Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 5 - Evidence - March 4, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:38 p.m. to examine and report upon emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Ronald Thompson FCA, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; Mr. Neil Maxwell, who is the Assistant Auditor General; Mr. Andrew Ferguson, Principal; and Mr. Richard Arseneault, Principal. We have met most of these witnesses in previous committee hearings.
Ronald Thompson, FCA, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you for inviting us to appear this afternoon. We are delighted to be here to discuss Chapter 2 of our 2006 audit report dealing with adapting to the impacts of climate change.
As we reported in 2006, Canada is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Global warming is expected to be greater in Canada's northern latitudes than in other regions. Many aspects of life in the North are already affected by melting permafrost and reduced sea ice.
In 2006, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development outlined our findings regarding the government's management of climate change, including the need for the federal government to develop and implement a clear, realistic and comprehensive action plan that addresses both greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
We concluded that taking immediate action to adapt to a changing climate could help protect Canadians and their assets and reduce related economic, social and environmental costs.
[Translation]
As you may already be aware, we reported in 2006 that Canada was in urgent need of a federal adaptation strategy but that the key federal departments responsible for the climate change file (Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada) had made limited progress in developing one.
While some departments began developing their own adaptation strategies, none had yet been approved. The federal government's collaboration with the provinces and territories and its use of available information to assess the implications of climate change was limited.
In 2006, we also reported that Canadians and decision makers needed access to better data on possible future climate conditions. For example, there was a lack of proper information on adapting the design of infrastructure such as roads and sewer systems.
We found that there were significant gaps in the knowledge base and that planning for climate science activities for adaptation was on hold.
[English]
We also recommended that Environment Canada and the Privy Council Office should identify the responsibilities of federal departments and agencies that are involved in the federal adaptation effort. Those departments and agencies should then clarify how the Government of Canada will manage adaptation to a changing climate. The government agreed with our recommendation.
This is an example of the kind of issue that we would expect to see included in an overarching federal strategy or plan for sustainable development. You may recall that I spoke of the need for such a plan when we discussed the results of our SDS audits with this committee last November.
Clearly, in addressing complex and long-term issues such as adaptation to climate change, there will be a need for the government to, if I can use the vernacular, stick to it over the long term. That is, to work with a sense of urgency, year in and year out, for many years at a time.
I note that we have not done any further audit work on the issue of climate change since our 2006 report. Our practice is to allow departments some time to respond to the recommendations that we make in our reports before following up on the issues.
Your committee could certainly play an important role in spurring action by periodically inviting the key departments responsible for the climate change file and also the adaptation file in the North. Those departments are Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and quite possibly Health Canada. You could invite them to provide further details on their climate change plans and initiatives and on the implementation of the audit recommendations that we made in Chapter 2 of our 2006 report.
The Chair: It happens that your report and its emphasis on the North are extremely timely in terms of our interests because we are going to travel to the North. The focus that we have determined upon are adaptation of climate change in the North; and, second, the impact of industrial and commercial development, which are somewhat concomitant.
Briefly, honourable senators, at the conclusion of this meeting, we must have a short in camera meeting concerning that trip because there are a couple of developments that I want to apprise you of before we go any further in the planning for that trip.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much for this brief. Welcome. It is very encouraging that you have taken the focus that you have taken. As you say, we need to ``stick to it'' as you mentioned in your presentation.
When you undertook the study in 2006, how was it that the focus was on adapting to climate change or the impacts of climate change rather than focusing on policy initiatives that would reduce emissions, for example? Was that an arbitrary choice or something that directed that focus?
Mr. Thompson: Let me give a brief answer and then I will call on Neil Maxwell, who ran the audit for Chapter 2 back in 2006 and other audits, to respond.
In 2006, the commissioner tabled a report in Parliament containing a number of aspects of climate change, this being one of them. We did not just report in the fall of 2006 on climate change adaptation; we focused on other issues as well. I will now ask Neil Maxwell to talk about what was done in the fall of 2006.
Neil Maxwell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: We did quite an unprecedented thing when we made the decision, in the 2006 report, to devote the entire resources of the commissioner's group to a single topic of climate change. We looked at both adaptation issues and a series of different mitigation issues. For example, we looked at the progress on cap-and-trade systems within Canada, one of the key foundations of Sustainable Development Technologies Canada and overall managements of the climate change file. That was one of the chapters; we like to refer to the different parts of the report as chapters. That was the first chapter; the second chapter was the adaptation work that you see. In the third chapter, we looked at a number of specific programs that NRCan was running to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and many of the energy portfolios. It was a broad effort in 2006.
