Environment Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

We'll begin the five-minute round with Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

First of all, I would like to thank the witnesses for coming.

Of course, it is very important to fight invasive species that can be harmful, as Mr. Wong from Parks Canada explained. It is very important for ecosystems, fauna and flora. We have also seen that the economic consequences can be significant. Mr. McLean spoke of $20 billion.

I am concerned about the recent cuts at Environment Canada.

Will you be able to continue your good work and limit the economic consequences? The economy is currently a concern and we do not know what will happen in the coming months.

Will these cuts at Environment Canada be detrimental to the continuation of your work?

[Robert McLean]

With respect to the budget available to me for the roles I've described already, there have been no reductions. I have the same budget this fiscal year that I had the year before. Within this budget I have to maintain coordination, in the context of this strategy, to implement the $1 million contribution program that we manage. We have that capacity.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Excellent. I have another question for you. You talked about intergovernmental coordination, that is coordination among the provinces, the territories and the federal government. I think you also mentioned your work with the United States.

Is there more international cooperation? I think it is a problem that currently affects every country in the world, especially in the context of climate change. My colleague spoke of this earlier. What are your international linkages? Will you develop a more international approach or strategy, given that as you said invasive species know no boundaries?

[Robert McLean]

Canada will maintain those international linkages—not Environment Canada, though. This would fall to my colleagues in the federal government. There is something called the International Plant Protection Convention, and within that there is a mechanism called the North American Plant Protection Convention Organization, where risk assessments are done on plants that could be invasive. That's one mechanism. The second mechanism is the World Trade Organization agreement on what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency refers to as sanitary and phytosanitary measures. For example, shipments of seed should not have seeds of potentially invasive plants mixed in with other seeds such as wheat or oats. There are a couple of mechanisms internationally that focus on invasive alien species.

I don't know if there's anything additional from my colleague from Natural Resources Canada.

[Ken Farr]

I'd emphasize that international agreements and international conversation are important for safeguarding Canadian markets, particularly the forest products market. I could point to an example of a technical committee with the North American Plant Protection Organization, which reports to the International Plant Protection Convention, specifically examining pathways and means of assessing the risk of pathways. This is an efficient means of getting at the kernel of the problem, which is the pathways along which invasive species travel, specific to forest pests.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

If I have time left, I can share it with my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

The last question this round goes to Mrs. Ambler.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses today for coming to speak to us about this very important topic. It's my hope that with this study we can examine the effects of invasive land species and the effects they have on all Canadians, because a threat in one part of the country one day could be a threat in another part by the next.

My view is that only by prioritizing the invasive species that pose the greatest threats can we ensure that we're spending money wisely. To ensure that the federal government is targeting the most damaging invasive species in prioritization ensures that we're doing so in a resource-effective manner. As an example, I'd like to say that some land-based invasive species are likely to stay in Canada. The example I give is the rat, not the common household rat. Notwithstanding Mr. Wong's mention of the Norway brown rat, I think we would all agree that it would be impossible to eliminate the common rat. So we have to focus on what's doable and make that our approach and concentrate, frankly, on what's truly controllable.

I'd like to start my questions by asking for a clarification of Environment Canada's role with regard to invasive species. On page 9 of Mr. McLean's slide deck you mentioned that Environment Canada chairs a federal directors general interdepartmental steering committee on invasive alien species. Who is on this committee? Who are the members? Could you elaborate on what the committee does?

[Robert McLean]

The committee is made up of the departments and agencies that are listed on that particular slide, so I think it's a very inclusive interdepartmental committee.

In terms of key roles and functions, one key role is the sharing of information. For example, at our most recent meeting a couple of weeks ago, Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were sharing information on ongoing work on risk assessment around forest pests. We've also used this mechanism to share and actually develop strategies or approaches on some of the thematic areas that I mentioned previously. And we coordinate the implementation of the funding program that I mentioned.

Environment Canada does not on its own identify the priorities for funding. Rather, we work with our federal colleagues and develop the priorities that then help us understand what projects we should be funding.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

On that note, would I be correct in saying that the coordinating role that Canada plays in terms of meeting our UN commitments on biodiversity...? Would you say that the commitments we're making in this area now reflect our international commitments but are also uniquely Canadian?

