Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 21 - Evidence - December 2, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 2, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:30 p.m. to study emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld, and I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate. I am chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators and any members of the public with us in the room and viewers all across the country who are watching on television. As a reminder to those watching these committee hearings, they are open to the public and also available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find out more information about the schedule of witnesses on the website under ''Senate Committees.''
I will now ask senators to introduce themselves, and I will begin by introducing the deputy chair, Senator Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Black: Doug Black, Alberta.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
[Traduction]
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[Français]
The Chair: I will introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to energy, the environment and natural resources generally.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome for the first time before our committee Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. She was appointed in March of 2014. Before joining the Office of the Auditor General, Ms. Gelfand held the positions of Chief Advisor at Rio Tinto Canada and Vice-President of Environment and Social Responsibility at Rio Tinto Iron Ore Company of Canada. Before joining the OAG, Ms. Gelfand was Vice-President, Sustainable Development, at the Mining Association of Canada and Co-chair of the Corporate Social Responsibility Centre of Excellence under the federal CSR Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector.
Welcome, Commissioner Gelfand. We are pleased that you are able to take some time to join us. We are sorry it took a while for us to get this meeting arranged, but legislation gets in the way sometimes of others things we have to do. I will let you introduce the staff who are with you today.
I know your report touches on a number of areas. If you can give us a good rundown of your report, we will then go to questions and answers. The floor is yours.
Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you very much. I'm really pleased to be here to present the report that I presented on October 7 in Parliament.
[Traduction]
I am very honoured to be here with you.
[Français]
I am accompanied by some of our staff sitting at the back and a couple of people from the OAG parliamentary relations staff as well.
Sitting at the table with me is Kimberley Leach, Jim McKenzie and Bruce Sloan. I just want to indicate that on Friday, Bruce is retiring after 31 years of service at the Office of the Auditor General. It would have been 31 years on Friday. He retires on Thursday, which is in two days. Thirty-odd years at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, in my opinion, is an amazing feat and great public service.
Thank you, Bruce.
Kim, Bruce and Jim were responsible for the audits, and James and Francine were the directors on our chapter. They can answer some of the questions better than I can.
I will start by providing a bit of information about myself and how I plan to fulfill my mandate. As some of you already know, I have worked in the federal government. I spent a few years working for Parks Canada many moons ago. I have worked in national and international conservation organizations and in the mining sector. I've been in government, in conservation organizations, civil society and in the mining sector, both at a trade association level and in an actual company. This provided me, in my opinion, an ability to understand the importance and benefits of bringing together different perspectives to the issues of environment and development. It's clear to me that a prosperous economy, a vibrant society and a healthy environment complement each other. During my mandate, I hope to focus on the federal role in promoting sustainable long-term development that meets the needs of current generations and does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet theirs.
Twenty years ago, when this position was first created, there was not a lot of information on how to do an environmental audit, and we now have a whole field of environmental auditing. I'm hoping that in the future we will have a field in sustainable environmental auditing, and we will work to figure out how to do that.
The audits I presented in my October 2014 report underscore that the government does not have the answers to many questions that impact the future of sustainable development in Canada. I will come back to this point later.
Our first chapter was on climate change. When we last looked at the climate change commitments in 2012, the office concluded that the government's approach to introducing regulations on a sector-by-sector basis was unlikely to reduce emissions enough to meet the Copenhagen target. Under the Copenhagen accord, as many of you know, Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.
Our most recent audit of climate change showed that little has changed over the last two years. We found that the federal measures currently in place will have very little effect on emissions reductions by 2020.
The government has introduced regulations in the transportation and electricity generation sectors, so those two sectors are done and those regulations have been put in place.
However, the regulations in the oil and gas sector, where emissions are growing the fastest, are still not in place years after the government first indicated it would regulate this area. So there is strong evidence that Canada will not meet its international greenhouse gas 2020 emission reduction target.
The federal government does not seem to have an overall plan that maps out how Canada as a country, not just the federal government, will achieve the target. Canadians have not been given the details about which regulations will be developed and when, or what greenhouse gas reductions will be expected for each of the regulations. Finally, the federal government has not prepared the necessary coordination so that all levels of government, particularly the provinces and federal government together, can achieve the national target by 2020.
[Traduction]
The second chapter is on oil sands monitoring, where the federal government is working with the province of Alberta to lay the groundwork for more comprehensive monitoring of the environmental effects of oil sands development.
Our audit examined Environment Canada's performance under the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands. We found that overall, Environment Canada implemented the monitoring projects we examined on time and on budget.
