This Web page has been archived on the Web.

2005 September Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

September 2005 Report—The Commissioner's Perspective

Appendix C—Main Points of chapters 1 to 8

Main Points—Chapter 1

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Canada's Oceans Management Strategy

What we examined

The 1996 Oceans Act announced the federal government's intention to take an active co-ordinating role in oceans policy and management; it established Canada's aspirations to lead in the field. The Act's purpose was to conserve and protect our oceans' environment, ecosystems, and resources while managing those resources in ways that were economically sustainable and environmentally acceptable—in short, to ensure that our oceans are clean, safe, productive, and accessible.

We examined Fisheries and Oceans Canada's actions to implement the Oceans Act. We looked at its progress in developing and carrying out a national oceans strategy and integrated management plans and at its efforts to establish marine protected areas.

We also examined the Department's public reporting on the results of its oceans-management activities and on the state of the oceans.

Why it's important

The government recognized in 1994 that Canada's oceans policies and practices had been short term, piecemeal, and fragmented, and this had contributed to over-exploitation of the fisheries and the degrading of the ocean environment. For example, the Atlantic groundfish industry had collapsed, and ship-generated oil waste was affecting marine bird populations on both the east and west coasts of Canada. Implementing the 1996 Oceans Act was supposed to turn this worsening situation around.

However, Canada's Oceans Action Plan, recently issued by the government, reports that the health and quality of the marine environment are at risk or declining. The plan notes major declines in some fish stocks, persistent introduction of pollutants and invasive species, habitat alteration and degradation, and declining biodiversity and productivity.

Canada's oceans area is an important legacy of natural capital for future generations. Over 20 percent of Canadians live in coastal communities, and our oceans are an important source of food, transportation, recreation, and natural resources for all Canadians. The federal government has a clear responsibility to provide the careful management necessary to protect and develop Canada's vast ocean spaces and resources.

What we found

  • Implementing the Oceans Act and subsequent oceans strategy has not been a government priority. After eight years, the promise of the Oceans Act is unfulfilled. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has fallen far short of meeting its commitments and targets: it has finalized no integrated management plans and has designated only two marine protected areas.
  • The Department has had difficulty developing and implementing a workable and consistent approach to integrated oceans management. As a result, arrangements are not yet in place to resolve increasing conflicts among users of the oceans over access to space and resources.
  • The government acknowledged in Canada's Oceans Action Plan that oceans-governance arrangements are still not up to dealing with modern-day challenges, including threats to the health of the oceans. Further, it recognized that the approach remains fragmented and exceedingly complex, lacks transparency, and focusses on solving problems as they arise. This assessment is consistent with our audit findings.
  • Parliament has not been given the financial and other performance information it needs to hold the Department accountable for its Oceans Act responsibilities. Nor has the Department met its commitment to report periodically on the state of the oceans.
  • The new oceans action plan is the government's framework for sustainably developing and managing our oceans. However, it does not address all the barriers to implementing a national oceans strategy. These include the need for strong leadership and co-ordination over the long term, adequate funding, and an accountability framework with appropriate performance measures and reporting requirements.

The Department has responded. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is in agreement with all of the audit recommendations. Its responses, which follow the recommendations in the report, indicate what actions it intends to take and when these will be completed.

Main Points—Chapter 2

Ecological Integrity in Canada's National Parks

What we examined

Parks Canada is responsible for maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of Canada's 41 national parks. It is also responsible for fostering public understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of national parks in ways that ensure the ecological integrity of these places for present and future generations. In addition to national parks, Parks Canada manages a system of national historic sites and a system of national marine conservation areas.

This audit looked at how well Parks Canada plans and manages selected ecological monitoring and restoration activities in 12 national parks and uses these activities to enhance public education and visitor experience. Parks Canada is required to report to Parliament on the state of Canada's national parks every two years. This audit examined the quality of the reports Parks Canada produced on the state of national parks in 1997, 1999, and 2001. We did not examine the 2003 report as it had not been released at the time of undertaking our audit.

Why it's important

Canada's national parks represent significant examples of Canada's natural heritage. National parks have benefited past and current generations and represent an important legacy to future generations. A variety of factors called "stressors" affect ecosystems, and more specifically, biodiversity and related processes in national parks. These stressors from both within and outside national parks range from overuse of parks by visitors to natural resource development along their borders. These stressors jeopardize the range of benefits Canadians get from national parks and the very reasons why they are valued.

