely on some vague voluntary scheme. Therefore, we need to know from you how much below stabilization we will be by the year 2000, at the rate we are going. Will it be 13%, as some are predicting, or will it be another figure? What do we plan to do in this last five years to reduce that gap?
Mr. Clarke: Our best estimates right now suggest that we will miss the target, and we will miss it probably by about 13%, as of today.
There are, however, a number of things that are being done. You've remarked on the voluntary program, the voluntary challenge and registry. That is being reviewed this year, along with our national action program for climate change. We've hired an independent consultant and we will have the analysis by the end of the summer. We will know precisely how far off we are as a consequence of the actions we said we would take under what we call NAPC, the national action program for climate change.
We know we're going to miss the target and we know what the review is going to say, but we are certainly trying, and we would hope that we could engage others around town to look at numbers of options to close that gap. We would hope that discussion could occur next fall with the energy and environment ministers. Whether that indeed will occur, I don't really know.
The Chairman: What's happening next fall?
Mr. Clarke: Every fall the environment and energy ministers meet to consider air issues and in particular climate change.
The Chairman: Where will it be this year and when?
Mr. Clarke: I'm not quite sure where it is this year, but it's usually in the fall. I think you've attended one of those meetings in the past.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are you talking about the CCME at Bathurst?
Mr. Clarke: No, it's not just CCME. It's the CCME and the energy ministers.
The Chairman: Would you let the members of this committee know the date and place of that particular event?
Mr. Clarke: Absolutely.
In terms of that gap I've talked about the voluntary program, and we'll have a better sense at the end of the year. I've talked about looking at other options, to be able to develop them and to be able to sell them to others around town, as to what could be done to help close that gap in the next few years.
We are certainly aware of some of the projects that are going on at the municipal level. For example, the City of Toronto has an excellent pilot on the books, and if that works I think the feds will help them in terms of getting that launched. I think that could be migrated to other cities across this country. I think it would be tremendous. In fact, I think that would be a marvellous opportunity.
I must be careful how I say this, but I must say that in the main we have a federal action plan that says we will get the 30% reduction by the year 2005. Some of the provinces are reasonably good, but at the local level this is where I think a lot of progress could be made. I think we could make a lot of progress in climate change.
The Chairman: Are you sure it is 30% and not 20%? It's 20%, isn't it?
Mr. Clarke: I think we can beat the 20%. I could be wrong. Is it 30% or 20%?
The Chairman: It's 20%.
Mr. Clarke: All right. I was gilding the lily too much.
The Chairman: Which is the lead department in this effort, Environment or Natural Resources?
Mr. Clarke: You should understand very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that this is a co-shared, joint responsibility. It's a co-lead and both partners have to step forward together.
The Chairman: Since when is it a co-lead?
.1035
Mr. Clarke: Ever since the beginning of the climate change issue. That is domestically. Internationally it's Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Environment Canada. So there are two co-leads.
You will remember that in Berlin perhaps we had three co-leads. It's very difficult to move ahead, sometimes. The bottom line is we're in trouble.
The Chairman: Thank you for your frankness.
Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: If there's a co-lead, what leverage does Environment Canada have? To say it's a co-lead would imply certain kinds of things that don't always happen.
Mr. Clarke: I'm not sure we have any leverage, quite frankly. But I should say, on the other side, that Natural Resources Canada has done quite a few things in recent times. The subsidies are disappearing, for whatever reason. They are boosting energy conservation and also the R and D in terms of renewable energies. A lot of good things are going on there. Momentum is building. There is a shift in attitude over there.
Sometimes I think we expect attitudes and culture to change overnight; I'm speaking for myself. It's something that has to happen -
The Chairman: Things changed pretty quickly with ParticipAction in the late 1970s. Do you remember?
Mr. Clarke: Yes. We have looked very hard at ParticipAction, and we haven't quite made the connection yet as to how we can do this with climate change.
Somehow the ParticipAction theme seems to target the individual and individual benefits: ``Don't smoke and you may have a longer life because you will not get lung cancer, so think about it'', or ``Run and you may live longer''. But somehow, when you get to a social problem - a broad thing that affects the public commons - until you can personalize it to you and me...
We haven't quite found that key yet. We have looked at the ParticipAction theme. We are looking for help. If you have some brilliant ideas, let us know. We haven't been able to come up with the key yet.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Health has to do with the public commons as well. The kinds of things we do individually decrease health costs for society, which means other things can happen and we can continue to support those who need support. Likewise, nothing is going to happen on the environmental front unless people individually change behaviour. That's where it happens. So I think the link to the individual is very strong and is even more reason there should be a green ParticipAction program.
I'm still trying to get a decent analysis of the announcements in the federal budget. I have some concerns around energy subsidies and how they affect the tar sands. I don't know if anyone here can comment on that. I'm not so sure those subsidies are decreasing.
Mr. Clarke: We'll have to get back to you with details on that one. Jennifer was saying to me that it's a start but more needs to be done. I do know it's a rather complicated manoeuvre they've done there, and I'm not quite sure what it all means, precisely.
