Environment Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

[Scott Vaughan]

Do you want to answer that?

[Kimberley Leach]

Certainly.

Starting in paragraph 1.3(2), we look at several of the recommendations that we made in our 2009 audit. We comment on the extent to which the government had acted on those recommendations. We found that in the two cases we looked at, they had provided additional information on the plan that helped address those recommendations.

The one recommendation that we made in 2009 that we found had not been addressed was one that we made, I guess, very similarly in this report, which was that we felt the climate change plans should include all of the information that was required under section 5.1 of the act. In our previous audit we found that this had not been done. Environment Canada agreed that future climate change plans would include all the information required by the act. Again, in this audit we found that this was not necessarily the case. The recommendation number for that is in the first part of the chapter. That would be recommendation 1.4(2): “Environment Canada should ensure that future climate change plans...contain all the information required by the act, or clearly state why the plans do not do so.”

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thanks for your answer.

We know that in a statement released today the government said they've already reached one fourth of their goal with regard to greenhouse gas reductions. Can you talk about paragraph 1.23 and the climate change plan under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and whether or not the government is in fact close to reaching its goals in terms of reduction?

[Scott Vaughan]

Two things. First of all, in terms of the Kyoto Protocol period, which as you know ends at the end of 2012, it's quite clear that the government is not going to reach the Kyoto target. As to the gap, we'll wait and see. No one will know what the final numbers will be until 2014, when all countries will then tally up all their reported emission reductions through the UNFCC process. There's a two-year lag in these numbers, and it's certainly hard for me or anybody to follow the two-year lags in the reporting.

I think I saw in Minister Kent's announcement that they are on track for reaching 25% of their reduction targets for the year 2020, and that's based, as I understand it, on the projected emission reductions. So it's not emissions achieved to date, because the emissions achieved right now, as reported by the federal government, are two megatonnes in the 2010 and four megatonnes in the 2011 plan. So there's still a ways to go.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Those were all my questions. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mr. Lunney, for five minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the commissioner and his colleagues for being with us today.

I wanted to start with chapter 1 and the timeline that you established on page 18 of your report, which is a very good review of Canada's commitments related to greenhouse gas emissions beginning with the Earth Summit back in 1992 in Rio. Kyoto was adopted in 1997, the previous government signed for Canada in 1998, and then of course we had a change in government in 2006. As we go through that, going forward to the current government's commitment in 2007--the “Turning the Corner” plan is announced, the government commits to reducing GHG emissions by 20% below Canada's 2006 level by 2020--around the same time, we have the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which was introduced by the opposition parties in a minority Parliament. I want to refer to the fact that your predecessor referred to the progress that was made all the way back to the initial commitments in 1992 as Canada, along with the world, began to consider actions that might be taken. There was absolutely no record of progress or planning or implementation to achieve the objectives that Canada was committing to under the previous government.

To quote your predecessor, Ms. Gélinas, on March 4, 2008, she said, "We expected that the federal government would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998...we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses."

Coming back to the KPIA, which you're reporting on today, as you're mandated, Mr. Commissioner, the KPIA was a private member's bill. There is some criticism in your report that the current government of Canada had not put financial measures in place, but of course the private member's bill itself had no financial instruments attached to it, since it was a private member's bill and outside the scope of such a bill. I just wanted to put that on the record that there are no requirements in the bill itself.

But taking that to our current commitments, under the Copenhagen accord we have committed to 17% below 2005 levels, or 607 megatonnes, and that's compatible with the United States. With the Copenhagen program, we now have many more nations involved, including the large emitters, in trying to achieve some objectives, and the government is working on a sector-by-sector basis through regulation to have an action plan in place. For example, on the industrial output of tail-pipe emissions on light trucks and heavy duty trucks, we are making progress and even the measures that have been agreed upon with the provinces and with industry thus far are expected to reduce emissions by about 65 megatonnes. Of course, there's much more to do.

So I just wanted to put on the record that we've started with a regulatory deficit in spite of the good intentions of previous governments, but we are taking steps to bring this into line. I'll leave that as a comment and go on to chapter 2 and raise a question there, a follow-up to Mr. Sopuck's observations.

In chapter 2 you mention 140,000 square kilometres of oil sands resource, and the 60 square kilometres or so that have been reclaimed. Apparently, examining positive impacts of the extraction over time hasn't been part of the mandate.

I want to draw attention to the fact that Patrick Moore, a PhD, a man with an environmental record, just a week ago made a statement about the extraction in the oil sands, which he describes as a mining operation that is not pretty but is being done in an acceptable manner. There were some images there of areas that haven't been touched by industry so far that have oil floating along the water naturally, and that after extraction--it might take 20 years--the environment might be significantly improved by the extraction process, if you take time to examine an environment that's already got an oil problem. I just wonder if you would agree with Mr. Moore that that's certainly within the scope of possibility, if we take a longer-range perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Commissioner, Mr. Lunney's time is up. You have time for a yes or a no.