Nonetheless, there remains work to be done. The monitoring information resulting from the projects that are looking at air, water and biodiversity needs to be better integrated to understand the long term environmental effects of oil sands development, including cumulative impacts. Environment Canada needs to do a better job of integrating traditional ecological knowledge and engaging First Nations, Metis, and other groups. Finally, stakeholders are looking to understand Environment Canada's role in oil sands monitoring beyond March 2015.
Our third chapter focused on the services that Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada provide to support marine navigation in the Arctic. While we found that weather and ice information has improved, we also noted gaps and emerging risks that, if left unaddressed, will only grow as marine traffic increases in the Arctic.
For example, many higher-risk areas in the Canadian Arctic are inadequately surveyed and charted. Some of the maps and charts for the Arctic are over forty years old, and less than a quarter are rated as being ''good'' by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
[Français]
In addition, the Canadian Coast Guard is having difficulty responding to requests from the shipping industry for new or modified aids to navigation, such as beacons and shore lights. Furthermore, the Coast Guard has not assessed the risks associated with decreasing icebreaking presence in the Arctic.
We're concerned that there seems to be no overall vision of what the federal government intends to provide in this vast new frontier in terms of modern charts, aids to navigation and icebreaker services given the anticipated increase in vessel traffic.
In another audit chapter, we examined whether the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission are taking steps to implement the new 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We noted two areas where achieving the objectives of the act are at risk. The first is that the rationale to identify which projects will undergo environmental assessment is unclear, and we're particularly concerned that some significant projects may not be assessed and that decision makers, parliamentarians in particular, may not receive the information they need to address environmental impacts.
Our second concern relates to public participation. An objective of the new act was to increase Aboriginal engagement. Many groups, including Aboriginal peoples, are worried that they do not have the capacity to participate meaningfully. For example, if you are a First Nation in a small community and there is a pipeline going through, a uranium mine being proposed, and perhaps a metal mine being proposed, you might have three different environmental processes that you have to figure out your way through in order to participate. So we're not sure whether meaningful participation is occurring, and this reduces the contribution these groups can make and may diminish public confidence in environmental assessments overall.
[Traduction]
The last audit covered in this report is part of our annual monitoring of how departments are implementing their sustainable development commitments. This year, we focused on the use of strategic environmental assessments by selected departments to integrate environmental considerations into their proposals to cabinet and Treasury Board.
While processes have improved, there is still a risk that ministers are not getting complete information on the environmental impacts of proposed programs, plans and policies.
As some members may know, my office administers the environmental petitions process on behalf of the Auditor General. In addition to a monitoring and reporting role, we post petitions and responses on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's website and carry out outreach activities.
The last chapter is our annual report on environmental petitions. This year, we received 16 petitions requesting information from government ministers on a range of environmental topics, including the management of fisheries and threats to environmental and human health posed by toxic substances.
To sum up, as this year's audits show, despite some initiatives and progress in certain areas, there remain many unanswered questions. In many key areas that we looked at, it is not clear how the government intends to address the significant environmental challenges that future growth and development will likely bring about.
[Français]
Among other questions, the government does not know what Environment Canada's role will be on oil sands monitoring beyond March 2015. We have seen, however, that AEMERA, which is a group formed in Alberta, has indicated that one of their objectives is to work on a new agreement with Environment Canada, so that's positive news. The government has not made clear the rationale for what projects will be subject to the federal environmental assessment process, and I'm concerned that some significant projects may not be assessed. The government has also not determined what level of service it will provide in the Arctic to support increased navigation and minimize environment and safety risks. It has not yet defined a national plan with the provinces and territories to achieve Canada's international greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
I expect the government to have the answers to these questions, and in my report I've made many recommendations, which the departments have accepted. I look forward to seeing the initiatives that will be put in place in response.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm always interested in hearing from parliamentarians about their interests and concerns and would be happy to meet with senators should they wish to discuss this. I've met with a couple of you already. Our office already considers parliamentary committees to be an invaluable ally in promoting accountability in government management of the environment, and I look forward to serving parliamentarians in this important role.
That concludes my opening remarks. We're happy to answer questions that you may have. I think we have a good amount of time to do that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that fulsome report. We will start with the deputy chair, Senator Massicotte.
[Traduction]
Senator Massicotte: Am I to understand that the role of the auditor is to confirm facts and to confirm the reality as compared to the expectations? Before producing the report, you check with your client — the government, in this case — that your understanding is correct and then you make recommendations.
For greenhouse gases, you told us that we are far from achieving our objective, and even that we will probably not achieve it. What is the government's reaction to, or explanation of, your observation? Is it undertaking to correct the situation in any way at all, or is it just simply resigned to it?
Ms. Gelfand: That is a very good question. All the facts in our reports have been confirmed. Each part of each sentence is justified. All the data in the report have been checked by the department. They have to confirm the accuracy of the data.
