Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - November 23, 2006
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 23, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:42 a.m. to review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, c. 33) pursuant to section 343(1) of the said act.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: I will call the meeting to order. Good morning. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Over the last few months the committee has held a number of scoping meetings on of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. We have decided to examine that sprawling act by taking examples of a couple of items and finding out how the act deals with them.
Today we are concerned with the question of mercury. Appearing before us is Ms. Linda Duncan, an international consultant in environmental law and policy. We had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Duncan when the committee visited Edmonton last year.
My name is Tommy Banks, I am a senator from Alberta and I have the honour of chairing the committee. Before we begin I would like to introduce members of the committee.
Senator Ethel Cochrane is the deputy chairman of our committee. She is from Newfoundland and Labrador. She holds a master's degree in education from St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and she also serves on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and on the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Willie Adams is from Nunavut and was appointed to the Senate in 1977. He is an electrician and businessman by trade, and his entrepreneurial ventures have included serving as owner of Kudlik Electric, Kudlik Construction, Polar Cave Investments and the Nanuq Inn at Rankin Inlet. He also serves as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans as well as on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
Senator David Angus is from Montreal. He is a lawyer with an extensive record of community involvement and is currently a senior partner of the Montreal office of Stikeman Elliott. He is also deputy chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
Senator Lorna Milne from Ontario is the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In the past, Senator Milne has taken an interest in the legalization of hemp as an industrial crop and has opposed the use of bovine growth hormones used to stimulate milk production. More recently Senator Milne has taken an interest in the release of the post-1901 census information and genetically modified foods.
Senator Claudette Tardif is from Alberta. She has long been recognized as one of Canada's foremost advocates and defenders of minority, linguistic and cultural rights and for her considerable contribution to both secondary and post- secondary education. She was appointed to the Senate in 2005 and hit the ground running. She is currently a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures, and the Rights of Parliament.
Ms. Duncan, you have floor.
Linda F. Duncan, as an individual: In addition to the brief I sent earlier this week, I also provided additional background materials that I encourage you to take a look at in your deliberations. The first of those is the regulation on Alberta mercury from coal-fired power plants. I am proud to say I played a very big part in getting that enacted. It serves as the perfect model for the federal regulation and I will make a case for that in a few minutes. Unfortunately we both had trouble downloading the document from the Queen's printer site, for which I have chastised them, and so I have brought a hard copy that will be provided to the committee.
Second, I am also delighted that, as a result of the five-year review process we had in Alberta, the Government of Alberta was persuaded to issue what is called the hot spots protocol. You have been given a copy of that. That protocol is very important. It is based on the fact that coal-fired power production in Alberta is concentrated in one area, the Wabamun Lake area. That is of concern because, due to its nature as a bioaccumulating neurotoxin, mercury can concentrate in one geographic area.
We had a multi-stakeholder committee, involving the federal and provincial governments, industry and the public, and the government agreed to issue this protocol. It says that if four triggers occur then immediate action must be taken to address the situation. One of those triggers is any new, peer-reviewed science that indicates there may be a problem for health or environment. Based on the precautionary principle, the government has to immediately trigger a committee and initiate action. That is another interesting model document to consider for use under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, and in other federal legislation.
I have also provided a copy of a review that the Government of Alberta commissioned from me. It summarizes all of the legislative and regulatory initiatives in the United States and Canada on regulating mercury from coal-fired power plants. It gives a good cursory overview. It is at least a year out of date. The only update would be that there is now even more legislation in the United States. This review also summarizes all of Canada's international obligations and the bilateral and trilateral agreements we have signed to reduce mercury from coal-fired power.
The fourth document, which has just been provided to you today, is a study that my organization, the Wabamun Lake organization, commissioned. I am sure you have heard of Dr. David Schindler, a renowned Canadian scientist. We commissioned some of his associates to expand their work. Dr. Schindler and his associates have been doing work in Alberta and across Canada to see if they can track where heavy metals are coming from and where they are being taken up in the environment, in fisheries and in waterfowl. My organization commissioned them to do intensive work at Wabamun Lake. They did 100-year core samples. This peer-reviewed report, now published in the Journal of Paleolimnology, documents that since the start-up of the first coal-fired power plants in Alberta, the mercury levels have been rising in the local environment.
I thought those documents would all be of use to you. A final piece I did not provide to you, because it is quite large, can be reviewed by those of you who want to delve deeper. I and Dr. Tim Lambert, who I understand appeared before you, participated in a review before a body called the Clean Air Strategic Alliance. I presented before you with that organization when you were in Alberta. The provincial Minister of the Environment asked us to come up with a better way to manage air emissions from the electricity sector in Alberta. That is a code for coal-fired power, because the vast majority of electricity in Alberta is coal-fired. Three years after that review, the end result was that we proposed a whole new framework, which included an emission trading regime for NOx and SOx. There is now a regulation in place. I give full credit to Alberta. When they decide to do something they do a good job. Another outcome was a recommendation that there be a regulation for mercury, and that is the regulation that I provided to you today.
This document is also useful, as well as the supplemental reports, which are all available on the Clean Air Strategic Alliance website. Those include modelling of the costing of what it would cost to actually reduce the pollutants. Because we did that thorough work it became clear that it would only cost $1.20 per megawatt to reduce mercury substantively. We got the government onside and passed the regulation.
That is a background briefing for why regulating mercury is a reasonable activity in Canada.
Why do I care? The single largest source of industrial mercury in Canada is on my lake, Wabamun Lake. I participated in that review, and as a result I have become very concerned about the lack of attention at the federal and provincial levels to reduce this neurotoxin.
As I point out in my brief, Canada is already obligated under international law to take serious action to reduce industrial mercury, including from coal-fired power plants. That report gives you a long list of all the international laws and agreements to which we have signed on. Through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation based in Montreal, where I used to work, Canada, along with the United States and Mexico, also signed an undertaking to move expeditiously on reducing the amount of industrial mercury.
We have pre-existing obligations. In fact, our legal obligation to reduce industrial mercury came into place in December 2003, well before Kyoto. Yet, we are not hearing any intention at the federal level about getting serious about taking action on our international obligations. There we are. We have another example where we have mud in our face. We rush to the table to sign, rush to the table to ratify, and then do nothing.
The federal government already has a very clear mandate under federal legislation to regulate mercury. That is the very purpose and intent of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I know that because I was part of the team way back in the mid-1980s that pressured the federal government to enact a very strong law. We have a strong law. There are very clear powers under that act.
In addition, under that act, the federal government has the power to designate substances it believes cause a serious risk to health and the environment. As far back as 1988, the federal government made the decision to designate mercury. Again, a few years later, they committed to take action through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME. Still, what has the federal government done? Absolutely nothing.
