This Web page has been archived on the Web.
1991 Report of the Auditor General of Canada
Chapter 11—Department of the Environment—Conservation and Protection
Main Points
Introduction
Environmental Concerns are Growing
Jurisdictional Complexities
The Need for Good Environmental Information
The Need For Environmental Accountability
The Department is Accountable for Many Environmental Programs
Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Audit Scope and Criteria
Background
Observations and Recommendations
Delays in regulating toxic substances
Expectations about new regulations
Limited progress on equivalency agreements
Insufficient monitoring of compliance levels
Co-ordination of enforcement effort with other departments
Need for specific policies, priorities and goals
Need for consistency in enforcement and compliance
Information for performance evaluation is inadequate
Conclusion
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Audit Scope and Criteria
Background
Observations and Recommendations
Weaknesses in strategic and operational planning
Weaknesses in the Remedial Action Plan process
Conclusion
Accountability Reporting
Audit Scope and Criteria
Observations and Recommendations
Part III of the Estimates for 1990-91 and for 1991-92
Introduction
Inadequacy of information
Failure to compare results to plans
Lack of information on external factors
Conclusion
The Reports of Canada Under the 1987 Protocol to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Introduction
Lack of information on results
Improvement in reporting
The Report to Parliament on the Administration and Enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)
Introduction
A clearly written document
Lack of information
Incomplete or selective information could be misleading
Is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act protecting the environment and human health?
Conclusion
Accountability to Parliament Remains a Problem
Main Points
11.1 The division of powers between the federal and provincial governments under the Constitution Act makes no explicit mention of the environment. Each level of government has powers that impact on the environment. The overlapping nature of environmental jurisdiction makes partnerships between the provincial, territorial and federal governments vital to Canada's environmental well-being (paragraphs 11.13 to 11.19).11.2 The Department of the Environment has not clarified with the provinces their respective authorities and responsibilities for compliance and enforcement activities, nor has it negotiated agreements with the provinces for efficient and effective achievement of environmental quality goals (11.29, 11.41 and 11.42).
11.3 Priorities for enforcement of and compliance with regulations have not been clearly defined (11.45 to 11.48).
11.4 Enforcement and compliance activities are not adequately monitored and evaluated (11.43, 11.47 and 11.54 to 11.57).
11.5 Information for planning and management control is not adequate to ensure that enforcement and compliance operations are managed with due regard to economy and efficiency, that laws and regulations are consistently applied and that an appropriate level of compliance is achieved (11.52, 11.54 and 11.55).
11.6 The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and its implementation structure are considered by many to be a good model for countries managing shared resources (11.64).
11.7 The provisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement require that operational and Remedial Action Plans be implemented. These plans lack specific goals and deadlines that could be used to hold managers accountable for the results obtained. In our opinion, this has slowed progress in dealing with the serious toxic pollution of the Great Lakes, although there have been significant reductions in some pollutants (11.69 to 11.76).
11.8 Information for Parliament on the Department's enforcement and compliance activities and on Canada's contribution to the prevention and clean-up of pollution in the Great Lakes is inadequate for accountability purposes (11.93 to 11.110).
Introduction
Environmental Concerns are Growing
11.9 The Department of the Environment was created in 1971 during a major wave of public environmental concern, when attention in Canada and elsewhere was focussed largely on obvious local and regional problems - piles of unsightly garbage, belching smokestacks, smog over big cities, soil erosion and visible pollution of many lakes and rivers. People worried about quality of the environment, depletion of forests, and potential shortages of basic raw materials and food.11.10 Some of these problems were partly abated. Conservation, waste reduction and pollution control helped to reduce some of the most visible signs of pollution; conservation and increased production helped avoid immediate shortages of raw materials.
11.11 Controls on phosphates in washing detergents and changes in municipal sewage treatment and farming practices helped reduce the flow of nutrients into the Great Lakes. This improved the clarity of the water but did little to address other, often invisible, contaminants. Controls on toxic substances helped reduce some of these contaminants. However, contaminant levels are still not acceptable.
11.12 Toward the end of the 1980s there was a new wave of environmental awareness, with a growing public understanding that environmental problems are global and pervasive. Regional and transcontinental environmental impacts, although not yet fully understood, are known to affect virtually all living things. Scientists warn of dangers ranging from ozone depletion and greenhouse warming to forest depletion and harmful effects of very small amounts of persistent toxic substances.