With greenhouse gases, the sector-by-sector regulation approach will not allow us to achieve the objective. The department indicates that the data in the report are indeed true. Then the government continues to indicate that it will meet the objective.
That would be a good question to ask the department.
Senator Massicotte: That is because it is not your role to form an opinion on whether or not their projection is reasonable. This is a projection into the future but, as an auditor, you focus more on the past, am I right?
Ms. Gelfand: The report contains their data and their diagrams. They are their estimates. When we examine their data, they are clearly not going to achieve the objectives they have set.
Senator Massicotte: But they do not agree; they still think they are going to achieve them.
Ms. Gelfand: It is the department's information that is included in our report.
Senator Massicotte: But their opinion is still that they are going to achieve the objective they set.
Ms. Gelfand: I believe that is what they say publicly.
Senator Massicotte: However, after your audit of the facts, the data, the past and the projections, you feel that it is far from the case?
Ms. Gelfand: I am going to ask Ms. Leach if she wants to add anything. She was the one who was in communication with the department.
Kimberley Leach, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I will have to answer in English.
[Français]
Two things: First, the information that says we won't meet the targets is Environment Canada's own data from the 2013 Canada's Emissions Trends document, published in October 2013. The data we used to make that conclusion was Environment Canada's own data.
The second part of your question was whether their data is good and whether the projections that Environment Canada has come up with are good projections. In fact, that was the second piece of our audit, to look at whether those projections were sound. In fact, we concluded that they were.
We looked at international standards and methods of doing that and experts from other countries and standards and guidelines available internationally, and we compared those to how Environment Canada does its projections. We found they did a pretty good job at that. Environment Canada's own information confirms that they will not meet the targets, and their projections and estimates are quite good on that.
Senator Massicotte: The basis of their opinion is their data; that's what you're saying?
Ms. Leach: Correct.
Senator Massicotte: Is it their data regarding scientific historical information, or are they also saying we will not meet the targets?
Ms. Leach: Their own data confirms that they need to reduce emissions by 122 megatons by 2020 in order to meet the target. They have no measures in place to reduce it by that amount.
Senator Massicotte: They publicly say, ''Sorry, we're not going to meet that target''?
Ms. Leach: Canada's Emissions Trends and the data confirm that fact.
Senator Black: Thank you all for being here, and best of luck in retirement.
Myself and my colleagues are working closely with the Auditor General's office. We'll just leave it at that.
Ms. Gelfand: We are always a bit nervous coming here.
Senator Black: To start off, I want to thank you for your frankness. It is very much appreciated.
As a very strong advocate for responsible energy development in Canada, obviously your comments are extremely important to the challenges that are being faced in Canada by the energy industry. I have three questions that I'm hoping you can help me with.
You have pointed out that there is to date no regulation of greenhouse gases in the oil and gas industry. There is with electricity. There is with another industry; I can't remember what it is.
Ms. Gelfand: Transportation.
Senator Black: Are you able to offer a view as to why that is?
Ms. Gelfand: You want me to answer right away?
Senator Black: Sure. You can say no.
Ms. Gelfand: I can say no? So, no, but what we can tell you is that we found that some preliminary regulatory proposals have been circulating. However, what we found was that the consultation was very narrow and private. We found out that there are some proposals circulating for the oil and gas sector. The consultation was done with one government and a few industry representatives, which is not what you would call a good regulatory approach, which should be that consultation should be broad and there should be lots of information. That is what we found.
Senator Black: Do you have a view as to why that is?
Ms. Gelfand: I can only give you facts. I can look at what the government said it was going to do and whether or not it's doing what it said it would do.
Senator Black: On the question of facts, are you able to inform this committee as to whether or not any other major industrialized nation is going to be able to meet its Copenhagen commitments?
Ms. Gelfand: We haven't audited that information. This would be information that is out in the public domain. Whether or not other countries will, my understanding is that there are some countries that will meet their Copenhagen targets and some countries that won't.
Senator Black: Yesterday, before the Vancouver Board of Trade, Premier Prentice indicated the following, and I will ask for your comment on it. He said if we're going to be leaders in energy — ''we'' being Alberta/Canada — we must also be leaders in environmental protection. To be a leader in energy, you must be a leader in environmental protection, would be the view of the Premier of Alberta.
I think you would likely agree with that. If you do, can you tell me what more needs to be done in respect of the joint Canada-Alberta oil sands environmental monitoring? What more, in your view, needs to be done? What are the obstacles to achieving that? Tell us what we need to do to get this right.
