Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Good morning, colleagues and visitors, and thank you for being with us today. We have two important meetings. In the first hour, we will be hearing about ozone from Ms. Karen Dodds and Mr. Lin.

You have presentation time of up to 10 minutes and then we will have some questions. Because we have two meetings back to back, I will be quite strict on the timeframes in both rounds of questioning.

Ms. Dodds, you may proceed.

[Dr. Karen Dodds, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to discuss Environment Canada's plans for ozone monitoring.

With me today is Dr. Charles Lin, who holds a Ph.D. in meteorology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He's had a distinguished career as an academic researcher at both the University of Toronto and McGill. At McGill, he served as chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences before he joined Environment Canada as director general of atmospheric science and technology.

Before going into specifics on the ozone monitoring program, I would like to give you some background on science and research at Environment Canada.

To support the regulatory, programmatic, and service functions of Environment Canada, which includes our work in protecting the environment and forecasting the weather, we do a great deal of environmental science. About half of the 7,000 people in the department are involved in science. Indeed, Environment Canada is the seventh largest producer of environmental science in the world, and the largest outside of the United States.

Our scientists do applied research in scientific monitoring in direct support of the department's mission. That's how we prioritize our science and research and how we allocate our resources. We don't do curiosity-based research, as many academic researchers do.

This brings me to ozone monitoring.

First, despite what you may have read, Environment Canada has made no changes to ozone monitoring.

We are planning to make some changes, because we believe we can do so in a way that's consistent with our mandate and makes better use of taxpayers' dollars. I understand that a number of academic scientists use the data we currently collect to support their research, and we're very happy to share our data. But the needs and interests of academic research cannot be the determining factor in how we allocate and use our scientific resources. Much of the work our scientists do is in collaboration with other scientists in Canada and around the world. Our scientists are always encouraged to disseminate and discuss their scientific findings in a timely way for the public good. This is demonstrated on a daily basis through the publication of their scientific findings in peer-reviewed journals and through presentations at conferences.

Environment Canada is committed to continuing our monitoring of water and air quality, including our monitoring of ozone.

Ozone in the upper atmosphere protects the earth's surface and humans from harmful UV radiation from the sun by absorbing radiation. Ozone at ground level is a component of smog and is considered harmful to human health and the environment.

The Montreal Protocol, which took action against ozone-depleting substances and was agreed to in 1987, has been very successful. The Canadian ozone science document released by Environment Canada in 2007 noted that, because of the success of the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer no longer appears to be thinning and is expected to return to its 1970s levels later this century. The World Meteorological Organization updated that 2007 report with an ozone assessment in 2010. This confirmed the finding, and emphasized the maturity of this issue. However, both of these documents indicate that there are uncertainties about the verification of ozone recovery and the influence of other factors such as climate change.

Overall, both documents support Environment Canada's position to continue ozone monitoring in the upper atmosphere. I would like to make it clear that Environment Canada will continue to monitor ozone in the upper atmosphere, also known as stratospheric ozone, in order for Canada to meet its obligations for the surveillance of ozone and the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

In 2011, Environment Canada has not reduced the frequency with which it monitors stratospheric ozone or the number of sites at which we take measurements. The monitoring is conducted via two complementary monitoring methods. First, there is the ozonesonde method, which measures the vertical distribution of ozone concentrations in the atmosphere. Second, there is the Brewer method, which measures the total thickness of the ozone layer.

As a result of our continuing efforts to make the best use of the public funds allocated to us, Environment Canada managers are working closely with their scientists to define the optimal and integrated ozone monitoring network for the upper atmosphere. The guiding principles are to ensure scientific integrity; to recognize our commitments, such as supporting the validation and dissemination of the UV, or ultraviolet, index; to maintain critical long-term ozone-trend information; to facilitate the validation of satellite data; and to continue surveillance of ozone holes. This optimization will be carried out with scientific rigour and will ensure the quality assurance and quality control of ozone data.

In addition, Environment Canada will continue to manage the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre. That centre is an international data archive in which all government-obtained observations of ozone and ultraviolet radiation are reported.

Environment Canada is proposing to better integrate the data centre with our updated data management processes. The department will provide staff with enough time to manage the WOUDC at a level comparable to that of other resources. Moreover, scientific oversight of the data centre will continue.