Jurisdictional Complexities
11.13 The environment involves some of the most difficult policy and regulatory challenges for government. Environmental problems are scientifically complex and involve significant uncertainties concerning cause and effect linkages. Environmental problems rarely respect geographic or jurisdictional boundaries, and increasingly are linked to major questions of economic policy and international equity.11.14 The division of powers laid out in the Constitution Act, 1867 makes no explicit mention of the "environment". Jurisdiction is based on the allocation of powers in areas related to the environment; in practice, each level of government has jurisdictional powers that are important for effective environmental management. As a result, jurisdiction in environmental matters is shared, with the locus of primary responsibility changing with circumstances and as the understanding of issues evolves. The shared nature of environmental jurisdiction makes partnerships between the federal, provincial and territorial governments vital to the success of national environmental policies and objectives.
11.15 Close co-operation between governments is also a practical reality. Some environmental problems - such as water supply and sewage - are predominantly local, and therefore are best handled at the municipal or provincial level. But a growing number of environmental problems transcend local and provincial boundaries and are becoming matters of national and, increasingly, international concern. Lasting results can be achieved only through co-ordinated efforts at both the domestic and international levels. Problems such as acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming all require co-ordinated global action. But while Canada can negotiate international conventions, for example on global warming, much of the responsibility for corrective action will be shared with the provinces.
11.16 The science underlying environmental issues is increasingly complex and rapidly expanding. There are no simple solutions. For example, pollution of the Great Lakes is not just a water pollution problem; it is an ecosystem problem that is related to the way we use the water, air and land. The development of environmental policy and regulation must be an ongoing effort, based on sound environmental science, recognizing the need for action sometimes even in the face of scientific uncertainty.
11.17 Environmental problems cannot be dealt with in isolation from economic issues. Through the work of the World Commission on Environment and Economy (the Brundtland Commission), we have come to recognize that lasting solutions can be achieved only through an integrated approach - one based on sustainable development. This will require a long-term process of fundamental change in behaviour and in decision making at all levels of society.
11.18 Despite these unique and difficult policy and regulatory challenges, important progress has been made. Jurisdictional roles are being clarified and co-operative mechanisms strengthened. Existing formal mechanisms, including equivalency and administrative agreements under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, are being negotiated. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has adopted a Statement on Interjurisdictional Co-operation on Environmental Matters, which establishes the overall framework for joint environmental action between the two levels of government. In addition, the CCME has developed Co-operative Principles for Environmental Assessment. In conjunction with the proposed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, this should help to clarify roles and responsibilities in the environmental assessment process.
11.19 A number of major international agreements are in place, including the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. While continuing efforts are needed to ensure the success of these agreements, and to move forward in other areas such as global warming and biodiversity, developing and developed countries have demonstrated that they can achieve consensus on difficult issues.
The Need for Good Environmental Information
11.20 The government depends on support from Parliament and the public. To decide whether to give that support, Parliament and the public need information - on the issues government wants to address, how it plans to address them, and the results it achieves. Government accountability to Parliament and the people for its use of the powers and money they have granted is a cornerstone of our democratic system.
The Need For Environmental Accountability
11.21 The Auditor General's 1990 Report cited environmental protection as a prime example of the need for accountability. In Canada responsibility for the environment is shared among levels of government. At the federal level it is further divided among many departments and agencies.11.22 Where powers are shared, there is a need for clear definition of responsibility, co-ordinated effort and precise accountability reporting, particularly where those powers involve protecting the environment.
11.23 Resolving environmental problems calls for international, federal-provincial and interdepartmental agreements that clearly spell out respective authorities and responsibilities for actions and results. Such agreements, and reports by the parties on their plans and results, are the public's key instruments for holding their elected representatives accountable for environmental management. The quality of the federal government's accountability reports is vital to Parliament and its committees in their reviews of government programs with environmental impacts.
11.24 In 1990 we noted the absence of a national environmental strategy. In December 1990, the government announced its Green Plan, described as Canada's action plan for achieving a healthy and sustainable environment. The Green Plan refers to many ongoing environmental programs, along with new initiatives which are to be announced over time. The cost of implementing the Plan is forecast at $3 billion over six years - in addition to the reported $1.3 billion a year currently allocated to departments for environmental programs.
11.25 The government has called the Green Plan the basis for judging its progress on environmental issues. Ultimately, the success of the Plan - however it is measured or judged - will depend on the collective efforts of all governments, industry and individual Canadians. The government has said that, beginning in 1992, it will introduce a State of the Environment Policy Statement in an annual address to Parliament. These initiatives can be important steps toward improved accountability by the government for its stewardship over the environment.
