Environment Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Patrick Borbey]

Our responsibility is to present the government with options. Then, the government decides...

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

What were those options? This is what I want to know.

[Patrick Borbey]

...in the context of respecting the Cabinet process. So, I cannot really give you a more detailed answer.

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

So, I have to conclude that the government decided to provide additional funding without having seen any proposal from you. Do you understand what I am saying? It is a matter of accountability.

[Patrick Borbey]

There is a decision-making process, in government, that is protected by Cabinet confidences and we must...

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

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You submitted a request for additional funding to the government. I prefer getting a clear answer such as that, instead of being told that it will come later or that you are working on it. A proposal was submitted to the government, which probably accepted it since additional funding was provided. There was a submission.

[Patrick Borbey]

What I am trying to explain is that the details are still to be determined since we are committed to work on a trilateral basis. The details of this plan will be determined at the discussion table with our partners.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Merci.

Madam Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I want to first follow up with Mrs. Milburn-Hopwood.

You clarified a point and I want to follow up. I asked a question about what the $8 million was going to and I was told that most of the monitoring is being delivered by community-based monitoring. You clarified and said that in fact that's not the cumulative impact; that's done by somebody else.

So my question would be, how much has Environment Canada budgeted to do cumulative impact monitoring in the Northwest Territories?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

To clarify what I think I said, we've been talking primarily about the community-based cumulative impact monitoring. But the data we collect for all sorts of other reasons--for research purposes, monitoring of weather, monitoring of climate, all sorts of things--can be useful in doing an assessment of whether a particular development, or a series of developments, has made an impact or not.

It would be very hard to come up with the specific numbers, because there's a whole series of data, and the scientists will go at it and look at data that might come from this focus--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just want to know if there's a specific allocation in the budget this year for additional money in Environment Canada to do cumulative impact monitoring in the north. It's a simple question.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

We wouldn't define it specifically that way. We don't have a budget item that says “cumulative impact is this amount of money”. But there will be a variety of programs that would contribute to that goal.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. Thanks.

The Auditor General might like to respond to this, but perhaps the department representatives could speak to this. The report talks about regulating, monitoring, enforcing, and assessing environmental impacts on the Northwest Territories, but doesn't necessarily specifically talk about also regulating, assessing, and monitoring impacts, including cumulative impacts, of sources of external pollution.

The parliamentary secretary referenced the buildup of heavy metals in the Arctic, which I'm well aware of from my work at the CEC, and Mr. Vaughan would be as well, but there is also a growing accumulation of emissions coming from activities in northern Alberta, and if the tar sands pick up in Saskatchewan.... Downwind of the tar sands, we've received information, a review of oil sands and water, a submission of information. I'm wondering if Ms. Fraser would like to respond to that and if that's an aspect they considered or might want to look at if it wasn't specifically looked at.

But I'd like to hear from the agencies. Do they regularly intervene in tar sands applications, for example, like, say, the site C dam that's being expanded? We heard witnesses from the Northwest Territories to that effect: first nations are very concerned about the potential and growing level of pollutants, both airborne and waterborne, through the Mackenzie Basin region.

[Patrick Borbey]

I can share a couple of elements with you.

First of all, I talked a little bit about the Northwest Territories water strategy that we've jointly developed with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Miltenberger testified and he was very concerned. He was the one who raised the issue.

[Patrick Borbey]

Okay. So we have developed this jointly and I think, again, Mr. Miltenberger was an important partner in that exercise.

We also have a program called the northern contaminants program, which monitors the presence of contaminants throughout the north, including in the food chain. In the past, we've used that program to be able to help build a consensus, first with the Arctic Council countries, the circumpolar countries, and then after that with the UN, a consensus that we needed to reduce the presence or the emission of certain pollutants. So, for example, on persistent organic pollutants, there was a convention that was adopted as a direct result of our--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. I'm not asking about the international emissions. I'm asking about emissions generated in Canada.

[Patrick Borbey]

They come from everywhere. Yes. No, these conventions cover all countries. Right now we're working on a convention for mercury, using the same kind of process, working through the Arctic Council and doing some good science through our program. That's the approach that we take. It's an example. That mercury can come from pretty well anywhere, whether it's Canada or elsewhere internationally.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But my question was, do Indian Affairs and Environment Canada intervene in projects that occur south of the Northwest Territories that can potentially impact the Northwest Territories and have a cumulative impact?

[Patrick Borbey]

I'm not aware of any interventions of that nature.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

Environment Canada...?

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

In the environmental assessment process--and the environmental process can be a provincial, federal, or sometimes a joint process--Environment Canada scientists quite often are asked to appear as expert witnesses. We would bring our science and we would indicate what we feel the likely impact of a particular development would be. So we certainly intervene and participate in the environmental assessment process to bring the science to the table.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

And is that seen as part of the cumulative monitoring--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Batting cleanup with the last question of the day is Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to change the channel as my good friend, Mr. Woodworth, did, focusing on some positive things that are happening. There are a lot of positive things. I thank him for reminding us of that.

In that vein, Commissioner Vaughan and Auditor General Fraser brought to our attention the point that there is long-range transport of air pollutants in the north and that is a concern. Our good friend, Mr. McGuinty, brought up climate change. These are impacts in the north.

So on biomonitoring, we can see trends, we can see hot spots, and we can see problems. So if there is a problem, we can scientifically look at it and we can look for a solution, hopefully, and also, there are international agreements, to find out where the pollutants are coming from and then try to eliminate the problem. Could you touch on the importance of biomonitoring?