[Robert McLean]

I think the answer is yes to both parts of those questions. There's always going to be a debate around how much is enough. I mentioned earlier the statistics around the magnitude of trade and travel. On the strategy itself, we've had two recent national fora--one in 2009 and one in 2010--and the strategy has so far stood the test of time in terms of getting that focus on prevention and early detection and rapid response. You still need to manage.

I absolutely agree with your comment about prioritizing species when it comes to the management side. There is definitely management activity to minimize the impact of established species that will always be ongoing. Also, the focus on pathways has stood the test of time, as my colleague from Natural Resources Canada mentioned: under the North American Plant Protection Organization a risk assessment around pathways then means we stop a host of species that might come into Canada through that pathway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Okay, your time is up. Thank you, Ms. Ambler.

To each of our witnesses, Mr. Farr, Mr. McLean, and Mr. Wong, thank you for coming.

We are going to suspend for a couple of minutes and then get ready to hear from the commissioner. We will suspend, and you can grab some lunch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

We will call the meeting back to order. I want to thank the commissioner and his officials for being available here today.

Commissioner, we will begin with your presentation and then we will have questions for you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I am pleased to present my October 2011 report, which was tabled in the House of Commons this morning.

With me are colleagues Bruce Sloan and Kimberley Leach, as well as David Willey and Francine Richard.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. Touré, Mali's new Auditor General. Our office is contributing to a capacity building project for the Office of the Auditor General of Mali, in partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency and the Canada School of Public Service.

Welcome, Mr. Touré.

Mr. Chair, since I began as commissioner three years ago, a recurring theme in my reports has been the significant gaps in the information needed to understand and respond to the changing state of our environment. The audit results presented in this report show that the government is still struggling with this issue.

The first chapter of my report is about climate change plans and the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

The act requires the government to produce these plans every year. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that Canada meets its Kyoto commitments by 2012.

The act requires me to analyze these plans and report on the government's progress in implementing them and meeting its obligations. This is our office's second such report.

We found several improvements in the completeness and transparency of the information contained in the climate change plans. However, we also found that the government lacks the tools it needs to achieve, measure, and report greenhouse gas emission reductions. As a result, the government doesn't know what it has accomplished so far with $9 billion allocated in the 2010 climate change plan.

Canada will fall short of the greenhouse gas emission target set by the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, the government has reduced its expectations. It has made new emission reduction commitments, but it remains to be seen whether they are attainable.

Climate change is already having a major impact on Canadian ecosystems and the health of Canadians. To reach the new target the federal government committed to under the Copenhagen accord, it will need to address the weaknesses in current management practices.

In chapter 2 we examined the government's assessment of the cumulative environmental effects of oil sands projects in northern Alberta. When there are several development projects in the same region, it's important to understand their combined impacts on the environment and how to minimize them. Failure to prevent environmental impacts from the start can lead to significant problems down the road.

The government has not put in place a system that can monitor the cumulative environmental impact in this region. We have found that decisions made about oil sands development projects have been based on incomplete, mediocre or non-existent environmental data.

Since 1999, the federal government scientists have been saying that the effects of the oil sands on water, soil, air, fish, fauna and habitat are now well-known.

In response to a 2010 report from the oil sands advisory panel, the federal government committed to establishing a comprehensive environmental monitoring system for the lower Athabasca River basin.

The government has established a detailed and comprehensive plan to put in place a good environmental monitoring system. We look forward to reporting to Parliament on the implementation of this plan in our future reports.

Mr. Chair, we'll now be happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Before we begin the first round of seven minutes of questions, I want to remind each member that many of you were at the lock-up between nine and ten o'clock. You cannot reference anything that was said in an in camera meeting. So consider that when you make statements or ask questions of the commissioner.

We'll begin the seven minutes with Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today. We all appreciate the thoroughness with which you do your work, and the helpfulness of the information.

I want to begin by understanding the timeframe of your report. As I understand it, your audit period ended before the government's expert panel, which ended in December 2010. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct, sir. Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In fact, I understand that your field work, in preparation of the audit, also ended over a year ago, in September 2010. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I understand that the last environmental assessment, which was studied in the preparation of this report, was issued in 2007. Is that correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So it would be correct to say that your report is more or less a snapshot of the state of affairs on or before September 2010.

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes, that would be correct--June, July 2010.