Ms. Gelfand: We found a couple of things when we looked at the joint oil sands monitoring program. First, Environment Canada was responsible for I believe 38 projects. We looked at nine of them, many of the biggest ones, and found that overall the management of those projects was going very well, on time overall and on budget. I personally went up to the oil sands and was watching as they were taking soil samples. I was watching one monitoring program and down the river came a bunch of students who were doing the wildlife projects. So things are happening on the ground in terms of the monitoring projects: well managed, on time, on budget overall; good, double checks. A couple of things still need to be done.
Senator Black: That's what I want to know.
Ms. Gelfand: One of the things that needs to be done is that right now the information is being complied I would say almost in silos — biodiversity, water, air. The joint oil sands monitoring project called for an integration of the data. That integration strategy is at a very early stage and needs to be much more fleshed out. That's one thing that has to change.
A second thing that they need to do more is to look at the issues of wetlands and groundwater. Those are two things that are in the plan to do. Developing the monitoring around wetlands and groundwater is the second thing that needs to be done.
We found that the integration of traditional ecological knowledge, re-engaging the First Nations and Metis, is something else that needs to be done. I believe the department is working on that, but that's a third thing that needs to be done.
There will be a peer review of the entire monitoring project from a scientific perspective, because we get a lot of questions as to whether the science is good. That's not what we do. We are auditors, so we look at what they said they were going to do and whether they did it. Looking at the peer review of the monitoring project, that's something that you and everybody should be looking at.
Finally, being clear about Environment Canada's future role, which, as we indicated in our opening statements, we've just found out that the Alberta government's goal and intention, or AEMERA, the group formed to run the oil sands monitoring project, has as one of its goals the renegotiation of an agreement with Environment Canada. The reason this is important is that stakeholders believe that Environment Canada has scientific capacity and is already running many of the projects, so if they're not going to run it, who will run it? This is important. Those are the things we need to do.
Senator Black: That is extremely helpful. Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for your service to the country and all the best in your retirement.
Thank you, Ms. Gelfand, for this presentation. You presented the other day to our panel and it was excellent, and this is just as excellent.
My first question is really a confirmation. It seems to me that the premise underlying this entire analysis is that you believe fundamentally in the science of climate change and that it is human activity that is causing the emissions that are causing climate change.
Ms. Gelfand: You are asking me that question?
Senator Mitchell: I am asking you that question.
Ms. Gelfand: I believe that it is pretty clear from the scientific information, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that that is what the scientific consensus is.
Senator Mitchell: In the process of your audit, have you had a chance to look at NRCan's assessment of the existing, ongoing accumulating effects of climate change on Canada already?
Ms. Gelfand: They have issued a report that we did a review of as part of our audit. I believe it was as part of our audit. NRCan issued a report quite recently about the effects on Canada and, yes, we included some of that information at the beginning of our chapter.
Senator Mitchell: So you are buying that report too.
I am struck by one of the things that you say, your point about concerns related to public participation, and its broader implications. I have a theory that one of the reasons why 5,000 people line up to participate in a project review, and it became cumbersome, is because people who want to talk about just the policy and issues of environment in public have nowhere to do it. We can hardly even talk about it in our legislatures. So they go to the one public place where they feel they might be heard, which is a project review process, and it isn't structured for that at all. It bogs that down and doesn't give them the chance to talk about public policy on the environment in any way where the Canadian people might get some satisfaction.
Given that you've observed the problem of public participation focused on Aboriginals, but beyond, have you given thought to how that public participation might be, such as a royal commission or a round table process across the country?
Ms. Gelfand: I have heard the arguments you have made and that analysis of why we're getting so many people participating in that process, and that's a highly possible and probable reasoning for it.
We haven't looked at the issue of public participation. We're not planning on it for the future. However, we do have a plan. I believe we can make public what we're thinking of looking at for the next round of audits, to look at the role of the National Energy Board in the whole oversight of the pipeline industry. That is something that we're thinking of looking at, which is obviously related to the whole oil and gas sector, the energy market, and the public participation aspect.
I think that's a really good idea for us to consider. We are developing our five year plan and do respond to your comments and suggestions, so I will take it under advisement that it might be something we should look at.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Chair, if I can paraphrase what Ms. Gelfand seems to be saying, ''Senator Mitchell, that's a great theory.'' So we agree on that. Thank you.
I have one other question to ask you concerning the AEMERA process and the silo — and that's a good idea; that is going to break some of that down — in assessing air quality. Will it assess greenhouse gas emissions as well?
Ms. Gelfand: My understanding that the joint oil sands monitoring program will not be assessing the greenhouse gas emissions.
Senator Mitchell: Doesn't that seem like an odd omission?
