Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 11 - Evidence - November 5, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:08 a.m. to study emerging issues related to its mandate; to examine and report on the current state and future of Canada's energy sector (including alternative energy); and for the consideration of a draft budget.
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, guests in the room, other interested parties and our viewers on the CPAC television network. I also extend my greetings to people on the World Wide Web who are looking in on our proceedings.
This meeting is not part of the landmark study we are conducting on the energy sector, but rather a meeting as part of our general mandate to examine legislation and matters relating to energy, the environment and natural resources, generally.
First, I will take the opportunity to introduce my colleagues around the table. I am Senator David Angus, from Montreal, Quebec. I am chair of the committee, and to my right is Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta, the deputy chair.
Next two people are Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc, our valued researchers from the Parliamentary Library. To Mark's right is Senator Robert Peterson, from Saskatchewan. To his right is my predecessor as chair, Senator Tommy Banks. I am sure he needs no introduction to you all. To his right is our newest senator from Montreal, Quebec, Senator Judith Seidman. Establishing himself here this morning is our friend Senator Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
To my left is our clerk, Lynn Gordon, and to her left are two empty chairs and then Senator Richard Neufeld, from British Columbia. To his left is Senator Bert Brown from Alberta. Last, but not least is Senator Dan Lang from the Yukon.
Today, we are fortunate to welcome from the Office of the Auditor General Canada, Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. He is here with his colleagues, Richard Arseneault, James McKenzie and Frank Barrett. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is our Auditor General for environmental matters. His office is in with the overall operation of Canada's Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. I believe the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development have recently filed their fall report to Parliament.
As is our custom, and earlier than ever this year, Scott Vaughan has agreed to share his findings with us and take questions. Colleagues, I think this meeting is the first experience with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for most of you. I think you will find, in this particular case, he is a gentleman with a long experience in matters environmental and, particularly, water has been a valuable substance in which he has taken a great interest in over the years, if I remember correctly.
Without further ado, how will you proceed? Will you make a presentation?
Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Chair, thank you. With your permission, we will make a short five-minute introduction and then open the meeting to questions, if that is agreeable to you, senator.
The Chair: That is fine. That is excellent. The introduction does not have to be as short as five minutes. Regardless, we are here, and ready and willing to roll.
Mr. Vaughan: We are honoured to join you and the distinguished senators this morning. I am pleased to present our fall report this morning which, as you mentioned, we tabled on November 3. As you also mentioned, I am joined by James McKenzie, Richard Arseneault, Frank Barrett, as well as Adrienne Scott, Jocelyne Therrien and other colleagues from the Office of the Auditor General.
[Translation]
My report examines a number of areas critical to effective environmental management, starting with the importance of solid information.
[English]
Informed decision-making is at the heart of sound policy-making. The federal government needs science-based environmental information that is timely, robust and accessible in ways that both identify patterns of environmental degradation and help programs concentrate on the most urgent environmental problems. Until data programs are woven together to track major changes over time in the quality of Canada's environment, we are left with piecemeal approaches to protecting the environment.
The importance of good environmental information is clear in our chapter on applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. More than 100 federal organizations are required to apply the act to projects that could impact the environment. Assessing the possible effects of projects early in the planning phase is a cornerstone of good environmental management. Identifying potential impacts, such as pollution or habitat destruction, before they occur allows for corrective action to avoid or reduce environmental problems.
[Translation]
In half the files we examined, the rationale or analysis was too weak to demonstrate if environmental effects of projects had been considered appropriately and whether actions were taken to mitigate them.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which administers the Act, has not established a quality assurance program for assessments, although the Act requires it to do so. Roughly 80,000 environmental assessments have been initiated since 1995. Yet, because it lacks a quality assurance program, the Agency does not know how good the assessments have been and whether they have contributed to environmental protection.
[English]
Another chapter of my report looks at the risks that certain toxic substances pose to the environment and to human health. We note a number of significant control and monitoring systems to reduce toxic emissions and to check levels of exposure among Canadians. We also note the need for improvements in how risks are managed. Lead and mercury, for example, continue to present risks. New research indicates that exposure to lead at levels currently considered safe may, in fact, be too high, underscoring the need for an overall risk management strategy.
[Translation]
It is critical that the government take stock of how well its actions are working and also consider new research and the results of monitoring in order to protect human health and the environment from the risks of toxic substances.
Current product labelling does not fully disclose the chronic risks posed by toxic substances in some common household products. As a result, Canadians are not fully informed about these risks and may not be taking appropriate precautions to protect themselves.
The third chapter of my report looks at the National Pollutant Release Inventory, or NPRI. Created in 1992, the NPRI provides Canadians with information about key pollutants in their communities. The NPRI is important because it helps to track releases and transfers of substances that can have a negative effect on the environment and on the health of Canadians.
[English]
Environment Canada does not provide users of the National Pollutant Release Inventory with sufficient information to help them understand what the data can be used for and where caution needs to be applied. Environment Canada has taken measures to improve NPRI data quality. However, these actions must be guided by an overall strategy and plan to improve data accuracy, so that pollution tracking and environmental monitoring can rely on the best possible information.
The fourth chapter is my annual report on environmental petitions. We received 28 petitions this year. The issues most commonly raised include health, biodiversity, fish habitat and environmental assessment.
Mr. Chair, I also bring to the committee's attention a chapter from the Auditor General's report that examined how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Environment Canada have carried out federal government responsibilities for land management and environmental protection on reserve lands.
Few federal regulations apply to environmental protection on reserves, and the federal government has taken little action to change this situation. As a result, people living on reserves have significantly less protection from environmental threats than other communities.
That concludes my opening statement. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. I was perhaps remiss in the introduction, colleagues, for not highlighting what Mr. Vaughan's mandate is. I understand his responsibility is for carrying out environmental and sustainable development audits on an ongoing basis, including audits of Environment Canada, monitoring sustainable development strategies, and overseeing the environmental petitions process.
In addition, of course, to his interest in water, which he discussed with me some months ago, before joining the Office of the Auditor General, Mr. Vaughan worked for the Organization of American States, OAS, where he had been the Director of the Department of Sustainable Development since 2003. As we know, the OAS is an intergovernmental organization comprised of 34 member states, including Canada, which works on strengthening democracy and implementing decisions adopted by heads of state and government through the Summit of the Americas.
As I learned earlier this year, you have a terribly big travel schedule in connection with your monitoring of the environment. Are you planning to go to Copenhagen in December?
Mr. Vaughan: Mr. Chair, I personally am not going. We have an interesting collaboration involving 14 countries, internationally. Mr. Arseneault heads this activity. The collaboration is to compare practices on auditing climate change programs. The collaboration is coordinated by Estonia, but a colleague from our office is going to Copenhagen to share that information.
The Chair: Very good; we will begin with the questions.
Senator Mitchell: I thank each of you for being here. I think I speak for all of us in saying we appreciate the work you do, and it is excellent work in a difficult area.