11.26 Although the Green Plan affects the programs of many departments, the Department of the Environment has the lead role in its further development and implementation; it is also responsible for many of the government's continuing environmental programs. Therefore, the primary responsibility to account to Parliament for these programs - their costs and results - is also the Department's.
The Department is Accountable for Many Environmental Programs
11.27 This report focusses on the Conservation and Protection Service of the Department of the Environment, whose responsibilities within areas of federal jurisdiction include:
- preventing, reducing or eliminating adverse environmental effects arising from development, from the release of pollutants and from the use of hazardous substances;
- ensuring that the environmental quality at spill and waste sites is restored to acceptable levels; and
- meeting federal responsibilities for the sound management and development of Canada's water and land resources, migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species, and for other national and international wildlife issues.
11.29 We also noted that the federal-provincial division of responsibilities made it virtually impossible to assign public accountability for safeguarding the environment. Although a number of initiatives are under way, the federal and provincial governments have not yet succeeded in clarifying their respective responsibilities on several important matters, such as assessing the environmental impacts of projects that overlap federal and provincial jurisdictions. However, the government anticipates that the new Environmental Assessment Act (Bill C-13) will help clarify some of these responsibilities.
11.30 Interdepartmental overlap of responsibilities in the federal government also makes it difficult to assign accountability to individual departments and agencies.
11.31 In this audit we reviewed the Department's own environmental programs. Specifically, we examined whether the Department manages the following activities with due regard to economy and efficiency, and whether the procedures it uses to measure effectiveness are adequate:
- enforcing and promoting compliance with federal legislation for the prevention and control of pollution of air, land and water; and
- planning, co-ordinating and reporting in connection with the administration of Canada's responsibilities in cleaning up and controlling pollution in the Great Lakes.
Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Audit Scope and Criteria
11.33 Our audit of the enforcement and compliance activities focussed on the Department's administration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), its responsibilities under Section 36 of the Fisheries Act and its limited role under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.11.34 To manage its compliance and enforcement activities economically and efficiently and to promote an effective level of compliance with the law, the Department needs to:
- have appropriate working arrangements with the provinces and with other federal departments;
- establish and follow a set of policies, priorities and plans;
- allocate and use its resources efficiently according to predetermined priorities; and
- account for its results in comparison to objectives.
Background
11.35 The Department promotes activities that help achieve and maintain environmental standards. These include identifying sources and causes of pollution; advising on ways to prevent pollution and restore the environment; regulating the introduction, transportation, use and disposal of toxic substances; and enforcing environmental laws and regulations.11.36 The primary statutory mechanisms available to the Department to prevent and control pollution of air, land and water are the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the Fisheries Act. The CEPA gives the Department power to protect human health and the environment from toxic substances. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has overall responsibility for the Fisheries Act but the Department of the Environment administers Section 36, which deals with the release into water of substances that are harmful to fish. The Department co-operates with the Department of Transport in controlling the transportation of waste dangerous goods which are detrimental to human health and the environment.
11.37 A variety of activities can be used to bring about compliance with the law. Compliance promotion includes educating companies and the public on the requirements of the law and on ways to avoid pollution. It can also include assistance in the form of technology and of tax or other economic incentives. Enforcement includes activities designed to detect violations, to require correction or, as appropriate, to collect evidence and prosecute violators. Enforcement measures can range from warnings and directives to fines and imprisonment.
11.38 Strict enforcement of regulations may not always be the most cost-effective way to achieve environmental goals. However, in some cases prosecution may be necessary to demonstrate the government's resolve to stop pollution.
Observations and Recommendations
Delays in regulating toxic substances
11.39 The Priority Substance List was established under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) by an independent advisory panel in February 1989. The list contains 44 substances in current use in Canada that are considered potentially dangerous to human health and the environment, and which require assessment on a priority basis. The CEPA requires that the departments of the Environment and National Health and Welfare determine the risks of these substances to human health and the environment, and whether they should be regulated. Although the CEPA requires that all the substances be analyzed by 1994, only two have been investigated fully and the Department is falling further behind its own internal timetable. Regulations are being developed to control the use, storage, transportation and disposal of these two substances.
Expectations about new regulations
11.40 The Green Plan implies that existing regulations are inadequate to control toxic substances. It states that the government's goal is to assess 100 priority substances by the year 2000 (including the 44 substances currently on the Priority Substance List) and to enact regulations for all substances found to be toxic. The Green Plan and the CEPA have created expectations that there will be a major increase in the number of environmental regulations and that they will be enforced. However, the Department has difficulty enforcing the 23 regulations currently existing under the CEPA and the Fisheries Act. Furthermore, we saw no evidence that the Department has fully analyzed the implications of enforcing a greatly increased number of regulations.
