Environment Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

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

I understand what you are saying, but there was an election in the United States as well, and nonetheless, they can tell us something. I'll quote Ms. Barbara Boxer, who is the person in charge of the environment file in the American Senate. Concerning legislation on nation-wide climate change legislation, she says that it is a matter of a few weeks, not a few months.

Why is it that the new American administration, which came to power after the new Canadian government came to power, is able to tell us that within a few weeks, and not a few months, they will be bringing in legislation on climate change, whereas you are not able, first of all, to keep your Internet site up to date, and then, give us a timeframe for regulations on climate change? I don't understand. Does that mean that there is no political will?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Let me just interject here, because committee has to respect our public servants. This is right out of Marleau and Montpetit, at page 863:

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.

A point of order?

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I think that this is not a matter of confidentiality. When the department releases incorrect information, as it did once again no later than yesterday, I believe that as parliamentarians, we are entitled to get the straight goods. The information that is being given to the public is incorrect. As parliamentarians, we are entitled to ask officials for explanations about an official website. In my opinion, none of this is confidential.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

At the same time, if you feel, Mr. Shugart, that there's anything here that.... Usually you're excused from commenting on policy decisions that are made by the government. If there is any information that you feel is appropriate to share, I'll let you do it, but if you want to temper that, you are excused, according to Marleau and Montpetit.

[Ian Shugart]

Thank you, Chair. My guess is that my answer won't be entirely satisfactory.

I accept Mr. Bigras's observation that the 2008 information that is found on the site is no longer valid. The considerations...

I didn't say that, on the translation, but I think everyone understands.

The factors that go into this due diligence that we're doing on the regulations are the ones that I've mentioned. I would just add the observation that Senator Boxer, earlier this week, was speaking about a much longer timeline for legislation in her committee. But I do take the point that things will be moving in Congress, and we will be engaged in following that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

We'll check the blues and make sure the translation is correct.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Finally I get another question under these wonderful rules.

Mr. Shugart, it's very nice to have you here. I have a thousand questions, of course. One thing I would like to focus on, and I would appreciate your answer on, goes directly to the supplementary estimates and to what is budgeted for next year.

Both I and the people who phone me and contact me are seriously concerned about the delays in moving on implementing CEPA. When CEPA was first enacted, the then Conservative minister, Tom McMillan, said that a law is of no effect if you don't have effective enforcement and compliance, and if you don't have the regulations there to prescribe the binding standards.

We hear the minister and his officials today saying, no problem, we're moving along on greenhouse gas regulations, and we're going to start moving along on mercury regulations. And yet we have the chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing, reverse etching regulations, which were gazetted in 2004. And where are the regulations? Is it money? Has it been bounced?

We have the vinyl chloride regulations, which the Senate and House of Commons regulatory committee said we needed to move on right away. They're still not at Gazette II.

We have the vehicle emission regulations. We missed the deadline in December to move forward and update regulations. We're not enforcing the ones we have on the books right now.

The air emission action plan was promised for the end of last year. Where is it? And now there are the regulations to set the binding targets under Turning the Corner.

How can we believe that we're actually going to move forward expeditiously, in a timely manner, to deal with a neurotoxin, which is mercury, and deal with the most pressing issue of our time, climate change, when we haven't even moved on the regulations that are languishing out there on the books?

[Ian Shugart]

Thank you, Chair.

I will need, on some of those specific regulations, to check the status. I don't know, at the moment, the status of some of the ones the honourable member has raised.

I would say that many regulations and enforcement plans that have been developed in association with those regulations indeed have moved forward. Prime among the actions under CEPA has been the chemicals management plan. That is a major undertaking, as is known. It has been funded by the government. In fact the administrative schedule for moving the risk assessments, the consultation periods, and the responses to those risk assessments has been rolling out, and it will continue to do so.

I cannot add more on the greenhouse gas regulations other than what the minister has said and what I have said about the factors that have to be taken into account in finalizing those regulations, and doing the due diligence, at a time that is very rapidly evolving when there has been a significant economic shift in the context. I can only underline the comment made by the minister, that the process is proceeding and the government is committed to moving ahead with that regulatory framework.

But I will follow up with respect to the specific items that the member has raised in order to ascertain where they are in the process.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. The time has expired.

We're just in a short three-minute round.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask for a couple of quick comments from the officials about carbon capture and storage.

