Evidence of meeting #3 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was review.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Khatter, you have referred to the existence of a link between greenhouse gases, smog and human health, especially relating to asthma. You mentioned a 19% increase of greenhouse gases. Is that true?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Did you know that the minister recognized today that the targeted percentage is now 35%? We've learned in the House that there has been an increase of 29% until 2006 and that, taking into account a 6% deficit relating to Kyoto, we now have a total of 35%. Therefore, your concerns relating to greenhouse gases and human health must be even worse.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
Oui. I think air pollution is probably where we have the strongest evidence and where we're the most sure there are health problems occurring. In a sense, we should think it's inexcusable that where we have no debate whatsoever, no controversy over whether our air pollution and our greenhouse gases are causing problems, we're having so much difficulty doing anything about it.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Are you going to suggest any solutions to reduce greenhouse gases?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
We can definitely help with coming up with solutions, yes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, gentlemen.
I have asked Tim if he could get us a copy of the 1999 recommendations of that committee and he said he could provide us with a copy of that. Perhaps that will help members to see what was recommended. The difficulty will be to know what was accepted by the government and what wasn't. In other words, we'll see the recommendations and we'll have to tie in what was changed and what wasn't. Anyway, Tim will provide us with a copy.
Mr. Cullen.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our guests.
Today was meant to be part of our scoping out of how to go about studying this act, because we can go down many paths with such an important piece of legislation. From your presentations, it seems pretty clear that there's a certain condemnation, not just of what's in the act itself, but also of the application of the act.
I wouldn't mind some comments, and want to get specific, to figure out how this committee is going to divide its time between a review of the structure of the act and where there are faults, or things that work well, in it. But I think even more important is its application. This city knows that a bill can be perfect, but once the act is applied imperfectly the result is negated.
Dr. Khatter, I'll start with you. When looking at something like smog as an example, is it your view on the health effects that the act itself has the ability to address the issues of smog in our cities right now?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
The criteria air pollutants that are considered to be toxic and the greenhouse gases are now listed under CEPA. They're scheduled under CEPA, which gives the federal government the authority to regulate them under CEPA.
Again, I'm a physician and my expertise is more on the health side, but as much as air pollution can be a provincial jurisdiction, my sense is that because these pollutants are scheduled under CEPA, the federal government has the jurisdiction to do something about air pollution broadly and nationally across Canada.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So you're suggesting that the fault we've seen from the dramatic increase in health effects due to air pollution, and just the air pollution itself, is not so much in the act itself, but the non-application of the act and the rules within it.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
Yes. I think we need mechanisms to get us from the point where we've scheduled nitrous oxide as toxic under CEPA and we need to do something about it. We need something that gets us to the point where we've done something about it, whether through national air quality standards or other management tools that can get that done—which we're open to discussing—and the sorts of things in the act we need to ensure that such management happens.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm curious, Mr. Stack, with respect to the NPRI, which has been much lauded as the place where we could figure out what's happening in the toxic soup out there, but about which there has been some suggestion that it is is unable to keep pace with the cumulative impact of the chemicals being introduced.
As a place for this committee to go and study, is it an effective use of our time to bring in folks from the NPRI, but also from industry and other sectors, the health sector in particular?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
I think you would certainly benefit from at least one expert testimony on the NPRI.
The reality, though, is that starting about several years ago, the NPRI seems to have fallen apart a little bit; it seems to have lost its allure among environmental advocates in respect to its strength in collecting all the data, and it came under attack by several industry associations. I'm referring back to a previous question with respect to confidentiality agreements, because environmental advocates were able to tether out exactly which plants were cleared, and what....
I really can't say, as I have not been involved with the NPRI in the last three years, so I don't know if it's improved since that low point, but it's certainly worth at least a cursory investigation.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In your testimony today, one of the many examples you gave was a comparison of Canada and the United States and the ability and capacity of the U.S. to list certain chemicals and then to act upon that listing.
