Environment Committee on May 28th, 2008

[Ian Shugart]

I think the primary work on that was done in the Department of Finance. I think there would have been some work with them. Let me check with my colleague.

The Department of Finance would have done the primary work on that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So you're not in a position to tell us whether the program has been effective, the ridership up or down. Particularly, can you tell us what the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions, if there have been any, actually is?

[Ian Shugart]

I don't have that data with me, but we'll examine to see what we do have.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'd like to come to the third point, the “Turning the Corner” plan. On March 10, 2008, the government announced further details of the greenhouse gas emissions regulations under this plan after what they called “extensive consultations”. What cost-benefit analysis was performed on the “Turning the Corner” plan? Did anything occur between its announcement on April 26 and this March, when the regulations were finally announced? And if so, can you provide all that analysis to this committee?

[Ian Shugart]

Well, let me answer first generally and then my colleague can add if she thinks it's pertinent to do so.

Between the publication of the initial framework and the final policy decisions in March, there was a series of what I would describe as very extensive consultations with three sources, principally provincial governments, industry, and environmental groups, to do a couple of things: to test the responses--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Shugart, I apologize. It's not so much consultations. I'd just like to know what cost-benefit analysis was performed by the department between the time the plan was announced and this March, when the regulations were finally announced. Can you tell us? And if you have any cost-benefit analysis, can you table that with this committee?

[Ian Shugart]

Do you want to comment on this?

[Cécile Cléroux, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environment Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

We did a modelling exercise, both on the economic side as well as the emissions side. This document is already public. It is available on the website. It was published on March 10, on the same occasion.

The full cost-benefit analysis of the “Turning the Corner” plan will be finalized when we have the other component on the air pollutants completed. Then we will be able to produce the full cost-benefit analysis, because one without the other doesn't produce the full results.

The intervention is on the same sectors for the two types of emissions. Right now we have published the GHG part and we're finalizing the air pollutants component. So everything on the GHG side has already been made public and is available on our website.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is that the analysis that was pored over by about nine organizations in Canada and abroad that have had serious questions about the analysis?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Could you please repeat? I missed the beginning of your question.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's okay.

I'd like to go on to my next question, if I could, Mr. Chair, because our time is so short.

Mr. Shugart, $1.519 billion was placed in a trust account last year for the eco-trust fund. How much of that money has flowed to the provinces?

[Ian Shugart]

I don't know the numbers. The Department of Finance manages the process of the trust. A financial institution actually manages the trust and the provinces draw that down for their initiatives according to their priorities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You mentioned that last time you were here. You said before the committee that the trust fund works such that when it is set up it is out of the hands of the federal government. Can you tell us, given that you're the representative for the line department that's supposed to know this, which greenhouse gas reductions are expected to result from this $1.5 billion investment?

[Ian Shugart]

I should reiterate, Chair, that the whole principle behind this approach is that the provinces have many of the levers that are necessary to make the public policy decisions that will result in GHG reductions, for example, in the regulation of the electric power generation sector, municipal transportation, and so on. We in fact—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's also out of our hands then, Mr. Shugart, I guess, if we don't know.

[Ian Shugart]

What we did in this initiative was to leave it to provincial governments in varying circumstances across the country to use this funding for support as they undertook major initiatives, whether it was public infrastructure or whatever it might be. Those are their decisions, and that was deliberate.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand. The deliberate choice by the government was to put $1.5 billion into a trust fund and not know exactly what the GHG reduction implications were. Is that right?

[Ian Shugart]

Well, when the money was made available to the provinces, they would use it for their plans. We know, through collaboration with provinces, what their GHG reduction strategies are. But we do not insist on knowing what particular dollar out of that trust arrangement goes to what particular purposes. So if a province is investing in new hydroelectric development, for example, or in contributing to the cost of a power grid, we don't insist on knowing what dollar contributes to that. However, we work with provinces and can know what their GHG strategies are.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Bigras, you have 10 minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Point of order.

On the issue that was just raised by Mr. McGuinty, the fact is $586 million went to the province of Ontario—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

This sounds like debate, as opposed to a point of order, Mr. Warawa. I know you'll have the opportunity. I'll look forward to your comments on your turn.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On page 10 of Part 3 of the main estimates 2008-2009, we see “Departmental Planned Spending and Full-Time Equivalents”. Among other things, under the heading “Program Activity Descriptions”, we see “Risks to Canadians, their health and their environment posed by toxic and other harmful substances are reduced.” I see there is a drop from the estimates for 2007-2008, that is to say that the amount fell from $130 million to $103.8 million. It's declining. Planned expenditures for 2009-2010 are $102 million, and that amount remains the same for 2010-2011.

Since the government has submitted a toxic substances management plan, I'd like to know what explains this reduction provided for under the main estimates.

As you know, parliamentarians have amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A management plan has been tabled. I find it hard to understand this quite significant reduction in expenditures, when the acts have been amended and the government has submitted a plan to us.

What is the explanation for this reduction? Does it mean that programs are being cut? What's going on?

[Basia Ruta]

These are the main estimates, not the full budget for the current year. Last year, there was $130 million, and this year $103.8 million; that's true. That's not a reduction, but it's related to the activities—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Are these public awareness activities that will—

[Basia Ruta]

I'll ask my colleague Cécile Cléroux to answer that question.