I have a couple of technical questions. When it comes to the National Pollutant Release Inventory, are greenhouse gases pollutants under that regime?
Mr. Vaughan: There are approximately 350 different pollutants under that regime, but I will ask Mr. McKenzie to clarify.
James McKenzie, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: No, they are not. The inventory is focused more on pollutants than on greenhouse gases. My understanding is there is a separate greenhouse gas emission inventory that is maintained by the federal government but is not part of the NPRI.
Senator Mitchell: Are greenhouse gas emissions and their level a feature of an environmental assessment for a new plant, let us say?
Mr. Vaughan: I will get back to you, senator, with that answer. That question is an interesting one. We conducted an audit, for example, of the Export Development Corporation in which we noted that, among G7 countries now conducting project-related environmental assessments, the standard in emerging practice is to take into account greenhouse gas emissions among the environmental assessments. We noted a gap in that practice within the policies of the EDC.
It would be triggered, from the federal government side, as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEPA, in which greenhouse gases are listed among the 85 substances. Whether those levels are calculated, my recollection is that the triggering is a threshold of 100,000 tonnes per year for the facility that is being examined, but I am not 100-per-cent sure. I will get back to you, senator, on that question.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much.
Last week, the TD Bank released a report by the Pembina Institute, David Suzuki and a scientist who is well known in the industry, Mark Jaccard. The report is interesting in a number of ways, the most significant of which is that it makes the point that we can achieve the government's 2020 target of emissions reductions for as little as a 0.16 per cent reduction in GDP over business as usual. I expect that once we start and apply our minds in a rigorous way, it will not cost that much. In fact, I think we will stimulate the economy further, and there will be more jobs created, not fewer, by this reduction. That information was the encouraging part. Perhaps the more discouraging part was that it might disadvantage Alberta. The province will still have tremendous growth, but not as much. We have to mitigate that impact somehow, and there are effective ways to do that. Is that report and those costs something that you assess, or do you conduct your own independent analysis of the perceived costs of climate change action?
Mr. Vaughan: Our office itself does not provide an assessment of either total costs or a breakdown, as the report provided last week in terms of regional effects.
However, to give an illustration of our work, in May of this year, under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, we looked at the government's modeling. The modelling is similar to the study last week. In fact, I believe it is the same consortium. They worked with the federal government in creating their projections. The types of questions we ask in looking at a model are the same as those asked in an academic environment: Is the model transparent; has it been peer reviewed; does it give reasonable assumptions in terms of the parameters and what will or will not happen over some period of time; and are these reasonable parameters or assumptions in terms of different scenarios?
In our audit, we looked at the federal government's modeling, and we came forward saying that in the case of the government's model, we noted some failings. There was a lack of transparency. There was a lack in terms of clarity and the parameters they gave in their projections for the emissions for the Kyoto period.
I have seen the report. We will not audit that report because it is not a product of the federal government. Those things are standard, and people have been creating these models for over 20 years; looking at energy climate models. Economist Wilcox from Harvard created the first one in 1984. This modelling is not new stuff. For Canada, it is new, partly because it gives some regional breakdown, as you mentioned.
Senator Mitchell: Finally, we talked briefly about the other side of the ledger, which does not seem to receive a lot of attention, and that is the cost of inaction. Nicholas Stern has estimated it. Are you aware of any work that has been done specifically for Canada on the cost of inaction? An excellent report was prepared by the Department of Environment about two years ago in collaboration with other departments. The report itemized impacts of climate change to that point, which was startling, but I do not think the impacts have been priced.
Mr. Vaughan: I will give an advertisement and then ask Mr. Arseneault if he wants to jump in. We are preparing right now a report on climate adaptation, both in terms of what the projections are and in terms of what impacts will be either nationally or regionally, and then the costs in terms of some of those adaptation plans.
Are there other examples in terms of other economy-wide costs or regional costs? I have seen different projections. For example, Halifax prepared an outstanding assessment of sea level rise scenarios for the viability of the Halifax harbour. I know the St. Lawrence Seaway and others have prepared cost estimates based on scenarios.
Richard Arseneault, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Two major reports have come out. One was from Natural Resources Canada looking at the impact on the Canadian economy from a sectoral aspect. The information was nothing new because it was based on work done already, but the report pulled the work together. Health Canada also prepared a report on the impact of climate change on human health. Those two reports are the key pieces that the federal government has produced over recent years on the impact of climate change.
Currently, we are conducting an audit, as Mr. Vaughan mentioned, on adaptation and finding out what is going on. Obviously, the federal government, at a high level, is not really involved because adaptation happens at the local level. The federal government is a provider of information and data to the other levels of government and to the communities and the private sector to help them adapt. We are looking at that dynamic and how it is working. The report will be released in the fall of 2010.
Senator Banks: Thank you, gentlemen. It is nice to see you again and nice to meet you, Mr. Barrett.
Almost a year ago, this committee released a report on CEPA '99, which contained recommendations, among which was to find ways in which what were perceived as overlaps — in test this, test that, assess this and assess that; duplication of that kind of effort— should be looked at, avoided and eliminated where possible. Did your audit find any examples of those overlaps and progress in eliminating those duplications?
Mr. Vaughan: I will try to answer the first part of this question and then turn it over to Mr. McKenzie, who headed up the work on the CEPA chapter we tabled.
We have noted generally a couple of things. One is that on the product side, specifically, senator, we have said that Health Canada is doing a reasonable job with their resources in conducting tests in markets and stores of products that may be prohibited or may exceed limits set by the government. We looked at lead, mercury, phthalates and a couple of other toxins. At the same time, they have acknowledged that it is literally impossible to test all products. We have noted that there are products on the shelves in Canada today that are illegal, but Health Canada does not have the power to recall them.
Secondly, at the country level, we noted welcome research, for example, testing the blood levels of Canadians for their exposure to toxins, which is the issue. That testing is critical. It is not whether emissions are going up or down, which are absolutely important, but whether they are bio-accumulative, persistent and last for years and years. The issue is how much of these toxins are in Canadians' blood streams.
Mr. McKenzie: Specifically, with respect to duplication, we did not identify any significant areas in that regard. This area is not so much a question of duplication, but in our chapter we have a few recommendations, one dealing with risk management strategies for lead and mercury, which is, in our view, not so much to deal with duplication but to provide clarity with respect to what the federal government's objectives are in that area. It will also provide an opportunity for the federal government to take stock and identify what objectives it will pursue, time lines and things of that nature.
We also have a recommendation aimed more at the federal government's need to take stock on how well it is managing these issues. That type of a recommendation may allow the government to identify if everything is working, or if there are issues such as duplication or areas with respect to gaps that need to be addressed further. With respect to duplication, we did not identify anything specific.
I note, though, with respect to our audit on the National Pollutant Release Inventory, that efforts have been made by Environment Canada to bring in other jurisdictions. They are trying to reduce duplication by using the NPRI as the key source or the key reporting mechanism for other jurisdictions as well. In terms of duplication, we did not identify anything significant.