I will not go into the details of why mercury should be on the top of the list for attention by the federal government. I think others before you have talked about the impact of mercury as a neurotoxin and so forth. I am presuming that is already before you. It is all well documented in the reports I have submitted to you. The health impacts have been well documented. The United States Environmental Protection Agency does not ever move to regulate any substance unless it is well documented. A very thick study completed in the United States clearly documents the relationship between industrial mercury, particularly from coal-fired power plants, and impacts on health. There is also an Ontario study, which I understand some of the Ontario environmental groups have mentioned to you. It is cited in my brief.
It is important to keep in mind that coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of industrial mercury in Canada. Therefore, we must closely look at that. From my perspective, that is critical, because I come from a jurisdiction where the provincial government is on record saying that they want to promote massively expanded coal- fired power plants for export to the U.S. If we are even contemplating that or pretending there is such a thing as clean coal, it is incumbent upon the federal government to ensure that that method of generating electricity to put into the international market is as clean as possible. We have done absolutely nothing to accomplish that, except a lot of talk.
In 1998, Environment Canada, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, along with the provincial governments, including Alberta, committed to establishing a national mercury reduction target for coal- fired power plans. They promised in 1998 that that standard would come forth in 1999.
In 2000, I joined that committee and worked diligently with representatives of the industry, the public, and the federal and provincial governments, to come up with a target. That Canada-wide standard did not come into effect until this August. We had more than a decade of dragging our heels on one of the most serious toxins known to man.
I am very concerned about the dragging of heels because a Canada-wide standard has absolutely no binding effect. It means absolutely nothing. It is a nice statement. That Canada-wide standard is simply a precursor, and somebody must get serious and regulate the substance.
Apart from Alberta, which deserves full kudos for actually regulating, no other jurisdiction in Canada that generates coal-fired power has taken any action to significantly reduce mercury from the environment — not the federal government, not New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia, not Saskatchewan, and not British Columbia, which is now contemplating into getting into the coal-fired power business. That is the very purpose of the federal law. CEPA was set up in a very clear way. Where the federal government felt there was a need to intervene to protect health and environment, they could fill the field and regulate. Any province that promulgates an equivalent regulation can simply claim their regulation can be enforced rather than the federal one.
Our regulatory system under CEPA provides exactly for what I am proposing, which is immediate action to gazette a federal regulation on mercury modeled on the Alberta regulation. To fail to do that creates a perverse subsidy for all the other coal-fire generated power in the country. You have a scenario whereby Alberta facilities will be required to undertake to put in technology to capture the mercury. No other coal-fired power plant in Canada is currently required to do that. To provide a level playing field in the generation of electricity, we need a federal regulation.
It is very clear that the voluntary mechanism has completely failed. None of the companies that generate coal-fired power have voluntarily undertaken to put those gizmos on to reduce the mercury. The only place that is happening is Alberta, and it only started happening in Alberta when we issued the regulation.
I also submit to the Senate that, in failing to prescribe mercury reduction standards, Canada is losing face at the international table and with the United States. Some years back, the federal government, through Environment Canada, filed a submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency imploring them to issue much stronger standards than has occurred under the Bush regime. How can we possibly go to them and request that they do more when we have done nothing except in Alberta? Simply in setting the bar and showing not only the United States but the rest of the world, which under the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, is trying to come out with a global treaty to reduce mercury, we need to come to the table with clean hands and we need the federal government to regulate. If our federal government lacks the political will to regulate mercury, what faith can we have that there is any will to regulate any toxin or pollutant under that act?
Now the new federal government has come forward saying we will have even stronger legislation. I point out something that extremely concerns me: this proposed clean air act would actually downgrade the regulation of mercury. The bill that proposes that new legislation would take mercury, a neurotoxin, out of the designation of toxin and designate it as a pollutant. It is downgrading the significance of the substance. It is not on par with NOx and SOx, which can be managed in different ways.
We absolutely cannot put mercury into a scenario where it would be a traded emission, particularly in my jurisdiction where you would be trading from one unit to another across the lake. It is completely nonsensical. I implore you, in your recommendations to the government, if they go forward with any of those amendments, strike out mercury. It does not belong in the category of pollutant.
The responsibility falls not only on Rona Ambrose, although she has a huge onus as Minister of the Environment, but under section 55 of CEPA, the Minister of Health also has a mandatory obligation to take action when any information comes to her that a substance may pose risk to life and health. I would make a strong submission that in the case of mercury, it is already well documented. Where is our Minister of Health?
My recommendation to the new federal government is to gazette immediately a regulation. I am saying that because for 30 years I have promoted extensive consultation with affected persons. We have had more than a decade of intensive consultation with the public and industry among the provincial and federal governments. We do not need anymore delays. The federal government can look at the Alberta regulation, which it helped negotiate. Representatives of Environment Canada sat in our five-year review for the new regime for regulating power in Alberta. They know every detail of the proposals that have come forward in Alberta.
I recommend putting together a good committee, looking at the Alberta bill, adding in bituminous and lignite coal. The Alberta bill is based on sub-bituminous coal because that is all we burn as it is next to the plant and is cheap for the companies. Other jurisdictions use lignite, for example, in Saskatchewan, or they use bituminous or blends of bituminous and sub-bituminous. We need a committee to get that regulation drafted and gazetted, and that provides under law the opportunity for notice and comment. Let us move forward, regulate and kick-start action by the provinces.
In closing, I wanted to add that I support the PollutionWatch brief. There is a need to amend CEPA to impose more mandatory powers on the federal government to act where there is clear evidence that a toxin may cause serious harm to health or the environment. The United States law that regulates hazardous pollutants clearly imposes a mandatory obligation on the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Where they have clear evidence that a toxin poses a risk to health and the environment, they are obligated in law to take action to regulate that substance. My suggestion is that that should not be discretionary. We are talking about very serious substances here. You can easily put qualifiers in that do not allow the government to move unless there is clear evidence, but there are many models of legislation that we can adopt.
Right now in the legislation, both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment are obligated to move towards codes and objectives if they have concern that a toxin poses risk to life and health. I am recommending that we need more than that. We need the obligation to regulate where we have a serious problem.
We are faced with three choices. We either regulate the mercury emissions, or we shut down the plants and phase out coal-fired power, which Alberta is doing. The deal we struck with the generating industry was that if it agreed to shut down its retrograde plants within specified dates that we calculated in a fair formula, then we would require that the industry put the mercury fixes only on the remaining plants.
