Environment Committee on March 8th, 2011

[Paul Boothe]

I'll certainly look into it. I would not be surprised if a document is showing that we have not made significant progress against the commitments of Kyoto—

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

In your measurement of progress, your last report shows a lot of impact from the recession—in other words, reduction in GHGs due to the downturns in the manufacturing and other parts of the economy. Has that been accounted for? When you remarked earlier on progress made, has that been taken out of the equation? Can you let us know roughly how you weighted for that temporary effect—hopefully temporary effect—of a downturn in the economy in terms of whether that's at all part of what you see as accomplishment?

[Paul Boothe]

Yes, absolutely. If you look at the chart that the minister released with his speech, you'll see a downturn. In fact, our current estimates are that GHG emissions are actually below the 2005 level. As you said, the recession had a significant role to play there.

When we're talking about being a quarter of the way, we're talking about 2020, so presumably the economy, hopefully, will have come back and started growing again in a sustainable way. So those temporary reductions do not have a big effect on our being a quarter of the way to meeting the target in 2020.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That is good to know.

I have a last quick request. Could you table for us...? The estimates we're talking about today contain things like vehicle scrappage, which I understand is being cancelled. It's expiring; it's ending, and so on. I know there was an earlier question, but just to be clear, is there an evaluation that the ministry has done? Some people have been very critical about how this program was conducted by the ministry. Mr. DesRosiers is one of them. Some people have called it a free-rider effect because it was so small.

Can the ministry, having spent $92 million, table for this committee what the impact of that $92 million has been as an additional amount? Also, can it table the reasons why the program is being cancelled when it's had such a much smaller impact than the comparable programs in Germany and in the United States in terms of taking pollutants off the road? A pre-1995 car is 19 times the pollutant of a post-1995 car. Going back to 1987, you're looking at 60 times the level of pollutants. Yet there's not going to be a national program after this year, we understand. So is there something you can table with us or send to us about how the department has evaluated the program and its impact on—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Your time has expired.

Do you want to respond quickly?

[Paul Boothe]

I'll just say this. Because the program is just coming to the end this period—and of course we'll have to wait for the budget to find out what the government is going to plan for the future—we may not have an evaluation of it yet. If we don't, then either the Auditor General or the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development will have one. If they don't have one, we'll do it ourselves. So one way or another, we will have this.

If I could just add, though, the thing is that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time is up, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Boothe, if you....

[Paul Boothe]

Sorry, should I...?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You can just respond very briefly, because we do want to respect time and give another member a chance.

[Paul Boothe]

The German and U.S. programs—and I'm very familiar with those, because my previous job was with Industry Canada—were really about economic stimulus. Our program was not about economic stimulus; it was about pollution reduction. The programs in the U.S. and Germany have come to an end, and I think everyone needs to be aware of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bigras, c'est votre tour.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, continuing with the matter of greenhouse gases, I have a lot of difficulty understanding your analysis. In the chart on your website—Mr. Ouellet referred to it—the calculations were 701 megatonnes for 2009, 718 megatonnes for 2010, 720 megatonnes for 2011, and 728 megatonnes for 2012. These numbers clearly include federal measures. So, I am seeing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

On your website, your chart is showing numbers that include federal measures and numbers that don't. With the federal measures, with what you are proposing, the trend is not toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emission for 2009-2012, but rather an increase. That's the comment I wanted to make.

Next, it seems to me that research is fairly important. So far, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has financed a number of centres, including centres in the Arctic. I'm thinking of the atmospheric research centre in Nunavut. That centre was funded by the foundation.

Here's my question. In what you are proposing today, is there something that is going to make up for the cuts in funding to the foundation? You are saying that, in a few years, only infrastructure will be left, so a building, and that there won't be any researchers funded by the foundation. Has Environment Canada planned to offset the cuts in funding that the foundation is providing to these research centres? It's nice to have infrastructure, but it doesn't work very well if there are no researchers.

[Paul Boothe]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I certainly agree very strongly with Mr. Bigras on the importance of research. We talked about how much research there is going on in the department, and in fact Environment Canada scientists are world leaders in climate change research.

I have to confess that I have to wait until the budget to give you details of any steps regarding funding of external research by Environment Canada, and I apologize for that, but that's the reality of the timing that we face.

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

I have another question about a completely different issue, the St. Lawrence plan. Over the past year, we saw the end of the St. Lawrence plan, an agreement between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada that is usually a five-year plan. In the next few months, the agreement is supposed to be renewed. Can you confirm for us that funding will be available for the renewal of this agreement, which should take place in the spring?

