Environment Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, and the officials.

Chair, it's good to have you back. It's not that Mr. Scarpaleggia didn't do a good job, but it is good to have you back.

I'm just looking at page 3, line 15 of your presentation today, and this is focusing on the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It says, “It requires the government to produce a plan each year showing how Canada will meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol by 2012”.

You, the commissioner, and your office are tasked with making sure that you're auditing whether the government is doing that. But I would ask you first of all, what is the government's position on Kyoto?

[Scott Vaughan]

First, thanks for the question.

I think in the plans for both 2007 and 2008—Mr. Arseneault can correct me if it's not in both—the government stated that it will not achieve Canada's target under the Kyoto period.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

The Kyoto Protocol was ratified by Canada in 2002 under a previous Liberal government. If we go back to 1993, the previous Liberal government talked a lot about greenhouse gas emissions and their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. We've said clearly that because of the Liberals, when they were government, not doing anything on Kyoto, not taking Canada in the right direction.... When we took over government, it was under the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who quickly found that it was impossible for Canada to be able to meet the Kyoto targets because of 13 years of inaction from the previous government. She was criticized for that, but that was the truth.

So when we became government.... Then in 2006, along came Bill C-288, and it was ironically a Liberal who introduced Bill C-288. That is the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, supported by my friends across the way—the opposition members—and we ended up in a minority government with Bill C-288, which requires the government to honour the Kyoto Protocol. The previous government didn't do anything about meeting that Kyoto Protocol, but you are tasked with the government now making sure that we are going to...yet we have said we're not going to be able to meet those targets.

It puts you in a very interesting situation. Some would call it the meat in the sandwich, but it puts you in a difficult situation. As Canada prepares, with the clean air energy dialogue ongoing with the United States, with the Obama administration, and our international partners preparing for a post-2012 agreement that will be culminated in Copenhagen in December, the Kyoto Protocol does not include countries like China, India, and the United States. To globally reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you have to have all the major emitters at the table participating in an agreement that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

That's why post-2012 is so important, that we do have an agreement that includes everybody, and that's the direction the world is heading in. What you're tasked with, and the government has submitted that we will not be able to meet Kyoto targets, is kind of an ironic situation. Someone even suggested that Bill C-288 is no longer relevant because this is not the direction the world is going in, giving a pass to the major emitters. The world has moved on and is heading in a direction, preparing for Copenhagen, where all the major emitters will be participating.

Anyway, you are tasked with auditing. I only want to back us up a little bit.

On November 7, 2006, during consideration of Bill C-288, Claude Villeneuve from the University of Quebec said, and I would like to quote him:

In closing, I'd like to comment on the bill. This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998.

Actually, this bill cannot be valuable if tools to reach it are not available.

Two days later, on November 9, Dr. Mark Jaccard said:

When someone said, “This is a good bill for 1999”, I would say, “No, it still doesn't give you enough timeframe.”

My question for you is on timeframe. Since the Kyoto Implementation Act was introduced in June 2007, is two years a reasonable amount of time to implement these targets that the government is saying are not achievable?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thanks for the question.

Let me first say that under the law we are required to do two things, and the honourable member is right that we were required to provide an analysis of Canada's progress in meeting its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, but there was a second part. It is to provide an analysis of Canada's progress in implementing the climate change plans. So we viewed our mandate as twofold: one was within the strict Kyoto targets, and second, the overall implementation of the plans that had been presented by the government.

In terms of the reasonable timeframe, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment. I think what we looked at very strictly is what the law required us to examine. We kept a very straight and narrow interpretation of what the scope of this was, and this is what we presented and tabled to Parliament in this audit.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate that.

Have I any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have time for a very short question.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

Your findings were strong. Could you comment generally on the response to your recommendations by the government? Did you find the response equally strong?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you.

You can see in the chapter that we made a number of recommendations. Environment Canada, on behalf of the government, has accepted all the recommendations short of one, which is on the measurement issue. However, at the same time, on the measurement issue as well they have said they disagree, but they're also going to examine how to improve their measurement of reductions for each of the 19 measures in the plans.

We have a legal obligation to go back and do this again in two years. As in any audit, we'll look at what the response of the department has been. We'll hold the department to their word on their responses, and we'll go back to see how the progress has been.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You found that this has been a problem for many years with regard to fisheries and greenhouse gas emissions. This has been an ongoing problem. Are you finding our response as strong as your recommendations?

[Scott Vaughan]

On the fisheries it is different. As we said at the beginning, this has been around for 23 years. This is not a new policy. The Fisheries Act is 140 years old. These are long-standing issues from 2001 and earlier on a number of the problems we've identified yet again in this audit. The responses from the departments are indeed focused. They are precise. We'll see what action plans the departments have put forward in order to put those responses into action.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

We'll start off our five-minute rounds with Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.

I just want to make a couple of points of clarification, one being that Mr. Warawa is correct that Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, but it only came into force on September 30, 2004, when Russia finally ratified it. Also, I would point out as a point of information that the Kyoto Protocol was the outgrowth of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed by the Conservative government in 1992. But I digress.

I would like to speak a bit about your Fisheries and Oceans chapter. As I understand it--and these are sort of layman's terms--there is no comprehensive database of fish habitat in Canada. Is this an impossible task? Is this like nailing mercury to a wall? Is this something that we can never really get a grip on, or is it feasible?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thanks.

