Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Mr. Lussier, you have five minutes.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maybee, in your report, you recommend reducing fossil fuel consumption. In your opinion, does Bill C-30 demonstrate the government's determination to reduce our dependency on oil and gas? In your opinion, are there passages in Bill C-30 where this determination is clearly expressed?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

I think at the next level down from what is actually in the bill, the bill discusses an intention to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases. I think the bill does not specify how.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

So, you do not see, in Bill C-30, specific measures to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

I think maybe it's the English translation, but that's not what I meant.

You suggested it doesn't look like the bill could reduce fossil fuels. I'm just saying that the bill specifies an intent to reduce. Even if you look at CEPA, the existing act, it does not specify how the act will be implemented; it only specifies the intent.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

In your opinion, what would be a reasonable reduction, in percentage terms, of our dependency on fossil fuels? What percentage and what timetable should Canada set as a target to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

I'm not sure of the percentage reduction we're going to need to achieve our Kyoto commitments, for example. We have some air quality targets, and I'm not quite sure how they relate to percentage reduction in fuel use. However, there are many examples of how you can do this. You can start by closing some coal-fired power plants. You can start by energy efficiency measures that engage the public. You can increase wind, solar, and hydro power. All of these measures will reduce that.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Samis, in your brief, you say that you would like to reduce dependency on cars. In your opinion, does Bill C-30 contain provisions that would allow us to reach this objective of making Canadians less dependent on their cars?

[Stephen Samis]

I think you will see the information in Bill C-30 come under the targets—the measures in the targets and the goals that would be established under those. I think what Bill C-30 will do is compel the government to develop those.

I think that's why it's particularly important that we do stipulate clearly in the bill the goals for the reduction of air pollution, in particular, as well as stipulate very transparent and effective reporting and accountability measures, because it's only through those mechanisms that we will get down to the next level. I really do agree with Barbara MacKinnon that the next level is the implementation of the bill.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I would also like to draw the witnesses' attention to a press release or a document from the Fraser Institute claiming that we do not need to tighten air quality standards, since air quality in our major cities is good. And if we compare emission rates from 1970, air quality has greatly improved, thanks to all kinds of upgrades to cars and smokestacks.

Have you read this document from the Fraser Institute?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

Yes, I read that document. It came out maybe a year to a year and a half ago. The Fraser Institute is a well-known institute that writes things with a particular slant.

[A voice]

Oh, we know that.

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

It's not a slant that the Lung Association necessarily agrees with, and in a few instances in that article they are actually misportraying the truth. However, they are correct in saying that air pollution levels have gone down. We've done a pretty good job in North America bringing certain pollutants down over the last 20 years, but they are not yet at a level that is health protective. We need to do more.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

What do you think of the opinion of the Fraser Institute that the number of mortalities—set at 5,800 to 6,000 deaths per year—related to air pollution was incorrect? According to the institute there is not necessarily a direct link between the two situations, therefore there is no direct correlation between air pollution and mortality. Did you read that opinion in the document?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

The numbers you're quoting come from scientific studies done by well-respected scientists at Health Canada and elsewhere. They're published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and whenever you get a peer-reviewed journal, I wouldn't hesitate....That's what the Lung Association bases its statements on—peer-reviewed science.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Paradis, for five minutes, please.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lussier has raised a question that intrigues me also.

In your document, Mr. Peacock, you said that 2.5 million Canadians have asthma and that the rate in children is four times higher than it was 20 years ago. These statistics are cause for concern.

One of the my three children has asthma. Why am I telling you this? It's because at the time I asked the doctor what the cause was: heredity or another cause. The doctor simply told me that it was the disease of the 21^st century.

So, you are the experts, and a layman like me would like to hear your opinion on this. What is really happening? Is it really this serious? Is there a correlation between air quality and asthma? We are talking about nearly 1 out of 10 Canadians having asthma. It is not unusual to see children with puffers. When I was younger, puffers were almost exclusively for extraterrestrials. What is really happening?

[Rob Peacock]

I'm going to start off.

Asthma, allergy, and COPD are all definitely related. There are over three million Canadians suffering from asthma, and millions more from allergies. Asthma is an allergy.

If you look at the English-speaking world that I referred to in my remarks, when you look at New Zealand, Australia, England, the United States, and Canada, why do those five particular countries have such a severity and pronounced aspect of these diseases? There are reasons, and I'm going to ask Dr. Latycheva to comment.

[Dr. Oxana Latycheva]

Definitely we're seeing that the situation with asthma in Canada is quite serious. We've noticed an increase in asthma in the last couple of years, although in the last five years the increase has levelled out a little bit. But we're still getting a high prevalence of asthma in children, compared to other countries.

According to the statistics from 2005, the prevalence of asthma in children is 11% to 18%. Actually, it depends on the province. The overall prevalence of asthma is around 12% to 15% in children at the moment. So yes, this is a very serious concern.

In terms of why, we have a couple of theories around why we've had such a big increase in asthma in the last 20 years. Unfortunately none have been confirmed yet. We are still getting more studies in that direction, trying to confirm one of the theories. Some people are talking about genetic factors and genetic predisposition. We know that asthma is a complex genetic disease, so you can have a family history of asthma and allergies.

At the same time, we are getting more information that asthma is actually related to our environment. Although it's not conclusive that asthma can be caused by air pollution, definitely we are getting more studies that actually show that air pollution can affect lung development and can potentially lead to the development of asthma.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Furthermore, Mr. Peacock, a representative of Greenpeace appeared before us yesterday. This gentleman said that, according to Greenpeace, we should not renew the useful life of nuclear power plants, when we know that 50% of the electricity in Ontario comes from nuclear energy. We also know that nuclear energy is not causing acid rain or warming or smog. So, I am confused, and I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[Rob Peacock]

In terms of the alternatives, when we look at fossil fuel and at what we know about coal-burning plants and so forth, we are hugely challenged. We're also challenged by wind power. Some of the studies coming out of Alberta talk about the inefficiency of wind power and it's not in fact necessarily the answer for the future.

When this committee deliberates in terms of the forms of alternative energy, we have a couple of things. Nuclear is something that we definitely have to look at. Obviously the disposal of nuclear fuels is a real challenge, but on the other hand, we also have to look at our economy.

It's a tough one. If you're trying to corner us into saying, are we supportive of it, are we pro-nuclear power development, I would hazard to say that unless we can find some other alternatives at this point that are going to be better for the environment—air pollution, especially—we have a huge challenge before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much. Your time is up.

Mr. Godfrey, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, witnesses.

I was taken with the remark of Mr. Warawa that the government was moving from voluntary to mandatory regulation. I'm wondering if this is true in the case of national air quality objectives. I don't know whether this is appropriate--I'm using the brief of the Lung Association--but to your understanding, with the way Bill C-30 is currently written, is there anything mandatory about these objectives?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

It depends, I guess, if you're talking about now or about what we would like it to be.