Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 2 - Evidence - February 18, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:01 a.m. to study emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am chair of the committee.
I welcome honourable senators, 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 are open to the public and also available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees.''
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will begin by introducing the deputy chair, Senator Grant Mitchell, from Alberta.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul J. Massicotte, from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Johnson: Janis G. Johnson from Manitoba.
The Chair: I'd also like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, to my left, and our 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 second time before our committee, Ms. Julie Gelfand, who was appointed as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in March of 2014.
Welcome, commissioner. We are pleased you're able to take time from your busy schedule — you've said you're getting busier all the time, which is great — to come and speak to us today about your 2015 Fall Report to Parliament. Your fall report touches on a number of different areas that are of interest to our committee, including oversight of federally regulated pipelines, departmental progress in implementing sustainable development strategies, environmental petitions and finally, pesticide safety. We look forward to your overview. I also welcome your staff, but I'll leave it you to introduce yourself. Commissioner, the floor is yours.
Julie Gelfand, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting us. I'm pleased to join you this morning to inform honourable senators about our ongoing work. With me today are Andrew Ferguson, Kimberley Leach and Kari Swarbrick, who were responsible for my 2015 Fall Reports.
Let me begin by giving you a brief overview of our mandate.
On behalf of the Auditor General of Canada, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development provides parliamentarians with objective, fact-based information and expert advice on the federal government's efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development. We carry out these responsibilities under two acts.
[Translation]
First, under the Auditor General Act, our office conducts performance audits and monitors departmental progress on whether activities designed to implement federal environment and sustainable development policies and programs are implemented effectively and are delivering results. We also manage the environmental petitions process that enables Canadians to obtain responses directly from ministers on specific environmental and sustainable development issues under federal jurisdiction.
Under the federal Sustainable Development Act, our office reviews and comments on the federal government's sustainable development strategy. We also monitor and report on the extent to which federal departments contribute to meeting the targets and goals set out in the federal sustainable development strategy.
[English]
I present my reports at least once a year to Parliament. This year it will be three times. Mr. Chair, if you allow me, I will now present the main findings of my 2015 Fall Reports that were tabled on January 26, 2016.
The first audit looked at how the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has managed selected aspects of its mandate. Although we choose our audits independently, we performed this audit in part because of the great interest expressed by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. They had a hearing on the issue of bee health — pollinator health — and asked if we could look at this issue again. That was one of our decision-making points for bringing forward this topic.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is tasked with determining which pesticide products should be registered for use in Canada, and under which conditions.
There are currently about 7,000 pesticides, containing some 600 active ingredients, available in the Canadian marketplace.
[Translation]
The agency is required to re-evaluate the safety of registered pesticides every 15 years. Ninety five percent of the agency's re-evaluations resulted in additional precautions to protect human health or the environment. During the period under audit, the agency completed some 14 re-evaluations per year. At the end of our audit, more than six times that number remained incomplete. With more re-evaluations due to start each year, the agency needs to quicken its pace to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the unsafe use of pesticide products.
I am also concerned that it took the agency an average of 5 years — and up to 11 years — to remove some pesticides from the market when it determined that they posed unacceptable risks for all uses.
[English]
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency may grant a conditional registration when it finds that it needs more information to confirm its assessment of a product's value and of the risks to human health or the environment. During the time that a pesticide is conditionally registered, it can be bought and used, and other products containing the same active ingredient may also be marketed.
We found that nine products remained conditionally registered for more than a decade. Eight of these belonged to the neonicotinoid class of pesticides. These products continue to be used extensively in Canada despite widespread concern that they may pose a threat to bees, other pollinators and broader ecosystems. We did note that the agency announced, after our audit, that it will no longer grant conditional registrations starting June1 of this year.
Our second audit examined the National Energy Board's oversight of federally regulated pipelines. As you know, the energy board sets the requirements that companies must satisfy to ensure the safe operation of some 73,000 kilometres of pipelines that are used to transport oil and gas to customers in Canada and abroad.
