Environment Committee on April 30th, 2008

[Robert Smith]

I think I've enumerated the work we're doing on environmental statistics. I hope members of the committee would be familiar with the kind of work we do in economic and social statistics. The final slide of our presentation emphasized the fact that Statistics Canada is ready to help whatever government it may be at a particular time to answer questions about sustainable development with statistics.

So I suppose the simple answer to your question is yes.

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

Thank you. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for appearing. I think we're getting some very good guidance here on what direction we need to take.

I want to draw your attention to the schedule appended to the end of Bill C-474. There are 10 broad goals and dozens of potentially affected areas within each of those. I think you've hinted, Mr. Meadowcroft, and you as well, Mr. Mitchell, that perhaps this may be too many areas to be focusing on in terms of measuring or objectives to achieve. When you're talking about three or four key objectives--we once had five priorities for a plan--do you have any advice on which areas we should be focusing in on or what we should go for?

[Dr. James Meadowcroft]

I haven't seen the schedule. Unfortunately, it wasn't attached to the version that I got e-mailed. So I don't know exactly what those headings are. When I said that a strategy should pick a certain number of goals, I was talking about the preparation of the strategy as opposed to a bill to consider a strategy. You have to cast the net wide, then make political decisions when it comes time to write a strategy.

[James Mitchell]

I would say that the schedule, as it now stands, covers the waterfront. If you were to expect a strategy to address all of this, you would be looking for a plan that was simply too huge and too complicated to be manageable, implementable, developable, measurable.

In the text of the bill, I'm not sure you need a schedule. You could say that you want a strategy that addresses the major sustainable development challenges and objectives of the Government of Canada, something like that. You could give broad direction to what you're looking for, and then see what they come back with. If you don't think the government is really addressing a big issue, say, GHG emissions or water pollution, then you could hammer them. But I wouldn't try to spell that out in detail in the bill.

[Dr. James Meadowcroft]

I don't think this is an unreasonable list of things to consider in the strategy. I'm glad not to see things like rates of teenage pregnancy and a zillion other economic and social indicators. Sustainable development requires us to integrate economic, social, and environmental decision-making. But in the developed countries, we have to ask, what is the problem? Is the problem that we're not making decisions that promote the economy? No. If you look at the past century, our economy has grown quite well. Over the past 30 years, we have had problems with unemployment and so on, but we haven't done too badly. The same has to be said about the development of welfare institutions and income equality. There's still poverty in Canada. We can do better, but we haven't done too badly.

On the other hand, on the environment we haven't done too well. To some extent, the economic and social gains have been purchased by continuing to degrade the environment. It's not necessary. We can make economic and social gains without mucking up the environment. That's why I think it's reasonable in the sustainable development strategy to start with economic sustainability, precisely because that's the bit we're doing least well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Lussier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Meadowcroft.

You were probably in Europe when negotiations involving 15 EU countries were taking place on sharing contributions. How do you explain the fact that the provinces of Canada, of which there are only 10, and not 15, are incapable of agreeing? Is it because of the disparities between the extremes we see in Canada—for example, Alberta which produces oil and Quebec which produces hydro-electricity—are more pronounced here than they are between the countries of Europe?

[Dr. James Meadowcroft]

No, I don't believe that is the explanation, because in actual fact, from an economic and social standpoint, the gap is now much greater between European countries than it is between the provinces of Canada. For example, Norway is now an exporter of oil. It has moved in that direction. On the other hand, Sweden, which is very close by and resembles Norway in many respects, has announced that it wants to have stopped using oil in less than 20 years.

I believe there are a number of reasons why Canada is having difficulty making a commitment in this area. The first is that public opinion is not yet developed enough. Voters do not demand of their politicians that they find a solution, make arrangements and stop quarrelling. The day will come when voters will demand that of their politicians.

