This Web page has been archived on the Web.

2008 March Status Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Main Points

What we examined

In 1987, changes to the Canada–United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committed both nations to develop and implement action plans for cleaning up areas in the Great Lakes basin where the natural environment had been severely degraded. These areas were designated as areas of concern. There are currently 15 in Canada.

The federal government has overarching responsibility for the restoration of areas of concern in Canada, with Environment Canada as the lead department. Remedial action plans developed in cooperation with provinces and municipalities, First Nations communities, and non-government organizations guide restoration and protection efforts at each area of concern. When beneficial uses such as swimming and fishing are no longer impaired and the area has been restored, its designation as an area of concern is removed—known as "delisting."

In 2001, we reported that Environment Canada had not set clear priorities for remedial action. We found gaps in management and governance, and goals to restore and delist areas of concern had not been met. It was not clear how or when the government planned to see areas of concern restored and delisted. We recommended that Environment Canada clarify its role and responsibilities and those of its partners, and that it develop and implement plans for delisting areas of concern, with particular attention to remediating contaminated sediment and addressing the issue of overloaded municipal sewage systems. The Department agreed with our recommendations and committed to developing and implementing action plans.

For this status report, we examined Environment Canada's progress on these issues since our last audit. We examined whether the Department has clarified the roles and responsibilities of all partners; developed and implemented plans for delisting areas of concern, monitored and reported progress toward implementing action plans as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires; and ensured that the plans are periodically adjusted, as necessary. We also examined the extent to which the actions taken have achieved the government's objectives and led to the restoration of environmental quality of areas of concern.

Why it's important

The Great Lakes Basin is ecologically important, and its environmental quality is vital to millions of Canadians. It is home to about one third of Canada's population. It contains 8 of Canada's 20 largest cities and provides drinking water for over eight million residents of Ontario. The Basin plays a vital role in the physical, social, and economic life of Canada, supporting almost 40 percent of Canada's gross domestic product, 25 percent of its agricultural production, and more than 50 percent of its manufacturing activity. It also supports rich biological diversity and significant fisheries. Because they hold approximately 20 percent of the Earth's surface fresh water, the Great Lakes also have international significance.

As indicated in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, population growth and economic development in the Great Lakes Basin during the twentieth century have degraded the environmental quality of the region, threatening its economy and the quality of life of the people who live there. For over 20 years, Canada and the United States have been committed to restoring beneficial uses in areas of concern in the Great Lakes.

What we found

• Environment Canada has made unsatisfactory progress on the issues we raised in our 2001 audit. The Department has not ensured that criteria for delisting are specified for each Canadian area of concern. While the Department has recently clarified some responsibilities, it has still not clearly specified who is responsible for carrying out all the required remedial actions, who will pay for those efforts, and within what timelines the actions will be taken. Finally, it has not adequately assessed the extent to which each impairment in each Canadian area of concern has been restored and it has not reported progress to the International Joint Commission as it is required to do under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
• After more than 20 years, only 2 of Canada's original 17 areas of concern have been delisted—the latest in 2003. Priority actions have been completed for one other area, which is now recognized by the government as an "area in recovery." The majority of impairments to beneficial uses that were originally identified in areas of concern still exist today.
• Two principal sources of contamination continue to impede the government's progress on delisting areas of concern—contaminated sediments, which Environment Canada estimates would cost a total of $150 million to clean up, and overloaded municipal wastewater systems, which it estimates would cost a total of $2.4 billion to fix. Solving these problems is critical to restoring most areas of concern.

The Department has responded. Environment Canada agrees with our recommendations. Its responses are included with the related recommendations throughout the chapter.

Introduction

7.1 The growing population and continuous economic development in the Great Lakes Basin during the twentieth century degraded the region's environment, leaving a legacy of contamination that now threatens its economy and quality of life. Other stressors such as climate change and aquatic invasive species are compounding the effects of that contamination on water quality and the ecology in the Great Lakes Basin.

7.2 The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which the Government of Canada and the United States signed in 1972 and renewed in 1978, expresses each country's commitment to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The 1987 protocol to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement cited areas of concern as the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes Basin, where action was urgently needed. Severe pollution in these areas has resulted in conditions or situations that prevent Canadians from using or enjoying their natural environment. In this chapter, this is referred to as "impairment of beneficial uses" (Exhibit 7.1).