Senator Banks: Let us talk about lead and mercury for a minute. Commissioner, your words were that the standards that are accepted now may be too high. I think that is what you said. In the past, this committee has noted that standards are a moving target, partly because our capacity technologically to find things continually improves, so we find things that we did not know about before, and measurement becomes finer and finer as we go along.
In the past, with respect to other kinds of possible dangers to human health, we have found that the standards, for example, with respect to nuclear issues of one kind or another — some kinds of radiation — are set someplace by somebody and many people think the standards are not right — they are either too high or too low.
Can you expand on what you said about the possibility of having a look at whether the standards for lead and mercury, which are bioaccumulative, might be improved?
Mr. Vaughan: First, I think you characterized the situation extremely well. Thank goodness science never stops. Our ability to measure improves because of technological innovations. Scientists continually go back and look at these technological innovations and say, do the thresholds set ten years ago still apply?
In the case of lead, the current standards are 10 micrograms per decilitre. In 2004, Health Canada went back and said, research suggests less than half of that amount may cause significant risks for the development of young children. The debate is whether the level should be 2 micrograms, for example, and many scientists will say that lead exposure is unsafe at any level for young children. Children are not smaller versions of adults. Their metabolism functions differently, and their organs and their cognitive capacities are developing. Health Canada said they would go back and revisit this standard. They noted in our report that they expect to have a reissue of this standard in 2010.
In terms of mercury, I am unaware whether Canada is re-evaluating its thresholds. It is interesting to note that Canada's threshold is different and higher than the threshold in the United States. Whether that threshold will be revisited, as well, is something the committee may want to ask the government.
The Chair: I have something to say on that point because I was not on the committee when it filed the report on the CEPA review. Particularly with respect to mercury, the committee made specific recommendations, if I recall.
Senator Banks: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Banks, are you asking whether the recommendations were implemented because you and the committee do not know?
Senator Banks: It is a moving target.
The Chair: We need to know.
Senator Banks: It would be good for us to know, as I think the commissioner has referred to in this report. We should know this information. The target is continually moving; we are chasing our tail. The capacity to measure improves and therefore, opinions about acceptable levels continually change.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on this report, since I am relatively new to this committee. I am interested in the fact that there was a report submitted by the Senate, obviously after a lot of testimony and work.
There is something I do not understand, chair. Should we not ask for an update every year or two years on the recommendations of that report, so that we can see whether those recommendations have been followed up, or even if they have been read? It seems to me that, if the Senate, in concert with your agency and the various departments, feels there is duplication, there is a responsibility for the various departments to report back and indicate whether they found duplication, and if so, what they have done about it.
In part, we must be concerned with this area in government. Government can only become so big. We have only so much money. If the provinces are doing the same work as we are, then the question is, why, and how can we streamline that work?
I think one witness referred in part to that possibility of coming together. Perhaps, you can comment. Senator Banks raised this question in my mind.
The Chair: Senator Lang, you are right on the money. This issue is something that has preoccupied Senator Banks and me for a number of years. This committee does all this excellent work and produces reports.
This is one useful function of the environment auditor. If we do not follow up, often the auditor brings to our attention the fact that nothing has happened. That is helpful to us. There is much more we could do when we are not doing our energy study or some other good work.
Senator Banks: On that point, Senator Lang, the chair has referred to the fact that there is an obvious and synergistic relationship between what this committee looks at and what the commissioner is doing. We have talked in the past a good game about working more closely together. For reasons of time and other things, we have never worked as closely as we could. In the case of the commissioner's office and what he does, and this committee, 2 plus 2 makes 6.
The Chair: In terms of our potential, it makes a difference.
Senator Lang: Perhaps the witness can comment in respect to the observation I made.
Mr. Vaughan: I will ask my colleague, Mr. Barrett, to answer the question in more detail.
However, every time we issue one of these reports, or the Auditor General Sheila Fraser issues a report and we make a recommendation, in the report is a response from the department. We will go back — not for all of them, but for ones that are of significance — two or three years later and say exactly what you are proposing: You made this commitment; where are you in meeting it?
A helpful development in the last year, especially in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the other place, is the fact that, now, the departments are developing action plans. Maybe I could ask Mr. Barrett to describe briefly what those plans look like.
Frank Barrett, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: I am happy to do so. I have an additional comment to that one. In the past several years, with different committees, both for our audits and our recommendations and for committee reports, sometimes committees will ask for action plans of government officials; they are asked to submit the plans and to report, say, every six months on progress.
One thing we do with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and with the Office of the Auditor General is to follow up on progress made and how departments are responding to and implementing those action plans. That is also something this committee can do with respect to the recommendations it has made in the past.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on the opening comments. I refer to the comment about 80,000 environmental assessments having been made since 1995. Yet there is a lack of quality assurance program to ensure these assessments have been conducted properly and that we have the results.
What should we do to be able to provide that quality assurance? Are we capable of providing it, in view of the numbers of assessments? This number is huge.
Mr. Vaughan: It is a big number. It is around 6,000 a year. There is clear guidance from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for all the federal departments to adopt uniform quality assurance standards. They are, in essence: Are these any good; do you know whether they are any good; is there some kind of criteria to say this one is good; and not only are you completing the paperwork and checklist, but are you addressing the issues you are supposed to address?
We have said the guidance is there. The team looked at, and asked, whether it has been adopted and the answer was no. At the end of the day, what we could say is, do you know whether those 80,000 environmental assessments are of quality or not and the answer is, the agency does not know. The agencies have different definitions of quality. This is a significant finding.
Senator Lang: I am a pragmatist, so let us build a bridge. We build a bridge, put it in place, complete all the various studies and they come out favourably, and we move ahead. Does this mean that no one is prepared to sign off because, at the end of the day, that person may be responsible if the bridge does not meet the objectives? Why does someone not sign off on it?
We go through the assessment program. I do not understand why we do not know whether it had met what we initially set out to do.
Mr. Vaughan: If they conducted the analysis, for example, on the fish habitat impact, we found that for the screenings that represent over 99 per cent, that is where all the effort is, and all the issues are related to how much work is involved and the sheer numbers. We have said half of those, 50 per cent, lack that first part of your example. Did they actually perform the analysis that identified the most significant environmental impacts? Then we also said in the screenings, if the analysis said you had to take measures to correct or to mitigate that impact, around 75 per cent of the files did not have any documentation on whether those measures were taken.
It is not a question of once they completed everything, there was a problem of signing off; it is whether or not the assessment was signed off without having taken the necessary steps.
Senator Lang: I want to talk about the area of lead. We talked about lead earlier. You made the statement that exposure to lead at levels currently considered safe — and you elaborated further on it — may be too high, underscoring the need for an overall risk-management strategy. The concern I have from the public's point of view is that when we use the word "may," it obviously means the issue is in some stage of research. What timeline are we looking at to come back and let my good friend Senator Banks know he can carry on with the paint he is using while taking advantage of the new income tax deduction for his renovations? When will we know? How long does this research take?