Along with public education and partnerships, monitoring and restoration are important activities that Parks Canada uses to maintain and restore ecological integrity in national parks. Good monitoring of biodiversity, ecosystem health, and stressors provides information on the state of parks that is vital to good park management and public education. Good restoration programs, such as prescribed burning and recovery of species at risk, can help restore natural ecosystem processes in national parks and help reverse the loss of species and biodiversity.

What we found

  • In the 12 parks we examined, significant issues in ecological integrity, including issues related to biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and stressors, are being addressed through monitoring and restoration activities, but gaps in coverage exist. We also found gaps in how these activities are planned and managed. For example, at the park level, the central planning document is the park management plan. However, in six of the twelve parks these plans are not up-to-date, and annual reports on the implementation of these plans are not being produced on a regular basis by all parks.
  • Increasing understanding through public education is fundamental to maintaining and restoring ecological integrity. In this regard, objectives for enhancing public education through monitoring and restoration are lacking at the park level, and the results of monitoring and restoration projects are not used to full advantage in park-level communications materials.
  • With new funding received in 2003 ($75 million over five years and $25 million annually thereafter), Parks Canada is implementing measures to improve monitoring and restoration and their use in enhancing public education and visitor experience. It is important that these measures be successful and consistently applied across individual parks. Good monitoring, restoration, and public education programs are essential for Parks Canada to meet its mandate of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity and fostering public awareness and enjoyment of national parks.
  • The 1997 state of the parks report was relatively good in terms of setting baselines on the state of parks. However, the subsequent two reports did not make use of the potential offered by the 1997 report, making it difficult to determine how the state of parks has changed. Overall, these reports need to report more consistently on changes and trends in the state of parks over time. More information on the results of Parks Canada's actions is also needed.

Parks Canada has responded. Parks Canada has accepted our recommendations. Its responses, which follow the recommendations in the chapter, indicate the actions it intends to take.

Main Points—Chapter 3

Canadian Biodiversity Strategy

A Follow-Up Audit

What we examined

The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy was intended to be a framework for action to, among other things, conserve and sustainably use biological diversity or "biodiversity." The strategy was endorsed in 1996 by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers. This follow-up audit is our third audit since 1998 of the federal government's implementation of the strategy.

Why it's important

Biological diversity—or biodiversity—refers to the variety of life in all its forms; it includes ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity. Biodiversity is essential to the health of the planet and the well-being of its inhabitants. It allows for and promotes healthy vegetation (including crops), clean air and clean water, and directly benefits Canadians' health and economic prosperity. Biodiversity faces a number of threats, including loss of habitat, invasive species that threaten native species, and overexploitation of plants and animals. Canada has made domestic and international commitments to conserve and sustainably use this country's biological diversity, using the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy as the basis for action.

What we found

  • Overall, the federal government's progress in implementing key aspects of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy is unsatisfactory. Nearly 10 years after endorsement of the strategy, momentum has stalled on several fronts. Problems identified in our previous two audits of the strategy persist, and several commitments to deliver on biodiversity priority areas have not been met.
  • The federal government still lacks a coherent plan for implementing the strategy, and while it has made implementation efforts, the government does not know how well these are meeting the strategy's goals.
  • Commitments to improve Canada's capacity to understand its biodiversity and manage biodiversity information have not been fulfilled, despite numerous calls to improve these areas.
  • There is no consolidated, comprehensive report on the state of biodiversity in Canada. While the government is working toward such reporting and reporting is taking place in various sectors, this is the third audit in which we have pointed out that there is no overall picture of the state of biodiversity in Canada or how it is changing over time. This lack of information limits the federal government's ability to help conserve biodiversity, use it sustainably, and reduce its loss.

Environment Canada has responded. Environment Canada has accepted our recommendation and indicated the actions it intends to take to address the recommendation. Its detailed response follows the recommendation included in the chapter.

Main Points—Chapter 4

Safety of Drinking Water

Federal Responsibilities

What we examined

In Canada, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of drinking water is shared. The provincial and territorial governments have the main legislative responsibility for regulating the provision of safe drinking water to the public. The federal government has responsibilities for the safety of drinking water provided in First Nations communities; at military bases, national parks, and federal facilities; and on transportation conveyances, such as passenger trains, aircraft, and cruise ships travelling between provinces and internationally. A related area under federal leadership is the development of the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality.

This audit examined the process the federal government uses to develop the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. It also looked at whether the government is complying with its legal obligation under the Canada Labour Code to make sure the drinking water provided to its employees meets these guidelines. To do this, we assessed whether six key federal departments and agencies comply with requirements to test drinking water for bacteria, as this testing is critical to protect human health. In addition, we examined Health Canada's inspection of drinking water on transportation conveyances.