Canada has had a strong ozone measurement program for many years. Many of our measurement methods are now used globally and were pioneered by Canadian scientists. These measurements will continue, but they will be delivered under a different program and data-management model. Let me assure you and all Canadians that ozone monitoring and our continued management of the database remain a priority for Environment Canada and that there will continue to be investment in these areas.

Scientists in our department conduct research and related scientific activities in order to better understand wildlife, biodiversity, water, air, soil, climate, and environmental prediction and environmental technologies. I am very proud and pleased to lead this world-class group of scientists who carry out Environment Canada's mandate and sincerely serve Canadians every day.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss our ozone monitoring initiatives with you this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Ms. Dodds.

Our first questioner will be Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Dodds, and Dr. Lin. I appreciate your being here to answer some questions. There has been a lot of interest or speculation about changes at Environment Canada, especially in relation to the ozone program. I want to clarify a couple of concerns.

My first question is about the two methods for monitoring ozone, at the ground and stratospheric levels. First, there is a question about streamlining. Some think the two methods could be integrated. I think you have already addressed that in your remarks. There is also some confusion about the two points. The media are speculating that perhaps government is implying that we don't need to maintain both of these networks. I guess there's an implication that one or the other isn't necessary. At any rate, there's some confusion about it.

You were reported by the media to have said some things that might have implied we were eliminating one or the other of these important instruments. Could you clarify that for us and tell us how the streamlining is envisioned by the department?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Thanks for the question.

Indeed, the two methods are complementary and measure different things. The Brewer instrument is a land-based instrument. It sits on the ground and measures the total thickness of the ozone layer going up; while ozonesondes, which go up with a weather balloon, measure the ozone concentration as a function of altitude.

So the two methods are complementary. We use them also in collaboration or in combination with data from satellites, which we obtain from other sources, to then estimate, measure, predict, and monitor ozone as it's changing day in and day out, week in and week out across Canada.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you very much.

I want to quickly clarify a couple of these issues, and then I have some substantial questions I'd like to get to.

There was another question regarding a minister's signed response in order paper question 159. The briefing note, which was obtained under access to information, indicated that you had said, Ms. Dodds, that “These methods measure different characteristics of the atmosphere and thus complement, but do not duplicate each other”, referring here to the measures of ozone. That seems to contradict things that were previously said in the media.

Can you clarify that?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Certainly.

In a memo to the minister, absolutely, I indicated that the measurements are complementary and do not duplicate each other. That's in the context of each method of measurement.

The Brewer instrument is required to validate or verify the information we get from satellites. The scientists don't yet have the degree of precision with the satellite data unless they can verify it against the data from the Brewer. With the ozonesondes, again we're looking at different methods. The same briefing note indicated that we would be looking to optimize our utilization of the two methods across Canada, so that our overall measurement and monitoring of ozone would be optimized, and not the use of one method, nor use of a different method, but both methods in combination.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Finally, further media reports stated that you said, “Some of my own scientists are not being fully transparent in terms of the facts in this situation.”

Now, Ms. Dodds, is that what you said or what you intended?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

What I was referring to in the discussion was the number of staff affected. We were in the position whereby we sent letters to, I believe, 776 employees department-wide who were affected. All employees were advised that this did not mean they were surplus. It was clear that 776 employees would not be declared surplus. At the beginning, our estimate was that fewer than half that number of employees would be declared surplus, and the concern we had was about reports in the media that 776 people would be laid off when all the people had been informed that it would not be all of them.

I understand it's a very concerning for anybody to be in this situation. Nobody enjoys going through the process, but it really was with respect to the numbers about those affected and surplus.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

We have some kind of an obligation, through the employer/worker relationship, to inform people if their jobs might be affected by changes. I presume that's what the notice was about.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

Yes, indeed. We had to comply with a Treasury Board policy, a policy that had been developed between Treasury Board and the unions, on the manner in which we treat employees under these circumstances.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for clarifying that.

I want to ask questions about the ozone itself and its monitoring, particularly tropospheric monitoring. The ozone is at ground level, and then there's the first 50 kilometres, and then stratospheric ozone is way up there in the upper levels of the atmosphere. I'm curious about some of the information that's provided for us by our excellent researchers here at the Library of Parliament, our analysts, about ozone production in the upper atmosphere. It's said that UV light interacts with oxygen molecules and breaks up some of the O2s, releases some oxygen atoms that react, forming the ozone in the upper layers.