It is important to know that in Alberta the regulation applies to existing facilities. It is not for new ones. It is quite a different trend. Alberta historically has grandfathered all of its facilities. This law has broken that and said we will not grandfather toxins anymore. All existing facilities by 2009 must be operating mercury controls, and two years after that they have to table proposals to reduce by a further 10 per cent to 20 per cent.
By 2015, we will have 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the mercury being reduced in coal-fired plants in Alberta, or they will not be operating. Hopefully, by then they will go to gasification or better alternatives for electricity. That is the driver.
Looking to the United States, I recommend that you obtain a document from a group called NESCAUM, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. That group is an affiliation of many of the eastern seaboard state governments. They have done incredible research looking at what actions drive greater investment in pollution control or drive CEOs to spend the money to improve their pollution control. They surveyed five pollutant regimes, such as benzene and other substances, looking at what it would take to reduce mercury from coal-firing in the United States. Across the board, it was clear that it was always regulation.
We have surveys in Canada. Dr. Dianne Saxe has done good work. KPMG did a survey in the mid-1990s, and Environment Canada did a review. They found that when you go to CEOs of corporations with a range of measures, the top of which is regulation of a pollutant and the bottom strictly voluntary, across the board, the only time directors of corporations decide to invest money is when there is a regulation. We have the empirical evidence. All that is missing is the political will to act.
I would like to have action now in a federal regulation, and I want a level playing field across Canada. All Canadians have a right to a clean and healthy environment.
The Chairman: The Alberta act to which Ms. Duncan has referred will be distributed. You will all have a copy of it.
I am very proud to be an Albertan today, Ms. Duncan, based on what you have said. Once again, Alberta has shown the way for us all.
Senator Cochrane: Ms. Duncan, what is your view of the effectiveness of guidelines, Canada-wide standards and pollution prevention plans as opposed to regulations in addressing mercury releases? We have heard a lot from companies that have appeared before us, and they are using the Canada-wide standards. I want your views on that.
Ms. Duncan: It is just a lot of talk. You cannot rely on just a lot of talk when you are talking about a neurotoxin. I sat at the Canada-wide standards table, and, in fact, I am still on it. In the last year and a half, we have not been invited to meetings. The public is excluded from those CCME meetings.
I also participated for three intensive years as a volunteer on the review for the Alberta regime and two further years as a volunteer under an Alberta environment committee coming up with the regulations. Until the government signed and sealed that regulation, industry was still lobbying not to have a regulation so that they would not have to do anything. They were still lobbying to downgrade that regulation. That kind of reprehensible behaviour has been evidenced in Canada too long. We need the political will of the government to intervene where there is serious risk to the health of human beings.
It would be nice if the industry came forward to reduce voluntarily the greenhouse gases or voluntarily did not operate facilities that emitted toxins. However, I do not see that voluntary behaviour. That is why we have regulation. Regulation is there to deal with the ones who are reprehensible. Unfortunately, now the entire class of coal-fired power generation, except in Alberta, is reprehensible. We do not see them telling the government, ``We need to reduce our mercury right now.''
I say enough is enough. It is clear that the only measure they respond to is regulation. A regulation does not have to be repressive. It can give many alternatives. For example, the Alberta regulation says use whatever technology you want, but it must reduce mercury to a certain level. We spent three intensive years looking at the alternative technologies, the ones that were advancing and the ones already being tested, and we reached a medium level.
A regulation can be very fair. Where the technology exists nd where we already have a proven risk, I think it is incumbent upon the government to actually impose a binding standard, because that provides a level playing field. That is what says we are going to have a cleaner electricity supply in Canada. We will show the world that we can actually produce electricity in a clean way that does not pollute the environment. The majority of the mercury flowing into the Arctic and contaminating the traditional foods may come from the global pool and not Canadian sources. How do we show other nations such as India and China that they should clean up their act if we are not also doing it? Instead of the federal government actually regulating mercury here, they go off to China and say, ``You should use all these technologies.'' I think we would have much more credibility going to those countries if we said, ``Here are all the technologies. We are requiring them in Canada. We have tested a few and they are working. We encourage you to do the same.'' It sends a totally different message.
The Chairman: It sounded, I think, as though you said ``oppose binding standard.'' You in fact said ``impose binding standard.''
Ms. Duncan: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: I am sure you have read what the witnesses have said before our committee, knowing your background and what you have told us this morning. What would you say to those companies who have told us that they are reducing the emissions by using the Canada-wide standards?
Ms. Duncan: I would say it is a bold-faced lie.
The Chairman: Stop beating around the bush.
Ms. Duncan: To the credit of the Saskatchewan power corporation, although they have not said what they will do to reduce mercury from their facilities, they have set about testing some technologies. I must say you also need to chastise the current federal government, because I have just learned that they have yanked the millions of dollars that they committed to cost share the testing of that technology. Industry has just not voluntarily moved to do it.
Canada-wide standards mean nothing. All a Canada-wide standard means is that the federal and province governments, who share a common issue, have sat down and consulted, hopefully, with the affected industry and the public and said, ``Okay, this is the goal we have, so we need to ensure we reduce this much in Newfoundland, this much in Yukon,'' et cetera. We have been working on that for 10 years. However, at the same time, Alberta was not just sitting on its duff; we were working diligently to ensure that the minute that Canada-wide standard was tabled, we had our measure in place. The other jurisdictions have done nothing. Ontario and New Brunswick promised to shut down their coal-fired plants. Now they are saying they cannot do it. They have done nothing even to start discussing regulations. I am sorry, but I have no faith in the Canada-wide standards.
The harmonization accord was invented for one simple purpose — to get rid of the federal government. That is what the Canada-wide standard is. We have a federal law called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It gives the federal government the power to intervene and set standards when the provinces do not act. Along comes the harmonization accord, which says the government is best situated. That means anybody but the federal government. In the scenario of mercury and neurotoxin, I would say the federal government is the best situated, because we have to ensure that all Canadians have a clean, healthy environment. We have to ensure that our inland fisheries are not being polluted with mercury. Man's use of fish is another federal power under the Fisheries Act. We need to set the example internationally and not contribute locally to the build-up of this neurotoxin or to the contamination of the Arctic.
The Canada-wide standard might have been a good idea 10 years ago, but 10 years later it shows that it really does not have any effect, except in a jurisdiction where you act to regulate, and then you actually get action.
Senator Cochrane: We certainly got your message. Thank you very much.
Senator Carney: I am pleased to see you again and also pleased that you have been extremely coherent in your testimony and very clear on a complex subject.
Our excellent Library of Parliament notes say that the recently tabled clean air bill, Bill C-30, includes mercury as an air pollutant but it remains on Schedule 1. You indicated that it has been taken off as a toxin and added to the pollutant category. There is a contradiction there. Is it listed as a toxin on Schedule 1?