I also think that all the constitutional debates in Canada and the mechanisms surrounding that make things difficult. For example, on the energy question, as regards the national energy plan, there are disagreements with Quebec. All of that makes this issue difficult. But I don't think it's impossible to reach agreement. In fact, a solution has to be found. The different levels of government will have to work together and tackle this problem together.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Smith, in the text of your presentation, with respect to the quarterly bulletin, you say that you recently did a study on greenhouse gas emissions from the demand prospective. What demand are you referring to?

[Robert Smith]

The demand for goods and services produced by Canadian industries.

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

So, you're not talking about demand for oil or automobiles.

[Robert Smith]

It could be demand for anything—all the goods and services purchased in Canada. Let me give you an example. We studied greenhouse gas emissions associated with total household demand. Through an analytical data base, we are able to say that Canadians spent $2 billion on goods and services, for example, and that greenhouse gas emissions associated with that money amounted to x number of megatons.

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

Let's come back to my earlier question. We talked about agreements with the Institut de la statistique du Québec. As regards water quality, do you receive raw data from the Institut de la statistique du Québec, as well as data from Environment Canada? How do you combine the two data banks? You say that you have 300 measurement sites. How are the two put together?

[Robert Smith]

As I explained to Mr. Bigras, it is basically Environment Canada that takes responsibility for collecting scientific data from provincial governments. We work with Environment Canada, which gives us access to those scientific data. However, we are not the ones collecting the data; we have access to them. We work with Environment Canada and Health Canada to analyze the data and calculate the water quality index. Our role in all of that is to ensure that statistical quality standards apply to the calculation, in order to be able to say, at the end of the process, that everything has been done to ensure good quality estimates.

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

Mr. Mitchell, in the Schedule to the Act, there is a list of 10 goals and another list with a lot of items. Are there too many, in your opinion? Have you had time to analyze each of those goals? Are they priorities, as far as you are concerned? And, are the items listed indicators?

[James Mitchell]

I don't think a list of 10 factors is excessive. The items or goals listed there are so broad and complex that, if the government were asked to develop a plan for each one of them, we would end up with a Soviet-type five-year plan. It would be completely useless. I prefer to see clearly defined goals that are not as substantive, so that the government can present a policy response in its budget or its Speech from the Throne. There needs to be a plan that sets out some priorities, but not one with such huge requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Lussier.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you for being here.

We are all in favour of sustainable development as a means of achieving a balance between the environment, the economy and social effects.

At home, I replaced all my light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights. I am now in the process of replacing all of those fluorescent bulbs, because I have since learned that the mercury they contain is worse than the effect of an incandescent light bulb. In addition, we are not equipped to recycle the fluorescent bulbs.

Sustainable development is not necessarily easy to accomplish, even for someone who sincerely intends to make his or her own contribution.

As regards biofuels, their production has resulted in famine in 35 different countries. We have created a major imbalance.

Mr. Meadowcroft, do you believe that producing biofuels is still consistent with sustainable development?

[Dr. James Meadowcroft]

I teach energy policy. The title of the course is Sustainable Energy Policy. There is no easy answer to that question. It is possible that biofuels have a role in an energy strategy aimed at sustainable development. But, not necessarily. It's complicated.

The same applies to carbon capture and storage. It may be part of a healthy strategy to resolve climate change issues, but not necessarily. Debate and studies in this area are what is needed; it's not a simple problem. Also, the famine issue in many countries is not only attributable to biofuels.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

But it is a factor.

[Dr. James Meadowcroft]

Yes, it is a factor, but there are many others, such as China's very rapid development. People are eating more meat: as a result, more grain is needed to feed the animals. Also, rising oil prices have meant an increase in transportation costs. There are a number of factors at play.

But people had predicted these problems. Ten or fifteen years ago, they said that a growing population, the loss of fertile agricultural land and global development would cause problems.

I guess I'm trying to avoid directly answering your question.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

You should get into politics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That sounded like a politician, Mr. Harvey.