Evidence of meeting #31 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I'd like to call to order meeting 31 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
We are pleased to have with us today Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment, along with many of her officials, who will be introduced more fully later on.
We're going to proceed with a 10-minute opening statement by Ms. Gelfand, followed by questions from our members.
Ms. Gelfand, welcome. We're glad to have you with us.
3:30 p.m.
Julie Gelfand Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to present today my fall 2014 report, which was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday.
I'm accompanied by Kimberley Leach, Bruce Sloan, Andrew Ferguson, and Jim McKenzie, who are the principals responsible for the audits in our report.
The audits I'm reporting on today underscore that the government does not have the answers to many questions that impact the future of sustainable development in Canada. When we last looked at climate change commitments in 2012, we concluded that the government's approach to introducing regulations sector by sector was unlikely to reduce emissions enough to meet the Copenhagen target.
Under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Our most recent audit showed that little has changed over the last two years. We found that federal measures currently in place will have little effect on emissions by 2020.
The government has introduced regulations in the transportation and electricity generation sectors. However, regulations in the oil and gas sector—where emissions are growing the fastest—are still not in place eight years after the government first indicated it would regulate this area.
There is strong evidence that Canada will not meet its international greenhouse gas 2020 emission reduction target. The federal government does not have an overall plan that maps out how Canada will achieve this target. Canadians have not been given the details about which regulations will be developed, when, or what greenhouse gas reductions will be expected.
Finally, the federal government has not provided the necessary coordination so that all levels of government working together can achieve the national target by 2020.
Let's turn now to our audit of oil sands monitoring, where the federal government is working with the Province of Alberta to lay the groundwork for more comprehensive monitoring of the environmental effects of oil sands development. Our audit examined Environment Canada's performance under the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands. We found that overall Environment Canada implemented the monitoring projects we examined on time and on budget.
Nonetheless, there remains work to be done. The monitoring information resulting from the projects that are looking at air, water, and biodiversity needs to be better integrated to understand the long-term environmental effects of oil sands development, including cumulative impacts. Environment Canada needs to do a better job of integrating traditional ecological knowledge and engaging first nations, Métis, and other groups. Finally, stakeholders are looking to understand Environment Canada's role in oil sands monitoring beyond March 2015.
Our next audit focused on the services that Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada provide to support marine navigation in the Arctic. While we found that weather and ice information has improved, we also noted gaps and emerging risks that, if left unaddressed, will only grow as marine traffic increases in the Arctic.
For example, many high-risk areas in the Canadian Arctic are inadequately surveyed and charted. Some of the maps and charts for the Arctic are over 40 years old, and less than a quarter are rated as being "good" by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
In addition, the Canadian Coast Guard is having difficulty responding to requests from the shipping industry for new or modified aids to navigation such as beacons and shore lights.
Furthermore, the coast guard has not assessed the risks associated with decreasing icebreaking presence in the Arctic. I'm concerned that there seems to be no overall vision of what the federal government intends to provide in this vast new frontier in terms of modern charts, aids to navigation, and icebreaker services given the anticipated increase in vessel traffic.
ln another audit, we examined whether the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission are taking steps to implement the new 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
We noted two areas of concern where achieving the objectives of the act are at risk.
The first is that the rationale for recommending projects for environmental assessment is unclear. I am concerned that some significant projects may not be assessed and that decision-makers may not receive the information they need to address environmental impacts.
Our second concern relates to public participation. An objective of the new act was to increase aboriginal engagement. Many groups, including aboriginal peoples, are concerned that they do not have the capacity to participate meaningfully. This reduces the contribution these groups can make and may diminish public confidence in environmental assessments.
The last audit covered in this report is part of our annual monitoring of how departments are implementing their sustainable development commitments. This year we focused on the use of strategic environmental assessments by selected departments to integrate environmental considerations into their proposals to cabinet and Treasury Board.
While processes have improved, there is still a risk that ministers are not getting complete information on the environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of proposed programs, plans, and policies.
I am also pleased to present our annual report on environmental petitions. This year, we received 16 petitions requesting information from government ministers on a range of environmental topics, including the management of fisheries and threats to environmental and human health posed by toxic substances.
To sum up, as this year's audits show, despite good initiatives and progress in certain areas, there remain many unanswered questions. ln many key areas that we looked at, it is not clear how the government intends to address the significant environmental challenges that future growth and development will likely bring about.