Again, for the context of this study we're about to conduct, how valuable is it to bring in our American counterparts or those who are able to...? The frustration with many of those seeking to make Canada a cleaner place is that we have what seems to be a relatively solid act, but the application seems to have gone sideways. Yet our neighbours to the south, at whom we constantly point fingers, have been able to succeed where we have failed.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
Yes, I think that's true. Aside from policy, the reality is that our American cousins do a lot better than we do on most pollution issues. In particular, we see net increases in U.S. emissions tied more to their population base. Our plants are grossly inefficient, as Kapil referred to earlier.
That said, the TRI, the Toxics Release Inventory, the American counterpart to the NPRI, has also recently come under fire. They are looking to extend their reporting timeline for two years, instead of annually, and they're looking to reduce in other ways public access to the TRI. So you may want to call somebody from the EPA and get some advice on that, because it's not clear to me how the two will actually marry, if those changes fall apart. And for those who don't know, those two are in fact married, because with the CEC, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, you're able to channel data stats up—not all data, but most data can be channelled up and consolidated to give us more basin.... Well, from my perspective at Great Lakes United, it gives us the basin-wide perspective on what's happening.
You guys did a lot of work on that.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
I wouldn't consider myself an expert on the U.S. regulation, but I think it would be important in terms of getting a sense of where it is that they have tools that we don't have, that we need, and where it is that they're simply using their tools better than we are, that they're actually moving forward on things in the places where we could.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We'll be hearing from Environment Canada as well, obviously, in this study. One of the challenges and frustrations committee members have is hearing from the bureaucracy sometimes. One can be painted a picture that everything is absolutely fine.
I have two questions. One is with respect to the consultations that have been conducted to this point by Environment Canada. I'm reading that they've gone on the road a little bit. How exhaustive would you suggest those are? Were they enough?
The second question was on a comment that I think Mr. Stack made with respect to the structural changes that inhibit a proper Environment Canada review. I wonder if maybe you could start with that one and then we could talk about the consultations.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
Right.
I may be addressing a bit of a thorny issue, but there have been some huge changes in the structure of Environment Canada and the way its departments are aligned. Keeping in mind that the CEPA review was supposed to have started almost a year ago, I think the bureaucracy was encouraged to focus on simple tinkering, because they knew they would be consumed with other changes in the department.
And frankly, I'm not convinced that the act does not need a real review.
May 10th, 2006 / 4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I know you're being delicate, but I need to understand it a little better, because the challenge that we have, again, is that.... When we were reviewing climate change the last time--and committee members who were here will remember--official after official from the department came forward, especially prior to the numbers being released on how much we were breaking our levels of greenhouse gas, suggesting the reviews had been done. And it was only when we got auditors' reports and other things that we were actually able to break through that. I'm worried about facing the same challenge. CEPA looks like a great act; sounds great. Canadians don't know what it is, but they have some sort of idea that it's well in hand.
You're suggesting there's something else at play, and as best you can.... Is it simply a funding question? Is it a realignment of department heads?
Mr. Chair, I'll just indicate that the witness has nodded his head in affirmation.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Member of CEN, ENGO Delegate, Great Lakes United
I think the bureaucracy was given some pretty clear speaking notes about a year ago on what was going to happen, and they continue to carry those through. That's my honest and humble opinion.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. I'm trying to respect your own life, and we're all trying to get things done.
Environment Canada has been going out and doing consultations. Are they thorough enough? Is that enough?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Health and Environment, Pollution Watch
I went to one of them. I have a little bit of a sense that they did go across the country. I'm not sure to what extent they reached the sectors that we would think they would need to reach; I can't tell you. The importance, of course, with consultation is always whether it's being done because it's an obligation or because what comes out of the consultation is going to be seriously considered and seriously input into their decisions on what needs to be changed.
That, I think, we're going to see--whether what's presented reflects what they have heard across the country.