Mr. Vaughan: I believe Health Canada said they will have the evaluation by 2010. The question, I think, is not about overall levels but about products.
Mr. McKenzie and his team went out and found this example. It is not the overall levels but the product. This product was bought in the region two days ago. It costs a dollar. It is a prohibited product that is breaking Canadian law. It is of concern and we have highlighted it in the report because of the size of it. If children ingest it, it causes a danger.
Mr. McKenzie has alerted Health Canada, and they have gone to the store. As of today, Health Canada does not have the powers to do anything except inform the store owner that they have products that are breaking the law. They do not have the power of recall.
Senator Banks: They will have recall power under Bill C-6.
Mr. Vaughan: That is correct.
Senator Neufeld: You mentioned 6,000 environmental processes per year federally. When you conduct your audit, how do you determine which of those processes to audit, or do you review all of them? I do not think so. What percentage of those do you review, and how do you pick them?
Mr. Vaughan: We have statistical experts in the office who help us to identify a representative, random sample. We pick a sample of those we looked at from 2003 to 2008 for the screenings, and a random selection means we pick randomly from that population of screenings, and then from that selection, we look at the files. There are almost 4,000 different pieces of documentation on this audit, so the evidence is extensive. From that evidence, we go through and see whether they have complied. It is a statistically representative sample.
Senator Neufeld: In your notes, you talked about 28 petitions. Does that mean ordinary Canadians have petitioned you to review an environmental process or to review something, so I understand what you mean?
Mr. Vaughan: I did not have a great deal of knowledge of this process when I started this job a year and a half ago. In the amendment to the Auditor General's Act of 1995, when legislation created the office of the commissioner, it also created an environmental petitions process. It is a bit of a misnomer. The process gives the right to individual Canadians to write to our office, and we will direct it to a responsible federal minister or ministers. The ministers have a legal obligation to reply within 120 days to an issue, a question, a concern or a point of clarification. This year, we received 28 such letters. They can be submitted either by individual Canadians or by groups of Canadians through communities, which we have had in the past, non-governmental organizations or others.
Senator Neufeld: Can you tell me how that number compares to years before? Can we go back maybe to the last five years for the number of petitions you received?
Mr. Vaughan: In 2008, we had the highest number ever, and it was 56. From last year to this year, there has been a reduction of 50 per cent. Over the five-year period, the number we are tracking of around 28 is close to what the average has been, around 30. There is a variation, but it is between 30 and 35. It sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down.
Senator Neufeld: Have you reviewed any environmental assessments on sour gas, H2S? There is not enough time to talk about all the different projects, but if you have done extensive work on it or have some background, can you provide that information to the committee? I would like to see it, and it can go to the committee.
Mr. Vaughan: Let me ask Mr. Arseneault. If the team has gone through any projects, specifically we will be pleased to send the information to you, or we can undertake other informal research and will be pleased to send something to you on this subject.
Mr. Arseneault: In the conduct of an environmental assessment, if sour gas is an issue, it will be raised. I do not recall in any of the files we looked at that this particular issue was raised, but we can double-check and get back to you.
There are different types of environmental assessments. The majority are called screenings, not because they are at a lower level but because they are a different type for the routine projects. There are projects where comprehensive studies are required. A regulation under the act calls for this comprehensive study for certain types of bigger projects. For example, an oil sand mine or other type of mine may trigger a comprehensive study. There are also panel reviews, which are independent panels that prepare a review. Obviously, the government is involved early and at the end, but the panel is independent.
In reviewing the files, we look at the requirements of the act and whether those requirements were met. For the comprehensive studies and panel reviews that we looked at, there were many studies and much work that was done and all the requirements were met.
Were they met in a good-quality fashion? We do not know. We have asked the government, and the government does not know. That is why we raised the issue of quality, because quality is important in terms of the effectiveness of this tool to protect the environment. The agency does not know whether it is working.
We will get back to you. We will double-check whether sour gas was raised in any of the assessments that we have reviewed, and if it was, we will get back to you.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you. Those of us from Western Canada, especially Alberta and British Columbia, will recognize quickly the term sour gas and H2S. It is interesting information for me that you say you have not reviewed any of that issue. Most major projects that involve fossil fuels, not all of them but most of them, will have something to do with sour gas.
Mr. Arseneault: I did not say we did not review that issue. I said we will double-check in our files to see if it was done by the government.
Senator Brown: I want to go back to the issue of you having reviewed about 80,000 assessments, but you have no quality assurance program. Is there not enough information out there in the world from other countries that have conducted assessment programs that we could copy? Why can we not have our own quality assurance program?
How do you measure something if it seems like the testing is shifting from parts per thousand to parts per million and now parts per billion? Do we need some kind of a gauge to determine, when a study has been completed, whether the impact is close to that gauge, below or above it?
I do not understand how 80,000 environmental assessments are worth much of anything unless there is a level at which something is dangerous. We do not have those levels. Why can your department not create its own level of assurance?
Mr. Vaughan: First, environmental assessments are not new. They were probably one of the first steps out of the gate on environmental management. Environmental assessments have been around since the 1960s. In answer to your question as to whether other countries are conducting them, I would say virtually all countries are. I can think of only two or three in the world that are not doing them.
There are decades of experience with environmental assessments. Standards are also set through, for example, best practices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD. The International Finance Corporation of the World Bank sets standards, which most or many developing countries comply with.
Within Canada, there are different levels. Provinces conduct environmental assessments. The federal government has a narrow scope in terms of its trigger for a federal assessment. The trigger is through two or three different regulations, as well as whether the project is on Crown land or whether it has been funded in part or in whole by federal grants or monies.
There are different triggers for an environmental assessment and they will look at the specific scope within that trigger. For example, for fish habitat, they would look at the scope within fish habitat. There are clear criteria for that assessment.
The problems we run into are that we know the projects may affect water, land, forests and air quality. They may affect First Nations. The project has multiple issues with multiple jurisdictions and that is part of the reasons why there are cracks within the clarity for quality assurance plans throughout the federal government.
It is not that we do not know what to do, or that the federal government does not know how to conduct environmental assessments or what to do, because environmental assessments have been around for years. The problems are due partly to the complexity of jurisdictional issues and questions of duplication. This government has been taking action in the last year to address some of the issues, such as with some of the smaller projects, for example.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on this area. If I understand, I think we are speaking about the after-effects; after we have done something, have we accomplished what we set out to do?
You referred to inter-jurisdictional issues, again, between the provinces and the federal government. Would you not ask the provincial Department of the Environment, if they have the responsibility, or the federal department, given the employees they have, to look at a project after a couple of years and report back as to whether they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.
I am not asking to expand the size of government or anything like that. I assume that role should be part of the mandate of the department and of the existing bureaucracy as these projects move along. Then we can make your answer, as far as assurances are concerned, as opposed to creating another bureaucracy checks on the bureaucracy. Can you comments?
Mr. Vaughan: There is an obligation under the act for following up. These are basically the forecasts; they say that if they build this project in this area and if they make these changes in the design or change the location, this is what will happen. For the larger projects, there is a requirement to follow up.