Exhibit 7.1—Impairment of beneficial uses in areas of concern

7.3 The objective of the Agreement is to restore beneficial uses and delist areas of concern. Delisting occurs once the area has met specific, measurable, achievable, and scientifically defensible criteria for the restoration of beneficial uses, as defined by a remedial action plan, and agreed on by communities and agencies that are responsible for the areas. The protocol commits the parties to developing and implementing remedial action plans to clean up these areas and restore beneficial uses.

7.4 Of the 43 areas of concern identified in the Great Lakes, 17 are located in Canada. As indicated in Exhibit 7.2, Canada shares five of its areas of concern with the United States.

Exhibit 7.2—Canadian and binational areas of concern

7.5 Since 1987, two Canadian areas of concern have been delisted, Collingwood Harbour in 1994 and Severn Sound in 2003. Although all the recommended remedial actions have been completed in the Spanish Harbour area of concern for almost a decade, contaminated river and harbour sediments continue to impair the ecosystem. However, in cooperation with its partners, Environment Canada has determined that it is less risky for the environment to leave the contaminated sediments in place. Environment Canada now qualifies the area as being in the process of natural recovery. This area is not considered delisted.

7.6 Canada's 15 remaining areas of concern vary significantly in terms of their geographical size, the extent of urbanization, and the complexity of the rehabilitation efforts still required. They range from single-industry lakeshore communities to the multi-stressor situation that exists in the Hamilton and Greater Toronto areas.

Federal roles and responsibilities

7.7 Through its commitments and obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the federal government has overarching responsibility for the restoration of Canadian areas of concern. The federal government has other relevant responsibilities such as the management of federal lands (including harbour beds), the enforcement of federal legislation (such as the Fisheries Act), jurisdiction over international waterways, and scientific research and information/technology transfer.

7.8 The Agreement requires the governments of Canada and of the United States to report to the International Joint Commission every two years on progress toward restoring beneficial uses in the areas of concern. The International Joint Commission is an independent binational organization established in 1909 to help prevent and resolve disputes relating to the use and quality of boundary waters. It also advises both governments on related questions and assists in implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

7.9 Environment Canada has the lead in implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement on behalf of the federal government. The Department is responsible for coordinating Canada's actions to meet the goals and objectives of the 1987 protocol to the Agreement. The key initiatives the Department leads are the

• Canada–Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin (the Canada–Ontario Agreement), the mechanism for harmonizing objectives and coordinating actions among the federal and provincial governments;
• Great Lakes Action Plan 2000–2005, the main federal initiative for meeting Canada's obligations under the Canada–Ontario Agreement and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; and
• Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, part of the Great Lakes Action Plan, the main source of federal funding for projects that address areas of concern. The fund finances a portion of the total cost of projects focused on three major issues: fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and stewardship; contaminated sediment assessment and remediation; and innovative approaches to improving municipal wastewater and stormwater quality. Partners finance the remaining costs of the projects (Exhibit 7.3).

Exhibit 7.3—Environment Canada has many partners in the Canada–Ontario Agreement

7.10 While the federal government has overarching responsibility for the restoration of areas of concern, it does not have exclusive jurisdiction in these matters. In particular, critical issues such as contaminated sediment remediation and municipal wastewater infrastructure upgrades are subject to provincial and municipal decision-making authority. Implementing remedial actions in areas of concern in Canada therefore requires the active collaboration of many sectors of society, including all levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal), First Nations, industry, non-government organizations, and individuals. Accordingly, the ability to broker effective cooperation is vital for the federal government to meet its commitments in relation to areas of concern.

What we found in 2001

7.11 In our 2001 report, we observed that the federal government was actively engaged in setting up structures to take action in areas of concern. We noted that while the government generally managed the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund well, its delisting goals were not met. It had not established a clear set of priorities for remedial action in areas of concern and it was not clear how or when the government planned to restore beneficial uses and delist areas of concern. We said that, to ensure that work was completed in the areas of concern, the federal government needed to set priorities, clearly link proposed actions to delisting criteria, and broker coordinated action by other governments and organizations.

7.12 We recommended that Environment Canada clarify its role and responsibilities and those of its partners, and develop and implement plans for delisting areas of concern. Environment Canada agreed with our 2001 recommendations and committed itself to developing and implementing action plans accordingly.