Limited progress on equivalency agreements
11.41 The CEPA enables the Minister of the Environment to enter into equivalency agreements with each province in order to ensure that toxic substances are controlled. By signing an equivalency agreement, the Minister and his provincial counterpart agree that there is in force, in that province, legislation equivalent to the CEPA regulation, and that the particular CEPA regulation does not apply in that province. By harmonizing provincial and federal controls, equivalency agreements would help to ensure that environmental legislation, methods of enforcement and levels of compliance were consistent across the country.11.42 Equivalency agreements would help eliminate the potential for duplication where provincial regulations would have the same effect as federal regulations. At the same time, they would provide for an appropriate exchange of information on enforcement efforts and the levels of compliance they have achieved. Draft agreements have been developed and efforts made to clarify the criteria for equivalency. However, at 30 June 1991, three years after the CEPA was proclaimed, no equivalency agreements were yet in place.
Insufficient monitoring of compliance levels
11.43 Except for the Atlantic provinces, coastal British Columbia and the northern territories, the government's responsibility for administering the Fisheries Act has been delegated to the provinces. Generally, there is little formal documentation concerning these arrangements. Furthermore, the Department of the Environment does not adequately monitor the provinces' activities under Section 36 of the Fisheries Act. As a result, the Department does not have adequate information for management planning and control purposes and cannot provide information to Parliament on levels of compliance with the regulations it is responsible for administering.
Co-ordination of enforcement effort with other departments
11.44 Co-ordination of compliance and enforcement activities with other federal departments is necessary for control of pollution, particularly in joint administration of environmental legislation. The Department has memoranda of understanding with several departments, including the departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Transport, National Health and Welfare and National Revenue - Customs and Excise. These define the respective responsibilities under various environmental Acts, and provide a framework for accountability.
Need for specific policies, priorities and goals
11.45 We found an enforcement and compliance policy in place for the CEPA, and one being developed for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act.11.46 The Department cannot properly allocate its resources unless it has a clear basis for determining the relative importance of each individual environmental issue. However, enforcement and compliance priorities have not been established. The Department has not identified its priorities for environmental quality, or the level of regulatory compliance required to achieve it. Furthermore, the lack of enforcement priorities hampers the determination of the types and mix of skills required of enforcement personnel.
11.47 The Department introduced an annual National Inspection Plan in 1990-91, identifying the number and types of inspections to be carried out under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The Plan does not specify the required levels of compliance with the regulations. Furthermore, the Department has not assessed the effectiveness of existing regulations and of possible alternative methods to bring about compliance.
11.48 The Department should clearly define and communicate the priorities to be placed on enforcement and compliance activities and the levels of compliance required.
Need for consistency in enforcement and compliance
11.49 Documented procedures can be used to provide direction and guidance to employees and to help ensure that they carry out assigned work efficiently and in a consistent manner.11.50 The Department has few procedures to guide inspectors and investigators. It has developed an Inspector's Manual, but this is more a guide to the legislation than to procedures. It provides little direction and guidance on how to conduct inspections and investigations, how to prepare and present cases and how to collect and maintain evidence for court. Without appropriate guidance for enforcement personnel, there can be no assurance that enforcement efforts are consistent and are carried out efficiently.
11.51 The CEPA Enforcement and Compliance Policy and the report to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the CEPA state that consistent enforcement across Canada is the Department's policy. However, departmental officials told us that they believe that enforcement is not consistent across the country.
11.52 Some departmental officials believe that several regulations under Section 36 of the Fisheries Act are unenforceable. The Department has a plan to review and correct these deficiencies. In any case, the general lack of data on enforcement and compliance makes it virtually impossible to determine whether enforcement has been carried out consistently. The Department has not evaluated the actual procedures and, as a result, has not assessed their appropriateness and consistency. Also, there is little feedback of information for management planning and control.
11.53 The Department should develop an approved set of clearly defined methods and procedures for enforcement and compliance activities, ensure that they are communicated to enforcement personnel and periodically assess their adequacy.
Information for performance evaluation is inadequate
11.54 We were unable to find sufficient data to demonstrate either the efficiency or the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance activities. Without such data the Department cannot demonstrate adequate management of its programs, or fully account to Parliament for the economy and efficiency of its activities and their results.11.55 The Department is developing systems to provide information on the number of inspections and investigations and their results - warnings, charges and convictions. However, without related information on the number of sites requiring inspection and the time spent on enforcement and compliance tasks, it is not possible to accurately forecast resource needs.