We looked at follow-up in the report. We took some examples from Hydro Quebec, with four hydroelectric projects. We asked whether they followed up, meaning did they go back several years later. Then we asked whether they did what they said they would do. For that example, we said the results were positive; they did have follow-up.
It was not creating a new bureaucracy, as you characterized it, but, under the act now, we want to know if this process works for the bigger projects.
There is one example of a follow-up issue within the oil sands. One joint panel report has said that the possible impacts on water quality in the Athabasca may continue beyond 2065. When we are talking about follow-up, we are talking about possible impacts that might continue for half a century or more. It gives a sense of the order of magnitude of the issues at stake, as well as how long they follow up for. Obviously, the institutional memory will not be there 60 years from now.
Senator Sibbeston: I always seem to be at the bottom of a list for some reason. I will have to find a way to be up higher.
The Chair: That is true, senator. We run a balanced ship here. It is often a function of when you arrive at the meeting.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to ask about the bioaccumulation of toxic materials, such as mercury, lead and other persistent organic pollutants, in the food chain in the North. These pollutants show up in the animals people eat, such as caribou, seals and fish. We know that some of the pollutants come from within our country in industrial areas. However, we also know they come from other parts of the world, such as Asia.
Have you discovered whether the Department of the Environment has a handle on pollutants in the North in terms of information; do they know what percentage of these toxic substances appearing in the Arctic originate from other sources, and whether they have developed effective strategies to monitor and mitigate these pollutants?
Mr. Vaughan: We mention in the report that Health Canada has launched a national bio-monitoring strategy to measure levels of lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, and others in Canadian blood. Overall trends are generally reassuring. However, there are some pockets. One you identified is that, in the North, exposure to mercury remains too high and it poses health risks to those communities. Exposure is essentially due to mercury deposits, either occurring naturally or coming from long range transport, which then transforms into methyl mercury and goes into the food chain through fish that are consumed. In those tests, the preliminary results are much higher than in the rest of Canada.
On the second side of that question related to sources, about 80 per cent to 90 per cent of mercury emissions come from outside Canada, at least according to the government's figures. Air emissions for mercury have dropped. As you have said, emissions from outside Canada and outside the United States are increasing significantly.
Finally, the Canadian government has signed up to a 2005 commitment of the Governing Council of the United National Environment Programme, UNEP, to enter negotiations for a convention on mercury. They signed up on that in 2009. They did not move on the commitment before. They have now, which is good news. The purpose of that convention is to address some of the issues you have addressed.
Many of these emissions come from Asia and they travel over long distances. As you have said, they bioaccumulate.
Senator Sibbeston: It occurred to me while I was thinking about the problem in the North that, in the South, all the animals such as cattle, chickens and pigs are grown close to industry that emit pollutants. In Alberta, where there is flaring and so forth, there must be pollutants that enter the air and fall in the nearby areas where the animals live. The problem must be even more severe in the South than in the North.
Are there any studies or monitoring of this situation?
Mr. Vaughan: Our audit findings were constrained to the seven CEPA toxics we have looked at. Generally, regarding the levels of exposure south of 60, most of the pollutants are probably lower because of dispersal and other issues. There may be anomalies. However, there are some issues with regards to the food chain, specifically. I will leave it at that.
For communities in the North, we highlighted in this report, for example, considerably higher rates of mercury exposure. We did not see that issue in the South, for example.
Senator Seidman: I want to look at chapter 2 of your report, Risk of Toxic Substances. My question is around concern for Canadian consumers. We are all consumers. Can you please talk about how the government responded to your concerns regarding risk management of these toxic substances? For example, did you find measures in place to control phthalates that are used in chew toys such as pacifiers, which has been a huge issue?
You did not make any recommendations regarding mandatory recalls. I presume that is because, as you note in your report, Bill C-6 will give Health Canada that power, but can you comment on that aspect?
I am also interested to hear your comments on the labelling issue. It is clear that scientific studies for these substances take years and years, decades maybe. By the time studies come up with their results, there are new issues about the level of toxins, as you mentioned. New research might show that the levels we thought were important may not be.
Mr. Vaughan: As Mr. McKenzie said, there was no overall risk strategy for lead and mercury. We recommended there should be a strategy. The government accepted that recommendation and has committed to developing a strategy.
Phthalates is a longstanding issue. The European Union designated it as a reproductive toxin for children. It was listed as a CEPA toxic in 1999, I believe. No action was taken by the government because they did not deem it in need of a control measure. However, in June of this year, they gazetted new measures that will provide controls for phthalates, especially in children's soothers, bath toys and other things that make children especially vulnerable.
Let me turn to Mr. McKenzie for Bill C-6 and the labelling issues specifically.
Mr. McKenzie: On your question with respect to phthalates, as Mr. Vaughan mentioned, regulations were proposed this year regarding phthalates. We note concern over the timeliness of some of the federal government's actions, including with respect to phthalates. This substance was assessed as toxic back in the early 1990s. The government listed it, but in terms of action, although voluntary actions have been taken, there was nothing from a regulatory perspective until this year.
One issue, though, similar to lead and lead in products, is that as part of its ongoing marketplace testing, once the department puts a control measure in place, it will go out and test in the marketplace to see if these products are still on store shelves. They again are faced with the fact that they have to issue warnings or advisories to consumers but then have to rely on the voluntary recall aspect of the Hazardous Products Act, at least this one time. It is a good news story and encouraging in that they are moving towards controlling phthalates in these types of products, but it will be a challenge for them, if they find these products on the shelves, to remove them. Bill C-6 provides them with a stronger basis to order recalls, which is a key aspect of the whole process in terms of trying to control and manage these products.
Labelling is a challenging public policy issue. As we noted in our report, there is debate with respect to how to label a product. For example, a substance may be at low quantities and concentrations and, based on current science, it may not present a risk to consumers based on how consumers use the product and how often they use the product. However, at the same time, the point is valid that if a product contains a substance that is, for example, a suspected carcinogen or has reproductive toxicity — if we look at it from a user's perspective, if someone is a cancer survivor or someone in their family is a cancer survivor, or if the consumers are a couple that are planning to have children or are having children — it would be a valid expectation to be informed of that substance; that the substance is in the product and it poses a chronic risk. A lot of the debate is about the labelling of chronic risks, the hazard that is posed to the consumer from repeated use of a product or the long-term use of a product.
I know a provision was added to Bill C-6 to establish a committee to advise the minister, particularly with respect to the whole issue of labelling, and the provision is being debated as part of the bill. The department is taking labelling seriously. It is looking at how labelling is being undertaken in other countries. There is a lot of interest in what is taking place in California with respect to labelling. There is a concern that if we start labelling everything, particularly in products that have substances at low levels that may not necessarily pose a risk, that people will become desensitized. People will see the labels but it will not mean anything to them after a certain period of time. There is a concern there. I go back to the issue of looking at the issue from a user's perspective, which is important.