Our audit concluded that the board did not adequately track companies' implementation of pipeline approval conditions, and that it was not consistently following up on company deficiencies. We found that the board's tracking systems were outdated and inefficient.
[Translation]
We also concluded that the National Energy Board is facing ongoing challenges to recruit and retain specialists in pipeline integrity and regulatory compliance.
With the anticipated increase of pipeline capacity and the coming into force of the Pipeline Safety Act by June 2016, it is clear that the National Energy Board means to do more to keep pace with the rapidly changing context in which it is operating.
Our final audit examined selected departments' progress in meeting the commitments made in their sustainable development strategies to strengthen their strategic environmental assessment practices. Cabinet has required since 1990 that 26 government departments and agencies carry out strategic environmental assessments of the proposed programs and policies they submit to ministers when implementation could have important positive or negative impacts on the environment.
[English]
In our 2015 audit we found that the current cabinet directive was applied to only 5 of the more than 1,700 proposals submitted to ministers responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, Heritage Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This means, for example, that no information about potential important environmental effects was provided to support the proposal for the 2015 Pan American and Parapan American Games. Similarly, the cabinet directive was not applied to the proposed transfer for the purposes of building a hospital of 60 acres of land of designated historic importance.
We also presented Parliament with our annual report on environmental petitions. This year our office received 15 such petitions on a range of topics, including the transport of hazardous substances and concerns about human and environmental health.
Honourable senators, before concluding I would like to take a minute to talk about sustainable development and climate change. I raised these two topics in our preface to our reports. I believe that these two issues are intertwined, and that they are among the most pressing of our times.
[Translation]
In September 2015, Canada and 192 other countries committed to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, and to achieving the related 17 sustainable development goals.
In addition, prior to the UN Climate Change Conference, which took place in Paris in December 2015, Canada indicated that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent compared with the 2005 levels, and that it would do so by 2030. Since then, the government has indicated that it considers this target to be a minimum, and it has committed to work with the provinces to develop a Canadian plan to tackle climate change.
[English]
This country's next Federal Sustainable Development Strategy is due in 2016. The full integration into this next strategy of the 2030 United Nations sustainable development goals and the Paris climate change commitments will be a clear indicator of Canada's commitment to sustainable development and responding to climate change. I look forward to reporting to Parliament on the government's progress in achieving these all-important goals.
Finally, I have attached to my opening statement a list of questions you may wish to ask department officials should you decide to invite them to discuss the findings of my report. I hope you will find this information useful.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. We'll begin with some questions, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, commissioner. You've provided us with a target-rich environment, as they say, on issues that need to be addressed.
My first question relates to the points you made about the National Energy Board. It reviews pipelines, and it has some difficulty with that. Given that more and more petroleum products are being transported by train, is anybody doing an environmental review of that process?
Ms. Gelfand: You're asking if anybody is doing an environmental assessment of transport by rail?
Senator Mitchell: Yes. We put a lot of effort into reviewing transport by pipeline, but more and more is being transported by rail because we haven't been able to build a pipeline. Safety is a concern but so is environmental impact.
Ms. Gelfand: The best agency to answer that question would be the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
I will do my best to try to answer. It is my understanding that Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, does not require an environmental assessment of such a project. I could be wrong. I'm not an expert on this issue or on that specific detail, but I would recommend that you ask the agency.
In terms of whether a strategic environmental assessment of that policy has been done, I would have to think about which department it would be under. Transport, I don't believe we've looked at Transport yet.
Kari Swarbrick, Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We did in 2014.
Ms. Gelfand: In 2014, and what did we find?
Ms. Swarbrick: This was not one of the projects we looked at.
Ms. Gelfand: Got it.
So the Department of Transport and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be the two organizations to ask that question of.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you.
There's an unfortunate parallel to some extent between your conclusion that the National Energy Board has been unable to adequately monitor, track and follow up, and the fact that departments aren't fulfilling their responsibilities under sustainable development. It's striking: 5 of 1,700 projects; and the hospital, which involved land that's been used under the UN climate change study process and has a great deal of scientific import.
