Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2013

[Scott Vaughan]

It would certainly move in the right direction.We have a list of the different countries. The high one was the United States at $12 billion, then Japan at $1.5 billion, and the Netherlands at $3 billion, but certainly it's moving in the right direction.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Great. So you were aware that this legislation was actually defeated in Parliament by opposition parties?

[Scott Vaughan]

We knew it didn't move forward. We would only look at whether or not it was enacted, and right now it is not enacted, so it's still at $75 million.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you.

I want to focus a little bit on the marine protected area component of the report. One of the things I'd like to take away is that we have done a lot of work. More needs to be done—I think we all agree on that—but with regard to what's been done already, would you characterize it as a good foundation and a step in the right direction?

[Scott Vaughan]

I absolutely would. I know that people will get fixed on the 10% target—Canada is at 1% now—but I think when you look at the 10 marine protected areas that have been created, this is an important achievement. There are going to be two more, which are almost ready to be done in Georgian Bay and in Lake Superior, and each one of those marine protected areas has a remarkable story to tell. I think Canadians, when you talk to them, value deeply our marine environment and marine ecosystem, so I think it is a good foundation.

The other reason I think it's a good foundation is that the scientific analysis by officials of Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans has been completed for 17 more. Therefore, with that foundation, the question now is to move forward and keep going.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I appreciate that one of the complexities you noted with regard to establishing these areas was that there are multiple areas of jurisdiction that need to be consulted with in multiple stakeholder groups. Perhaps you could comment very briefly on whether or not you feel that such a high level of consultation is something that's important to establishing these areas.

[Scott Vaughan]

Personally, I think it's absolutely indispensable. I think if you look at Gwaii Haanas in British Columbia, that to me is an example of a true partnership between the Haida Nation and the federal government to protect a site that is internationally recognized. Over 3,000 species have been observed in that marine protected area.

Getting the consultations right is critically important. I would say as well that officials at Fisheries and Oceans have said that complexity of consultations is one of the factors affecting the time. Money is another factor, and then sustained leadership is another. But certainly consultations are complicated.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Just further on that point, in preparing for the committee today I asked my staff to pull how many kilometres of coastline Canada actually has. Your report noted that we protect 2,020 kilometres of shoreline. We actually have 200,280 kilometres of coastline in the country. Do you think the extent of coastline that our country has, as well as the different geographies and different climate sectors, adds complexity to establishing marine protected areas, as compared to the situation in other regions internationally?

[Scott Vaughan]

I would defer to my colleague, Mr. Ferguson, on this, to give him a chance to talk.

[Andrew Ferguson, Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

It certainly is a complex environment. There's no question about that. There are other countries, such as Australia and the United States, that have rather long coastlines as well and complex situations to deal with.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

It's interesting, because we actually have the world's largest coastline by nearly four times—and I hope my staff fact-checked that properly. I think your comment on the foundation of starting marine protected areas has been a very helpful thing, and certainly will continue on in that right direction.

This is sort of a “geek-out” question, I have to say. You made a comment earlier in response to one of my questions about the measurable link with regard to the phase-out of subsidies for greenhouse gas emission reduction. Certainly our government has been committed to that because we do want to see our greenhouse gas emissions reduced. Do you know what price elasticity assumptions the International Energy Agency used in fossil fuel pricing to come up with that figure?

[Scott Vaughan]

I don't know what their price elasticity assumptions would be. We'd be glad to get that. I actually know the lead economist from the OECD who worked on that report with the World Bank and the OECD, so I can get back to you. My assumption would be that whatever the standard price.... You know, there are cross-price elasticities between different energy choices. My guess would be that there would be something standardized that came from the U.S. energy agency, but I can get you the exact number. I don't know it off the top of my head.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

We will look for that answer.

We go now to Mr. Woodworth for up to five minutes, please.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vaughan, and your colleagues. I also want to add my congratulations, if I can put it that way, as you move on, and my sentiment that we're going to miss you. I've always appreciated the balance you've shown, even today. Although I know your report shows gaps, and there are those who will feign great outrage over the slightest gap, your comments have been replete with observations about how committed the government is to dealing with these issues, how the government is moving in the right direction, how the government is laying a good foundation. I very much appreciate that you've taken a balanced approach.

I want to ask first about a segment in chapter 1 at paragraph 1.29, the observation that the two boards lack approved policies and procedures to guide their review of project assessments. I want to get a notion of the date at which that snapshot was taken, if I can put it that way. I'll begin by asking you to confirm to me that your audit work for that chapter was actually completed on August 24, 2012. Is that correct?

I understand that your comment would rely on a study of 11 project assessments. Is that correct?

[Kimberley Leach]

We looked at different types of environmental assessments. We looked at strategic environmental assessments—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm just asking about the comment regarding the review of project assessments, so I want to focus on the project assessments. I understood your report to say that you studied 11 of them.

[Kimberley Leach]

Yes, our sample included 11 for that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Could you tell me what would be the most recent of those 11 that you studied to reach this conclusion about policies and procedures?

[Kimberley Leach]

I'm afraid I don't have that information on hand.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. It wouldn't have been as recent as August of 2012. I assume it would have been completed some time before that.

[Kimberley Leach]

That's a reasonable assumption, yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Likely in the spring, perhaps?

[Kimberley Leach]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. Thank you.

That work would not capture all that has been done in relation to CEAA 2012, the assessment update that the government introduced just in the late spring. Is that correct?

[Kimberley Leach]

That's correct.