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

The next speaker is Ms. Leslie, for five minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is about CEAA. I'm just looking for some illustration, I guess, to help me understand what's going on with CEAA.

From what I take from this report, it seems that there are individual environmental assessments happening on a micro-project basis that are not taking into account the cumulative impacts of oil sands development. If that's the case, is it just a matter of tweaking the regulations to say “Keep an eye on cumulative impacts”, or do we have to do them all at once? What would it look like to actually fix that problem? Is it just the lens, or do we actually have to structure the assessments differently?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'll ask my colleague Francine Richard, who is our CEAA expert. Maybe she could come to the table.

Within the five evaluations of environmental assessments, there is, under the CEAA Act, the wording that cumulative effects should be considered. The wording is so vague that “considered” is fairly open. That's one of our conclusions that we put in the perspective at the beginning.

Within a project-by-project assessment, they will do a project-related environmental assessment. Then within that context, they're also supposed to provide consideration of the combined or cumulative effects of that project in relation to the other projects that either are in place or are planned to be in place in the next five to ten years. What we found is that this part of the CEAA is an important one. It's a difficult one. Cumulative environmental assessments are tough. Right now the wording of the act is such that they're single project assessments. But as the government has acknowledged in its July phase two report, the ultimate objective of the government's new approach and the new plan is to put in place a cumulative environmental monitoring system for the region that goes beyond project-to-project and actually looks at some regional characteristics of environmental change.

It's a long answer. If in the committee's future work there is a review of CEAA.... I think this may be one area that I felt sufficiently important to put in the perspective, because I think this ambiguity has created problems in terms of reliable information on findings.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Did your colleague want to speak?

[Francine Richard, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

The only thing I would add is that in 2009 we did a review of the application of the act, and that particular topic came up as a difficult situation for a lot of the departments to handle. How you do cumulative impacts is not very clear for them. Having said that, the agency has come up with guidelines, but it is still something that is bringing confusion for the departments that have to apply them.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

Going back to Kyoto, as you know, the government has a sector-by-sector approach right now when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I look at something like the industrial emissions plan. I think your report says that when that plan was taken off the table, it left a giant hole that wasn't filled in terms of where we get those greenhouse gas reductions. I think it was an 80% hole.

What's your assessment of whether a sector-by-sector approach can work? This example says to me that it can't, because if we drop one sector, there's no holistic plan to fill that gap.

[Scott Vaughan]

I think that would be a policy decision. You may want to pose that question to the government. I'm sure that my office will be going back and looking at the implementation of that regulatory approach in the years to come.

The other thing, which I think an honourable member raised earlier, is that Canada's stated position now is to, in step, harmonize with the United States. My understanding of the U.S. approach is that it is the sector-by-sector approach: transport, coal-fired, and other large point sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

To get the reductions you would need that would come through in any audit you're doing, should there be a mechanism to ensure that we are at least considering each piece in the larger framework?

[Scott Vaughan]

One of the benefits of looking at a whole plan is to figure out if all the components of the plan—which are complicated, as there are many different parts—are fitting together. This isn't a criticism, because this is difficult, but in the report, for example, we noted three plans to support and advance biofuels, which is a very important initiative. We didn't go in and look at this, but you'd want to have those plans and programs working to find some synergistic impacts. Right now, when we looked at it we saw 35 different programs without integrated reporting mechanisms. So the worry on this is whether or not there are some potential gains that are being missed because it's not coordinated, or, as you say, holistic.

That was one of the reasons we said we should roll up what the whole plan looks like both in terms of budget and also with regard to other observations related to how well these programs are working together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Commissioner.

The last questions go to Mr. Woodworth for five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, I want to start with an exchange you had with Ms. Leslie just a moment ago in which she asked something along the lines of what it would look like to fix the problem of dealing with cumulative impacts, and you gave quite a lengthy answer. I wonder if I could ask you whether you agree that a short answer to that question, as it relates to the oil sands, would be that what it would look like to fix the monitoring of cumulative impacts would be almost exactly the plan the government came up with in March.

[Scott Vaughan]

I think that's an excellent short answer. Yes, I agree.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to say that I noticed from the questioning that at least of one of the opposition members did not seem to be aware that in fact a plan existed. I was a bit surprised if not shocked to hear that. I want to make an offer through you, Mr. Chair. I do have the plan. It's several hundred pages. I have it right here. I would be happy to give it to any of the members opposite who would like to have a look at it, if they are inclined to do so. I definitely recommend that they do. In fact, Mr. Chair, there is a list of several dozen scientists who contributed to the drafting of the plan, who they could contact, including an eminent expert, Dr. David Schindler, from the University of Alberta, who was one of the reviewers.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I regret that Ms. Leslie had to leave the room before I was able to provide that assistance.

Commissioner, you made a comment somewhere along the way that decisions have been based on incomplete or poor information. Do you recall that comment?

[Scott Vaughan]

I do.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I understand you to be talking about the lack of monitoring and production of information that existed up to the time that you studied, in or around the summer of 2010. Is that what you were speaking of?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, yes.