Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 2 - Evidence - November 16, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 16, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:08 p.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. We have a few housekeeping items that I have to take care of, if you will permit me. They will not take long. With permission of members of the committee, I have had copies made of a précis of the Arctic report about which you may have heard. The report is 1,300 pages long. If you agree, I will have it distributed to you. It is only in one language because it is not a government document, but if you agree, I would like to distribute it to each of you.
Before we begin with our guests, and I am sorry to be rude, we need to hear from Senator Buchanan about the conference of last weekend. Would you regale us, please, senator?
Senator Buchanan: Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and our guests, I attended, for the 20th time, the energy conference and Maple Leaf banquet in Boston, Massachusetts, which is a second Nova Scotia, by the way, and the conference, again, was a big success. It is sponsored primarily by the New England-Canada Business Council and the New England Governors' Conference, and it comprises people involved in the energy world of Canada and the U.S.
Just to give you a rundown on it, we opened with registration, of course, welcoming remarks by the President of the New England-Canada Business Council and the energy committee co-chair, and opening remarks, which were excellent, by the way, detailed offshore oil off Newfoundland. The opening remarks were given by Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the changing energy landscape overview was given by Robert B. Catell. He was the owner and chairman of Brooklyn Union Gas and is now the CEO of KeySpan Corporation.
The sessions then began with a moderator and speakers. The first one was on market outlook and supply challenges for the Northeastern United States, and the moderator was Lawrence E. Smith, Q.C., Partner, Bennett Jones, from Alberta — very smart guy this fellow; I had never met him before. Peter Lougheed, former premier of Alberta, was there as a consultant to Bennett Jones. The speakers were Steve Beasley, President of Eastern Pipeline Group, El Paso Corporation; Donald Sipe, Chairman of New England Power Pool; James Carmichael, Principal of Merrimack Energy Group; and Bob Keating, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications. The next was on natural gas and LNG, including the proposed LNG terminals in the State of Maine and the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I should tell you that Nova Scotia has a little head start because we have already begun to clear the land for the LNG terminal at Bear Head in Cape Breton, a piece of land that a very forward-looking premier had expropriated back in the 1980s to ensure it would happen — namely, myself. I decided to name me because some of these folks might not know who that forward-looking premier was.
The moderator of session 2 was John Howe, Vice-President of Electric Industry Affairs; Phil Crowell, Duke Energy; Brian Frank, President and CEO of BP Canada Energy Company; Eugene Grechek, Nuclear Support, of Dominion Energy Incorporated; David Hay, President and CEO, New Brunswick Power, and Daniel Reicher, President of New Energy Capital Corporation; then the closing comments, from Anna Flanagan.
The luncheon keynote address, which I found excellent, was by Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec. That ended the conference.
That night, at the Maple Leaf banquet, which is sponsored by the Maple Leaf Foundation and the New England- Canada Business Council, in front of 700 people at a black-tie dinner, which I have again attended now for the 20th year, they announced they were inducting the very first person into what is called the ``Academy of Distinguished Canadians and Americans,'' and they called upon the very first inductee, namely, myself, and I went to the platform in front of all these people, in front of the Premier of Quebec, the Premier of Newfoundland, former Premier Peter Lougheed and others, and the citation is as follows: On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Maple Leaf banquet, the trustees of the Maple Leaf Foundation are creating an Academy of Distinguished Canadians and Americans. The purpose of the academy is to recognize persons who have made significant and outstanding contributions to the furtherance of the economic and cultural relationship between Canada and the United States. Tonight, we take great pleasure in inducting the Hon. John M. Buchanan, P.C, Q.C., as the academy's first member. Senator Buchanan was appointed to the Senate in 1990, elected to the Nova Scotia legislature in 1967, elected premier in 1978, re-elected in 1981, 1984 and 1988, making him the third premier in the history of the province to be elected to four consecutive terms. Recognized with five honorary degrees for multiple elections by higher educational institutions, Senator Buchanan has been an ardent exponent of the economic and cultural ties between our two countries. For his vision and his passion of expression, we salute him tonight and, with admiration, induct John M. Buchanan into the Academy of Distinguished Canadian and Americans; by Kenneth R. Rossano, Chairman of the Maple Leaf Foundation, Robert B. Catell, Chairman and CEO of KeySpan Energy.
I was presented then with a certificate from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Governor Mitt Romney, and it was a wonderful evening.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Buchanan. We will be pursuing some of the issues that were raised in those sessions in future meetings.
Welcome to our guests. Thank you for your indulgence. With us are Madame Gélinas, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, and she is accompanied by John Reed, Principal; Neil Maxwell, Principal; John Affleck, Principal; and Richard Arseneault, Principal.
Ms. Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators. Thank you for inviting us here today. As the chairman has just stated, I am accompanied by my four principals, who have led the environmental audit work in my office for several years.
My office is part of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and we audit the operations of the federal government and report to Parliament about significant environmental and sustainable development issues. You have given us an opportunity today to raise some specific issues from our recent report and some more pressing and overriding concerns from this report and previous reports.
In my October 26 report I concluded that there was a lack of leadership, a lack of priority and a lack of will on the part of the Government of Canada. They have failed to make real progress in sustainable development and environmental protection. This has, in turn, left gaps in leadership, gaps in implementation and a growing credibility gap. I believe this committee can play a significant role in addressing these failures.
[Translation]
Environmental issues affect us now. They are not projections of future difficulties. Sustainable development is a solution for today. It is not something we can afford to debate into the next decades. Unfortunately, I still see too much debate about what sustainable development means and too little action.
Canadians can be proud of the leadership role that Canada has played internationally in advancing solutions to environmental issues such as biodiversity and persistent organic pollutants. Canada has promoted sustainable development with its significant role in the Brundtland Commission and active participation in summits and meetings on the subject.
What we have forgotten, however, is that for every international agreement and report, Canada needs to take significant domestic actions to live up to the commitments it has made. There are not only international commitments it has to follow through on, but a host of Canadian ones as well.
[English]
For example, in the department's sustainable development strategies, there are over 2,000 commitments. These include commitments by Finance Canada to better integrate the economy and the environment by using the tax system, and commitments by Natural Resources Canada to develop a national groundwater strategy and a national database of groundwater.
Departments are required by the Auditor General Act to table their strategy every three years in Parliament. They are action plans to move their operations and programs along a sustainable development path. I hope to be able to raise awareness as to the importance of sustainable development strategies during our discussion later. I consider the sustainable development strategies to be underutilized as accountability tools.
One thing I have asked for over the last few years is for the government to develop a federal sustainable development strategy that guides departmental strategies. This has been promised, but the Assistant Deputy Ministers' Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has not developed anything so far. The sustainable development strategies provide, on the one hand, the pieces of the puzzle, but we are still missing the complete picture on the box in order to assemble these pieces.
This is an example of what I mean when I say that there is a leadership gap. However, I am encouraged by Minister Dion's recent comments on developing a framework for a sustainable Canadian economy.
In our audit work, we have found significant failures with ``walking the talk''; that is, the implementation gap. For example, after 12 years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not developed the genetically engineered fish regulations it promised. After 14 years, many departments still have not implemented the environmental assessment of policies, plans and programs. The government still has not actively pursued the use of economic instruments, such as the tax system, to promote sustainable development, even though it has talked about it for a long time. The government has very little idea of whether it has successfully implemented some of its international agreements, even though they have been in place for many years. Finally, after 15 years, many departments do not know whether they have met the 50-per-cent target to reduce office solid waste because they have not measured waste properly. These examples represent either slow progress or no progress.