Among other questions, the government does not know what Environment Canada's role will be in oil sands monitoring beyond March 2015. It has not made clear the rationale for which projects will be subject to environmental assessments, and I am concerned that some significant projects may not be assessed.
It has also not determined what level of service it will provide in the Arctic to support increased navigation and minimize environmental and safety risks. As well, it has not defined a national plan with the provinces and territories to achieve Canada's international greenhouse gas emission reduction target.
I expect the government to have the answers to these questions, and in my report I have made many recommendations, which the departments have accepted.
I look forward to seeing the initiatives that will be put in place in response.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks.
We are happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you very much, Ms. Gelfand.
We'll move now to the opening round of seven minutes of questions each, beginning with Mr. Woodworth, please.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your attendance, Ms. Gelfand and the other officials who are here with you today. I always find that the kind of gap analysis that you folks do is very helpful in improving government services. If Canadians only knew how closely things are examined by your office they'd be very pleased at the high level of excellence there is in the Government of Canada's work.
I was also very happy to read in your chapter, Environmental Monitoring of Oil Sands, that you found that overall Environment Canada implemented the monitoring projects that were examined on time and on budget, and that the department is in the early stages of integrating monitoring results across air, water, and biodiversity. I must say that in contrast to some of your other reports, I found those comments to be very positive.
I wish to ask you about that chapter. I'll begin with the question of the scope of the audit. I'm looking at page 18, from which I understand that the audit in question did not address how the monitoring data was or will be used to fulfill federal legislative and regulatory responsibilities. That seems like a pretty clear statement as it is. Am I right that you did not include how the monitoring data was or will be used?
3:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Also in the same paragraph on page 18, there is mention that the audit focused on Environment Canada's responsibility under the joint plan. I understand that to be the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring, which is described in 2.9 of your report.
Is that correct?
3:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Yes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
All right.
In paragraph 2.9, it says that the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan is to be implemented by March 31, 2015. It sounds as if it lays out the work that will be required up until that date.
Is that correct?
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
The joint plan is the first step in a longer-term monitoring program that both Canada and Alberta have talked about.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
We audited the beginning, the first three years, and how well they're doing in implementing what they said they wanted to do.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
This is what I want to be clear on. I understood that you audited the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring and that you were not tasked, or you did not choose, to audit the longer-term issues.
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
We audited the implementation of the joint plan.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
And how the monitoring was or will be used falls outside the scope of your audit.
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I also understand that your recommendation at 2.50, that Environment Canada should identify potential options to build on the foundation of that plan, was sourced mainly in comments from stakeholders.
Am I correct about that?
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's right.
When we interviewed stakeholders, they indicated they were interested in knowing whether Environment Canada would participate in the future because they felt that Environment Canada had the capacity and the credibility.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
But the terms of the actual joint Canada-Alberta plan do not speak of options past 2015.
Is that correct?
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
That's correct.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
What I wonder is that if you were departing from auditing the plan in coming to recommendation 2.50, and if you were looking past the plan, what process or rigour did you implement to determine alternative policy options?
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
We didn't look at alternative policy options.
What we indicated was that the stakeholders are wondering whether Environment Canada will continue in the monitoring of the oil sands, along with the Government of Alberta.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I have a very high regard for the rigour you apply as auditors when you set out the terms of your reference—and I can see that you rigorously examined the government's performance under the joint Canada-Alberta plan—but it concerns me that in entering into what happens after that plan, you perhaps took in some input but didn't rigorously look for other input.
For example, there may be those who might wish to say that once the plan is completed in 2015, this will devolve to the provinces. I'm a little concerned that what you have in recommendation 2.50 seems to go outside of the scope of the plan you were auditing.
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
When I read the recommendation.... What we were looking for was that Environment Canada would indicate to stakeholders whether or not it will be involved. It perhaps won't be involved, but Environment Canada and Alberta would discuss that and make a decision.
What we indicate in the report is that stakeholders are asking to find out if Environment Canada will be involved. They may not be involved, and—
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Is it unreasonable for me to expect and to suggest that if you are going to audit a plan which is to end in 2015, that you leave policy considerations about what should happen after 2015 out of it?
Is that unreasonable?
3:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Well, I don't believe that my recommendation is a policy recommendation. I believe my recommendation is a recommendation that Environment Canada should simply indicate whether it will or will not be. We are not saying that it should be and we're not saying it shouldn't be. We're saying that stakeholders are asking this question.