Environment Committee on Oct. 8th, 2014

[Julie Gelfand]

But we did look at 45 of them. We found that in two-thirds, the cabinet directive was being properly applied. In one-third of the cases, there was information, as I say, with positive environmental impact that was not getting to the ministers, as well as some with negative impacts. The cabinet directive was not being properly followed, and the information should have gone up to the minister.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay, thank you.

I would like to pass the remainder of my time to Mr. Woodworth, if he would like to continue.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I would like to continue our earlier conversation about paragraph 2.50, chapter 2, and the suggestion that there should be some policy going forward past the plan and the implementation of it. It seems that you're suggesting the design of the joint Canada-Alberta plan would have been improved if it had provided for post-2015 planning.

Is that what you're really suggesting?

[Julie Gelfand]

I don't believe I am, Mr. Woodworth.

I believe that the first three years of the implementation of this plan is what we audited. It has always been the intention of that original document that you mentioned, to do a long....

Monitoring takes many years. We need decades of information. We looked at the first three years, and we made a recommendation about something beyond March 2015.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

What I'm concerned about is that if the scope of your audit was to determine Environment Canada's performance under that three-year plan by suggesting that something more should happen after that's complete, you're really giving us a critique on the design of that plan. You're saying that design should have included a post-2015 element. If you're giving us such a critique, I want to know what rigour you've applied to be critical of that design.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, Mr. Woodworth. That's a good question. We'll have to wait for an answer for that one for later.

Ms. Duncan, for five minutes, please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and it's terrific to see you here. Congratulations, Commissioner, on your appointment. It was a great first report.

I would like to go to chapter 4 and one of my favourite subjects, equivalency. I would have to say right off the bat on section 4.58 I'm a little stunned at your finding that the agency has ensured conditions in place for substituting provincial for federal ones. The reason I'm a little stunned by that conclusion is in your report at 4.61 you state that the agency has not even yet developed practices or conditions that would allow them to even assess whether or not a provincial review process could replace a federal one.

As I understand only British Columbia, according to your report, has an MOU. This has been an ongoing debate going right back to Minister Sheila Copps at a meeting in Whitehorse where two ministers duked it out.

I'm concerned about this because we have a clear Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Oldman case that the federal government does share jurisdiction over the environment. An obvious place is transboundary impacts, impacts on first nations and Métis or Inuit, and fisheries, unilateral federal jurisdiction, which the provincial government cannot make a ruling on or regulate in. The provincial boards have been very clear on that.

Secondly, you have also identified in your report on both environmental assessment and monitoring that there has been some failure in meaningful participation of first nations and Métis.

Thirdly, to just give you one example, at the recent TransCanada pipeline hearing in Alberta, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was forced to pull out because they were denied initially even access to a review of the environmental assessment report. They wanted to make the determination before it was even released. Then they were given a mere 24 hours to review an extremely complex report.

With all of that, I look forward to you explaining your finding in 4.58.

[Julie Gelfand]

This is a very technical question, and so I am going to pass it over to Bruce to help with this.

[Bruce Sloan]

The government or the agency has entered into some substitution agreements in British Columbia to cover eight specific sites. In doing that they consider if the agency carried out the assessment, what are....

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm specifically interested in Alberta by the way.

[Bruce Sloan]

In Alberta there are no substitution agreements as at this point in time.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Exactly.

[Bruce Sloan]

But we did look at the process the agency used to establish where they do exist, and the steps the agency takes to say “if we are going to do the agency, we'd do these X, Y, and Z things to make sure the provincial process includes that, or we'll add that to the normal provincial process”.

The agency did carry out some work to enter into those substitution agreements. That is as at the time of our audit the only province where substitution agreements had been established.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I won't dwell on it, but my concern is that, despite substitution or equivalency agreements, the record in Alberta has been that we simply either don't do CEAA assessment at all...and there are no longer joint review panels. Absent an agreement, how is it that the federal assessments are not proceeding where those projects may impact first nations and fisheries?

I'll just leave it at that. I look forward to follow-up as CEAA is being implemented.

In the brief time I have left I'd like to follow up on what my colleague raised about monitoring. I also noted quite different reports by the Auditor General of Alberta—mind you, he was looking at what the Alberta government is doing—compared with your audit. But they are joint reports, and the Alberta auditor reported that these joint reports lacked clarity, and key information contained inaccuracies. They raised a concern that there's a lack of information-sharing between the two levels of government. The first public report wasn't transparent, and the first public report contained inaccuracies.

You have identified some things the federal government could do better, but I remain puzzled that the federal report seems somewhat more glowing than the provincial Auditor General review of exactly the same joint program.

It's a different year? Is that the difference?

[Julie Gelfand]

It's two different things. It's a different timeframe. It's also a different thing—thing one and thing two—in terms of what was audited. They looked at what was contained in the report. We looked at Environment Canada and the work plans, the projects on the ground, and how well Environment Canada was doing in implementing its share of the monitoring projects. So it's really a question of very different scopes.

In the case of Alberta, it was a different timeframe, so it's the first public report. In our case, it's the second year of monitoring programs and projects, and how well they're doing. Overall, they're doing well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to our last questioner for this session, Mr. Sopuck, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

I was interested in your comments on land use in particular, especially in terms of forests. You mentioned that forests can emit carbon dioxide on a net basis, and other times there are carbon sinks. Which type of forest does what?

[Julie Gelfand]

The information that I got was from a recent report from Natural Resources Canada. I don't have the level of detail in that question off the top of my head, but we could get back to you on that. It would be in the NRCan report, I'm pretty sure.

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

Is it fair to say that a young, growing forest would largely take in carbon dioxide on a net basis versus an older forest?

[Julie Gelfand]

That's probably basic science, but I—

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

This is a scientific report.

[Julie Gelfand]

It is, but I'm an auditor, and I can only do what I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You're auditing the program.

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

In the land use areas as well, the literature is fairly clear that wetlands can make very significant carbon sinks. Did you look at the issue of wetland loss in Canada and the effect on CO₂ emissions?

[Julie Gelfand]

Not in this report, no, we did not.