Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Did I hear correctly that the only concrete threshold is a phone number?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct. The inspectors then would say they have the discretion to decide what is or what is not mandatory. The only mandatory thing is to have a phone number that works.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

What's the longest period you've seen a temporary permit in place?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'll ask Mr. Sloan now.

[Bruce Sloan, Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

I think the longest one was about 13 years. About half of them are five years or more. About 15% are over 10 years.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Do we know if the numbers are still in order?

[Bruce Sloan]

Those are the numbers at the time we did the audit. They are largely unchanged from when an internal audit was done five years ago.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's a relief. Thank you very much.

For my next question, the NDP is very concerned about some government pronouncements recently on the expansion of pipelines in Canada. And then this report came out. I'm very concerned about this in light of this report. How can we possibly think about expanding pipelines when we're not doing a very good job of managing the ones we have now?

Mr. Vaughan, at the press conference earlier today you noted the amount of pipeline there is in Canada, the number of folks working on pipelines, of about one per thousand kilometres of pipeline. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's about right. There are 71,000 kilometres of pipeline that NEB has a regulatory responsibility for. There are about 65, 66, or 67 employees at the National Energy Board—who, by the way, I must say, are highly professional, hard working, highly skilled, and very technically astute public servants.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

In an audit would you have come across an ideal number for the number of people? Is there a sweet spot for how many people you need per kilometre?

[Scott Vaughan]

No, but the committee may want to consider having the head of the NEB here. I'm sure he may have an idea of how NEB compares with regulatory authorities in other countries to see what the resources are. We didn't do a benchmarking exercise, no.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay, thank you.

Continuing on the topic of pipelines, I have seen a chart from Transport Canada that's in the public domain and actually lists the number of pipeline incidents that have occurred in Canada over the past 10 years or so. It's quite dramatic to see the number rise steadily from 2001 to 2011. I'm wondering if you can comment on what's happening in a chart like that. Why are we seeing so many more?

[Scott Vaughan]

There has been an increase in the last 10 years. It went from an average number of incidents of around 30 or 35 per year to around 60 or 65 per year now. The reason is that NEB has had a 50% increase in the amount of pipelines it has regulatory oversight over. The reason for the increase is that a major pipeline operator in Canada said its wanted to be under a single regulatory regime of the NEB. For me, that's a sign of the level of trust in the competence of the NEB to provide regulatory oversight. Because of that significant expansion in their responsibilities and the doubling of pipelines, there's been a doubling of incidents.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

In seeing that significant increase in pipelines, did you also see a correlated and significant expansion in people who were there to enforce and monitor?

[Bruce Sloan]

There was some increase in staff, but not a doubling of staff dedicated to the monitoring activity.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

You said that we need science more than ever, that there is a need for science in government decision-making now more than ever. Can you explain why you feel that way?

[Scott Vaughan]

Maybe I could ask my colleague Jim McKenzie, who was the lead principal on this, to come to the table.

There are several reasons. The demand for scientific information has increased at Environment Canada. The level of complex questions actually needing answers has also increased. That goes from assessing toxic substances, for which Canada is a world leader, to looking at more discretionary actions on which scientific analysis is based, including assessment of smog, ground-level ozone, stratospheric ozone, climate change and others. So the number of files that Environment Canada has to deal with has increased.

Mr. McKenzie.

[James McKenzie, Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The other way to look at it as well is from a geographical perspective. Certainly, if you're looking across Canada, areas like the Arctic demand information to make informed decisions. We see also that across the country. It's obviously in areas such as the Great Lakes, where traditionally a lot of science has been required. With continued development and population growth and things of that nature, the need for science is increasing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired.

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth, you have seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for your vigilance on our behalf and that of the country.

I want to begin with paragraph 3.6 of your report on enforcement, because that's a particular interest of mine. I see that you have determined that since the 2007 budget year, there has been a $3.4 million increase in the budget for enforcement.

Am I right about that?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, sir.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I was thinking that's over four fiscal years, from 2007 to 2011. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That is correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Since the budget is now $20 million, it seems to me that's an increase of 20% from what it was from before. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That sounds correct.