11.56 The Department has not evaluated the overall effectiveness of the regulations it enforces to improve environmental quality, or of its enforcement and compliance policies and plans. Furthermore, it has not defined performance standards that could assist with effectiveness measurement. As a result, the Department does not have adequate information on levels of compliance with regulations, or on the impact its enforcement and compliance activities have on environmental quality.
11.57 The Department should establish performance standards to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of regulations and of the associated enforcement and compliance activities.
Conclusion
11.58 In our opinion, the Department does not have adequate information for planning and management control. As a result, it cannot demonstrate due regard to economy and efficiency in the management of its enforcement and compliance activities. Furthermore, the Department does not know whether these activities are effective. We have been advised by the Department that it is beginning to take steps to assemble essential information on the efficiency and effectiveness of its enforcement and compliance activities.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Audit Scope and Criteria
11.59 We examined how the Department manages its responsibilities for Canada's contribution to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.11.60 Comprehensive strategic and operational plans, and mechanisms for project development and delivery, are necessary to enable the government to economically and efficiently meet its commitments under the Agreement. Also, mechanisms for performance measurement and reporting should be in place to provide Parliament and the public with appropriate information on the achievement of the Agreement's objectives.
Background
11.61 The Great Lakes Basin ecosystem comprises the five Great Lakes and the land within their drainage areas. The lakes contain nearly 20 percent of the world's fresh water. Twenty-five percent of the Canadian population lives in the area, the site of one of the largest concentrations of industrial capacity in the world.11.62 Several recent reports have focussed on concerns about the seriousness of pollution in the Great Lakes and its impact on the health of people in the area. Examples include the biennial reports of the International Joint Commission, created to provide Canada and the United States with advice on boundary issues, including Great Lakes water. The fourth and fifth biennial reports, issued in 1989 and 1990 respectively, call for immediate action to control pollution and clean up the 17 Canadian "areas of concern" ( Exhibit 11.1 ). In March 1991 the departments of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and National Health and Welfare released "Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes and Associated Effects". This report drew attention to the health problems posed by toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes. Although there have been some successes in cleaning up the Great Lakes Basin, problems persist and much remains to be done.
11.63 The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (the Agreement) was signed by Canada and the United States in 1972, and was reviewed and expanded in 1978 and 1987. It commits the two countries to restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.
11.64 Since 1972, a number of pollutants in the Great Lakes have been substantially reduced by co-operative programs in Canada and the United States. There has been some success at integrating and co-ordinating the efforts of different levels of government with those of industry and the public, to identify pollution problems and to design solutions. As a result, the Agreement and its implementation structure are considered by many to be a good model for countries managing shared resources.
11.65 The 1986 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting Great Lakes Water Quality provides for federal-provincial co-operation in implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement - necessary because much of the subject matter is under provincial jurisdiction.
11.66 Responsibility for the Agreement is shared in the federal government by the departments of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture, Transport, National Health and Welfare and External Affairs. Their efforts are co-ordinated through the Interdepartmental Committee on Water, chaired by the Department of the Environment, and through several other working groups.
11.67 In 1990-91 the Department's budget for the Great Lakes Water Quality Program was approximately $17 million; the total budget for all federal departments for Great Lakes water issues was about $41 million. Annual budgets were substantially increased with the Great Lakes Action Plan in 1989 and the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Pollution Prevention Initiative in 1991, providing for an additional $125 million over five years and $25 million over six years, respectively.
11.68 Canada, the United States and the International Joint Commission are currently examining their respective roles and responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, in preparation for formal review of the Agreement in 1992. Federal- provincial roles and responsibilities are also being examined, following the expiry of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on 31 March 1991 - since extended for six months pending negotiation of a new agreement. The timing of these reviews is critical, because the parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement are now beginning to address specific contaminated sites and sources of pollution, through individual plans developed by governments in consultation with industry and the public. A few of these plans, called Remedial Action Plans (RAPs), are now moving toward implementation. They cannot succeed without the commitment and financial support of the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Observations and Recommendations
Weaknesses in strategic and operational planning
11.69 To guide federal departments involved in implementing the Agreement, the Department has developed an extensive planning framework comprising departmental and interdepartmental strategic and operational plans.11.70 The continuing success of Canada's contribution to the Agreement depends on the direction supplied by strategic planning, which should be (but is not) required by the Interdepartmental Committee on Water chaired by the Department of the Environment. Existing strategic plans do not address the upcoming 1992 review of the Agreement, the expiry of the Canada-Ontario Agreement in March 1991, or the anticipated shift in focus in 1991-92 to implementation of Remedial Action Plans for badly polluted areas. These deficiencies in the strategic plans have allowed the development of operational plans with few specific goals and deadlines against which performance can be measured.
