Environment Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If I understand correctly, according to the very telling table on page 67 of your report, the major emitters are not expected to achieve any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 or in 2009. Is that right?

The plan seems to rely heavily on the assumption that the large industrial emitters will invest credits in a technology fund. That is what I understand. I recall that when we studied the government's plan, Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute said that these technology funds were merely ways to circumvent the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I also recall that the Pembina Institute identified a certain number of loopholes in the plan, one of which was investing in technology funds.

Can we confirm that the plan that was put in place will not help achieve any real reductions, as the plan indicates, but instead, that it aims to put off real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? Can we also say that the plan forecasts reductions, but there is no certainty that they will be achieved?

[Scott Vaughan]

I will answer in English.

Let me start by saying that in the chapter we have not measured actual emission reductions. You've noticed that in 2008-09 it's zero. I think the UNFCCC had said it's too early for any country to measure actual reductions for 2008. Our approach from the beginning was to look at the architecture or the preparedness in place for eventual reductions. That's just as a first statement or context.

For the technology fund, the government has set a 30-megatonne reduction for 2010. We've said that's not realistic, for different reasons. One was that the purpose of the technology fund is to develop new technologies. We've said that to develop and deploy new technologies, as well as then to measure actual reductions and to verify those reductions, is going to take longer than the next 18 months. That's the first thing.

The second thing is, if you're referring to the testimony of the Pembina Institute, there's a difference, as we noted in the chapter, between booking a credit and booking an actual reduction. That is why Monsieur Arseneault said, in the earlier statement, part of the reason for the overstatement is that the Kyoto Protocol and the KPIA require the government to disclose its actual reductions and not its credits. We said there's a lack of clarity or certainty between where the credits are booked and when the actual reductions will occur and in what year.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen, I'm glad to see you here.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's nice to be back.

First of all, I apologize for missing your presentation.

I have a quick question on the fisheries component. There's a federal-provincial agreement around the tar sands in Alberta to have joint management, but the group hasn't met for a couple of years.

I'm not sure who I'm referencing, because everyone is looking at each other and getting worried.

Do we know whether the pollution prevention requirements that have been signed on to by the federal and provincial governments are actually being taken up with regard to the tar sands?

[Scott Vaughan]

Let me turn it over to Mr. Maxwell.

But on the first point, you're correct. As we've noted in the chapter, a committee has been set up in order to administer the agreement between the federal government and Alberta, but it has not met for the last two years.

[Neil Maxwell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I should say, we were just looking back and forth at each other because we're all chomping at the bit to respond to that one.

There are really two concerns. Scott has mentioned the first one. They've set up this agreement, and one of the key things was an oversight committee that hasn't functioned as set up in the agreement.

The second concern we have is an example of a broader concern, which is that the department is relying a lot on other jurisdictions to help administer and fulfill the requirements of this act, without actually assessing whether those arrangements are working for it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So the federal government has full and constitutional responsibility for these things. It sets up provincial agreements but does not do the oversight to ensure that those responsibilities are actually met.

[Neil Maxwell]

In essence, yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's traumatic. For the government to pass off that responsibility under the Fisheries Act, one of our oldest and strongest acts, is worrisome to me.

Did the government use any methodology? You mentioned a reduction in fisheries officers in some regions. Was there any methodology used?

I'm from the west coast. We have lost a number of fisheries officers and we can never understand what the actual logic is. It's not as though fisheries are strengthening in terms of our stocks or habitat management. Do we find any assessment of the government choosing to fire 10 officers here and put them somewhere else or just never replace them?

[Eric Hellsten]

No, we didn't see that, but we do understand that there was an increase in fisheries officers previously. It's basically a reduction of those additional officers. That was also done with the idea that there would be habitat monitors in the habitat program itself who would be replacing them, which hadn't happened at the time of our audit. Has it since happened? We don't know.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Does the government know?

[Neil Maxwell]

Well, they're planning to do so.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So they're firing some fisheries officers with a plan to replace them with something else, but there's no accounting as to whether they actually did.

I want to get to this accountability thing. This has been something for the government for a long time, in terms of being able to account for what, and what's legitimate and what's not. You talked about potentially a 50% overstatement of the government's abilities to meet greenhouse gas reductions. Is this in their own planning, or is this in response to the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act?

[Scott Vaughan]

This would be the overestimate, based on the government's own estimates that they put forward for their climate change plans in 2007 and 2008.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It seems to me that one of the challenges with something like greenhouse gas emissions is that if you don't have a system for counting or measuring, you simply can't manage the program. You can't tell what's effective, what's not effective. You can't come forward to Canadians and say that we spent this much money and reduced this amount of greenhouse gas emissions and that this was better and this was worse. Is that a fair statement?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's an observation we made in the report. First, we've said there is a national inventory. The latest figures came out at the end of April. The national inventory the government maintains is credible by any international standard of the UNFCCC.

What we've said and what KPIA required is for the government to state reductions per measure, showing the causal or the linear relationship between the measure and actual reductions, in the sense that--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The government has done that in public statements. They've shown that causal link and said, we are going to do this program and we're going to take half a million cars off the road. I've seen that many times from the government.

I'm trying to understand the reality of what Canada can expect from its spending and from its programs. You're saying there is not that link.

[Scott Vaughan]

What we've said is that there is not that link, and this may be an example of getting the department to.... They have the response in the chapter and they've said how they're going to do some of the estimates, but I think the department would have a better idea of how they're actually going to do these measurements. What we've said is that KPIA required a measurement. We've looked at it and we said, is there one, yes or no? No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This reminds me very much of hearing from auditors after they've gone through the books of an Enron type of company and they've said that what was an actual credit on the books versus an actual amount of money was indecisive or uncertain or just not true; companies were taking credit for money they didn't have or assets they didn't have, and the books get cooked.

I'm looking at this. You mentioned earlier that the government is taking credit for something versus the actual reductions, which is cooking the books. It's trying to get to a number of reductions without being able to verify those numbers with a straight face. This is a great concern as we head into Copenhagen, when our government has to negotiate with the world as to what our commitments will be, if at the present time the government does not seem to be committed to being straightforward and forthright with what their own plans to this point are.

A 50% or some half amount overstatement is enormous, is it not? I'm trying to find the scale and scope of these things. We understand that you can be a little bit off. Some of these things are hard to measure, as you've said, but they're not that hard to measure. To be so dramatically wrong, it's almost like the deficit numbers this government runs. They seem to miss by a lot, and that's a concern to me.

[Scott Vaughan]

As we've said, one of the key observations in this audit is that the government overestimated the numbers. The consequence of the overestimate--it's an obvious point, but it's worth restating--is that the gap between the Kyoto target and the actual emissions is going to go up. If you overestimate reductions, it means you've actually not taken into account actual emissions.

What the government has said is that the gap is 31%. As a consequence of that overestimation, that gap will be larger at the end of the Kyoto period.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

And there's also a credibility gap here at this point. In terms of believing what the government puts forward in future plans, based upon what you've given us today, I just don't know how the government expects credibility.

How am I doing for time, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has just expired.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

[Scott Vaughan]

Mr. Chair, may I just quickly respond to that question?

One of the things we've noted in the chapter is that there have been improvements in the plans between 2007 and 2008, not on the overestimation, but in some of the other areas there were more details, and there were improvements in a couple of areas. Nevertheless, the overestimation problem remains.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, you have the floor.