Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable

Development

Presentation to the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories

Jim McKenzieApril 30, 2012

Toronto, Ontario

Presentation Outline

Our Mandate and Role What we do and how we do it

Our Products Examples of Past and Upcoming Work

Recent Findings Environmental assessments Enforcement Water monitoring Environmental science

Mandate and ProductsCESD established under the Auditor General Act (1995): Examine the performance of federal government programs;

review progress on sustainable development strategies; manage environmental petitions process

Products include: Performance audits of key issues of interest to Parliament Non-audit products - studies and guidance on E&SD issues Monitoring of Federal Sustainable Development Act &

Strategies Annual report on Environmental Petitions

Relationship with Parliament and the Federal Government

Laws

Accountable

Repo

rts

AuditsAG/CESD Federal

Government

Parliament

Performance Audits and Quality Control

Performance audits are an independent, objective, and systematic assessment of how well government is managing its activities, responsibilities, and resources. Audit topics are selected based on their significance. While the Office may comment on policy implementation in a performance audit, it does not comment on the merits of a policy. Performance audits are planned, performed, and reported in accordance with professional auditing standards and Office policies. Key mechanisms for ensuring quality: Office-wide system of quality control Quality Reviewers appointed to individual audits Internal practice reviews of individual audits Periodic external peer reviews

Examples of Past Work (2009-2011)• Transportation of dangerous products• Environmental science• Enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act• Inventory of federal environmental monitoring systems (study)• Sustainable fisheries (study)• Cumulative impacts/environmental assessment – oil sands• Oil spills from ships• Monitoring water resources• Adaptation to climate change impacts• Application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act• Management of toxic substances• Quality and the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)

Upcoming Work (2012-2013)

• Contaminated Sites• Climate change programs (and Canada’s 2020 target)• Offshore petroleum boards• Conserving biodiversity

• Marine protected areas• Federal performance in priority ecosystems• Update on species at risk recovery efforts

• Status report• Follow-up on previous observations

Findings: Environmental Assessment (1)

Application of the CEA Act - mixed results Comprehensive studies and review panels (used for larger, complex

projects) are meeting requirements. Not clear that screenings—the most common type of assessment

(99%)—are meeting all of the Act’s requirements. In half the files reviewed, the rationale or analysis was too weak to demonstrate how environmental effects of projects had been considered, their significance assessed, and decisions reached.

For projects with more than one responsible authority, disputes about project scope may cause serious delays.

CEA Agency has not fully established and undertaken a quality assurance program as required by amendments to the Act in 2003.

Findings: Environmental Assessment (2) Cumulative impacts of oil sands projects Assessing cumulative effects is required under CEAA Impacts of oil sands to date is unknown– Inconsistent baseline date and poor data quality– Poor coordination of current monitoring systems

Gaps have hindered the ability of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada to consider cumulative environmental effects of oil sands projects in that region.

Encouraged by the federal government’s commitments in response to the work of the Oil Sands Advisory Panel. We will monitor the government’s progress in putting into effect monitoring systems.

Proposed amendments to EA address some problems, but questions and uncertainties remain.

Findings: ToxicsAddressed several times since 1999; most recently risk management of selected substances (2009) Lead, mercury, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate or DEHP, PCBs, dioxins and

furans, dichloromethane, PBDEs. Risk management actions taken have been reasonable; some gaps:

Risk management strategies for lead and mercury. EC and HC lack a systematic process for periodically assessing

progress; lack criteria that would prompt earlier assessments if warranted by new information.

Highlighted importance of biomonitoring. CMP viewed positively.• Toxic substances common issue raised in petitions

Endocrine disrupting chemicals and cosmetic products; fluoride in drinking water; chemicals used in shale gas extraction; pesticides; sewage sludge on agricultural lands; pesticides to control sea lice in aquaculture.

Findings: Environmental Enforcement (1)Transportation of dangerous products Transport Canada (air, rail, marine, trucking) and National Energy Board

(pipelines) TC needs better management practices to effectively monitor

regulatory compliance with the TDG Act No national risk-based regulatory inspection plan or necessary

guidance for inspectors. The nature and extent of the inspections and follow-up on non-compliance not well documented. TC is not adequately reviewing and approving the emergency response plans - nearly half the plans submitted have been provided only an interim approval.

Many of the organizations shipping dangerous goods have operated with an interim approval for over 5 years, and some for over 10 yrs.

