As the Liberal critic for the Environment, Kirsty wanted to update everyone on what she has been working on these past few months. Below you will find links to her iPOLITICS articles on the environment, as well as the various motions and order paper questions she has submitted over the past few months.
iPOLITICS Articles on the Environment
The stakes are enormous: Decline vs. Prosperity
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/31/the-stakes-are-enormous-decline-vs-prosperity/
Extreme weather hits hard, costs taxpayers billions
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/17/kirsty-duncan-extreme-weather-hits-hard-costs-taxpayers-billions/
Rio +20 talks: will Canada abandon path to sustainable development?
Canadians speak out for democracy and the environment
Review of C-38′s environmental impact is farcical
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/05/22/kirsty-duncan-review-of-c-38s-environmental-impact-is-farcical/
Gutting environmental protection in budget bill is an affront to democracy
Government must stop its war on the environment and science
The Harper Government’s war on the environment
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/10/kirsty-duncan-the-harper-governments-war-on-the-environment/
Motions on the Environment
M-295 — November 23, 2011 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) act immediately to address the steep decline in the health of our oceans and to support communities that depend on healthy oceans for their long-term sustainability; (b) work with partners to establish 12 new marine protected areas by the end of 2012; (c) take all steps possible to meet Canada’s international commitments to create a network of marine protected areas by 2012; and (d) protect ten percent of our ocean estate by 2020.
M-321 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognise that Environment Canada’s ability to protect environmental and human health depends on scientific excellence and integrity; (b) ensure that Environment Canada’s programmes and scientists be fully funded to support scientific excellence; (c) ensure that Environment Canada’s policies, decisions, guidance and regulations that impact the lives of Canadians be based on the highest quality science; (d) develop a scientific integrity policy to foster the highest degree of accountability, integrity, and transparency in conducting, utilising, and communicating science within and outside Environment Canada, and to protect the department’s scientific findings from being altered, distorted or suppressed.
M-322 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) renew its commitment to the environment and sustainable development; (b) meet international environmental and sustainable development goals to which it has committed; (c) review its progress to date regarding the environment and sustainable development, and identify any gaps in its implementation of the Canada Federal Sustainable Development Strategy; (d) identify new and emerging challenges within Canada and internationally; and (e) commit to taking a leadership role at RIO + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, and commit to working constructively towards a successful conference with practical results.
M-323 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that it does not face a choice between saving our economy and saving our environment, but rather between being a producer and consumer in the old economy, and being a leader in the new economy; (b) recognize that Canada, having invested $3 billion in green stimulus spending, has lagged in its efforts to green its economy compared with the United States ($112 billion) and China ($221 billion); (c) initiate discussions with provinces, territories, municipalities, labour organizations, industry sectors, First Nations and others to develop a green economy strategy for Canada, with goals for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030; (d) ensure that its development strategy include skills development, training programs, certification courses, and transitional policies for workers and communities whose jobs could be lost or significantly changed by the shift to a greener economy; and (e) publish the employment consequences of new federal policies in an annual report to Parliament.
M-324 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) accept the science of climate change; (b) table a comprehensive climate change plan, in preference to a sector-by-sector approach; (c) commit to attaining the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that it has supported internationally, namely, for 2020, a domestic emission target of 17% below the 2005 level; and (d) commit to making a fair contribution to achieving the goal of staying below a 2°C increase in global average surface temperature relative to the pre-industrial level.
M-325 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize that 84% of Canadian thought leaders from academia, government, industry, institutions and non-profit organizations give poor ratings to Canada’s dependence on fossil fuels and carbon pricing; (b) recognize that 69% of Canadian thought leaders view federal government leadership as the key factor affecting implementation of sustainable energy solutions; (c) recognize that non-renewable, high-carbon energy sources are unsustainable, and that Canada must plan for a transition to more sustainable energy sources; (d) recognize the need for a national sustainable energy and economic growth strategy to position Canada to succeed in the global economy; (e) accept moral and intergenerational responsibility, and make progress on its 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction target; (f) recognize that the opportunity to maintain the average global temperature rise at less than 2° C relative to the pre-industrial temperature level is in serious danger; and (g) develop a pan-Canadian sustainable energy strategy with goals and targets for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and transportation.
M-326 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop a pan-Canadian plan for energy efficiency, which sets targets for increased energy efficiency for the years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050.
M-327 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop targets for the deployment of low-impact renewable energy in Canada for the years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050, and an action plan to achieve the established targets.
M-328 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop a strategy for sustainable transportation in Canada that sets targets for 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050.
M-329 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop a fund for climate neutral pilot projects for municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible, and to use carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable emissions.
M-330 — February 15, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) initiate discussions with the Province of Alberta, industry sectors, labour organizations, municipalities, First Nations and others to develop a long-term plan for management of the oil sands including, but not limited to, regulating the pace and scale of development; (b) ensure that progress be made to protect air quality, boreal forest ecosystems, water, and other natural resources; (c) ensure that appropriate scientific assessments be undertaken to investigate the potential environmental and human health impacts of oil sands development; and (d) table solutions to protect and remediate the environment.
M-339 — March 7, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, in preparation for June’s Rio+20 conference, the government should: (a) table to Parliament how it will meet its existing international environmental and sustainable development commitments; and (b) specifically, table how it intends to meet the goals of the Copenhagen Accord and contribute its fair share to fill the megatonne gap (i. e. the shortfall between existing mitigation commitments and the emissions reductions necessary to prevent serious climate change).
M-360 — May 2, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in respect to the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), identify: (a) the impacts on regulatory decision-making, risks of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, and risk mitigation by developers; (b) the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory, and the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; and (c) the impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders.
