ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 6, 2003

º

1610

The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment)

º

1615

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. David Anderson

º

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. David Anderson

º

1630

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Mr. David Anderson

º

1635

Dr. Marc Denis Everell (Assistant Deputy Minister, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. David Anderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. David Anderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. David Anderson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Hon. Charles Caccia

º

1640

Mr. David Anderson

º

1645

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Mr. David Anderson

Mrs. Karen Brown (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of the Environment)

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

º

1650

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

»

1700

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Norine Smith (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Department of the Environment)

Ms. Cassie Doyle (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Service Innovation, Department of the Environment)

The Chair

»

1705

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 035

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1610)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our committee meeting. On our agenda we have the supplementary estimates (A) for 2003-2004. We have a quorum, so we can begin.

    I would like to start by welcoming our Minister of the Environment and his officials.

[English]

    Welcome, Mr. Anderson, and each and every one of your officials. We are deeply touched and impressed by this tremendous show of strength in numbers and quality. Since we are already a bit late and you apparently have some time restraints

[Translation]

    You have the floor.

[English]

    Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Certainly it appears today that we outnumber the members of the committee. I'm delighted to be here with so many members of my department who can indeed assist in our response, but who also play such an important role in what my department does.

    In response to a question by you today--it's very appropriate that you asked the question--this is a red-letter day because of the decision to ratify the Law of the Sea. It's taking place contemporaneously with this meeting only a few metres away. It's a great advance.

    I would like to congratulate you personally for the long-time interest you've shown in that issue, and the fact that you always raised it year after year when others seemed to have forgotten it. So it's an important day for Canada, for the Law of the Sea, and also for you. My congratulations.

[Translation]

    It is indeed a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the government's request for additional funds for Environment Canada and for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. There's much to discuss today and I hope to have an opportunity to address all of your questions.

[English]

    I will do a somewhat unusual thing. I have a very brief oral statement, but you will notice that there is a longer written statement. For the sake of brevity, because we are so delayed this afternoon, I will give just the brief oral statement, and I know you'll be able to look at the written statement.

    There are clear and disturbing signals that human activity globally is now substantially affecting the planet's absorptive and productive capacity. The results of those stresses include compromised heath as a result of environmental pollutants and hazards, loss of property and profitability due to shifting climate and weather patterns, and very dramatic loss of biodiversity. As the committee is well aware, many of these issues are complex and increasingly global in nature; however most of them are manageable, provided energetic steps are taken.

    The funding provided by these supplementary estimates will enable Canada to meet new international requirements for accounting for carbon sinks, and the establishment of the national registries for greenhouse gas reporting. It will also ensure our implementation of two key pieces of environmental legislation--the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

º  (1615)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, as you all know, Budget 2003 was the “greenest” budget in the history of our country. It means that we are committed to providing the necessary financial support to meet our legislative responsibilities in the long term.

    Mr. Chairman, over the last ten years, the federal government has made significant progress on a number of key environmental issues. The government ratified the Kyoto Protocol last December. The government launched a national plan backed by $2 billion in funding in Budget 2003 to meet those domestic and international commitments.

    The committee members are reviewing today a request for $23 million in supplementary estimates towards the budget commitment.

[English]

    In listing some of our successes and the size of the budget, I would like to pay tribute to the work of all members of the committee, both opposition and government, in making sure this issue was constantly before my colleagues. You have been of great help to me in making sure the need for environmental expenditures was well known to Parliament, to the government, and primarily to the Canadian people.

    While budget 2003 contained $33 million over two years for this legislation, there is room for improvement. In June, an amended Canadian Environmental Assessment Act received royal assent. The new act will improve the transparency and effectiveness of our environmental assessments. The supplementary estimates that we are reviewing today contain $4.4 million in funding to help with the implementation of these amendments.

    As members of the committee know, the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act remains a key priority for this government. Budget 2003 has invested some $75 million over two years to help ensure that Canadians and our environment are protected. That includes the $25 million that is before you today in these supplementary estimates.

[Translation]

    Last but not least, the government has made a major commitment to modernizing Canada's weather services to ensure that all Canadians continue to receive timely and accurate weather information.