It is important to know that people are waiting for it. I'm thinking about the priority intervention zones. There are ZIP committees, committees of citizens who live along the St. Lawrence who are conducting awareness campaigns.

Can you confirm for us that funding for the priority intervention zones will be confirmed in the next few weeks? And is there any money set aside for the introduction of the St. Lawrence plan?

[Paul Boothe]

Mr. Chair, my answer will be almost exactly the same as the one I just gave.

I'm going to have to wait for the budget before I can talk about financial aspects. I can say that my colleagues in Environment Canada have been working very hard with their Government of Quebec colleagues, and we hope to be able to make an announcement on this issue very soon.

This has been a series of very successful programs over a long period of time. It's one of our key Canadian ecosystems, and we're hopeful that we can continue to make progress on Plan Saint-Laurent.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. The time is up.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm pleased that my colleague, Monsieur Bigras, raised the concern about the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. It's not very reassuring to see, in the estimates, a 100% cut. Of course that happened a year ago, and it is being evaluated. So I can just assure you that many, including me, will be watching and hoping that the minister will live up to his words that he lauds the role of scientists in addressing climate change and respects their work. We hope the funding will be restored.

Minister Prentice, two ministers back, reacted to seeing malformed fish and called for a monitoring report. That report is now among five or six reports calling on the federal government to step up to the plate and take action. We're anticipating that on the 22nd of this month, budget day, that report will also be released and will hopefully get the attention it deserves.

This is my question for the department. A number of reports, including mine based on our parliamentary committee review of the matter and the testimony of numerous witnesses, identify not only concerns with monitoring but the failure to do cumulative impact assessment of that sector on the region and downstream and upwind in the Northwest Territories, the failure to regulate significant toxins, the failure to provide leadership on implementing the Peace-Athabasca water management plan, and the failure to adequately assess and address potential impacts on the health of first nations. We've now learned that the Alberta government has increased its monitoring budget by only 4% for the entire province. So my question to you would be what can we expect in the way of major initiatives led by Environment Canada and its partner agencies to act on these deficiencies?

[Paul Boothe]

Thank you for the question.

I guess what I would say is that based on the briefings I received yesterday, we are on track to deliver the design of the new water quality monitoring system at the end of this month. We'll have to work out the exact timing, given that budget day seems to be arriving at exactly the same time, but there won't be a long delay, I'm sure.

The plan will be to have an externally validated, independently validated water quality monitoring system and to be very transparent about the design of the system, the quality assurance and quality control of the system, and the data that the system produces. The minister was clear that he wants these data to be freely available to the public. My hope is that we will get to a point soon on water quality monitoring where we can have discussions about the policy, but where we all have confidence in the data.

The other thing that the minister said about this was that water quality monitoring is not the end of the story. We and the department are actively planning to implement his direction to move on to monitoring in the other dimensions of environmental performance. Those include air quality, and I'm sure you're very well aware of the work that—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My question is actually not about what you're doing on monitoring. My question is what are you doing in all the other deficiencies that were identified in the review?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has just expired, so just a very quick response.

[Paul Boothe]

As I was about to say, we are moving on to the other dimensions of environmental performance, such as biodiversity and air quality. Those things will be not just monitoring, but implementing the science to improve cumulative effects and to have a better understanding of thresholds that need to motivate both monitoring and enforcement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Calkins, you have the last of the four-minute round.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

I have a comment first for Mr. Latourelle.

In your answer to the previous question, you said that major transportation routes like Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway, aren't charged for people who pass through the park and you said that roads that are just inroads in national parks are. That would mean that folks going through Riding Mountain National Park using Highway 10 don't pay a park fee either. Also, Highway 16 is not part of Highway 1, which goes through Jasper National Park, and folks don't pay any money there.

I would suggest to you--and this is just a comment, Mr. Latourelle--that the section of Highway 93 between Highway 11 and Highway 1 would be no different, from the perspective of the people who vote for me. I'd like you to at least consider that in future, because it does pose some problems for the folks who pay their fair share of taxes in my constituency and who are hit with a fee that people in Edmonton and Calgary aren't hit with, or people coming from B.C. using those other roads are hit with.

There is one question I didn't ask in my last round. Ms. Feldman, you did talk about this a little bit earlier: an increase in your budget to deal with litigation. Can any of you tell us who is the most litigious organization or group or individuals in Canada that are suing the Government of Canada when it comes to environmental action?

[Elaine Feldman]

I'm afraid I can't tell you who the most litigious are. I could look at who is suing the agency and provide you with that information, if that would be helpful.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You don't have that information here today? Nobody here knows who is doing the most suing against the Government of Canada? I find that a little hard to believe.