Senator Mitchell: That is why you arrived at where you are now?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, we thought that looking at adaptation was extremely important because one of Canada's commitments in signing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 was to do work on adaptation. Everyone knows about the commitments that we made on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, along with the other signatories. Canada made an important commitment in 1992 and this audit asked how well Canada was doing in that regard.
Senator Mitchell: Whether it comes to auditing a government's progress in an area like climate change — not on the adaptation side but on the side to reduce emissions — it seems to me that would be relatively difficult, because what standard would you choose against which you would judge the government's progress?
For example, if science tells us that we need to reduce emissions by this amount and their emissions efforts will reduce if by half that amount, would you be able to establish the scientific standard or would you compare it against a Kyoto standard.
I am getting at the fact that the government is saying it will reduce emissions by 10 per cent or 12 per cent by 2020. We know that is not adequate. In some sense, the government might as well do nothing because that will not solve the problem. I am not encouraging that, though. I am exaggerating for emphasis. What would you pick as the guideline, the objective, or the parameter around which you judge the effectiveness of the progress?
Mr. Thompson: We would begin by trying to determine the government's expectations. In this particular case, it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the government's expectations are not clear, we call attention to that because unless you know what you are trying to achieve, you have no way of knowing what you have done is a success or a failure. We begin with expectations for reductions. If the government set out expectations for reductions, then we would determine whether the government has a system to track the actual reductions that would accrue to particular programs that would be put in place. If the government does not have a process of tracking reductions over time, then we would call attention to that in a critical manner.
If the government has set expectations and has a mechanism in place to track progress against them, then we would have a look at how well the government is doing year-by-year — possibly three years by three years. These things take time to filter through the economy and the ecology. We would look at how the government is reporting that information to Parliament and Canadians. If that were clear, then we would try to get assurances that what the government is reporting in the way of reductions realized were the actual reductions realized.
We would go at it that way. We would not try to argue with the government that the targets it has set are inappropriate. It seems to us that it is Parliament's job to set these targets. However, having set the targets, we would challenge the extent to which the government has not met the targets.
Senator Mitchell: With regard to Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, you have a commitment to a standard that the Parliament of Canada has told the government it needs to have a plan to reduce emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels. They have come out with a plan that talks about 2006 as the baseline.
There are two steps here. You would have to decide to do an audit of that particular area because you have what would seem an infinite number of things to audit. However, that would be easier decision for the environment commissioner than the Auditor General. It would seem timely. You have to decide to do the audit and then do it. Is that something you are considering?
Mr. Thompson: It is funny you should ask. The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act requires us to do an audit at least every two years and under that act, we will probably be obliged by law to do three. We will come out with a report by next May and the next is due no later than June 22, 2009.
At this moment, we are looking at how we will audit what is presented for next year. We have done some thinking on that and will need to do more. We have met with Environment Canada who pulls the reporting and the plan together every year. We are mindful of the National Round Table's report on the first plan, which was quite critical of the individual line-by-line targets that were set for each of the measures in the plan. However, we are now looking at how we will discharge our responsibility.
A question we have is whether there will be any actual reductions evident by May 2009. There may not be because there simply may not be enough time. We do not know at this point. By May 2011, two years later, there should be clear information available about reductions.
We are studying that now and figuring out how we can provide a report to Parliament as required by the act that will be informative and will help move the yardsticks.
Senator Milne: Commissioner Thompson, I am rather discouraged with your statement. In particular, in paragraph 6 you state, ``In 2006, we also reported that Canadians and decision makers needed access to better data. . . .'' In paragraph 10, you say you have not done any further audit work on the issue of climate change since 2006. Then, you basically ask us to do it for you. We are glad to help you in any way we can. On the other hand, however, we should not be doing your work for you.
Mr. Thompson: I could not agree more, senator and that is not the message I am conveying to you today. We have work-in-progress now on climate change. We are working on the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act as I mentioned a moment ago. We have an audit coming out probably in November of this year. Mr. Richard Arseneault from our Office of the Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies is responsible for that report on air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. We are trying to track government progress on that. The report, by the previous commissioner in the fall of 2006, will be followed up with rigour and reported a couple of years down the road.
We have to allow enough time to elapse for the government to take action. Having said all of that, we certainly are active in auditing climate change and the government's work in that area. We are just not at a point where we can report the results because the work is not finished.
In terms of appealing to this committee to bring these three or possibly four departments to the table, a big finding in the 2006 report Chapter 2 was that there is no overarching strategy for what the government was trying to achieve in the area of climate change adaptation. That was absent in 2006. We do not know whether it has been put in place. We cannot put it in place. However, these three or four departments surely can. If they have not done so, it would be helpful to the overall process for this committee, if you were willing to do that, to hold their feet to the fire. You could say: You agreed to do this some years ago, two years have passed and what has happened?