    Mr. Chairman, I think it is safe to say that we have witnessed a period of unprecedented investments in the environment and sustainable development. What we need to do now is to get on with delivering results on our commitments to Canadians.

[English]

    For all our successes, our approach as a government is reactive. We fix environmental problems as they arise, and that of course means they have arisen and are before us. I believe we have to get ahead of the bow wave and become a department that can prevent these issues and problems from arising in the first place.

    There are two main pillars to making this shift: greater reliance on more innovative instruments, particularly market-based instruments; and investment in environmental information to empower Canadians so they can take action to protect their environment.

    We have to harness the power and innovation of the private sector, and inform and empower individual citizens, so all can work in partnership to create a dynamic and innovative economy and a healthy environment, and continue to improve the quality of life over the coming decades. That is a vision we all must embrace to create a truly sustainable Canada.

    That is my oral presentation to you. As I said, you have the full text. I'll be happy to answer whatever questions you may have.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: All right. We'll have a quick round. As the chair, I would like to be included in the first round, so I would be grateful if members of the committee would limit the first round to one question each. If the minister can stay for a second round we will have it as well, but at least we'll have one full round.

    We'll start immediately with Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing, even if it is late.

    When we go through the estimates--and we've gone through these fairly carefully--if I have to choose one question, I might choose one on the weather service.

    You are rather known for talking about these extreme weather conditions that are increasing dramatically. Of course, if Kyoto gets ratified they'll end all of a sudden. But it's rather strange that when we look at these reports on weather stations and your cutting of weather stations, they say that under the watch of this government and this minister the weather service has deteriorated from one of the best in the world to one of the worst. That's from one of the experts.

    We also have the head meteorologist from Environment Canada saying that you can't really relate extreme weather conditions to something like global warming--it's a pretty tall stretch. We had a 70-year drought in the 17th century in western Canada.

    So if we're so concerned about these increased dramatic weather problems, why are we becoming one of the worst in the world at weather forecasting?

    Mr. David Anderson: We have one of the best weather services in the world. I was in China this summer, and I was amazed at their high regard when they spoke of the Canadian weather service and their desire to cooperate with us. In China, 60,000 people work for the weather service.

    The weather service is good. We invested another $75 million in it so we could acquire new equipment--Doppler radar is an example--and stay up-to-date. Weather forecasting and the weather service have changed dramatically because of new technology.

    Of course, you need local observations to tell you what's happening now, but with forecasting you normally require observation as well from other parts of the continent, other parts of the country, or at sea. You also need satellites, radar, and a whole range of equipment. For many years the weather service in Canada had the fastest, most sophisticated computer in the country, bar none. That may still be the case, I'm not sure, but I know it certainly was the case for a good number of years.

    But that costs money, and we've invested more money in the service. We have rationalized some of the systems and cut back on some of the forecasting centres that were previously there. As a result we have better weather forecasting than we've probably ever had. Is it good enough?

    Mr. Bob Mills: There have been budget cuts of $80 million since 1994.

    Mr. David Anderson: Of course, if you want to go back to 1994, we faced one of the biggest deficits in Canadian history. On our side of the House we believed we had to do something about the deficit. That included cuts right across the board, and certainly in my department, none of which I liked. None of them were cuts of wasteful expenditures; they were cuts of useful expenditures. But we were required to bring our financial house in order, and we've have done that. As I mentioned, we are investing again.

    I would warn members about thinking that because there are changes in the weather service, it means there are cuts in the product delivered. That's not so. If you start using modern technology you can improve weather systems. That has been the case around the world.

    You also mentioned extreme weather conditions. Yes, there are substantial numbers of extreme weather events in Canada. In my province of British Columbia alone we've had forest fires such as you've never seen before. Drought conditions preceded them and made the fires worse. We also had floods in the Pemberton Valley that led to the death of three people. We've had extreme weather conditions, but every time we refer to those weather conditions we point out that individual extreme weather events are not in themselves examples of global warming, but they're exactly in line with what the experts have told us we can expect with global warming.

