2.1 Part 1: administration

The evaluation identified one expected outcome for Part 1:

1. An increase in the harmonization of environmental standards and requirements across all Canadian jurisdictions.

Part 1 requirements cover administrative matters of the Act. One of the major administrative requirements is for the Minister to establish a National Advisory Committee (NAP). This committee is to be composed of one representative for each of the federal Ministers of the Environment and Health, representatives from each province and territory and six representatives of Aboriginal governments drawn from across Canada. The committee advises the Ministers on actions taken under the Act that enable national, cooperative action and that avoid duplication in regulatory activity among governments. The committee also serves as the single window into provincial and territorial governments and representatives of Aboriginal governments on departmental "offers to consult" on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act - (CEPA) related matters.

Part 1 also includes provisions that allow the federal government to enter into administrative agreements with provincial and territorial governments and with Aboriginal governments and people (e.g., Band Councils). The Act allows the federal government to sign equivalency agreements with provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments.

The evaluation found that all relevant Ministerial obligations are being satisfied:

• Section 6(1) - A National Advisory Committee has been established in accordance with the stipulations of the Act.
• Sections 8, 9 and 10 - Procedural obligations under the parts of the Act dealing with agreements and the National Advisory Committee have been met.

The Department has enacted both mandated and non-mandated governance structures to oversee implementation of the Act, including the following:

• The CEPA National Advisory Committeereplaced the former Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee established under CEPA 1988. It has a broader mandate that extends beyond toxic substances. The committee has held 26 meetings since 2000. In 2001, members were surveyed on their expectations for committee role, function and operational processes.
• A joint Environment Canada - Health Canada Assistant Deputy Ministers' Committee on CEPA (formerly known as the CEPA Board of Directors) was established in 2004 to oversee the CEPA Management Committee and to address issues such as the precautionary principle, the categorization process and transparency.
• A joint Health Canada - Environment Canada CEPA Management Committee, composed of Directors General, is in place to ensure that timely and concerted actions are taken to implement the provisions of CEPA 1999. The committee provides policy direction, discusses work priorities and oversees program planning.

Environment Canada undertook a major learning and planning exercise in 2001-02 (CEPA 1999 Operational Review) to improve the implementation of CEPA 1999 and identify resource requirements. The Department has since secured the resources required to meet its mandatory obligations under the Act. Subsequent to the Operational Review, the Government of Canada provided the Department with an additional $76.3 million a year for implementation of CEPA 1999. The additional funding was designed to offset funding due to expire and allow the Department to perform all mandatory activities under CEPA 1999. In addition to resources made available by the Government of Canada for implementation of CEPA 1999, the Department received $120.2 million over 2001–2005 for implementation of the Clean Air Agenda, and $59.5 million over 2003–2007 for implementation of the Border Air Quality Strategy.

As shown in Table 1, Environment Canada spent nearly $900 million on implementation of CEPA 1999 over the first five years (2000-01 to 2004-05). The numbers in Table 1 do not include corporate overhead, employee benefits and accommodation costs. When these numbers are included, the Department now spends more than $200 million a year on implementation of CEPA 1999.

Note:

1. The data in this table has been compiled for this report by Environment Canada.
2. The budgets above include A-Base, revenue, and sunsetting resources (such as Program Integrity, Toxic Substances Research Initiative (TSRI), Ozone Annex etc).
3. Definition of CEPA included all resources from Clean Environment less Climate Change, Environmental Assessments and Contaminated Sites, as well as resources from other business lines as indicated by regions/services.
4. The 2000-01budget is equal to 2001-02 less Program Integrity and Ozone Annex as funding for both started in 2001-02.
5. Includes additional resources received from Treasury Board for 2003-04 and 2004-05.

Environment Canada has negotiated two administrative agreements (one with Saskatchewan¹ to share work on certain provincial legislation and seven CEPA 1999 regulations; and one with Quebec² covering the pulp and paper sector). Environment Canada also has one equivalency agreement (with Alberta³ on regulations in three sectors). These agreements were all originally negotiated under the authority of CEPA 1988. The Quebec administrative agreement has been renewed twice. The Alberta and Quebec agreements expire in 2005. Environment Canada has initiated discussions to renegotiate them and to expand the scope of the Alberta and Saskatchewan agreements.

In addition to these administrative and equivalency agreements, Environment Canada has negotiated agreements under its CEPA 1999 authority with all or most provinces and territories on national air pollution surveillance and has invoked the provisions made available through Part 1 of the Act to enter into several agreements respecting Canada-wide Standards under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. These include the following Canada-wide Standards:

• Particulate Matter and Ozone;⁴
• Benzene;⁵
• Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil;⁶
• Mercury Emissions (base metal smelting);⁷
• Mercury in Lamps;⁸
• Mercury in Dental Amalgam Waste;⁹
• Dioxins and Furans;¹⁰
• Dioxins and Furans from Iron Sintering;¹¹and
• Dioxins and Furans from Steel Manufacturing Electric Arc Furnaces.¹²

Subsequent to the Operational Review exercise, the Department estimated that it needed a total of an additional $120 million per year. The $40 million per annum gap between the resource needs estimated and those provided by the Government of Canada would have halved the time needed to perform the estimated 3450 screening assessments and any mandated risk management actions that will be required subsequent to the completion of the categorization exercise for substances on the Domestic Substances List. The additional funds also would have permitted the Department to carry out additional discretionary activities, such as science and technology, environmental emergency preparedness and response and non-mandated risk management actions.

The evaluation found that the Department uses the Clean Environment Business Line Plan as the overarching plan for CEPA 1999 (no separate CEPA-specific strategic plan exists). Work on a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework for CEPA 1999 was initiated and later adjusted to cover the two key results areas for the Business Line (Air and Toxics). A Results-based Management and Accountability Framework for the Air Result has been completed and is being implemented; however, a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework for the Toxics Result is still under development.

All of the CEPA National Advisory Committee members interviewed expressed concerns with respect to the recent operations of the committee, including the following:

• Aboriginal organizations expressed concerns about the role of the National Advisory Committee in addressing environmental protection issues of greatest concern to them and about the committee being the most appropriate forum for Aboriginal input.
• Most provincial and territorial officials expressed the view that Environment Canada actions are increasingly duplicating provincial and territorial control measures. These provincial and territorial representatives were also dissatisfied with the National Advisory Committee and expressed concern over perceived jurisdictional intrusion.^xii Moreover, provincial and territorial representatives also expressed concerns with respect to the volume and pace of the committee's work and limitations in their capacity to respond in a timely manner.
• Federal officials expressed concerns with respect to declining rates of participation in the National Advisory Committee, due to travel restrictions and other budgetary constraints in some jurisdictions. They also expressed concerns with the unwillingness of provincial and territorial representatives to acknowledge the real impacts that their interventions have had on federal policies and risk management measures and tools.

Such concerns will pose challenges to the Department's ability to work cooperatively with the provinces and territories in the development of harmonized environmental protection standards across Canada.

It is likely that the expected outcomes of increasing harmonization of environmental standards and requirements across all jurisdictions will be achieved to some degree. Harmonization continues to take place largely through Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment processes, with limited development of equivalency or administrative agreements under CEPA 1999.

Fundamental differences of opinion on the appropriate role for the federal government in environmental protection remain between the federal government and its provincial and territorial counterparts. These differences, however, have not precluded fruitful collaboration on specific environmental issues. These differences of opinion will need to be addressed, however, before broader harmonization of environmental protection standards across Canada will be realized.