Order Paper Questions on the Environment
Question No. 11–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to depleted uranium (DU), military service, and Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) benefits and programs: (a) what are all potential sources of DU to which Canadian Forces (CF) members and veterans might have been exposed between 1990 and the present; (b) what are any operations between 1990 and the present that might have brought CF members and veterans into direct or close contact with DU, including, but not limited to, operations in which Canadian personnel seconded to other military forces were involved; (c) did any CF member or veteran serve between 1999 and 2003 in areas assessed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to be DU areas; (d) what, if any, DU munitions, vehicles made with DU, or ships carrying DU munitions, were used by CF between 1990 and the present; (e) what are all possible exposure routes for each source of DU identified in (a), (b), and (d); (f) what, if any, field measurements were taken around any DU source identified in (a), (b), and (d) and, if such measurements were taken, what was the level of contamination of the environment for each site, for each time sampled; (g) what, if any, studies were undertaken by the Department of National Defence (DND), or any other federal government department or crown corporation, from 1990 to the present, regarding DU environmental contamination linked to the military and what were the chief findings of each such report, including (i) whether it identified a need or made a recommendation to work with caution in DU contaminated areas, (ii) whether it identified a need or made a recommendation to do policy work regarding DU contaminated areas; (h) what follow-up took place concerning the chief recommendations of each report identified in (g), as well as concerning the issues identified in each of (g)(i) and (g)(ii); (i) what, if any, clean-up operations were undertaken in impact zones between 1990 and the present, and, if such operations were undertaken, why was each clean-up operation deemed necessary, and what national or international recommendations were followed in each clean-up; (j) which, if any, experts were consulted to determine any possible DU contamination between 1990 and the present, and, if experts were consulted, who were they, and in what field or fields did each expert work; (k) what, if any, specific training, equipment and guidance was given to CF members and veterans who were required to work in areas of DU contamination or to conduct any DU field assessments and clean-ups; (l) what, if any, specific radiation field measurement and health and safety equipment was provided to CF members and veterans, including equipment used to determine the presence of DU, and what specific training was provided concerning the use of any such equipment; (m) what, if any, training, equipment and guidance was given to CF members and veterans concerning the handling of both intact and damaged weapons previously used to fire DU munitions; (n) from 1990 to the present (i) what was the CF’s policy regarding transportation, use, exposure, risk mitigation, and testing of DU from 1990 to the present, (ii) how did or does the policy comply with all relevant guidelines and regulations for the protection of the environment and personnel, including, but not limited to, those established in the Canada Labour Code, by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and through the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, (iii) were the guidelines and regulations identified in (ii) followed during CF operations abroad, (iv) how was the policy elaborated in (n)(i), enforced during CF activities both in Canada and abroad; (o) is there a protocol accepted by the government for urine testing for DU and what are its details, including, but not limited to, (i) who should be screened, (ii) following what exposures should screening occur, (iii) which laboratories were or are used for the screening, (iv) what criteria have been used to select the laboratory that conducts the screening and how can quality assurance in screening processes and results be ensured, (v) the maximum acceptable delay between DU exposure to initial screening, (vi) the screening method and how that method was chosen, (vii) the screening schedule, (viii) any follow-up mechanisms, (ix) how screening is documented, (x) when this protocol was accepted; (p) what, if any, screening procedure exists for potential DU exposure for CF members and veterans, including, but not limited to, (i) an exposure questionnaire, (ii) a 24-hour urine collection test, (iii) a detailed physical exam, (iv) clinical tests of organ systems function; (q) what, if any, DU follow-up program or similar program intended to screen and monitor health problems associated with DU exposure is available to CF members and veterans; (r) what, if any, CF members or veterans have been identified and tracked following potential exposure to DU through situations related to (a), (b) and (d), and what was involved in the tracking procedures, specifying whether the tracking included (i) urinary uranium determinations, (ii) clinical laboratory values, (iii) psychiatric and neuro-cognitive assessments, (iv) other forms of tracking;
(s) what, if any, summary statistics are now available for cases identified in (r); (t) what, if any, CF members or veterans have been identified and tracked following exposure to (i) vehicles hit with friendly fire, (ii) burning vehicles, (iii) fires involving DU munitions, (iv) the inspection or salvaging of damaged vehicles; (u) what, if any, information is given to CF members or veterans who might have been exposed to harmful DU conditions, and, specifically, how is this information relayed; (v) can CF members or veterans who might have been exposed to harmful DU conditions ask to be screened for DU exposure, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) what procedure do they follow, (ii) who does the testing, (iii) what is the cost of the testing; (w) what are the potential health effects from (i) external exposure to DU, for both low and high dosages, in both the short term and the long term, and (ii) internal exposure to DU, for both low and high dosages, in both the short term and the long term; (x) what, if any, CF members or veterans have applied for compensation associated with DU exposure during military service, specifying (i) the number of requests, (ii) whether compensation was awarded, (iii) whether compensation is pending, (iv) whether compensation is in appeal, (v) how many appeals have been made; (y) have any of DND’s medical or surgical members ever identified a possible link between a CF member’s service or a veteran’s service, exposure to DU, and particular health effects, and, if so, (i) how many times has such a possible link been made by DND’s medical or surgical members, (ii) what follow-up occurred as a result of any identified possible linkages; and (z) does the government have plans to convene a working group to review the latest research on hazardous materials exposure, including, but not limited to, exposure to DU, and possible health effects and, if so, (i) what is the planned scope of the review, (ii) who is to convene the working group, (iii) how are experts to be chosen, (iv) how are conflicts of interest to be avoided and declared, (vi) what is the timeline for the review and the review’s milestones?