I'll turn it over to my colleagues, but just as a general observation, we've said that the government doesn't know the number of habitats, the condition of the habitats, or the risks. They've said, in order to get a sort of stylized version of it, they would develop indicators based on ecosystems to get some sense of the number of habitats. That was a promise made several years ago. The indicators are still not available, but let me turn it over to my colleague.

[Neil Maxwell]

I have not much to add, Chair, to Scott's response, other than to say that we know how important this is. It is certainly not a simple task, but we pointed it out before in audits. The policy under which this is required is now 23 years old. There have been several questions about the quality of responses. The department's response in this instance is that it is a difficult task but they'll keep working on it. This and many of the other responses are ones on which you might well want to have the department itself here to convince you, to assure you that they really are working diligently on it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'd like to mention an important point you made in the third paragraph of your presentation. You said that fish habitat is a national asset. Then you went on to mention that it not only provides food and shelter for aquatic wildlife, but also water for human consumption. So if the fish habitat are healthy, we can have some confidence in our drinking water.

I'd like to go back to the issue of fish habitat and link it specifically to oil sands development. I'll read something from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board joint review panel report on a project proposed by Shell Canada. It says here:

DFO noted its concerns regarding the cumulative environmental effects on fish and fish habitat as a result of the successive elimination of watercourses and cumulative water withdrawals. The lack of baseline data

--and this goes to what you were saying--

on aquatic resources, coupled with the lack of functioning examples of replacement habitat similar to that proposed by Shell, increased its concerns.

Am I correct that even though we have joint management programs, it's very hard for the federal government to make a firm point on anything if it doesn't have the data to back up its arguments? In other words, information is power, and if you're in a joint process and the other side has all the information and you really have nothing to back up your concerns, then you're unable to effectively implement your constitutional responsibilities.

Do you see it that way a bit?

[Scott Vaughan]

One of my common themes since I've been here is the issue of measurement. If you don't have baseline information, you don't know, Canadians don't know, and members of Parliament don't know if conditions are getting better or worse, if programs are working or not, or if environmental risks are getting higher or lower. So if you don't know the number of habitats and their condition, it's very difficult to see whether or not the stated policy of no net loss and direction toward a net gain is being achieved. Those are quantitative indicators, so without the information, I think your characterization is correct.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

When Fisheries and Oceans decide to give a permit for a new oil sands project, they essentially seem to be saying, “We're going to give you the permit for socio-economic reasons because we can't put conditions on the permit or stop the project even temporarily on scientific grounds.” Is that sort of the way it works? It seems that you apply for a permit from Fisheries and Oceans and get it, even though the joint review panel report said, “We're giving you the permit, but we really have concerns because we don't know what's going on.”

[Neil Maxwell]

I'll start by speaking more generally than about the oil sands specifically.

We had a lot of concerns about how Fisheries and Oceans was dealing with development projects of any sort. We had a lot of concerns about improper quality assurance. When we looked at files on projects, whether it was the oil sands or any other ones, we found that a lot of things were absent that the department says officers are supposed to have before them on which to base those decisions. So we had quite widespread concerns. I won't elaborate now, but I'd be happy to later on, if you wish.

The other point on the way the referral system works is that.... I've lost my train of thought. I'm sorry.

[Scott Vaughan]

There are conditions on applications, but there are different levels. As Mr. Maxwell said, there are CEAA triggers to do an assessment as part of administrative authorization. There are letters of advice that require a developer to do an evaluation of mitigation. There are several layers to ensure protection. What we saw from the samples is that there are big gaps in the required steps. There were things missing, weaknesses, and lack of fundamental documentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Can I follow up just briefly? The recommendation in section 1.120 is that Environment Canada should review existing regulations under the Fisheries Act. The government's response is that they're going to monitor a number of different effluent regulations for meat and poultry products, petroleum refining, and so on.

One thing that's not in here is the mining industry and the way those effluents from the tailings ponds are handled and whether you looked at that.

[Kevin Potter, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Those regulations have been updated quite regularly over the last number of years. The mining regulations and pulp and paper are the two regulations that have been maintained current, as we've said in the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have a very quick response from Mr. Maxwell.

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you. I got my memory back.

The second point is a very important point. We talk and hear about certain projects being special in that they're very large-scale. The way in which most projects happen is that it's possible to have some other compensation. When you're talking about a very large-scale project, such as the use of an existing lake as a tailings pond, our concern is that the department really doesn't have a policy in terms of what it does in those kinds of situations. The good news is that they're working on a policy. But again, there isn't one in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth, the floor is yours.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a few questions about what I like to think of as the “lemonade bill”, the Kyoto implementation bill. I refer to it as the lemonade bill because for 13 years the former Liberal government served up nothing but lemons on the greenhouse gas emissions issue. Then in 2007 it came along and passed this Kyoto Implementation bill to require our government to make lemonade out of all those lemons.

I must say, I thought I had lost my capacity to be surprised by the Liberals, but I was really surprised to hear this morning a Liberal member referring to the fact that the Russian government didn't ratify this bill until 2004, making it sound as if that was somehow an excuse for the Liberal government to have done nothing from the time it signed on to Kyoto in 1997 until 2004. It seems to me that this is stretching even Liberal incredulity.

However, I understand from your report that the government's plan looks at trying to achieve 80% of its reductions in the industrial sector. Did I understand that correctly?