Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Right. Can I summarize the principles you've just mentioned as principles that will ensure the quality and scientific validity of the data you're monitoring?

[Dr. Charles Lin]

Correct.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I found the specific principles. The very first one is ensuring scientific integrity, and recognizing our commitments, including the validation and dissemination of the UV index. We've been using the term “ozone” all the time, but one of the reasons we're measuring ozone is to understand the UV index, which is something provided by MSC, our meteorological services, on a day-to-day basis. That's part of the synergy of moving the database to MSC, so we will maintain that.

We will maintain the critical long-term ozone trend information, and continue the surveillance of the ozone hole found over the Arctic.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Could we describe these decisions about optimizing the two networks as purely science-based decisions?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

No, they won't be purely science-based. As I said, any program needs some management, so any data management database needs some management.

We're saying that we're not going to sacrifice science; scientific integrity is absolutely fundamental to Environment Canada as a science-based department. But sometimes you can reduce data points and still have scientifically valid science.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Excellent.

The other area I want to ask about is the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Data Centre. I have the idea that there is a person currently siloed in the budget under that centre, whose budget silo is going to be moved—sorry, I've forgotten the initials—to the Meteorological Service of Canada.

Am I understanding correctly that the body is still going to be there, but reallocated to a different department?

[Dr. Charles Lin]

The body will be transitioned to MSC because he has the experience of operating the centre. Then we will go to a different model, where MSC takes over the centre. This individual will help in the transition.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Will the functions—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired. Thank you.

I want to thank Dr. Dodds and Dr. Lin for being with us today to discuss this very important issue of ozone, and it's good to hear that scientific integrity will remain.

We will suspend for three or four minutes for a health break, and then receive the commissioner who will be here momentarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Colleagues, we will begin this session.

I want to invite Commissioner Scott Vaughan. Commissioner, you have up to 10 minutes for your presentation, and then we'll have some questions for you.

Proceed, please.

[Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I am pleased to present my December 2011 report, which was tabled in the House of Commons this morning. The report today covers three audits, two studies, and the annual report on environmental petitions.

With me at the table are Bruce Sloan and Andrew Ferguson. As well, I'm joined by several colleagues, including Neil Maxwell, the Assistant Auditor General, and Jim McKenzie.

Environmental stewardship is complex. It must be supported by scientific knowledge, environmental monitoring and effective enforcement. In addition to examining science at Environment Canada, this report discusses weaknesses in the enforcement of federal regulations, and identifies improvements needed to enforce federal laws and regulations.

Our first audit looked at how Transport Canada and the National Energy Board determine whether companies required to do so comply with regulations governing the movement of dangerous goods within Canada. Good oversight of regulatory compliance is necessary to protect public safety and the environment.

We found that Transport Canada and the National Energy Board need to improve their oversight of regulated companies and organizations. Where deficiencies have been identified, they have done little follow-up to ensure that corrective measures have been taken.

Transport Canada does not know to what extent organizations transporting dangerous goods are complying with regulations. It has given temporary approval for roughly half of the emergency response plans required to transport the most dangerous regulated goods, such as types of ammonia and acids. Temporary approvals are subject to less verification. Some have been in place for 10 years or more. Many of the weaknesses we found in Transport Canada were identified more than five years ago and have yet to be fixed.

The National Energy Board has not appropriately monitored whether emergency procedures manuals prepared by regulated companies meet established expectations. It has yet to review the manuals of 32 companies. Where it has conducted reviews and identified deficiencies, there was little indication that it followed up to verify that the companies had taken corrective action.

In our audit of environmental science, we found that Environment Canada's systems and practices to ensure the quality of its science activities are consistent with those generally used in the scientific community. They include peer reviews and other approaches used by world-class research institutions to ensure quality research, as well as various means of communicating scientific information to decision makers.

It is important for Environment Canada to identify and focus on those science activities critical to the Canadian public interest. Few organizations, aside from the federal government, have the capacity to carry out credible, long-term environmental research and monitoring at the national level.

In 2007, the department developed a plan that set out the long-term directions of its science activities. Now Environment Canada needs to put the plan into practice. A department-wide plan for science is more urgent than ever in this period of fiscal restraint.

In the third audit, we looked at Environment Canada's enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We found that the department does not know how much its enforcement activities have encouraged compliance, and minimized damage and threats to the environment. Enforcement actions have been limited by long-standing problems with regulations, inadequate training of enforcement officers, and lack of laboratory tests to verify compliance.