Senator Milne: In other words, you are not getting an answer. Do you not have access to the ministers in these departments?
Mr. Thompson: We indeed do, senator; however, we have not yet completed the follow-up of what we reported in 2006.
The reason I ask this committee and others to bring these departments in is that it takes us time to finish our audit work and in the meantime, ``time's a wastin'.'' I am not sure this overarching strategy has yet been developed. It should be in place by now. It has been my experience in over 31 years in this business that things get done when committees and parliamentarians say they want them done. That is why we are anxious to appear before this committee any time, at the drop of a hat. You are the people who can make things happen.
Senator Milne: It is my understanding that the government announced new funding for adaptation programs in December last year. Was that a significant step forward or is it necessary for the strategy to be in place first before the funds can be used properly?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, I am glad you mentioned that. I think the government announced $85.9 million. I do not know whether that is funding for the strategy for the government as a whole that we were calling for in 2006. We have just started reviewing that.
That is the question I would ask of these three or four departments. If it is not that, then what is it? Can you or should you as a government spend $85.9 million in the absence of knowing where you will go? I do not know. These are questions that these government officials should be receiving and responding to from members of Parliament who care.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I thank you for being here on such an important subject. You are obviously well- informed on where we are in Canada. I was interested when you discussed infrastructure such as roads and sewers and what the linkages were with the provinces that control their design and regulations.
I want to ask you about the significant gaps in the knowledge base. Most of your presentation focused on the adaptation plan; however, would you discuss or even list a few of those knowledge gaps and, in particular, the ones that are most crucial?
Mr. Maxwell: The knowledge gaps we were discussing take several different forms. The most basic is the question of whether we know enough in terms of our monitoring of climate to be able to support the necessary modelling. One of the concerns we had in this audit was that Environment Canada, which is responsible for the monitoring network, had not assessed what it needs in terms of a network to support adaptation. It starts there. The knowledge gaps continue to more practical concrete matters as well. You mentioned that much of this is within the provincial jurisdiction, which is true. We were critical of Environment Canada who is responsible for taking available information and then determining what that means at a practical level. For example, in terms of climate change, it knows the severity and frequency of extreme weather will be greater in the future. Municipalities have to design water discharge systems that can handle the flow. Environment Canada had not updated those in a number of years. Those are at least two examples.
The broader point we were making about the gaps in knowledge, which goes back to the point the commissioner made about the lack of a strategy, you really do not know the kind of information you need until you have decided on your priorities. If the federal government considers that one of its core roles is to make sure that municipalities have up-to-date information, that takes the research and knowledge machine in one direction. If it decides on a different priority, that suggests other types of research information. Almost all roads lead back to this absence of a basic government strategy of what it is trying to do in terms of adaptation.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Since we are going to the North, the issue of adaptation is on my mind and understandably, I had looked at it a little bit from a medical model. Could you point out several key areas where the adaptation of the people and the communities needs to be looked at and discussed? Could you give me some areas at the top of your list?
Mr. Maxwell: If the committee proceeds with hearings with departments, it might be interested in several authoritative exercises that have been done by scientists, not by auditors. I brought one today, which is work by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. This is a report of 2004. This is a group of several hundred scientists, a world-wide effort, essentially to identify what is known in the scientific community about climate change impacts in the Arctic. This is circumpolar, so this is not just Canada; it is an international effort.
Senator Spivak: Sorry, what year was that?
Mr. Maxwell: This was a report from 2004-2005. We are auditors and these are scientists. We do not have the expertise to audit science, nor would we pretend to. This report has been cited quite broadly as an authoritative source of information about those kinds of impacts. As I mentioned, several hundred scientists worked on this report. We talked about some of their examples in our report, but their report is much more thorough.
In terms of social impacts, there is concern in the scientific community, and it is mentioned extensively in this report, about the impacts on Aboriginal peoples. For example, thinning sea ice will disrupt hunting patterns; there is concern about ice-dependent mammals, ring seals and such. There is a lot of concern about what this does in terms of Aboriginal culture and traditional hunting and gathering. There is also concern, in the same related way, with the impact of climate change on caribou herds. I will not go through more detail unless you are interested, but it deals with how climate is affecting migratory patterns, particularly caribou.
Quite a few of the social impacts that have been discussed in the community are about impacts on Aboriginal people. Quite a number of them are economic impacts; of course, when it impacts on the economy, it impacts on people.
Probably one of the biggest concerns one hears when you talk to experts in this field is concern about what happens when permafrost melts. In the Canadian North, so much of the infrastructure — buildings, runways, roads, pipelines and sewer systems are built largely on the assumption that the permafrost will always be there. That is one of the big concerns as we have already seen some of the permafrost melt.
