Environment Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

[Scott Vaughan]

It was the latter. Well, we don't know whether or not they were performed. There were some calculations that were made available to the team; however, there were calculations that were done by Finance Canada that the team had asked to have access to in the duration of the audit, and that access was denied because they are classified as cabinet confidence.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

As an environmental auditor, are you recommending to the government now that it cease and desist on this extremely expensive fiscal measure, which you've said yourself is excessively expensive in terms of greenhouse gas reductions per tonne? You have no evidence at all that ridership has increased; we have no impact at all. We don't know at all what we're getting here for $635 million, do we?

[Scott Vaughan]

Let me just underscore that in the government's plan there are multiple objectives. But to reiterate, there was only one objective that actually had a target that you can count. So that's what we looked at in order to see what the outcome of that was in terms of a number. The number is what it is: it's 35,000 tonnes.

If you want to put that in perspective, the reason we've said it is negligible is because that represents 0.005% of total national greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. So if you want to know the perspective of it, it's 0.005% of total emissions. But in terms of whether we would then say to cease and desist, that is not something that our office would determine. That would be a matter for Parliament. It's a matter for the minister to make a determination of. It would certainly not be for me to say, therefore continue, or change, or whatever. That's a policy area. That's outside our mandate.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is the tax deductible transit pass then good value for money?

[Scott Vaughan]

What we've said is that there are disappointing results and negligible results. We base that on what is the total magnitude of the problem. Disappointment means that we would have an expectation of probably higher results, stronger results on the amount of money that has actually been allocated, because $635 million is a significant amount of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Watson, it's your turn.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Commissioner of the Environment for appearing here.

I think this is now either my fourth or fifth report from the Commissioner of the Environment in my brief parliamentary career. I'm beginning to notice things that are, shall we say, peculiar to the culture of auditing as opposed to the realm that I'm in, the realm of politics. I'm not sure that auditors will ever be satisfied, for example, with the ability to measure results or prove results with tools like trust funds, or evaluate results for programs that are shared with the provinces.

You'll have an opportunity to correct me on that in a moment if you'd like. I want to address something else first. I'm going to come back to that line of questioning in a moment.

I do have a concern about whether anything is being, for lack of a better expression, torqued up a little bit. Here's where I want to go: I want to start with the chapter on managing air emissions.

On page 8, exhibit 1.1, you conclude that acrylonitrile air emissions in Canada have increased overall but show recent reductions.

If we flip back to page 7, you actually talk about Environment Canada's efforts having “reversed the upward trend by almost 50 percent in 2006-07”. That's the factual explanation.

But on page 3 of your statement today, you say, “we found that since that substance was declared toxic almost eight years ago, total emissions have not been lowered but rather increased three-fold.”

That's factually correct, but I'm concerned that the impression you leave for the public is that it's an upward trend, not a downward trend. In other words, in your opening statement there's no hint that there's progress. The public would in fact have to go in and read your report to find that out.

Are you concerned that your opening statement is a little misleading in terms of public perception about where the trend is heading?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you very much for the question.

As you say, there is a pollution prevention plan, and we've looked at whether that plan actually led to prevention, which is what one might expect. What we found is that--you're absolutely right--there was between 2003 and 2006 a 50% reduction in that source of acrylonitrile that they had identified, and it looked, from Environment Canada's perspective, that actually things were well in hand and that actually it was going to lead to absolute reductions. However, there was then that spike, which you can see in the graph in exhibit 1.1. That spike has actually thrown off whatever was going to be the favourable return in terms of absolute reductions, so what we looked at was from when the plan was introduced, first of all, when the substance was declared toxic, in 2000, has it gone up or down. As you say, there has been a 300% increase since it was declared toxic. It has about doubled since the pollution prevention plan was introduced.

But let me just add to that, and I think you are right. You can see from the graph that we, in the team, really made sure we got the most recent information in order to show that downward trend. We went out of our way because we were right up against the wall in terms of the date on this. But your observation is important that this actually is going down again.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. I'm hoping to get to a couple of more questions if I can here.

With respect to acrylonitrile, what we learned in the government's response is that 99% of emitting sources are covered, and we're talking about two companies particularly. One is federally regulated. The other is provincially regulated. Yet you still conclude in paragraph 1.13 that Environment Canada should ensure control measures are in place to deal with significant sources. I'm asking you what more should be done with respect to acrylonitrile risk management for the additional 1%, or are you not satisfied that you can audit the results at the provincially regulated plant?

I want you to keep in mind as you answer that the chemicals management plan will be sending thousands more chemicals down the line for risk management to Environment Canada. So at what point do we draw the line and say 99% is good enough and let's move on to another? Could you inform us?

[Scott Vaughan]

As you say, the chemicals management plan is in place now. Acrylonitrile is one of 93 substances that now have been declared toxic, so Environment Canada...this is difficult to manage these things. We're not underplaying the order of magnitude of what a challenge this is to management.

In terms of the risk assessment, we have made a recommendation to the department. The department has accepted that recommendation on getting an overall risk assessment strategy in order to say that if you have surprises in terms of spikes in emissions, then those would probably go into the risk assessment strategy. So that's what we were looking at.

On the latter point on the second source, this was being addressed, and it is being addressed with the partnership with Quebec, and actually there is now movement towards addressing that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

My last question--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's time.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Can I get my last question on the record so he can answer it at least?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, sir, your time has expired. It has to be fair for everybody, Mr. Watson.

Mr. Woodworth, you get to do cleanup.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. I'm always bringing up the hind quarter. I appreciate it.

I want to thank Mr. Vaughn and his staff for a very comprehensive report. I know it's a monumental amount of work, and I can't begin to imagine how it all gets done.

I'm going to focus on one particular item, and in doing so, and in looking at the tail of the elephant, as it were, I don't want in any way to detract from all of the other good things in your report.

Specifically, I am interested in the chapter on severe weather warnings, and in looking at paragraph 2.17 I see the purpose of the audit was to determine if Environment Canada systems support the delivery of timely and reliable severe weather warnings. That was the purpose, so I'm wondering if in that context you were alert to and watchful for any reports or cases of severe weather warnings that were not timely or not reliable.

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you for the question.

The team looked at whether the department has a system of verification in place in order that they know whether their warnings are timely and accurate. The team is aware of where there have been episodes where events have taken place where a warning has not taken place, thereby placing people at risk, but we didn't go through and categorize or catalogue those.

I'm glad you asked that question. Paragraph 2.17 is to look at whether the department knows about the timeliness and the reliability of its warning systems.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Actually, 2.17 doesn't talk about whether the department knows; it talks about whether the department systems support the delivery of timely and reliable severe weather warnings. In my search of your report I could not find a single case reported of a severe weather warning that was not timely or reliable. Is there any such instance in your report that I may have overlooked?

[Scott Vaughan]

There's none in the report. I would be glad to provide you with information that the team has compiled, where there are instances. We didn't put it in the report, but there are instances where there actually had not been either timely or accurate information.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Since the subject of the audit was to determine whether the systems support the delivery of timely and reliable severe weather warnings, I'm content to accept what's in your report. In fact, as I understand from your report, Environment Canada also has looked actively for cases of untimely or unreliable warnings. They've conducted national public opinion surveys. They've conducted storm surveys. They have found recent verification of severe weather warnings in three of four regions. They've had positive feedback on the services provided.

I'm assuming you would have had access to all of that data. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, it is.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In all of that data, wasn't there any instance of an untimely or unreliable severe weather warning that you felt was worth reporting?

[Scott Vaughan]

What we looked at was if there was a national verification system itself. That was the focus.

There was anecdotal information, but as you said, there's been work carried out in the prairies. There was work carried out in British Columbia on pilot studies. I'm looking at the verification system. Ontario had a system in place until 2002, but that was ceased in order to set up a national system.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If your report had only talked about whether or not severe weather warning verification systems were in place, I wouldn't be nearly so concerned, but the problem I'm having is that your report contains a conclusion at 2.82 that Environment Canada systems do not adequately support the delivery of timely and accurate severe weather warnings. That makes it appear to me that you are saying that Environment Canada systems in fact don't deliver timely and accurate severe weather warnings.

You can see why I consider it a good news story. Out of what you reported to be now 15,000 severe weather warnings every year, when you were looking for cases of severe weather warnings that were not timely or not reliable, and with all the data you had from public opinion surveys, storm surveys, case studies, and other feedback, do you see why I consider it a good news story that there is not a single case of unreliable or untimely severe weather warnings that you thought worth including in your report? I just want to say that in light of that, I don't agree with your conclusion at 2.82. I thin, in fact your report confirms exactly the opposite, that out of 15,000 cases there is not a single report worth mentioning of an untimely or inaccurate report.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Woodworth, your time expired.

Do you want to reply with a very brief response, Mr. Vaughan?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you.

If we found that there were unreliable reports, then we would have stated that. What we have said is that the department itself doesn't know the degree of its reliability because it doesn't have a national system in place.

On the second part of this, we also looked at the network and the capacity of the network in the future to deliver. Environment Canada submitted its own report last week to Parliament, on the 5th, and they said the current system's network is facing obsolescence. The technological innovation is outpacing its ability to maintain the network into the future. I think what we're looking at is, more importantly, the reliability of the current network into the future. Based on what the department has told us, there's been some urgent need of attention in looking at the network itself.