Environment Committee on May 28th, 2008

[John Carey, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

We have a separate program in the architecture for adaptation science. If memory serves, it's around $2.3 million.

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

That is the amount--$2.3 million--to be spent on understanding adaptation for Canada's particular circumstance under a climate change regime? Is that right?

[John Carey]

Yes.

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

Okay, thank you.

How much are we spending overall on the science of climate change, including the science of adaptation?

[John Carey]

It's about $7 million in O and M, and there's approximately $20 million in salary as part of our climate program, as I recall.

I can get more precise figures. I'm doing this off the top of my head.

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

That's fair.

Has Environment Canada ever done any kind of analysis or comparison with what other countries, say just within the OECD, the so-called developed countries in the world, spend per capita as a part of GDP, or even in total? Do they have some figures on climate change science?

I imagine you have colleagues you work with and consult with around the world. Have we ever looked at what Canada's ratio of spending is like on this issue?

[John Carey]

I'm not aware of any studies, but we probably have done some comparisons. I don't have that with me. We'd have to get it for you. I can look into it.

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

I'm a little confused. In the spending on adaptation, is some of the money spent to figure out what the potential costs of climate change might be if sea levels were to rise? Does Environment Canada spend money on those types of models and scenarios? Is that part of the effort that we make?

[John Carey]

Yes, it is, but the major effort is trying to, as we say, downscale our climate models to provide more regional information, because at the moment they are national in scale, and they don't really help communities to understand what may happen at the regional level. So our major effort is in that area.

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

I'm a little confused and maybe edging on concerned. With a $1.4 billion budget for Environment Canada, with what is posed and what is mentioned even in your own documents as potentially one of the greatest risks to our economy and society--it has been pointed out around the world, and there has been much of both scientific and media attention--where does the directive come from to spend a proportionally very small amount of money on something that is relatively uncertain for the Canadian situation and poses such an astounding financial risk to Canada's well-being?

I don't know if this is a question for Mr. Shugart. Who makes the decisions on spending that amount of money?

[Ian Shugart]

Well, I don't know that the decisions are made in exactly that way, Mr. Chairman.

There is no question that the emphasis has been on mitigation, on doing the analysis and putting in place the regulatory regime to address the industrial emissions. That has been, without any doubt, the principal policy decision of the government in this climate change area. Our involvement in climate change obviously goes beyond that into other areas of the department, in terms of the science.

I think in these areas it is difficult to draw precise boundaries around the kind of atmospheric work that has application to climate change and money that is specifically identified as being related to adaptation. So I think there is always some difficulty with the precision of numbers simply by attributing.

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

And that may well be. I suppose I just want to contextualize some of this.

When we compare that with British Columbia, where the chief forester of our province and the premier of the province have identified climate change as being a major contributor to the outbreak of the pine beetle infestation, costing some billions of dollars in lost economy, aside from the environmental impacts, then even if it's $3 million or $4 million for studying adaptation, the proportion seems completely out of whack. In a few days we're meant to vote on these estimates, to give approval and say that these things are going forward in a proper way.

Can I ask a question about the ecoAUTO rebate? This program ran for a year. Do I have that right? Was it two years?

[Ian Shugart]

Two, if I'm not mistaken.

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

I'm unable to see it in these estimates, as the program was cancelled. What economic assessment was done in the determination to cancel that program?

[Ian Shugart]

I think it's not in our estimates because it was not our program.

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

Was Environment Canada ever asked to engage in the analysis of the value of such a program?

[Ian Shugart]

I think this goes back to the previous question. I cannot share with the committee advice that may have come to the Minister of Finance or discussions that were held within cabinet on the priorities that are made in the budget process.

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

It's just so I can understand that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Cullen, excuse me, we have a point of order.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, this is the second time this has happened, so I'm going to read from Marleau and Montpetit, on page 863, chapter 20 on committees. It says:

Particular attention has been paid to the questioning of public servants. The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their Ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness’ responsibility to the Minister, or which is outside of their own area of responsibility or which might affect business transactions.

Again, through you, Chair, we need to stay on focus. We cannot ask the witnesses about areas that are confidential.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

I'm sure that members will be informed by that quote, and I'm sure the witnesses also are undoubtedly aware of that and will follow it accordingly.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Can I speak to this point of order?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

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

I'm confused by the parliamentary secretary's over-sensitivity to my asking the question of whether any analysis was performed, because on many occasions the department releases that analysis to the public. We heard an answer earlier from a department official indicating to my colleague from the Liberals that it was out in the public forum. I am simply asking, when the cancellation of that program happened, did Environment Canada perform any analysis? If so, was it made public?

This is not asking for some confidential briefing document of the minister's. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's concern and caution over transparency that has arisen today. What I'm asking for is any assessment that was done, and perhaps done in the public sphere, that we're not aware of. I'm not asking for confidential notes.

I think on this point of order, if he's going to persist on raising it on questions that do not mean to ruin or impinge the reputation of any of the officials we have before us, but to simply ask open and transparent questions, it will lead one to both confusion and suspicion as to these random points of order. This is a simple, straightforward question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I'm confident that the witnesses know their requirements and the rules that apply to them in this regard, and the rules the Privy Council Office has--