Mr. Thompson: Another more detailed issue is the ice roads. During the winter, the only way to get a significant amount of infrastructure transported from a city like Yellowknife up to the diamond mines further north is on ice roads. The winter season used to be eighteen weeks or longer. With global warming, the season is about eight weeks, and it could be a good deal less in the future. If you can only get the raw materials from Yellowknife to a diamond mine for eight weeks instead of eighteen — if the rest of the time you have to fly it up — the cost is enormous. If the season for ice roads is shortened, the cost of doing business across the North is increased. Consequently, some of the businesses that employ a number of people in the North are having difficulty. There is a bit of a trade-off there too.
The other thing that might be interesting to talk to people a bit about is how Aboriginal people across the North make trade-offs between climate change and economic development. They want jobs too. What are they prepared to deal with in order to ensure that they have jobs?
It is a complex mix across the North. The concept of ice roads is something totally foreign to us in Ottawa, although with this winter, maybe not so much. It is certainly a very important reality across the North.
Senator Spivak: How sharp-edged can you be on the numbers? I understand that you cannot challenge the government's policy, but on the business of adaptation, are you going to ask about the time frame? The time frame is essential. If they wait a long time, ice roads will seem like child's play because of what may happen with the Gulf Stream.
The government's goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been criticized everywhere — even by people like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP. You look at the goals; are you going to examine the means to reach those goals in terms of what the numbers can achieve? You people are the number crunchers, but there is number crunching and number crunching. Can you do number crunching that will highlight whether these things are going to be successful?
Mr. Thompson: Earlier I talked about the audit focus being what does the government intend to accomplish with any particular program. The intentions, or we call them expectations, in our view should be clear and measurable to the extent possible. Very often you can measure these things. That is at the very beginning of carrying out a program.
If we find a program put in place without measurable expectations attached to it and time lines for achieving those expectations, we will be very sharp and critical of the program.
If the program is put in place with measurable expectations, we would look to see whether they have short- medium- and longer-term expectations. To deal with something like climate change, as we mentioned in the opening statement, this is a long-term issue. There needs to be a sense of urgency on the part of the Government of Canada to attack that problem day in and day out, week in and week out, for a very long time in order to bring about change.
There is no use saying you are going to do something within two years. That is important to know whether you are on track or not, but you need to get a sense of what you are trying to achieve in the short- medium- and longer-term. It is in the longer term when real change can come about on something like climate change for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.
If they have put in place measurable expectations and have set them out, we will try to audit them.
If they have been careless in putting expectations out — just put down any old number — we will be very critical. If the expectations have been well thought out, crafted as carefully as they can be, given the available estimation and forecasting technology, then over time we will track those expectations.
If the numbers coming out as actual reductions over time against the short- medium- and longer-term targets are reasonable, we will say so. In other words, what we will say is you can believe the government's report showing that, over time, greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by so much.
We have a lot of work to get us into a position to be sharp, but believe you me; all the way along the line, we will be as sharp as possible.
Senator Spivak: If you looked at a company's 10-year goal and saw that the means by which the company intended to reach that goal were wrong, would you not inform the company of its error? In your capacity as accountants, chartered accountants or number crunchers would you not inform the company of such a problem? That is what I am getting at.
Mr. Thompson: I will make a comment and then pass it over to Mr. Maxwell. That is fair game for a legislative audit. We do it all the time. We audit the quality of management.
In that particular case, if expectations, goals or targets were set out and the department that we were auditing put in place a management structure to achieve them that we knew was inadequate, we would say so. Am I wrong, Mr. Maxwell?
Mr. Maxwell: Not at all.
There is probably no better example of that than this 2006 report. Just to go through that sequence of events, the question was: Did that government not have a clear commitment and a clear target? The answer, of course, was yes; the government committed to the Kyoto target. We were very clear and very critical of the government in the report, and it is a report of which we are particularly proud. We said that the government simply was not on track to meet that requirement. Much like your analogy with business, we did proceed to say that not only are they not on track to meet that target, but the things they have done to try to get to the target are clearly deficient.
We agree that when a government makes a policy decision to set a target at a certain place, there is a body of opinion, and public debate that says that is not good enough and it should be higher, our view is that those are extremely important questions. However, many institutions can answer those questions, such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Other institutions have fed a very lively policy debate on this subject, as we all well know. We see our job as unique, which is to ensure that policies and decisions made by Parliament are well-implemented. That is what we work on day in and day out. That is the sort of thing that has led to these audit reports and hopefully provides added value.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: In your 2006 report, you discussed the quality of the work being done in the Department of Indian Affairs. You indicated in your report that they were waiting for the authorization by the government to proceed with the implementation.
