Environment Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you, and I'll ask Mr. Sloan to amplify my answer.

First, the honourable member is quite right, there is never enough information. There's always imperfect information. There are always areas for improvement in baseline data. But what we saw and particularly why we chose this region to look at cumulative environmental impacts was that you were able to see a pattern from 1999, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 where there was exactly the same message that was repeated continually on basic gaps in information related, for example, to hydrological characteristics on the impacts of water withdraws and on impacts of contaminants on ground water and downstream.

So I think the magnitude of the data gaps, which the federal scientists had noted in five subsequent reports and which was repeated again in 2010, points to a pattern of significant gaps in areas.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Sloan, did you want to...?

[Bruce Sloan, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

I think that is the question. Certainly we saw the government employees giving the same reaction to each panel report that came out and noting the same types of data. I think what we expected was that if the terms of reference for the first assessments weren't giving you what you wanted, you'd be modifying them as you went progressively through.

It does take time to get better and better information. You'll never have complete information, but I think, unless you change behaviours, you certainly won't get different information.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

In my next question I want to talk about our 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets. As we all know, these targets are Canada-wide. So I look at the report and see that over $1 billion is being given to the provinces without any reporting results, and it doesn't seem we even know if the provinces are investing that money in ways in which we can save on greenhouse gas emissions.

So I'm wondering, in that aspect of your report, what kind of impact that is going to have on our national targets for 2020.

[Scott Vaughan]

On this one I'll let my colleague Ms. Leach go into detail.

I think one of the things we did note was that in the plan of 2010 there was $1.5 billion transferred to the provinces. But as yet there isn't a system in place, and I think this is a big challenge. This is not simple or it would be there. But it's important to have a system in place where provincial reductions, federal reductions, and private sector reductions are all able to be rolled up into a comprehensive national single number.

I think, particularly in the private sector, there's a lot of work now under way in certification of greenhouse gas reductions. We noted in the chapter that right now Environment Canada and other officials are working on a system with the provinces to be able to count that up, but as of this moment it's not able to do so.

[Kimberley Leach, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

All I would add is that the 2010 and the more recently published 2011 climate change plan do list some of the initiatives the provinces are taking, in one of the annexes of the climate change plan. But certainly it doesn't amount to the $1.5 billion that was allocated.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That helps me understand the tracking or non-tracking of emissions. What about just the tracking of the money?

[Scott Vaughan]

My understanding is that these are federal-provincial transfers for which there aren't conditions attached. That was one of the things we pointed out in 2009, that there were targets that were attributed to those transfers, but there weren't any conditions that the provinces had received.

It was transferred to the provinces, but there isn't any way under these and other federal-provincial transfers of actually tracking that money at the provincial level. From our office we wouldn't have the capacity to look at what provincial expenditures would be from those transfers.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay, thank you.

When it comes to quality assurance standards, you noted that quality assurance standards haven't been met. Can you explain, for example, what some of the standards are, what hasn't been met?

[Scott Vaughan]

Again, I'll ask my colleague Ms. Leach, but while she's getting it ready, on page 40 of the chapter we describe some of the quality assurance standards, and then some of the international and other practices.

[Kimberley Leach]

Yes, that's right. It's exhibit 1.9, which outlines some of the assurance standards that are related to greenhouse gas verification, monitoring, and reporting. There are a number of initiatives that are under way. It's certainly an evolving matter internationally.

The two standards that we looked at specifically were the ISO standards, ISO 14064 and ISO 14065, as they are most related to the projects and programs we were looking at. We used those as criteria, if you will, in our audit to determine if the greenhouse gas reductions that were reported by the departments were in conformance with the international standards.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I will move to oil sands. Would it be fair to say there isn't a plan? The environmental assessments are happening without considering the cumulative effects, and I am hard-pressed to find where we actually have a plan on oil sand exploration, oil sand development.

From your analysis of the most recent environmental assessment approvals, is it fair to say that there isn't a plan?

[Scott Vaughan]

Well, what I would say is that there is a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Commissioner, Ms. Leslie's time is up, so could you make your answer short?

[Scott Vaughan]

What I would say is there is now an ambitious plan, a significantly important plan for the federal government to put in place a monitoring system.

And then also, just briefly, there's a lot of work at the provincial level, with the Alberta government, on land planning, on regional planning, but within the scope of our mandate we looked only at the federal side of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Ms. Leslie.

Mr. Sopuck, seven minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm looking at point 11 in your notes. You make the point that the government's own scientists have acknowledged that impacts on water, land, air, fish, wildlife, and habitat are not fully known. This is related to the oil sands.

I think we can all agree that in complex ecosystems nothing is ever fully known and that all scientists will always say they never have enough information. Would you agree with that statement?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, I would.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

So that's common, whether we're talking about climate change research or oil sands research.

I'd like to focus on the climate change issue for a minute.

You make the point in your speaking notes, point 8, about the major impacts on health. That is a very serious issue.

Can you make the direct connection on human health from Canada's carbon dioxide emissions, whatever they may be from year to year?

[Scott Vaughan]

No, I don't think anybody could attribute tracking carbon dioxide emissions from a single country like Canada, and then the impacts on Canadians. What we referred to in that paragraph is an analysis from Health Canada, from 2008, which has said that impacts from climate change broadly—it's a global issue—are having now measurable impacts on the health of Canadians.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

There's an old saying, “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”. In terms of a hot summer from time to time, that's weather variability, and I think whoever makes those kinds of statements had better be very careful, because they could potentially unduly alarm citizens.

In terms of a pollutant, for example, sulphur dioxide is a pollutant and carbon dioxide is another kettle of fish completely.

In terms of Canada's environmental progress overall, recently the World Health Organization released a report that said that among industrialized nations, Canada and Australia are number one in terms of urban air quality. Would you say that's a good-news story and a significant achievement for Canada?

[Scott Vaughan]

I would. It's absolutely a good-news story.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I just have a couple of questions about the oil sands.

I think it's important for us to appreciate the scale of the development in the oil sands. Again, currently the oil sands area is about 143,000 square kilometres, potentially. As of now, approximately 600 square kilometres has been developed by oil sands industries. As well, there's an ongoing process of reclamation, whereby areas that have been “mined out” are reclaimed almost immediately. Of the 600 square kilometres, 60 square kilometres so far have been reclaimed and returned to nature.

Has anybody taken into account the “re-creation” of those reclaimed areas and, to coin a new word, their “re-creation” of the environmental benefits that they originally delivered?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'm happy to go back and look. I've been there, and it's very impressive. I agree with the honourable member. We looked at the submissions from federal government entities in the environmental assessment, and the purpose of those assessments was to identify possible or probable negative environmental impacts. To my knowledge, reclamation is not something that was raised in those assessments up to 2007.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

But it's very important. I think you would agree that we do a net analysis on these kinds of things, and in areas reclaimed, the industry or the country should get credit for that reclamation. All of that is part of the terms and conditions of the environmental licences the companies operate under. I'll make the point that I was an environmental compliance officer in the oil sands, and I saw and administered first-hand the terms and conditions of environmental licences those industries operate under.

On page 4 of your report you described the cumulative effects on the Mackenzie basin. The Mackenzie River is a perfect example, and we have a lot of information on it. Back in the seventies, during the Berger commission years, a lot of fisheries and aquatic work was done on the Mackenzie River itself, and this was repeated in the late 1990s with the second iteration of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. So you have two data sets about 25 years apart, and the second data set took place while oil sands development was ramping up.

Did you find any differences in the Mackenzie River water quality between the 1970s and the late 1990s that could be attributed to the oil sands?