I want to make the linkage back to the whole issue of testing products and recalling products, because that obviously is an alternative. We do not necessarily have to label a product. We eliminate the substance or we set strict controls on it, but then again, if we find it on the market, then there has to be that ability to recall the product effectively. The issue is challenging, for sure.
Mr. Vaughan: On the labelling issue, as an example of household products, paint strippers and aerosol paints can contain a CEPA toxic, dichloromethane, which has been associated with cancer, and the government made a commitment in 1998 that this substance poses risks and that they should have a warning label to inform people to make a choice. As of today, there is no such label. The Canadian Cancer Society has said that these and other products are commonly used in households across Canada, and if consumers know that the products are associated with cancer and they are using the products over the long term, the information should be on the label.
Senator Peterson: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I noticed you submitted your report to Parliament. You have a number of recommendations and observations. Where does the report go from here?
Mr. Vaughan: Is that on all the recommendations we have made?
Senator Peterson: And including any of the tracking or following up.
Mr. Vaughan: As mentioned, we make recommendations in those reports. We will look at a follow-up report in two or three years. We will follow up for a couple of things that I had already submitted first time around.
As Mr. Barrett said, one good move is that governments are now putting in action plans, saying they agree overall and will address this issue. However, it will be vague and general and we cannot get a handle on it. Departments are now moving towards putting in an action plan, especially in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. This point comes back to the senator's comment earlier about whether to have the departments come here afterwards. In point of accountability, you want to know what responses and commitments are made, whether they are being kept and whether people are being held to their word. The action plans are a good move forward, but I think the purpose of your committee and other committees is to hold the government to account for what they said they would do.
Senator Peterson: We have to follow up. They would read that they have to do something here but it would be their own moral authority as to whether they did it, unless we pushed them.
Mr. Vaughan: That is absolutely right. This committee plays a critical role in speaking on behalf of Canadians and asking the government directly where they are in their commitment and whether they are following up annually, per topic or whatever.
Canadians are deeply concerned about the environment, human health issues and other issues that your committee is addressing. Talk is easy; putting it into action is more difficult.
Senator Peterson: The Senate is part of Parliament, but I noticed the report went to the Speaker of the House of Commons. We are included in that distribution, I presume.
Senator Banks: No, we are not.
Senator Peterson: I have a question on food products. What is the definition of "made in Canada" or "product of Canada"?
Mr. Vaughan: I know there was an amendment to this definition. It is based partly on rules of origin, on content, on what percentage is included in the product and where it was manufactured. I know the government has brought forward a new definition. Perhaps one of my colleagues can go into greater detail, but I know that the definition is based on content, place of manufacture and rules of origin.
I used to be at the World Trade Organization, where debates on rules of origin went on for months, and origin is included in the definition of "made in Canada." I know that the Canadian wine growers association is concerned about this, as are Canadians in general.
That is not a satisfactory answer, but I can provide you with additional information, if that is helpful.
Senator Peterson: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a couple of quick questions.
Your predecessor, Johanne Gélinas, used to come regularly to our committee. She spoke frankly and candidly on a number of occasions.
Rightly or wrongly, some of us had the impression that there was a strained relationship between your office and Environment Canada. We thought that, although many good tools were available to do good things, the potential synergies to which Senator Banks referred were not being realized.
The local press yesterday on your report said:
Environment Minister Jim Prentice said the government has been working with Vaughan's office to address his concerns.
"This is constructive work," Prentice said after the daily question period. "I think the commissioner has done a good job and we have responded, and I think it will make for a stronger system, a stronger environmental protection for Canadians."
I raised my eyebrows when I saw that comment and thought maybe things are improving. Is that conclusion reasonable?
Mr. Vaughan: Senator, I was not around when my predecessor was in this position. I can say that we provide an audit function. We ask difficult questions. It takes a lot of the department's time.
My personal perspective is that our audits of the departments with which we deal are conducted with the utmost professionalism, which is a credit to our team, which is in a department for 15 months. There are few occasions upon which we have not been allowed access to the information we have requested, and there has been nothing but professional conduct between the auditees and the auditors.
We are currently going through a planning process to scope out our future work and priorities. Senator Banks spoke about two plus two equalling six. I and my colleagues will benefit from talking to as many of you as possible about what is on our radar screen, what is on yours and under what timetable. That planning may be helpful to you, and we will greatly benefit from your perspectives and advice on your priorities in the committee or individually.
The Chair: That is encouraging to hear. In my day jobs over the years, I have had the privilege of chairing a number of audit committees in corporate Canada. At the end of an audit committee meeting, it is standard to go in camera. The first question of the audit partner then is whether they had good cooperation from management, whether they received full answers, and whether there is anything they can share that they might not normally say.
My question is in that context, because in the past we felt we were receiving negative responses. I think you have given a positive response, and I hope this is a signpost for the future.
Senator Sibbeston: You said that the relationship was cordial in the sense that there was professionalism. What about the response of government departments? You can have professionalism in terms of obtaining the information, but what good is it if they do not respond by making the changes you recommend?
Mr. Vaughan: That question is the critical one. If we find a problem and make a recommendation, do they take action? Our follow-up reports give them a pass or fail. We will make a specific recommendation, go back two or three years later to check on their progress and make one of two findings. It is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If it is unsatisfactory, the reports clearly say that there is unsatisfactory progress based on the government's commitment.
Senator Sibbeston: You have a job and a purpose. Are you satisfied that the government is responding? For all the work you do, are you receiving the results you ought to receive?
Mr. Vaughan: I have been around for 16 months, so I have not yet had enough time to be frustrated by promises not being kept. Until now, relationships in getting to where we are with these reports have been professional. That does not mean they have been easy. They have been tense. There has been back-and-forth and push. People want to show their best face and nobody likes to be audited. However, this process is a function of democracy and of government. Transparency and accountability are two of the cornerstones of the democratic process. It is not easy on all sides, but I am struck by the professionalism, commitment and hard work of senior management, the deputy minister of Environment Canada, Minister Prentice, and the assistant deputy ministers there and across the board. My perception is that people are all there to perform public service.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sibbeston, for clarifying that item.
My father always said not to draw analogies between business and government because they are on a perpetual collision course. However, I still see this committee as being somewhat like the audit committee. The department and the minister are management. You are the auditors and we are the audit committee.
That is an indication to you of how we see our role and how we can work with you.
I gather from your comments that you follow the legislative process closely. We have a bill before us, Bill S-212 sponsored by Senator Banks. Are you familiar with that bill?
Senator Banks, I think that we are nearly at a point to deal with this bill. The bill is designed to remove the requirement for an individual to show that an alleged offence under CEPA has caused significant harm to the environment to proceed with an environmental protection action. It also provides for fine splitting and for the recovery of costs for private prosecutions under the act.
While you are here, I wondered, first, if that bill had come onto your radar screen and second, if you have any comments on it.
Of course, the next questioner will be Senator Banks, so I thought it might be an opportunity to save us calling you back when that bill is there. If you have no comments, that is fine.