The lack of progress has consequences. There are 75 new endangered species and hundreds of contaminated sites in Canada. The cod fishery has collapsed; permafrost is melting in Northern Canada; cities issue smog alerts; polluted drinking water and boil-water warnings are affecting a country that has more freshwater than any other; and traces of toxic chemicals like PCBs are appearing in mothers' milk. I am sure honourable senators have many examples of their own. The point is that the lack of sustainable development is taking its toll.
[Translation]
I am not alone in recognizing this. Recently, the Conference Board of Canada rated the performance of 23 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on a range of environmental issues, using OECD data. Canada's environmental performance was downgraded from a disappointing 12th place in 2002 to a 16th place in 2003.
How can there be action without leadership, priority and will? There cannot be. However, it is not too late to act. The solution lies in taking leadership, making environment and sustainable development a real priority, and providing incentives or disincentives for success and action.
From my experience as Co-Chair of the international Working Group on Environmental Auditing, I have noted that legislative committees in many countries are paying more and more attention to sustainable development. For example, a British parliamentary committee just last week reported that our global assault on ecosystems is pushing the environmental limits hard — with potentially catastrophic results.
[English]
The British committee went on to say:
If we are to avoid such consequences, governments must now take radical steps to address environmental objectives, and the window of opportunity for doing so is limited.
I have been Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for four years now. In that time, I have observed that whenever a parliamentary committee asks questions of a department or requests reports on issues we raised, it has generated action.
I think that this committee can generate more action by keeping the government's feet to the fire. I see a great opportunity for this committee to play an ongoing watchdog role over federal leadership in environmental protection and sustainable development. For example, recommendations from this committee would spark action and requesting regular reports on progress from the government would sustain that action.
In short, this committee can help close the gaps in implementation and credibility. Together, we can get Canada moving on the path to sustainable development, one to which we are all committed.
Honourable senators, this concludes my opening statement. We welcome any questions that the committee may have.
Senator Harb: We talk about sustainable development and the fact that you have not seen a significant amount of action from the Government of Canada on that front. In 2001-02, there were a number of initiatives by the Government of Canada in its budget, when it was being deliberated in the House of Commons, talking specifically about sustainable development and that they wanted to put in place some tax measures to assist with initiatives that could help the environment. Have you had a chance to determine whether any of those measures have been implemented or have you seen any tangible result at all out of that?
Ms. Gélinas: The question is relevant to some of the work that we have done this year. For the first time, we have looked in detail at some Finance Canada commitments to move toward sustainable development. Before I turn to my colleague, let me say a few more words about the strategies. These are the game plans of every department. They are required to produce those strategies. In the case of Finance Canada, it is clear that some commitments were made with respect to looking at the tax system to see how we can use it as a country to move toward a sustainable path.
We have looked at those commitments and this is what we reported on this year.
Mr. Neil Maxwell, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: The bottom line of the work we did on Finance Canada I would sum up this way: Finance Canada looked at and analyzed individual tax measures, but has not placed enough attention to looking at the overall tax system in terms of how it is impacting the environment. We have a number of specific findings that we would be pleased to get into.
One thing the commissioner highlighted when we tabled that report was that that is important because Canada has been criticized in a number of areas for the absence of tax measures to favour the environment. Most recently, the OECD issued an interesting study. One of its main conclusions was a criticism of Canada for that lack of action in using the tax system to help the environment.
Ms. Gélinas: I would also highlight the fact that when we do an audit we make recommendations. In this case, we made some recommendations to the Department of Finance to move ahead in analyzing and examining the tax system so that we can know where we can do things differently in the future. Unfortunately, the departmental response to our recommendation was such that it is still unclear to us what the department intends to do. However, when you look at their responses, it is mostly clear that they do not intend to do things differently than in the past. That is a concern. As my colleague said, the use of economic instruments is important in moving toward a sustainable path.
Senator Harb: After the report was issued, the government announced the creation of a cabinet committee. Have you been invited to meet with that committee; have you had a chance to find out the terms of reference; have they approached you; do you plan on meeting with them?
At 6 o'clock, the Minister of the Environment is scheduled to appear before this committee. If you were to ask him a question or make a suggestion to him, what would that be?
Ms. Gélinas: Half an hour would not be enough to tell you all of the questions I would like to ask him.
Let us go with your first point. This new cabinet committee will certainly make a difference. On the other hand, I am an auditor. I believe what I see in terms of results. So far, the jury is still out in terms of what this committee will be able to accomplish, but on its own it is good news.
It is difficult for me to get ministerial attention. I often offer to meet with ministers, even to brief them on my report, and I do not usually see any kind of enthusiasm for a chance to talk about the work that we have done.
I am hoping that the Minister of Industry will invite me at some point to talk about some of the failures that I have seen. When I talk about leadership, it is not only at the bureaucratic level, it is also at the political level. I would be more than happy to have their attention at some point. If honourable senators can do something about it, let me know.
In terms of questions to the minister, certainly, two key things are on my side: First, to get a better understanding of the mandate of this new ministerial committee. Second, at the bureaucratic level, there is an equivalent of that committee, called the Deputy Ministers' Environment and Sustainable Development Coordinating Committee. They are the ones who really received the mandate to move and get into action with respect to some horizontal issues, to identify some priorities across government and also to develop that overarching sustainable development strategy, which is basically the vision of what Canada should look like 20 years from now.
Thus far, I have said in this report that it has not been too difficult to follow their work, because we have not seen any progress. I would ask, if not the Minister of the Environment, then certainly the deputy ministers to appear before you to explain their action plan and what they intend to do. That would be helpful for me, and for you, I hope.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Maxwell, did the government initiate any specific incentives for individuals or manufacturers of various environmentally friendly products that you are aware of?
Mr. Maxwell: There were a number of announcements by the federal government in successive budgets using the tax system. For example, there are tax breaks available for industries that use alternative energy. There are a number of individual measures. Our concern really was that they are not looking systematically across all of the opportunities — maybe some of the opportunities, but not all of them. Canada has been criticized internationally for not using the tax system. The tax system has huge potential. That is why we so often have questions about and interest in that topic; in the end, money talks, if the tax system can provide incentives for environmentally favourable practices, such as tax breaks on alternative energy and the like; and, equally, the tax system provides negative incentives, for example, if it is subsidizing harmful industrial processes, that can be quite bad for the environment. There is a lot of power in the tax system.
The Chairman: You will like our report of next week. For our comfort and for our guests, in this committee and in the Senate in general, we do not address questions through the chair and you do not need to address responses to the chair. Speak directly to whomever you like, please.
Senator Angus: I would like to congratulate our witnesses on the directness of what they have told us in their opening statement and in their recent report. It is obvious that it takes a significant amount of courage to come out four-square and criticize the government the way you have, and in no uncertain terms, as I hear it: Three major failures at the leadership level — at the implementation, walking-the-talk and the credibility level — and we have also read the OECD report, which is fairly credible corroboration of what you have to say.
I have also had the privilege of listening to the former Minister of the Environment complaining on television recently about his inability to get the attention of the Department of Finance or his colleagues in cabinet. I am trying to get at how we will try to fix it. I heard you say to use parliamentary committees and I want to explore that with you. You have painted the failures with a broad brush. You said that no matter what we or you say to the finance folks, your assessment is that they will keep doing nothing, basically. That is very troubling.
I am hopeful that the sense of frustration I heard from former Minister Anderson will be brought to the attention of the new minister, because it is obviously outside the ministerial realm, although you said they are not blameless. Could you elaborate in terms of this committee's role in fixing the problem? We are very concerned by your findings and would like to know specifically what we can do.
