Environment Committee on Oct. 8th, 2014

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That's excellent.

When you're looking at the environment, people complain that we tend to work in silos. I was wondering if you could describe to the committee the work that Environment Canada is doing alongside the provinces and territories to improve our environmental record and reduce Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions.

[Chris Forbes]

Yes. I'll talk, and certainly my colleagues can add comments.

We talk to the provinces in a number of different fora. At the officials level the deputy minister meets with his provincial counterparts on a regular basis to discuss regulatory actions, and my colleagues do as well. For example, Dan would meet with the provinces to talk to them a bit about the work that's going on in the international fora and the implications there. As I mentioned in my remarks, at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, there was an agreement earlier this fall to work together, to talk about climate change going forward, both mitigation and adaptation.

The final point I guess I'd make on that front—and Mike can certainly add to this— is that one of the things that's been important to us as we do this sector-by-sector regulatory approach is to look at equivalency of regulations with the provinces and make sure that we're not duplicating and increasing the regulatory burden unnecessarily. There's a lot of work that goes on with provinces to make sure that where it works for a province and for the federal government, we can reach equivalency agreements to achieve the same environmental outcome, but with one set of regulations.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Are there any further comments?

[Mike Beale]

Maybe I could just add a few words on the regulatory side. As part of the sector-by-sector regulatory approach, we have working groups established with respect to different sectors. I would say there's a significant involvement of provinces in that work.

In addition, there's a series of bilateral engagements with, as Chris indicated, a view to trying to make sure that Canadian industry is not being hit twice, for example, with different regulations, or that there are not two different kinds of regulations applying to them. Equivalency agreements are really important there.

We have published very recently the final equivalency agreement with respect to our coal-fired electricity regulations with the Province of Nova Scotia. The order standing down the federal regulations will be forthcoming. What it means is that for a federal regulation, we look at what the province is doing, and if the province is achieving the same outcome through its own regulations, then we can stand down the federal regulations. In a sense, it's a win for the environment, but it's also a win for the province, because it takes account of the specific circumstances of the province.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That's excellent.

As the government moves forward with the plan for the sector-by-sector approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little more and explain to the committee how this tailored approach is achieving results.

[Mike Beale]

We've talked about the vehicle regulations. The magnitude of those emission reductions is really very significant.

On the coal-fired electricity regulations, similarly, we were able to tailor them to the circumstances of the sector. In the area of coal-fired electricity, we were facing a situation where we had a fleet of coal plants that in many cases were nearing the end of their useful life. The approach taken was tailored to those specific circumstances to say, okay, would it make sense that when a plant then reaches a certain number in terms of its end of useful life, that plant either has to meet a stringent performance standard or it closes down?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay. Hopefully we'll have time to come back and finish that thought, or perhaps you can continue that off-line. I want to respect the time.

Mr. Choquette, please, for seven minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today.

You say that you accept the commissioner's recommendations. However, one of the most important findings in the report is that, in all likelihood, you will not achieve the Copenhagen Accord target.

Is it also your conclusion that you will not achieve that target?

[Chris Forbes]

The recommendation was that we plan our efforts better with the provinces and other federal departments. We accept the commissioner's recommendation that we work better with our colleagues in other departments and with the provinces and territories. We accepted that recommendation.

As for whether we will achieve the 17% target, I think that in this case the commissioner referred to our forecasts in the document entitled

“Canada's Emissions Trends”.

This document dates from last year. My feeling is that this is a forecast and that the figures have to be considered in that light. It includes only the measures that are in force or have already been announced. It does not include other potential measures.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't have much time left.

[Chris Forbes]

That's okay.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

As you said, the report points to a lack of coordination with the provinces. I believe I recall that two main committees meet, but one of them met only once, in 2011. It is clear that coordination is a problem.

That said, when we talk about coordination with the provinces, it is important to point out that they are doing their part. In fact, most of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be due to action taken by the provinces.

What real steps will you take in the coming year to improve coordination with the provinces with a view to achieving the Copenhagen Accord target?

[Chris Forbes]

As Mr. Beale explained, we hold many bilateral and multilateral discussions with the provinces. These discussions are probably not regular enough, but we discuss almost all our initiatives with the provinces.

I believe I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation that the environment ministers met in Prince Edward Island in September. The ministers will look at these issues next year at their next meeting. In preparation for that event, there will be a series of meetings between federal and provincial environment department officials.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Because I don't have much time left, I will ask you three questions all at once. You can take the time you need to answer each one.

The first question is about your draft regulations for the oil and gas sector, which have been around for a year. According to the commissioner's report, the consultations were very limited.

Why were they so restricted and the group so limited?

Why are the draft regulations still not available after a year?

As politicians, we would at least like to look at them.

On page 16 of chapter 1, the commissioner asks four very specific questions, including these two:

What additional or more stringent regulations will be needed in sectors already subject to regulation, and when? Which additional sectors does the federal government plan on regulating, and when?

You said you intended to answer these four questions.

Are you promising to do so in a year?