Mr. Vaughan: We are aware of the particulars of the bill because we follow the work, and our parliamentary liaison keeps us up to speed on this bill. However, I am not in a position to say whether we have specific comments on what is proposed in the bill. We will be glad to come back.
One thing we noted in the act is that the Minister of Health does not have powers to recall a product. However, for example, the Minister of Environment does have that power under CEPA. There is disaccord or misalignment on those representative powers.
Other than what is proposed particularly in the bill, I cannot say anything vaguely intelligent that will help this committee at this point. We will be glad to come back if it will be of use.
The Chair: That is good that you know it is something we are looking at. If you have input, we can look at it. If we feel it is worth calling you, we will do so.
Senator Banks: Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair. I was not thinking of raising it today.
The Chair: I felt you might be uncomfortable.
Senator Banks: However, it is a good idea that the committee hear from the commissioner's office if the commissioner is prepared to come to when we consider that bill.
I want to talk about the thing you have raised, chair, and which Senators Sibbeston and Lang raised. The commissioner talked about it, as well. The commissioner has been kind in talking about reactions. However, this committee's experience, which many members will remember, is that the observance of, reaction and compliance to recommendations of the committee and the commissioner with the law is — to put it kindly — "spotty" across the government, from department to department.
Departments are famously uneven in their responses of their sustainability plans, and have been for years. That is true of this government, the previous government and the one before that — notoriously so. We have talked about that subject. Some listen and some do not. The quality and efficacy of the responses is in serious question from time to time. There is no evenness across the various departments in that respect, and there never has been.
With respect to your report, in particular, in this case, you received 28 petitions this year. As you said — and this is an example — the law requires responses within a specific time. You have pointed out in your report that Health Canada has been good about complying with giving you responses. However innocuous they might be, they are responses nonetheless. Other departments have not been as forthcoming and, in some cases, I suspect — although you have not said this — have not observed the law. In particular, Industry Canada and Environment Canada have been less forthcoming and less observant of the law than Health Canada, which has been good about it.
Can you expand on that point and also tell me if I am wrong?
Mr. Vaughan: Senator, thank you. You are absolutely right.
First, you mentioned sustainable development. I thank you for your leadership and work in this area and with the recent amendments to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, or Bill C-474, as it is sometimes known. I think we have been spending a lot of time on this issue, and it is an important one. We are looking forward to the government putting forward its draft strategy for public comment. I hope that this committee will have a chance also to look at that strategy during the 120 days of the consultations on it.
Regarding the petitions, you are absolutely right, sir: The law requires a response by the minister within 120 days. Adrienne Scott, my colleague behind me, has been a critical part of setting up that system and making it a trusted tool that Canadians depend on.
We have seen a disappointing trend in terms of departments meeting that 120-day deadline. As you have noted correctly, the on-time responses have deteriorated this year from 86 per cent to 77 per cent now. As you also correctly said, Health Canada has it right. They are on time. Industry Canada and Environment Canada were the laggards. The minister and the deputy minister of Environment Canada have both said they take this issue seriously and they will get this right. That was said at a meeting I had with them two weeks ago. This is something they take seriously, as they should.
Senator Banks: For the information of members, we have been at this question long before the present government came to office. We have been doing so with the view — which may be novel — that the government probably ought to abide by the law, which sometimes seems difficult and inconvenient.
In March 2009, the government changed the regulations with respect to the infrastructure projects — environmental assessment adaptation matters — which streamlined the processes. Streamlining is a red flag for tree-huggers and people avidly in favour of regulation. The ostensible purpose of the streamlining was to find overlap and avoid duplication.
Have you addressed that question and have you found whether the streamlining has been effective in terms of moving things along quickly? I am putting aside the question of efficacy and the epidemiology of the value of the assessment.
Has the streamlining in the process found, in its application, that there was duplication and overlap, and has the streamlining improved that situation?
Mr. Vaughan: Let me give three quick parts to that answer.
Several initiatives have been announced by this government. The major projects initiative bundled some of the bigger projects into the Major Project Office Management, MPMO, which is in Natural Resources Canada. Also, as you said, there have been three changes between March and June of this year: the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the exclusion list, and the new regulation for evaluation of infrastructure projects.
For our audit, it was too early to say. We finished our audit work in June 2009. To enter these changes into the system takes time. This issue will be a high priority candidate to go back because the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is up for parliamentary review next year. Important questions need to be addressed in the act.
The third part of my answer is that the ministers of the environment of the provinces and the federal government met in Kingston only a week ago. One of their priority areas was the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the issue of duplication. Are they doing the same thing at the provincial and the federal levels? Are there possibilities or opportunities for synergy? I think that review is welcome.
I will close by saying that from an environmental management side we do not want duplication, but we sometimes want redundancies. We want them to ensure the things that are important do not slip through. That is why engineers include redundant systems.
The duplication may be easy to see at first blush, but there might be real rationale for why we want systems to ensure that we are not missing important issues that may affect human health, climate change or other issues that Canadians care about.
The Chair: Since you mentioned the Navigable Waters Protection Act, may I assume you have seen our report?
This committee was asked to look specifically at the budget legislation to ensure what was proposed in terms of streamlining was not having unintended consequences. We filed a report, for what it is worth. I hope you will find it useful.
Mr. Vaughan: Yes, we did. The team looked at that report and took it into account. We have had several internal briefings since. The report was a welcome addition.
Senator Lang: I want to go back to the environmental assessments and the question of the quality assurance program for the assessments that you have indicated is lacking in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Can you describe exactly how this quality assurance program for assessments will work?
Mr. Vaughan: In a nutshell, we have said it does not work well or, put another way, it is not really working at all. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is disappointed with their own program. We have made recommendations to that program. We found deficiencies in their system. Part of the problem is because the agency has a role of coordinator, but being a coordinator without having the authority or the leadership capacity to do the job is a difficult position. The agency provided guidance in 2003, but it cannot compel a ministry or department to adopt it. The agency can try to persuade the ministry or department, but, at the end of the day, it does not have the authority of a central agency.
Senator Lang: I do not want to belabour this point. Looking ahead, if the agency does not have the authority, how will it be able to put this program in place?
Mr. Vaughan: That is something I hope that your committee will look at when it conducts the review in 2010. The team found, and this is not new, real structural issues with the act. We do not comment on the act. The role of Parliament is to make decisions on whether an act is working or not, or should be changed or not. We look at how it is implemented or managed. Among our observations is that if we have 100 different organizations in this town supposed to do something and no one is providing central guidance and authority, it should not be surprising that people do their own thing, maybe for the best of intentions, but the effort will not be coordinated. The 2010 review will ask questions such as how is the agency supposed to do its job if it does not have the authority to do so? The agency can issue guidance and hope for best intentions, but at the end of the day, it does not compel a department because it does not have the power to do so.