    No one has ever suggested, as you have done, that with Kyoto ratification extreme weather events will end . Everybody knows that Kyoto ratification is the first step on a very long road that will ultimately lead, we trust, to less human impact on climate.

º  (1625)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    While my colleague, Bob Mills, and I did not plan it this way, I can tell you that my questions on the first round will also be about the Meteorological Service of Canada.

    I know that you're very proud to appear before the committee today to announce the supplementary estimates. You also boast about announcing $74 million in funding over five years to provide Canadians with more accurate, timely weather information, including hurricane forecasts. You say that your department is determined to ensure that all Canadians will continue to receive timely and accurate weather information.

    Before I came to the committee meeting, I took the trouble to look at the supplementary estimates, of course, but also looked at the cutbacks. I found that in 1994, the budget was $275 million. In 2002 it dropped to $150 million. Believe it or not, this is a 40 per cent reduction. Fifty-six offices closed down and 900 meteorologists were affected.

    I know that you are pleased to announce a five-year $75 million investment and to announce additional amounts today, but we need to look at an accurate picture, and not forget that significant cutbacks have been made.

    In January 2001, Minister, you claimed that the service needed $100 million, just to deal with the most urgent needs.

    That meant refurbishing outdated stations and rusted equipment, and establishing a data network. Consequently, how can you claim today that you are hoping to offer accurate weather information services to the public, given that the amount you announced—$75 million over five years, plus the supplementary estimates—is far from your own estimate in 2001 of the minimum amount required to deal with the most urgent requirements? How can you explain this to the people from Quebec City and Rimouski who had to relocate to Montreal a few weeks or months ago? How can you explain that there are only ten employees left in the Rimouski office and 14 in Quebec City? How can you claim to be able to provide accurate services, when the amounts you are announcing today are far from the minimum you hoped to get in 2001?

    Mr. David Anderson: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question.

    The amount is in fact $75 million in the short term—five years—but we will have to spend more in the future. I hope to have more information to give you in five years. I certainly hope I will be minister in order to do that, but that is another matter.

    You are right to say that we must spend more. We have not reached the point at which it is clear that for the next 20 years we will have enough resources. We are not at all at that point. In my opinion, our expenditures are the minimum required to offer the necessary services.

    The level of service has increased, and it is important to highlight that fact, because you did not speak about computers, satellites, or radar, but this new technology is important for providing Canadians with the best weather forecasts.

    I am not here to tell you that I got as much as I would have liked to have until the year 2020, but I do think that there has been an increase in services and that weather forecasts are better thanks to the new technology and the great competency of our experts and staff.

    I hope to be able to appear before you again to tell you that we have further improved what we do. We are not doing the maximum, but rather the minimum, in my view. Clearly, this is for economic reasons. That is the problem.

º  (1630)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Pursuing the meteorological services, there was a report in the Globe and Mail this week on a study they've done showing--as Mr. Bigras has pointed out--the reduction in the amount of money the service has received. It was particularly critical of the fact that the research component around global warming and climate change has been dramatically cut since we committed ourselves to Kyoto back in 1996.

    Why was it necessary to have a freedom-of-information application? Why was that report not made public when it was first given to your department? Second, has the research component been curtailed as extensively as that report indicated?

    Then if there's time, I have two more questions.

    Mr. David Anderson: The article referred to specific in-house government research. It did not refer to the foundation we have set up that has $100 million, I believe, in total. My staff will confirm that.

    We have shifted quite a substantial amount to university research. The main criticism of the article was that we had too many people involved in research--an alleged lack of coordination. At the same time, because the climate change area is so complex it may not be a bad idea to have funding go out to different research projects from different groups of people, whoever they may be--the National Research Council, this special group we have on climate change, maybe the Canadian Foundation for Innovation--in other words, fund research for separate groups with different vantage points. That way we may be able to cover the waterfront a little better.

    It is important to coordinate. I think we will be looking at that report, which I am very pleased to have received. But I don't think we should look at that as a cutback, because if you add in all the research that's been done in that period, it has gone up quite substantially. I'll ask the ADMs to comment on this a little further.