Ms. Gelfand: Many of the stakeholders have indicated that. Greenhouse gas emissions are reported on by the facilities through other mechanisms, but other stakeholders have indicated the exact same thing you are saying.
Senator Patterson: I would like to welcome Ms. Gelfand and her colleagues and say that I like the tone of this report. When you are criticizing governments and agencies, it is always good to point out clearly what they have accomplished. I think you have done that, which I'm sure is appreciated.
I would like to look at the chapter on marine navigation in the Arctic. You have noted that there were 350 marine voyages in 2013, with increases over 20 years or so. You also noted that the Arctic Council Marine Shipping Assessment pointed out that the Northwest Passage, contrary to popular myth, is not expected to become a viable, regularly scheduled route across the Arctic because of the complexity of the archipelago, the shallow waters and, as you pointed out elsewhere, the lack of adequate charts, insurance risks, et cetera.
When you talk about the 350 marine voyages, were you able to categorize how many of those were fishing boats, research boats, pleasure craft or cargo barges?
Ms. Gelfand: That's a really detailed question. I'm going to look to my staff and ask them if they categorized it.
Did we categorize those 350?
Ms. Leach: We do have that information, but not in the chapter. We can get that to you. We do say somewhere —
Ms. Gelfand: We don't have it here, but we have it back in the office.
Ms. Leach: There's a section that I'm looking for, where we list them.
Ms. Gelfand: He just read from it.
Senator Patterson: There's a chart on chapter 3.
The Chair: Maybe you should look for it and continue with your questioning. You are using up valuable time.
Ms. Leach: I'm sorry, it's paragraph 3.3. The increases from fishing vessels, tugboats, pleasure craft — it is in that order. But as to an exact breakdown of the number, we would have to get back to you.
Ms. Gelfand: We can get back to you.
Senator Patterson: The report also noted that higher risk areas in the Canadian Arctic are inadequately surveyed and charted, and capacity for this work is limited. How did you define a high-risk area? Did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans give you reasons for the lack of surveys and charts in the higher risk areas?
Ms. Gelfand: A high-risk area would be an area, most likely, near a community. So there are some communities, larger communities and smaller communities, where the charting has not been completed in the last little while, isn't complete or isn't good.
The reason for the lack of surveys is that the Canadian Hydrographic Service does not have dedicated vessels. They basically go on Coast Guard ships. When a Coast Guard ship is going to be in the area, they move off that ship and then go and do the surveys. Because they're not able to have their own fleet, it is difficult for them to survey in a more structured approach. They're more opportunistic, I would say.
Senator Patterson: Going back to marine traffic, there was an estimate you got that there could be 300 new voyages per year by 2020 as a result of mining projects in the eastern Arctic. Did you get the names of those projects?
Ms. Gelfand: I believe it was one of the mines. One new mine would create that.
[Traduction]
Senator Boisvenu: It is a pleasure to welcome you here today. I have a few questions for you. You say that the Department of the Environment is looking to understand the role it will play beyond March 2015. I worked in the Quebec environment ministry for 15 years and we never sought to understand our role. We have legislation and we enforce it.
Because the environmental management of the oil sands has its own particular program — a little like paper plants, mines and municipal waste water management — the program operates in isolation a little? Why is the department looking to understand the role it will play beyond March 2015?
Ms. Gelfand: The stakeholders told us that Environment Canada's collaboration with the Government of Alberta was going to end in March 2015 and that was a concern for them. They asked us if Environment Canada was going to continue. When we asked Environment Canada that question, the answer was not clear.
One of the reasons was that, in a sense, they have to work with the Government of Alberta. It really is the Government of Alberta's role to do this work. In a sense, Alberta has to invite Environment Canada to continue the work. The two have to agree that Environment Canada can continue to manage the projects and be part of the monitoring program.
Senator Boisvenu: Is this much the same model as the paper companies? For paper companies, there are two programs: a federal program for navigable waters and a provincial program for air and soil pollution, the management of contaminated soil, mud, and so on. Are we dealing with somewhat the same model where there is a dual, federal- provincial responsibility in the area?
Ms. Gelfand: It is true that the two levels of government have developed regulations on oil sands management, clearly. However, in terms of monitoring programs, the oil sands monitoring program is, in a way, one of a kind. Fifty million dollars are going to be spent annually in order to examine its cumulative effects. A program like that, at that level, has never been put in place in Canada for any other major project.
As far as Environment Canada's role is concerned, the major players decide whether they want Environment Canada to continue collaborating on the project. But when we asked the department the question, it was not clear whether it was going to continue or not. So we made a recommendation that Environment Canada clarify its role. Now we see that Alberta has indicated that it does indeed want to continue to work with Environment Canada.
