Evidence of meeting #4 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ian Shugart  Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Alan Latourelle  Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

Okay.

10:15 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency

Alan Latourelle

I can assure you that in Grasslands, we're still very aggressive in our land acquisition.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

That's encouraging, thank you.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Mr. Wilfert, you have the floor.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that I'm glad to see Mr. Latourelle here. I had a wonderful working relationship with him when I was the parliamentary secretary.

I have a comment and then I'm going to ask a question. If the 13 dark years were so dark, I'm very proud of those 13 dark years, because according to the government, we had the most aggressive plan of the G-8 in 2005 and the greenest budget in history, which was $10 billion. I haven't seen that replicated by this government.

In 2007 the UN estimated that all humanitarian aid, except for one, was climate related. We have famines; we see rising sea levels and the displacement of millions of people because of a shortage of fresh water. In fact, we may see environmental migrants by 2020.

My question to you is, with regard to the north--and certainly the Northwest Passage, which could be open all year round--what work is your department doing on the issue of climate change, national security, and energy dependency with regard to other departments? Under the leadership of the former Minister of the Environment, Mr. Dion, we were able to work collaboratively with the Ministry of Finance in order to get the greenest budget in history.

Obviously, given the situation, the Ministry of the Environment has to play a critical role in dealing with issues in the north, particularly on the issue of national security, which is becoming extremely important. The Americans and the British already have strategies in place, and I'd be interested in your comments as to what collaborative work, if any, is currently going on in your department with those colleagues.

10:15 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment

Ian Shugart

I would first say that this issue is going to be with us for some time to come, and I would not be surprised if we see considerably more activity and work in the department and across government as we learn more and as the consequences of global warming become more identified and quantified.

Second, I would say that in a couple of areas in our science programming, our atmospheric science has largely adjusted to being sensitive to changes in the climate and supporting the understanding of that impact on water resources. That's not unique to Environment Canada, but it's in collaboration with Natural Resources Canada, which has the geological survey and is responsible for a lot of geospatial mapping and so on.

On ice, we have the Canadian Ice Service, which is largely focused on the north. They study the annual ice patterns as well as the multi-year ice situation. The government, as you know, has committed to the establishment of a high Arctic research station. The department is very much involved with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, NRCAN, and National Defence in developing the potential structure, management, and programs of the national ice service. Those are some issues that we are directly involved in as a department.

I know, without speaking for them, that the Department of Health is also involved in this work in terms of monitoring and understanding the impact of global warming in the north, on the peoples of the north and so on.

Of course, in the Canadian Wildlife Service, the particular impacts on species such as the polar bear are a main focus of attention within the department, and also within provincial and local organizations, with the Inuit, and internationally.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Watson.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

I thought it was Mr. Woodworth who was next.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Oh, Mr. Woodworth; I'm sorry about that.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have just one or two comments on the side. First, if the Liberal government in fact did propose a $10 billion commitment in 2005, I think that after 12 years of having done nothing it could only be described as a kind of deathbed repentance.

I also want to comment on what I could hardly believe my ears on, if I correctly heard one of my friends opposite say that the Government of Canada should have been able to predict three years ago that Obama was going to win this election. I don't know whether I heard that correctly.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

No, what I said, if I may interject, is that you were praying for an Obama victory.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Order, please.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I am sure that I heard a comment that we should or could have predicted it three years ago. That, I think, if I heard it correctly, would have surprised many people, up to and including Hillary Clinton.

I want to thank the departmental representatives for being here today. I have a concern, as has our government, for things that matter most to ordinary Canadians. I think of all the things that I have heard your department is doing, the issue of meteorological services—severe weather warnings—matters most to ordinary Canadians. We have to be able to plan our lives around the weather, so the accuracy of those weather warnings is very important.

I want to compliment the department on what I saw in the environmental commissioner's report in this area. I saw many reports of good things.

I want to also say that I strongly disagree with at least one conclusion of the environment commissioner, at paragraph 2.82 in his report, which indicated that “Environment Canada's systems...do not adequately support the delivery of timely and accurate severe weather warnings to Canadians”. In fact, everything I saw in the commissioner's report leads me to exactly the opposite conclusion: that Environment Canada's systems are providing and supporting timely and accurate severe weather warnings. Out of 15,000 severe weather warnings, the environmental commissioner didn't feel there was a single instance of an inaccurate or untimely weather warning to put in his report. I think that speaks very well of the department and that Canadians can have a great deal of confidence in the systems you are proposing.