Ms. Gélinas: In our work in the past, we often came to the same conclusion — lack of progress. I am suggesting that the committee forget about specific issues and look at the root causes of the slow progress. Is it because of a lack of leadership from the government? Is it a question of resources? We have so many examples. In my opening statement, I referred to the many commitments made 15 years ago. Why is it that in 2004 I am still asking the same questions? I will give the committee a concrete example: ecological fiscal reform. The Department of Finance has been studying, examining and analyzing ecological fiscal reform in the tax system for close to 10 years. At some point they should make a determination on the issue. I would like this committee to ask the department, or ask the government as a whole, in this case, what position it is taking and in what direction it is moving. I am not saying that it should or it should not, but are we moving in that direction? Can we understand? Many people are asking that question. It would be helpful if this committee could clarify a certain number of issues. Certainly, the government has the appropriate tools with which to do this. Why does it not use them? We need to have some straight answers to those basic questions.
Senator Angus: I understand you have shown us a booklet that lists all the commitments that have been made by various departments, although you have only named two. I have leafed through it and can see that there are 12. There is an interdepartmental committee of deputies and directors. You have listed all the different commitments they have made and you have said that none of them have been honoured. I understand that now you are asking our committee, and I want to clarify this, chairman, to call them to account and give us a reason for it. When I was preparing for this meeting, I ascertained your budget was approximately $3 million. I was planning to ask you if it is enough. However, I understand from what you have said that the budget is sufficient, in a way, to find out what the problems are in respect of the lack of action. You would like to see action. One suggestion is for the committee to ask about it, although I do not know whether it is right to think that the committee has that kind of power. Ms. Gélinas, do you have any other concrete suggestions?
Ms. Gélinas: Absolutely. I would prefer to work more closely with Senate committees and parliamentary committees than doing, with a bigger budget, more audits. There is enough on the table that we should work together and try to push, as I said, to keep the department's feet to the fire.
There is something that I know from experience makes a big difference, which is when a committee will ask a department to issue a status report or progress report so that they can follow up. I can use that too, because it is in the public domain and Canadians can know about what is happening: Are we making progress or not? I am the Commissioner of the Environment; there is a certain area where I can push, but if we were to work together on specific issues and move the agenda further, that would be very helpful.
Another important issue that I would like to raise now is the fact that the environment is becoming so complex, and sustainable development is so much more than just environment, that we have to find a way to get other departments and ministers on board. Minister Dion probably will raise that too. It is not only the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment; it is everyone's business, and especially the whole government's, to live up to their commitments. I can tell you — and you know — that there are plenty of those and, unfortunately, little action to implement those commitments.
Senator Angus: That is pretty clear.
Mr. John Reed, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Sorry, this is unrehearsed, so I do not know if my boss agrees. My observation of Senate committees versus House of Commons committees is that they ask different kinds of questions. They seem to come at issues from a higher standpoint, a broader picture.
The reason I am raising that is you have heard the commissioner talk about a federal sustainable development strategy. We have 25 strategies now, but we do not have anything overarching. This has been a longstanding issue that we are pushing for, and I think this committee could obviously support those efforts.
I could also say that what is really missing from many of the strategies we have seen is any new thinking. We have used this phrase in our reports before: Largely, what we see in these strategies is a lot of ``business as usual,'' a lot of previous words packaged into a new document. We have said many times that there has to be something beyond this.
A sustainable Canada is not just the accumulation of a lot of historical practices. We must get some new thinking out there, challenge conventional wisdom. For instance, concerning the tax measures, why are not we using some of these techniques? If this committee were to tackle something like the need for a federal strategy, I would think and hope you could come at it from a different perspective, ask questions that the House committees do not ask and, frankly, inject some imagination into this whole exercise called sustainable development.
That image of what we are talking about — what does this country look like in 20 years? — is missing now. I think it would drive a lot of new thinking and innovation within the public service as well.
Senator Angus: The radical steps that you have quoted from the British folks are one thing. We will have catastrophic consequences if radical steps are not taken now. You are telling us we have to get all these commitments honoured. Are those radical steps? Would that be sufficient? I sense a conflict now.
The gentleman is saying we need new ideas. Should we scrap this book with all these commitments and come up with new, radical steps to be taken?
Ms. Gélinas: We have a lot of good things here, so we should keep that. I have said many times, look at that, tell me what the meaningful commitments are and go for it, and there are some innovations there too. That is one thing. Some departments will go with the business-as-usual kind of commitments, things they are already doing anyhow, and some other departments are pushing hard.
Beyond that, we need some kind of new thinking. If we were to have, for example, that federal strategy or national strategy, then we would know what we are aiming for, where we want to go, and then could think through new ways of doing business, if that is the point. However, we need the overall picture — as I said, the picture on the jigsaw puzzle — so we can put all the pieces together, drop the ones we do not need and push harder on the ones that we think will get us there.
The motivation, the enthusiasm and the creativity are there. When you talk to the younger people in the department, they will tell you all the good ideas they have; but as you go further up, there are a lot of processes that kill your good ideas.
The Chairman: Does Mr. Reed still work for you, commissioner?
Ms. Gélinas: Of course he does.
Senator Cochrane: Like Senator Angus, I too would like to commend you for the work you have done and the commitment you seem to have to doing something about the environment and all the problems that exist out there. I would like you to continue your good work, because it is really good work. It is for the betterment of our children and for all those who will be involved in Canada.
In your 2003 report, you examined the Canadian Transportation Fuel Cell Alliance Program, which is one of the nine actions the federal government identifies within the transportation sector. You noted that the federal government had invested or committed over $100 million to hydrogen fuel cells, but it had done so in the absence of a national strategy. Essentially, there was no guarantee that Canadians were getting maximum benefit for this investment. Can you tell us how the government responded to your concerns in this area and what action it has taken to date?
Ms. Gélinas: I have in mind the 2004 report, but Mr. Affleck was responsible for the 2003 report on road transportation.
As you may know, we do a regular follow-up on some of the commitments in the responses of the department to our recommendations. We are planning to do that through the 2006 report, where we will look more broadly at some climate change issues. We are not there yet. I cannot tell you how much progress has been made; I think NRCan was responsible for this project.
However, this is again a good example of how we can work together on issues like that. If I maybe have concerns about slow progress in some areas, before I do the follow-up, which is often two, three years later, if you were to ask the department how much progress it has made in this area, we would have this information available for our work, but also in terms of public information. I cannot really tell you more about that, but it was a commitment, so somewhere we should see progress. The department may have also made commitments in this area in their own strategy; so you can pick and choose the commitments you want in any SDS of any department and ask about progress. If you do so, these documents will gain life in some way, which they do not really have at this moment, except maybe for me, who keeps them alive.
Senator Cochrane: Maybe Mr. Reed would like to say something.
Mr. Reed: No, I do not have more to add.
Senator Angus: The Mr. Reed who still works for her?
Mr. Reed: Yes, the Mr. Reed who still works for her — other than we will go out early this spring to follow up specific recommendations. It is possible that that national fuel cell strategy may factor into some of the ongoing work that we will do in 2006 as it relates to climate change.
The Chairman: I know you are attached to the Auditor General's department and I kind of know the answer, but when you are talking about pushing the envelope, and you are moving into a new area like hydrogen, whatever, and how it will be stored, is it actually possible to get an answer to the question, are we getting value for dollars?
Do those people not have to have the right to fail?
