Evidence of meeting #17 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was north.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. That is not something that we looked at in this audit.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So you didn't examine, for example, the extent of scientific investments in climate change in the Northwest Territories?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
You didn't examine the foundation for atmospheric and climate change sciences--it's being wound up this year--for example. That wasn't examined?
5:05 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. That would have been a much larger scope of audit than we did here. Actually, it could have been a whole other audit in and of itself to look at science capacity in government.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
But presumably.... I mean, I find that difficult to understand in terms of the four corners that you set out for yourself, the parameters, in conducting this audit. Presumably you can't have a good environmental regulatory system that's not based on science.
5:05 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Vaughan may wish to comment.
We were not evaluating the effectiveness of the regulatory regime. We looked at three specific areas. One was the regulatory regime that existed in areas where a land claim had been settled versus those where it hadn't, to support economic development, and we looked as well at training programs. So it was with a focus really on the economic development activities in the Northwest Territories, not on the effectiveness of the boards, the decisions that the boards made, and the decisions that went around the specific projects.
Mr. Vaughan, I don't know if you wanted to add anything more.
5:05 p.m.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Yes, thank you.
Just as the Auditor General said, we essentially looked at “with” versus “without”, and clearly, when completed, when settled, we looked at whether the components of an environmental regulatory regime were in place. When they were settled, we looked at the regimes in terms of whether they have the components that are necessary for an effective regime, yes, but as the Auditor General said, we didn't examine...nor do we have the mandate to look at the boards per se.
If I may, Mr. Chair, I have just two other points.
We did note in the chapter, as the honourable member said, the importance, the disproportional importance, of climate change in the north. We noted in the chapter that the north has recorded an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in the last 60 years compared to an increase of 1.2 degrees Celsius south of 60. There is vast scientific evidence on the disproportional effects of climate change. We've referenced it. It's widely accepted. We've identified other environmental pressures in the north, with a 63% drop in the Bathurst caribou herd in the north as well.
So science clearly is an important part of this. I think the other part of it is just having real-time data, which is the ongoing basis--and which our colleagues have mentioned--for monitoring stations in order to detect these changes, which could then contribute to the cumulative effects monitoring system.
5:05 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Again, Chair, I'd just like to emphasize that we would not do an audit of the effectiveness of the boards or the quality. We did an audit in 2005, a follow-up here, of the co-management boards, but it was really around process. We would not do an assessment of their decisions.
We could, on the other hand, as the member mentions, look at scientific capacity, at the validity of data, at whether the data is complete and accurate, those sorts of things. This is certainly something that the commissioner and I can consider going forward. There has been work done by the commissioner, for example, on severe weather and information gathering. So it is work that could be possible, yes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to go back to recommendation 4.61, more specifically to the response of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. You will remember that page 25 indicated that the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program was initiated in 1999. I would like to know the total amount of funding provided since 1999.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I will probably have to send the information to the committee since I do not have it with me. I know that close to $1 million has been added to the existing budget since 2008.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand why you found some good news, Mr. Woodworth.
Additional funds have been provided in budget 2010, have they not?
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indeed, the new funding will be allocated once budget 2010 is approved.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
You state in the answer that the department “will determine needs and priorities for environmental monitoring in order to fulfill its obligations”. So, you intend to determine future needs.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
With additional funds, we will be able to set priorities relating to the needs and investments.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The funds have not been approved yet. We still have to respect the Parliamentary approval process, and we also have to wait for the approval of Treasury Board.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
We are developing...
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
All right. You will get the funds but the timetable will come later? In how much time?
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
We have to develop those plans on a trilateral basis. We work with Aboriginal groups and the Government of the Northwest Territories, and our people work with people form other federal departments. Then, we would have to sit at the governance table, which already exists, to set the priorities.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I understand but, still in that departmental response, you said that “ad hoc and short-term funding has meant that it has not been possible to completely deliver on its mandate and objectives”. Do you see what I mean?
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Up until 2008-09, funding was relatively ad hoc for that function. In 2008-09, we recognized internally that funding should be stabilized. So, we allocated $975,000 per year over the past two years, on a continuing basis. Then, we put our case to the government, we said that those plans have to be improved.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
But you presented... When you prepare a funding submission, you have to submit a project, a timetable, objectives, and so on. I would not believe that a Conservative government would agree to provide additional funding without the minister having submitted a timetable, a mandate, a goal. I am quite convinced that the government would act responsibly and would manage public funds adequately. So, you submitted a proposal, did you not?