To your knowledge, since the publication of this report, did they obtain these authorizations? If not, what is the cause of that lack of action? If the answer is yes, could you tell us about it?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Frankly, we do not know whether they have received that authorization. Chapter 2 tells a troubling story of three main federal departments that are responsible for putting something sensible in place to deal with climate change adaptation. Somehow or another, my sense of that chapter is they could not get their act together, to put it frankly. I do not know why they could not get their act together. One thing that is important in looking at a major government initiative is strong senior commitment within government. Was that there in a sufficient amount in 2006? I do not know. I rather doubt it, given what we found. Whether it is there today or not, we are looking, but we do not know yet.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: If I understand correctly, what we have is a department that is taking its responsibilities seriously and decides to go all the way in taking ownership for this responsibility. But because of a bad appreciation of the situation by the government at a higher level, including the fact that several departments must work together, the goodwill that was there is being neutralized. That's how I understand the situation.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: I would be guessing, but I think that is a pretty good guess. That is maybe what has happened. The thing about INAC is that it is responsible for really what goes on north of 60 in the area where the committee will be traveling.
If you are looking at adaptation in climate change north of 60, INAC certainly would have a major role to play. Climate change adaptation affects the whole of the country. That is where you get other departments involved, such as NRCan, Environment Canada, and possibly Health Canada.
There is certainly a need to move forward, we think, in a concerted effort by several departments to come up with a reasonable climate change plan from the perspective of adaptation.
A big question we have is whether the $85.9 million that was announced in December is in fact, the kind of overarching strategy or could spur on the kind of overarching strategy that we were calling for two years ago.
We just do not know, but that is certainly a key question that could and should be asked of these three or four departments.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Maxwell, do you have any additional information?
[English]
Mr. Maxwell: I do not have more details other than it was very troubling — just to pick up on a point the commissioner made — that NRCan and Environment Canada had not established a clarity of roles between their departments. In our report, we note a recurring pattern where one department would spend significant taxpayer money to develop a draft strategy, get it to a certain point — typically taking 12 to 18 months to do so — and then it would stall. Quite often it stalled because of a lack of agreement between those two key departments on how they should address adaptation.
We document three different efforts like that; one that involved the provinces and two others that were attempts within the federal government to develop a strategy. They tried three times and failed three times.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Let's try to be a little bit more specific. In 2006, you indicated to us that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had developed a rather sophisticated strategy, but they were being blocked because higher level authorities were not giving them the authorization needed to go forward.
In your answer, you said that two other departments were perhaps being thrown off-base because Indian Affairs and Northern Development had already made their move while they may not have been quite at cruising speed.
Since 2006, do you have any information about what has been going on? It is somewhat shocking to find that a department wants to go forward while two other departments want to stop everything because they argue that their responsibilities are being interfered with.
Mr. Maxwell: We have no update concerning the situation at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[English]
Those are excellent questions to put to the department. Again, it takes us back to this notion.
When we finished the audit and made the recommendations, we were anxious to have the kind of discussion we are having today. We were very anxious for parliamentarians to put those questions to the departments. I think as the discussion today indicates, the deputy ministers of those three departments should answer the pointed questions and your question is certainly among them.
The Chair: Our committee has commented from time to time on this malaise of who is in charge and the fact that if nobody is in charge up here, these people will not do it. Specifically, there was an informal organization comprised of deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers who were to give, as we understood it at one point, affect to these matters having to do with the environment, greening, sustainable development and the like.
Are you familiar with that group and whether or not it is presently active?
Richard Arsenault, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: In Chapter 1 of the same report, we looked at issues of governance. Climate change adaptation is a horizontal sustainable development issue. There are many players involved. We were trying to understand how they worked together. Did they have a structure in place to work together? This thought evolved over time.
At one point, they had a secretariat that was there to monitor and report on spending. It was disbanded to be replaced by something in Treasury Board, and the Treasury Board started to do something. With respect to recent information that we have, which has not been audited, this group of central coordinators responsible for horizontal integration is with Environment Canada. We are not sure if that is the case, but that is our recent information.
In terms of adaptation, the recent information suggests that there are two leads, Environment Canada and Natural Resource Canada. When we looked at this file in the past, they were not working well together. They are still working on this today. We do not yet know what they have produced because we have not audited. We are planning a major follow-up on our climate change report in the near future, but we have not done that yet. We give the departments time to implement our recommendations.
The world is changing. We have a different government with a different approach. There is a new plan. We will have to look at all of this and make the proper analysis. We can benchmark with other countries to see what they are doing and bring this information to parliamentarians. In terms of comparison, there is an opportunity for that as well.
Mr. Thompson: We will be tabling a major status report on Thursday.
