Environment Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Ian Shugart]

It's difficult to answer precisely, Mr. Chairman, because each of these sites is different, and the cost, which is typically driven by the complexity of the particular contaminated site, is so variable that it's hard to know.

I'd be happy to provide in written form for the committee what we can provide, what we know now. Some of it may very well be approximate, but we can qualify it appropriately. It's difficult to answer, because they are just so different, and they will be at different stages and they take different periods of time to remediate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Del Mastro, you get the last question before we go on to another round.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shugart, I'm privileged to have one of the top environmental science universities, not just in Canada but globally, in my riding, and that's Trent University. They do a great amount of environmental research.

I'd like to know, and maybe you could inform the committee a little bit, about Environment Canada's investment in science and how you see that playing a role in our broader commitment toward our environmental plans and agenda.

[Ian Shugart]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a son studying at Trent--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That's fantastic.

[Ian Shugart]

--so I'm interested in your question.

I'll answer broadly. We have with us today our assistant deputy minister of science and technology, in case the members want to pursue this.

Our science takes a number of forms. We have a number of laboratory facilities where very substantial work is performed--broadly, in areas of toxicology and understanding the nature of pollutants and toxic elements in the terrestrial and water and air environments. The reference the minister made, for example, to the air quality health index, would be informed by the science both at Health Canada and Environment Canada in terms of the action of pollutants in the atmosphere and the implications for human health.

There is also science that occurs in other institutions, such as the universities, as well as industry. That is a little more targeted on dealing with particular challenges in the environment. Examples that come to mind are the collaboration with the pulp and paper industry over the years in relation to dealing with effluent from pulp mills and the potential for damage in ecosystems, and the work we're doing in relation to phosphorus loading in lakes and rivers, which has been a preoccupation in a number of parts of the country in recent years.

These are areas of science that are directly applicable to problems we are anticipating or actually observing in the environment.

A second area of activity that is related to science, and we would include it under the broad category of science, has to do with monitoring. This would be monitoring air quality as well as water quality and quantity. We do that in close collaboration with the provinces. There are a number of formal agreements we have with provinces to bring our expertise and theirs to bear in monitoring what is happening in that area. We do monitoring under the migratory birds program and also under the broad area of species at risk and critical habitat, in the wildlife and birds area.

Finally--I know time is limited--there is a broad area of science related to the provision of forecasting weather services and contributing to understanding the implications between the flow of water from the earth to the atmosphere and how that's affected by gases in the atmosphere. Of course, that science is international as well as national, and with the university community and so on.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I might add that Environment Canada is the leading publisher, I believe, of environmental R and D in Canada, and through partnership arrangements, we are at the centre of the five or seven leading peer-reviewed science collaborations in Canada. I think we're justifiably proud, as you can tell, of the science we do in the department.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

How are you collaborating? The minister spoke a lot about collaboration with international partners. Are you collaborating on your scientific research and investment with international global partners?

[Ian Shugart]

Absolutely. I would cite, for example, the International Panel on Climate Change. A number of our scientists in the department bring to bear the expertise and resources they have in being part of the International Panel on Climate Change. We co-chair one of the working groups; Dr. Francis Zwiers from the University of Victoria. Brian Gray is our senior delegate to the IPCC.

There are other international collaborations, but that would be one I would cite specifically.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

We'll start off our third round with Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Mr. Shugart, we have four minutes, I'm told.

Is it four minutes, Chair, or five?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'd better go with four, just so we have enough time to do....

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Shugart, I'm going to take the earlier answers from the minister, which you can't really comment on, as confirmation that the Turning the Corner plan is no longer what it was when it was apparently published. There is no regulation. The draft regulations have disappeared. We're told that everything's changed--the economy, the arrival of President Obama. In fact, the Minister of Transport said publicly, the day of the visit of President Obama, that if he were a Canadian, he'd be a Conservative.

So I take from a series of answers given by the minister that the Turning the Corner plan is not what it was. I don't have any knowledge about where we're going in terms of targets.

Mr. Shugart, can you produce for this committee any analysis that substantiates the government's claims, or plan, or pathway, that it will achieve the targets that I raised with him earlier--the absolute targets, the megatonnage that will be cut by 2010? Can you produce a shred of analysis from the department to substantiate those continuing claims?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll just say again, respecting the role public servants have with ministers and questioning at this committee, that it says in Marleau and Montpetit, page 864, the following:

...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.