Senator Boisvenu: You are talking about monitoring the management of the oil sands. We have quite a complex relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments. As you conducted your audit, did you evaluate the province's role and performance?
Ms. Gelfand: We did not do that because it is not our role to audit another level of government. However, the Auditor General of Alberta produced a report on Alberta's role at much the same as ours. So there is another report on how the Government of Alberta managed the portion for which it is responsible, a report presented by the Auditor General of Alberta.
Senator Boisvenu: When you take an overall look at the involvement of both the federal government and the provincial government, and when you look at the complexity of the oil sands issue, it is all still new. It is not like the paper industry that is a century old. As auditor general, looking at things from the outside, is it your impression that the environmental management of something as complex as this is beginning to be taken in hand and that we are starting to gain control of the situation?
Ms. Gelfand: I do not think that I can give you an opinion on that, because our examination was limited to the environmental monitoring program.
Senator Boisvenu: And not the impacts.
Ms. Gelfand: Right. We did not look at the management or the regulations. We examined the monitoring of the environmental effects, the monitoring program specifically.
[Français]
Senator Seidman: Thank you for your presentation, and best of luck to you, Mr. Sloan, as you retire.
You mention in your report quite often, Ms. Gelfand, that the key to alleviating delays that inhibit effective planning by affected parties is to ensure that there are closer bilateral and tripartite relations between the federal government, the provinces, territories and industry. Could you explain what existing federal-provincial-territorial mechanisms are in place and perhaps tell us what suggestions you may have to enhance them? Are they worth enhancing, or should they be replaced altogether?
Ms. Gelfand: Can I just ask you which chapter you are looking at?
Senator Seidman: Chapter 1: Mitigating Climate Change.
Ms. Gelfand: In our 2012 audit, we found that there were what I would call ''coordinating committees'' between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Two years later, when we went in in 2014, we found that those coordinating committees either weren't meeting or didn't exist anymore, so there was no overall coordination. What we did find was that there was bilateral — so the feds working with each province. And the provinces actually sometimes got together as well, but not with the federal government. So the overall coordination doesn't exist, and it is happening bilaterally between the feds and the provinces.
Does that answer your question?
Senator Seidman: So there are no mechanisms in place is what you are saying.
Ms. Gelfand: There were mechanisms and they don't exist anymore.
Senator Seidman: How should they be replaced? Did you make suggestions? What would they be?
Ms. Gelfand: I can't remember that level of detail. I'm aware, without having an audit, so I can't tell you this for sure — I have heard that the provinces are meeting on a weekly basis, talking to each other. That is an understanding that I have, but that's not verifiable. I haven't verified it.
Did we make a recommendation? I can't remember. I apologize.
Ms. Leach: I would point out that we do talk a little about equivalency agreements. That is one of the reasons that Environment Canada tells us that they have gone from a multilateral approach to a bilateral approach, where they're trying to negotiate equivalency agreements, for example, with Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, under the coal fired regulations.
In terms of other suggestions, I would point out that as part of our audit work, we spoke with the provinces and did some survey work. They were of the view, as well, that more coordination would be beneficial to both the national targets and provincial progress.
As Julie mentioned, there are some meetings happening provincially. The CCME committee also issued some statements shortly after we audited. It seems as though there is some discussion going on at the provincial level.
Senator Wallace: Ms. Gelfand, in your comments about greenhouse gas emissions and the objective of the government to meet the Copenhagen target by 2020, you have expressed reservations about whether the government is going to meet that target. You say that you have concluded that the government's approach to introducing regulations sector by sector was unlikely to reduce the emissions enough to meet that target.
How can you arrive at that conclusion at this point until you see what regulations are put in place and the order in which various industries and sectors are going to be addressed? How can you possibly, at this stage, in 2014, arrive at that conclusion?
Ms. Gelfand: One of the reasons we can arrive at that conclusion is the length of time that it will take, once a regulation is in place, for it to actually apply to industry and start reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, if, today, we regulated an industry, there would normally be a few years before the companies are required. They're given some time to adapt and get ready for the implementation. You could issue a regulation today. It still may be three or four years before you actually force the companies to start reducing. This is typically the case for these types of regulations. We are at the end of 2014, so let's say 2017-18. Then you only have a couple of years left to actually get those reductions down.
It is really based on what we know about how long it takes regulations to come into effect, to get through the whole regulatory system, which you are well aware of, and then the amount of time that usually is given to the corporate sector to get ready and make those investments. These are big investments that they will have to make, so you don't normally say, ''We will start regulating you tomorrow, and tomorrow you'd better have it done.'' That is not normally how it is done.
That's basically how we can arrive at the conclusion, even today, that it is unlikely that we will meet them.