Question No. 37–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the statements by the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, entitled “Canada’s Green Budget 2009” and “Minister Prentice Highlights the Environment in 2010 Budget”: (a) how many applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion investment in clean energy research, development and demonstration projects, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (b) what, in detail, are all of the clean energy research development and demonstration projects awarded funds through the 2009 $1 billion investment, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iv) what were the projected outcomes, (v) what was the projected return on investment, (vi) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vii) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, etc., have resulted from the project, (viii) in what geographic area was the project located; (c) what monies of the 2009 $1 billion investment for clean energy research development and demonstration projects have been spent, (i) what monies remain available, (ii) what, if any, advertising did or does the government undertake to promote the program, (iii) what, if any, costs are associated with any advertising of the program; (d) how many project applications were submitted under the 2009 $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the applicant and in what sector does the applicant work, (ii) what was the amount of funding requested, (iii) what were the projected outcomes, (iv) what was the projected return on investment; (e) how many projects were awarded funding through the $1 billion Green Infrastructure Fund, and, for each project identified, (i) who was the recipient of the funds and in what sector does the recipient work, (ii) what was the amount of funding awarded, (iii) what were the projected outcomes in terms of reductions in emissions, waste, or other environmental payoffs, (iv) what was the projected return on investment, (v) has the project been started, is it in progress, or has it been completed, (vi) what, if any, findings, publications, contracts, or other significant results have been produced as a result of the project; (f) how many retrofits were undertaken under the 2009 $300 million eco-ENERGY Retrofit program, (i) what was the average cost of a retrofit, (ii) what was the average income of the family or individual undertaking a retrofit, (iii) what was the average household savings on energy, (iv) what was the average household savings in terms of money spent on energy annually, (v) what is the estimated savings to the environment each year, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); (g) what specific projects were undertaken to maintain federal laboratories for $250 million in 2009, (i) why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, (ii) what laboratories benefitted, and what was the investment per lab, (iii) what specific laboratories need maintenance or further maintenance; (h) what specific projects, by station, were undertaken or are being undertaken under the $85 million for key Arctic research stations, why did the government identify these projects as investments in the environment, and, for each project identified, (i) what was the investment, (ii) what is the life expectancy of the investment, (iii) is further work needed, (iv) what projects does the government know still require funding; (i) what progress has been made to date on the $2 million investment in a feasibility study for a world-class Arctic research station, (i) what was the mandate of the feasibility study, (ii) what was its start date, key milestones, and end date, (iii) what, if any, results are available; (j) what are all federal contaminated sites across Canada, and, for each contaminated site identified, (i) where specifically is the site located, (ii) has the site had an environmental assessment (iii) if so, what are the main contaminants at the site, what is the projected cost of remediation, (iv) if not, what is the projected cost of an environmental assessment and the time required for that assessment; (k) is there a priority list for addressing contaminated sites listed in (j), and if so, (i) in what order do the sites appear on that list, (ii) what methodology is used to establish priority, (iii) who undertakes any priority assessments, what are their expertise, and how are experts chosen; (l) how much of the $80.5 million set aside for assessment of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) how many assessments have been started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed assessment in terms of the environmental contamination, any threats to human health, and the projected cost of remediation, (iii) how many jobs have been created to date; (m) how much of the $165 million set aside for remediation of federal contaminated sites has been spent to date and what, if any, monies are remaining, (i) what remediation projects are started, are in progress, or have been completed to date, (ii) what are the findings for any completed remediation in terms of reducing environmental contamination and any threats to human health, (iii) what is the cost or projected cost of all remediation projects identified in (m)(i), (iv) how many jobs have been created to date; (n) what specific national parks projects have been undertaken with the $75 million earmarked in 2009, and, for each project identified, (i) what is the park’s name, (ii) what is its location, (iii) what is the total investment, (iv) what is a description of the project; (o) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2009 $10 million investment in annual reporting of key environmental indicators such as clean air, clean water and GHG emissions, (i) what system was in place for reporting each, (ii) what, if any, system is now in place, (iii) when will the government make use of improvements in data resulting from this investment in its reports; (p) what, if any, progress has the government made on its 2010 $18.4 million investment to enhance the tracking of environmental data through the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program, (i) what specific projects does the government plan to undertake with the money and, for each project identified, (ii) how much money will be spent, (iii) how will monies spent improve environmental reporting, (iv) when will the government use improvements in its reports; (q) what, if any, action has been taken on the 2010 $100 million Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative; (r) what, if any, consultation regarding environmental assessments has taken place with Aboriginal peoples in 2010, (i) identify all projects that affect Aboriginal communities, (ii) on which of the identified projects in (r)(i) have Aboriginal peoples been consulted to date; (s) how much of the $2.8 million earmarked for consultations with Aboriginal communities has been spent and how much is still available; (t) what are all contaminated Great Lake sites and where specifically is each site located, (i) what is a ranking of these contaminated sites, (ii) what is the method used to determine levels of contamination, (iii) what is the scale used to compare levels of contamination, (iv) what is the government’s definition of “most degraded”, (v) what are all “most degraded” sites, (vi) for each site identified in (t)(v), what is a description of the contamination and what is the cost of the remediation; and (u) what specifically is the $16 million ear-marked for to clean up the “most-degraded” Great Lakes sites, what monies have been spent to date, on what specific projects, and what is the projected return on investment in terms of the environment?
Question No. 140–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to development of the oil sands, its impacts on the environment and surrounding communities, and the economic effects of these impacts: (a) what, if any, steps has the government taken to establish air emission limits or air quality standards to achieve the World Health Organization’s Air Quality Guidelines to protect air quality and human health; (b) what, if any, steps has the government’s sector-by-sector approach taken to regulate carbon emissions in the oil sands to ensure the oil sands industry makes appropriate reductions in its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to contribute to Canada’s GHG emission reduction goal of 17% below the 2005 level; (c) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to examine the effect of the oil sands expansion on (i) GHG emissions, (ii) Canada’s ability to meet its GHG emission reduction goals, (iii) Canada’s contribution to the goal of staying below a 2°C increase in global average surface temperature, relative to the pre-industrial level, as articulated at the G8 meeting in L’Aquila, Italy and at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations through the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009 and the Cancun Agreements in December 2010, (iv) the full suite of sustainability criteria, including environmental, economic and social sustainability, and (v) what were the results of any studies identified in (c)(i), (c)(ii), (c)(iii), and (c)(iv); (d) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to examine (i) the scope of oil sands expansion if the oil sands sector is not required to deliver its proportional share of GHG reductions, (ii) the impacts such a decision would have on other sectors’ allowable GHG emissions, (iii) whether other sectors of the Canadian economy would have to do more than their proportional share to reduce emissions, (iv) what were the results of any studies identified in (d)(i), (d)(ii), and (d)(iii); (e) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to assess safety, risks and effectiveness of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and what were the results of any identified study; (f) what, if any, studies, has the government undertaken to assess safety, risks and effectiveness of enhanced oil recovery and what were the results of any identified study; (g) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to examine the possible impact of CCS technology on GHG emissions in the oil sands, (i) what are the government’s projections for the level of reductions that is feasible with CCS, (ii) what are the government’s projections for how CCS technology would impact oil sands emissions by 2020 and by 2050, (iii) does the government project that an oil sands industry equipped with CCS technology would be able to meet the specific reductions targets established by the government for 2020 and 2050; (h) how does the government plan to address emissions that cannot be reduced by CCS, such as (i) emissions from smaller in situ projects, (ii) mine fleet emissions, (iii) tailings fugitives; (i) what, if any, steps has the government taken to set an economy-wide price on carbon, rather than a sector-by-sector regulatory approach, as a means to reducing GHG emissions from the oil sands; (j) what, if any, steps has the government taken to adopt regulations to require all new oil sands facilities that began operations in 2010 or later to implement full-scale CCS by 2015, and will projects for which CCS is not an option still be approved by the government, whenever such approval is required for the project to proceed; (k) what, if any, steps has the government taken to quantify and eliminate air and water pollution discharge from tailings ponds by 2020 through Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act (i) by identifying substances associated with tailings ponds as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), and (ii) what would be the projected impacts on the environment, human health, industry, and migratory birds of such legislative measures; (l) what, if any steps has the government taken to implement its phase ll monitoring plan (i) when will data collection of begin, (ii) when will data be available for inclusion in decision-making processes, (iii) will monitoring programs be reformed in advance of any new oil sands expansion; (m) what steps is the government taking to ensure sufficient capacity exists to (i) implement the Northwest Territories Water Strategy, (ii) help reform water monitoring in the Mackenzie River Basin; (n) what, if any, steps has the government taken to develop a federal emergency response plan to strengthen the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement in case of a failure of a tailings lake dyke; (o) are Mackenzie River Basin residents in particular and Canadians in general financially protected from a major industrial accident such as the failure of a tailings dyke and, (i) if so, why are both groups protected, (ii) if not, why, and does the government plan to implement measures to ensure these groups are protected; (p) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to identify critical habitats for woodland caribou in north-eastern Alberta, and what were the conclusions of each study, including the results of consultations with First Nations on conservation of woodland caribou; (q) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken to determine the level of oil sands development that is consistent with caribou conservation in Alberta; and (r) does the government plan (i) to conduct a comprehensive health study of the impacts of oil sands development on surrounding communities, (ii) to identify and implement measures to reduce any health impacts discovered in such a study?
