Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Just so there's no confusion, I think we would all love to share those views with you.

[Richard Arseneault]

I would like to point out that there is a definition of sustainable development in the Auditor General Act, and if you read the definition and you look at the explanation you gave us, I think there's probably a sustainable development issue there.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Okay, thank you for that.

We'll now go to Madam Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good afternoon. What I have learned today has been very interesting.

But there is one question in particular that concerns me. In Chapter 1 of your report, you note that progress with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by large industrial emitters is very slow. I would like you to present the key elements of a successful policy aimed at reducing emissions, particularly in the industrial sector.

[Johanne Gélinas]

It is not really up to me to suggest the kind of steps that need to be taken. However, basing myself on my experience as an auditor, I would say that when you plan something, it ends up getting done. As a general rule, when you set objectives, the mechanisms are put in place to meet those objectives and to measure performance and outcomes. When there are no objectives, it becomes very difficult. You can always say there has been progress, but it will never be tangible, measurable progress where you can make a connection between the costs of a program and the outcomes in terms of efficiency.

That is a question people often ask me. The first step is to set objectives, and then to develop measures.

The third critical component is to produce public reports, so that Canadians can find out what progress has been made.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Does anybody else wish to take the balance of Madame Boucher's time?

Okay, then we'll go to the final round. I have Mr. St. Amand, Madame DeBellefeuille, and Madam Bell and Mr. Bevington will be splitting their time.

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gélinas, in your remarks today on paragraph 11, or what I have as paragraph 11, and perhaps you have the same sheet, dealing with the transportation sector, you make a comment about the voluntary agreement that was entered into between the government and the auto sector. You have a comment about voluntary agreements, that the particular agreement entered into between the government and the auto sector falls short in a few key areas.

I'm hoping I'm not steering you toward the area of policy, but I'm wondering if you have a comment, given the urgency of addressing the issue of climate change, as to whether it is your view that voluntary agreements in and of themselves are likely going to be inadequate in addressing the whole issue of combating global warming, climate change.

Can you fairly comment on that?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I can just refer back to what we have said in the past in the Office of the Auditor General. We were not favouring one tool over another. What we are saying is that every tool will be developed as robustly as possible, and if it's the right tool to achieve the objective, that's fine. But we have seen in the past, and we have looked at that, that voluntary agreements were not as robust as they should have been. And the most important thing, in this case in particular--and it's not for me to judge if at the time it was the right tool or not--is to have third-party verification so we will know if this agreement, in particular, is working well or not.

We don't know as we speak. We haven't seen the results, but it's important that Canadians can see what results are achieved through this particular tool.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

All right.

In chapter 3 of your report, dealing specifically with the wind power production incentive--and I'm looking at page 9 of chapter 3 and the bold heading of one section, “The Wind Power Production Incentive is progressing toward its targets”--you earlier made mention in your remarks about how, albeit short of the targets, there was in fact considerable progress being made under the auspices of the wind power production incentive.

I'm just wondering about your reaction to NRCan's response to your recommendation 3.27, your recommendation being:

Natural Resources Canada should lead the development of a wind power strategy for Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and wind industry.

The response from NRCan, in my reading of it, to be charitable, seems on the tepid side--it's certainly vague--and I'm wondering if I could ask you to comment on that.

[Johanne Gélinas]

The response of Natural Resources Canada is clear. First of all, if this program is to be pursued--it's unclear what the future of that program is--there will be some more work done. You have to know that there was a wind strategy in the making. NRCan worked on that, and we have seen some of the work as a draft version of their strategy. They have even gone through consultations on that strategy, so you may want to know a little bit more about where NRCan is with respect to that strategy and what the objective of the wind power strategy was at the time. It would be very interesting to have an update on where the department is.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

We're just going to have to cut it at that. Thank you, Mr. St. Amand.

We'll go to Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You say that you recommended to Natural Resources Canada that it take a lead role in developing a wind energy strategy. The WPPI program does exist, however, and was supposed to be reviewed in March of 2006. That was never done. Natural Resources Canada said it would carry out an assessment during the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

Please reassure me. These days, the government has accustomed us to the following process: when there is talk of evaluation, it cuts the program first and evaluates it afterwards. That is exactly what happened with programs for women and many other programs, such as EnerGuide.

Were you given any indication that the WPPI program would be suspended or frozen pending a future review?

[Johanne Gélinas]

As you say, based on our information, funding has been frozen while they evaluate the program. You would certainly be given much more information if you put the question directly to the Department or the Treasury Board. What I perhaps should add, with respect to what you've already mentioned, is that before pledging to evaluate the program itself, the Department of Natural Resources clearly indicated that it would wait to see what future the program might have and that, depending on what the new plan includes, it would determine the next step. That was very clear in the documents we examined. The next step was indeed to proceed with an actual evaluation of the program.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

So, according to your information, the WPPI program has been frozen. No new money will be allocated, then.

When they say it's been frozen, does that mean the amount will remain the same, or that there won't be any more money?

[Johanne Gélinas]

In my opinion--and my colleagues are free to correct me on this--when they say the program has been frozen, that means that no money will be spent for the time being. They will complete the evaluation, and after that, the government will make a decision. That does not mean that the program has been abolished, or that there will be no additional money. It simply means that for the time being, things are at a standstill, pending the results of the evaluation.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

It is fair to say that the program has been suspended until the evaluation is completed?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I don't know whether it has been suspended, but my colleagues seem to be saying it has.

[David McBain, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Yes, I would say it's in suspension at the moment, while the funds are frozen. So they can't make any new engagements with new wind projects until a decision is rendered.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I am not yet very familiar with the departments, and particularly the Treasury Board. However, as a member of Parliament and taxpayer, I would like to know whether it would be helpful for the Committee to hear from Treasury Board officials, so that they have an opportunity to explain how the funding for the different measures related to climate change will be broken down. We could review the document tabled in Cabinet, a document that you did not have access to.

Will you make that recommendation to the Committee?

[Johanne Gélinas]

It's important not to mix apples and oranges. I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to ask officials from Treasury Board, which is a central agency, to appear. In terms of knowing how much money the federal government has spent overall on climate change, theoretically, it is the Treasury Board's job to collate this information and pass it along. So, that could be very helpful.

Based on our experience, I would suggest that you let Treasury Board officials know now what kind of information you are seeking. I should remind you that you don't just press a button to obtain that information. There is a great deal of work involved in researching and collecting information, particularly when it comes to expenditures and outcomes. I don't know how far along that work is at this time. However, in June, it was difficult to obtain all the information, even for us, as part of our audit.

So I suggest you put the question directly to them, and hope that you will get an answer within a reasonable period of time.

[Richard Arseneault]

However, the information related to program review should be available.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Pardon me?

[Richard Arsenault]

Information with respect to costs, outcomes, and so on should be available through program review, that took place towards the end of last year.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

So, I guess we could ask Treasury Board officials to appear to answer questions about program review?

[Richard Arseneault]

Yes, absolutely.