11.71 The Department should develop, in consultation with the other federal departments and the Province of Ontario, a new strategic plan for the 1990s to enable Canada to meet its overall commitments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Department's response: The Department has already begun the process of developing a new strategic plan in consultation with other federal departments. This process will eventually include the province and the public through the Department's Great Lakes Action Plan Strategic Advisory Committee.
Weaknesses in the Remedial Action Plan process
11.72 Canadian concerns about contamination in the Great Lakes Basin are addressed in a significant way through the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process. This process includes the designation of areas of concern, the development of clean-up plans, and their implementation. It brings governments, industry and the public together in a common cause - the restoration of drinkable, swimmable and fishable water in the Great Lakes. Given the number of stakeholders, the various government jurisdictions, and the magnitude of the problems, the process is extremely difficult.11.73 Based on studies of clean-up costs for United States' areas of concern, the Canadian RAP clean-up bill could be several billion dollars. It will require co-operation by three levels of government and other authorities. Present federal policy requires that both the resource user and the polluter pay to spread the burden of cost.
11.74 There have been problems and delays in the RAP process, in that some Stage 1 reports (Problem Definition) have not been completed according to specific deadlines. These problems could be addressed within the context of an overall strategic plan for the RAP process, which would have specific policies, goals, priorities, timetables and funding arrangements to guide the development and implementation of individual Remedial Action Plans. This framework could then form the basis for reporting to the International Joint Commission.
Department's response: It should be noted that delays in the Stage 1 RAPs were largely out of the Department's control, given the extensive involvement of the public in the process, and the public's desire to have the Stage 1 reports as complete as possible.
11.75 Without specific policies, goals, priorities, and timetables, there is no basis for the Department to account to Parliament or to report to the International Joint Commission on the implementation of Canada's RAPs.
11.76 The Department should develop a strategic plan for the implementation process for Remedial Action Plans (RAP), to enable individual RAP teams to determine realistic goals and deadlines.
Department's response: The Department is presently developing a new strategic plan for RAPs, in conjunction with the province. The plan will be reviewed by the Interdepartmental Committee on Water.
Conclusion
11.77 We believe that the deficiencies we have noted constitute a lack of due regard to economy and efficiency in managing Canada's contribution to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Furthermore, we believe that the lack of specific goals and deadlines hampers the Department's ability to report to Parliament and to the International Joint Commission on progress made in implementing the Agreement. We note, however, that efforts have been made by the Ontario Region to address outstanding issues by bringing them to the attention of senior management and by beginning a review of strategic plans.
Accountability Reporting
Audit Scope and Criteria
11.78 We selected three reports for examination: Part III of the Estimates of the Department, for 1990-91 and 1991-92; the First Report of Canada (dated December 1988) under the 1987 Protocol to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; and the first report to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (dated March 1990). In our opinion, these are among the most significant accountability documents produced by the Department.11.79 Our objective was to determine if selected public accountability documents prepared by the Department contain reliable, relevant, consistent, clear and complete information, for Parliament and the public to understand and evaluate planned and actual program performance.
Observations and Recommendations
Part III of the Estimates for 1990-91 and for 1991-92
Introduction
11.80 Part IIIs of the Estimates contain detailed information on planned and actual activities and expenditures of individual departments. Treasury Board policy states that the Part IIIs "are directed at improving the government's accountability to Parliament by providing more and better information on government programs, thereby permitting parliamentarians to carry out more effectively their reviews of expenditures."
Inadequacy of information
11.81 Treasury Board policy also states that the Part IIIs should "provide enough information to help Members of Parliament in understanding and assessing a program's planned and actual performance in terms of results and related resources." We found examples in both 1990-91 and 1991-92 of information that is sufficient and useful. For example, the Department's Part III for 1991-92 provides a clear description of the St. Lawrence Action Plan - its major components, the five-year objectives and costs for each component, and the specific current-year goals.11.82 However, there are cases where planned and actual results are stated in such vague terms that they provide little basis for accountability. In other cases, long-term goals and budgets are stated, but current-year goals and budgets are not; for some important items, no resource figures are provided at all. There are no references in the Department's Part IIIs pointing out where this important information can be found.
