Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for appearing.
I want to take a moment of my time to address a comment made by one of our members opposite who is concerned that the government is not taking on enough environmental responsibility.
I disagree strongly with that. For example, the chemicals management plan is a very robust undertaking. Some significant progress is being made on that front, and $300 million has been set aside for that over three years.
I think back to 2006 to a project that was very important to me, where $225 million was set aside for land habitat preservation. I believe the first funding announcement went to protect 5% of Pelee Island down my way.
There was $200 million for sediment cleanup, which the Commissioner of the Environment indicated in his updated report in 2007 was a significant Great Lakes issue.
Even though the $1.5 billion ecoTrust may not satisfy auditors because the provinces spend and account for the dollars, I can assure Mr. McGuinty opposite that it pleases his brother, the Premier of Ontario. There is $586 million to help address coal-fired emissions in the province of Ontario.
There are many other things that I think are very significant. There's the first binational funding between Canada and the United States to establish a spawning reef in the Great Lakes for native fish species including whitefish, sturgeon, and walleye, for example. So I think the government is taking on a significant amount of environmental responsibility.
Speaking of the Commissioner of the Environment, I want to turn to his chapter on managing air emissions and the example of acrylonitrile. I think that has brought an interesting point to hand, particularly as we're looking down the road toward the chemicals management plan and further steps, with more substances or chemicals to be addressed with risk management studies.
The recommendation from the commissioner was to ensure that measures are in place to deal with significant sources of acrylonitrile air emissions, but we have learned that there has been a significant downward trend since 2006. The two largest sources of emissions are being addressed; one is federally regulated and the other is provincially regulated. How much more should be done with acrylonitrile risk management on that remaining 1%? I'm not sure if that's the most significant use of our resources, particularly since more risk management strategies need to come on board for the chemicals management plan.
I'd like your response to the environment commissioner's recommendation in his report on acrylonitrile.