Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to everybody this afternoon.

I apologize for the Blackberry. It's a bit of a cultural shift for me, seeing that blackberries are usually better in puddings and buns in Labrador than they are ringing next to your ear. That having been said, I'm glad you're here.

I have a couple of comments, first of all. I was in a community of about 250 people this summer, and one of the elders in the community was telling me there's less ice, less sea ice, and this is something that has been going on for years now, and that type of thing. He was saying they were going to have to change their snowmobile trails. I was thinking at that particular point that if they had to do that, it would cost more money because they'll have to build them over land instead of across sea ice. It's going to take more time for the movement of goods and services.

It struck me at that particular time how important this whole issue is, and how it affects people in a community of 250, and how they are becoming in tune with not only a local, regional, or national problem, but an international problem and challenge.

In that context, I am wondering with respect to the Kyoto Protocol and the targets that were set out, what's your assessment of how important those protocols are, those international targets that have been set and Canada attaining those particular protocols and targets? There is some talk of a made-in-Canada solution, and I don't see it as only a Canada challenge. It is something that the global community has to address as well, isn't it?

I am wondering about this because the current government seems to think the Kyoto Protocol is not that important.

[Johanne Gélinas]

The only thing I can say about that, Mr. Chair, is that the target that was set by the government when it ratified the Kyoto Protocol was not based on sound analysis. I mean, as we were doing the audit, it became obvious that this number was not supported by any kind of strong social, economic, and environmental analysis. So the question is, what is the cost of achieving the Kyoto Protocol? I guess nobody knows.

What is the cost of inaction, though? That's another interesting question. Nobody knows, because we don't do that kind of analysis. At least we haven't seen anything in the course of our audit that will support that.

Then the third question is what is the cost of adaptation? When you are referring to what is going on up north, Neil and I had the privilege about a month and a half ago of going to a remote island in Nunavut, and I heard the same anecdotes--if we can still call them anecdotes, because we hear so many of them.

It's not clear how the government will manage adaptation to climate change, which you have to remember is also a component of signing the Kyoto agreement. There were two components to the agreement: adaptation and mitigation--reducing greenhouse gas, but also getting prepared to adapt. There's nothing in the books to clearly identify that the government was prepared to move in the direction of adaptation.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

On the EnerGuide program, what would you say were some of the successes of that particular program? Could you reiterate? It seemed that in all of your critique of the environmental programs that are in place, this one seemed to have some positive light shined on it.

What would you say were some of the positive attributes around the EnerGuide program? Are there things with the EnerGuide program, or the model that was used or the structure that it had and the reporting that it had, that we could use in other programs that may be developed?

[Johanne Gélinas]

What we have said about the programs is that they were achieving results, maybe not to the extent expected, but they planned to achieve their targets by 2010, so we have to wait and see if they're going to get there. So far the two we looked at, WPPI and EnerGuide, have achieved one-third of their objectives, so they are moving in the right direction. Some of them were just at the beginning of really taking off, so we don't know how much these programs would have achieved or will still achieve.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

We've actually just come to the end of this time period.

We'll go to Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'll start off by giving a little bit of a summary of one thing that I don't know if you can really answer. The one question I have is whether we are sometimes looking at the leaves and not seeing the forest. There are other environmental problems out there too. There are other ways of tackling this.

Canada is responsible for about 3% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. When China, Russia, or places like that get rolling, what's 3% in the overall world scheme? I sometimes wonder if maybe we're looking too close to home or maybe not concentrating, because this is not a zero-sum game. Technology exports to help China clean up a coal problem or something like that might be a better way to tackle some of this. I'm just blue-skying here, or even looking at....

As the Minister of Environment pointed out, there are other environmental problems. I mean, 3% out of the whole world's carbon dioxide emissions, even if you accept absolutely everything.... There is the open question of what it would do, and that's something that's not seen. I know that's not something addressed in the audit per se, but it's a broader question that the policy people have to deal with.

I didn't peruse the report in detail, but I did try to read as much of it as I possibly could, and skimmed through it. What I would like you to comment further on and what struck me continually as I read the report was that there was a lack of information, it was difficult to assess, it required knowledge to assess, there was the cost of goals, etc. While Mr. Allen dealt with that by talking about governance and control, the overall question I have is while the governance may be one portion of it, how much data collection is there that's accurate, and how much analysis that is totally broad is there between the departments? Does it vary greatly? I don't know if I'm expressing myself well.

I ask this because in order to make an accurate decision as policy-makers, or to make accurate assessments of its working, you actually need very detailed data. You need the economics. You need the science. It's very complicated.

In your opinion, were the departments collecting the data sufficiently? Did they have enough data? Was it just management of data that was a problem, or was the problem the underlying lack of data that they had in total to make the judgments? Because it's one thing if they just have the data and misused it; it's another thing if they didn't have the resources to get it. Could you make a judgment? If it's the same all across the board, just say it's the same across the board. If different departments did better, I'd appreciate if you woud lay out your opinion on which departments performed better and which departments performed worse.

Is that clear?

[Johanne Gélinas]

We haven't made a comparison among departments. What I can say--and I will let Richard give you more details--is that the data is good. If I'm right, even the international community has acknowledged the quality of the inventory work that Canada is doing. The foundations are very good.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I'm not just talking about calculating the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide and everything, but about actually analyzing the cost-benefit analysis when it comes out.