Chapter 5 of this Report focusses on drinking water in First Nations communities.

Why it's important

Federal responsibilities for drinking water can have an impact on millions of people, including employees and travellers. Safe drinking water is free of microbiological contaminants and contains chemical contaminants at levels that do not harm human health. Contaminated drinking water can have potentially dire consequences for public health, as became tragically evident in Walkerton, Ontario in 2000.

The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality are important for protecting the health of Canadians because they set out the contaminants that every water system (public, semi-public, and private) should strive to eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels in order to provide the cleanest, safest, and most reliable supply of drinking water possible. The Guidelines establish acceptable limits on chemical, microbiological, physical, and radiological characteristics of potable water.

What we found

  • To develop the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Health Canada leads a process with the provinces and territories that is based on risk, science, consultation, and transparency. However, this process is consistently slow. It often takes five years or more to develop new guidelines or to review existing ones. In the 2002 Speech from the Throne, the government made a commitment to accelerate its work with the provinces on improving the Guidelines. Of 83 existing chemical and physical guidelines, about 50 may need to be updated to reflect current science. At the present pace, however, it could take at least 10 years to deal with this backlog. Should emerging contaminants be added to this list, the backlog could worsen.
  • Although the six federal departments and agencies we looked at are all subject to the Canada Labour Code, they have different policies, procedures, and requirements for safe drinking water that vary from comprehensive to incomplete or unclear. The result is a mix of bacteriological testing regimes at the 35 sites we selected for our audit. Such a range of compliance with the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality points to the lack of central guidance in areas of federal responsibility. At sites where bacteriological testing detected contamination, the responsible departments have taken remedial action.
  • Under the Potable Water Regulations for Common Carriers, Health Canada has the obligation to inspect water quality on passenger trains, aircraft, and cruise ships. We found that the Department inspects potable water on cruise ships and trains but not on aircraft, due to funding issues. Therefore, Health Canada cannot assure the millions of Canadian travellers that potable water on aircraft is safe.
  • The 2004 Federal Water Framework is a first step toward a coherent federal approach to dealing with water matters, including those related to human health. However, even though in 2003 the government declared water to be a sustainable development priority, the current status of the Federal Water Framework is unclear and its future is uncertain. Senior officials who prepared the Framework have not met for over a year, and the next steps for its use have not been clearly established.

The departments have responded. All the departments included in this audit agreed to our recommendations. All departments except one provided satisfactory responses describing future actions needed to address our recommendations. However, the response provided by Environment Canada on the Federal Water Framework does not fully address the specifics of our recommendation.

Main Points—Chapter 5

Drinking Water in First Nations Communities

What we examined

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Health Canada provide funding and support to assist First Nations in making drinking water available to their communities. INAC covers the costs of designing, constructing, and repairing water systems as well as most operation and maintenance costs. Health Canada supports First Nations in the monitoring and testing of tap water to demonstrate that it is safe for drinking. Through funding arrangements, First Nations are responsible for the construction, upgrade, and day-to-day management of water systems. We examined whether the programs and funding of both departments have helped First Nations communities provide residents with access to drinking water comparable with that of other Canadians living in communities of a similar size and location. We visited six First Nations communities during this audit.

We also looked at how well the First Nations Water Management Strategy is being implemented. This five-year strategy was introduced in 2003 to substantially improve the quality and safety of drinking water on reserves.

Why it's important

Access to safe drinking water is vital to the health of all Canadians, including the approximately half million people living in some 600 First Nations. In 1995, Health Canada and INAC estimated that one quarter of the water systems in First Nations communities posed potential health and safety risks to the people they served. In 2001, INAC found a significant risk to the quality or safety of drinking water in three quarters of the systems. Between 1995 and 2003, the federal government spent about $1.9 billion to help First Nations communities provide safe drinking water and wastewater services. In 2003, the government made drinking water safety in First Nations communities a priority and approved a budget of $600 million over five years for the First Nations Water Management Strategy.

