Environment Committee on May 28th, 2008

[Cécile Cléroux]

With respect to the Chemical Management Plan, there is an increase, not a decrease in our actions. We can provide you with the details on what appears in the document. Unfortunately, I'm currently unable to explain the variation in the figures to you, but some budget items might perhaps explain it. For example, we'll explain to you the one that appears above it, which concerns sustainable consumption, to provide you with the details on the financial figures.

Under the Chemical Management Plan, we are substantially increasing our intervention. We are complying to the letter with the plan that was made public in December 2006. We have met all deadlines for the commitments that were made. We are on the first cohort of products that were identified; we are taking action to manage risks; and we are now on the sixth cohort of products that were targeted to identify measures that could be taken by the various producers.

So you'll normally see an increase, not a decrease in budgets for the Chemical Management Plan, once we've reconstituted the figures so that we can describe it to you.

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

You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but your government announced last Friday that funding for the Areas of Prime Concern (ZIP) under the St. Lawrence Plan would be extended. I saw the news release announcing the extension of funding for the 14 ZIPs in Quebec. If I'm not mistaken, the agreement was signed by the minister on Friday for the next two years. However, the stakeholders operating along the St. Lawrence seem to be very concerned.

I would like you to reassure me. Perhaps I misread the documents, but I don't see the estimates for 2010-2011. Could you reassure me that not only do you intend to continue the funding that was announced last Friday, but that it will go further for 2010-2011. We're being told in the field that the stakeholders are having a lot of trouble planning. Can you reassure us today about funding for the Areas of Prime Concern?

[Ian Shugart]

I'll try to answer your question, and my colleague, the assistant deputy minister for Science and Technology can then supplement that.

According to the system we operate under, it is hard to guarantee expenditures for future years. That depends on the decisions of government and Parliament. However, the department intends to continue supporting this type of environmental action in partnership with the communities.

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

I don't intend to go any further.

If I understand correctly, in the last federal budget, the government announced the cancellation of the ecoAUTO Rebate Program. You must know what that program is. I can assure you that members are getting a lot of telephone calls from their ridings.

What recommendation do you make to the Minister of Environment—which was clearly sent to the Minister of Finance—for the government to cancel the ecoAUTO Rebate Program? Was that because there weren't any greenhouse gas emissions reductions associated with that program?

[Ian Shugart]

Mr. Chairman, it's hard for us to discuss the advice and analysis submitted to the Minister of Finance or to our minister respecting budgetary decisions.

Would Transport Canada and others have been directly involved with that program?

[Cécile Cléroux]

The program was the responsibility of Finance Canada, and it was supported by Transport Canada with respect to all its terms and conditions. So this is a matter that should—

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

But Environment Canada clearly should have been consulted on an anti-climate change plan. Its role, in particular, is to assure us that every policy and, in the matter before us, every program results in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What did the Department of the Environment's recommendation state with respect to that program: that it permitted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or that it did not? I want to understand that decision and know what recommendation the department made concerning that program.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pardon me, Mr. Bigras, but Mr. Warawa has a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I apologize for interrupting, but the point of order is relevant.

Directions being provided by members before us to a minister are confidential, and therefore couldn't be shared.

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

I thought we were operating in an entirely transparent manner and that, apart from the question period, this was an opportunity to question the officials. However, I realize that the parliamentary secretary doesn't view the committee's role in that way, and that's very disappointing. In any case, even if I insisted, I wouldn't get an answer.

Mr. Sylvester, you say in Part 3 of your brief:

The Agency is an ardent defender of the use of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as an instrument for promoting integrated decision-making.

You aren't unaware that parliamentarians have just, that is at three o'clock, voted on Bill C-33. My question is simple: does your Agency have at its disposal a strategic environmental assessment of Bill C-33? It was two weeks ago, if I'm not mistaken, that a deputy minister appeared here and made a commitment to send us the strategic environmental assessment of the bill. However, we haven't received it. I made the same request in another parliamentary committee, the Human Resources Committee, and we haven't yet received it. So this is a third attempt today.

Let me tell you that, after three requests, Mr. Chairman, I'm taking other steps to obtain a document. So I'm asking Mr. Sylvester whether he has, at his Agency, a strategic environmental assessment of Bill C-33, which parliamentarians voted on a few minutes ago.

Incidentally, there's nothing personal in this. I'm angry, but that often happens to me.

[Peter Sylvester]

I would like to emphasize that the Agency—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Sylvester, excusez-moi, s'il vous plaît.

Mr. Warawa has a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Again, my apologies for interrupting, Chair, but we do have to stay on topic. We are discussing the main estimates. We're not discussing Bill C-33.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Let Mr. Warawa finish, please, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Warawa, do you want to finish, or are you finished?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We need to stay on topic, which is discussing the main estimates. We're not discussing Bill C-33. That's a different committee. So through you, Chair, I ask that we stay on topic.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Bigras.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I'm citing the document word for word. The Agency considers itself an ardent defender of the use of the environmental assessment, and I want to see to what extent it is that. I'm asking whether it has that assessment at its disposal and whether it can table it immediately.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Bigras, I'm going to allow your question and ask the witness to answer it. Your time will then be up, and we'll continue with Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Sylvester.

[Peter Sylvester]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Agency's role as an ardent defender, which we talk about in the document, consists in this: we carry on a lot of promotional and training activities, but we do not monitor compliance or control of their implementation. We also do our best to conduct research in this field.

To answer your question as to whether we are in possession of the document, I don't know, but I can inquire. However, even if we had it, I believe it would be treated as a confidential cabinet document. We therefore would not be able to table it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sylvester.

Mr. Cullen, you have ten minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to our witnesses today.

Just to clear this up, because we've had some confusion over the years, are there any outstanding moneys that were owing to the United Nations climate change protocol?

[Ian Shugart]

To the very best of my knowledge, Chair, no, there weren't.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's perhaps a good qualifier of past experiences.

I would like to spend some time on the adaptation spending. I want to start with the science. How much are we spending, under the current estimates, on climate science, on the understanding and knowledge of climate change?

[Ian Shugart]

I'll ask our ADM of science and technology to deal with that.