Events since 2001

7.13 Since 2001, Environment Canada and its partners have undertaken many initiatives to improve conditions at areas of concern. Examples of those initiatives include:

• programs to remediate barriers to fish passage in the Toronto and Region and the Niagara River areas of concern, and projects to address polluted surface water runoff in the Bay of Quinte;
• a study to investigate changes in breeding bird populations inside areas of concern as compared to other comparable areas;
• a stream assessment of the Sutherland Creek subwatershed in the St. Lawrence area of concern, and the construction of features to improve underwater habitat for fish;
• the treatment, containment, and monitoring of sediment in the Thunder Bay Harbour—one of the most contaminated Canadian areas of concern—along with the creation of new fish habitat;
• the creation of the Canada–Ontario Agreement Sediment Assessment Decision-making Framework to standardize decision making when assessing risks that contaminated sediment poses; and
• the upgrade of sewage treatment plants in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, and Windsor.

7.14 The Great Lakes Sustainability Fund currently supports more than 80 partnerships with municipalities, conservation authorities, universities, other levels of government, and non-government organizations. Despite the investment of more than $350 million from all partners through the fund over the last 15 years, Environment Canada estimates an additional $3.5 billion would be necessary to clean up significant problems that continue to impair beneficial uses in areas of concern. Exhibit 7.4 summarizes projects the fund has supported since 1990.

Exhibit 7.4—From 1990 to 2005, $355.5 million has been spent on a variety of projects in areas of concern

7.15 Environment Canada and its partners have also made significant changes to the goals related to areas of concern contained in successive Canada–Ontario agreements. For example, in 2002, the number of areas of concern to be delisted was decreased from nine (in 1994) to two, and in the 2007 Canada–Ontario Agreement no areas of concern were targeted for delisting.

Focus of the audit

7.16 We examined the progress Environment Canada made in addressing the issues and recommendations we made in our 2001 audit. Specifically, we set out to determine whether Environment Canada had made satisfactory progress in clarifying its role and responsibilities and those of its partners and set clear priorities for carrying out remedial action in areas of concern, whether it had clearly linked proposed actions to delisting criteria and whether it had brokered coordinated action by other governments and organizations to develop and effectively implement plans for delisting areas of concern.

7.17 We also examined progress on federal goals related to areas of concern made in the 2002 Canada–Ontario Agreement and the Great Lakes Action Plan 2000–2005, which were intended to meet Canada's commitments under the Canada–United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. More details on the audit objectives, scope, approach, and criteria are in About the Audit at the end of this chapter.

Observations and Recommendations

Status of areas of concern

7.18 We followed up on three recommendations and one observation from our 2001 audit. We expected that progress would have been made against the issues identified.

Environment Canada's efforts have not delivered expected results

7.19 The 2002 Canada–Ontario Agreement established three goals related to areas of concern:

• delist at least two areas of concern;
• complete all required actions for remedial action plans in at least six areas of concern; and
• make significant progress towards restoring environmental quality in the remaining areas of concern.

7.20 We expected that Environment Canada, working with its partners, would achieve the goals laid out in this five-year Agreement. We interviewed departmental officials responsible for coordinating implementation of the Agreement on behalf of the federal government in the Ontario and Quebec regions, and we examined relevant documents and files provided to us by the Department. While we found that some action had been taken on 98 percent of the commitments in the 2002 Canada–Ontario Agreement, those activities had not translated into achieving the Agreement's three main goals.

7.21 With regard to the first goal, Environment Canada, on behalf of the federal government, delisted one area of concern—Severn Sound—in 2003 (Exhibit 7.5). However, in relation to goal number two, in no other case were all the specified remedial actions for delisting sites completed. With regard to the third goal, while several projects have been implemented, the term "significant progress" is not defined in the Agreement in terms of expectations or results. We found that the Department has not established an objective basis upon which to assess performance on that goal.

Exhibit 7.5—Success in delisting an area of concern—Severn Sound

7.22 Environment Canada failed to clearly link the actions laid out in the 2002 Canada–Ontario Agreement to the achievement of the specified goals. In addition, it did not clearly spell out in that Agreement what is to be accomplished or who is responsible. The Department recognized the latter weaknesses and worked cooperatively with its partners to develop a performance measurement framework that was put in place in 2005, three years into the five-year Agreement.