Can I go back to the individual? I should say that through Action 21, which does target local communities - and we have about $9 million or $10 million there - climate change is a priority. We're attempting to get through to local communities the message on the climate change issue, but it is not exactly ParticipAction. It's not ``Don't drink and drive'', it's not ``Run and be healthy'' and it is not ``Don't smoke''; it's something more broad. We're trying.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Certainly Action 21 is a good place to start.
I was very impressed with the ACAP program out in the Maritimes. I had an opportunity to visit them and see the kinds of things they were doing in their community around making healthier watersheds. Community action is very important. However, I still think we have to address this problem of individual action.
.1040
Also, interestingly enough, on Saturday night I was having dinner with two friends who are very bright and well-informed people. They were very surprised to hear how badly our environmental problems are overtaking us. They had thought things were being taken care of. These are people who are very well informed.
So I don't think the Canadian public really understands. A lot of people think the problem has been taken care of. It's the blue box syndrome.
The issue of joint implementation: I was wondering if you could explain what joint implementation is and some of the controversy, the pros and cons, around that.
Mr. Clarke: Joint implementation is basically a concept whereby a company in the private sector in a developed country such as Canada could go into a partnership with a company in the private sector in a developing country, wherever - there are lots of them - and together, through the transfer of technology in particular, there would be a reduction in greenhouse gases. The assumption is always made that the most cost-effective way of doing that is by taking the cleaner technology out of a developed country into a developing country.
So it's a partnership. It's cooperation. It's joint-venturing, primarily in the energy area, but not only, to reduce the global emissions of greenhouse gases and so on.
Then there's the question of credits. That has not been resolved at the international level. In fact, that's something that's been put on hold.
The international community has approved that these activities could be done globally for the next five or six years. I guess the proof will be in the pudding: whether they do work or not.
The developing world is and has been very suspicious of joint implementation. They see it as an opportunity for the developed world to claim credit - we're the high carbon users, remember - on their backs. There has been lots of talk about Gardens of Eden. You remember the famous example two or three years ago when Ontario Hydro tried to buy rain forests in Costa Rica so they could sequester carbon. That's been a concern and that's been expressed and fought over internationally.
Generally speaking, there's a distrust in the developing world about the developed world and what this means. It's been a long haul. But just to summarize, in the next three or four or five years hopefully there'll be a number of projects globally - and there are a number of projects globally - which will show whether this indeed can work.
It's always voluntary. It has to be voluntary. The country has to agree this is a good thing to happen. Guidelines have been developed. We have Canadian guidelines too.
That's where JI is currently.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Recently I met an old colleague of mine who spends a lot of time in China right now setting up environmental study schools and centres. They have had a GNP growth of 8%, which is quite phenomenal in itself. A lot of people are always looking for high GNPs, but the problem with that is with growth other costs may not be factored in, as well as population growth. The problems are incredible. I know we have to get our own houses in order first, but we do have a global commons we share, and I'm just wondering how involved mainland China is in some of these negotiations.
Mr. Clarke: Mainland China is a leader in the negotiations. China, Brazil, India, in particular, are three of the strategic voices behind the so-called G-7, the solid phalanx of the developing world.
.1045
It's interesting in its own right that they're known as the developing world. Many of those countries produce far more greenhouse gases and have far more robust economies than we'll ever have. They're growing twice as fast as we are, if not even faster. They are a leader and they have a very strong voice.
It's interesting that the government negotiators say one thing but if you go to the workshops of the Chinese business community it says something else.
There's a lot of hope here, because in the long run they're interested in clean technology too. They don't want to go through the usual transgression from a primitive sort of technology to whatever. But of course all this will rest on the deal they will get from the developed world as to that technology transfer. In the final analysis, a lot of this comes right down to money.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Is Environment Canada doing anything in this regard?
Mr. Clarke: We have a memorandum of understanding and a memorandum of cooperation with China, and we have a number of projects with China, on the stratospheric ozone depletion issue and I think on climate change. I'd be happy to get back to you with the details on what those projects might be or are.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Good. Thank you.
Mr. Knutson: We were talking about lead being banned in Denmark and other European countries. As I am a new member of the committee, this raises a more general point in my mind.
Presumably, part of Environment Canada's job is to look at other industrial regimes and try to get a sense of what we can learn from them and where we're most behind, for example. Do you have a sense of where, from an environmental protection point of view, we're failing on specific issues or files in comparison to our industrial trading partners?
Mr. Clarke: Let me start with some of the good things.
In terms of stratospheric ozone depletion, which is a global problem, I think Canada is among the best, if it is not a leader. We've consistently worked very hard in that area.
In terms of acid rain, we've met our targets and we're developing a national strategy to see where we need to go further over time.
In terms of toxic substances, I think we have the world's leading toxic substances policy, period.
In terms of pollution prevention, we're trying very hard to galvanize the Canadian community to move forward in that area.
We can be proud of a lot of things.
Mr. Knutson: I won't quibble with that.
Mr. Clarke: I couldn't give you just the bad stuff.