Senator Wallace: When you raised that with the government, what was the response to that? The government is still committed to meeting these by 2020, so is there no response to that? Do they agree that it can't be met?
Ms. Gelfand: They agree with our recommendations and with everything we have said in our report. Publicly, the government continues to say that it will, and I haven't said that it won't. I said it is highly unlikely that it won't, based on the evidence that the department has given us.
We are always hopeful.
Senator Wallace: It will depend on what lead time each of the industry sectors is given to comply; isn't that correct? If the timelines are tight enough, they may well have to comply.
Ms. Gelfand: It's possible. I'm not saying it is impossible. It is highly unlikely.
Senator Wallace: In your comments about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and achieving the objectives of the act, you have raised a concern that the rationale to identify projects for environmental assessment is unclear, and you suggested some significant projects may in fact not be assessed.
It really startles me when I read that. My understanding is CEAA and the criteria and conditions under which these types of standards would be met and when assessments would be undertaken, I couldn't imagine there wouldn't be a significant project that could slip through the cracks. That's always been my impression in dealing with that department. Is that not true?
Ms. Gelfand: You need to think about the old CEAA and the new CEAA. In the old CEAA, whenever there was a federal trigger, for example, a permit was required or funding was required or it was on federal land, you had to go through the environmental assessment process. That typically caught a lot of projects and most of the big ones.
The new CEAA has what is called ''a project list,'' and it is a detailed list. You have to be a metal mine that's expanding by over 50 per cent — not 40 per cent, not 30 per cent, but 50 per cent. The question is why 50 per cent? What was the logic to pick that number? What was the logic for not including, for example, in situ oil and gas projects which will not be assessed in the future?
Big wind turbine farms or dredging will not be assessed in the future because they're not on the project list. What we were trying to say is clarity and transparency of what got onto that list is not there. It is unclear, and our recommendation is in the future, when a new project list comes out, we ask the agency to make it clear and transparent why certain projects were on that list and why others weren't.
Second, even if you are on the project list, the agency can still make a determination of yes or no — you will go under an environmental assessment or you won't. Again, as to why, how they're making those decisions, is unclear.
We have recommended that in the future there be increased clarity so all of us have an understanding of why certain projects are on the list and why others aren't.
Senator Wallace: For projects that are not on the list, are you suggesting there wouldn't be any environmental conditions for those projects to meet?
Ms. Gelfand: I'm suggesting there won't be federal environmental assessment of those projects.
Senator Wallace: It doesn't mean there wouldn't be environmental criteria to be applied to the operations.
Ms. Gelfand: There could be provincial environmental assessments or there could be other regulations.
An environmental assessment is done prior to the project. If you look at most companies' certificate to operate, 80 per cent of it is environmental stuff they have to do to comply, and health and safety is a lot of it as well.
The Chair: Regarding greenhouse gas reductions, you just used federal information, I'm assuming from your discussions with us. Did you talk to every province about what they're doing and incorporate that in the process, too, just so I get that clear?
Ms. Gelfand: Yes, we did. We have a graph that shows pretty clearly if no measures were taken — I am just going to estimate — we would be around 862 megatons. When you take in all federal measures and the provincial measures, we hit around 734. The target is 612. In fact, we make a recommendation to Environment Canada that when they present the data, they clearly show which part of it is federal and which part is provincial.
Overall, when you drop from 862 to about 730, about a third of that is all the federal measures, the regulatory ones and everything else that the federal government is doing on energy efficiency, all the other things they're doing to help reduce greenhouse gases. Then two thirds of it represents what the provinces, territories and others will be doing.
The Chair: When you did the audit of Environment Canada to find out how they estimated their reductions and how it would take place over time, did you audit every province in how they arrived at their numbers, or did you go to the province and say, ''Could I see your pie chart so I can add it into what we have audited at the federal level?''
Ms. Gelfand: It is not within our mandate to audit what the provinces do.
Kim, do you want to add anything? You were the detail person on that.
Ms. Leach: Yes. Environment Canada compiled that data in Canada's Emissions Trends 2013. They're the ones that put that data together from the provinces.
The Chair: The other question I have is about meaningful Aboriginal consultation. I don't know what word you used, but you tended to say that it wasn't enough or didn't satisfy certain people. Can you tell me what would? I ask you that as a person who was a minister of energy in British Columbia for eight years and had a fair amount of experience in Aboriginal consultation. It is easy to say that when you hear the stakeholders say, ''Well, they didn't talk to me.'' I can hear that from non-Aboriginal communities, too. What process did you use to say that they haven't actually done enough consultation?
Ms. Gelfand: Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we looked at the methods for public participation that the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency are using to encourage public participation?
As you may be aware, the new CEAA has much more restricted timelines. Bruce can tell us more, but we surveyed many people, and he will tell you exactly how many. Overall, it was not just First Nations people but many other stakeholders. Our recommendation to the agencies was that they needed to look at their processes to ensure that the public had an opportunity for meaningful consultation. We left it kind of up to them to just to ensure that.
I will pass it over to Bruce because he was responsible for the audit.
Bruce Sloan, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We worked in a couple of ways. We talked to stakeholders: Aboriginal groups, not-for-profit groups, project proponents and industry associations. Comments about capacity to respond came up fairly frequently, particularly within the tight time frame. Aboriginal groups would raise issues about technical skills, financial resources, short time frames and the number of environmental assessments that they may be asked to comment on at any one time.
We also conducted a survey of any individual or organization that had participated in the EA processes under the National Energy Board and CEAA. That probably covers a survey of 6,000 or 7,000 participants and trying to analyze that data in terms of what is coming out in terms of concerns. It is a capacity issue, constricted even more so by time frames.
The Chair: So ''capacity'' meaning a broad cross-section of the public. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Sloan: Capacity would be financial resources to hire technical —
The Chair: I understand what ''capacity'' is. What you are talking about is a broad cross-section of everyone, that being Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal.
Mr. Sloan: Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal and any group or individual who participated in one of the EA processes of the energy board or the agency.
The Chair: What would your answer be about what is enough?
Ms. Gelfand: That's not something I can talk about because it's not something I can audit.
The Chair: When we say it is not enough, I have talked to a lot of stakeholders and not just Aboriginal people. We had one last week on this issue who said, ''There hasn't been enough consultation with us,'' and that's a large organization called CAPP. We can continue to go out forever and talk about that, but what we have to look at is what actually has been taking place. That's just a suggestion because in many cases I know personally it has been tremendous, but at the end of day what's said is, ''I haven't had enough consultation.'' Anyhow, I rest my case.
[Traduction]
Senator Massicotte: I go back to the comments made earlier. In my opinion, climate change is probably the most important issue of our generation. Our grandchildren are likely going to be asking us what we have done about the problem. It is a serious situation. Clearly, we are not achieving our objectives.
When you bring this issue up with the officials responsible for it, do you have a sense that they feel any urgency to correct the situation? Are they aware of the severity of the circumstances of climate change? Some might say that Canada is small, that we have five per cent of the population and we are generating only two per cent of the greenhouse gases. How do they react? Do they appreciate the seriousness of the situation?
Ms. Gelfand: I find it difficult to answer that question.
Ms. Leach, can you answer that question? You had most of the discussions with the department.
[Français]
Ms. Leach: This is the third audit that I've done on climate change, the first one being in 2011. The people who work in the department on this and who were part of things like ''Turning the Corner'' and even plans prior to that are extremely dedicated professionals and have a true understanding. They're international experts in their fields in many cases. That's consistently what I found through the three or four audits I've done on this topic since that time, but they're in a situation where they are operating within the plans that are set.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Business as usual, 862; projected reductions, knowing what we know, to 734; and the target of 612. So we've said we would do 250 and it looks like we're going to do 122. We're on track and you're pretty confident we are only going to do 50 per cent of what we said we were going to do?
Ms. Gelfand: That's correct.
Senator Mitchell: The question of the quality of the provincial data in that assessment, it would be relatively unreasonable to expect that if the provinces were predicting their emission reductions, they probably wouldn't underestimate their emission reductions. They would be inclined to overestimate their emission reductions. Would they not want to look better than worse?
Ms. Gelfand: I can't comment on that. The information comes, as Kim said, from the national data that Canada provides to the international community.
Senator Mitchell: In your report, you do mention that Fast-start Finance is a commitment in Copenhagen, which we have accepted. It looks like the money has been disbursed but it has not yet been received by final recipients. What does that mean and why is that the case?
Ms. Gelfand: We have disbursed $1.2 billion. Much of it went to multilateral banks like the international IFC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the money is still sitting in their bank accounts and has not yet reached the final participants. The money was directed to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that the money hasn't landed at the project level means that these countries are not yet using those funds to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Chair: That ends our questions. The other people who had questions had their questions answered.
Thank you very much, Ms. Gelfand, for coming and presenting. It was interesting.
My deputy chair wants to make a final comment, and so I will let him do that.
Senator Massicotte: Senator Black doesn't realize that we look upon him as ''Mr. Oil Sands,'' so I hope you took good note of those deficiencies and I hope you come back with some corrections of those things very shortly.
Senator Black: Thank you very much. I've noted that.
The Chair: Thank you and thank you to your staff. We appreciate the time you have spent.
(The committee adjourned.)