I notice here that this production is higher in equatorial regions. It seems to me that's what the information indicates. It's like shooting at a dart board, in my thinking—and correct me if I'm wrong on this—and that when UV light is striking the centre of the earth, it's on target for a bull's eye and you're getting more heating of the atmosphere and greater production of ozone at these equatorial regions, but that at the polar regions, where you're hitting the periphery of the atmosphere, you're getting less ozone production. Is that correct?

Maybe that's for Dr. Lin.

[Dr. Charles Lin, Director General, Atmospheric Science and Technology, Department of the Environment]

I think the issue about the polar regions, the colder regions, is that the destruction of ozone takes place at cold temperatures and, therefore, there's a lot of concern about holes developing, first in the Antarctic and, until recently, in the Arctic as well.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

So those holes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I hope we get a chance to ask more questions. It's a fascinating subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Madam Liu, you have seven minutes.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thanks, Ms. Dodds, and Mr. Lin, for coming to speak to us. It's wonderful that you're here, and thank you for your carefully prepared presentation.

It's important to note that Canada is internationally known for its ozone monitoring programs. That's something you mentioned in your presentation as well.

I was wondering if you could start by telling us what the current budget is for both networks that we use to monitor ozone.

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I don't have details about the budgets. The way the department has planned and budgeted changes, with different deputies and different assistant deputy ministers, we have found that it has been difficult, because the budgets for salaries were separated from the budgets for operations and maintenance and capital.

Going back to about 2006-07 or 2007-08, the number of FTEs, the number of people—technicians, scientists, research scientists—looking at ozone has been stable. One research scientist retired this past summer and has taken a faculty position at the University of York. We have two other research scientists who remain with the program and some technicians and physical scientists who have stayed.

The level of operations and maintenance and the level of capital varies a bit from year to year.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thanks. Despite the fact that your presentation was very carefully prepared, I'm still not sure about streamlining. Could you provide more details about what you mean? If you don't plan to merge two networks, how do you plan on streamlining operations?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

To say we don't plan to merge two networks would not exactly be precise.

We plan to continue to use both methods. Both methods are needed. Both methods will continue to be used. You can go to our website and see a map where we measure ozone. You will see that in most sites we're measuring using both the Brewer and the ozonesonde methods. In some sites we only use the Brewer and in some sites we only use the ozonesonde. The discussion point for scientists is whether we need all sites. Do we need to use Brewer and ozonesonde at all sites? We don't currently.

There is also a potential for streamlined management. To a large extent we've had one network that's been referred to as the Brewer network and another one that's been referred to as the ozonesonde network.

A science plan published by the branch in 2007 gave a good vision of more integrated monitoring. You will see that as a consistent theme throughout the work of my branch, to have more integrated monitoring to increase our assurance that we are optimizing our use of different methodologies so that folks are always talking about what results we are getting with this method and what it means for another method. We're looking both at the scientific management and the data management to see if we can have some efficiency gains.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Will you be trying to achieve these efficiency gains by reducing the number of sites, or will you be keeping the number of sites and taking away the number of Brewer sites and ozonesonde sites that are currently available?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I don't know yet, and I know that Charles, working with his team, has not yet come to a conclusion about the number of sites that will remain.

We have made a commitment to maintain the sites in Canada's far north. They were among the earliest sites established around the world. The data from at least one site, if not more sites, was fundamental to the development of the Montreal Protocol. So there is a lot of interest in maintaining that as a baseline measurement, I would say. Other than those sites, we can discuss with scientists whether we need the number of sites we have and a certain frequency. Those are the kinds of discussions that scientists are having now.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

In an article in the Toronto Star on September 21, you were quoted as saying that we didn't really need the same level of monitoring. Could you elaborate on that statement? Do you acknowledge that you'd be willing to operate on less complete data? Or what exactly were you trying to say by that?

[Dr. Karen Dodds]

I didn't say less monitoring. What I have said is that our focus is on the results, and we've been clear that we need to have scientifically valid results and need to meet our national and international obligations. It's clear from the science that we need to use these two methods, and indeed we're integrating these two methods with data from satellites on a constant basis, and we partner with different organizations such as NASA to get that kind of data. But we are looking at whether we need to have the same level of frequency, the same number of sites. That's the discussion that the managers in Charles' directorate are having with the scientists.