Senator Mitchell: I am about to ask what many people will consider a rhetorical question, but I want to believe it is a little beyond that. As I was listening to the discussion about mercury, lead and those kinds of toxins, it struck me that there is profound intensity about that kind of pollution. It is visceral in people's minds when they think of mothers, children, and fathers too, playing with lead-infested products. You can see why there would be such a reaction, and all the forces of government and whatever else would come to do something about that situation, and we have.
However, the impact of climate change on people's health will be and is probably infinitely more profound than lead and mercury in many ways, yet there is not that intensity, unless people actually see it. Maybe this makes the point. In the North, where they see the permafrost is melting and the roads and houses are sinking, they are beginning to have concrete policy initiatives to do something. In B.C., where the forests are on fire and the situation is impacting their tourism, safety and lumber, they have a carbon tax. Quebec might be the exception that proves the rule, where they have a carbon tax, and it is to their credit that they have taken that level of initiative, but the impacts there do not seem as vivid, although maybe they are in many ways.
What does it take to get government's attention, perhaps to get people's attention so they get government's attention, so we can begin the kind of intense initiatives that we did for lead, mercury, acid rain, chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, and all these other things?
Mr. Vaughan: I will say a couple of things. To echo Mr. Arseneault's comment, Health Canada released an outstanding report on the potential effects of climate change on Canadians. The World Health Organization has been doing work. There are examples now of changing vectors for diseases, which may have a northward polar shift in some of the diseases we thought were only in the South. There are real issues related to what will happen because of drought and water scarcity. For example, when I was working in South American countries, Brazil, in 2005, they counted the number of people who died because of yellow fever and dengue fever because of the prolonged drought in the Amazon, which had been linked clearly to climate change impact. These episodes are real. They are not some science fiction thing that may happen in the future.
There is other work on predictions of severe weather. David Barber a week ago talked about preliminary findings on Arctic survey ice, work from 2009. The findings showed that an area equivalent in size to Lake Superior is disappearing in Canada's Arctic each year. There is much compelling evidence. One of the issues addressed in Copenhagen is the steps forward on this situation.
The Chair: Commissioner, I thank you and your colleagues for appearing before us so soon after the filing of your report. We are always happy to have you here before you go to the other place. We are delighted to hear about what appears to be a mutual desire to work the synergism. I know the department is listening and watching. It is a critical time in the issue of the environment and climate change. We will keep in touch with you. I believe you will be responsive, as you have said you would.
We will now consider the draft special study budget application, which is the application for funds from now until March 31, 2010, on our energy study. This budget has three main components, as you will note. We have general expenses and two special activities: A fact-finding, public hearings trip and the Globe Conference, which the steering committee has talked about. We have circulated this draft to you.
In that context, I learned something interesting, senators. Perhaps this comment is aimed at Senator Banks, in particular. At lunch yesterday, I learned that a world energy conference has been scheduled for Montreal in September next year. I did not see it on our list. Mr. LeBlanc is nodding his head. It is something we should focus on right away and get in on the ground floor.
Senator Banks: The timing is perfect.
The Chair: It is on the list, you say? The Globe Conference is also one of the world's major energy conferences. Experts from everywhere will be there. Everyone is headed for B.C. during the Olympics. The conference is at the end of March or mid to late March, and that is when we are planning to schedule our first round table.
This budget application is intended to cover work for our committee occurring from now until the end of March 2010 on the energy study. You have a document before you. The steering committee reviewed it and made suggestions for fine-tuning.
First, I will open the floor to any discussion and then I will ask for your approval. Following that approval, the clerk and I will go to the wall with our masters at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on November 23. I do not file it in the Senate until it has been cleared at the committee.
Is there any discussion?
Senator Banks: I move the adoption of the budget as presented, so we can discuss the motion.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Banks. Senator Peterson has seconded it. The floor is open for discussion.
The motion is that our energy sector study for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Banks: That is what I meant to say.
The Chair: I know. The total comes to $152,475.
Senator Lang: Perhaps, chair, you can elaborate on the fact-finding and public hearings in Vancouver. The budget item says to Vancouver; does that mean also other areas as well? Can we maybe go to Edmonton?
The Chair: It leaves us flexibility. The Globe Conference is interesting. It is expensive. Even if we submit our application early and receive the big discount, I think it still comes to $850 net, after a 30-per-cent discount. The clerk and I have been advised, and the clerk and her people have consulted through the system, that, instead, of picking out the deputy chair, the past chair and others, everyone who goes to Vancouver — and I hope everyone will — will register and then we can come and go. We will maybe split up into task forces and go to certain events and not others.
The idea where only one of us is a delegate is crazy. I understand there is approval for this approach. Our clerk is comfortable that we proceed on that basis.
I do not know if that answers your question, but did you have something specific in mind, Senator Lang?
Senator Lang: I know we talked about the possibility of having round tables, discussions and this type of thing. I assume this item is part of it.
The Chair: Yes, it absolutely is. It will provide for all of us to go, plus three support staff, I think, to take advantage of the fact that all these experts are in town for the Globe Conference, or will have recently finished their conference. We can pick and choose some of them to be witnesses, in addition to the regional people. For instance, we hope to have Senator Neufeld's special input with his knowledge of the coastal set-up there. Of course, the other day we had new signposts — the witnesses from the Ocean Renewable Energy Group, OREG, gave us some good thoughts.
Senator Sibbeston: I believe I heard you say there was to be a regional round table. This one is the first?
The Chair: It will be the first. It will be experimental, in a way. The beauty of having obtained a long-term mandate for this special study is we do not need to rush in and be subject to deadlines to produce a report. This is very much "green field" for us, because it is such an important study.
I am receiving phone calls now. The word is getting around that we are conducting this study. I feel all the more pressure that we do it right.
I welcome all input from all members. We are not locked in or carved in stone; we are feeling our way along.
Hopefully, we will have a great hearing at a round table in Vancouver. We are already starting to flesh it out.
Senator Banks: For the record, I want to ensure we all understand this correctly: Activity 1 and activity 2 are consecutive and it is a matter of efficiency. You will see there is no air cost, for example, in going to the Globe Conference.
The Chair: Yes, we are in Vancouver already.
Senator Banks: However, while we are in Vancouver, we will also hold hearings for a few more days — I think it is three days — partly because we are hopeful, as we discussed at the steering committee, of being able to obtain witnesses at the Globe Conference who we would never see otherwise, and at no cost. We do not need to fly them here. They are there.
Those activities are consecutive, are they not?
The Chair: I have elaborated on that point in the draft letter I have prepared in anticipation of your approval today. Are there any further comments?
We have a motion, duly seconded. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Contrary minded? I declare the motion carried unanimously.
Is there any other business to come before the meeting?
Senator Sibbeston: When are the meetings scheduled for the next week or so?
The Chair: We have a schedule, which has been amended. If you do not have the schedule already, you will receive it. We are back on November 17. We have a meeting in the afternoon.
Regardless, I thought perhaps we could finish the public section of this meeting and then suspend for one more minute to talk in camera about that meeting, if you do not mind.
The public part of this meeting is terminated. Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)