Evidence of meeting #22 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reductions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Under the regulatory framework, 80% of the expected emissions come from the industrial emitters.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
You know a little bit about this, having studied it. Does that sound like a reasonable allocation of emissions reductions?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Well, it probably wouldn't be for me to comment. I think, being reasonable, what you want is to get the largest sources. Environmental policy looks generally at addressing point sources of emissions. Those are the largest emitters.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
That's what I thought. Thank you.
As I understand it, there are 14 industrial sectors, and several hundred facilities in those 14 sectors, where the largest emissions occur. Am I reading your report correctly on that?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Sorry, I missed that. Would you mind repeating that?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Sure. I understand from your report that in the industrial sector, where the largest emissions might be found, there are some 14 sectors and several hundred facilities putting out those emissions. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, that's correct.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I understand that one of the issues you've discovered is that there is no system to count the real reduction in emissions from those hundreds of facilities at this time. Is that correct?
9:50 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's correct, yes.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
What I'm wondering is whether you saw any evidence that this had been addressed at all--that is, the development of the means of counting real reduction emissions from these largest emitters--from 1997 to 2006.
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Within the scope of this audit, we looked at what the act required us to examine, which is the government's plans, 2007-08, in the context of the KPIA act.
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We didn't look at previous plans.
There have been previous audits that have looked at past performance of the government. I believe there was one done in 2006.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Can you tell me whether any previous audit, to your knowledge, found that the former Liberal government, between 1997 and 2006, put into place any system to count real emissions reductions from these largest industrial emitters?
9:55 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
When we looked at the situation back in 2005 and we reported in 2006--there was a change in government at that time--we saw that the government was putting in place a plan to do just what you said. They were not doing it at the time; they were planning on doing it, but the government changed.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So from 1997 to 2006 the Liberal government was planning on it, but didn't do it. Is that what you're saying?
9:55 a.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
During that period the government came up with a series of plans, some of them were related to energy efficiency, which continued under the new government. In terms of industrial emissions, they were coming up with an approach similar to what the government is now proposing, but it was never put in place because they left power.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose. But to say they left power in 2006 doesn't really explain why it wasn't put in place between 1997 and 2006--unless, of course, we want to blame the Russians.
I want to clarify one point about the phrase in your report regarding the Kyoto Protocol time period of 2008 to 2012. Looking at that with fresh eyes and knowing nothing about it could lead to the interpretation that that's when the emission reductions were supposed to occur, but in fact that Kyoto timeframe of 2008 to 2012 actually isn't when the emission reductions were to occur; they were to have been completed at some point during that timeframe. Is that correct?
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's correct. Under the Kyoto period and the rules of the Kyoto Protocol, parties that are subject to those reductions are to report within the Kyoto period.
What augments that or is in addition to that is under the KPIA itself it requires a year-by-year, measure-by-measure reduction or accounting system.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Your time has expired, Mr. Woodworth.
Mr. Ouellet, you have five minutes.
May 26th, 2009 / 9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You can relax. My questions are not intended as accusations against the government.
In your report, it is not clear who has jurisdiction over fish. We know that river beds and water are under provincial jurisdiction. However, once fish are on the boat, they are under federal jurisdiction until they get to the wharf.
When you evaluate fish habitat, how do you divide the responsibilities between the province and the federal government?
9:55 a.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Thank you for your question. It is complicated for me, as well, but my colleague Mr. Maxwell will be able to answer.
9:55 a.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It is very complicated, indeed. If you do not mind, I will answer in English.
Because of the split of jurisdictions, Mr. Chair, one of the key things we looked at for both the relationship of DFO with the provinces and Environment Canada and the provinces was to ask if they had agreements in place, and secondly, if the federal departments know whether or not those agreements are working satisfactorily in terms of the agreement that has been entered into by two consenting parties.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
So you would not respond in the same way if it was Alberta as opposed to Quebec because the agreements are not the same. Is that right?
9:55 a.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, that is correct. The agreements are different from province to province.