Environment Canada is missing key information on those it regulates. This information would help it target those organizations whose damages pose the greatest risk of environmental damage as a result of non-compliance. Also, the department has not followed up on half of its enforcement actions to verify that violators are now complying with regulations.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is an important part of protecting the health of Canadians and the quality of the environment. I am concerned that shortcomings in key management systems have impeded the effective enforcement of the act. Some of the shortcomings identified in this report were noted over a decade ago by this committee.

The first of the two studies identifies some of the key challenges and principles related to sustainable fisheries. The Office of the Auditor General has issued studies in the past to provide information to parliamentarians. The decline in some major stocks of fish in Canada highlights the need to better understand trends and to promote sustainable fisheries management. Fisheries managers face a difficult combination of environmental, social, economic, and organizational changes.

The study provides examples of current and emerging practices here in Canada and internationally to help build sustainable fisheries. Key practices include respecting ecological limits to protect future fish stocks, and defining clear roles and responsibilities.

Our second study identifies more than 90 environmental monitoring systems that provide Canadians every day with a wide range of information, from local weather and air and water quality, to data on wildlife and biodiversity.

Environmental monitoring is necessary to know whether the quality of our environment is getting better or worse. The information the government collects serves many users, including municipal planners, resource managers, and Canadian families.

Mr. Chair, the final chapter is the annual report on environmental petitions. This year we received 25 petitions dealing with a range of topics.

Mr. Chair, thank you again for inviting us. There are a number of important subjects covered in this annual report, and the committee may wish to follow up by looking at a specific chapter or specific topics in future meetings. We are of course always ready to make our work and ourselves available to the committee in support of your important work.

I'm now happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Commissioner Vaughan.

Our first questioner will be Ms. Rempel, for seven minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you very much for coming today and for tabling your report.

I'd like my first set of questions to address your assertion that Environment Canada cannot assure fair, consistent, and predictable enforcement of CEPA. I'll start by looking at paragraph 3.43 of chapter 3. In this paragraph, you report a claim that CEPA is being enforced in a manner that is not fair, predictable, and consistent.

Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you for the question.

What we said is slightly different. We said that Environment Canada doesn't know whether they're enforcing it in a fair, predictable, and consistent manner. We did not say that they were not enforcing it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Based on that, you reached the conclusion that this fair, predictable, and consistent enforcement of the act is not assured on two things, from what I can read. Your conclusion is based upon 40% of violation files being closed without documented management approval, and on officers failing to document management approval prior to issuing a compliance order in 25% of the cases.

Is this correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, yes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

During your audit period, and based on this, I think there were 107 environmental protection compliance orders or EPCOs issued. It's my understanding that only three of those were appealed and that none of the appeals succeeded. So during your audit period, 100% of the EPCOs were upheld.

The courts seemed to think that the enforcement branch of Environment Canada is issuing compliance orders in a fair manner. Would you concur with that?

[Scott Vaughan]

I would make two comments, if I may, Mr. Chair. First, the honourable member is absolutely correct that it's 40% where a violation was found and a decision was taken not to prosecute or pursue further action.

What we have said is that Environment Canada's own policies require a senior management sign-off. If a decision is made not to take a violator for further action, there's no good reason for having senior management sign-off, which was one of the key controls that Environment Canada said they use to determine whether or not the law was applied.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

To be clear, my question was—

[Scott Vaughan]

Excuse me, I just want to clarify the first. And then on your second question, what we looked at were the management systems of Environment Canada. We didn't audit the courts; we don't have the mandate to audit the courts.

What I would say is that you're absolutely right, that there were three appeals and that all of the actions of Environment Canada were upheld. What we have said is that the purpose of the management systems is to make sure they're making the decisions beforehand. The courts are after the fact, and the courts, absolutely, have upheld the actions of Environment Canada, as you've said.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

So from an outcomes perspective, you can confirm that the courts had no problem with the 25% of EPCOs for which officers failed to document management approval prior to issuing a compliance order?

[Scott Vaughan]

No, the numbers are.... The honourable member has correctly said that there have been three appeals out of the 107.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

So from this, you found no evidence of enforcement officers abusing or misusing their authority?

[Scott Vaughan]

Well, we didn't go in and ask the officers. But just to give the honourable member a context, the response of the National Energy Board to our recommendations was to underscore the importance of senior management sign-off when an inspector finds a deficiency or a potential infraction. The reason for that, as I'm sure the members can appreciate, is that the system is worked to make sure that the decisions are made for the right reasons. That's why you have a double check within the system. For 40% of those cases in which violations were found, actions were dropped and there was no senior management sign-off.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

But to be clear, you did not find any evidence of enforcement officers abusing or misusing their authority.