Question No. 141–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to climate change and international and national security: (a) what does the government project are the potential impacts on currently stable regions of the world of such climate change-related phenomena as, but not limited to, (i) rises in sea level, (ii) increases in extreme weather events, (iii) increases in the spread of infectious disease, (iv) increases in environmental refugees; (b) what does the government project will be (i) the consequences of the impacts identified in (a)(ii), (a)(iii), and (a)(iv) on domestic military missions, (ii) the consequences of (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii), (a)(iv) and (b)(i) in terms of the military’s capacity to respond and the availability of troops for missions not related to conflicts induced by climate change-related phenomena; (c) what does the government project will be the potential impacts on already-weakened states of such climate change-related phenomena as, but not limited to, (i) sea level rise, (ii) extreme weather events, (iii) the spread of infectious diseases; (d) what does the government project will be the extent of the effects climate impacts could have on already-weakened states, including, but not limited to, (i) expanded ungoverned spaces, (ii) further weakened and failed states, (iii) increased conflicts, (iv) increased migrations; (e) what does the government project will be the impact of the effects identified in (d) on Canada’s national security; (f) which nations does the government project will be most affected by climate change, (i) what is the government’s assessment of each such country’s capacity to adapt or cope, (ii) what, if any, action is Canada taking to strengthen the capacity of weak governments to better cope with societal needs projected to arise as a result of climate change-related impacts, (iii) what is the government’s assessment of possible security risks if Canada does contribute to international efforts related to (f)(i) and (f)(ii); (g) has DND or the Canadian military conducted any studies of how climate change can have a multiplier effect on instability in unstable regions of the world and, if so, what were these studies and their results; (h) what are the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the possible national security risks of climate change, and what specific observations were included in these studies concerning the impacts the research might have for government efforts pertaining to, but not limited to, (i) the encouragement of regional cooperation, (ii) the improvement of international confidence, (iii) the improvement of public relations; (i) what, if any, departments have participated in an inter-departmental process to develop a policy to reduce national security risks resulting from climate change and (i) if departments have participated in such a process, have all agencies involved with climate science, treaty negotiations, economic policy, and national security been involved in the process, and what were the results, (ii) if departments have not participated in such a process, why not; (j) what, if any, strategies has the government developed, including the dates of each completed strategy, concerning the integration of the national security consequences of climate change into national security and national defence strategies, and if the government has developed such strategies, (i) do the strategies examine the capabilities of the Canadian military to respond to the consequences of climate change, (ii) do the strategies include guidance to military planners to assess climate change risks on future missions, (iii) do the strategies provide guidance for updating defence plans based on new assessments; (k) for each strategy identified in (j), what are (i) the details of any testing of the strategy that has been conducted, (ii) the details of the implementation of the strategy, including, but not limited to, working with allies and partners to incorporate climate mitigation strategies, capacity building, and relevant research and development; (l) what are the government’s plans as concerns its engagement in global partnerships intended to help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts; and (m) what, if any, conferences has DND undertaken with respect to climate change and national security, if no such conferences have been undertaken, why not, and, if any such conferences have been undertaken, (i) who participated, (ii) what topics were covered, (iii) what findings were made, (iv) what recommendations were made, (v) what follow-up has occurred?
Question No. 152–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the development of unconventional gas resources, including shale, tight and coal bed methane, and its possible impacts on the environment: (a) what, if any, research has the government undertaken regarding the development of unconventional gas resources, (i) what was the scope of this research in the areas of, but not limited to, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem impacts, economic impacts, occupational risks, public safety concerns, and seismic risks, (ii) what, if any, resources did the government provide for this research, (iii) what, if any, process was established to ensure the independence of the researchers, their research, and their findings, (iv) what, if any, case studies were considered as a part of this research, (v) what, if any, scenarios regarding the development of unconventional gas resources were developed as frameworks for the research, (vi) what economic, environmental and social impacts were identified by this research, (vii) what, if any, priority research areas were identified for further study as a result of this research, (viii) what, if any, departments were involved in this research, (ix) what, if any, action was undertaken to ensure inter-departmental cooperation throughout the research process, (x) what, if any, gaps or weaknesses in the regulatory framework did the research identify; (b) what, if any, research has the government undertaken regarding balancing shale gas’ potential contribution to energy security with environmental risks; (c) what are the sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with unconventional gas; (d) has the government developed a process to determine the overall carbon footprint of shale gas throughout the life cycle of natural gas use, if not, why not, and, if so, (i) what federal departments are involved in this process, (ii) how does the government ensure inter-departmental collaboration on this process, (iii) what is the process, (iv) what, if any, data has been acquired and analysed through this process, (v) what is the government’s estimate of shale gas’ potential footprint in Canada; (e) what are the government’s calculations concerning how the overall carbon footprint of shale gas compares with conventional oil and gas for various end-uses; (f) what, if any, analysis has the government conducted concerning carbon capture and storage opportunities in the development of unconventional gas resources, namely analysis of (i) its feasibility, (ii) its cost-effectiveness, (iii) its reliability, (iv) liabilities that might arise from such strategies; (g) what, if any, research has the government undertaken regarding how effective well construction practices are at containing fluids and gases before, during, and after hydraulic fracturing, what are the dates of any such studies, and what were the results of this research; (h) what, if any, research has the government undertaken regarding well-bore drilling and sealing techniques and their reliability in