What we found

  • When it comes to the safety of drinking water, residents of First Nations communities do not benefit from a level of protection comparable to that of people who live off reserves. This is partly because there are no laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water in First Nations communities, unlike other communities. INAC and Health Canada attempt to ensure access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities through their policies, administrative guidelines, and funding arrangements with First Nations. This approach does not cover all the elements that would be found in a regulatory regime for drinking water, and it is not implemented consistently.
  • Despite the hundreds of millions in federal funds invested, a significant proportion of drinking water systems in First Nations communities continue to deliver drinking water whose quality or safety is at risk. Although access to drinking water has improved, the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many water systems is still deficient. Moreover, to a significant extent, the success of the First Nations Water Management Strategy depends on INAC and Health Canada addressing the management weaknesses we have noted.
  • The technical help available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented. Given that most First Nations communities have fewer than 500 residents, and that providing drinking water has become more complex, the development of institutions that can provide ongoing technical support is critical to a continuing supply of safe drinking water for these communities.

The departments have responded. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada have fully accepted all the recommendations, except for the one on implementation of a regulatory regime. Instead, the departments have stated that they will fully explore, in consultation with First Nations, the options and feasibility of a regulatory regime. The departments' responses are included in the chapter.

Main Points—Chapter 6

Green Procurement

What we examined

Green procurement involves buying goods and services that are less harmful to human health and the environment than competing products that serve the same purpose. We examined efforts to promote and support green procurement across the federal government, including guidance to departments on how to address green procurement in their sustainable development strategies. We also looked at the approach taken by eight departments and agencies in their strategies and the progress made on specific commitments by three departments.

Why it's important

The federal government is one of the largest purchasers of goods and services in Canada, spending a reported $13 billion each year. This means that greening federal procurement can deliver substantial benefits. The government can significantly reduce the environmental burdens of its operations by buying goods that are energy efficient, for example, or that are produced without using or releasing toxic substances, or that are easily disassembled for reuse and recycling. Green procurement can also boost the availability of green products and services and stimulate innovation, in line with the government's promotion of sustainability as a key to Canada's competitiveness.

Recognizing these benefits, the federal government has made numerous commitments to green its procurement, dating back to 1992. Several recent developments, such as the government's decision to increase central management of procurement, provide new opportunities to take effective action.

Significant progress on green procurement requires clear government-wide direction on what is expected, who is accountable, and how progress will be measured, as well as practical support through expert advice and training. Progress also depends on clear commitments and follow-through by individual departments.

What we found

  • Important progress on greening procurement is possible, as shown by initiatives both within and outside the federal government. Yet after more than a decade of promises, the federal government is still not using the potential of green procurement as a tool to achieve sustainable development objectives.
  • Central direction on green procurement is missing. Instructions to develop a government-wide approach to green procurement were first given in 1994, but there is still no federal strategy or policy. In the 2004 Speech from the Throne, the government recommitted to develop and implement a government-wide green procurement policy by 2006. But this requires considerable work, and no full-time personnel have been dedicated to it.
  • Some of the key federal documents on the roles and responsibilities of buyers and suppliers do not address green procurement. Similarly, the federal government has not effectively used sustainable development strategies as a way of advancing green procurement.
  • There is currently no credible basis to assess government-wide progress on green procurement.
  • Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), the department with the most significant government-wide procurement responsibilities, has taken some initiatives to raise awareness about green procurement. But it has not made significant progress in greening the procurement services it offers to federal departments and agencies. For example, PWGSC's standing offers are used by departments and agencies for routine purchasing of common goods and services. But fewer than two percent of the standing offers on PWGSC's Web-based index are designated as green.

Public Works and Government Services has responded, on behalf of the responsible departments and agencies. It has agreed with the recommendations. Its consolidated response, including the actions it plans to take, can be found at the end of the chapter.

Main Points—Chapter 7

Sustainable Development Strategies

What we examined

Every three years, many federal departments and agencies (currently over 30) are required to submit a sustainable development strategy to Parliament. We examined whether the government gave adequate government-wide direction on preparing their 2004 strategies. We looked at the work of a committee of deputy ministers that the Privy Council Office had tasked to provide that direction and at how well selected departments have incorporated the direction into their strategies.

We assessed how well the 2004 strategies met selected expectations from the Commissioner's March 2003 Sustainable Development Strategies—Making a Difference, which the government had endorsed. We also assessed actions by nine departments to implement 10 commitments they had made in their 2001 and 2004 strategies (other commitments are discussed in chapters 1, 4, and 6 of this Report). And we report on the federal government's actions to implement six international commitments it made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

Why it's important

Sustainable development is based on the efficient and environmentally responsible use of natural, human, and economic resources. This includes sustaining our natural resources, protecting the health of Canadians and ecosystems, and improving our quality of life and well-being.

