Environment Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Sheila Fraser]

There are certainly significant difficulties when land claims are not settled. First, there is the issue of ownership. However, we have mostly noted issues relating to community consultation, which is inadequate. We have seen cases where projects started despite the opposition of communities. Those communities have to take other steps and, after a few years, they have to take legal or other measures to stop the projects. This creates uncertainty for those who want to implement development projects.

We believe that the fact that there is not enough consultation and that there are no co-management organizations as there may be in areas where land claims have been settled is a major issue for that part of the Territories.

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

All right.

At page 23 of the Auditor General's report, paragraph 4.54--and this question is mainly to Environment Canada and to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada--I read that Environment Canada currently conducts limited monitoring of weather, climate, water, stratospheric ozone and air quality throughout the North, including the NWT.

How can Environment Canada and the department guarantee, for example, that water quality is excellent? Are we to understand that we are currently unable to ensure those citizens that the quality of their water is acceptable? Can we guarantee that? If there is only limited monitoring, it means that we do not have all the required indicators. Are we able or not to guarantee those citizens that they have access to drinkable water?

[Patrick Borbey]

Yes, we can. We are responsible for monitoring and testing those communities' water supply. We have a laboratory in Yellowknife where thousands of samples are tested every year. We share those responsibilities with Environment Canada relating to the hydrographic conditions in the region.

We have also recently developed a water strategy in cooperation with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

We do many things to make sure that the water in the environment and the water used by people is drinkable.

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

So, you have never received any negative sampling reports? All the tests have proven that those citizens have access to drinkable water, the quality of which is comparable to that of other Canadians'?

[Patrick Borbey]

Exactly.

That being said, there are sometimes mining incidents where waste water is spilled in the environment. When that happens, we send inspectors and we take corrective action. That may happen under any type of conditions. When it does, we take immediate steps to make sure that water quality is re-established. Obviously, we also take steps to protect affected populations.

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

So far, how many times has that happened?

[Patrick Borbey]

I could not give you this kind of information. It happens from time to time. Generally, it is not a serious problem. Recently, for example, water was spilled into Lake Snap from the local mine, which should not have happened. It is mainly a quality issue, a water turbidity issue, rather than a polluted water issue. In this case, we are talking of a diamond mine where no chemicals are used. The solution is to deal with the turbidity problem and to clean the water. That water was not up to standards before being spilled in the environment. So, we got involved and we are currently investigating.

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

What plan have you put in place? Who told you that there was contaminated water? Was it your branch or local citizens?

[Patrick Borbey]

Yes, because they have access to what is called a spill hotline. Anyone can call to report a spill of that nature. The company is obliged to do so. Our inspectors visit the sites regularly. Citizens have access to that hotline to report any problem.

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

In this specific case, did the company call you to say that they believed there might be a problem with drinking water?

[Patrick Borbey]

It is the company that... but it was not a drinking water problem.

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

Well, it was a case of water not being up to standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time is up.

Mrs. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to thank the Auditor General and, of course, Mr. Vaughan and the officials, for coming here on relatively short notice.

I found this to be an extremely important report. I want to thank you for focusing on this area. I have to say that I find some of the findings absolutely shocking given the scale of developments about to arise in the Northwest Territories. We've been going through the Mackenzie pipeline review now for about two decades, and now, as Mr. McGuinty referenced, there's the potential for offshore development.

I have to note in your report, Ms. Fraser, on page 21, the response of the department to recommendation 4.61, your recommendation on better monitoring of cumulative impact. The response by Indian Affairs, which is that “Should additional funding become available...”, we might do cumulative impact assessment, is one of the most stunning statements I've ever seen by the government, although I have to commend whatever officials had the honesty to write that. At least they're revealing exactly what the problem is.

Recently in the House, the Minister of Indian Affairs was asked questions about the capacity to respond to environmental issues in the north, and his response was that he's looking into the streamlining of approvals and reviews, including, as I understand it, the consolidation of water boards and so forth.

In keeping with the Speech from the Throne and the budget, which is calling for the streamlining of the regulation of resource development extraction in the north, we now have Bill C-25 on Nunavut that has been tabled. On cursory review, it's raising more concerns than solutions, I think, in regard to the report that you've addressed for the Northwest Territories.

It's hard to know where to start. I just want to thank you immensely for the report. I'm hoping that it provides a really good guide for the development of a proper framework.

One thing that I noted and that you, Ms. Fraser, pointed out, is the failure to deliver on what are actually constitutional obligations. These programs are mandated by a land claims agreement, which means they're constitutionally entrenched. It's not just a case of not living up to regulatory responsibility. I would be interested to hear from the two representatives from Indian Affairs and Environment Canada on that.