I think back to about two years ago, when Christian Ouellet, John Godfrey, Nathan Cullen, and I were at Globe G8 plus 5 in Berlin. We heard from that delegation how important carbon capture and storage is. We heard that to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one of the technologies the world was counting on was carbon capture and storage, and they were hoping that 25% of the reductions would come from that. We also heard that Canada is the world leader in that technology.

Since 2006, the government has provided $275 million to support the development of carbon capture and storage technologies, including $250 million in Budget 2008, to further support Canadian leadership in clean technology. This budget provides $1 billion over five years to support clean technology, which includes $150 million over five years for research, and $850 million over five years for the development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large-scale carbon capture and storage. This support is expected to generate a total investment in clean technology of at least $2.5 billion over that period.

Could you make some comments on carbon capture and storage? I'm very excited about it. The world is counting on it, as Mr. Ouellet and I heard clearly. Does Canada remain the world leader on that technology?

[Ian Shugart]

I would say a couple of things in regard to carbon capture and storage. First, it is not a substitute for the responsible use of energy. It is not a substitute for the development of alternative sources of energy. It is a technological advance that looks to be promising with respect to the carbon management of fossil fuels.

To that extent, given the energy economy of Canada, the United States, and indeed the world, particularly in the major emerging economies, it is an avenue of technology that is very important to explore.

Canada has some particular assets with respect to CCS technology. I might say, without being in any way an expert in the technology, that as is typical with these things, the technology itself is changing. There are hopes that the direction of the technology in the future may indeed be more oriented to the complete use of the energy in the industrial process and the capture of the carbon stream rather than sequestration in underground caverns, and so on, or, for that matter, ocean sequestration, which is an area that I believe is being explored by the Norwegians.

With respect to Canada's leadership, I think it would be accurate to say that we remain a leader but we are not the only leader in the world. Increasingly, I think the nature of the leadership will be collaborative rather than a foot race for any particular finish line.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I want to thank the deputy minister and his officials for appearing at the committee today. We are going to wrap it up at that and you're dismissed.

We as a committee are going to look at next week, the week when we come back after break week. Also, Mr. Warawa has a motion.

What I am going to suggest as chair is that on Tuesday we meet to do our planning and set our agenda for the spring. We have one Governor in Council appointment that was tabled on January 30. So pursuant to Standing Order 32(6) we can, if we want, call the new Associate Deputy Minister of the Environment, Bob Hamilton.

As well, because Mr. Shugart was appointed deputy minister in June and because of the election, we never had a chance to bring him before the committee. We can't bring him under Standing Order 32(6), but maybe we can send a friendly invitation and ask him to appear under Standing Order 108(2).

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, you mentioned that you'll be away, and you've asked me to take the chair that week, which I'm pleased to do.

It raises a question and a concern. If we're going to be discussing future business, in which I have a big stake, it makes it very hard for me to vote on future business or suggest witnesses.

I'm wondering whether we should have a steering committee meeting after all or have some arrangement whereby my hands are not effectively tied with respect to my motion, by the fact that I'm chairing in your absence, which I'm pleased to do but I don't want to box myself in either.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I can hopefully put Mr. Scarpaleggia's mind at ease. I think we need to start preparing an agenda of what we need to do as a committee. I will support his desire to deal with water, as we supported it at our last meeting. It's his passion and I admire that. I look forward to working with him on the water issue. He can put his mind at ease.

As far as the list of witnesses goes, I look forward to working with him. Each of us will provide a list of witnesses. That was the contentious part. I look forward to working with him on that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I appreciate that, Mr. Warawa. Is it possible there might be some differences of opinion on which witnesses should be invited, and therefore we might have to vote on it in committee? If that happens then I'll basically be outvoted.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

What I'm going to suggest on witnesses is that we deal with business on Tuesday and ask everyone to forward their witness lists in by the end of that week for whatever studies we're going to start undertaking as we set out the agenda.

The steering committee would meet to go through that witness list when I'm back.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

When you're back, okay.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

At what juncture would the steering committee look at the list?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'd probably be doing that the first week of March.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The first week of March. As soon as possible.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Yes, as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's when I'm back.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, in the past at the steering committee we went over the list and then got agreement, got consensus at that steering committee, brought it back, and it was then endorsed by this group. That seemed to work well in the past. There's some give and take. We also left you and the clerk with discretion.

As long as everybody's list is respected, and each party has one person represented at that, it becomes very fair.