containing hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water from shale gas extraction, what are the dates of any such studies, and what were the results of this research; (i) what, if any, cases of gas bubbling (i.e. methane contaminating surface water) related to hydraulic fracturing have been reported, and what, if any, process is in place to ensure reporting; (j) what, if any, cases of drinking water contamination related to shale gas activity have been reported, and what, if any, process is in place to ensure reporting; (k) what are the potential impacts of the injection and fracturing process on (i) water availability, (ii) water quality, (iii) water quantity; (l) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken, for each of the issues listed in (k); (m) what are the potential impacts of pre-existing human-made or natural pathways and features on contaminant transport, (i) how is the concept of “acceptable risk” defined and determined, (ii) which wells, if any, have undergone a risk analysis, (iii) which wells, if any, have been found to exceed “acceptable risk”, (iv) what are the potential impacts on drinking water, (v) what factors may affect the likelihood of contamination of drinking water resources, (vi) what are the possible human health impacts of possible drinking water contamination, (vii) how effective are mitigation approaches in reducing impacts to drinking water resources; (n) what is the specific composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids, (i) what chemicals are non-biodegradable, (ii) how long does each persist in the ground, (iii) how are non-biodegradable chemicals tracked in groundwater, (iv) does the government currently undertake any such tracking, (v) what, if any, results are available concerning this tracking; (o) what steps is the government taking to ensure that the volume of water required for shale gas fracturing does not challenge resources in regions already experiencing water stress; (p) what is the composition and variability of flowback and produced water, and what does the government project will be the possible impacts of releases of flowback and produced water on drinking water resources; (q) what steps, if any, is the government taking to ensure that best practices are adopted by industry in areas including, but not limited to, well development and construction, especially casing, cementing, and pressure management; (r) have micro-seismic surveys been conducted to assure that hydraulic fracturing is limited to gas-producing formations; (s) what steps, if any, is the government taking to ensure (i) inspections at safety-critical stages of well construction and hydraulic fracturing, (ii) that operators take prompt action to repair defective cementing jobs; (t) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted concerning whether it should require that baseline water quality and quantity monitoring occur prior to the hydraulic fracturing process;
(u) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted concerning encouraging or requiring producers of unconventional gas to use non-toxic drilling fluids; (v) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted concerning the implementation of proximal restrictions for both horizontal and vertical drilling with the aim of avoiding the potential for contamination of valuable water sources; (w) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted concerning strategies that would ensure that companies declare the type, concentration, and volume of all chemicals added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid; (x) what is the government’s assessment regarding whether the necessary resources exist to detect identified chemicals in water supplies should an incident lead to potential contamination of water resources; (y) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted concerning important landscapes, habitats, and migration corridors to inform planning, prevention, mitigation and reclamation of surface impacts; (z) what analysis, if any, has the government conducted concerning the need to limit drilling and support infrastructure in unique or sensitive areas; and (aa) what, if any, studies has the government undertaken regarding (i) the prospects for shale gas in Canada, (ii) Canadian shale gas estimates, (iii) Canadian exploration and production of shale gas, (iv) shale gas markets and prices, (v) the security of the supply of shale gas, (vi) government support for shale gas production, (vii) renewable energy sources in comparison with shale gas, (viii) the risks of rapid depletion of shale gas, (ix) regulatory challenges surrounding shale gas?
Question No. 224–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to development of the oil sands, and its impacts on Aboriginal communities: (a) what are all the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the (i) possible impacts of the oil sands industry on land, water, and wildlife, (ii) potential impacts on Aboriginal livelihoods, inherent and treaty rights, and constitutional rights; (b) which government accommodation and consultation policies regarding the oil sands have been designed in partnership with Aboriginal peoples to ensure that free, prior and informed consent is obtained, and how does the government ensure that consultation policies are (i) designed in partnership with Aboriginal peoples, (ii) consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (c) what are all consultations, including the dates of the consultations and those present, undertaken by the government with Aboriginal peoples, where there was consideration given to oil sands-related activities that might impact Section 35 rights, and what were the results or conclusions of these consultations; (d) does the government ensure that consultation with Aboriginal peoples occurs early in the decision-making process as related to the development of the oil sands and, if so, how does it do this; (e) what are all consultations with Aboriginal peoples which occurred early in the decision-making process as related to the development of the oil sands, and for each such consultation, how does it meet the government’s criteria for “early consultation”; (f) what are all legal challenges that have been undertaken or are being undertaken by First Nations communities against the government as related to the oil sands, and what is the stated reason for each challenge; (g) what are the studies, along with their dates and results, undertaken by the government concerning the possible impacts of legal challenges by First Nations communities on the oil sands industry; (h) which, if any, First Nations communities have asked for a full public inquiry into the impact of oil sands development and what are (i) the reasons provided for each such request, (ii) the projected cost of such an inquiry, (iii) the steps taken by the government to address each identified concern as outlined in (h)(i); (i) does the federal government plan to ensure that development in the oil sands region is consistent with the constitutionally-protected rights of Aboriginal peoples and the internationally-accepted doctrine of free, prior, and informed consent, and (i) other than actions referenced in the responses to parts (a) through (h), what federal decisions have been taken and what federal policies or programs have been developed taking into account Aboriginal peoples’ constitutionally-protected rights; and (j) what, if any, studies has the government funded to ensure that Aboriginal communities impacted or potentially impacted by the oil sands have the resources to direct their own baseline health studies and environmental monitoring programs?