Findings: Environmental Enforcement (2) Oil and gas pipelines – National Energy Board NEB has designed a sound risk-based monitoring system but

deficiencies in implementation and follow-up noted Little indication that the Board takes steps to ensure that

deficiencies identified through monitoring are corrected. NEB has not appropriately monitored emergency procedures

manuals of regulated companies. Manuals for about 39 percent of companies have yet to be reviewed. For those that have been reviewed, we noted that in almost all instances identified, deficiencies were not communicated to the regulated companies.

Recent federal budget has announced new $ to improve inspections.

Findings: Environmental Enforcement (3)Enforcement of CEPA 99 –Environment Canada The enforcement program has not been well managed. Lack of information. EC lacks key information on regulated individuals,

companies, and government agencies to know whether it is targeting its enforcement activities toward the highest-risk violators or the highest risks to human health and the environment.

Lack of capacity. Enforcement actions are limited by gaps in its capacity to enforce CEPA regulations, including lack of training for enforcement officers and lack of adequate laboratory testing to verify compliance.

Lack of follow-up. Department failed to follow up on half of its enforcement actions during the audit period to verify that violators returned to compliance with CEPA regulations.

Environment Canada is not measuring the results of its enforcement activities and actions and does not know whether they have achieved the program objectives of encouraging compliance and minimizing damages and threats to the environment.

Findings: Water Monitoring (1)Water quality and quantity - Environment Canada Risks - Environment Canada has not located its monitoring stations

based on an assessment of risks to water quality and quantity. As a result, it may not be focussing its monitoring efforts on the activities and substances that pose the greatest risks.

QA/QC - Both of the water monitoring programs we audited developed quality control procedures intended to ensure that the data they disseminate is fit for their intended uses.

The National Hydrometric Program has consistently applied its quality control procedures to validate the data from the stations we examined.

The Fresh Water Quality Monitoring program has not. As a result, Environment Canada cannot assure users that its water quality data is fit for their intended uses.

Findings: Water Monitoring (2)

Unclear responsibilities on federal lands = large gaps in coverage

Findings: Environmental ScienceThe federal government has a unique and distinct purpose for conducting scientific research and monitoring (e.g., informs policy making, programs, regulations).Public policy role

Scientific evidence is a key factor that informs decisions

Environmental science at Environment Canada EC considers itself a science-based department. Science informs regulations, pollution prevention plans, environmental

standards, and environmental quality guidelines. Helps understand stresses and pressures on ecosystems.

Findings: Environmental Science (2)We examined how EC ensures quality of its science activities, how it communicates scientific evidence to decision makers, and strategic planning for science.

Environment Canada uses a range of systems and practices to ensure the quality of the science it conducts

The Department uses a variety of methods to communicate scientific evidence to decision makers

2007 Science Plan not adequately implemented. Long term planning important given demographic profile of scientists and budget pressures

Its good to have quality science but it also needs to be communicated effectively.First time audit has focused specifically on science; likely to consider in future audits

Changing Role of Environmental Science (1)CESD has undertaken additional consultations and research on the changing role of science in the federal government and the science/policy nexus. Some of what we have heard:

Issues are becoming more complex; cut across boundaries (departmental, jurisdictional) and disciplines.

Accelerated information flows and amount of information poses challenges.

Producing quality science continues to be key. Aligning science with near-term priorities and foreseeing future

demands are important (relevance). Measuring relevance, impact and success needed to demonstrate value

of science. But questions remain about how this should be done. How is

success measured, especially in terms of how science informs decisions?

Changing Role of Environmental Science (2)Effectively communicating results of science to policy makers and decision makers is critical. But challenges exist:

Lack of science literacy - needs to improve amongst the public and policy/decision makers.

Skeptics and critics raise doubts about science and can put public (and decision makers’) trust in science at risk (some evidence trust is declining).

Competition from quasi-experts and junk science. Science can take time to generate results but demands are short-term

(and often ask for certainty). Some concerned that scientific community is not well positioned to

address these challenges (e.g., structure and incentives in universities are not well suited for ensuring science informs either the public or policy; rather they encourage communication with peers and students).

“Science has a fight on its hands”.

Questions and CoordinatesOur web page: www.OAG-BVG.GC.CA

Twitter: @CESD_CEDD@OAG_BVG

Contact:James.Mckenzie@oag-bvg.gc.ca