Evidence of meeting #28 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provincial.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
We hear about traces of mercury in waterways, about changes to a region's aquatic fauna, such as fish that are unable to pass through dams.
Would you still equate hydroelectricity with sustainable development?
4:45 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
Sure.
4:45 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
Yes, as I said, if the ecosystemic implications are taken into consideration in the development of the project and things like that.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Sustainability involves taking care of our present needs without compromising the needs of future generations to take care of their own needs.
Given that no jurisdiction on the planet has yet found a way to deal with nuclear waste on a permanent basis, I can't see how nuclear power would come within the definition of sustainable development.
4:45 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
I also would share that concern about the life cycle of the nuclear option and the problems with nuclear waste management.
4:45 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Biofuels are an exciting issue right now. We're seeing a lot about it in the media. There are two types of biofuels. There are lignocellulosic biofuels, which are taken, generally speaking, from the by-product of food crops or other crops that are non-food and grow extremely rapidly and with very few external inputs. Study after study has now shown that those kinds of biofuels give you a net energy improvement and a net greenhouse gas reduction. With other types of biofuels--the ubiquitous example is corn for fuel--study after study is showing that you may actually be coming out expending more energy than you're saving in bringing that kind of fuel to market. So that, again, does not come within the definition of sustainability.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
I have reviewed your position on biofuels over the past five years and I still do not know if you are for or against them. Your position is somewhat unclear.
Regarding the coal industry, are you in favour of coal-fired plants?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Coal is problematic for reasons I can explain, if you'd like. I think they're fairly obvious. Until carbon capture and storage technologies have been perfected, then coal is highly problematic, non-sustainable.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
Yes, I agree with that.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Aside from hydroelectricity then, there are really no other types of sustainable energy. There is wind energy, but many people in the Gaspé seem to be opposed to this form of energy.
Producing photovoltaic cells requires energy and it may take up to 10 years before these cells generate any power. Moreover, these cells must not break because that results in negative enthalpy.
Aside from hydroelectricity, what energy source should Canada be looking at to secure its development? Is this a feasible option?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
Well, no one is talking about stopping any type of energy fuel source tomorrow. What we're talking about and what we're looking at is a slow and well thought out consistent phasing out of non-sustainable fuel sources, while other fuel sources--including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, run of the river--are ramped up. Couple that with demand-side management, which simply means that we use energy more efficiently and probably use less of it overall.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for Mr. Sadik whom I have been listening to closely from the outset. Does this bill apply strictly to federal departments and agencies?
April 28th, 2008 / 4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
No, absolutely not. I have to disagree with Mr. Newman's statement, if that was in fact the statement Mr. Newman was making. This bill would apply to all federal departments, but also to federal policies, plans, and proposals. Otherwise, it becomes, really, largely another departmental SDS greening-of-government kind of strategy, which would be a waste of time.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
In your opinion, this bill is quite broad and allows the federal government to intervene in areas that fall under municipal and provincial jurisdiction. For example, the possible amendments for consideration include a reference to the following goal: “Canadian cities should become vibrant, clean, livable, prosperous, safe and sustainable”.
How to you propose to accomplish this feat if the federal government does not assume the right to intervene in areas that fall under municipal jurisdiction?
You stated that the federal government would be able to intervene in municipal matters. I remind you that under the Constitution, municipalities fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Under no circumstances can the federal government step in without the consent of the provincial governments concerned.
This bill does not just apply to federal departments and agencies. It opens the door for the federal government to intervene in areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Explain that to me, if you can.
You say that agreements will be negotiated. I understand that, but a provincial minister of the environment may see things differently. I am sorry, but this bill contains unacceptable principles and opens the door for the federal government to exercise powers that it does not have.
4:55 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Sustainability Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation
By virtue of the Constitution, this bill can only apply to items that fall within federal jurisdiction. And a lot of items on which the government makes policies, plans, and proposals fall within federal jurisdiction. As I said at the outset, and as is stated in the proposed legislation itself in the proposed amendment to subclause 8(2), it is with the cooperation and approval of the province that this legislation could potentially apply to areas that come exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. And that's recognized in the proposed amendment to paragraph 8(2)(a), where it says, and this is referring to the targets, “while recognizing the respective roles and responsibilities of the federal government and the provinces and the territories”.
We also have that in the proposed amendment to subclause 5(2): “The Government of Canada therefore, working with the provinces and territories and recognizing their respective roles and responsibilities, adopts the following goals”.
So in each instance, any effort to usurp provincial jurisdiction would run into the barrier of the Constitution and would therefore fail.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Toner, does this bill apply strictly to federal institutions and agencies? I put the same question to Mr. Sadik.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
Environment is a shared jurisdiction between the two levels of government. I understood it to apply to federal institutions, for sure, but I think it also applies to federal functions. The federal government spends a lot of money on shared-cost projects in various jurisdictions. Cities are massively important for sustainability in the 21st century. It seems to me that when the federal government is expending federal dollars in federal jurisdictions with respect to air quality and other things that are part of the consideration--navigable waters, fish, and so on....
More importantly, we want to be able to show Canadians what's happening across the board. What's the picture? What's the relationship between these general goals and the sort of concrete progress we're making?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
You mentioned “federal functions”. That opens up the door quite a bit wider. You maintain that under a tripartite agreement on infrastructures negotiated between the municipal, provincial and federal governments, the federal government could impose standards and refuse to sign such an agreement if ever it felt that the bill's stated goals were not being met.
4:55 p.m.
Prof. Glen Toner
I think the federal government can already refuse to sign agreements if it's not happy with the conditions for the outcomes it's seeking to invest Canadian taxpayers' money in to pursue.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Therein lies the problem. Basically, until such time as the various levels of government actually sign an agreement, it is difficult to spend money on infrastructure, to give you one example.
I will let you respond, Mr. Newman.