Question No. 419–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the risk of corrosion and spills and other safety concerns arising from the transport of bitumen in pipelines, and to government action to address these risks: (a) how does diluted bitumen compare with West Texas Intermediate (WTI) in terms of (i) abrasive material content, (ii) acid concentration, (iii) sulphur content, (iv) viscosity; (b) to what extent is diluted bitumen more likely than WTI to cause corrosion or erosion in the pipelines through which they respectively flow; (c) what is the composition of diluted bitumen in Canada; (d) what are all of the volatile chemicals, persistent organic pollutants or carcinogenic substances present in diluted bitumen in Canada; (e) in the process of diluting bitumen in Canada, what are the (i) natural gas condensates used, (ii) other petroleum products used; (f) what is the process by which diluted bitumen corrodes pipelines, with specific reference to (i) abrasion, (ii) friction, (iii) high pressure, (iv) settling of sediment, (v) velocity, (vi) sulphur-reducing bacteria, (vii) other significant factors; (g) for all proposed or existing National Energy Board (NEB)-regulated pipelines, what is (i) the amount of hard sediment passing through the pipeline annually, (ii) the average pressure, (iii) the average temperature; (h) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to determine whether diluted bitumen can flow safely through pipelines; (i) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to determine whether or not conventional crude should be distinguished from diluted bitumen when setting minimum standards for pipelines; (j) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to design safety and spill responses and spill liability management capabilities that are appropriate specifically to diluted bitumen; (k) how does a diluted bitumen spill compare with a conventional light sweet oil spill in terms of (i) the impacts of the natural gas liquid condensate used to dilute the bitumen, (ii) diluted bitumen’s ability to form an ignitable and explosive mixture; (l) in the case of a diluted bitumen spill, at what temperatures would ignition of the spill occur, and what heat sources might cause ignition; (m) what, if any, are the (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) conclusions, (iv) recommendations of research undertaken by the government concerning the environmental and economic risks of a diluted bitumen spill; (n) what, if any, are the (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) conclusions, (iv) recommendations of risk analyses (including such factors as potential avalanches, flooding, remote location, rockslides, and snowpack) undertaken by the government concerning the danger of a diluted bitumen spill; (o) what, if any, are the (i) names, (ii) dates, (iii) conclusions, (iv) recommendations of analyses undertaken by the government concerning the possible economic, environmental, and social impacts of a diluted bitumen spill on First Nation and non-First Nation ways of life; (p) what are the challenges associated with clean-up specifically of a diluted bitumen spill, in rivers, wetland and marine environments (including when surface water is frozen), particularly as raw bitumen is heavier than water; (q) what appropriate clean-up operations might, in case of a diluted bitumen spill, be required in terms of equipment, personnel, and supplies, compared to a spill of light sweet crude oil; (r) what are the likely economic and environmental costs of a diluted bitumen spill compared to a spill of light sweet crude oil; (s) how might a diluted bitumen spill impact human health, including, but not limited to, (i) potential impacts both in the short-term and the long-term of exposure to toxins, including benzene, hydrogen sulphide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and n-hexane, (ii) potential impacts of exposure to toxins (such as arsenic, nickel, mercury and other heavy metals that do not biodegrade) that can bio-accumulate in the food chain; (t) what health and safety precautions does the government require emergency personnel to take when responding specifically to diluted bitumen spills; (u) what are all pipeline spills that have occurred from 1990 to 2010 in NEB-regulated pipelines, including (i) location, (ii) cause, (iii) affected area, (iv) environmental costs, (v) significant challenges to clean-up, (vi) impacts on human health, (vii) equipment, personnel and supplies required, (viii) economic costs; (v) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government taken to evaluate the need for new Canadian pipeline safety regulations and standards that reflect the unique characteristics of diluted bitumen, and to restrict further diluted bitumen pipeline development until adequate safety regulations are in place; (w) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken concerning changes to the design, operation and decommissioning of pipelines that may be necessary due to impacts of climate change, including but not limited to melting permafrost, changing moisture regimes, more severe storm events, increased incidence of forest fires, and slope instabilities; (x) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken regarding the adoption of pipeline regulations and standards that require new pipeline routes to avoid landslide-prone routes, and that provide an adequate risk assessment for risks to pipelines arising from landslides and snow avalanches; (y) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to evaluate the risk of pipeline spills caused by multiple incidents happening at the same time, including worst-case scenarios; (z) what specific action and investment will the government take to ensure (i) that bitumen pipeline operators will fix safety problems identified at their facilities, (ii) that bitumen pipeline operators keep their emergency procedures up-to-date; (aa) what specific actions will the government take to ensure that pipeline companies which transport bitumen employ emergency-procedures manuals that adequately (i) identify the hazards posed by the operation of the pipelines, (ii) assess the risks posed by those hazards, (iii) map nearby residences and evacuation routes, (iv) describe and locate emergency response equipment, (v) identify any environmentally sensitive areas potentially affected by an incident, (vi) explain governmental roles in an emergency response; and (bb) in what ways, if any, must the emergency-procedures manuals referred to in sub-question (aa) differ from those concerning pipelines that do not carry bitumen?
Question No. 420–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to Canada’s international commitments on climate change and the government’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol: (a) for each of the international commitments that the government has made concerning climate change, (i) what is that commitment, (ii) what are the government’s obligations under it, (iii) does the government plan to fulfill each obligation or not; (b) what specific actions or negotiating positions were taken in support of the government’s statements that it (i) “went to Durban in a spirit of good will,” (ii) “went [to the Durban climate change conference] committed to being constructive,” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011); (c) in detail, how does the government plan to achieve the goal of reaching a new international agreement on climate change with particular reference to (i) how the government plans to achieve legally binding commitments for all major emitters, (ii) how the government plans to find solutions to meet the agreed-upon-objective of staying below 2°C of warming; (d) what information does the Minister of the Environment possess that supports his statement that “increasingly, support is growing for Canada’s position – from the EU, to the United States, Australia, New Zealand, least developed countries and the group of 43 small island states” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011); (e) does the Minister of the Environment possess information that Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol is a positive step for Canada’s economy, in contradiction of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy’s projected costs of $21-43 billion annually by 2050 (depending on whether a low climate change–slow growth scenario or a high climate change–rapid growth scenario), and what is that information; (f) what, in detail, are the “radical and irresponsible choices” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011) that Canada was facing under the Kyoto protocol; and (g) what are the penalties to which Canada would have been subject to under the Kyoto protocol for not meeting agreed emission reductions, and what analysis does the government possess in support of the statements that these penalties would have entailed “the loss of thousands of jobs” and “the transfer of $14 billion from Canadian taxpayers to other countries–the equivalent of $1600 from every Canadian family—with no impact on emissions or the environment” (statement by Minister Kent, Foyer of the House of Commons, December 12, 2011)?