Ms. Gélinas: I hope we all have the right to fail. I have said many times that it does not really matter if you cannot achieve your goal as long as you can measure your progress, the progress that shows if you will be able to achieve your goal, and if not, just say so. We just want to know that you will do your own analysis. Let us know if you are moving in the right direction. Give us the information. Also, based on the information, parliamentarians will be able to judge progress. You will be able to make that statement about value for money with respect to some projects. The problem that we have too often is that departments are not measuring, so we cannot tell how much progress we are making in one direction or another. When we did the audit on road transportation, we used it really as a red flag to make sure that, with respect to climate change, the government was putting in place a good system, a good accountability framework to measure and report on progress and make adjustments, if needed, pushing in one direction more than another, knowing how much it cost to get there compared to other options on the table. Measurement is a key and this is one of the weakest parts of the accountability framework within the federal government.
The Chairman: I will ask a rhetorical question. Would an audit of Mr. Alexander Graham Bell's efforts two months before he said, ``Come here, I want to speak to you,'' have shown efficacy and might the plug have been pulled? I am not asking for an answer, but that was the nature of my question.
Senator Spivak: First of all, maybe the next minister we should invite here is the Minister of Finance, based on what they are saying. I wonder about this whole issue of an overall strategy. The last time we had an overall strategy that was broad in nature was the green plan under Prime Minister Mulroney and Jean Charest, and at that time there seemed to be a huge impetus. I think it has been lost. We are used to crisis. We do not react to salmon or cod disappearing, or the Arctic, for some strange reason. We are inured to crisis. The most innovative idea that I have come across is one that I think Minister Dion has referred to, about the next industrial revolution. It is about not eco- efficiency but eco-effectiveness. Maybe you are familiar with that, and using a entirely new paradigm that is based on nature and is totally different from what we are doing, and it makes eminent sense. I am not sure that we can effect that right now, but perhaps we can effect incremental things. To that extent, I am wondering about the Privy Council Office's screening of proposals and policies. This is an old idea. It was introduced about 10 years ago. I remember asking, is the government actually intending to screen proposals and policies of the cabinet? The answer was yes, but it has not been done, of course. Does the Privy Council Office — never mind that it maybe forgot it was planning to do this — have the personnel to do it? Or is it a question of the head of the Privy Council simply issuing a directive saying, ``Here is what you want to do and I want to see it in 15 days''? Given the great experience with bureaucracy that we have all had, how do you get around the stasis there? It is dead wood, for Heaven's sake.
The Chairman: You are talking to bureaucrats.
Senator Angus: You are talking to professionals.
Ms. Gélinas: First, what you refer to is strategic environmental assessment. You are right. It should have been done many years ago. Now, the Privy Council Office, PCO, elaborated on a directive for the department, but it is the department's responsibility to do it within their mandate. I will give an example. When the Department of Fisheries and Oceans developed its aquaculture strategy, the department should have done a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and looked at the environmental, economic and social components. As we were doing the chapter on SEA, we were told it had not been done. It was not really PCO's responsibility to do it in this case, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans', so there was no oversight by PCO.
Senator Spivak: In the daily or monthly marching orders or whatever the PCO has, do they check off an assessment of environmental policies and programs, or is it just something hidden somewhere in the back? If they want $5 billion for a child care strategy for the country, which is a huge project, obviously the wheels are set in motion. They are not just talking; they are actually looking at ways to do it.
Ms. Gélinas: I am sure Richard is very passionate on this issue. Can he give you some insight?
Mr. Richard Arseneault, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: There is a cabinet directive on the issue of strategic environmental assessment. Cabinet orders departments, ``You shall do this from now on.''
Senator Spivak: And what happened?
Mr. Arseneault: Some departments have started to do it, although there are some issues around the quality of their assessments. Some departments have done a better job than others. Most departments have ignored it and there was no central authority asking questions about this except for us. We are the first ones to look at this in such detail and to highlight the issues of lack of central ownership, because something is a departmental issue up to the point where it is still in the department, but the minute it goes to cabinet, it becomes a horizontal issue whereby someone should ensure that the environment is considered at that level, but no one does.
Senator Spivak: Here we obviously have a move, as Senator Harb put it, in this new committee. Let us take the issue of the salmon stocks, which were almost finished. That is a huge issue for Canada. If we were to influence that, would we send a letter saying make that your first priority and give us an idea of what you plan to do about it, or do we stick with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? They obviously have not brought about what is happening, but they have not stopped it. Do you know what I am getting at? If we are to be effective, where is the pressure point?
Senator Angus: Coming in about five minutes.
Senator Spivak: Actually, that is not the case. The Minister of the Environment is an advocate but I do not think he is the person that makes all those departments jump. He does not have the prestige of the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister. I do not want to answer my own question.
Mr. Arseneault: I read the paper, as everyone does, and the Minister of the Environment said when was in his previous job he did not think about the environment. Now he is thinking about it because he is Minister of the Environment. Therefore it is an example of how, if you are not Minister of the Environment or Minister of Natural Resources or maybe Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, where you have an environmental slant to the work you are doing, it is not your reality. In fact, it should be the reality of everyone because —
Senator Spivak: We all agree, but I am asking you a specific question. What is our pressure point? Should we go gangbusters on this new committee? Does it have the prestige, in your experience?
The Chairman: I have the impression the commissioner told us that we should start by asking the deputies.
Senator Angus: Let us hold all the deputies to account.
Ms. Gélinas: I would like to add that one of the reasons progress is so slow, and some departments do not pay attention to this and that, is because whatever you do, there are no consequences. Do it right or do it wrong; it does not matter.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen that some departments are doing it: NRCan is moving forward; Transport Canada is moving forward in some areas; Industry Canada as well. Where are the other departments? Have they thought that at some time they will get on the train?
The Chairman: Could you send us a little list of who is on the train?
Ms. Gélinas: It is so easy. I just mentioned the three obvious ones and you can get the list of those that are not on the train. That is why I am asking the committee to look at the root causes. The lack of accountability is certainly one area where you could push a little further. That is clear, and I will repeat it. There is no consequence whatsoever, unless it is in the performance expectations of a deputy minister, for a specific aspect.
The Chairman: I assume that we will find some pressure points.
Senator Adams: I am living in the Arctic but I did not see the complete report on the Arctic. In your opinion as the commissioner, what is more important today? We who live in the North know the environment has changed a great deal. Living in Rankin Inlet on Hudson's Bay is not quite the High Arctic. Over the last couple of years, we noticed the change in the weather. For the first time, we registered winds of 147 kilometres per hour this fall. We never had winds that strong before. I went out on the land last week. The lakes are usually frozen solid at this time of the year and if the ice cracks, no water comes up. This year, some of the lakes had four- or five-inch cracks and water was coming up. I do not understand, but we did have a lot of wind and rain this summer.
Which is more important in your view, climate change or the environment? Many people are concerned about polar bears and other wildlife but seldom ask about the people living in the communities, what changes they have seen and how much things have changed. I have lived in Resolute Bay, and I took a plane up to Iqaluit a couple of weeks ago. At this time of the year, in the old days, you would leave about 10:30 a.m. and have about 45 minutes to hunt seal or caribou. Now you can leave at 9 a.m. and hunt for two hours, even with daylight changing. I do not know whether the environmental scientists have noticed that. What is more important: the climate change or the environment?
