Evidence of meeting #31 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Yes. The exact quote is, “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.”
You would agree that the concept of sustainable development is clearly a development concept as well as an environmental concept?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
It's the intersection of all three things.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Okay. It's interesting that in your comments—and again, I do realize I'm looking at a summary—the implication is that sustainable development is an environmental concept, when it's clearly not. It's both...well, the three legs of the stool, as we all know from our work in sustainable development: social, environmental, and economic progress.
Should the government in its sustainable development report also talk about the very successful wealth creation policies that have enriched this country?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
In its sustainable development strategies?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
I believe each ministry reports—should do it and does do it—in its sustainable development strategies, on its successes in all three areas: environmental, social, and economic.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.
We'll move now to Mr. McKay for seven minutes.
October 8th, 2014 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to go to chapter 2, recommendation 2.50, with respect to the Canada-Alberta implementation plan, where it says, “...with due consideration for the extent and nature of the Department’s future involvement”. Mr. Woodworth canvassed this a little bit. Then the department agrees, apparently, that it has to figure out what its future involvement is going to be.
Simultaneously, the Auditor General of Alberta released his comments yesterday about this plan. He said the report lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies. He said that it was disturbing that the report covering the year ending March 31, 2013 was not released until June of this year, nine months after the targeted release date, and that the lack of timeliness made the report less relevant, etc.
It goes on to comment that you, in a separate report—that's the report you just released—took a more positive view toward the joint monitoring program, and then it includes a quote.
Did you have any conversations with the Auditor General of Alberta about this particular program?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
In fact, we did. We were aware that they were looking at the reporting part of the joint plan, so there was a commitment to issue a report. We knew that the Auditor General of Alberta was looking at the reporting section.
The scope of our audit was to look at the federal role. We decided to look at Environment Canada's role in implementing the projects that they were responsible for, so we took different parts of the joint plan and looked at different parts, essentially.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
You were somewhat complimentary to Environment Canada's role in that project. I think you had 18 projects, or something like that.
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Environment Canada was responsible for 38 projects. We examined nine of them in detail. Overall, they were on time and on budget.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
You're reasonably happy, putting aside where the future is going with this program. The Auditor General, however, seems to be somewhat unhappy, and in pithier language describes it as something less than world class.
Do you have any observations with respect to his comments?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
It is important to look at the period that was covered. We were looking at the implementation of the 2013-14 work plans and the development of the 2014-15 work plans. The Auditor General of Alberta was looking at the year prior to that.
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
It's really important to look at the scope.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you. That's helpful. That's clarifying as well.
Going to the first chapter, page 24, you put forward four charts. The first one pretty well everyone is familiar with. The target is 612 megatonnes. Whether or not that makes Canada more or less green, it's 612. That's the target. That's what you wanted.
Then you add charts B, C, and D. The charts give quite a variance between the low end and the high end of the various impacts of various emissions reductions.
When you say, in 1.63, that Environment Canada could improve decision-makers' climate change reports, is this what you're referring to, that this kind of information should be more readily available to decision-makers so that you can get a better handle on whether the government is going to make its target?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Yes, that's correct. Recommendation 1.63 does refer to the information that we put in the chart, exhibit 1.8.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Environment Canada seems to agree with that idea, that this kind of material should be made available.
What I don't understand, when looking at the charts, is this. It has this LULUCF thing, which I understand has to do with land, use change, and forestry, etc.
For example, two weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources put a report on the table in the House of Commons about the impact of forest cover. I'm probably simplifying too much, but the argument was that forests in Canada have flipped; instead of being a carbon sink, they're now releasing more carbon than they're taking in. I'm being very simplistic on that. Is that the kind of thing that would be captured with these more nuanced reports?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Yes. Forests, and Canada's forests in particular, can flip between being carbon sinks and carbon sources. So yes, by separating the effects of what's called LULUCF—land use, land use change, and forestry—Canadians would have a better understanding of the impact of land use changes on our greenhouse gas emission targets.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
There is a big argument that as, in effect, the treeline moves north, there will be a greater release of methane in particular as permafrost gets released from its current trapped state. Again, would that range in variation be caught by these kinds of charts?
4:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
I can't answer that question right now. I think we could get back to you.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
That would be great, because Mr. McKay's time is up. If you could get back with an answer, that would be very helpful.
4:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
We'll get back to you with an answer on that. It's a very specific question around the release of methane as the permafrost—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Right: I don't believe that's included in here but I could be wrong, and I don't want to mislead you.