Question No. 421–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to increasing evidence for the threat of climate change and Canada’s response to it, including emission reductions and adaptation strategies: (a) do the government’s policies address the growing scientific consensus that the threat of climate change is now incontrovertible; (b) do the government’s policies acknowledge that continuing on a business-as-usual pathway could lead to (i) a potential temperature rise of 4°C by the end of the century, (ii) dangerous impacts for Canada and the world; (c) do the government’s policies acknowledge that the small number of climate change deniers who continue to contest either that climate change is real or that humans are causing it (i) are generally not climate scientists, (ii) employ arguments that have been discredited by the international scientific community; (d) do the government’s policies acknowledge that (i) while our scientific understanding of the climate system is not complete, the evidence is sufficiently strong to show that climate change poses a real threat, (ii) further delays in addressing this threat will entail greater risks and costs; (e) do the government’s policies acknowledge that if the scenario in (b)(i) becomes a reality, serious consequences, such as coastal flooding, extreme weather events, and forest fires, will intensify over the coming decades with significant costs for the economy and the environment, both in Canada and globally; (f) what research, if any, has the government undertaken or planned to undertake to assess the impact of climate change on the Canadian economy and the costs of adaptation to climate change, and what are (i) the names of these studies, (ii) the dates they were carried out, (iii) their conclusions, including projected costs and whether and under what circumstances said costs can be kept to manageable levels, (iv) their recommendations; (g) what are specific examples of how the government is taking advantage of “shorter-term opportunities to address climate change” (notes for remarks by the Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P., Announcement on Domestic Climate Change Adaptation, Toronto, Ontario, November 8, 2011); (h) what sectors are to be included in the government’s sector-by-sector approach to climate change, and what are the dates for the inclusion of each sector; (i) what concrete examples demonstrate the government’s climate change plan has “a strong, corresponding international component” (notes, November 8, 2011); (j) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government carried out to “reduce the soot, methane, ozone and other gases” (notes, November 8, 2011) which are short-lived drivers of the climate system; (k) what research, if any, has the government undertaken to compare the costs of early mitigation of climate change with the costs of late adaptation to climate change, and what are (i) the names of these studies, (ii) the dates they were carried out, (iii) their conclusions, including projected costs and whether (and under what circumstances) said costs can be kept to manageable levels, (iv) their recommendations; (l) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government carried out to develop a pan-Canadian plan for energy efficiency with targets for the years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050; (m) what, if any, (i) action, (ii) investment has the government undertaken to implement low-impact renewable energy solutions in Canada for the years listed in (l); (n) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to develop a strategy for sustainable transportation in Canada with targets for the years listed in (l); (o) what actions, if any, has the government carried out to develop a fund for climate-neutral pilot projects that will allow municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as much as possible, and to use carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable emissions; (p) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to develop a plan to rationalize and phase out fossil fuel subsidies, with targets for 2015, 2020 and 2025, in order to achieve the goal of a ‘medium term’ phase-out; (q) what, if any, (i) research, (ii) action, (iii) investment has the government undertaken to develop a plan to increase research and development into and deployment of low-carbon technology in Canada; (r) what, if any (i) research (ii) consultations has the government undertaken to determine if, given various possible scenarios, an investment of $148.8 million over the next five years will be sufficient to help Canada adapt adequately to climate change by the target dates 2030, 2040, and 2050; and (s) what specific provisions has the government made to allow Environment Canada’s Adaptation and Impacts Research Section to undertake research to help Canada adapt to climate change?
Question No. 566–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil sands: (a) what studies, if any, have been undertaken to estimate GHG emissions intensity for the oil sands, and, for each identified study, (i) who are its authors, (ii) what are its dates, (iii) what are its findings, (iv) what are its recommendations; (b) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, if any, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding GHG emissions intensity for the oil sands, and, for each, what were the findings and recommendations; (c) does the government have any information or evidence indicating that a shift towards the use of steam in oil sands extraction is accelerating GHG emissions, and, if so, what is this information or evidence; (d) how does the emissions intensity of mining compare to in situ production; (e) what are the details of the government’s projections or of projections it possesses for (i) how GHG emissions will increase over the next decade, the next two decades, and the next three decades, (ii) how GHG emissions from the oil sands will compare to emissions from every other Canadian economic sector over the next decade, the next two decades, and the next three decades, (iii) how GHG emissions from the oil sands will compare to all Canadian economic sectors combined over the next decade, the next two decades, and the next three decades, (iv) how increasing GHG emissions will impact climate change over the next decade, the next two decades, and the next three decades; and (f) what are the findings and any recommendations of the discussion paper, “Estimating GHG Emissions Intensity for the Oil Sands Sector over Time”” document DM/146926?
Question No. 611–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to the government’s plans for resource development, as described in the section entitled “Responsible Resource Development” in Chapter 3.2 of Budget 2012: (a) what are all examples of federal environmental laws that are stronger than provincial laws and how will the proposed legislative changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) affect the assessment of environmental impacts of industrial projects that cross provincial borders; (b) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to study impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) risk mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (c) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA on (i) regulatory decision-making, (ii) risk of project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts, (iii) mitigation by developers, (iv) Canada’s reputation; (d) will the proposed legislative changes to the CEAA give any consideration to (i) measuring negative impacts of development, (ii) managing negative impacts of development; (e) by what date will the government bring forth new “legislation to streamline the review process for major economic projects” (Budget 2012, p. 89); (f) what are the projected costs of changes to the CEAA for each province and territory; (g) what assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted, (i) what were the dates of any such assessments, (ii) what were the recommendations and conclusions; (h) what are the details of any research or evidence in the government’s possession indicating that the proposed “modern regulatory system” will contribute to (i) “better environmental outcomes”, (ii) “offer new opportunities for Aboriginal businesses”, (iii) “generate well-paying jobs for Aboriginal peoples near their communities”, (iv) “improve consultations with Aboriginal peoples” (Budget 2012, p. 91); (i) what is the government’s rationale for extending support for consultations with Aboriginal peoples for a period of only two years; (j) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken regarding how changes to the current environmental review process may impact the Northern Gateway pipeline project, including (i) intervenors in the project, (ii) project proponents, (iii) regulators of the project; (k) given its plan for resource development, how does the government plan to ensure that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board (NEB) will have adequate financial and technical resources, and how will the resource levels of these organizations change given the expected growth in resource development projects; (l) what is the cost of having enforceable environmental assessment decision statements, (i) what resources will be allocated to ensure that these decision statements will be enforced, (ii) what will be the consequence if a proponent does not comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment; (m) will there be Criminal Code penalties for violating the CEAA and the NEB Act; (n) how will the government define whether or not a provincial process is equivalent to the federal process; (o) how will the government determine which major projects will continue to receive oversight from the federal assessment process; (p) what proportion of current assessments will no longer receive federal oversight given the proposed changes; (q) what is a detailed accounting of the investments being made in the Major Projects Management Office Initiative versus the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; (r) by what dates will the government bring forth (i) legislation to “enhance the existing tanker inspection regime” (Budget 2012, p. 98) and what specific actions will be taken to ensure enforcement of the legislation, (ii) “appropriate legislative and regulatory frameworks related to oil spills, and emergency preparedness and response” (Budget 2012, p.98) and what specific actions will be taken to ensure enforcement of the legislation; (s) how will an independent international panel of tanker safety experts be chosen and, specifically, (i) why was it decided that an international panel is needed to assess handling processes, (ii) what will be the specific process for, and who will be involved in, choosing the members of the international panel, (iii) who will have the ultimate decision-making authority on the appointments to the international panel, (iv) when will the international panel be chosen, (v) what will be the selection criteria for the panel, (vi) how will all potential conflicts of interest of members of the international panel be recorded, confirmed, and publicly declared; (t) by what date will the government bring forth “new navigational products, such as updated charts for shipping routes” (Budget 2012, p. 98) and, specifically, what other navigational products will be provided; (u) what monies will be provided for “research to improve our scientific knowledge and understanding of marine pollution risks, and to manage the impacts on marine resources, habitats and users in the event of a marine pollution incident” (Budget 2012, p. 98), (i) when will the monies be available, (ii) to whom will monies be available; (v) what is the government’s rationale for implementing funding for strengthening pipeline safety for a period of only two years; (w) will funding for strengthening pipeline safety include funding for the NEB to (i) monitor whether regulated companies have prepared emergency-procedures manuals according to established legislation, standards, and NEB expectations, (ii) communicate any deficiencies to the regulated companies, (iii) ensure any deficiencies are corrected; (x) how does the role of the Northern Pipeline Agency compare to that of the NEB and, specifically, (i) what is the Agency’s mandate, (ii) what is its organizational structure, (iii) who are its key people, (iv) to whom will the Agency report and how often; and (y) what is a detailed accounting of the government’s investments in environmental monitoring, protection, and enforcement as it compares with the government’s investments in promoting Canada’s oil and gas industry?