Ms. Gélinas: Climate change is probably one of the best examples of why we must act now. We can see the consequences, and I am not the only one saying that. There are so many scientific reports that clearly make the link between climate change and some of the situations occurring worldwide. This is also an important issue for my office. As I mentioned earlier, we will dedicate the 2006 report to climate change, and the status of the Arctic will be part of our work. We will contact senators, members and experts to seek advice on where exactly to focus our work. This is why we must work closely together. I am well aware that this committee has a great interest in water issues, which we are actually working on. We could assist the committee by providing specific findings based on reliable information on such an issue. I am hopeful that we can begin tonight to develop a closer relationship, so that together we can put some pressure on the government to move forward. It may not be possible on all the major issues that we consider important, but at least a couple of them. That will be our contribution. We may not be able to finish the job, but at least we will ensure that our children are well aware and will take over when we are gone.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: How far behind schedule is the Canadian government in terms of its living up to its Kyoto commitments?
Ms. Gélinas: I cannot answer that question, because our audit work is just now starting. We will be in a position to issue a status report within two years. The auditing process will in fact get under way next January. That is precisely why we decided to focus on this issue. The Russians have ratified the accord. If we fail to meet our commitments, the repercussions could be very serious. Consequently, I want to be able to report to Members of Parliament on any progress achieved. If we are not on the right path, then we need to make the necessary adjustments to attain our goals. But for now, I cannot, regrettably, answer your question.
Senator Lavigne: It is said that electricity is Quebec's major source of wealth. According to several television reports, many projects are in limbo and are not being given the green light. They are being delayed because fish stocks in our rivers and lakes stand to be depleted. On one program that I was viewing, a university professor was arguing that in the case of a small scale hydroelectric generating project, that is one that would generate only several kilowatts, it would be easier to create a new basin in the lakes or rivers and then reproduce the environment. Moreover, in the case of a large project, it was difficult to get DFO's approval. He mentioned a study that had been done which showed that anywhere from ten to twenty years after the completion of a major hydroelectric project, fish stocks were three to four times more plentiful than previously.
Do you have information about this matter? Can you tell us anything about these projects that have been halted because of DFO regulations stipulating that departmental approval cannot be granted unless a commitment is made to bring fish stocks back up to previous existing levels?
Ms. Gélinas: DFO has a mandate to protect fish and fish habitat. If a project, even a provincially managed project, threatens fish habitat or stocks in some way, DFO has a responsibility to intervene to protect the resource.
I cannot get into the specifics about options for replenishing fish stocks. I am not an expert, but I invite you to read our chapter on protecting salmon and its habitat and on aquaculture. You will be able to find a certain number of answers to your questions, specifically the information that fish stocks or species are not recreated. For example, when fish disappear from a lake, they are gone forever. It is not merely a matter of transplanting a species from one lake to another. That is the reason why stocks must be protected in their natural environment.
Several examples are also given of non-hydroelectric projects where a number of stakeholders complained of the fact that DFO was slow in conducting environmental assessments and in giving its approval to a project. I am thinking here, among other things, of aquaculture projects. Questions concerning the protracted assessment process and the possibility of rebuilding stocks should really be directed to DFO.
I would point out that within the terms of my mandate, ordinary citizens, organizations, municipalities, corporations and even members of the Senate or House of Commons can resort to filing a petition, a simple way of making a request of government through me. I ensure that petitioners receive a response from the department — and from ministers, as they are accountable for complying with the process — within 120 days. By petition, I mean a request from an individual or organization based in Canada, not a request accompanied by 50,000 signatures. That is one option that people may wish to explore further.
[English]
The Chairman: Senator Angus had a question.
Senator Angus: What is our schedule here?
The Chairman: We have about four minutes.
Senator Angus: It seems to even tired, old senators like us that it does not take much thought to see that catastrophic situations lie before us if we do not do something. As you will hear at a very interesting press conference, which will take place on November 25 at 10:30, the chairman and I, and some of our colleagues, will not only talk about a report that will have been released but we will share our frustration with the media. Even though the government has some very good programs, notwithstanding your audit, they cannot seem to get the attention of the people, of Canadians, who have this wonderful country. Whether it is the British or the OECD or your good self, everyone is saying we will ruin it. We are now in the process of doing a good job of ruining it forever with all these sites that are not remediated.
The pressure point that Senator Spivak was asking about becomes a political question. How do we get the attention of the people? If the people say, ``This is a horror, fix it, government, or you do not get re-elected,'' that is the bottom line, and without, I think, stealing your thunder, chairman, or mine, we will raise that question. It would be great if there is anything you can do as you continue to give us the material to help us help you, because to me these issues are a no-brainer now. We see how the big automobile companies in the States have missed the boat and have not brought in the hybrid vehicles. In Europe and the Far East, the cars are being designed now so that you have to have these alternate fuel systems. We are behind. We missed it. We have to get the public on board. I used to think that the environmental group, Green Peace, were crazy and they annoyed me. They did because it was not sold properly. They came across as a little over the top. The Green Party, if you read their literature — and I am in the Blue party — makes a lot of sense. I am reading it, and my colleague, Senator Spivak, is surprised to hear me talking like this.
The Chairman: Welcome to the light side.
Senator Spivak: I am delighted, because if you can win him over, that would be great.
Senator Angus: I recycle, I compost.
The Chairman: I am going to be rude and arbitrary and take that as a general invitation to our guests and as an indication that we will be asking you to work closely with us on a number of matters. I want to thank our guests for the hard work they do and I promise we will make more use of it than we have in the past.
Thank you, minister, for joining us. We are grateful that you were able to find the time on such short notice. I know members are anxious to speak with you, and I am sure you have many places to go, so could you please tell us what you would like us to know, and ways in which we can help you arrive at the good ends to which you are addressed?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment: Honourable senators, I am honoured to have been invited to speak to you today. I have tremendous respect for the Senate as an institution and I intend to work very closely with this committee. I invite you to work closely with me as well because we all have the same goal in mind. I am very happy to have been appointed to this portfolio by the Prime Minister at such a crucial juncture.
Sustainable development is increasingly in the news today. Awareness is growing that the relationship between human beings and the planet since the advent of industrialization is becoming unsustainable and must change. We must not lose sight of this fact when we talk about sustainable development.
[English]
I have seen so many times debate about sustainability where, at the end of the day, sustainability meant everything that is good. It is not true. It is not everything that is good; it is tough choices.
We used to consider that a good policy was a good mix of economic and social policy. I would say it was the way governments were trained to govern in democracies since the end of the First World War. However, since the 1990s, more and more we consider that a third pillar must count, and it is the environment. That is why we are speaking about sustainability.
We need to continue to try to have good social and economic policy, and now good environmental policy; and we need to put the environmental policy in a context, since it is not as important as it should be in policy design. That is why we are at a key point.
Ms. Gélinas spoke just before me, and what she has said would be true in most countries that I know; that is, there is a lot of goodwill, a lot of good work has been done. Good ministers came along, and my predecessor was a great minister, but acting outside of a context, outside of a systemic way to work. My predecessor was able to win a lot of battles that no one thought were winnable, but he did. However, each time he was starting from scratch.
I have been a minister of environmental affairs for eight years and I do not remember one situation where the environment was part of the discussion unless it was a meeting of the ministers of the environment. This must change.
When the health ministers meet, they must address the issue because we know that when Canadians become ill, usually it is not in a hospital. You end up in the hospital because the way of life is not as safe and clean as it should be. The ministers of health must have the environment and sustainability well in mind.