The federal government did not meet its own goals for the Great Lakes Action Plan

7.23 The Great Lakes Action Plan 2000–2005 (referred to in our 2001 audit as the Great Lakes Basin 2020 Program) represents the federal contribution to the Canada–Ontario Agreement. The four federal goals set out in the plan are to

• complete all federal actions set out in the remedial action plans in 13 areas of concern;
• progress towards restoring three areas of concern: Hamilton Harbour (Exhibit 7.6), Toronto and Region, and Port Hope (a radioactive waste site where the remediation is under the leadership of Natural Resources Canada);
• develop knowledge, tools, and techniques for establishing restoration targets and restoring impaired beneficial uses of the environment; and
• assess progress and confirm success in restoring impaired beneficial uses of the environment through monitoring, research, and public engagement.

Exhibit 7.6—Hamilton Harbour needs remediation for contaminated sediment

7.24 We expected that Environment Canada and its partners would achieve the four goals laid out in this five-year plan. We also expected that it would have monitored and reported progress toward implementing action plans as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires. We interviewed departmental officials responsible for implementation of the Great Lakes Action Plan on behalf of the federal government in the Ontario and Quebec regions, and we examined relevant documents and files provided to us by the Department. We found that the federal goals had not been achieved.

7.25 Progress on the first and second goals of the Great Lakes Action Plan. With regard to the first goal, in only one case (Severn Sound) were all specified federal actions completed in an area of concern. With regard to the second goal, while progress has been made in developing and implementing watershed management plans in the Toronto and Region area of concern, performance falls short in other areas. The Department points to several reasons for these shortcomings. Among them were higher costs, new priorities and additional information concerning the extent of sediment remediation involved, and a lack of funding and of decision-making authority with respect to infrastructure.

7.26 Progress in the third and fourth goals of the Great Lakes Action Plan. In relation to the third and fourth goals, Environment Canada informed us that a comprehensive reassessment of the status of beneficial uses is not conducted on a regular basis due to the significant cost of such an undertaking. We have the view that information on the status of beneficial uses is critical for setting priorities for remedial action, establishing restoration targets, and assessing and reporting progress on restoring impaired beneficial uses of the environment. The government does not have the information it needs on the current status of beneficial uses in areas of concern to set restoration targets or report reliably on progress.

7.27 After 20 years, Environment Canada is still defining or revising criteria for delisting more than half of the remaining 15 Canadian areas of concern. Based on information obtained from Environment Canada, the majority of the beneficial uses of the environment that were impaired when the areas of concern were established remain impaired today.

7.28 Reporting progress. Although Environment Canada has submitted two comprehensive reports on the status of beneficial uses, in 1994 and 2003, the Department has not been reporting progress every two years on implementing the action plans and restoring beneficial uses in areas of concern to the International Joint Commission, as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. And although Environment Canada has been providing some information in its departmental performance report, it has not respected the reporting conditions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Major work is required to address contaminated sediment and wastewater quality

7.29 Solving two main problems—contaminated sediment and inadequate municipal wastewater infrastructure—is critical to restoring the beneficial uses that have been impaired in most areas of concern. Of the remaining 15 Canadian areas of concern, contaminated sediment or wastewater infrastructure need to be addressed in 11 locations. Five locations (Bay of Quinte, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and Hamilton Harbour) have both problems.

7.30 Environment Canada is responsible for administering and enforcing the Fisheries Act provisions dealing with the deposit of waste substances into water that fish frequent. The Department told us that it does not target municipal wastewater facilities for enforcement but does react to complaints involving such facilities. Department officials also told us that it is currently developing additional regulations to address the municipal wastewater sector.

7.31 Jurisdictional complexities add to the challenges. For example, sewage treatment infrastructure upgrades fall primarily under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Moreover, some of the key authorities responsible for municipal wastewater infrastructure upgrades are either not parties to the Canada–Ontario Agreement or are not clearly identified as responsible for carrying out the remedial actions within it. Environment Canada estimates the cost of needed municipal wastewater infrastructure at $2.4 billion. Great Lakes Action Plan funds are not available for such projects.

7.32 However, Great Lakes Action Plan funds can be allocated for contaminated sediment remediation, which Environment Canada estimates could be cleaned up at a cost of $150 million. As indicated by the Department, in addition to the $4.8 million that the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund is slated to receive annually from 2007 to 2010, the 2007 budget included $11 million over two years to accelerate the clean-up of contaminated sediments in eight Canadian areas of concern.