    Certainly it's important to do more research on climate change. Mr. Mills has frequently mentioned that climate change science is not over, and not everything has been looked at. He's right. There are many complications in climate change that need further study.

    I read both Science, and Nature, the American and British magazines. I don't understand a great deal because I'm merely a politician, but it's clear when you look at the work that's being done and reported in those two magazines that it's immensely complex. There are hosts of disciplines involved. So I'm not too worried about the article by Michael den Tandt in the Globe and Mail yesterday.

    My belief is that we have to keep the coordination. It's a good warning to us. I believe it's useful information, but there is still some value in having these different vantage points deciding on what research could be done. We should not have everything going through the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. I recognize that the report has a somewhat critical tone on coordination.

    I'll have to ask why we didn't get a copy until we saw it in the paper, but it doesn't worry me a great deal. The fact is that most people in the business knew that this research was going on, and that research was being funded by many different organizations. Does anybody know if it was released or not released?

º  (1635)  

    Dr. Marc Denis Everell (Assistant Deputy Minister, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment): On the report itself and why it was not released, it was released inside government to many people within the climate change community. So we didn't hide the report.

    We commissioned the report to understand perhaps a little better from an outside perspective what was going on, and obtain some suggestions for possible improvement. In fact, the report will be quite useful as we carry out an overall review over the next few months of what is done in government and by the university system to eventually arrive at a much better plan for climate change science in Canada over the next decade.

    So this is part of a larger effort to improve, because as Minister Anderson mentioned, there are lots of things to be done in climate change science--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Mr. Everell, just answer the question. Why was it not released to the public? It's a point of privilege.

    The answer has not been given at all. He's avoiding the question. He's been directed by the minister to answer the question.

    Minister, you were originally scheduled to be here until 4:45. Do you still have commitments that you must leave us for in about nine minutes?

    Mr. David Anderson: I can stay longer. There is one commitment later, but I think--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Can we have an idea so we can have some latitude? If I have no latitude I have to respect the other members' need to ask questions.

    Mr. David Anderson: Again let me just say there's no reason. A lot of things just get published that we don't even know people are interested in.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): We would like to have you stay as long as you can. If you give me an idea, then I'll give the latitude that is necessary.

    When are you leaving, Minister?

    Mr. David Anderson: The timekeepers say 5 o'clock.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): I would be happy if you could tidy off this section then, if you have anything further to say. No? Okay.

    Mr. Caccia.

    Hon. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

    Mr. Minister, we welcome your comments today. You made reference to two main pillars to making a paradigm shift, namely more innovative instruments, and environmental information to empower Canadians. You also made reference to federal departments that will be tabling sustainable development strategies in Parliament, and working to develop a Government of Canada vision and set our priorities for sustainable development. These are very desirable and worthy goals.

    I submit to you, Mr. Minister, that these worthy goals will not be achievable unless there is full support and involvement, and willingness on the part of the Department of Finance to eliminate perverse subsidies and change the playing field--to design, in other words, a tax system that fits Kyoto. At the present time it runs counter to achievement of the Kyoto objectives, and sometimes even sets obstacles through its own policies, like most recently Bill C-48, where a reduction of taxation was introduced for the oil and gas industry.

    We have invited the Minister of Finance to this committee three times, and three times he has decided to turn us down. We interpret that as a signal to this committee that the Department of Finance has no intention of cooperating, and would prefer to see the Kyoto agreement abandoned. Maybe it is even hoping that Russia will not ratify, so this commitment won't be in the way any longer.

    It is incomprehensible that in late September one department could override the Government of Canada's commitment to Kyoto and introduce Bill C-48, giving greater incentives to the oil and gas industry, and making policy in complete contradiction to what you and most of your colleagues are trying to do. This is becoming insupportable.

    I welcome your comments.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. David Anderson: Let me start by saying that the two approaches I outlined are important. We must get ahead of the way wherever possible. If we don't, we'll be playing catch-up and dealing with problems afterwards. Vested interests have developed ferocious enthusiasm for continuing with what they've been doing. If you don't get there before they develop that kind of financial interest or personal interest, you have a much more difficult time.