Is this because of a lack of resources or capacity? The National Energy Board has said that they have difficulty hiring engineers — maybe not so much now, because they would be more available, unfortunately, due to oil prices. Or was it a lack of leadership and focus?
Ms. Gelfand: You've asked me two questions. One would be on the National Energy Board and the other would be on the implementation of the cabinet directive, so I'll try to answer.
Senator Mitchell: I was trying to make it one so I wouldn't get elbowed by the chair.
Ms. Gelfand: I'll try to answer in two different "pots.''
On the issue of the National Energy Board, we found that the tracking systems themselves, which are often computer-based databases, were not talking to each other. So you could have one engineer tracking on one spreadsheet that was not necessarily talking to the main safety package database, and there might be another spreadsheet over here. The computer systems were not talking to each other. Therefore, the risk of human error went up, and they couldn't necessarily find the answers.
When we would go in and say, "We're looking at this one, because we took a random sample, let's look at this condition or this deficiency. Tell us what you know about that,'' it would be a scramble in the back room to figure out where that information is.
If the computer systems were all talking and running pretty well, it wouldn't be a scramble. The analyst would be able to go in and say, "This is what we know. Here's all the information on that data. Here are all the files.'' They didn't have that. The computer systems were not working.
The capacity issue is also a definite issue around why this wasn't happening.
One reason was the computer systems weren't working; the other one was a lack of human capacity.
As for the second part of your question: Why are departments not including environmental considerations in their decision making?
There was a cabinet directive issued in 1990 that says that every decision that you make should look at the environmental impacts, particularly when they could be significant: positive or negative. Overall, we're finding that when submissions go to ministers, and proposals go to ministers, we're not seeing that cabinet directive being followed.
The results are slightly better when you look at proposals going to cabinet. About 110 out of 250 cabinet proposals looked at the potential environmental effects.
So you're asking why. Ministers are not demanding it. Cabinet is not demanding it. The departments are not following the cabinet directive. I relate it back to a human being deciding whether to put solar panels up on your house. What would you look at? You would look at when is the return going to pay off, right? "How long am I going to be in the house? How much do the solar panels cost? How much will I save on energy?'' You would look at the whole economic side. Then you might think about, "What happens when the sun is not shining on my house? What am I going to do?'' That's the social side. "What's going to happen to my family? How will I have electricity?''
We're hoping people will also look at the environmental effects of putting solar panels on their house. That would be the best decision making, from a sustainable development perspective, when you look at all three of those things and think about the carbon footprint and how I'm helping the planet and all the other good, green things that you would think about in that solar panel decision. You would look at all three and then make a call.
The cabinet directive is asking that departments not just look at the economic and social, but also consider the environmental. We're finding that it's not happening.
The Chair: I just want to ask a couple of quick questions.
You say that between 2000 and 2014 there were 1,041conditions attached to major pipeline approvals. You reviewed 49 of those cases, as I understand from your report. How was the decision made to pick 49 from 1,041 over a 14-year span?
Ms. Gelfand: I will leave that to Kim. We have a statistical analyst — specialist — working on data, and I understand that person helped us pick a random sample. I'll let Kim answer that.
Kimberley Leach, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: That is the best answer I can give at this point as well. We used representative sampling to select that sample. There is a bit of information on that, about the audit, at the back of the report. It was a representative sample in accordance with the expertise that we have within our office.
The Chair: I'd like a little bit of a further explanation. You don't have to give it now, but if you could provide that to the clerk in writing, I would appreciate that. Over 14 years, 1,014 conditions, that is about 75 conditions a year when you think about it. Did we go back to 2000, or did we pick them all at the end of it? All of those things, I think, are important. Was there a review of all the conditions and we picked out the ones that weren't maybe conforming? I need to know that.
Second, I'm going to read your one recommendation about the National Energy Board, and that's 2.33, in report 2:
The National Energy Board should systematically track compliance with pipeline approval conditions and adequately document this oversight work. This documentation should include, for example, notifying companies on the status of achievement of the condition.