7.33 Despite the overwhelming importance of these two main challenges, no timelines have been established for bringing all relevant parties into the Canada–Ontario Agreement or for completing the remedial actions necessary to restore beneficial uses of the environment in areas of concern.

7.34 While we acknowledge that there are complex scientific and technological issues involved, based on our audit's findings, we conclude that the federal government and, in particular, Environment Canada, has made unsatisfactory progress on the recommendations and observations we made in our 2001 audit in relation to managing areas of concern. The Department has not clarified its role and responsibilities or those of its partners. The Department needs to provide greater leadership in setting priorities, clearly linking proposed actions and expected results to specific restoration criteria in each area of concern. It has not set timelines for the completion of all priority actions, not established cost-sharing arrangements with responsible partners, and not secured the resources needed to implement required actions. In addition, it has not reported progress to the International Joint Commission, as required under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

7.35 The Department has failed to broker coordinated action by other governments and organizations to ensure that partners implement all the initiatives necessary to clean up contaminated sediments and adequately treat municipal sewage in areas of concern. The initiatives undertaken as set out in the Canada–Ontario Agreement have not translated into achieving the goals laid out in the Agreement, which were to restore and delist areas of concern. Delisting criteria are still being defined or revised and status information on beneficial use impairments, critical to setting objectives, implementing initiatives, and assessing progress, is lacking (Exhibit 7.7).

Exhibit 7.7—Progress in addressing our 2001 recommendations and finding is unsatisfactory

7.36 Recommendation. In order to fulfill its commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Environment Canada, on behalf of the federal government, should establish and finalize arrangements with all relevant partners to ensure that they implement the initiatives necessary to remediate contaminated sediment and to adequately treat municipal wastewater in Canadian areas of concern.

Environment Canada's response. Environment Canada accepts the recommendation; however, it is noted that implementation of actions to fully respond to this recommendation is dependent upon the commitment of partners. 

By April 2008, Environment Canada will develop project plans for eight of the nine areas of concern where sediment management is required in order to remediate and delist the site (Port Hope Harbour is being addressed by Natural Resources Canada under a separate program due to the radioactive nature of the sediment in that location).

Environment Canada will then negotiate funding partnerships with all relevant partners (Ontario, local governments and other stakeholders) on a case-by-case basis. Sediment remediation will be completed in seven of the eight areas of concern by April 2012. Sediment remediation will begin in Hamilton Harbour by 2009 and the project will require approximately 10 years to complete.

By July 2009, Environment Canada will have completed a review of improvements to municipal wastewater treatment required to remediate and delist areas of concern. Environment Canada will then negotiate a formal commitment of intent by all relevant partners (Ontario, local governments) to seek funding for infrastructure improvements through established federal and provincial funding programs.

Adjustments have been made to the Canada–Ontario Agreement

7.37 In 2007, the Governments of Canada and Ontario released the 2007–2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement. Its goals regarding Canadian areas of concern are to

• complete priority remedial actions necessary to restore beneficial uses of the environment at the Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, Wheatley Harbour, and St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) areas of concern; and
• make significant progress towards implementing remedial action plans, environmental recovery, and restoration of beneficial uses in 11 areas of concern.

7.38 The 2007–2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement includes two marked differences from previous Canada–Ontario agreements as it relates to areas of concern. First, it attempts to make results more targeted and concrete and to better link actions with goals. For example, in the latest Agreement, Environment Canada has defined what it means by "significant progress towards implementing remedial action plans, environmental recovery and restoration of beneficial uses." However, the 2007–2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement no longer contains goals for delisting areas of concern and instead introduces the concept of "areas in recovery." In our view, the goals contained in the most recent Canada–Ontario Agreement fail to address those of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for delisting areas of concern.

7.39 Recommendation. When specifying targets for restoring beneficial uses and delisting Canadian areas of concern, Environment Canada should clearly define all the necessary actions, including who is responsible for carrying them out, the cost-sharing arrangements, expected dates to complete those actions, and expectations for progress reporting.

Environment Canada's response. Environment Canada accepts the recommendation; however, it is noted that implementation of actions to fully respond to this recommendation is dependent upon the commitment of partners.

By July 2008, Environment Canada will clearly define all necessary actions to remediate and delist remaining areas of concern, including who is responsible for carrying them out. Environment Canada will then negotiate concurrence of all relevant partners (Ontario, local governments and other stakeholders) on a site-by-site basis as an addendum to existing remedial action plans.