The Chairman: It is now. My understanding is that the effect of the bill that is presently before us will remove it from Schedule 1 and put it on the list of pollutants as opposed to the list of neurotoxins, but I would have to double check my reading of the bill to ensure that that is so.
Senator Milne: That is the clean air bill.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Milne: It is not before us yet.
Senator Carney: The Library of Parliament's question is whether the dual listing will cause legal uncertainty regarding existing and future regulations governing mercury. I want to clarify: Will it be listed as both a pollutant and a toxin, or just as a pollutant? If so, what is the rationale for that?
Ms. Duncan: If I had my druthers, that entire bill would fall. It poses a serious risk. Whether mercury remains on that schedule or is put on another schedule, if the government chooses to control mercury as a pollutant and not as a toxin, then it is a serious risk because we do not know what the Supreme Court will do. We do not know if it will uphold the power of the federal government to regulate a pollutant as opposed to a toxin. I am sure you have had far more cogent lawyers than I come before you to explain the difference. The Supreme Court upheld the Canadian Environmental Protection Act on quite a narrow margin based very strongly on the criminal law power. The criminal law power arises simply because there is a risk to the human health of Canadians. If it is moved to a pollutant, then that is generally seen as a provincial area. Provinces regulate local works and undertakings in the power plants. The rationale for the federal government's intervening is the overriding concern about the impact on human health. If any part of the proposed new legislation survives — it would not really be a new act but would be part of CEPA — mercury should not be designated a pollutant but remain as a toxin.
The Chairman: Our excellent researchers have confirmed that I was mistaken and that the present clean air bill, as it is called, which is before the House of Commons, would have the effect of adding mercury to the pollutant list, but it would stay on Schedule 1. That, however, does not obviate the question that Senator Carney has asked.
Senator Carney: I do not know what Schedule 1 is. Is it a list of toxins?
The Chairman: Yes. Ms. Duncan has referred to the Supreme Court's decision, which was a close one, as to the applicability of CEPA. It is important to remember that the decision had very much to do with the question of whether the act was dealing with criminal powers because of the description of toxins and their effect, as opposed to being someplace else. The worry that has been expressed to us by others is that if the toxic factor is removed from CEPA or from any element or substance dealt with under CEPA, then the efficacy and applicability of CEPA as a regulatory measure will be constitutionally at question.
Senator Carney: The answer to the Library of Parliament's question of whether the dual listing would cause legal uncertainty is yes, it would cause legal uncertainty. In terms of reviewing the law, we have to ensure that duality is removed and that mercury is listed as a toxin. That is the simple way of explaining our job.
Ms. Duncan: Senator Carney, CEPA was first enacted in 1984. If the long series of governments in power since then could not find it in their being to regulate a toxin, I do not believe there is any credible chance they will find it in there being to regulate a pollutant. That is why I make the strong case that we need to keep substances like mercury designated as toxins, and we need to have a show of faith that there is some political will to actually use this piece of legislation.
Unfortunately, instead of spending time implementing this legislation and using it to protect the Canadian health and environment, we review it every five years. I have strongly recommended to the committee to change that review to 10 years and, in the interim period, to spend its time and resources on actually implementing the legislation and passing a few regulations.
Senator Carney: The general public does not make a lot of distinction between toxins and pollutants. We are so used to the idea that pollutants are bad. The idea that maybe there is something worse called toxins is an important point to make with the public and, certainly, with the public as represented by me.
You also referred to the international transboundary flow of mercury. We have heard testimony that many of the problems with mercury are beyond our borders. Are there any international best practices that might be employed to address that? What can Canada do, beyond dealing with its own legislation, to deal with the global pool?
Ms. Duncan: I do not recall whether you were here when I went through that, but I mentioned that in its review process and subsequent development of a regulation, the Alberta government did an intensive review of the available technologies. A firm standard was not recommended at that time to the federal government because industry convinced us that the technologies were evolving so quickly that it would be better to wait a year and then impose a standard in a binding fashion.
Senator Carney: I am not talking about technology but about the global pool.
Ms. Duncan: That is precisely what I am saying.
Senator Carney: I am talking about offshore sources of mercury.
Ms. Duncan: The offshore sources are, in many cases, the same as in Canada. There is massive coal-fired power in China and India, which is forming the global pool. It might be worthwhile to get Environment Canada to bring in Luke Trip, who is now with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. When he was with Environment Canada, he commissioned an interesting piece that shows the flow of the air and where the majority of the mercury comes from and goes across the Arctic. The reason we push for a regulation in Alberta is that there are two ways that mercury will load. A portion of the mercury that is emitted by the plants will go into the global pool, most of which ends up in the Arctic, but a portion of the mercury also deposes or lands locally. It was for the local deposition that we wanted the Alberta regulation.
The same technology reduces the deposition locally and internationally. I am fixated on our requiring that they use the technologies because, unfortunately, if one continues to burn coal, it is the only way to get the mercury out. There are many other alternatives. For example, we could stop burning coal and invest in alternative fuels.
However, we cannot go to the international tables unless we have clean hands. Until we show we are willing to reduce the flow of toxins in the way we generate electricity, we cannot go to China, India or anywhere else and ask them to stop doing it. We have the resources to invest in testing those technologies. We can then take those technologies to other countries.
From my standpoint, that is how you gain credibility at the international table, by showing you are serious about doing it yourself and willing to invest your dollars in testing those technologies. Then you go to other countries to say here is the route to reducing your massive mercury that is contaminating our Arctic.
Senator Carney: I am dying to ask you what you think of the whole clean air bill. Am I out of line in asking what your overall impression is of the clean air bill of Canada's new government, Bill C-30?
Senator Angus: She said she would like to have it defeated.
Senator Carney: That is what intrigued me.
Ms. Duncan: Rather than having it defeated, I support Jack Layton's approach, which is to try to get the parties together. These issues should go beyond partisan tables. I am hoping that at the committee where we will bring together the four parties, they can come up with legislation that will give us the proper timelines to reduce the greenhouse gases.
My interest in talking about that new bill is also about mercury. I am a bit of an anomaly at that table. Pretty well 99 per cent of the people are talking about greenhouse gases. I was shaken awake because the government had decided to designate mercury, a neurotoxin that it still had not regulated, in a lower category as a pollutant, potentially for trading. That is the part I would like to have struck out. I would like amendments beefed up to control greenhouse gases, particularly in the international relations section of that legislation. However, I do not want to elaborate much more than that.
Senator Carney: We look forward to that.