My first speech as Minister of the Environment — and it was important for me to do this — was made in Calgary, facing the petroleum industry; and the oil industry is very strong in Calgary. I told them I am not a foreigner to them. I am their partner. I need to work with them and they need to work with ENGOs. ENGOs need to work with them. I went to see the Suzuki Foundation. They gave me a wonderful report, a wonderful dream plan. I read it and I said it is great. It is so great that we will put that —
[Translation]
— will be put on a shelf, something to look at together and to be admired. However, we will be the only ones to hold this view, because I will never be able to sell the idea to anyone else. Quite frankly, I think you will need to rework your document.
[English]
``You will write it as if you were in business and trying to have the tar sands developed and so on.'' They tried; and I said. ``To cap it off, now you will stop complaining about the regulations of the government and so on, and you will tell me that the environment is something that you do not care about — or you care only because we push you to — or you believe in it and you want to do something.'' They told me, ``We want to do something.'' I said, ``Write to me as if you were Mr. Suzuki,'' and they tried. I think that we need a revolution to succeed. This is the principle: How will we come through that with deliverables?
I have identified five priorities that give us a framework. The first one is a good decision-making process, and it is why I welcome the report of Ms. Gélinas. It is why I welcome the decision of the Prime Minister — you may be aware of it, we had our first meeting yesterday evening — to create an ad hoc committee for the environment. This is the revolution. This committee will be chaired by the Minister of Industry, and the Minister of Environment applauds. I do not see that as, it should be me. I am pleased that Industry is there, that at each meeting the Minister of Industry will come with his officials and will speak about the environment.
We may think then that there is a danger that the big economic department will steal the agenda. I am not afraid of a challenge. It is better to have them in the tent than to work alone and try to convince everyone after they have made up their minds. I want it to be at the outset of the decision.
As for the Minister of Natural Resources, it is time that these two departments, Natural Resources and Environment, worked together instead of fighting together. We need an energy policy in this country where the renewable energy is not in a niche but in a plan. Minister Efford and I are very committed to succeeding. I am not saying we will always agree, but we will work together as it has never been done in the past.
The Minister of Health — I explained why it is important that health care is there. The population is aging. Whatever money we give to the health care system, if we do not change our way of life, the hospitals will be too crowded. I am sure of that.
The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Mr. Godfrey, has committed that the new deal with municipalities will be a green plan, and not a penny will go to urban sprawl.
It is obvious that Fisheries is included, because my colleague has to do everything to protect the fish habitat. Each time we have to address an issue that is relevant to a colleague, the colleague will be at the table. Let us say Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Agriculture, Transport — being a Minister of Transport now is not like it was 10 years ago. Since September 11, 2001, security is key, but the environment is key as well, because transport policy is a key to successful climate change policy.
This is my first priority, a good decision-making process.
The second priority is more science. It is a file where emotions are so strong that you will make bad decisions through emotion. Science is the key. Science will decide. We the politicians have the political will to invest in science and to listen to the scientists. We need more science in Canada about environmental policy.
The third priority is communication of the science. If the science remains between academics — and I am one myself — it is great for the academics, but —
[Translation]
Because so many good ideas get lost in the shuffle, we need to improve the lines of communication, a process that calls for indicators, networks and a great deal of hard work by governments.
[English]
The fourth thing we need is good incentives, an incentive system, to help people, the decision makers and consumers, to make the good decisions. The OECD report that you may have seen said that Canada is late in getting to that. If you compare us with the United States, Europe and Japan, there are many things we need to do to build a good system of incentives, enforcement and compliance in Canada. When I spoke to the industry about it, when I said that we will find a way to reward the good players and punish the bad ones, they were pleased by that because they know that the bad players are giving them a bad reputation at a time when reputation is business, more than ever. The final thing we need to do is outreach education. We need to find a way to help Canadians to know how to be better citizens. I know that you will release tomorrow a report; Senator Banks explained to me.
The Chairman: Next week.
Mr. Dion: Okay, I understand that the content of the report, if I am not wrong because I did not read it yet, will say it is very important to have outreach programs like the One Tonne Challenge. However, it is not enough, and I agree. It must be there. I met my counterpart, the Minister of Environment of France, Mr. Lepeltier.
[Translation]
I hear that beginning in primary school, young French students are taught certain lessons so that they can grow up to be good citizens with an understanding of the importance of the environment. Here in this country, as you well know, education is a provincial responsibility. However, this is one area that I have been discussing with my provincial counterparts. Working together with the provinces, we will succeed, because we cannot do it alone. We act as levers at the federal government level and we will evaluate the situation a little more closely. In my estimation, the time has come for the departments of the Environment and Canadian Heritage to work together. These two departments have not really had an opportunity to collaborate on an initiative. We will be sitting down and trying to find a way to ensure that Canadians get the information they need.
[English]
You have also labelling and all these other levers at the federal level that might help.
This is the framework, but the framework is not enough. We need also specific initiatives from the government. After this comes the throne speech. In the throne speech, we have 13 commitments of the government. If you want to review it rapidly, you will see it is closely linked to the framework, which is closely linked to the vision, the necessity to include the environment with our other economic and social policy.
The first commitment is to have the framework that I just mentioned. The Prime Minister is willing not only to have a list of initiatives, but to have something that makes sense, that goes in a direction. The first commitment is to have this decision-making framework. It is why he created this ad hoc committee. The second one is help for the commercialization of better environmental technology.
[Translation]
The second measure is the commercialization of improved leading-edge environmental technologies.
[English]
I just said that too many ideas are lost in the Senate.
[Translation]
For example, we will use proceeds from Petro-Canada.
[English]
A lot of this money will go for commercialization of environmental technologies.
[Translation]
A further commitment involves environmental assessments.
[English]
There is not a place in Canada where people do not complain that it takes too long. We just had a report on smart regulation saying that if you compare us with other countries, environmental evaluations are too long, too complex, too duplicating, so we will consolidate them. I hope I will be able to come back to this committee with something when I get the green light. However, I am working hard to be sure that this will happen, not in a matter of years, but in a matter of months.
Another one is the green procurement policy. How can you be a leader if you do not show that you are exemplary? When I was Minister of Official Languages, I made it a priority to improve the bilingualism within the civil service of Canada, because you need to be exemplary if you want to lead.
[Translation]
As one of the principal levers in the field of purchasing policy in Canada —
[English]
We will have a green procurement policy. I spoke to Minister Alcock and Minister Brison. Your committee may consider that all these policies are not so much directly linked to the Department of the Environment, so I encourage you to invite my colleagues.
Senator Angus: That is your problem.
Mr. Dion: I encourage you to invite them to come because it is not true any more that the sole measure of the ministry of care of the environment is the Minister of Environment. This was a mistake. The Minister of Public Works must be a green minister. It is my point. I am sure your committee will help me to make sure that it will be the case.
Another thing that we are focusing on completing is the energy policy, the renewable energy especially. Minister Efford and I are working hard on that and within it there is the wind power.
[Translation]
We pledged to quadruple the Wind Power Production Incentive.
[English]
I just released a couple of weeks ago a wind strategy.
[Translation]
In French, we call it ``La place des vents du Canada''. I will not tell you what we call it in English.
[English]
Last time I said at the conference that Canada is full of wind, everyone laughed and I did not understand why.
[Translation]
It may sound better in French. Canada has enormous wind resource potential that does not cost us anything. In fact, Canada has wind to sell.
[English]
I will give you an example. Another thing we are committed to is a strategy for the North. You are aware of a report that was just released last week about the situation in the North, how much climate change is a terrible challenge for the North. Therefore, this strategy for the North will have a strong focus on environmental policy. Today, people in Nunavut confine their energy source to the diesel fuel that we send there. It is very costly for taxpayers to send diesel there. It is awfully polluting to their ecosystem. It is not creating jobs locally. If we are able to build a wind power farm, this would make sense. We will save a lot of money. It will be good for the environment, and good for the local economy. That is only an example of what we may do about that.