We have seen, and certainly, it is evident from this status report, that departments can work together. We have seen examples of this over the years. There are three or four things that need to be in place for that to work. The departments must have a strong commitment at senior levels; this is essential. They must have clear direction from the senior levels down into the organization. They have to have realistic objectives. We talked about short- medium- and long-term expectations. These expectations must be realistic, achievable and decent things. Of course, adequate funding is a must.
When you get those criteria taken care of, great things can happen in this government. However, when one or more of them is absent, it makes it very difficult to make progress, particularly in situations where departments have to work together. It is not always easy, but they have done so in the past. There is good evidence of that cooperation.
Senator Nolin: When those departments ask for their annual budgets, why does no one question what they are doing with the money?
The Chair: There used to be that function in relation to not only their sustainable development budgets but their budgets. During the government of Mr. Mulroney, there was a Treasury Board-like chalk point. No effort went forth unless it had been signed off for that purpose.
Senator Nolin: Yes, Mr. Bouchard created that. It was meant to be like the Thursday morning meeting of the Treasury Board on environment.
The Chair: Exactly. If it did not pass mustard, it did not go forward.
Senator Nolin: In Parliament, when departments ask for money, they all have plans and projects. We have a Senate committee that looks after finances, how money is spent, why it is spent and so on. They are all there and they are very polite.
Mr. Thompson: That is another excellent question. Many of you will remember that many years ago, Part III to the estimates were introduced by the Government of Canada in an attempt to put before Parliament detailed spending plans and expectations as a base for after the end of the year accounting back for what was done with the money. Those have morphed into departmental performance reports after the fact and reports on plans and priorities, RPPs, before the fact.
The system has become a little more sophisticated, but the same principle applies; that is, to get information to parliamentarians before the year begins so they can get a sense of what the department is trying to achieve with the money requested. After the year is over, they provide a forum through these departmental performance reports for the departments to account back to parliamentarians, such as this committee, for what they have achieved.
They are getting better. We have been at this for probably 30 years. They are still not the greatest, but they are getting better. They will get better, however, if parliamentarians use them.
When people come to Parliament with RPPs up front they say what they hope to achieve with the money they have requested. If parliamentary committees want departments to tell them what they plan on achieving then the committees will challenge the departments on that for the very reasons we talked about earlier. They will ask questions such as how do you know you have a realistic plan to meet that target in place. Have the departments demonstrated that they have gone through the thought process that would allow them to say with some confidence what they intend to do and what they intend to achieve next year, the year after and the year after that?
There is a mechanism in place. There is management architecture and accountability architecture in place. It is beginning to work, and it should work better.
Senator Nolin: I am sure the word ``strategy'' appears in those documents probably 100 times.
The Chair: Yes, senator and it is preceded by the words ``sustainable development.''
Senator Nolin: Yes, as well as ``efficiency'' and ``efficacy.'' That is probably where we can squeeze a little bit more and go beyond the good intentions of the witness.
Mr. Maxwell: On this point, further to what the commissioner was describing, if you are interested, the Office of the Auditor General has produced a document with parliamentarians as the intended audience. The document describes the estimates process; the role that parliamentarians can play; and explains how to use some of the tools that are available to parliamentarians, such as commissioner reports, Auditor General reports and the like.
We have had very good reactions from parliamentarians. Should you be interested, we would be happy to provide you copies or arrange to have someone speak to you on that subject.
Senator Nolin: We too have linear responsibilities. It is not exactly our committee's responsibility to do that.
The Chair: I am sure that we have already received that. I missed it, and I would be very grateful, Mr. Maxwell, if you would send the clerk a dozen copies of it if you have them available.
Mr. Maxwell: We would be pleased to do so.
Senator Cochrane: You had an audit report in 2006. Your next report will be coming out on Thursday, is that correct?
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: In the interim, is there any sort of status report that you would ask from the government to see what their achievements have been from your first audit?
Mr. Thompson: From the 2006 audit on climate change that included a number of separate chapters, we will certainly be following that up and we will be reporting to Parliament probably two years down the road on progress made in relation to each and every commitment that was made by the government in that report.
What we are putting on the table in Parliament on Thursday is a status reportthat looks at a number of recommendations that we have made in the past and a number of issues that we have raised in the past, going back sometimes 10-11 years. The simple question we ask as we go back in and re-audit those areas is this: Have you done what you said you were going to do? In other words, you have made commitments when we have audited in these various areas in the past. Have you lived up to them? We will report over 14 chapters on Thursday, the results of that kind of work. We do that on a regular basis. That is the biggest status report the commissioner's office has done.
Senator Cochrane: Will you ask for results on Thursday?
Mr. Thompson: Not only that, we will report to you what we believe departments and agencies have done in relation to the commitments that they have made in the past. In other words, if they have achieved results, we will say so; if they have not achieved results, we will say that, too.