This is paperwork, I assume, only. This is not really where the rubber hits the road and something is going wrong with the pipeline. It surprises me that that would be one of your major recommendations, to be perfectly frank. The board's response was, "Yeah, we'll look after that and we'll be more systematic and document more paperwork.''
I'm a little baffled at that recommendation. Maybe you could further explain that a bit for me.
Ms. Gelfand: Absolutely. When we did our audit we interviewed companies, as well as staff and members of the National Energy Board. Companies were telling us that they would send in reports to the National Energy Board. Let's say it's a report on how they're going to comply with a deficiency they found. "Here's our compliance report, here's how we're going to comply, here's our safety report, and here's what we're going to do.'' But they never heard back from the National Energy Board: "Is it okay?''
Companies were saying, "We don't know, once we send something in to National Energy Board, if we're meeting the deficiency or not.'' That was the main purpose of saying you need to track it, you need to be able to answer the questions and you need to get back to the companies.
Let me give you another example. I'll go back to one of your first comments. We did not go through the thousand conditions and only find the ones where there were problems, because out of our sample half of them were properly tracked. Half of them weren't, but half of them were. It was a random sample of conditions we looked at.
One of the conditions was that a company was to do a study on the environmental effects of a potential pipeline rupture near some caribou habitat. This report was due 10 years ago, and when we asked the NEB where it was the NEB actually had to email the company to ask where it was. The NEB didn't know it didn't have it, it was 10 years late and they had to go to the company directly.
So while I agree with you that some of our recommendations deal with, "Please tick the box in your spreadsheet,'' some of them are serious in the sense that reports were missing, compliance deficiency action plans were missing, or the companies submitted them and they didn't know if they had met the conditions or not.
It's quite a range of deficiencies, from simply not checking the box to they did not do what they were supposed to.
The Chair: In your example of the caribou, obviously the company did the report.
Ms. Gelfand: They found it, yes.
The Chair: They found it. We clarified that.
Ms. Gelfand: Absolutely.
The Chair: When we had CEPA here at one of our hearings, we spoke to them about not having enough staff, and those kinds of things. Rightfully so, and I'm familiar with this, what happens is they lose them constantly to industry. You need to figure out a way to pay these people more or do something different to retain that kind of expertise that they need at the National Energy Board, which you rightfully reported.
Is there some way that you can maybe make some recommendations along those lines? It affects hugely the workforce. I know there are issues around contracts and other things, but it has been done in other jurisdictions that produce oil and gas and have experienced the same problems. I know about British Columbia and how we did it. Is there room in your mandate to actually suggest those kinds of things? Then government has some way of saying, "Look, the National Energy Board couldn't keep up to the reporting, or actually look after some of the conditions to make sure they were taking place, but we recommend that you look at other jurisdictions.''
The biggest thing is pay. It's the dollars. That's what it is. The industry actually says they would be glad — "happy'' is the word — to pay more in a fee if that was accomplished.
Ms. Gelfand: The National Energy Board, being a federal institution, follows federal rules. The National Energy Board would have to work directly, probably, with Treasury Board and with the Public Service Commission to figure out how they could do that. You're correct. I spent a few years in industry, and if you're in the oil and gas sector the bonuses are even higher than in the mining sector. Yes, it is related to the issues you brought up.
The National Energy Board, because it's a federal agency and is located in Calgary directly, is competing for those same people. They would have to negotiate an agreement, or some kind of special dispensation from some of the federal rules, in order to meet some of those requirements.
The Chair: I understand all of that. Can you make some kind of a recommendation?