I notice there's about $3 million of capital expenditure in supplementary estimates (B) directed toward the meteorological service. I notice as well in the environment commissioner's report that over the last three years there have been any number of great developments: the ISO 9001 certification, the Treasury Board 2007 approach to capital planning, the adoption of the NinJo Workstation, the establishment of four national service offices, the creation of the national inquiry response team, new technologies with wireless and RSS, the implementation of the quality management system—all these very great things done in the department.

What I'd like to ask is, which of these great initiatives you've been working on over the last three years do you consider to be the most important that you expect to finalize in the upcoming year? Thank you.

10:20 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment

Ian Shugart

Thank you, Chair.

I could say a lot more if I had more time on the question, but I will answer with two examples. The first is the completion of the NinJo Workstation capacity, which will allow us to raise the level of technical analysis, and in collaboration with other jurisdictions.

The second thing I would say is that, of that list, perhaps the most important is the establishment of the national centres, which allow us to do a number of things, including: interacting through the media and with organizations about the implications of rapidly changing weather patterns; using the storm prediction capacity and the ability to relate in a fairly specialized way to communities through the media; and, whether for business or the farm community or whatever, knowing what the meaning is of the data we're getting as it is continually changing; and giving advice on things such as timing and severity and rapidity of approach and all of that kind of thing, as well as advice on how to prepare for it.

There's no question that this is a constantly evolving field, a mandate of the department. We are not exempt from error, but we are very committed to responding to the recommendations of the commissioner—with whom we work very closely, I might say—to improve the life cycle management of our assets in order to focus our resources in those areas that are going to provide the service most quickly and most effectively to the Canadian communities that need it.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Watson.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for appearing.

I want to take a moment of my time to address a comment made by one of our members opposite who is concerned that the government is not taking on enough environmental responsibility.

I disagree strongly with that. For example, the chemicals management plan is a very robust undertaking. Some significant progress is being made on that front, and $300 million has been set aside for that over three years.

I think back to 2006 to a project that was very important to me, where $225 million was set aside for land habitat preservation. I believe the first funding announcement went to protect 5% of Pelee Island down my way.

There was $200 million for sediment cleanup, which the Commissioner of the Environment indicated in his updated report in 2007 was a significant Great Lakes issue.

Even though the $1.5 billion ecoTrust may not satisfy auditors because the provinces spend and account for the dollars, I can assure Mr. McGuinty opposite that it pleases his brother, the Premier of Ontario. There is $586 million to help address coal-fired emissions in the province of Ontario.

There are many other things that I think are very significant. There's the first binational funding between Canada and the United States to establish a spawning reef in the Great Lakes for native fish species including whitefish, sturgeon, and walleye, for example. So I think the government is taking on a significant amount of environmental responsibility.

Speaking of the Commissioner of the Environment, I want to turn to his chapter on managing air emissions and the example of acrylonitrile. I think that has brought an interesting point to hand, particularly as we're looking down the road toward the chemicals management plan and further steps, with more substances or chemicals to be addressed with risk management studies.

The recommendation from the commissioner was to ensure that measures are in place to deal with significant sources of acrylonitrile air emissions, but we have learned that there has been a significant downward trend since 2006. The two largest sources of emissions are being addressed; one is federally regulated and the other is provincially regulated. How much more should be done with acrylonitrile risk management on that remaining 1%? I'm not sure if that's the most significant use of our resources, particularly since more risk management strategies need to come on board for the chemicals management plan.

I'd like your response to the environment commissioner's recommendation in his report on acrylonitrile.

10:25 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment

Ian Shugart

Thank you, Chair.

The honourable member has put his finger on a challenge that we face in the department with respect to the development of a compliance and enforcement strategy for the wide range of things that are regulated.

This is done on a risk management basis. But things do change. We are sensitive to changes in public commentary, coverage of problems that we were perhaps not aware of, or advice from the commissioner and others in terms of the appropriate allocation of resources.

One of the areas of controversy in regard to acrylonitrile was the use of the pollution prevention plan, which is one type of mechanism used to address relatively unusual or specific situations. So you establish a pollution prevention plan, which we're authorized to do under CEPA, as one kind of instrument.