Mr. Arseneault: We have an exercise where we annually ask departments to self-report on their progress and recommendations. For 2006, we have not started the process yet. We will start in 2008. We will get self-reporting information, not audited information, but it keeps us up to date in some ways.
Senator Cochrane: Is it a check?
Mr. Arseneault: We will check when we do a follow up, which is in our plans for 2010, actually.
Senator Cochrane: Did you find any evidence of programs that could be designed to improve the ability of the northern people? Are you able to say that?
Mr. Thompson: Are you referring to what we will table on Thursday?
Senator Cochrane: I guess so.
Mr. Thompson: In terms of that particular report, not really. That was not a focus of the report. We did not have climate change in that report because we will follow that up separately. There is need for more time.
As my colleague mentioned, we do have a chapter that deals in part with the North, namely, with the cleanup of contaminated sites, including abandoned mines in the North. In that sense, we will be providing information to Parliament on progress made there. That is not inconsequential information.
Mr. Maxwell: To bring the discussion back to Chapter 2, the 2006 report on adaptation, we had several things to say on how adaptation programs could be designed in the North. I say ``could'' because it is up to the government to come up with the strategy — you have heard that enough, I suppose, this evening.
Senator Cochrane: There is no harm in putting things like that in a report.
Mr. Maxwell: To give you examples of the type of program that has been done elsewhere in Canada, we talk about interesting experiments in Quebec and on the Prairies. In those experiments governments have arranged to have the researchers and the experts — that is, the people who understand the impacts — and connect those to the people who are making decisions, whether they are business leaders, government leaders or people who are representing communities in terms of social impacts. There have been several successful experiments in Canada so far — and, there was an earlier question about research gaps — that allowed the information known to get to the people who had to make decisions.
When you ask about the type of program that could work in the North, there are certainly some live examples that have proven to be useful to date.
Senator Cochrane: I think we should get that report out, chair.
The Chair: Thursday's report?
Senator Cochrane: That, too, but the 2006 report and look at what is in there about the North before we go up there.
The Chair: We should do that. We all have it.
Senator Cochrane: We better revisit it.
The Chair: It would be a good idea to look at it before we continue our consideration of what we are going to do in the North. That would be good for us to do.
Senator Cochrane: Will you let me hear your thoughts on shareholder engagement into all this climate change issue?
Mr. Thompson: There are many stakeholders and shareholders for the climate change file, as there are for many environmental issues. There are many more environmental issues than climate change, but climate change is incredibly important. When I think in terms of shareholders for that, I tend to think in terms of my children and grandchildren. They are the ones who will inherit a Canada that is either the marvellous country we have today or something different and not so marvellous.
If the federal government, working with other governments, gets good at protecting the environment, then the kind of wonderful country we have will be passed on to our kids and to our grand kids. If it is not, however, there will be significant changes and difficulties. I want my grandson to enjoy a loon cruising across a lake on a summer evening, or awakening in the morning to a song bird, or having plenty of fresh water to use, to swim in it and boat on it — all of the things that we take for granted but we should not. Who are the stakeholders and the shareholders? I tend to look at the children. We are the stewards for the children.
The Chair: Relating back to what you said a moment ago about determination and commitment from the senior levels of government, in your 2006 report, you talked about INAC having had in place a good plan with respect to dealing with adaptation in the North. As you said, that is their main bailiwick north of 60. At the time, your report stated that INAC had not received approval from the government to implement that plan. Has there been any development in that respect? Could you comment on that specific question and what you think of the idea that such approval needs to be received, how long it takes to get it, and so on?
Mr. Maxwell: INAC was working on several things at the time. What we saw at seemed like reasonable progress, but they had not finished it. In some cases, they were waiting for approvals or had not finished the work. That took several forms. One is that INAC committed to go through the various programs that they offer both in the North of Canada and south of 60 to identify which of those programs would be impacted by a changing climate. This is important. I will use examples, but if you start thinking about the kind of federal programs in place, not just with INAC but also across the spectrum of departments, there are many programs that could be impacted. For example, the senator is interested in water availability in the Prairies. What will decreased precipitation do in terms of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's income support programs? You think about Western Economic Diversification Canada and if they are looking at whether the support they provide to particular industries will be climate-change proof. Department by department, there are examples where it is important for the department to understand these impacts so they know the impact on their own programs.
INAC had not yet done that. They had committed to do something. At the time, we said they were making good progress, but the job was not finished. Similarly, they had committed to developing an adaptation strategy for the North. Again, it was the same picture of good progress, but the work was not finished.
Several different things seemed to be happening. In some cases they were waiting for approval and, in some cases, it seemed that adaptation was suffering from the same malaise we see in other departments where, essentially, adaptation becomes the poor cousin to mitigation. ``Mitigation'' is the term used to mean the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and tends to get all the attention. I recall several experts, when talking about adaptation, using the term ``poor cousin'' in not getting the attention it deserved.