Ms. Gelfand: We told them to look into that; that was our recommendation. Look into the federal rules as to how to do it. However, I don't think I'm allowed to make a recommendation to change the federal rules.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Thank you for your comments this morning. You have opened a door to looking ahead as part of the Paris discussions and the greenhouse gas targets the federal government has set for itself. Creating partnerships with the provinces and territories to establish targets is another area of negotiations. You are in charge of verifying whether the federal government's objectives have been reached. How will you ensure that the vast majority of objectives and programs on a provincial level are achieved, that the provinces have a counterpart agency to foster synergy, at both the federal and provincial levels? To my knowledge, the provinces do not have an auditor general for the environment. What steps are you planning to take? Will you prioritize the offices of the auditor general in the provinces, so that they would hire someone with the same mandate as you at the provincial level? My question is a long one, but I feel it is important to ask it.
Ms. Gelfand: I am very happy you have asked this question because I have an answer to it. First, I want to specify that there is a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development at the office of the Auditor General of Québec. There is one in Ontario, as well, but that commissioner of the environment is not part of the auditor general's office. So there are three such positions in Canada. Other countries, including Australia, have from 6 to 10 of them.
Second, I am happy to tell you that we are currently working with all provincial and territorial auditors' offices on the implementation of an initiative, so that each province can assess its progress in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We plan on presenting reports in all provincial parliaments in 2017. In addition, we will present an overview of each province's and territory's track record compared with the federal government's objectives. This will be the first time all the provinces will be working together.
Senator Ringuette: Hear, hear!
Ms. Gelfand: Once we have — I will say it in English.
[English]
Once we figure all out the machinations of working together —
[Translation]
— we will all submit to the legislation governing us. Once we have established the methodology by 2017, I hope we will be able to repeat the exercise in 2021 and in 2026 — every three or four years — so that Canada can have an overview of the progress made in climate change.
Senator Ringuette: Hear, hear!
[English]
The Chair: Senator, I'll have to put you on second round because of the number of questioners we have to get through.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for your presentation, which is very insightful. The National Energy Board has appeared before our committee many times and, each time, its representatives assured us that they were doing their work with integrity and that they were not currently experiencing a staff shortage. However, we were told that some concerns had been raised in terms of personnel, but that the board was working on remedying the situation. The National Energy Board plays a very important role in Canada. As for the debate on pipeline safety, it is clear that we must establish an independent body to reassure us. Your report raises serious doubts about the National Energy Board's expertise, and that puts in question the trust we are placing in it.
I also see some significant problems when I read your comments on pesticides and departmental reports. It's good that you are pointing out that there are major problems, but a solution has to be found. Many Canadians will say that this is bureaucracy, that it is Ottawa's fault, that there is a lack of oversight and engagement, and so on. But what is the solution? Is it a matter of culture, of expertise? Your comments are vague, and that is scary.
Ms. Gelfand: Does your question concern the National Energy Board?
Senator Massicotte: All three.
Ms. Gelfand: All three!
Senator Massicotte: As you see, this applies to several departments, and that leads us to believe that the problem is cultural. What is the solution? We have to find a way to reassure Canadians.
Ms. Gelfand: First, the legislation to establish the National Energy Board goes back to 1959. Small amendments have been made only in recent years, since 2012. I think that the description of the National Energy Board is inaccurate, as it is truly a national board responsible for pipelines. The organization conducts few projects involving renewable energy. It carries out a few projects on electricity. I believe its mission should be reviewed, and the legislation that led to its creation should be modernized.
Second, in general, according to the cabinet directives, our decisions must be made from an environmental point of view, and not only from an economic or social point of view. Canadians can be reassured by the fact that we do not make decisions based on the economy alone, but also based on environmental protection. Such decisions help further reassure Canadians. We have the required tools, but we are not using them.
Senator Massicotte: You recommend clarifying and expanding the board's mission, but we are currently having difficulty carrying out projects and monitoring whether pipeline companies are meeting the requirements — there is no monitoring or discussion to determine whether requirements are being met. I hope we will find a solution. I am very worried. The board is having difficulty doing what is proposed. It looks like there is a lack of engagement, or there is a cultural problem. Perhaps we should privatize those services, as this is a major issue.
Ms. Gelfand: Don't forget that the board has been able to provide us with information in half of the cases.