[Translation]
Furthermore, we are committed to the following:
[English]
We need to do everything we can with the United States. The Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf, this is an ecosystem that we share with them. We need to work with them closely.
[Translation]
...and with the International Joint Commission as well.
[English]
We will have a new generation of programs for the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and the Gulf. We know more now about the invading species and so on, so we are ready to work hard with our American friends. I met my counterpart and we spoke more than once about that. This is something the government clearly wants to move on, the Oceans Action Plan. I told you my buddy is Minister Regan. I think we have a lot of things to do together, and I encourage you to invite him, because we have three oceans and all of them are now in a terrible situation. It is a great challenge for us.
The cities and communities will be part of the Green Plan, as I just mentioned, and the North too. These are our 13 commitments, the 5 priorities and divisions, and I want to succeed, with the help of all of you. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister, very much. I think we are finding much of that very hopeful and we hope we will be able to be useful, as will you.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you, minister. Our committee here is very interested in seeing some results from what you have said and we hope that within the next month or so, we can have you back to give us some sort of review as to how far along you have come.
We have just heard from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that she is not happy with the lack of progress and the gap in leadership. From her words, we understand that there has been no framework, nothing has been accomplished and there has been no accountability. We are hoping that you will do all those things in your 13 commitments and that you will report back to us.
You mentioned wind power, but I did not hear you mention solar power. Minister, we recently heard from the Canadian Solar Industries Association, who presented a very compelling case for solar technology. They told us that Canada has significant solar resources, certainly greater than those of leading nations such as Japan and Germany, yet we lag behind. In fact, among the OECD countries, Canada ranks 17th out of 22 reporting nations in terms of use of solar energy. What is Canada's vision with regard to solar energy? Where would you like to see us go with it?
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: First of all, I would say that the sun's rays are very strong.
[English]
I want to say that I agree with and welcome Ms. Gélinas' recommendations. We need to work in the way that she suggested, which is part of the framework I just mentioned. I disagree that there has been a lack of leadership. Rather, there has been a lack of method. The leadership was in place with former Minister Anderson and former Prime Minister Chrétien, who were both very committed. We need improved methods to integrate the environment with the economic and social policies. Before, the economic policy was changed a little at the end. That is not what I want to do. We need more method. I would not say that there has been a lack of leadership, although some may have perceived it that way. I would not say that nothing has been done, and Ms. Gélinas did not write that in her report either. If you take the five international agreements that she reviewed, two were okay and three were not as good as they should have been.
To improve the situation, we should not encourage people to say that nothing has been done and that everything was wrong, because that is not a good way to start. We have much improvement to accomplish, especially since the challenges are much greater than we first thought. For instance, we have decreased many emissions that lead to acid rain. That has been a success, although we have discovered that our lakes are more sensitive to acid rain than we originally thought. It is not that we did nothing, but rather that the problem is bigger than we thought it was, even though we made more improvements than we had planned at the outset. I hope that this does not occur with our efforts on climate change. If climate change is worse than we think it is, and given all the difficulty we have achieving today's reasonable targets, it will be tough for humankind; we will see.
Our goals include solar power, wind power and all renewable sources of energy. Canada is fortunate to be rich in every imaginable energy source. That is why the renewables have been slower to develop in Canada than in countries without other energy sources. Canada has petroleum, natural gas, coal, uranium and hydroelectricity. That is why we have been slower to look at the renewable energy sources. The classic energy, hydro, was relatively cheap in comparison with other countries. We need to wake up and catch up. I will ask my expert on solar energy to intervene.
Mr. Nick Macaluso, Policy Manager, Climate Change Economics Directorate, Policy and Communications, Environment Canada: There are many existing programs that support solar energy. One in particular that comes to mind is the renewable energy deployment initiative that Natural Resources Canada administers. They are providing incentives to homeowners and large businesses to install solar water heaters. There is a range of programs along those lines. Minister Dion talked about the need for an energy strategy and renewables. Solar is a fundamental component of that strategy. Work is being done under several other programs. For example, the program on energy removals and reductions — the PERRL program — is basically a reverse auction under the climate change program, whereby citizens and businesses actually offer up productions and solar energy is eligible to participate. We have the Council of Energy Ministers looking at the broad issue of solar energy and where it fits into the renewable energy mix. There are movements afoot.
Senator Cochrane: Is the public being informed? Are there initiatives for people to get involved in solar energy now?
Mr. Steve McCauley, Director, Oil, Gas and Energy Branch, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada: The government is implementing another initiative, a market incentive program that is a partnership between the federal government and sellers of green electricity and green power, as well as local communities, to market and promote green power in local communities through public education programs. Another program I wanted to mention is significant and has been recognized as such around the world. Environment Canada is leading an initiative with NRCan and Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC, to commit the federal government to purchasing 20 per cent of its total electricity from green electricity sources, including solar. There are significant commitments underway but, as the minister said, the Speech from the Throne committed to developing a broader national energy strategy, including a focus on renewables. The Canadian Solar Industry Association actually called for the need for that strategy.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have a way to assess whether the general public is using this incentive?
Mr. McCauley: There has been a good take-up of the program. We implemented a number of projects in conjunction with the provincial and municipal governments. Certainly, we could do more in that respect. An important focus for the renewable energy strategy will be to have a stronger engagement of the public. I would say there has been some success to this point, but we could do more in that area.
The Chairman: Senators and guests, we will not have time for all the questions. I promised the minister that he would be out of here shortly after 7 p.m. I would ask the minister and his officials if they would be prepared to answer written questions, which we might collect and send to you later.
Mr. Dion: I would be pleased to do that.
The Chairman: In light of what I have just said, I would ask senators to be concise with their questions so that we may progress as far as possible this evening.
Senator Harb: First, congratulations to the minister. I think the Prime Minister made a wise decision when he appointed you to this position because you brought clarity and vision to it and you will get the job done.
Now the question is about this ad hoc committee. When the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development was here, one of the issues she talked about — and she seemed a bit frustrated with the lack of coordination and cooperation — is the fact that she does not know where to go and who is responsible for what. While she was sympathetic to the Department of the Environment, she felt that there is a need to go beyond that because of exactly what you said. You need to have Industry at the table, Natural Resources at the table, Fisheries and Oceans, Health, et cetera, at the table. Now that we have this ad hoc committee, with your leadership, can you push for a round table discussion with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development at the earliest possible opportunity, so she can put her views on the table, have a frank discussion with the ministers, since if there are concerns and tangible suggestions she wants to make, that might be the place to do it?
Mr. Dion: It is a good suggestion. I will look at that. I know that when the report came into my hands I made sure that my colleagues who were the target of some of her comments would meet her. I made sure that it was discussed at the cabinet table and I discovered many of my colleagues were even not aware that she existed. Who is this Madame Gélinas? It is quite a new function, but after some years now, it is time to be sure that she has the right profile so the file and the work she is doing has merit and it is part of the revolution we need.
Senator Spivak: Your enthusiasm is infectious and very hopeful. I have four short questions.
The Chairman: No, no, no.
Senator Spivak: I will wrap them into one. First of all, why is Finance not the head of this committee, instead of Industry? Second, with Industry, are you going to look at industrial practices that are eco-effective, not eco-efficient? We will get into that later. Third, environmental assessment: The trouble is not just that it is too long, but there are not enough independent panels to do assessments; and fourth, oil sands: I was sitting next to your senior policy adviser at dinner last night and we discussed the matter of hydro or nuclear power, because the big problem with oil sands is water, et cetera. Is nuclear an option? I am against nuclear, but now I have to be for it because, well, it is a trade-off.
