Environment Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

[Scott Vaughan]

We didn't go into field testing. The plan that the government released in July includes the Mackenzie basin, particularly in the aquatic ecosystem monitoring. Again, it's potential, long-range transport of different contaminants, going from the oil sands area up into the Northwest Territories as well as to northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. That's the scope that the federal government's own plan has determined needs to be addressed.

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

I want to reiterate that the Mackenzie River itself is a perfect test case, in that we have before-and-after information. The water quality information in those two 25-year periods is readily available. They were sampled identically, so I would look for somebody to compare those two data sets to see the differences in water quality and describe anything that could be attributed to the oil sands development.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

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

[Scott Vaughan]

I think it's an important point. If the honourable member does not, I'll certainly pass along your comments to Environment Canada. I think you're right. Getting 25-year, baseline-comparable data in a pristine area is a gold mine.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the environment commissioner and his colleagues for an excellent, comprehensive report.

You have said that the government lacks reliable information to inform Canadians about environmental change and to safeguard environmental quality. I have grave concerns, because we are potentially looking at the loss of 700 scientists at Environment Canada, as well as a 43% cut to CEAA. I think these cuts are alarming and potentially devastating. I'm wondering if you can comment on what this will mean for monitoring, roles and responsibilities, and goals—these are things you said we've been lacking in. How will it affect performance management and decision-making?

[Scott Vaughan]

I think this may be a question to pose to senior officials of Environment Canada and other ministries. They could inform the honourable members about where those projected reductions are going to take place. We have in past reports commented with concern on the capacity of Environment Canada and other federal ministries to meet their standing regulatory or program obligations, owing to capacity and financing issues. We'll wait to see where the reductions will be going, and then we'll wait to see what implications this might have on the delivery of current commitments.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I believe the report shows that $9.2 billion has been spent for climate change. At the same time, the government has reduced its target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90%. I also believe you said this morning that $92,000--

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mrs. Duncan, just as a reminder, anything that the commissioner said in camera needs to be--

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It wasn't in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Okay. I just want to make sure it wasn't at the in camera meeting.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's okay if it was at the press conference?

You said it takes $92,000 to reduce a tonne, versus $15 to reduce a tonne on the Alberta market.

I'm wondering if you could address those two issues, please.

[Scott Vaughan]

First of all, thank you.

When we started auditing this plan, which we have a legal obligation to do under the CEAA, we said “This is the government's plan, so what is the budget for your plan?” We were told that nobody had done a roll-up of the 34 programs into a total budget. This is important for basic transparency to help Parliament make a determination of value for money.

So on the $9.2 billion that has been allocated, we made a recommendation to provide details on what has been spent. From those expenditures some insights and judgments can be made on what the value for money is, which is our role in helping Parliament make those determinations. We made that recommendation, but Environment Canada did not accept it. They said, to be fair, there are other ways they report financial expenditures.

When we compared the 2009 plan to the 2010 plan, the level of anticipated reductions had dropped by 90%. The majority of that was due to the cancellation of one program, the regulatory framework. It comprised 85% of the older approach. So we said that recorded emission reductions for 2010 were two megatonnes. In 2009 they were anticipated to be about 28. They went from 28 to two. We said that was a significant change and commented on that, because we had an obligation under the act to inform Parliament. If a program is changed or cancelled, the government has an obligation under the act to show where there's redress--where there is another program to compensate for a program that has been removed. That's why we raised it to Parliament's attention.

Finally, we didn't do a value-for-money determination, and it's important that the $9.2 billion is allocated. It's over a five-year period. We also took note that Environment Canada's own internal analysis has said that some of the programs were bringing greenhouse gas emission reductions of $92,000 per tonne, which is pretty expensive under any measure.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Are you able to table with the committee the 34 or 35 programs and the cost of each of those programs? You mentioned that a value-for-money assessment was not done.

One of my concerns right now is that I know the climate impacts and adaptation branch is facing cuts. This is a group that was started 17 years ago and did world-leading, cutting-edge research, such as the Canada Country Study, and even the first regional report for IPCC. Many of those scientists share part of the 2007 Nobel Prize. They have been sent letters concerning their jobs being in jeopardy.

Are you able to table with the committee those programs, what the money is, and if a value-for-money assessment will be done in the future?

[Scott Vaughan]

Thank you for the question.

On page 38 there's a table with the costing of all the programs that are there. I'll let Mrs. Leach answer the question.

[Kimberley Leach]

Exhibit 1.8 lists all of the measures and costs. They were included in the 2010 climate change plan. There are measures here that have greenhouse gas emissions associated with them. Those are the first 19 that are listed.

There are another 15 measures listed in the 2010 plan that do not have greenhouse gas emissions associated with them. The costs for them are also listed here. Not all of the measures are listed, but we could certainly provide them.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Can you provide that comprehensive list in terms of what the reductions have been, what the money has been, so we...? Again, will there be an assessment of value for money going forward?

[Kimberley Leach]

Exhibit 1.8 tells you what the money is per measure, and exhibit 1.3, earlier in the chapter, lists the reductions that have been both estimated and achieved.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Could we see it side-by-side?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan and Ms. Leach. Time is up.

We will begin our five-minute round now, the second round.

We'll begin with Ms. Liu.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Vaughan, for being here.

First of all, your report seems to demonstrate that the government hasn't been transparent in terms of financial reporting, so could you talk about where the liability for that lies, or why that financial data isn't available in terms of that $9 billion that was spent?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'll let Ms. Leach expand on my answer, but the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act doesn't require the government to disclose financial information. However, I thought when we saw the programs and the total budgets rolled up that we had a responsibility to bring this total budget to Parliament's attention.

I'd also like to say that this isn't the first time this has happened. In 2006 my predecessor looked at the total budget, which was then around $3.5 billion, and said that there should be greater transparency on how the federal government is informing Parliament of total expenditures related to greenhouse gas emission targets.

[Kimberley Leach]

The only thing I would add is that each of the measures has its own expenditure management system within each of the respective departments, so what we found was missing was the overall picture.

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

Thanks.

Could you also talk about the recommendations that were made in your previous reports, and can you name those recommendations that haven't been respected by the government?