Senator Massicotte: Only half —
Ms. Gelfand: Yes, I know.
Senator Massicotte: Not in 99 percent of the cases.
Ms. Gelfand: However, it is not as if the number was zero. So the office was able to provide us with information in 50 percent of the cases. It was unable to do so in the remaining 50 percent of the cases. Its computer systems are outdated; they are old and are not communicating properly.
Senator Massicotte: Stop, you are scaring me.
Ms. Gelfand: The board knows that it is dealing with computer problems. It told us so during its presentation. So modernizing those computer systems will help tremendously. The board will be able to quickly recover information in a systematic manner. The lack of trust among Canadians is explained by the fact that the organization has existed for a long time and has had the same mandate since around 1959. So it may be time to modernize its systems.
Senator Bellemare: Many of my questions have already been asked. Trust concerning the pipelines is a hot topic, but I will be more specific. I would like to bring you to page 15 of Report 2, where you will find Exhibit 2.4 Incidents occurred at pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board each year from 2008 to 2014. We see that the number of incidents is decreasing. There was a significant increase in 2012. There have also been some major incidents. Do those figures show us the reality or do they have to do with computer and staffing issues? Are there any other incidents that are not reported because we are not aware of them?
Ms. Gelfand: I trust those statistics. Those are real figures, and that should restore our confidence. Perhaps I have not mentioned that three to ten serious incidents occur every year. That is low. When I spoke to the Auditor General about this, he told me that companies were doing solid work — the board is not keeping track of everything, but the companies, which also have an interest in doing a good job, are performing their tasks well.
Senator Bellemare: The companies are also ensuring increased oversight. Can a company withhold information? When an incident occurs and the company gets involved, are they required to report it or could they simply not report it?
Ms. Gelfand: They are required to report it.
Senator Bellemare: Are audits carried out?
Ms. Gelfand: Yes. The National Energy Board conducts those audits. It has carried out several of them. There is also the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
Senator Bellemare: I have another question on the same topic, and it has to do with Quebec. Pipelines are a hotly debated issue in Quebec. We are talking about pipelines that cross a huge number of rivers, streams, and so on. According to your technical knowledge, are incidents more significant when a pipeline crosses a waterway? Or perhaps there is no relationship between the two, or you don't know?
Ms. Gelfand: That is not a question we can answer. You should put it to technicians.
[English]
Senator Johnson: Good morning. You've given us some terrific questions to ask department officials. Let me ask you one that I didn't see there. It's about international standards and information-sharing practices when you're between countries that could assist in the timelier cancellation of pesticides that pose unacceptable risks. Could you talk about that, please?
Ms. Gelfand: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Johnson: It's regarding international standards and information-sharing practices between countries that could assist us in the timelier cancellation of pesticides that pose unacceptable risks.
Ms. Gelfand: What exactly is the question?
Senator Johnson: Have you reviewed any of these in your look at the department in terms of its practices with regard to pesticide control or evaluating the pesticides?
Andrew Ferguson, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: What we know is that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is in contact, and does work collaboratively, with international partners on re-evaluations of pesticides and tries to do its work so as not to be duplicative.
In terms of cancelling registrations, I think they look to what is happening in other countries. If pesticides are banned in other jurisdictions, for example, that could catalyze a special review of the pesticide in Canada to determine whether the science would indicate that the pesticide should be cancelled or deregistered here. Is that getting to your question?
Senator Johnson: Yes, I think so. I'm just concerned, like everyone, about the excessive use of pesticide and the management by our department officials. I come from Manitoba where we certainly have a lot of issues in this respect. I'm wondering what you felt they were doing in terms of cooperation.
Mr. Ferguson: We didn't look at the cooperation explicitly, but we believe and understand that they are collaborating where possible.
Senator Johnson: In terms of sustainable development, I'm curious to know about the details of strategic environmental assessments for policy and program proposals. Are they too complex for departments and agencies to prepare?
Ms. Gelfand: My answer would be no.