Those are my questions. Finally, I have to tell you that I am familiar with some of those industry people in Calgary, and some of them, like Robert Page and people at Shell, are fantastic, and so if you got them to write like Suzuki, good for you.
Mr. Dion: The Minister of Finance is, ex officio, a member of the committee.
Senator Spivak: Will they be at the meeting, because the tax system is what Ms. Gélinas was talking about?
Mr. Dion: Invite him here.
The Chairman: We will.
Mr. Dion: As for environmental assessments, I think it may be true that we need more panels, but we need to take less time to set a panel. It is a mystery to me why it takes so long. It seems to me it should take a matter of days, not months, to arrange a panel.
Senator Spivak: It is the independent panels. It does not always reach that stage.
Mr. Dion: Unfortunately, not always, because we have how many thousands of assessments a year?
Senator Spivak: Right.
Mr. Dion: It would be crazy, but for some very important projects you need a panel and I want to look at why it takes so long to set one.
Oil sands and nuclear: There is no Minister of the Environment on earth that will stop the oil sands.
Senator Spivak: I understand that. That is what I mean.
Mr. Dion: I will work hard to find better ways to use it, because to take this oil out of the sand is terrible for water, as you said, for the gas emissions, and we need to work on and invest in the carbon monoxide sequestration. This is a solution, but the solution will not be ready unless we invest — the private sector, the public sector — much more than what we are doing now. I know you have in your province very good research centres that are looking for help exactly on this issue. It is why I will not make any bad decisions. I will not suggest to the Prime Minister a bad decision to give us the sense that we are doing good things in the short term, to look good, when the solutions will be for the long haul. If all the countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol succeed, emissions would decrease by 5.2 per cent by 2010, if you start in 1990. That is good. However, the scientists tell us that we need to decrease them by 70 per cent, so you can see that if we do not have a kind of technological revolution we will not succeed. Nuclear: I was in Europe last week. I was in France, where they decided to go right through with nuclear. I went to Britain, where they tried to escape from it, and the British, the Belgians, told me they are considering reopening the debate because they do not know how they will succeed without it.
Senator Spivak: It is the least of the worst options.
Mr. Dion: The Germans are not there because it is a coalition where the Green Party is strong, and it will be important for us to look at what is happening there because, in this province, in Ontario, it is exactly the debate that we need to have. If we are able to help the provincial government to close all these coal facilities, what is the other solution? The wind power, the solar and so on, are good, but cannot be the whole solution to the problem in this heavily industrialized province. Certainly, nuclear must be considered and must be part of the debate.
Senator Angus: Thank you, chairman, and welcome, minister. I will try to cut to the chase here. You have a big challenge, and whatever the commissioner said and I might pick up on, we are not blaming you. You are the new man, but Ms. Gélinas did not tell us what we would hear in all the other countries, as you said, and I respectfully disagree with you. She has told us, and she has an OECD document to back it up — she has quotes from the British — Canada was way out in front back in the late 1980s, mid-1980s. You yourself have said the two situations you were most impressed by that you have seen were the acid rain and the hole in the ozone. Those are both from a blue government of years ago. What the commissioner said was that there were serious failures, and one of them was leadership, but she did not criticize your predecessor. On the contrary, she shared with him, as we hope you will not have to, the great frustration that he expressed on TV twice recently. My question is why, with the tools that we have at our disposal and the advances we made earlier, is there this implementation gap in Canada? Why will the people in Finance not cooperate? What is the problem and what will you do to get them onside, because you are the man, sir, and we have great hope. We are very pleased with your appointment.
Mr. Dion: Thank you. I do not want to repeat everything I said. I still think it is a matter of method. Also, the challenges, the problems, are growing.
Sometimes, it is good news. One of the reasons is the good news is creating a problem elsewhere. The good news, for instance, is that our economy has been booming for 11 years. I will resist making a comparison of the economy under two governments, since we are speaking about the environment. The economy is booming, and I will not say it is because of a red government instead of a blue government. I will just say that the economy is booming.
When the economy is booming, the amount of emissions you send into the air grows. In Europe, the economy is flat, so toxic emissions and so on are not increasing at the same time rate as in Canada. In Japan it is the same. It is the difficulty we have.
Senator Angus: They are passing laws about hybrid vehicles and alternate fuels for cars, which are the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and their economies are down. You have the challenge. Will you make it happen?
Mr. Dion: I know we have improvements to make with hybrid cars and so on. With respect to the automotive industry, they have agreed to negotiate an agreement with Germany, and with Japan. I do not think Canadians will accept not doing so with Canada. We are negotiating with them now.
Senator Spivak: For hybrids?
Mr. Dion: To increase their efficiency by 25 per cent. If we go nowhere with the negotiations, regulations will be introduced. California did it, so why would Canada be afraid to do it?
We give them the opportunity to join with us on an agreement. I hope it will work. I strongly support Minister Efford on that. I do not want to speak for too long. I think we have great challenges and I am happy to work with you.
Senator Angus: Please work with Ms. Gélinas, she is really super.
Senator Buchanan: This is one of the most comprehensive reviews of the environment that I have heard in this committee in years. Congratulations to you on the ad hoc committee. I hope it works. I hope they all work together, and work with your provincial counterparts. I wanted to mention your focus on energy; it is important to Nova Scotia as far as natural gas is concerned, from which we will get all of the revenues very soon. In addition, there is coal; we are developing a new coal mine. I also want to mention wind power — we have three or four new generators — and climate change to you as well. I am glad you have included climate change, because we need climate change in Nova Scotia, especially after last weekend.
Senator Adams: You mentioned Nunavut. I hope you keep your promise, especially about wind generation up there. We have lots of wind. We had a couple of witnesses on solar energy and I think it would be good to start something like that. Any other business is difficult sometimes — the costs to keep upgrading — and it is the same thing with wind generation. We have one in Rankin, 60 kilowatts, that would maybe cost about $60,000 here in Ottawa. By the time you are finished, it costs you over $100,000 for one 60-kilowatt generator up there.
I would appreciate if you could look into things like that. I know we are paying over 45 cents a kilowatt-hour in the community, while we are only paying about 10 cents here. Subsidies are important. Do not close them down. You have no more money and all of a sudden your investment ends up in bankruptcy. I hope we keep looking into that kind of project for Nunavut. We need it up there. Where I live, in Rankin, we have lots of wind. One of the best wind- generating areas is in Rankin Inlet. One generator makes 60 kilowatts, and in one year they made 140,000 kilowatts.
The Chairman: Minister and officials, thank you very much for being with us. I apologize to members whom I did not get to.
Senator Milne: I can ask for a written answer, but I would like to put my question. We have had four from that side of the table and only two from this side.
I have just one warning, about wind power, and a question. The warning is that they are beginning to discover that large wind farms create so much turbulence in the air at the surface that they actually change the climate in the area. There are issues that the department should be looking at carefully before we start saying we will go with wind.
You know we are coming out with this report, and you know what happens to reports, they get shelved. What is the best way for you to work to get our recommendations put in place? What is your style? What can we do, and what place does this committee have in your plan of attack? I would not mind having a written answer.
The Chairman: I will ask Senator Lavigne and Senator Kenny to give their written questions to the clerk. We will send many questions to you, minister, if you are agreeable. The meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.