Another aspect of the acrylonitrile story is the reliance on provincial action to take measures within the domain of a province. There, too, the fact is that the federal government could take action, but we are frequently, if not continuously, working in collaboration with our colleagues at the provincial level. In that particular case, we believed that the action proposed by the Government of Quebec would be sufficient to deal with the issue.

With respect to the last incremental gain, I would say that in any substance or environmental problem where we have the responsibility and the authority to act, a number of factors are taken into account, including the nature of the threat posed to wildlife or the ecosystem, or Canadians' health. That remaining 1% may be very substantial if the exposures are significant and the toxicity of an agent is high. In another case, it may not be as significant, and we probably would orient our resources—without vacating the field—to other priorities representing greater threats.

We do accept the recommendations of the commissioner with respect to these regulatory issues. I think he has rightly pointed out gaps in the data consistency and thoroughness that have to underlie a robust risk management strategy, and we will be, and indeed already are, updating the data or information about the regulated community and the levels of emissions and so on in those areas he looked at, so that our risk management strategy can then govern the actions we plan to take over the course of the year through the compliance and enforcement work we do in the department.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

The time has expired.

We do have time to go into a third round. We do have a motion that we may have to deal with at the end of the meeting, plus we have to set our agenda for when we come back from break week. So I'm going to suggest that we do three minutes each.

Mr. McGuinty, you have the floor.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shugart, thanks for joining us.

I asked the minister earlier, and maybe you can help me get a technical answer to this question, has the department done any work on the consequences of the forthcoming regulatory regime on the prices of energy?

In the first version of this regulatory framework plan, the Turning the Corner plan, there was explicit reference to increasing energy costs. I don't know whether that's still in this document or whether it has been whitewashed out, but can you tell us whether the department has done any analysis, and what will the consequences be, of this regulatory framework for energy prices in Canada?

10:30 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment

Ian Shugart

One of the things we have done, Chair, in respect of the current economic situation is to assess the impact on the regulatory framework of the substantial changes in the world oil price, for example, and what that could do to the carbon price over the life of the regulatory framework.

I don't know if we have re-analyzed the impact of the regulations on what I think you might be referring to, the price of electricity for consumers and industry--so as an input price. I would have to confirm that. But we are monitoring and doing a different set of models that take into account the changing economic environment.

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Shugart, you have some knowledge, I think, of the design of an emissions trading system. The minister spoke at length about what is now a North American trading system; he is asserting there will be a North American system. Is it possible to have the design of an emissions trading system, say, continent-wide, when Canada has an intensity target and the United States has an absolute target?

10:35 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment

Ian Shugart

It is in principle, Mr. Chair, conceivable to do that, because the point of trading, as Mr. McGuinty will know, is to calculate the emission reductions to which a credit or an allowance is applied. To the extent that an intensity-based system requires a different approach to calculating that, one would have to do a crosswalk between a system that is based on hard caps and one that's based on intensity. But assuming that both systems actually do result in reduced emissions that can be converted, then it would be, in principle, possible to have the two coexist. I'm not saying they will; I'm saying it is possible.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you. The time has expired.

Monsieur Bigras.

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to return to the issue of deadlines for regulations having to do with greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier I asked the minister some questions, but his answer was not clear. Yesterday, I went on your Internet site. In an announcement that was updated on October 22, 2008, we clearly read the following:

Proposed greenhouse gas regulations are expected to be published in the Canada Gazette later this year, and the regulations finalized in 2009 to come into force as planned on January 1, 2010.

“Later this year” was back in 2008. Am I mistaken, or is the information on your Internet site inaccurate? We are told that the regulations will be published this year at the latest and finalized in 2009, and will come into force on January 1, 2010, as planned. Given that this public information is wrong, do you have another timetable for us?

10:35 a.m.

Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment

Ian Shugart

Mr. Chairman, I understand the problem that the member has raised. I have no announcement to make today concerning a new timeframe.

I would simply mention that in the intervening time there was an election, a prorogation of Parliament, and a very, very significant change in the economic environment facing the country and the world.

As the minister indicated, that has led to scrutiny of the regulations as they have been developed, to some further consultation for validation of the direction we are taking, and for examination of the implications of the new administration in the United States for the regulatory framework.