The government has said that departments' strategies are an important tool for advancing its sustainable development agenda. They set out specific commitments for departments, and Parliament can hold ministers accountable for how well their departments meet the commitments. The government has committed over the years to develop a federal sustainable development strategy that would help ensure good co-ordination among departmental strategies.

What we found

  • Government-wide direction. The committee of deputy ministers responsible for overseeing sustainable development strategies could not agree on priorities for the 2004 strategies, leaving departments with little approved direction on how to co-ordinate their strategies. Nor did the committee develop the promised federal strategy; so Canadians and Parliament have no clear idea of the government's overall plan for sustainable development, how it will carry out the plan, and what progress it has made. Furthermore, for over a year there have been no significant efforts to provide direction for the next strategies, due in December 2006. During this critical time, the committee of deputy ministers ceased activities.
  • Quality of the 2004 strategies. While the overall quality of strategies has improved somewhat since 2001, the quality of the 2004 strategies still varies widely. Every strategy has room for improvement.
  • Action on strategy commitments. With one exception, departments have made some progress, if not satisfactory progress, toward meeting the 10 strategy commitments we looked at, many of which are only first steps toward sustainability. The exception is Transport Canada's lack of progress in identifying discharges of effluent and waste at major Canadian ports. Consequently, the discharges at the 19 Canada Port Authorities have not been determined. Depending on the quantities released, sewage effluent and other chemical discharges can negatively affect aquatic ecosystems and human health.
  • Action on international commitments. The government still does not have an action plan for its 2002 World Summit commitments. The federal government risks not meeting three of the six commitments we examined because progress is slow in some areas and there is no information on progress in others.

The departments have responded. The Privy Council Office and Environment Canada have responded to our recommendations. The actions they are taking or plan to take are set out after each recommendation in the chapter.

Main Points—Chapter 8

Environmental Petitions

What we examined

This is the annual report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to Parliament on the environmental petitions process as required by the Auditor General Act. It reports on new petitions received between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2005.

We audited selected responses to previous environmental petitions to determine whether action had been taken by Natural Resources Canada to update the Nuclear Liability Act, by Environment Canada to establish guidelines for designating a species at risk, and by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada to reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming.

Why it's important

The environmental petitions process allows Canadians to formally present their concerns about environmental issues to federal ministers and obtain a response. The process allows both citizens and organizations to ask that ministers investigate environmental problems, explain federal policy, or examine the enforcement of environmental legislation.

Petitions have resulted in commitments by ministers and action by departments on environmental issues. For the petitions process to work effectively for Canadians, petitioners need to clearly present the issues and questions that concern them and make sure their facts are correct. Departments must respond to petitions within 120 days and ensure that the responses clearly address all issues raised in the petitions.

Monitoring and auditing petition responses allows us to further examine issues that Canadians have raised and that may not have otherwise been brought to our attention. Through these audits, we assess whether federal ministers are meeting commitments to act on issues raised in petitions.

What we found

  • Report on petitions process. Statements and commitments made by federal ministers address important issues raised by Canadians through the petitions process. However, in those responses we audited this year, we found that progress on addressing the issues has been slow.
  • Insurance for nuclear operators. In his response to two petitions, the Minister of Natural Resources committed to updating the Nuclear Liability Act to increase the mandatory amount of insurance carried by operators of nuclear facilities to compensate those who may suffer injury or damage in the event of an accident. However, the Act has not yet been revised. As a result, insurance coverage in Canada remains at a level established almost 30 years ago and is considerably lower than the coverage in other major industrialized nations.
  • Guidelines for listing species at risk. The Species at Risk Act was introduced in 2002 to protect and recover species at risk. In response to a petition, the Minister of the Environment committed to establishing guidelines for deciding which species to protect by designating them at risk. Environment Canada has indicated that these guidelines will not be in place until 2006. In the meantime, decisions are being made without the benefit of guidelines intended to make the government's decision-making process more consistent and transparent.
  • Impacts of hog farming. As a result of two petitions, we audited actions by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada to reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming. We found that the departments do not know if their programs and activities are reducing those impacts. For example, Environment Canada cannot yet demonstrate that its efforts have increased compliance with the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has yet to clarify its strategic approach to address the environmental impacts of hog farming. Although the Department has made progress in measuring the impacts of agriculture on the environment, it is not effectively communicating or monitoring the implementation of its beneficial management practices for hog farming.

The departments have responded. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada have accepted our recommendations. Their responses, which follow the recommendations in the chapter, indicate the actions departments will take and when they will be undertaken.