That more or less sums up my concerns.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the western chorus frog.

I'd just like to know if you are going to issue the famous emergency protection order.

Do you have any news about that?

I'm sorry to bombard you with questions. I will let you have the floor.

[Chris Forbes]

I suppose it is better to answer your questions in the order in which you asked them, starting with the one about working with the provinces.

[Mike Beale]

I will answer in English, if I may.

When I look at paragraph 1.19 of the commissioner's report, the commissioner states that “detailed regulatory proposals have been available internally for over a year”. She doesn't say regulations. “Regulatory proposals” is a broader concept that involves more initial work to develop a set of regulations, and that work certainly is well under way.

The consultations have been on the regulatory framework. We have consulted with all the relevant provinces that have oil and gas interests and we've consulted widely with industry.

With respect to further consultations, again, I would draw your attention to our response on paragraph 1.25, where we point out that Environment Canada has a practice of consulting with stakeholders on draft regulations pre- and post-publication. That is our practice and we will continue to follow that practice, including with respect to—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't have much time left.

Could you answer the other two questions in writing in the weeks to come? I don't have time to listen to your answers. Is that possible?

[Chris Forbes]

We will try.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll move now to Ms. Ambler, for seven minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, officials, for being here with us this afternoon.

I would like to begin with Mr. Hallman because I have a bit of an interest....I think a number of us on this side of the table were participants in the statutory review process of the CEAA, so I was particularly interested in that part of the commissioner's report.

You mentioned that the commissioner highlighted specific achievements of the Environmental Assessment Act, including the implementation of systems and practices to meet new legislated timelines, assist with public participation, and reduce duplication of environmental assessment processes. I consider them achievements of the statutory review because those were being called for at the time a couple of years ago. I'm happy to see that they're being implemented and successfully so.

In particular, I wanted to know if you could tell us a bit about how the government is working to increase aboriginal involvement in environmental monitoring, which is part of the public participation piece of the CEAA.

[Ron Hallman]

Mr. Chair, the agency has a flexible and comprehensive framework for engaging aboriginal groups in the conduct of an environmental assessment. From the time that we receive a project description from a proponent right through to a minister's decision statement and well beyond that, when a project is actually being brought to life and constructed, we meet with aboriginal groups. We have crown consultation coordinators in each of the regions who actually go into communities and meet with aboriginal groups, their representatives, and their elders to discuss the project description, to get feedback on the perspective of the aboriginal group on the types of impacts that the project might have on their rights or interests, on the types of mitigations that might help to address or accommodate, where appropriate, those impacts and those interests, even to the point of talking about potential conditions in the event the project is ultimately allowed to proceed.

So right through the entire process, we work with aboriginal groups. We even bring departmental experts from other federal departments to come into the community with us to help raise that level of understanding and communication and capacity of first nations to understand what the project is about and what the potential impacts are, so that when the proponent is issued environmental impact statement guidelines, they reflect the concerns of the aboriginal groups. When the proponent submits their environmental impact statement and the agency prepares its report, which is then shared publicly as well, the interests and participation of aboriginal groups are reflected in that, and they go out for further consultation with public and aboriginal groups.

We believe that under the new act and with the funding that is provided by the government for the participant funding program, we are doing a very effective job of engaging aboriginal groups in the conduct of EAs.

One recommendation that the commissioner made, which we have accepted, is that the agency will need to have a structured or systematic approach to engaging aboriginal groups in discussions on policy and future policy issues related to the implementation of the act. I mention that because, as you may remember, this audit started 18 months after the act was proclaimed. In those first 18 months and the months since then, the agency has been very engaged in adjusting our business processes to be able to respond to the consultation requirements, and to be able to respond to and deliver on legislative timeframes, etc.

Now, as the act becomes a little more mature, we expect that policy areas will arise. We will want to discuss those with the public, with other stakeholders, and certainly with aboriginal groups. We will be looking for opportunities to structure meaningful dialogue with them that responds to their needs, that does so in such a way that they would like to be engaged, and that still respects the provisions of the act in terms of legislative timeframes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you. It sounds like the agency is doing a very effective job of that.

Would you say that all of these measures and this structured approach that you've described have increased the transparency of the EA process?

[Ron Hallman]

Whether there's a panel review or an agency-led review, the agency collects all the information, and all of that information is available in the public file on that project. So in that regard, I believe it's very transparent. All of that information is available to Canadians upon request. A good deal of that information is posted on the agency's public registry.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

That's good to know. Thank you.

My next question is actually about hydrofluorocarbons. Not being a scientist, but having lots of constituents who write to me about various concerns, I know that folks are concerned about their health and the health of their families. They write to me about everything from genetically modified foods to greenhouse gas emissions. Among the GHGs, of course, that I suppose are the most polluting are the HFCs, the hydrofluorocarbons.

I'm wondering if perhaps, Mr. Forbes, you could highlight the heavy-duty regulations and the intention to regulate hydrofluorocarbons that were announced a couple of weeks ago by the minister—