Senator Tardif: You questioned in your presentation whether there is such a thing as clean coal. I was wondering if you were implying that it is impossible to achieve clean coal processes. Second, where are we on spending and research and development for clean energy in Canada?
Ms. Duncan: We are in terrible shape. There was a fantastic article recently in the paper. Apparently, of all the sectors of industry investing in research and development, energy is the worst. Of the energy sector, the electricity sector is the most reprehensible. That gives you the overall picture. An institute based in Ottawa did that study. It was reported in The Globe and Mail. I am sorry I did not bring it with me. It is worthwhile taking a look at.
The other signal to me was the decision in the last couple of months by the current federal government to yank federal money supplementing research and development. The Alberta coal-fired industry was pretty peeved that the Saskatchewan industry thought of it first. They went to the federal government to ask for money to supplement the testing of technologies there. That was great. Apparently, the federal government has yanked the monies in their entirety.
That same report advised that the federal government had committed $200 million or $350 million, something like that, towards the shut down of the Ontario coal-fired plants. Apparently, that money has also been yanked.
Frankly, I think tax dollars should not be spent on research and development. I firmly believe in the polluter pays principle, which Canada has signed on to internationally. I would prefer that those costs are passed to me as a consumer because that provides additional incentive for me to reduce my use of energy that pollutes.
Regardless of that, if we are going to put taxpayer dollars into research and development, I would prefer that it was towards pollution control or finding cleaner sources of electricity and other energy sources. Clearly, based on that study by an Ottawa-based institute, we are failing in our research and development towards cleaner energy.
There is no such thing as clean coal. It is possible with some fixes, either coal washing or blending. Most of Eastern Canada blends coals, which they bring all the way from South America. There is also adding controls onto the stack to reduce the NOx and SOx and to sequester the greenhouse gases and so forth. However, coal is an incredibly dirty, archaic form of energy. It is the dirtiest source of energy on the planet.
The Chairman: It is also the cheapest.
Ms. Duncan: The reason it is so cheap is that we do not require it to be clean. We could instead create a level playing field and take away those perverse subsidies. People think of perverse subsidies as ``we will give you money,'' or ``we will reduce your taxes,'' but the worst perverse subsidy is to have weak environmental controls. You allow them to make money on our backsides.
That is why I strongly recommended and pushed for mercury control regulation in Alberta and that is why I am pushing it for the rest of Canada. Let us get coal on par with other, cleaner energy sources. That way, we can drive improvement and have less coal-fired energy.
Why not go the way California has gone? Pacific Gas and Electric Company is now putting $2 billion into conservation. They do that as a good business practice, because if they put a certain amount of money into conservation, their utility regulator allows them to raise the rate of electricity so the consumer ends up paying the same because they are using less electricity. We need to start using measures like that in Canada. The way to push that, too, is to put coal on a level playing field.
Many jurisdictions talk about coal gasification. Currently, there is a proposal in Alberta to expand yet another power plant without coal gasification. It is all talk. It is just talk. I want regulations that say, ``Sure, you can expand coal-fired, but it has to be equal to coal gasification. If you can come up with another technology, we do not care.'' That would drive the development of better technology.
Senator Tardif: When people speak about clean coal and the use of clean coal technology, what are they referring to?
Ms. Duncan: There are technologies that can make coal cleaner. You can scrub to reduce the sulphur. You can put on fixes to reduce the nitrous oxide. However, the mechanism we recommended in Alberta to reduce mercury will also reduce all other heavy metals. There are many other bad substances in coal-fired. We dealt only with the top five in Alberta: greenhouse gases, particulates, NOx, SOx and mercury. In this report, you will see there is another whole string of substances that we have not even started dealing with. Apparently, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs are another one, as is hydrogen fluoride. Coal-fired plants emit more than aluminium refining does, yet the latter is regulated. Coal is an incredibly dirty source of power.
``Clean coal'' is a moniker people throw out as if to say, ``Is this not great? We can have clean coal.'' You can have cleaner coal, but you can never have clean coal. Plus, we need to keep in mind that we will recover or capture the mercury, but what will we do with it then? The end objective has to be that we need to stop producing mercury. It would be great if we had more and more renewables and less coal, but in the meantime we need to ensure that we are at least not emitting it into the environment.
The Chairman: Is gasification the equivalent of clean coal or only less dirty coal?
Ms. Duncan: It is cleaner, but my understanding is that gasification releases a lot of greenhouse gases. Again, it will reduce some of the pollutants from coal, but you have another problem; there is always a balancing act. The best thing of all is conservation. In other words, the cleanest form of energy is less energy burned.
Senator Tardif: The optimum would be to shut down coal-fired plants.
Ms. Duncan: Absolutely. That should be our goal. In Alberta, that is what we are working toward.
Historically, those plants were grandfathered. In other words, you built the plant in 1950, you run it for 40 or 60 years, and you do not upgrade it in a major way. It is a real breakthrough for the Alberta table to say, ``This is a serious neurotoxin, and you cannot just grandfather these facilities for another 40 years. You have to put the controls on now.'' Unfortunately, the industry has gotten away with not reducing the particulate, which is a serious problem.
Senator Tardif: You have said that Alberta has become a model. Were there extra costs associated with meeting the standards in this model?
Ms. Duncan: As I mentioned in the report that you can get from the Clean Air Strategic Alliance site, we actually modelled. We had consultants do modelling for the projections for those five emissions. We also modelled the costing of the various technologies. They determined that to employ the technologies that we proposed to reduce both the mercury and the particulate would cost only $1.20 more per megawatt. There is virtually no cost. That was how we finally convinced the government that it was feasible.
The NESCAUM group I mentioned has also concluded, looking at pollution control over five pollutants, that, over time, across the board, the costs are always far less than are argued by the industry. It has been documented that once industry agreed to put the standards in place and employ the technologies, that triggers more investment in better and more efficient technologies, so the cost of technologies is always going down.
The Chairman: You said that the optimum situation would be the shutting down of coal-fired generating plants, but that is not a practical thing that we can see in any reasonable time, is it? What would we replace them with?
Ms. Duncan: That used to be the case, Senator Banks. The alternatives we have look increasingly more feasible. It used to be argued in my jurisdiction and others that we could never rely on renewables; that was a laughable proposition. Yet other countries are now requiring 20 per cent or 35 per cent renewable. It is fully feasible.
I am not saying shut down the coal-fired plants right now. I am saying that our objective should be to level the playing field, so let us make coal-fired compete with cleaner sources of energy. It is the only way we can trigger the investment. More profoundly, I would like to see a lot more investment in conservation.