Mr. Knutson: Fair enough.
Mr. Clarke: I think some countries are ahead of us in climate change actions, but many of those countries are rather fortunate to be where they are today. I would not say that they're where they are because they've done marvellous things - for example, in climate change. The British got off coal because they found North Sea oil. West Germany inherited East Germany.
We're not doing so well on climate change. Let me be frank on that. We are well plugged into the international community. In fact, Canadians are well respected on a variety of OECD and international panels over there to do with chemicals and their safety. I'm not aware that we're sadly lacking in any one area compared with any other country, quite frankly.
Mr. Knutson: I don't think I used the term ``sadly lacking''.
Let me perhaps make the question a bit less threatening. If I was running Ford Motor Company, for example, and I thought I built the best cars, I'd still want to review my competitors, whether it was Volkswagen in Germany or Chrysler, to see where they are ahead of Ford. I'd want to know so I could catch up. As a businessperson or an industrial leader, I wouldn't be threatened by that kind of analysis.
.1050
I'm just asking whether, for example, we can learn something from California or Michigan, and if we can, what. Again, I'm new, and this is just off the top of my head. Is Michigan one of the leading jurisdictions for environmental protection, and if so, what might Canada learn from it? Just give me a couple of examples.
Mr. Clarke: I'll give you a couple of examples. I think the Germans are working very hard on the fuel economy, the fuel efficiency, of their cars: how many kilometres you get for the number of litres of gasoline you use. They're working very hard at that. In fact the German automobile industry has been challenged by the minister of the environment there and they are prepared to go at a much lower number than we are doing in North America. In fact I met with the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association yesterday and I wondered aloud why it was that we weren't making more efforts as a North American economy to move towards higher fuel efficiencies. I think we can learn something from the Germans there. But quite frankly, in that area we are driven by the United States of America.
About the low-emission vehicle and the zero-emission vehicle, you should be aware that the Germans are working very hard at that. In fact Daimler-Benz came out with a prototype the other day, a fuel cell car. I'm sure they're all working at this in their back rooms.
Those are two areas where we can learn from the Germans, for example.
We are trying to learn from California and what's going on there. They have a unique problem with air pollution. B.C. has tried to migrate a lot of that up into its own jurisdiction. We are very well aware of what's going on in California.
As we look outwards in terms of fuel reformulations and the emission technology for vehicles we will be incorporating some of those standards into our national standards. I can't tell you we will do all of it, because our conditions are different, but we are...
Michigan is pretty good. But Michigan, remember, was the state that built the Detroit incinerator, which made life not so easy for us over in Windsor. We all have our good points and our not-so-good points.
Mr. Knutson: I'm changing the subject and going back to the - and again, excuse me if I have the terminology wrong - march towards 2005 and the reduction in greenhouse gases. I guess there's a sense, at least in my reading in 1996, that we're not going to make the targets. As one of the co-leaders - and again, I don't mean to be impertinent - towards something where I sense we're saying we're going to fail, what action do you think we should take but we're not going to take? What would be your biggest disappointment over something we should have done by now or should likely do but either we haven't done or we're not likely to do?
Mr. Clarke: I think we have to do a better job of public awareness. That's going to be a challenge with regard to some of the comments we've made. People have to understand there's a difference between climate and weather. That's a big challenge. I don't think Action 21 is going to be enough to make that happen and galvanize and mobilize the Canadian people. Something more has to be done. If we could find a ParticipAction theme, that would be tremendous.
Mr. Knutson: I take it from your answer that the implication is it's the Canadian public that's the drag on our performance.
Mr. Clarke: I'm not a politician and I hesitate to say anything political, but I think sometimes you need the Canadian public to drive you and tell you where you're going.
Mr. Knutson: I agree.
Mr. Clarke: I don't see that out there right now. I don't see it out there.
What happened in this country and in a whole bunch of other countries was that statements were made about reductions: we will reduce by so much by a certain time. But then most of the actions have to be done by individuals in our own daily lives. How do you galvanize people to do the right thing? There has been a bit of a disconnect there. So we have to build up the awareness and the urgency. Then I think things can begin to flow a little easier in terms of actions.
.1055
The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, I've known Mr. Clarke for a few years and his diplomatic skills are extremely well established on the Hill. What he's telling us is that there is a vacuum in leadership, and that's probably another way of putting it in answer to your question.
As to your other question on how Canada is faring in a number of sectors and not just carbon dioxide, you may want to look at a recent monograph by the OECD that compares all OECD countries in environmental performance. If I am able to put my hands on it, I will bring it to the meeting tomorrow, which by the way will start at 3:15 p.m. rather than 3:30 p.m., or as soon as a quorum will permit.
Let me then thank you, Mr. Clarke and Jennifer Moore and David Egar and the officials in the room, for your participation this morning, for the explanations you have given us, and for the ones we might receive in written form. We look forward to perhaps an arrangement whereby you will have a seminar for parliamentarians on carbon dioxide at a suitable date, and we look forward to seeing you again. Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned.