Environment Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

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

Is there a plan in place to audit the strategy? Has that begun? Where is the Office in terms of the audit under the 2008 legislation?

[Scott Vaughan]

As you said, it is a new law. Environment Canada is working on a plan. I have a legal obligation to study the draft plan by 2010. We are in the process of preparing to audit the federal government's overall sustainable development strategy. After that date, each department must study the impacts of the federal law by a certain date, sometime between 2011 and 2012.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Commissioner, I want to follow up on the questions Mr. Bigras is raising. I'm very troubled, and I'm hoping this isn't a trend showing what's going to happen, particularly in the climate change area. I'm particularly concerned about the implications of passing information through ministerial briefs, so that you can't gain access for evaluation. That is critical to the delivery of your responsibilities under your statutes, but it is also critical to transparency to the public, because we're dealing with very serious chemicals—in the case of benzene, of course, a major carcinogen; and the government has yet to regulate mercury, an even more critical carcinogen; and in the case of greenhouse gases, a serious problem.

I'm wondering, and I'll go back to the question I raised before, whether or not you thought there might be value in providing more specific, prescribed legal requirements to the departments and agencies, including the Department of Finance, concerning what they have to provide back. If there's going to be increasing reliance on economic measures and voluntary agreements and not on the normal regulatory tools, then it's incumbent upon agencies to also be forthcoming in the way they analyze the efficacy of those instruments to deliver, both on cost and in how they deliver.

I note that in the United States, when the federal government transfers money to the U.S. states, if they don't deliver on that program the federal government can yank the money back and can move in and do its own enforcement. So I'm very concerned about the issues you're raising. You're saying you believe it's only one example and that you haven't necessarily seen a trend, but this may be an indicator of a problem to come, and it perhaps needs to be clarified through clear regulations or requirements to provide information or access to analyses.

[Scott Vaughan]

As I mentioned just now, the incidence of denial of access because of cabinet confidence is extremely rare. I wouldn't say this is by any means a trend--rare means it happens exceptionally. And it is when documents go before cabinet; then, cabinet has that right, in the sense that what's in discussion in cabinet is protected.

Right now, based on the information we had, I don't have any particular concern that what we have in front of us involves any kind of warning in any way. It's up to the government, in their policy choices in the future, whether they want to go to more or fewer fiscal policies to address environmental issues. That's a choice of the government, and we would come across it when we looked at it.

More generally comparing the U.S. and Canadian experience, as I mentioned earlier, the nature of the Canadian confederation is that when, under the trust, the provinces receive it, there are no legal obligations or conditions attached to the trust funds giving the province an obligation to report back. There's not a legal obligation for the provinces to do so, so there's not a way for Ottawa to measure their performance concerning how the funds are being used.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Commissioner, are you aware of any barrier to imposing a legal obligation to report?

[Scott Vaughan]

No. That's why we said it was unlikely for Environment Canada. Parliament could imagine different ways in which you could look at, for example, voluntary ways for reporting between the provinces and Ottawa. I think there have been some instances of this. But this is something about which the Canadian Parliament as well as the provincial legislature could say, let's look at the various alternative mechanisms for reporting. As things are now, I can only think of one possible instance where this has taken place.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have one minute left. Do you need it?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Maybe we can give that to someone else.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have some quick comments about the May report from former Commissioner Madame Gélinas regarding Kyoto. She said in her report:

We expected the federal government would have conducted economic, social, environmental and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998.

They found little economic analysis was completed and that the then government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, and risk analysis.

I believe this is salient as you prepare for your report because subsequent bills that were passed, for example, Bill C-288 the Liberal bill, and Bill C-377.... Again, the committee asked numerous times for a risk analysis and an estimate of the costs. Was a risk analysis done? We heard no, there was none, and it was highly recommended that one be done before we proceeded with Bill C-288 and Bill C-377. The opposition pushed that bill through and we ended up committing to a poorly thought out obligation initially, and again in subsequent bills from the opposition. So just keep that in mind as you prepare for your report.

I also want to quickly share some concerns about the petitions.

On page 23, there were four petitions from a Carole Clinch. This one individual had four petitions requiring a total of 14 responses from different ministers, all on the same issue of fluoride in water.

Petition number 223 was from a Canadian resident and it was regarding the use of recycled paper by federal government departments. She required a response from 27 different ministries, and the amount of administrative time that that one petition created.... Is there a more efficient way to deal with that, as opposed to having 27 different responses?

Petition 259 was regarding Tsawwassen. Two individuals wanted to know who has the authority to halt the construction of a power line. It was a very controversial issue. It was provincial jurisdiction; it wasn't federal, and yet we've got a petition.

I've read that in 2006 and 2007 we had five each year that were listed as “Canadian resident”. In this one we had 12 that were listed as “Canadian resident”. People are not providing their names. Why is that?

Those are just concerns in the spirit of accountability, and we want to make sure the petition process is good but not abused.

I'm going to pass my time on to Mr. Calkins now.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

We've established that most of the issues with those particular agriculture programs in the environmental farm plan aren't with the actual accountability on the ground or the programs themselves, but with the fact that the department can't actually verify the value of those programs.

When I look at the report on page 17, I see sections 3.58, 3.59, and 3.60 deal with operational resources that were not tracked by the program. It says the department was allocated $400 million for the programs contribution portion over the five-year life of the APF and $126 million for administration.

So we've got over half a billion dollars there. Then it goes on to say:

We expected the Department to have plans that identified objectives and expected results....

Those were the expectations of the department from your audit. And then 3.60 says:

However, the Department was unable to provide a complete set of financial information to demonstrate that this type of planning had occurred.

Those are very troubling things for me to read. Can you remind us of when the agriculture policy framework came forward, which administration that was, and, now that we're transitioning from the agriculture policy framework to “Growing Forward”, how is the work that's been done so far with the APF being tracked with the “Growing Forward” policy?

[Neil Maxwell]

Thank you, Chair.

The APF was created in 2003. In terms of the issue with the tracking of operational funds, we go on to note that the department has already taken some action in that regard. They've set up a system for tracking operational funds.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

When was that action taken, Mr. Maxwell?

[Neil Maxwell]

In the 2007-08 fiscal year they set up systems to fix this problem, that they were not able to track operational funds.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Is there anything you want to add to that, Commissioner?

[Scott Vaughan]

Just very briefly, in relation to the petitions, there are two very quick answers.

First, on how to increase the efficiency, we've sent it to all the members' offices as well as to your constituency offices. We're trying to help petitioners have more focused questions. We really discourage individuals from repeating the same question. We're very aware of tying up departmental time on this.

This is what's out now. We're trying to get their petitions as focused as possible, so we're not eating up time on both sides.

Second, on the names being withheld, the petitioners have to disclose their names to us, but they have the option in so disclosing to say if they wish to be withheld from the public record. There may be something before the courts; there may be some other issues related to liability. We will not process a petition unless we know the name of the person.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Watson, you have one burning issue, so I'll let you put that on the record before we start on Mr. Scarpaleggia's motion.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wanted to get a sense from you of how the Office of the Environment Commissioner handles, for audit purposes, the measuring results, if you will, for jurisdictions that are shared with the provinces. Two things come to mind.

One, as I mentioned, is the acrylonitrile situation where the second emitting source is provincially regulated. The federal government has made some determination that the provincial regulations are satisfactory. What's it going to take for you to feel satisfied that results are sufficient from that?

The example with respect to environmental farm plants, which are accepted or proved, if you will, by the provinces and territories--we co-fund those things and there is some amount of recognition provincially for that through the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. They give out awards and recognition for the completion of environmental farm programs. It has to be approved by some mechanism before payout happens. What would it take for you to be satisfied with that? If there's a gap there, what would satisfy you as the Commissioner of the Environment for auditing purposes?

I want to leave that on the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me get that out.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

If you have a brief response, I'll let you respond. Otherwise, you can always give it to the committee in writing.

[Scott Vaughan]

Perhaps I can get back to the member with a more detailed answer.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you. I would appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before I dismiss you, we do have homework for you. One is to make sure you send the clerk the response to Mr. Watson's question. You were also asked to provide information on the cost of administration of petitions. You were also asked, and I think you said you would provide it to the committee, for a little more information on who the trustee is on ecoTrust or the department that is in charge. And to follow up on Mr. Woodworth's question on stuff not in the report on severe weather warnings, where there were some gaps in getting out information, if you could provide that in writing, we'd really appreciate it.

I thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Maxwell, for joining us. It was a very full and informative conversation. I'll look forward to seeing you again in the future. Thank you very much.

If you guys can clear the table, we'll go right to motions. We have 20 minutes. Before we jump into the motion on the issue of witnesses, just for clarification, I'm going to Marleau and Montpetit, page 860 in chapter 20, about witness selection:

A committee may wish to hear testimony from private individuals, representatives of groups, or public officials concerning the matter which it is studying. Witness selection may be carried out in a number of different ways. Normally, witnesses are proposed by individual committee members. The committee may also invite potential witnesses to indicate their interest in appearing. The selection is often delegated to the Sub-committee on Procedure and Agenda....

So there are a number of different ways witnesses can be called. I wanted to throw that out before we jumped into the motion.

With that, Mr. Scarpaleggia, if you could put your motion on the table....

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

Thank you very much.

Essentially what I'm asking the committee is to do what it did already and to be consistent with its decision in the last Parliament, which is to do a study of the impact of the oil sands on water. So I'm reintroducing a motion that is almost 90% the same, which was adopted unanimously, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, in the last Parliament when we got started on the study but were interrupted when the election was called.

I mean very sincerely, to those who might be sensitive on the issue of the oil sands, that this is not an attempt to beat up on the oil sands in any way, shape, or form. It's an attempt to get to the bottom of some issues that have been circulating in the media, that have raised a lot of question marks. It's because I think it's our responsibility to look at how the oil sands are affecting rivers in the area that might even cross into other provinces, and how the oil sands may be affecting—and I'm not prejudging the issue—the health of aboriginal people, first nations people, downriver from the oil sands, and whether our obligations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act are somehow being compromised.

I hope we find everything is hunky-dory, but I think it's our responsibility as federal legislators to do these kinds of studies. And again, I'm just proposing that we adopt what we essentially adopted at the last committee.