    For example, think of the SUV. If intelligent approaches had been taken with respect to SUV mileage before it became such a popular vehicle we wouldn't be facing the problem we have now, where there's an enormous constituency that opposes the type of change you and I might like to see.

    In terms of cooperation, we have to recognize that we have to give certain trust to industry in many areas to get that appropriate in-advance approach. For instance, the pulp and paper industry is much criticized by environmentalists, and of course frequently there is reason. But they reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 22% between 1990 and 2000, and reduced their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 35% in the same period. They derive almost 60% of their energy use from biomass, which as you know is in my view the most important opportunity area for green energy in Canada. I know we can all debate each individual one, but I think there's a tremendous opportunity there. Finally, they've reduced organochlorides from pulp and paper mill waters by 90%, and have virtually eliminated dioxins and furans.

    Much of this has not been done by the heavy hand of regulation, although that's an important element. It's been done because the industry itself decided to do it to get on board.

    I think we're going to have to move into an area where there will be agreements, sometimes opposed, with industry, and we will have to trust one another a little more to achieve goals.

    Your reference to the finance department is very difficult for me to handle because I'm not the Minister of Finance, and there's an extraordinary small possibility of me ever becoming the Minister of Finance. However, in periods of economic difficulty it has been true that Finance has had a very powerful role within government. Basically just about everything has to be run up the flagpole to see whether Finance salutes. If they do, fine, if they don't, generally speaking it doesn't go ahead unless there's another major battle within government caucus and cabinet, as you know well. So it was difficult in that period, and Finance had a very powerful role.

    I agree with you that we need greening of the budget and financial measures. I don't believe that has fully taken place yet, although there have been some steps. If we are to achieve all our economic goals and our environmental goals, we have to have that kind of greening.

    Finally, I'll simply congratulate you on your persistence in bringing this forward. No one has spoken more often in caucus and in private conversation over the last decade than you, in pointing out how important this is. I can simply say thank goodness you did that, because it is a critical avenue.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Laliberte.

    Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    When the Species at Risk Act received royal assent, a national aboriginal council on species at risk was created. To date we've had many meetings and discussions with the working group, but I am quite concerned that this has not been formulated; there have not been any financial commitments to make this operational.

    It is very critical to involve aboriginal people in government policy. If you look at the government's jurisdiction on species, there is federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction, but there are also first nations lands. There is a high percentage of species at risk habitats on those lands, in those waters, and in the air, so we need to have meaningful involvement. It has also been a highlight of the aboriginal leadership of the country to have a meaningful involvement in legislation and in government.

    So please don't lose sight of the spotlight and the limelight this has created, and the expectations. Please find the commitment and the necessary budget to make this operational. Maybe find it in these estimates, if I have missed them...unless you have something to report today on the amounts or the contributions that have been made.

    This is a very critical area that we're involved in with this committee. I know you supported this initiative, and we'd like to have it operational as soon as possible.

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Laliberte, I completely agree with you about the importance of first nations lands--the reserve lands as well as claimed lands. They are frequently the habitat of endangered species, and sometimes the only habitat of certain species. In addition, there are harvesting rights for both Métis and people registered under the Indian Act, which are going to be very important to work through.

    Another component I'd like to quickly mention is the tremendous importance of traditional knowledge about species at risk. You know how much attention we've paid to that. I personally believe that is critical to the bill.

    On information about how far the process of implementing the aboriginal council has gone, I'll ask Karen to reply to you.

    Mrs. Karen Brown (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of the Environment): Thank you, Minister.

    We're still working through some of the details, and working with the aboriginal working group to try to finalize the terms of reference. We continue to be very committed to the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk. I think the minister met with aboriginal leaders in early fall, and we're still working through the process.

    We fully support the working group and are working very diligently to try to get the council up and running. So we're hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to do that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

    We have Mr. Reed, Mr. Szabo, and Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    This whole question of awareness is going to be a moving factor in the immediate years to come--especially citizen awareness. My friend, Mr. Caccia, has talked about greening the budget and so on. Those things will only come to pass if there is general public support.