Failure to compare results to plans
11.83 Accountability is more than just accounting for money spent. Those entrusted with spending the money should also account for results by comparing achievements to the original plans.11.84 The Department's Part IIIs rarely relate actual results to plans. For example, the development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for 17 badly contaminated Canadian sites is a major activity under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The 1991-92 Part III reports that five Canadian RAPs completed Stage I (Problem Definition) in 1990-91. But it provides no information on how many should have been completed and the consequences, if any, of delays. In fact, progress is significantly behind schedule. The previous Part III had projected that all 17 Remedial Action Plans would have completed Stage I in 1990-91, and that 10 of the 17 would have completed Stage II (Selection of Remedial and Regulatory Measures).
11.85 The Department should provide sufficient information in Part III of the Estimates, or a reference to where such information can be found, to assist Parliament and the public to understand and evaluate planned and actual program performance. If planned results have not been achieved, it should explain why and should estimate the consequences.
Lack of information on external factors
11.86 Many external factors can affect a department's ability to carry out its plans or to meet its objectives. Information about these factors helps Parliament judge the reasonableness of the department's objectives, its plans to achieve them and what it has actually achieved. It also helps Parliament understand the constraints under which the department operates.11.87 In its 1990-91 Part III the Department of the Environment states, "The federal government will participate in a national program to clean up all contaminated sites in Canada." According to the document, there are approximately 1,000 contaminated sites in Canada that pose a threat to human health or the environment. Fifty of these are "orphan" sites where the polluters are unknown; cleaning them up will require direct government intervention. For the remaining sites, "the responsible parties are known and will be responsible for clean-up at their own expense." The 1990-91 Part III reports that the Department's share of the clean-up costs will be $150 million over five years.
11.88 The document fails to point out several constraints to the likely success of this program. Not all contaminated sites have been identified. The actual costs of cleaning up contaminated sites are not known. (However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it will cost US $20 to $40 million per site for cleaning up in its jurisdiction.) The number of orphan sites could increase significantly if owners declare bankruptcy and abandon their properties, rather than cleaning them up. The Part III also fails to note that there may not be adequate facilities to safely store or destroy all the toxic substances removed from the sites.
11.89 With so many constraints and uncertainties, it is not clear that all the contaminated sites will be cleaned up in five years, or that $150 million will meet the federal share of the costs. If Parliament and the public are not aware of these constraints, they may believe that $150 million and five years are firmer figures than the circumstances warrant.
11.90 The Department should provide information in Part III of the Estimates on significant constraints to achieving program objectives, and should project only results that can feasibly be achieved with the resources requested.
Conclusion
11.91 We found that Part III of the Estimates provides reliable, relevant, consistent, clear and complete information about some of the Department's activities. Unfortunately, we also found cases where it does not. The Department's Part IIIs could be excellent accountability and information documents if the whole were as well prepared as some of the parts. Until the Department achieves that consistency, its Part IIIs must be considered no more than adequate.11.92 Generally, the information in the Part III for 1991-92 was more informative and more complete than for 1990-91. This reflects the Department's efforts to improve its presentation of information.
The Reports of Canada Under the 1987 Protocol to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Introduction
11.93 Canada and the United States, according to the 1987 Protocol, must report publicly every two years to the International Joint Commission on progress toward achieving specific objectives, listed in certain annexes to the Agreement. We reviewed Canada's first Report, dated December 1988, and a draft of the 1990 Report. Both reports were prepared jointly with the Province of Ontario.
Lack of information on results
11.94 We found the 1988 Report to the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to be inadequate, both as an information and a public accountability document. The report was difficult to read and understand. The information about achievements against specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was incomplete. Most important, the report failed to show what progress was being made toward eliminating toxic substances from the Great Lakes.
Improvement in reporting
11.95 We noted improvements in the draft of the 1990 Report, which details progress to 31 December 1990. It is in two parts, an issues overview and a technical summary, which allows for reporting to two audiences. The writing style is much easier to read than the 1988 Report and technical jargon is kept to a minimum. One particularly useful feature of the later report is that it provides names, addresses and telephone numbers of officials who can provide further information on selected issues.11.96 Despite the improvements noted, the 1990 draft Report suffers from the same major failing as the 1988 Report. It does not provide an indication of whether the overall objectives of the agreement are being met. It reports extensively on research, studies and consultations. It reports that Remedial Action Plans are being developed and that laws and regulations are being written. However, it fails to show what progress is being made toward eliminating toxic substances in the Great Lakes.
What About the Fish and Beaches?