Senator Johnson: Are additional resources needed to assist these departments in complying with requirements?
Ms. Gelfand: No.
Senator Johnson: Kept it short.
Senator Seidman: Good morning.
Ms. Gelfand: Good morning.
Senator Seidman: Ms. Gelfand, in your report you speak about emergency preparedness. If I might, I'd like to ask you about one of your recommendations.
You state very clearly that, under the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations, companies are responsible for developing emergency management programs for their pipelines, and the board is responsible for holding federally regulated pipeline companies accountable for operating them safely, including in the event of an emergency. You say one way the board does this is by reviewing companies' emergency procedure manuals to ensure that all required information is included and up to date.
In your audit — that's on the transportation of dangerous products — you found that although the board had identified gaps and deficiencies in the manuals, there was little indication that they had followed up with companies to ensure these deficiencies had been corrected.
You then went on to recommend that the board could consolidate its risk assessments into its emergency management plan. You went on to say that this is increasingly important because:
A consolidation of risks will be of particular importance for the National Energy Board in the context of the Pipeline Safety Act, under which the Board will have additional responsibilities related to emergency response.
I have quoted substantially from your report because I think this is a really important issue. I would like to hear some elaboration from you, if we may. Thank you.
Ms. Gelfand: One of the things that I would say, generally, is that we did see an increase in the number of reviews of company emergency preparedness plans. When we looked at this in 2011, we were at about 61 percent of the plans being reviewed, and in 2015 that went up to 75 percent.
More importantly, the deficiencies corrected went from 3percent to 60 percent. The National Energy Board, as a result of our recommendations in 2011, was doing a better job at reviewing company emergency preparedness plans.
However, a third of the manuals we reviewed still lacked some information, either follow-up from the board to address noted deficiencies, responses by the company to the deficiencies noted by the board or final confirmation, again, that your emergency preparedness plan meets all the requirements.
They were doing a much better job, but it still wasn't completely all there yet.
Senator Seidman: So when you say that the board consolidate its risk assessments into its emergency management plan, what do you mean by that?
Ms. Gelfand: Okay. This is a complicated one. I found it difficult as well.
The all-hazard risk assessment — this is my understanding and Kim can correct me if I say anything wrong. The National Energy Board considers pipeline-specific risks; they look at the risks of each pipeline. They oversee the risk assessments that have been done by each company. The companies do their own risk assessments. They use this risk model to target their compliance verification activities, but it is in a unique position to be able to look at the risks of all pipelines under its jurisdiction.
When we talk about an all-hazards risk assessment, we're talking about big natural hazards: earthquakes and/or terrorism. Apparently that is a requirement under the Emergency Management Act to do an all-hazards risk assessment, and that's why we recommended that the NEB do that.
Senator Seidman: You say it's particularly important in the context of additional responsibilities that the board will have. This plays into confidence as well, as we deal with pipelines and assurances, that there is this emergency preparedness and this big-picture assessment of larger hazards.
Ms. Gelfand: The National Energy Board will have new requirements that start this year. We have not audited that, so it's difficult for me to tell you whether they're ready. I can only tell you what we've audited, and we've audited whether they're meeting their own requirements for reviewing company plans, whether they're meeting the requirements of the Emergency Management Act, and that's why we can tell you what we can.
We can't give you an assessment now of how ready they are for the future, but we're saying these are important parts of being ready for the future.
Senator Seidman: Sure. So you've given us a good question to ask the board. Thank you.
Ms. Gelfand: Absolutely.
Senator MacDonald: Just a couple of questions about your 2015 audit. You said that the current cabinet directives were applied in only 5 out of the 1,700 proposals. Where are we falling down here when you say "applied''? Do you mean actively ignored, or they weren't honoured? What's the pecking order here in terms of ensuring that this stuff is applied and honoured? Where does the buck stop with this stuff?
Ms. Gelfand: That's a great question. What we are saying is that they were not done. Of the 1,700 proposals that went to ministers 5 did a preliminary scan on the potential environmental impacts, so 1,695 did not do that.