    We were first exposed to climate change--at least I was--back in 1994, when the insurance companies came to committee and pointed out that for the previous 10 years, payouts for weather calamities had increased significantly. However, when you and I were in Washington, Minister, we met with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and we were trying to get an idea of what the American public felt about climate change, and so on. Their answer was that Americans were still driving their SUVs. That is incredibly significant, because there's no perceived crisis.

    When oil prices spiked in the seventies, they precipitated the biggest voluntary conservation effort that had ever been undertaken in North America. People got out of their large boats and into compact cars, and the speed limit in the United States was reduced to 55 miles an hour. You know the whole story. The price of crude oil then settled back to $10 a barrel, and everyone went to sleep and continues to be asleep.

    Now we have a series of crises. The problem we face is citizen awareness, because these crises are not here in Ottawa, or necessarily in southern Ontario or southern Quebec; they're in the Mackenzie Valley, in Hudson Bay, in the Arctic ice shelf, and around the world. They're in the oceans, and so on.

    Is your ministry able to undertake significant public awareness, and maybe launch a program of citizen empowerment, so average ordinary citizens in Canada can be aware of the problem and deal with it in their own way?

º  (1650)  

    Mr. David Anderson: I am not enormously optimistic that we can combat public attitudes through government advertising or information campaigns. I just think of how little we're able to do compared to the incredible flow of advertising. For example, SUVs are being advertised for people who simply don't need them. I entirely agree that people who need them, who live in areas where four-wheel drive is necessary or high clearance is necessary, could well use SUVs. I could see myself buying one under certain circumstances--but not for urban driving. Yet the ads that come out are just so incredibly numerous, persuasive, and good that I think our information campaigns would probably have enormous difficulty.

    On the second issue, you correctly pointed out that I went up to Nunavut last week to sign the first federal agreement with any of the territories or provinces on climate change. There wasn't a single person there who questioned that climate change was happening. They know. They see it.

    The dilemma is that big impacts are now being felt in the polar regions. In Nunavut, there were some people talking about it and working with me, but when the Larsen C ice shelf goes off in Antarctica, there will be nobody there other than maybe a couple of scientists. So we have this major problem, and I don't know how to overcome it. Advice would be helpful.

    It's very frustrating that people are so unable or unwilling to think that present circumstances will change. I used the analogy before, but it's a bit like people going down a river in a canoe. They know there's a little bit more mist in the air. The river's becoming a little faster and narrower, and they can hear some noise up ahead, but things are fine. There's a waterfall ahead, but of course they're okay right now. It's a bit like that type of situation.

    There are a lot of people who just simply don't want to believe something so difficult to handle is real. It is a fact of human life and it's been observed before. I don't know how to handle it, I must say, to achieve the type or level of information and knowledge among the public that you would like. I just don't know how. Advice would be helpful.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reid.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you for appearing.

    I feel comfortable with you as the Minister of the Environment, but I feel uncomfortable when you have to be honest about this and say that our approach has been reactive, and we have generally approached environmental problems after they have arisen. That is troubling, to be sure.

    It reminds me of when we ask businesses, from an economic perspective, what government can do to help them do more business. If we take that approach to the environment, what can the government do to help us shift away from this reactive approach, where we may be winning battles but hurtling toward losing the war?

    Mr. David Anderson: It's a question of outlining objectives and discussing them with industry—I shouldn't just refer to industry, but let's use that as the example—so they have a clear idea of what's expected of them and what the objectives are. In this way we can perhaps work environmental considerations into the design, into the very first stage of their planning. Far too often we wait until the end of the process, and then Sid's agency has to do the environmental assessment at the last minute, and people are screaming that another day's delay will cost so many millions of dollars. The pressure is on and it's difficult to do. The effort has to be to get an understanding out there of what the objectives are and what is desirable, and get things worked in early.

    Again, I'll refer to the pulp and paper industry. It's not perfect, but over the last decade I've watched it change its attitude significantly. It is trying quite hard now, in my view. Of course, this requires politicians and others to trust the industry. If people are there trying their best and doing their best, you can't keep tripping them up if something doesn't work out exactly right. That's difficult for us to do as well.