Due to the nature of the projects and the limitations of funding partners, cost-sharing arrangements for remedial actions in areas of concern are negotiated on a project by project basis. Terms and conditions of Environment Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund stipulate a maximum of one-third federal funding for projects for the remediation of areas of concern. Similar cost-sharing arrangements requirements are in place as part of Infrastructure Canada funding programs, whereby the amount of federal funding provided to an infrastructure project is generally matched by that provided by provincial and local or regional governments. Beyond this cost-sharing provision, as part of Infrastructure Canada funding programs, the maximum federal funding amount to be provided to the project is also specified thereby limiting the amount of the federal contribution to the project should cost overruns occur.

Expected dates for completion of actions leading to the remediation and delisting of areas of concern are included in the 2007–2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin. The current agreement commits Canada and Ontario to completing all actions in four areas of concern by 2010. In negotiation of future agreements, Environment Canada will advocate for greater specificity in the timeframe in which remedial actions will be completed across all areas of concern.

Environment Canada will work with the Province of Ontario to ensure biennial public progress reports required under the 2007–2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin regularly report progress and status of all Canadian and shared Canada–U.S. areas of concern.

Conclusion

7.40 Restoring water quality in the Great Lakes has been a major challenge for more than 35 years. More than 20 years ago, the Government of Canada designated 17 severely degraded areas of concern and slated them for clean-up. Problems included fish deformities, beach closings, and taste or odour problems with drinking water. Since then, only two areas have been cleaned up and delisted. Priority actions have been completed for only one other area of concern. The majority of the beneficial uses that were originally impaired in areas of concern are still impaired today.

7.41 In 2001, we found that there were several weaknesses in Environment Canada's management of areas of concern in the Great Lakes. Our view has not changed. Environment Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in responding to the observations and recommendations we raised in our 2001 audit with regard to clarifying its role and responsibilities and those of its partners and in developing and implementing plans for delisting areas of concern. While some actions have been taken in areas of concern, Environment Canada, as the primarily responsible federal department, is not meeting the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

7.42 Two predominant issues that continue to be principal sources of contamination have impeded the government's progress on delisting areas of concern: contaminated sediments and overloaded municipal sewage systems. Solving these problems is critical to restoring the beneficial uses and delisting most areas of concern.

About the Audit

Objective

The objective of our audit was to determine whether Environment Canada, as the federal lead and coordinator, has made satisfactory progress, working with its partners, in leading the implementation of selected recommendations and responding to observations made in our 2001 report (Chapter 1, Summary and Section 3). Those recommendations and observations concerned the development and implementation of remedial action plans for areas of concern in the Great Lakes Basin.

Scope, approach, and criteria

Our 2007 audit focused on progress made by Environment Canada in responding to selected observations and recommendations from our 2001 chapter. Our selection was based on the fact that the majority of the federal government's efforts and resources in the Great Lakes since our last audit have focused on areas of concern. Specifically, we examined whether Environment Canada has made satisfactory progress in setting clear priorities for action on restoring and delisting areas of concern, and in clarifying its role and responsibilities and those of its partners, especially for remediating contaminated sediment and treating municipal sewage.

For this audit, we interviewed department officials, reviewed documents, analyzed procedures, and examined databases and operations.

Criteria

We expected that, since Environment Canada agreed with all of our 2001 recommendations and committed to improving the situation, the Department would

• have clarified roles and responsibilities for implementing remedial action plans in the areas of concern;
• be monitoring remedial action plans, reporting progress against expected results, and making required adjustments in their implementation; and
• have restored environmental quality and beneficial uses, completed actions for remedial action plans, and progressed towards ecological rehabilitation in areas of concern.

Audit work completed

Audit work for this chapter was substantially completed on 15 August 2007.

Audit team

Assistant Auditor General: Ron Thompson
Principal: Andrew Ferguson
Director: Francine Richard

Kathleen Hobbs
Vivien Lo
Marc Tessier

For information, please contact Communications at 613-995-3708 or 1-888-761-5953 (toll-free).

Appendix—List of recommendations

The following is a list of recommendations found in Chapter 7. The number in front of the recommendation indicates the paragraph number where it appears in the chapter. The numbers in parentheses indicate the paragraph numbers where the topic is discussed.