The buck stops with the Privy Council Office, the minister and the department. There is accountability on all streams, particularly when a memo goes to cabinet — and we did see better results there, but still not even 50 percent. So 110 of 250 memos to cabinet had the preliminary scan.
We believe the cabinet set out a directive saying, "You must do this,'' and departments are not. When we talk about what sustainable development really means, it means thinking about the economic, social and environmental impacts before you make a decision. It doesn't mean you aren't going to do something because of the environmental impacts, because you know there are social and economic ones, but it may mean that in some cases you wouldn't do it because of the environmental impacts.
If we are trying to move toward developing in a sustainable way — in a way that allows future generations to live on the planet in the way we do — we need to be thinking about these issues. That's why the cabinet directive was put in place in the first place.
Senator MacDonald: So this really has to be driven from the PCO down.
Ms. Gelfand: Yes, and last year when we looked at it, the PCO sent out an email to everyone saying, "You must do this.'' We will continue to follow this, because the strategic environmental assessment tool is very much like the Environmental Assessment Act: It's looking at the environmental impacts before you make a final decision.
This is the best tool the government has, internally, to be thinking about environmental impacts of every decision. In some cases there will be no environmental impact. You can say, "We looked at it; there won't be any.''
In some cases, there will be positive things. We don't even know about those. We don't hear about the good news when they do something well, because they're not including that in their analysis, so it's not getting into the press releases and we're not telling Canadians about the good things. We're also not looking at the potential negative impacts of our decisions.
This is the best tool we have. We need to implement it.
Senator MacDonald: I'm curious about this, looking at the 5proposals of the 1,700. The Canada Revenue Agency was one of them. What would the Canada Revenue Agency possibly be proposing that would require a strategic environmental assessment?
Ms. Gelfand: Here's the positive news: They made some change to something technical. They saved something like 18 million pieces of paper a year. That's a positive environmental impact. Nobody knows about it. We know about it now because we went in there to look at it.
Senator MacDonald: I know about it now because I asked you.
Ms. Gelfand: Right. There are some positive things that a small agency like the CRA could be doing. If you think about the Department of Finance — let me give you the biggest one — consider the budget. Do we do a strategic environmental assessment of the budget? It's a big policy decision, and do we look at the impacts?
But even the small things we do, are we looking at the environmental impacts? The cabinet asked departments to do it. The cabinet has a directive saying, "You must do it.'' It is not being followed.
The Chair: I have three questioners on the second round. I'll ask them to pose a quick question and then we'll ask for a written response, so everybody can get out of here on time.
Senator Mitchell: An issue I've been working on for some time in developing legislation is "call before you dig.'' There is legislation, but only in Ontario. A lot of damage that happens to pipelines and other underground infrastructure in Canada results because we don't have a structured, organized process. Is that something that you could audit in the future?
Ms. Gelfand: I'm thinking it's provincial.
Senator Mitchell: No. The National Energy Board, CRTC, military —
The Chair: Remember, we're going to have a written response.
Senator Ringuette: Maybe just a quick comment and maybe a quick answer.
The Chair: No.
Senator Ringuette: I'm surprised that you got access to cabinet documents, because these are all secret documents. Cabinet decisions are also, to a great extent. So how did you get access to those secret documents?
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: You have become environmental experts. I agree when it comes to global warming. That is one of the largest responsibilities we have as legislators and as global citizens. That issue has not been given sufficient attention so far and could have serious consequences on future generations. Our country, the federal government, is planning on placing a price on carbon. President Obama made a speech on the topic a week ago. We are talking about approximately $10 per tonne of CO2, but all the experts are saying that $10 is not enough, and that it should be from $75 to $100. What do you think?
[English]
The Chair: We'll get some responses back. I appreciate that very much. We're on time, and those people who have other duties can make their appointments.
Thank you very much to all of you, and thank you, witnesses, for coming. We look forward to our next time when we can go over your reports again.
(The committee adjourned.)