In the jurisdiction from which I come, the problem is that the government objective is not to provide a secure supply of clean electricity at a reasonable cost to Albertans. That is not the objective. The objective is to enable further profits from expansion of coal-fired for export. The only way to ensure that health is protected is to have a binding standard.
By the way, the Alberta legislation was changed to define security of supply for electricity. Our energy board is actually required to factor in the ability to export, the ability of those coal-fired plants to profit better. In that kind of a policy climate, I have no choice. All that I can push for is stricter standards to ensure that that coal-fired power is cleaner. In the ideal world, we would have policies where the generation of power is in the interest of Canadians and is in the interest of having cleaner sources for future generations. Until that shift, the best tool we have to protect the health of our children is regulation.
The Chairman: Sometimes shifts happen.
Senator Angus: Ms. Duncan, it is great to have you here. I remember with great pleasure your appearance when we were on our trip to the oil sands and stopped in Calgary and Edmonton and how helpful you were to us. Certainly, the documentation you have provided today is germane to what we are trying to do here.
In our briefing notes, it indicates you worked for Environment Canada in a senior position at one time. What was that position, and when?
Ms. Duncan: From 1988 to 1989, I was seconded from the Environmental Law Centre in Alberta, which I founded. I was so outspoken about strong federal environmental laws and their enforcement that Environment Canada approached me about setting up their enforcement system. I believe I was the first chief of enforcement. I was in that position for just one year.
Senator Angus: I see your personality has not changed particularly since then. I think that is a good thing.
In your opening remarks you mentioned the date of 1988 in the context of mercury. I want to ensure I understood what you said. It was along the lines that the federal government made a strong statement about the need to regulate mercury as far back as 1988, but not a thing has been done in the interim. Did I get it more or less right?
Ms. Duncan: We need to keep in mind that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is not the first federal act. We used to have the Environmental Contaminants Act and the Clean Air Act, which were folded into CEPA. Many of us believe that was when we first weakened the law.
The Chairman: For those watching, that is a previous Clean Air Act, not the present bill.
Ms. Duncan: That is correct. We used to have a Clean Air Act that had several international provisions.
It is my understanding that as early as 1988 mercury was designated as a priority substance. As I recall, mercury was already designated as a substance of concern under the Environmental Contaminants Act. When they enacted CEPA in the mid-1980s, that carried forward. There has long been a concern about mercury as a toxin. What has been missing is any action whatsoever.
Senator Angus: I understand that.
Ms. Duncan: Except for chlor-alkaline. There is one regulation on the books to regulate that industry and it substantively reduces mercury. There it is. You have a test case, a regulation, and it substantively reduces mercury. For more than two decades coal-fired power plants having been getting away scot-free with no control of mercury. Coal- fired is the only growing source of industrial mercury.
Senator Angus: I hear you. I have been listening very carefully this morning. As I think you may appreciate, none of us is a scientist. We are interested in completing this review of CEPA and we agree that it is very complicated. It is about 37 different statutes with their regulations. It would be great if we could clean the slate and start fresh, but at the moment that is not happening.
We have heard a lot about mercury in the last six weeks. We are amateurs but we are trying to understand. I for one had thought, until this morning, that the story was not all as bad news as you are suggesting. We had been shown, and not only graphically with scientific data and tabular evidence, that there has been a reduction of mercury pollution in Canada by as much as 90 per cent since 1988. We have been believing that, naively perhaps, over the last six weeks. If one superimposes what you have told us this morning, one wonders where one is.
I understand that coal-fired power plants are a bad thing. It would be great if we could stop them today. I think you said that yourself. That is the main thrust of what you are telling us.
Focusing on the last 13 years before the current government, I am the first to say that nothing has been done by the greenest Prime Minister. That is political. We try to be non-partisan. I agree nothing happened in those 13 years. Actually, it did happen. We all must be fair. Would you not agree that tremendous progress has been made?
Ms. Duncan: The thrust of my presentation here is 100 per cent on coal-fired power. Indeed, some sectors moved but, again, they did not move voluntarily, they moved because of the threat of regulation. The chlor-alkali industry did substantially reduce. I am not a scientist, but my recollection is that before the industry changed the process, they were a much larger source of mercury than coal-fired. Once they did change, coal-fired became the biggest source and they continued to emit more mercury.
In other words, coal-fired plants not only remained the largest industrial source of mercury, but they reprehensibly allowed themselves to get larger. They did absolutely nothing to reduce mercury. Sure, they were working on controlling sulphur and nitrous oxide and a bit on particulate, but not much. Nothing was done on mercury. Nothing is still being done to reduce mercury in any jurisdiction, except Alberta.
Senator Angus: That is very encouraging.
Because I like you very much and respect you and your record even more, I want to encourage you to keep up what you are doing. At the same time, I will send you some of the evidence that we have received from other witnesses.
I take it, and I agree with you, that it did not emanate from coal-fired power plants.
You had said, in regard to these plants, that there are three options. You got off on a little tangent. You said the first option would be to regulate them effectively, the way Alberta has started to do, with this new law which you are hoping becomes a model. I am sure that when our report comes out, it will be done the next day.
The second option was to shut down the plants completely. Effective regulation was the first option and the second option was to shut them down completely. What was the third one?
Ms. Duncan: To incent cleaner power. You can use the federal or provincial regulatory power to require substantive reductions. Alberta has shown that can be done without a horrendous cost to industry.
I am simply trying to show that one option is to shut down all the plants. Everybody realizes the force of the coal- fired industry lobby. The former CEO of TransAlta will probably become the next premier of Alberta. Do I think coal- fired power plants are will down? Absolutely not.
The Chairman: To be fair, we would like to have our lights turned on and our houses warmed.
Ms. Duncan: I am not coming here to ask that all the coal-fired power plants be shut down. Would I like them to be? Yes. They destroyed my lake. Coal-fired power plants do more than harm the air, they decimate watersheds. Sure, I would love to have them shut down. Did I present that at the Alberta table? No. Do I think plants that are outdated or have retrograde standards should be shut down? Yes, I do, but so do the federal and provincial governments.
It is not unreasonable to shut them down sooner. We have set target dates in Alberta. There are four or five plants in Alberta and they have an option they can choose in the next year or so: they can use pollution controls or they can shut down. The Alberta Government has said that; either they clean up or they shut down.
The third option is to provide good incentives for cleaner power. One incentive is to make cheap coal-fired power compete honestly. Let us make coal be cleaner coal and genuinely compete with other sources of electricity. That is why I say there are three options. There are only two that the federal government can probably do. One is to impose strict standards and the second is to help incent cleaner power.
Senator Angus: You made a point of indicating that there were federal representatives from Environment Canada at the table and they heard and saw that. You said you hoped we would get back to Ottawa right away and get the show on the road.
