Environment Committee on May 28th, 2008

[Ian Shugart]

Yes, I'll ask Mr. Latourelle to start on this.

[Alan Latourelle]

Significant progress has been made this year, for example, on the Nahanni expansion from two perspectives. On the northern component of Nahanni, we've been working with the Dechi Laot'i First Nation to complete the consultation to establish the park boundaries. And then on the southern watershed of Nahanni, we've reached an agreement with the Naats'ihch'oh for the Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve. We've committed some funding to them, $500,000 over the next two years, to establish an impact and benefit agreement with that first nation community.

We're also working on the east arm of Great Slave Lake with the Lutselk'e First Nation. We've committed $3 million to a feasibility study for a national park proposal, and that $3 million will include also mineral and energy resource assessments as part of the feasibility study.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The second part of my question is on the long-term plans for these projects. I think those are mostly next steps.

[Alan Latourelle]

Yes. Those are all critical steps in terms of the establishment of national parks. In the case of Nahanni, it is to expand the national park and to get it to a national park reserve. And it's the same in terms of the Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve. It is to complete the consultation and the engagement with the first nations to actually establish the park. In terms of east arm, it's to define the boundaries of a potential park there and seek their support for a national park.

Our objective is to move forward and establish these two new parks and expand Nahanni significantly.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

My apologies to my colleague. I'm sure he'll come in on a later round. He's punching me in the arm here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

He'll have his turn in due course. Thank you very much, Mr. Watson.

That is the end of the first round. Now we'll go on to the second round of five minutes.

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses

I want to return to the “Turning the Corner” plan and the money that was set aside for the eco-trust, which is $1.5 billion.

On page 7 of the short form of the plan there is a fairly ambitious chart that shows how we're going to get to a 20% reduction by 2020. On page 6 it says that the eco-trust investments will yield, at a minimum, 35 megatonnes of reduction. Madame Cléroux, in answering the question on cost-benefit analysis, I assume included the 35 megatonnes expected from the eco-trust.

Here's the problem I have with the eco-trust. If it's the provinces exclusively that make the decisions and there is no conditionality imposed by the federal government, no accountability for the way the money is spent, no compliance mechanism or even corrective action that can be taken if it turns out this isn't working, how can anyone make a firm cost-benefit analysis about how the plan's going to work, or indeed a firm prediction that we will reduce greenhouse gases in Canada by 20% by 2020, when this large component--35 megatonnes at a minimum--is not subject to any foreseeable rules, conditions, accountability, or verifiability?

[Ian Shugart]

Mr. Chairman, the approach we took to that component of the projected reductions was to begin with the provincial plans themselves. Where provinces had identified their own objectives for GHG reductions in their own jurisdictions we took that into account and factored that into the overall target and the components that would get Canada to that target. In other words, in that 20% anticipated reduction there is an element that we explicitly said would come from provincial actions. We've used their analysis and their numbers. In some cases there was a commitment without concrete plans, but we took them at their word that this was a matter of policy for those governments.

The instrumentality of the trust arrangement was simply to provide support, as has been done in a number of cases in public policy areas--health and so on--by Parliament, to support provincial efforts in their areas of jurisdiction toward an outcome Parliament agrees with.

That's the rationale for the eco-trust. And that's why we were able to factor into the model, into the 20% reduction target, the results from the eco-trust. We took account of the fact that provinces had plans, objectives, and that they would use the funding. The announcements at the time made it clear that provincial governments intended to use the funding to those policy objectives.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But there's no verifiability. It seems to me, if I may draw a contrast with something where Madame Cléroux is well informed as well, that if you contrast the kinds of contribution agreements that were made on infrastructure programs where the funding was shared among the federal government, municipalities, and provincial governments frequently, there was a mechanism to see that the work was done and there was a contract signed.

Let me ask you the question. Compared with that kind of verifiability and those sorts of contracts, how do these ones compare in terms of their enforceability, transparency, verifiability? Surely this is of a lesser order.

[Ian Shugart]

I agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is a different instrument of public policy. In this particular case, it would be the normal responsibility of a provincial Auditor General to ensure or to measure the expenditure for environmental policy, in this case for GHG reductions, using money that was available to that province through the trust mechanism.

In terms of measuring the reductions in GHGs over time, we do have that capability as a country, and indeed, we are going to have to track the results, year after year, of our GHG emissions as a country.

I agree with the member, Mr. Chairman, that we will not be able to attribute a megatonne of reduction in GHGs to a dollar spent through the eco-trust initiative. But that is known at the time Parliament uses this mechanism of providing financial support to a province to engage in policy interventions that will allow it, using its instruments of jurisdiction, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It's Mr. Harvey's turn.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Gentlemen, in recent months, last summer at least, blue algae caused a lot of problems in Quebec. I know that announcements were made on the subject. The Minister of the Environment announced measures to reduce phosphate emissions.

What are your comments on that?

[Cécile Cléroux]

We are developing regulations that will enable us to reduce the phosphate percentage that will be permitted in the various consumer products.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have a point of order. The questions have to be related to the agenda. However, it seems to me the member is straying from the subject.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bigras. We normally allow a certain amount of latitude, but I encourage all members to focus on the subject.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Can the witness answer the question?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Yes.

[Cécile Cléroux]

We're completing the development of regulations that will make it possible to reduce the quantity of phosphate permitted in domestic consumer products so as to reduce the amount of phosphate in the various waterways.

In addition, the work we're doing with the provinces and territories to put in place regulations on the quality of municipal waste water effluents that wind up in the environment is another mechanism that will enable us to reduce phosphate levels.

It is a matter of months before those measures are put in place to meet the commitments made by the government.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I'll start with the St. Lawrence Valley, where there are a number of ZIP committees. Some good announcements have been made by the minister. Have they produced the desired results?

[John Carey]

The announcements in relation to the St. Lawrence were in relation to the ZIPs. We had a previous question on that already. The decision was taken to renew the 14 ZIPs, and the grants and contributions agreements are presently being renewed.

Again, Mr. Chair, in light of the previous question, the announcements that were made were about the $2.2 million to renew those 14 agreements. Of that, $1.1 million is for this year and $1.1 million is for next year. It is the intention to renew those agreements for two years and to provide funding to the end of 2009-10 for those actions.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

The question is mainly for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We've talked a lot about sustainable development and what must follow from it: the types of energy and so on. There are increasing references to Europe, where they're talking about the nuclear industry and so on.

Do you have any priorities as regards the types of energy that we should focus on developing in the next few years? What should they focus their efforts on, at the Department of the Environment, in order to support the next developments?

[Peter Sylvester]

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian agency is engaged in the assessment of projects that are proposed by the proponents. We do not state our preferences as to sources of energy. We don't have a policy development component in that area.

I'll turn the floor over to my colleague, David McLaughlin.

[David McLaughlin]

It's the same for us. For the moment, our priorities are focused on the price of coal, on water and climate change, not really on this issue of energy renewal.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That's all, Mr. Harvey.

Now it's Mr. Lussier's turn.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for Mr. Latourelle.

Mr. Latourelle, you state in your brief that you've received two awards for excellence. The Auditor General has praised your cost management because your department is considered to be the one where the cost-services ratio is very fair.

Of the 925 national historic sites that you administer, you say that 158 are reserved for Parks Canada. Who administers the other historic sites and how are the costs shared?