Environment Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[Dan Wicklum]

Yes, it does. It monitors for something called polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which is one of the key potential pollutants.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm confused, Mr. Vaughn. In your report you talked about that one station, 150 kilometres away--and I have some concern with the distance.

Does the federal government have the capacity to understand if things are leaching into the Athabasca River as a result of industrial activity?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes. The question is whether or not that one station is able to address all the toxics that Environment Canada identified in their 2001 risk assessment on oil sands pollutants that could pose a human health threat.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm hearing contradictory things. I want to get this clarified.

[Dan Wicklum]

I'd be happy to clarify. Monitoring in the Athabasca River is very much a shared responsibility among a number of different entities. There are four major monitoring entities: the Government of Canada, the Province of Alberta, the industry, and a multi-stakeholder group called RAMP.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, I know about them.

[Dan Wicklum]

The Province of Alberta has 10 monitoring stations, long term. They started in the seventies. They monitor a broad suite of parameters.

RAMP is funded by industry, again a multi-stakeholder group. They have over 40 sites. They monitor even more comprehensively. They include polyaromatic hydrocarbons, metals, metal mixtures, methanic acids, essentially the full suite of things that we'd be concerned about in the river.

Industry, as part of the permitting for each of the permits they get from the province, often has monitoring requirements as well.

The river is actually heavily monitored.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question about the adaptation chapter. It says that the government agrees with the recommendations found in this chapter.

Is that correct, Mr. Vaughn?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

To quote from the chapter, “Overall, the departments we examined have not taken concrete actions to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate”. That's to say, the federal government still lacks an overarching federal strategy that identifies clear and concrete action with respect to adapting to climate change.

When you were asked in an interview, what does this affect, I believe your response was “Everything.”

In respect of the effects of climate change on the Canadian economy and the health of Canadians, there were two reports you noted in your research. They were given either no release or very stunted release. All the same, the government put an extensive amount of work into them. I don't know if there's an estimate of how much this cost. Mr. Glover, if he's in the room, might be able to answer. But the reports were a labour of many years, and hundreds and hundreds of people were involved. Yet we didn't see a release that would match the effort the government had made. One was by Natural Resources and dealt with understanding the impacts on our natural resource economy. The other, by Health Canada, was about understanding the impacts of climate change on our health.

Why did you focus on these two reports if the government agrees that it still lacks an overarching federal strategy to identify clear and concrete action? What would these reports have signified to you and to Canadians about adaptation and what's happening with respect to climate change?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Cullen, your time has expired.

Commissioner Vaughn, you may respond briefly.

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you very much.

These two reports are significant contributions from the government itself on identifying the impacts of climate change. The NRCan report identified climate change impacts by region and by province in Canada from fresh water to forestry to fisheries to infrastructure.

I think Health Canada's report is the largest single assessment that Health Canada has done on the human health risks related to climate change from an increase in West Nile disease, to Lyme disease, to an increase in heat alerts and what that means for vulnerable populations.

We looked at those reports, and we've said that overall some very good work is under way by the government from the four programs we've looked at. Their objectives are both to generate good information and then to share that information. We've said they're generating good information, and by and large they're sharing the information. The exceptions were that these two reports, probably the largest single undertaking of the Government of Canada from an analytical capacity, had a fairly nationwide rollout, and we've said in the end the government decided on a more restrained release. In the context of trying to inform Canadians of risk, this was probably not the obvious way of trying to get a clear message across to Canadians on climate change impacts.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, you get the last of the first round.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Vaughan and the witnesses, for being here.

I want to focus on adaptation. Nathan has started that discussion, and I appreciate what's already been said. Many of us around this table have a local government background, where it's up to local government and the engineers within each community to make sure that the infrastructure that is in place will adequately protect the community, safely and adequately remove storm water, and have a good, up-to-date, functioning system.

Typically we were dealing with an infrastructure that would handle a once-in-a-100-year storm. Now as we see our climate changing, that's one of the challenges for local governments. What do they have to do as a local community to prepare for a changing climate? What will be the impacts on this town and that town and this community?

My first question for you, Commissioner, is this. Your assessment period dealing with shipping and spills was a three-year period, 2007, 2008, and 2009. What period of the assessment looked at adaptation? Was it the same period?

[Scott Vaughan]

I can probably take a minute to get a clarification. I think we went a little further back. Some of the programs we looked at began in 2003. An INAC program, I believe, went back even a little earlier, and then some went a little forward, 2006 to 2007. There was a broader time period, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

In chapter 3, where you dealt with adaptation, the audit was completed on June 8 of this year. So that's when the assessment was completed, and then you compiled the information and the report.

Was the focus of the adaptation on the Canadian plan and how Canada is prepared to prepare for adaptation, or was it also focused internationally?

[Scott Vaughan]

It was exclusively on Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

The report, which I found informative, talked about Canada's commitment to support adaptation internationally, arising from Bali. It's pages 4 and 5. There was a chart too. So you were aware that Canada had committed $400 million this fiscal year as part of Canada's share, but that wasn't part of the report or the assessment?

[Scott Vaughan]

No, that wasn't part of the assessment. We looked at the programs, which are focused on helping Canada adapt.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

In my own community, one of the issues we have in preparing for a change in climate is making sure that our diking system along the Fraser River is adequate. Through the economic action plan, our government improved the dikes, so we are prepared. Some infrastructure was also adapted and improved, for example, bridges and water systems and roads.

How important is it that the federal government has local government involved in the plans? Through the economic action plan, which the Auditor General gave the government a good report on, those dollars are out there and that infrastructure is being built right now. Was any of that included in your assessment?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'm glad you asked. At the planning of this, we contacted a number of different federal departments, including Infrastructure Canada. Infrastructure Canada told us that they do not have any plans related to climate change adaptation; they said they would respond to requests, as you say, from municipalities and provinces on the priorities the provinces put forward.

The scope of the ministries we looked at were a response to interviews we did across the board at the front end.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate what you're saying, and Environment Canada has agreed with your recommendations. But in a practical sense, what I experienced in our community is that there were a lot of improvements, built-in adaptation, improved infrastructure--right across Canada, in a very positive way. That will have long-term benefits.

Also, I believe the importance is that we help the countries that are poor. Their infrastructures are not at Canadian standards. Canada's participation, creating 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet providing 4% of the adaptation funding I think is admirable. It is definitely in the right direction to helping countries adapt to a changing climate.

Would you agree?

[Scott Vaughan]

Actually, I couldn't agree more. We gave examples in the chapter, which I think are excellent examples, of the federal government—Natural Resources, Environment Canada, DFO—working with local communities as well as with provincial governments. We gave a couple of case studies: one in New Brunswick; another one in Clyde River, Nunavut. Those programs are successful because of the partnerships with local municipalities and provincial governments, and with the private sector as well.

I think this is a policy decision, but it's clear that given the magnitude of the future challenges of climate change, this is going to take multiple partnerships from many players.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I agree we need a plan, and we've agreed with your recommendations. But additionally, a lot is happening and it has been happening.

Would you agree?

[Scott Vaughan]

I would agree, and I hope we've described that accurately, to give some sense of the amount of good work going on in the four programs we've looked at.