Environment Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you. I'm very pleased you're here today, Commissioner, although all these discussions about who did what in the past and the finger pointing leaves me worried about where we are right now. We have a government that has been assuring Canadians that it's acting on the environment. We have a Minister of the Environment who is reassuring Canadians about what they're doing toward the environment, but we're hearing from you that the metrics, the measurements, the science on protecting fish habitat, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether it's within the Kyoto Protocol or not, reducing greenhouses gas emissions is simply not there.

Is that a fair characterization, that the science is simply not being done at present in Canada to monitor our impact on the ecosystems around us, whether it be atmosphere or fish habitat, in this case?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thanks very much for the question. I wouldn't want to stray beyond the two audits that we did put forward, and we didn't look at the scientific capacity of the government. I think your characterization on the measurement side, there were gaps.... I don't think this is a question of science as much as it is a question of whether there are measurement systems or accounting systems in place.

I think on the fish habitat it's a little bit different. There were some problems or commitments related to ecosystem indicators. By definition, those are based on science, and those have not yet been produced.

But I will say, just to remind the committee, that we were here in March and we said the development of the air quality health indicator was a model of using good science. So I wouldn't want to stray into a general characterization of the government's capacity on science.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Fair enough, but the concern that was raised in terms of removing environmental assessments for projects of a certain size or smaller, seeing that it's being doubled up on what's already being done...we get an impression from this government that they're able to remove environmental assessments because there's so much of it, too much of it even, that is going on in the name of red tape.

Your findings seem to contradict that, that there is not enough monitoring measurement and assessment in the case of fish habitat and greenhouse gas emissions.

[Scott Vaughan]

I think that's right. As a general observation, we're saying there's not enough. There's not enough baseline information on the number of habitats, on the state of habitats. There is not a system to measure actual reductions. Those are observations from the two audits.

In terms of the red tape, I think we also said that we looked at the current systems in place. In the samples we took, both the ministerial authorizations as well as the letters of advice, the systems that already were in place weren't being adhered to. There were significant gaps within the systems already in place.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

So the waiving of further requirements doesn't seem to be moving in a direction that will allow you to give a more positive recommendation when the next audit comes around. Is that a fair assessment?

[Scott Vaughan]

I wouldn't look at anything in the future, but what we will say, as I mentioned before, is that we are doing an audit of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its application. That will be in November. That will be a more fulsome examination of federal responsibilities under that act.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

To Mr. Maxwell, you mentioned the policy on large projects specifically, and gave the example of transforming a lake into a tailings pond. There has been a development of policy around that. Is there a development of science around that, of research around that, of potential measurements, or is it just a policy? Could you speak a little bit more concretely around your concerns on big projects?

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Chair.

As you said, this is a policy in development, so any comments are in real time. Because it still is in development, we weren't able to look at it in any detailed fashion. It's a fairly short paragraph in an audit that spans many pages.

With that, I'll just ask Mr. Hellsten if he has anything to add.

[Eric Hellsten]

I think our concern was that basically, on a project-by-project basis, the department is supposed to be able to say that there's no net loss of habitat. For these very large projects, when they can't say that for sure....

They're trying to develop this policy. As Mr. Maxwell was saying earlier, we didn't look at that policy, since it's just being developed. But it definitely will be a challenge.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Are there working examples of habitat replacement that we've been able to use as benchmarks or as models to indicate success?

[Eric Hellsten]

No. In fact, what we say in the chapter is that the department uses different approaches for compensation, different ratios. In one region it may be one-to-one, and in another three-to-one, with a different measure. The department itself doesn't have one single model that it uses for compensation.

We also say in the chapter that it doesn't go into the project after the fact, in most cases, and look at whether that compensation was actually effective or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Watson, the floor is yours.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you back in the chair again. We're glad to have you back.

On that note, I'd also like to welcome back Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Bigras, whom we missed on the Alberta oil sands trip.

I'd like to begin where Mr. Scarpaleggia actually began, which was arguing that the Liberal delay in action on climate change was based on Russia's ratification in 2004. I have to admit that I'm having trouble buying this Liberal hot air. I don't find any excuse for Liberal inaction.

As I recall from the 1993 Liberal red book, there was a commitment to 20% reduction below 1988 levels in greenhouse gases. That was four years of inaction before Kyoto was even signed. Obviously when they signed the Kyoto Protocol they knew when the reporting period was to begin.

I'm not the only one, I think, who has some amount of skepticism about Liberal inaction. I think the previous commissioners of the environment found that as well.

For example, the 2000 report talked about the “persistent problems” the federal Liberal government of the time was having in its “management of key issues like climate change”.

According to the 2005 report, again referring to the Liberal government of the time, “When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.”

I actually think they had trouble getting across the starting line, Mr. Chair, such that even the current Liberal leader had to admit that the Liberals didn't get it done. He said that in 2006, that the Liberal Party had gotten into a mess on the environment.

[An hon. member]

That has to be a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

To prove my point about not getting across the starting line, I'm going to ask about the Kyoto implementation act.

To quote from your introduction on page 57, “The Act requires the Minister of the Environment to prepare and implement an annual climate change plan to address sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.” To the best of your knowledge, Mr. Commissioner, do you know whether this was a requirement between 1997 and 2006 for previous environment ministers?

[Scott Vaughan]

To the best of my knowledge, no. I think this is a new requirement for the submission of an annual climate change plan.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much.

The annual plan, you go on to say in your main points, is to include a series of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as a report on progress made in implementing the previous year's plan. To the best of your knowledge, was this also a requirement for previous environment ministers between 1997 and 2006?

[Scott Vaughan]

No, I think this is again a new requirement.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Moving on to page 59, you go on to say that “it”, meaning the act, “stipulates that these plans must include a variety of measures...”, and you show in exhibit 2.2 with respect to subsection 5(1), for example, a description of the requirement laid out in the law itself:

a description of the measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol, including measures respecting:

(i) regulated emission limits and performance standards;

(ii) market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets;

(iii) spending or fiscal measures or incentives;

...a just transition for workers...and...cooperative measures

There are five sub-things to be laid out.

To the best of your knowledge, were those requirements for previous environment ministers between 1997 and 2006?

[Scott Vaughan]

No, these are new requirements.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

The legal requirements go on to say, “for each measure referred to in paragraph (a)”—those are the items I just read—

(i) the date on which it will come into effect, and

(ii) the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions that have resulted or are expected to result for each year up to and including 2012, compared to the levels in the most recently available emission inventory for Canada

To the best of your knowledge, were those requirements for environment ministers between 1997 and 2006?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes. I think for the latter, it depends how the formulation is, but subparagraph (b)(ii) describes what would be a requirement within the Kyoto Protocol itself. If the question is whether the minister had an obligation to submit that information formally annually to Parliament, the answer would be no, but it would be a requirement that stood before the KPIA.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I was just getting started, Mr. Chair. Unlike the Liberal government before, I was just getting started.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Braid, you get to wrap up the second round.