I just put that on the record, and you can answer accordingly.

[Ian Shugart]

Thank you, Chair.

I would say, in terms of our approach on Turning the Corner, that we continue to develop the regulations in the context of these changes. So we have, from the point of view of our work plan in the department, not abandoned the regulatory development. As the minister indicated, we are taking account of these circumstances and working through the adjustment of the plan to those circumstances.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Will we achieve the targets in the plan?

[Ian Shugart]

The government's objective remains the 2020 goal, and indeed, that is the position it is taking in the international discussions. The pathway to that goal is going to be affected in flux because of these circumstances. But I would say that in the answer to the specific question about tabling advice and analysis, we would have to take into account the extent to which that is advice to cabinet, and I would be limited by those constraints.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Fair enough.

Mr. Shugart, the Prime Minister gave a speech publicly in London less than a year ago on behalf of this country, and he said he was going to be pricing carbon at $65 a tonne. The Turning the Corner plan that your department produced with the ministers--three of them now--indicated the annual price tag of Turning the Corner was between $7 billion and $8 billion a year.

Can you help us understand what the price tag will be if carbon, as the Prime Minister has promised, is $65 a tonne? In your answer, can you help us understand how $65 a tonne is not a tax?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Shugart, I'll ask you to keep it very short, as Mr. McGuinty's time has just expired.

[Ian Shugart]

What we referred to in the Turning the Corner plan was an anticipated price of carbon of $65 a tonne by, I think, 2018. The complexity of this, as I understand it, is that the price of carbon under almost any plan that is a pathway to medium- and long-term targets is in any given year not going to be the same. It will be a price that can be set implicitly by fiat, it can be a market-determined price, and it's very difficult to project what that price is going to be.

Then that price, in interacting with other economic circumstances--energy prices may be influenced by the world oil price and so on--will directly combine to influence the cost to the economy of any given regulatory or cap and trade system. So it's very difficult to know what the price will be at any given point. Indeed, the whole world--those who are contemplating national policy that would put a price on carbon--is grappling with these same issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Monsieur Bigras.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to the 2009-2010 main estimates and part III concerning the Report on Plans and Priorities. On page 41, there is a table entitled "Program Activity 3.1: Chemicals Management Program“. I was a little surprised to see that there is absolutely nothing on risk assessment of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials in a table giving a breakdown of program activities.

On September 10, 2007, you tabled a regulatory framework with Health Canada. You were to introduce legislation under section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This should have been done several months ago, but this is not the case.

In the meantime, the federal government—the Government of Canada—has announced $9 million to encourage research and development networks bringing together experts in the forestry sector.

I think that we're beginning to take a very specific tangent: on the one hand, we are funding technology through federal government programs, and on the other hand, some departments are not assuming their responsibilities in assessing the risks of such technologies.

My question is simple: When will you table such regulations?

[Ian Shugart]

I want to ask my colleague, Cynthia Wright, to expand on this.

First, obligations regarding nanotechnologies and biotechnologies have not been specifically identified, but the department's approach is to develop tests to ensure that any product resulting from such technologies—be it traditional chemistry or new technologies—does not wind up in the environment.

I invite Ms. Wright to give you more details.

[Cynthia Wright, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief on this.

Nanotechnology is, as the member knows, an emerging technology. All countries are looking at how it can be regulated. We are cooperating with OECD countries to understand how we could move forward, and that requires some basic understanding of how small particles behave. In order to regulate, we'd have to be very specific about issues such as the kinds of notifications, assessments, and studies we want. That work is being done in collaboration with the OECD right now.

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

I understand what you're telling me and that we're in the world of the infinitely small. However, this has not prevented other countries from adopting regulations. I am thinking, among others, of European countries. About a month ago, regulations on cosmetics were tabled in Europe.

So, it's not because we don't know where we are going that we don't need to take action. On the contrary, we need to act all the more quickly. The danger is that this type of product can be directly disseminated into the environment and this could have an impact on public health. I am thinking of the health of workers, among others.

My question is simple. A regulatory framework has been in place since 2007, a little like with regard to the fight against climate change, by the way, and we are still waiting for regulations. Could you tell us exactly when regulations will be tabled, and will the fundamental principle, the precautionary principle, be taken into consideration in assessing the risks?