To sum up, there are several different specific questions that would be important to put to the deputy minister. The commissioner found they were making good progress but upon completion of the audit had not yet been finished. Therefore, what happens next?
The Chair: Is the permission sought to spend money or to proceed with a program or is it both?
Mr. Maxwell: I would have to refer to our files. However, I think in the case of departments such as INAC, the department was saying that until the federal government has an overall policy, it could only go so far in what they doing. The position of Health Canada was that until the Government of Canada gets an overall game plan, it would be fruitless for us to try to do things ourselves. A lot comes back to the need for an overall federal strategy.
Mr. Thompson: In 2006, we made two recommendations in Chapter 2 that are set out in summary form on page 27 and page 28. In each case, the government of day accepted them and went on to say that they will flesh them out, bring them to life if you will, when they get a chance to develop and put in place what they call the ``made-in-Canada environmental agenda for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.''
What we had when the chapter was tabled was an agreement in principle with details to follow. That was the case not only in Chapter 2, but also in other chapters that were tabled in the fall of 2006 and the same reply was given. Those details will get at the very issue you are talking about in these two recommendations.
It might be helpful for the committee not to say a couple of years have passed, what has happened? What are the details to follow? How can these departments work together? Who will take the lead?
The Chair: Thank you. I hope we will be able to take that up.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned that part of your work is to take what the government says it will do and then audit to see whether it has done it. Does it reach back as far as a Throne Speech in the development process?
For example, in the most recent Speech from the Throne, the government said it was going to establish a market for carbon credits. In the budget, it has apparently allocated $66 million. At what point would you audit to see whether it has been done or is being done and being done effectively?
Mr. Thompson: Speeches from the Throne and budget announcements, for example, are similar in some respects. They are statements of intention. We would not audit whether the intention was carried out. We would see whether or not an actual program was put in place to carry out that intention. If it is put in place, then we will audit the quality of management for that particular program. We will look back to see from where the program originated. However, until it was established and put into operation, we would not start an audit.
Senator Mitchell: Suppose the government was to determine that it will attempt to achieve its climate change emission reduction target by 2020 and it makes a decision to use a cap-and-trade system rather than a carbon tax placing direct value on carbon. Would you evaluate the effectiveness of the system the government has chosen against the other possibilities like a carbon tax, which it chose not to do?
Mr. Thompson: No, we would not. If the government chose a particular approach, we would audit that choice.
In terms of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been tasked with getting at that issue. I think one of questions that they are committed to following up is whether the government has effective programs in place. Have you put in place targets that are measurable and will meet what you are trying to achieve over time? The round table addresses those issues and we come around after the fact to audit what has been done.
The Chair: We always need to understand that the Office of the Auditor General and the commissioner audit, they do not criticize policy. Once the government of whatever political stripe has decided to do something, they audit whether or not the government has met with its goals.
Senator Milne: My question follows from that because I am coming back to the $85.9 million announced in December and your future planning.
As auditors, you follow the money. How will it be divided among the departments that will receive it? Is it a one- year program or over multiple years? Is there any strategy? Apparently, no one seems to know if there is or not. Let us not wait three years to find out if this is being used properly or just scattershot. How will the money be spent?
Mr. Thompson: That excellent question gets to the heart of some of what worries us when we look back at progress on issues and recommendations.
We may be a little negative because auditors are that way from time to time. However, it appears there is too much talk and not enough action. Announcements of intentions are made all the time, but until they are put into play through either existing programs or new programs, they are only announcements or intentions. That is a good thing to do; I am not saying it is a bad thing to do. However, the rubber has to hit the road in order for effects to be felt and, certainly, the rubber has to lit the road before we can audit.
Senator Milne: The announcement alone does not lead you to keeping a wary eye.
Mr. Thompson: No, not necessarily. As we mentioned earlier, this particular case intrigues the four of us in whether this $85.9 million and the series of programs they are rolling out is the government-wide strategy we were calling for in 2006. I do not know, but we will ask and if you have the three our four deputies here, it would be a question to ask them too.
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you. I promise you that we will have more questions for you arising from further discussion on this issue and in respect to what you will have to say on Thursday. I know it will have meat on some bones in which we will be very interested. As you always have in the past, I know you will respond to our requests with alacrity. I also look forward to you, Mr. Maxwell, getting our homework to us and a copy of the report that you have. It would be appreciated if you can tell the clerk where we can get it.
Mr. Maxwell: We will give the reference and sources to the clerk. We do not have extra copies of the second report, but we will provide to you the one we produced.
The meeting continued in camera.