    So having a better level of understanding and a better level of trust on objectives and methods may be the best way to get ahead of the curve.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Tonks.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    On the subject of the transportation line in the estimates, are the transportation expenditures in keeping with the parameters of sustainable development, as they relate to the federal acquisition of rolling stock, and so on?

    Mr. David Anderson: That's a difficult question, because we only handle part of transportation expenditures. For example, we were very involved in aircraft movements and airports, which is one of the most fuel-expensive, emission-expensive ways of moving people. We have little to do with provincial road systems that can be improved to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or other environmental objectives. We are involved in rail, but again it's quite different from road, in that the railways own and create the road beds, while the road system is publicly provided.

    I don't think we have adequate coordination in this area, but I believe things have improved quite substantially, and as we move forward with climate change expenditures we're going to have closer coordination. This is certainly an area where we intend to have the provinces and territories involved. In Nunavut there is one road between two communities, but there is almost no road traffic between communities. They use aircraft and boats.

    As we work with the provinces and territories, we're going to be able to work in a more coordinated approach on the transportation side. It's not adequate yet, and this is going to be a major objective of these federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Would you like to ask a question, Ms. Scherrer?

[English]

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    Announcements were made recently on the climate change action plan programs related to retrofitting, conservation initiatives, and our technological innovation initiatives. But in the supplementary estimates I didn't notice anything about ongoing evaluation. It's kind of related to Mr. Comartin's question on research, but surely research has a more encompassing aspect to it because it evaluates whether we're being successful in these programs, and what the running commentary is.

    I didn't notice anything in the supplementary estimates on evaluation. Could you perhaps expand a little? Perhaps it's not in the supplementary estimates and is in another reporting outcome, but I'm not sure what that would be.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. David Anderson: I'm not sure where I can plug in to get the day-by-day, month-by-month information on how we're doing. If we have it, I'm sure Norine will inform me and correct my ignorance. But it is important, and it's tied in with Joe's question.

    We ratified and started moving on a number of fronts. Now we have to start looking at the coordination of this. Where does it all add up? How are we doing against that overall target of 240 million tonnes in the period we have to achieve that?

    I hope I haven't made it impossible for you to answer.

    Ms. Norine Smith (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Department of the Environment): No. There are a number of ways in which one can track the progress that's being made. If I can start at a macro level, the national inventory of greenhouse gas emissions is prepared every year and submitted to the United Nations. The most recent data in there is from 2001, and it is normally made public in early summer, if my memory serves me correctly.

    In addition, at the various times when we've received significant program funds in budgets, they've come with monitoring and reporting obligations. So for Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change, an annual report was prepared, and a mid-term review of progress was also prepared. In the Climate Change Plan for Canada, there was a commitment to report every two years on progress.

    On where you might see that in the estimates themselves--this is where I might turn to my colleague, Cassie Doyle--it doesn't really show up as a line item. It's reflected in the program management budgets of the various departments in the staff resources they receive to undertake that type of evaluation. It's also reflected in the results-based management accountability framework that is prepared as every one of these programs goes through the Treasury Board process.

    Cassie, do you have anything to add to that?

    Ms. Cassie Doyle (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Service Innovation, Department of the Environment): There's no specific reference, but I assume it would be under line four, professional and special services. That would capture some of the work done on the results.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Before concluding, Mr. Minister, let me make a brief observation, which most likely your officials have already made to you repeatedly. When the Department of Finance comes on board on Kyoto, other key departments like transport and natural resources will follow. If the Department of Finance will not come on board, then the Government of Canada will not achieve its Kyoto objectives. It is as clear and visible as that. Therefore the whole intent of the Government of Canada hinges on the willingness and cooperation of this key central department.

    I wish you well.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. David Anderson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank members of the committee.

[Translation]

    I would like to thank everyone.

[English]

    The Chair: We thank you and your officials for appearing before the committee, and we look forward to the next occasion.

    The meeting is adjourned.