Question No. 612–
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With respect to changes to environmental programs resulting from the announcements in Budget 2012: (a) specifying how each identified cut is projected to impact the government’s access to scientific information required for the development of public policy, the number of people to be cut, and the amount of money to be cut, what are all areas of scientific research and partnerships to be cut, including, but not limited to, (i) air pollution, (ii) emergency preparedness and response, (iii) industrial waste, (iv) water quality; (b) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding impacts of research and partnership cuts on the government’s access to scientific information required for the development of public policy; (c) what, in detail, does “sufficient data is available to support the dissemination and validation of the UV Index forecast” mean, (i) what does “we will continue to have enough data for EC to track and report on ozone” mean, (iii) in detail, will the government maintain the integrity of the ozone monitoring program, (iv) in detail, will the government maintain Canadian contributions to the global observing system for climate in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), (v) what studies have been undertaken to assess the impact of streamlining ozone monitoring on Canada’s international reputation, and what were any findings and recommendations; (d) what briefing notes, memos, or any other documentation, including, for each, the details of its findings and recommendations, have been provided to the Prime Minister, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, their respective Parliamentary Secretaries, their respective Deputy Ministers, and their respective staff members, regarding (i) impacts of streamlining ozone data collection, (ii) the integrity of the ozone monitoring program, (iii) Canada’s contributions to the UNFCCC, (iv) Canada’s international reputation; (e) what studies have been undertaken to assess the impact on Canada’s international reputation of the decision to no longer house and manage the Global Environmental Monitoring System Water Program of the United Nations Environment Programme, and what were any findings and recommendations; (f) what, in detail, is the government’s rationale for eliminating the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, (i) what other organization has a direct mandate from Parliament to engage Canadians in the generation and promotion of sustainable development advice and solutions, (ii) which organizations will provide domestic, independent research and analysis on sustainable development and what are the sources of their funding; (g) what monies are to be spent on the two dimensions to clean energy, namely (i) the clean-up of non-renewable sources of energy such as coal and the oil sands by reducing their environmental and climate change impacts, (ii) opportunities to compete in renewable energy production and more efficient energy consumption; and (h) what research, action, or investment has the government undertaken to identify those investments which are necessary (i) to develop a clean energy industry in Canada, (ii) to help Canada to transition to the green economy, (iii) to have Canada be a leader in the green economy?
Q-8452 — June 20, 2012 — Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) — With regard to children’s health and the environment: (a) what action has the government undertaken to integrate children’s environmental health into existing public health programs; (b) what specific action is the government undertaking to advocate for the consideration and assessment of hazardous environmental influences on children’s health and development, (i) in Canada, (ii) internationally; (c) what specific action is the government undertaking to raise the political profile of children’s environmental health, (i) locally, (ii) regionally, (iii) nationally; (d) in relation to its contaminated sites, (i) what specific action is the government undertaking to raise awareness about children’s environmental health, (ii) what are all contaminated sites where action has been taken to raise awareness, (iii) what was the risk; (iv) what was the action taken; (e) what are all government activities focused on children’s environmental health; (f) what are all existing government activities focused on prevention of environmental exposures aimed at protecting children’s health; (g) what governmental action has been undertaken to prevent (i) pre-conception, prenatal, and childhood exposures, (ii) air, consumer products, food, soil/dust, water, and other physical environmental exposures, (iii) biological, chemical, and physical hazards; (h) how has the government taken children’s vulnerabilities into account in developing environmental and health policies, regulations, and standards; (i) what targeted environmental and health policies, regulations, and standards have already been put in place to protect children’s health, and what policies, regulations, and standards are currently under consideration; (j) what action is being undertaken by the government to measure the extent to which pregnant women and their babies are exposed to common environmental chemicals, and what health risks, if any, are associated with the chemical levels measured; (k) what pregnancy health risks, if any, are associated with exposure to heavy metals, namely, arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and mercury; (l) what pregnancy health risks, if any, are associated with exposure to bisphenol A, organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds, phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyls; (m) what are all federal government bio-monitoring studies to assess the presence of toxic chemicals in Canadians, and particularly, in children, and for each study, what are the details of (i) all baseline data, (ii) reference ranges for concentrations of chemicals in Canadians, (iii) comparisons of exposure levels in subpopulations in Canada, (iv) any trends of exposure levels in Canadians over time, (v) the efforts related to the management of toxic substances that are resulting in better health outcomes; (n) what is the risk management strategy, including, but not limited to, the strategies’ objectives, priorities, and systematic process for periodically assessing progress made in managing risks, for (i) lead, (ii) mercury; (o) what action, if any, has been taken to develop labels to inform consumers of chronic hazards that may result from multiple or long-term use of a product; and (p) what action has the government taken to educate healthcare workers, environment professionals, industry, non-governmental organizations, policy makers, and parents about children’s health and the environment?
Join the conversation