You've revealed today, Mr. Borbey, that there is somewhat of a program coming forward to respond to the failure to deliver on the north ecosystem initiative and the cumulative effects assessment management framework. Do you feel that $8 million over two years is adequate to actually deliver a cumulative impact assessment for the extent of the Northwest Territories right up to the polar region?

Do you think that's adequate when we compare it to the hundreds of millions of dollars the federal government has put into simply assessing where the potential is for extracting resources from the Arctic Ocean?

[Patrick Borbey]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate that we've had a program in place for a number of years. There have been about 175 projects funded and carried out with communities under this program.

Yes, more money is always a good thing, and we're very pleased that the government has decided to allocate further resources through the budget, subject to parliamentary approval, of course. So we will be able to do better and do more, and certainly the Auditor General has pointed out that we need to do more.

If we were able to, with very limited resources, carry out 175 projects over the last 11 years, including two audits—we completed one in 2005 and are now completing another major audit involving all of the Northwest Territories—I think we should be able to do very well with the additional funds.

I'd like to remind you that those funds are to support both the monitoring program in the NWT and the general monitoring program, which has been co-developed with the Nunavut government as well, as the land claims signatory.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You mentioned these new community-based monitoring programs. Are those all developments since the Auditor General's report? In other words, has that been the response to the Auditor General's report?

And is that only a partial response, or has the government also stepped up to the plate, delivering more on the ground monitoring, including cumulative impact assessment? Or is it only now being delivered by the community-based monitoring?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'd still appreciate clarification. My question was specifically about these programs that you mentioned. Are those new programs in response to the deficiencies identified in the Auditor General's report? In other words, could you provide to us what are new and additional moneys?

I'd also appreciate a response from the Department of the Environment about what new additional efforts they have invested in to respond to the Auditor General's report and the deficiencies identified.

[Patrick Borbey]

The need for further investments in monitoring has been known for some time, so this is not a new issue. We have been working on a plan to access further resources for some time. We're very pleased that the government now, through the budget, has indicated support for this funding.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Does Ms. Milburn-Hopwood want to answer this one?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Sure.

I think it's important to distinguish between some of the monitoring we're talking about that's specific to cumulative impacts. Particularly, we refer to the cumulative impact monitoring program, which is a community-based program, so there are government scientists but also community members doing some of the monitoring.

In addition to that, Environment Canada and a number of the other departments conduct environmental research and monitoring in the north as well as the rest of Canada. We don't particularly call that cumulative impacts monitoring, but it's the kind of data that can be used to evaluate cumulative impacts.

We collect information through our scientific work in the areas of water, weather, ice conditions, air quality, wildlife, and protected areas. All of these things can be used to help tease out what the cumulative impacts are. They are monitoring programs that aren't necessarily called cumulative impact programs, but their data can be used in the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired.

Mr. Warawa, you can wrap up the seven-minute round, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Auditor General Fraser, thank you for being here.

Commissioner Vaughan and the department officials, thank you so much.

I appreciated the testimony. It was very enlightening. I appreciate the good work done by each of you.

I also had an opportunity to read the testimony of by Commissioner Vaughan a week ago at the public accounts committee. The Auditor General made a comment that there are also profound changes taking place in the north as a result of climate change and because of long-range transport of air pollutants.

Commissioner Vaughan, I think that came up a week ago. Cynthia Wright mentioned a lot of focus on mercury in the north. It's surprising that over 95% of the mercury deposited in Canada comes from foreign sources. So on the chemical management plan and biomonitoring, these are new projects that give us an indication of some problems and some improvements, but also keep a very close look and make sure the north is sustainable.

I want to focus on some of the agreements.

Auditor General, you mentioned that in the Northwest Territories four land claims agreements have been finalized, and that there are four other land claim agreements and ten self-government agreements that are under negotiation. You mention that for those areas where there has been finalization, things work much better than they do in those areas where there hasn't.

Mr. Borbey, in your presentation, you said, and I'm reading from one of your paragraphs here:

Meeting the needs of all parties is extremely complicated and challenging, and this is why conclusion of land claims is such a lengthy process. As a rule, Canada has not worked with Aboriginal groups to develop land use plans until claims are settled. It is far easier to negotiate land use plans where key questions of rights and ownership have been confirmed by a land claim agreement.

I have a concern that I would like to ask you about. Why are aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories suffering financial hardship because of significant delays in receiving the funding they need to support their self-government negotiations?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Regarding funding, will INAC implement multi-year funding for contribution agreements to ensure that aboriginal communities can continue their self-governance negotiations?

[Patrick Borbey]

Certainly multi-year funding is part of the changes to the transfer payment policy, and certainly where it is warranted, where there is good strong governance, we will be looking at multi-year to simplify reporting and to reduce the administrative burden. It's certainly our intention to go in that direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Do I have a couple of minutes left?