Who were the people at the table in Alberta and what were their functions?
Ms. Duncan: I am sad to say that three of the lead scientists in that review have all now retired. Part of the concern we have in the federal government is that we are losing all this brain power.
Peter Blackall, a senior official in the western and northern region of Environment Canada, took a lead role. He was there intensively day in and day out for three years.
Senator Angus: He must have been very frustrated if nothing was being done.
Ms. Duncan: He was frustrated until we got somewhere.
Senator Angus: He is federal, right?
Ms. Duncan: Yes. In Alberta, that is how we do business.
Senator Angus: Let us stay on my question. What are the names of these three people?
Ms. Duncan: Other people were in the subgroups. There were breakaway advisory groups doing modeling. They are all listed in the back of the report filed with cabinet. The Alberta cabinet endorsed this document.
Peter Blackall was in touch with Environment Canada throughout that process. They have what is called BATEA, Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. We tried diligently to come up with a BATEA for mercury, but Peter Blackall felt strongly that we could probably reduce mercury even further. Rather than putting in place a weaker federal standard, he agreed instead that we would say it is necessary to reduce to the equivalent of the current technology described in the report.
The government is obligated to hold a review every five years so that we continuously upgrade. The report that the cabinet signs says that we adhere to the principles of keeping clean areas clean and continuous improvement. The objective is for NOx, SOx, particulate greenhouse gases and mercury. Not only do we have these standards now, but we also will move to improve them. Every five years, industry will be hauled to this table with the provincial and federal government and the public to ask what technologies are being advanced in Europe and the United States and what the costs are. If you build another plant two years from now you will have stricter standards.
The standards were the rules of the day when the report was signed off two years ago, but the report clearly states that we will have continuous improvement. That was the role the federal government played. It said it would not sign off on a standard that could be stronger if it were worked on for a couple of years. The mindset was that there would be a federal BATEA this year or next year. That is why I say let us get on with it and put the federal standard in place.
Senator Milne: You have told us that CEPA can and should work as it stands, but it is lacking the teeth of the regulations.
The Chairman: Are the regulations lacking or is the will to enforce existing regulations lacking?
Ms. Duncan: We are missing both right now. You cannot enforce until you have the regulations. The regulations put the substantive standards in place.
Senator Milne: Canada-wide standards are pretty and nice but ineffective.
Ms. Duncan: There are two ways that the provinces can get involved in enforcing a federal standard under the existing law. The existing law is very good. In the first case, let us assume there is a federal standard. If a province enacts an equivalent standard and there is equal opportunity for the public to demand enforcement, then the province can go ahead and enforce its standard and the federal government will back off. Second, a province can enter into an administrative agreement with the federal government where the province enforces the federal law. Therefore, it is not heavy-handed federal intrusion. It is simply the federal government taking responsibility for the responsibility under that act and setting the tone.
In this case, Alberta set the standard. The federal government dropped the ball, so Alberta did it. They have made it easy for the federal government to say here is what the regulation should be and that is the trigger for the other jurisdictions.
Unfortunately, the Alberta regulation does not trigger other provinces to do anything. They do not have command. The federal government does have the command over the other provincial jurisdictions, however.
Senator Milne: The other half of the equation is that there should be incentives.
Ms. Duncan: Yes, as well as disincentives. The disincentive to expand dirty coal-fired is to put in strong, regulatory standards. The question then becomes whether we want to invest in coal-fired or put in wind or conservation.
On another topic, I found the site for the earlier question about how much was invested. It is in my paper under point 5 on page 10. The National Advisory Panel on Sustainable Energy Science and Technology did that study, which shows that spending on research and development in the energy sector is only 3.8 per cent of revenues. For the electricity sector, it is only 0.36 per cent of revenues.
Senator Milne: Right now the House of Commons is looking at the new clean air bill. We hope the committee will rewrite it in the House of Commons before it gets up to the Senate. We have no say over that whatsoever, and this present government has not shown itself open to amendments from the Senate.
Have you been invited to appear to testify before that committee?
Ms. Duncan: It is not clear whether they will be open to people testifying. I hope they will. I certainly would like to testify.
Senator Milne: Yes, absolutely. Ensure you get your name on the list if it is at all possible. It is still under negotiation. When and if we ever get it is the question.
Senator Carney: I happen to be a great fan of the regulatory process. It is a process that is not well understood, even by parliamentarians. However, some laws say that the act shall be implemented through regulations. Often, we do not really know what the regulations are, or they are not implemented, which is the case here.
Given the fact it is a good law and that Alberta has acted, why have other provinces or the feds not moved to put in regulations? It is not a hard process. What is lacking in the political will to regulate this area, write the regulations, gazette them and implement them?
Ms. Duncan: I guess it is the same pressures that are brought to bear on the Government of Alberta. Believe me, right to the eleventh hour, even after industry signed off on this report, a consensus agreement that we would regulate mercury, industry was still lobbying cabinet not to do it. I give full credit to the provincial Minister of the Environment and the Cabinet that they stood by that.
There is huge pressure by that industry. The coal-fired industry has an enormous lobby in Canada. The only way to supersede that is in the example Alberta set, and the federal government can set the bar.
Provincial governments are more vulnerable to that kind of lobby in many ways than the federal government. You are seeing the full brunt of it on greenhouse gases. Most of that lobby is usually focused on the provincial government because we generally see provinces as the entity that will regulate the environment.
Senator Carney: Not all provincial governments rely on coal-fired. For example, B.C. does not, as you pointed out.
Ms. Duncan: Ontario promised to shut down its plants, and that is why that province did not regulate. Many of us thought we would believe it when we saw it. They have reneged on that, as has New Brunswick, I am advised.
Senator Milne: Then they discovered there was simply too much demand and they could not do it right away.
Ms. Duncan: If a regulation is in place, the industry has a choice: upgrade and keep operating, or shut down.
Senator Carney: Are you saying the reason there are no regulations to enforce this excellent act that meets Canada's international obligations is simply political lobby groups? Environment Canada has not proved to be very pliant to lobby groups in other areas.
Ms. Duncan: With great respect, I beg to differ. I cannot say. I am not the federal government. I am not inside, but I am aware of an extremely strong lobby.
The federal government actually made another attempt through a MERS, a multi-pollutant emission reduction strategy. I participated in that as well. There was such a strong force by industry there against government that they just dropped the whole thing. For the mercury initiative that I was part of, they said it would take forever to reach agreement on multi-emissions. We will just move forward on mercury because it is so serious.
There is a massive lobby. The Canadian Clean Power Coalition is the biggest misnomer I have ever heard. They have been lobbying not to put the standards in place.