Work under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is supposed to restore and protect "beneficial uses" in the areas of concern. Benefits include the re-opening of beaches and the ability to eat fish and wildlife. Public accountability means that the public has a right to know what progress is being made. How many beaches will be re-opened for public use, and when? When will the advisories on fish consumption be lifted?11.97 Canada's report on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement should indicate the progress that has been made in achieving the overall objectives of the Agreement.
Department's response: The Department has recognized the need for a results-oriented Parties report, and has undertaken the necessary planning to ensure that future reports are results-oriented.
The Report to Parliament on the Administration and Enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)
Introduction
11.98 The CEPA requires that the Department submit an annual report to Parliament on its administration and enforcement of the Act. The Minister presented the first "annual" report in December 1990. It covers the 21-month period from Proclamation of the Act on 30 June 1988 to 31 March 1990. The report states that this Act is "the cornerstone of federal environmental legislation."
A clearly written document
11.99 The CEPA report is clearly written, in plain language. It is well organized and easy to follow. Unfortunately, some essential information is missing, and there are no guides as to where it can be found. Other information could be misleading.
Lack of information
11.100 The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with several aspects of environmental protection. In its report the Department does not address all important parts of the Act, concentrating instead on three elements: toxic waste, ocean dumping and enforcement. The report says nothing about two other important parts of the Act, those dealing with nutrients and international air pollution. Furthermore, it does not explain these omissions. The reader does not know whether the subjects are not important or whether the Department has not yet decided to do something about them.11.101 Some information that is included leaves the reader with more questions than answers. The report states that over 5,800 inspections have been carried out in the first year and a half of CEPA's operation. That number is meaningless if the reader is not told how many inspections are needed to safeguard the environment and human life and health. The report states that there were more than 300 cases (5.5 percent) of non-compliance. Was the non-compliance serious? Was it due to accident or negligence? Most important, what is the effect of the non-compliance on human health and the environment? The report does not answer any of these questions.
Incomplete or selective information could be misleading
11.102 Why is it important to have complete information? Even information that is accurate or correct can give a misleading picture if important parts of the information are not reported. Parliament and the public deserve to have the whole picture so that they can make their own judgments. The following examples show why.11.103 Does the report overstate the actual level of penalties likely to be meted out to CEPA offenders? The text of the report gives the impression that penalties are severe, that the Act is tough on offenders. It states that the minimum penalty for offenders is a $200,000 fine and a six-month jail term. These are, in fact, the maximum penalties under most sections of the Act, not the minimum penalties. Appendix I to the report reveals that actual penalties are much milder than the report implies. During the 21 months covered by the report, only five companies or individuals were successfully prosecuted on nine charges. The average fine under each of the nine charges was less than $3,000. The minimum fine reported was $500.
11.104 Will the 44 priority substances be assessed before the deadline? The report devotes considerable space to the 44 substances that most urgently require assessment of their effects on human health and the environment. It states that the deadline for assessing the substances is 11 February 1994. It does not mention that many of the substances were originally scheduled by the Department to be assessed well before that date. Furthermore, the report does not indicate that the Department is behind its original schedule and may even find it difficult to meet the revised target dates. The report does not provide any information about the possible environmental consequences of not meeting the deadline.
11.105 Is the CEPA compliance and enforcement policy working? As noted in paragraphs 11.39 to 11.58 of this chapter, there are serious deficiencies in administering the Department's enforcement and compliance policy. Despite these deficiencies, the report gives the impression that the policy is effective and that environmental regulations under the CEPA are being adequately enforced.
11.106 Leaving out essential information and downplaying problems in meeting deadlines or enforcing regulations can have a serious impact on the message of the report. The reader can get an impression of a situation that is significantly at odds with the facts.
11.107 The Department should provide in the report all the significant information the reader needs to understand the extent of the problems and their potential consequences, and the extent to which the Department is addressing them. The report should state what additional information is available and where it can be obtained.
Is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act protecting the environment and human health?
11.108 The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) describes itself as "an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health." The CEPA report does not state this major objective or explain how the various activities under the Act contribute to achieving it.11.109 The Department should report on how the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is achieving its overall objective of protecting the environment and human life and health.
Conclusion
11.110 Although we found that this report was well organized and clearly written, in our opinion it is not nearly as useful as it could be. It does not report on how the Act contributes to the protection of the environment and of human life and health. The information provided is selective and often incomplete. We believe that the December 1990 CEPA report is inadequate as an accountability and information document.Department's response: The Department has made changes to the 1990-91 CEPA Annual Report which address the concerns of incomplete information and environmental results.