[Johanne Gélinas]

I'm getting there.

The foundation is good, so I don't think that there is a need to discuss that.

As far as the analysis goes, it depends. Sometimes it's obvious that there is a lack of analysis, and we have referred to that many times. You may have access to much better analysis now that the program review by Treasury Board has been done on most of the programs. When you get access to that information, you will be able to judge the accuracy of the information that is provided to you. If we take the example of adaptation, the information is there. There is a good chunk of information, but that information has not been translated for decision-makers, so it depends where you look. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's weak. Sometimes it's getting there. Sometimes more work is needed to be able to have good information. So there's not one answer for the overall activities of the government with respect to data and monitoring.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

There's time for one short question, Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I'll just say that this was my basic point. When we give advice, are we going to give advice that says, “The information is there; just coordinate it,” or, “Go back and get more information?”

I think you answered that, but I think you also, reading between the lines, say it's really going to vary department by department, program by program. Is that correct?

[Johanne Gélinas]

That's true, but it's also topic by topic. Adaptation may differ from gathering information with respect to spending, for example.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Trost, and thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Cullen, we'll now go to you.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to touch on two areas: the oil sands, and then EnerGuide and the wind power production incentive program.

Concerning the oil sands, based on the way things are proceeding, would it be your assessment that the scenarios you're aware of today are going to be a sustainable way to proceed in the oil sands?

[Johanne Gélinas]

If I knew that answer, a lot of people would be running after me to get it. I don't have the answer for you.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I would suggest to you, Madam Commissioner, that it's not sustainable. I guess it depends how you define sustainable. But if you look at the increase in the greenhouse gases, at the carbon dioxide, at the way the water is being dealt with, and at the impact on local communities, I'm not sure that the way it's progressing today is sustainable.

Another aspect of this would be.... There are many propositions that come up from time to time. Today we hear that EnCana Corporation and the U.S. giant ConocoPhillips are talking about a joint venture, so that oil sands production would go into refinery capacity in the United States. That raises a number of political questions and other public policy issues that I have a certain perspective on. Is that the kind of thing you would look at, in terms of whether or not this is a sustainable approach?

The second part is this. We hear a lot about carbon capture and sequestration and a lot about recycling water, but those technologies are not in play yet. How long will it take to get them into play?

Could the federal government, for example, redeploy some of the tax expenditures that go to the oil and gas industry now? I have some research on that, which tells me there is about $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion a year in tax expenditures to the oil and gas sector. Why not redeploy those resources to accelerate the development and deployment of technologies that are going to capture and sequester carbon and deal with the recycling of water?

[Johanne Gélinas]

Mr. Chair, these are policy decisions. But I would like to add two things.

It's not up to me to decide whether we are moving on a sustainable path or not in Canada. But I will remind you that any new policy or program developed by the federal government should go through what we call a strategic environmental assessment, which means that the bureaucrats, before they design the policy or the strategy or the program, should look at the environmental impact, the social impact, and the economic impact and take the best decision. This analysis should be made available publicly so that people will be able to judge what work was done before the decision was made and judge it on the merits.

But as you know, my job is to give you the information, and you are the ones who then make the judgment.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With respect, I would think you, as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, might have a view on whether or not we are proceeding in a sustainable way in the oil sands. But I'm not going to pursue that.

I'd like to come back with a quick question on EnerGuide and the wind power production incentive program, which have been frozen by the government.

We heard from NRCan officials that there had been some Treasury Board evaluations, and I thought I heard the NRCan people say, “But we haven't actually seen them.” That struck me as somewhat odd, and frankly I think we need to call the Treasury Board people here to explain what work has been done.

Have you actually seen the evaluations that Treasury Board has done? And what do they actually say?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I think we have seen part of the evaluation, but we haven't had access to the documents that were sent for cabinet decision. This is not something we have access to.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Were the ones you saw highly negative or positive with respect to, let's say, EnerGuide or the wind power production incentive program?

[Johanne Gélinas]

I don't know myself.

[Richard Arseneault]

It's variable, and the Treasury Board has criteria to evaluate, first of all, if a program that was submitted was truly a climate change program or something else, because often departments mix the two. It wasn't a program that was providing benefits from a standpoint of climate change but the program was more an environmental program dealing with some other issue.

In terms of the results, again we cannot speak of those, because they were submitted to cabinet for approval and we do not have access to the information, but we know that they followed a very rigorous process. Departments were involved, information was provided, was returned in some cases to the department when it was not complete or was not following the proper framework, and then they were moving like that to get something they could make decisions on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

We're out of time there, Mr. Cullen.

With respect to that line of questioning, I would remind members of committee, and perhaps inform Madam Commissioner, that the committee will be embarked on an oil sands study commencing next week. I don't know whether you're aware of that, and some of these questions obviously will be raised.

With respect to the second point from Mr. Cullen, the chair will be seeking some process clarification with respect to follow-up. For example, in Madam Commissioner's report she does refer to the Treasury Board and some of that, and what I'll be suggesting at the end of the meeting is that we agree on a process of follow-up of some of the things in this report. So the chair will be seeking some direction at the end of this meeting with respect to that.

Madam Gélinas, do you--

[Johanne Gélinas]

I was just going to bring a point of clarification. I would love sometimes to give and share my views with you, but my mandate doesn't allow for that. I don't want to leave any confusion that it's not by a lack of desire, but because my mandate doesn't give me that privilege.