Senator Milne: You spoke of a harmonization accord. I have to display my ignorance; I have not heard of this before. What was it and how has it managed to dilute the whole thing?
Ms. Duncan: This is a very important document. I encourage the Senate to take a look at it at some other point in time and actually have hearings on the harmonization accord. The accord was initiated in large part by Alberta for the 100 per cent motive of getting rid of the federal government in Alberta.
The harmonization accord essentially says that the role of the federal government is to sit at the table with the provinces and together we will come up with what are called ``Canada-wide standards.'' That label is a misnomer. They are not standards. A standard means a legally binding standard that can be enforced. What we have are Canada-wide guidelines, a national target, and their purpose is to avoid having the spectre of the federal government under CEPA and other legislation potentially regulate industry in Canada, which they fought for about two decades. Finally, the federal government caved in and signed off on this.
Senator Milne: The harmonization accord is what has led to our Canada-wide standards, is that correct?
Ms. Duncan: Absolutely; that is the mechanism. There are sidebar agreements on inspections and standard-setting. The standard-setting one comes up with the Canada-wide standards. It actually requires that the public be engaged, but my understanding is that through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment they are now excluding the public. It is basically a deal struck between the deputy ministers. I think it is a mechanism to stymie federal intervention where it is needed.
The standard says that where there is a decision that we need to reduce a pollutant, the best situated government should move. For mercury, I am making the case that the Canadian government is the best situated. Mercury is being emitted across Canada; it is polluting Canadian waters, fisheries and the Arctic, and we have an international law, to which the federal government is accountable. Even if one accepts the harmonization accord, the federal government is the logical one to regulate. I encourage you to look at that.
Senator Adams: Maybe my question is a little different. I was living in Nunavut. Senator Carney was still chairing our committee and we took a trip to French Creek, where there are windmills. If the wind stops, of course, we cannot generate power.
If the Alberta government is trying to reduce the coal-fired plants, does it work both ways? I know you are concerned about the connection of mercury to coal-fired plants; but is the Alberta government looking at windmills and other alternative sources of electricity to reduce its dependence on coal-fired plants?
Ms. Duncan: I am sad to report that the Government of Alberta has just imposed a cap on any further wind power in Alberta. It is scandalous. The wind power industry, which includes TransAlta, is outraged.
You have to understand that in the political realm under which I operate in my province, the only tool available to me now to have cleaner energy is regulation. In this document, we agreed to emission trading in NOx and SOx. We wanted to push to say that is fine as long as you do not then allow concentration. The problem with emission trading is that you have to be careful that you do not end up having intensified development in one area while they are reducing in other areas. The government absolutely refused to put a cap on NOx and SOx, including in the tar sands, but they have put a cap on wind power.
That is why some people in Alberta love the federal government. People in Alberta who care about health and the environment were known for the last 30 years to turn repeatedly to the federal government. We need the federal government to intervene because we have retrograde provincial government policies on environmental and health protection in Alberta.
It would be nice if we could be moving more to wind. The companies in Alberta can invest in wind power anywhere else in Canada now, but they have put a cap on any further wind power in Alberta.
Senator Milne: That means that the City of Calgary, which is now generating wind power to run its light rail transit, cannot expand its LRT. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Senator Cochrane: We need to know why, Ms. Duncan. Why did they do this?
Ms. Duncan: Again, it is the coal-fired lobby. We do not have a department of energy in Alberta; we have a department of fossil fuels. When we asked the former Minister of Energy, Murray Smith, to endorse a number of these provisions, he said to his own staff, ``I am not the minister of energy, I am the minister of fossil fuels. I am not in the business of creating renewable energy.''
Senator Carney: The Minister of Energy in Alberta is the premier's office.
Ms. Duncan: The argument is reliability. Other jurisdictions have figured that out. I am not a technical person, but I understand that the problem with wind is that when it stops, all of a sudden there is no supply. Coal-fired power plants take a long time to warm up and get going. The rationale for the cap was that they had to have security of supply and the wind poses a risk.
I believe other jurisdictions have solved that problem. For example, we have a transmission line to British Columbia right now. On a dime, we could tie into the hydro power; but the mentality is always ``protect the coal-fired'' — and we have lots of it.
The Chairman: I have to be rude and arbitrary. I apologize for this but we have a time constraint. I need a very short answer to one final question.
Is CEPA fine the way it is, Ms. Duncan? Does the act need to be amended? Or is it simply and only the case that regulations under it need to be brought into being and enforced? Is the act all right the way it is?
Ms. Duncan: If we are talking specifically about mercury, the act is fine as it is. It is a problem only if the federal government remains discretionary. In other words, right now it is discretionary that the federal government can issue a regulation.
If the federal government does not act expeditiously, I would say amend the act and make it mandatory, like the U.S. does. If there is proof of a harmful pollutant, and it is harming human health and the environment, it should be mandatory that there has to be a regulation. The act would not have to say what the regulation is, but it would be mandatory to act.
The Chairman: Can that be done under the act?
Ms. Duncan: No. Right now, that is the only change I would recommend specifically related to this. Because the federal government has failed to use its powers, if the government does not move expeditiously, the Senate should encourage that the act be amended to make it mandatory that Environment Canada and Health Canada take action.
If they show they have political will now, I am not so concerned about it. Looking into the future, I would definitely think about changing that part of the act.
Senator Carney: Ms. Duncan has said on several occasions that her preferred alternative is conservation. My point is that conservation, which has been effective in British Columbia in pushing off further hydro expansion, does have limits. There are finite limits as to how much you can conserve, given the existing technology.
What is your alternative? The margin is when the cost of conserving exceeds the cost of an alternative source of energy and you have to look for other sources. What is your finite limit for conservation and what is your alternative at that point?
Ms. Duncan: We need a mix, and I only have to look to Arnold Schwarzenegger to find an example. California has a privatized energy sector, just like Alberta, and the private corporation there, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, invests multi-millions of dollars in conservation.
It is unfair to say we all share the load. Why should you and I have to pay our money to retrofit our houses, while coal-fired merrily continues on without the proper controls? I say that instead of continually expanding coal-fired, we should have demand-side management. We should expand only if we need the electricity, and we should require those companies to invest in conservation to help us to reduce our energy needs. You need a good mix.
The Chairman: I know we will be after you with more questions, because you have tweaked our imaginations and you have told us important things. Thank you very much for appearing before us.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: Who made the motion to approve the budget? Will somebody make a motion reaffirming the confirmation of the budget?
Senator Angus: I will.
The Chairman: Senator Tardif seconds the approval of the budget application of $22,070 with respect to two senators from this committee travelling to London with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried, and the meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.