Environment Committee on May 28th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Who, to note, have been prepared to answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Warawa, do you still need to add something else on this point of order?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes.

Mr. Cullen has misinterpreted why I brought this to the attention of the committee. He was asking questions about department-to-department, and consultations within, possible confidential consultations, which is totally different from what he just expressed. That is why I raised the point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

I'll rely on the witnesses, who undoubtedly will have those concerns in mind but will provide as much information in their answers as they can to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

To quote from your document, one of the guiding strategic outcomes for the department is “promoting science-based approaches to inform the development of new standards and regulations”. When dealing with climate change, what is the science-based standard in developing regulations? Is it a rise in global temperatures of a certain degree? Is it a total parts per million into the atmosphere contributed by Canadian...? I want to know this so I can understand how the spending is decided upon.

[Ian Shugart]

We'll get the right colleague to answer that.

Mr. Chair, if the member would permit me, I think it might be helpful to the committee just to clarify on the last point. I did interpret the question in terms of advice that we may have given to the Department of Finance and the minister in making that decision. If that was not the intent, I apologize.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm sure the record will show that was not my question.

[Ian Shugart]

I can answer—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm going to ask everyone to address themselves to the chair.

[Ian Shugart]

I can tell the committee, Mr. Chair, that following the decision in relation to that program, the department has not done an evaluation and release, publicly or otherwise.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

[Ian Shugart]

In relation to the development of the regulations, I'll ask Madame Cléroux to elaborate a little on the process and the analysis that goes into that.

[Cécile Cléroux]

As the committee knows, we are working using the CEPA instrument. All of you have been involved in the review of CEPA this year, so you are all familiar with the different rules of engagement of that act. When we are proceeding to put different regulations in place, we need to make sure we have the science supporting that we are facing a chemical that has an impact on human health and/or environment. It is the case with GHG. The six main GHGs that are considered by the different countries around the world....

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

With the points of order and all the discussion, I want to make sure my question is answered, rather than use up the remainder of my time.

My question was very specific. In your document, you talk about science-based targets in developing policy to set regulations. Yes or no, is there a two-degree or parts-per-million target that is used by government in developing the policies for climate change?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Because we have a pollutant of concern and at this time no one knows exactly what the acceptable percentage or degree or quantity of GHG is, the approach that has been taken is to identify a target that is based on a reduction of that pollutant, to be able to intervene and to start having a decrease in the impact of global warming.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

In terms of drinking water—and I'll make this my last question, Chair—the government has designed a program to provide science, leadership, water quality, etc., towards first nations communities in particular. What proportion of money goes towards treatment of the water actually produced, as opposed to treatment of the water at source, in which Environment Canada has the authority to do both. Do we make a proportional...? Is it fifty-fifty?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Treatment of water for potable purposes is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs. It's not Environment Canada that intervenes. The advice is provided about the different quantities or concentrations of the different pollutants by Health Canada. Potable water is considered a health threat and not an environmental threat, so it's not Environment Canada that is providing the advice to the Department of Indian Affairs.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Merci, Madame.

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Now I understand we have Mr. Watson. Am I correct in understanding that you wish to share your time with Mr. Harvey?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

That's correct, Mr. Chair, should there be any time left over. I don't have too many questions, but I appreciate that.

Of course we are here today for a very important duty of this committee, and that's to review the estimates for 2008-2009. Just for the record, before I launch in, Mr. McGuinty raised a number of issues in his round of questioning, and I just wanted to be clear that Ontario's share of the eco-trust fund is $586.2 million to support projects that result in real reductions in greenhouse gases and air pollutants. I think Mr. Shugart could confirm this.

I have a quote from Premier Dalton McGuinty: “It will also support Ontario's plans to phase out its remaining coal-fired generating stations.” We certainly expect we'll have an understanding of what their greenhouse gas reductions will be as they begin to draw that down. I think it will be significant to the province of Ontario.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I think we all would have appreciated having the minister here, but I think we can appreciate that the minister has a very busy schedule.

Looking at the estimates and the number of topics covered in your presentations, everything from conservation to protecting biodiversity, chemicals management, climate change, clean water, these are very important things for the minister to be tackling. Now we can probably add to that helping the Premier of Ontario protect his economy from a massive carbon tax plan from the opposition.

Mr. Shugart, you mentioned very briefly the natural areas conservation program, which is a very significant program with respect to habitat preservation. You mentioned the purchase of some lands in Saskatchewan. Of course the first announcement to come out of that was on Pelee Island, and that's protecting 5% of the island's rare alvar habitat. It's a very good announcement.

My questions will be directed to the government's action plan on clean water, $663.3 million to protect what I think this committee would arguably agree is the most precious natural resource in Canada. We've made numerous investments in the province of Ontario: Lake Simcoe; my area, the Detroit River; the St. Clair River; and Randall Reef in Hamilton Harbour. Can you inform the committee of the progress of some of these funding announcements and what their effects will be for the surrounding communities?

[John Carey]

Mr. Chair, I'll attempt to address that question.

Of the resources just quoted, approximately $96 million will come to Environment Canada over the next five years to address three elements of the action plan. Those would be Lake Simcoe, as mentioned, the Great Lakes, and Lake Winnipeg. The Great Lakes program is approximately $48 million over five years, and it's intended to accelerate sediment cleanups in the areas of concern. I believe progress has been made on five of those accelerations to date.

In Hamilton Harbour, a technical plan has now been agreed to and the environmental assessment is beginning, and some of the other scientific studies to allocate sources are also taking place.

Of the 17 areas of concern that implicate Canadians, to date two have been delisted and are no longer areas of concern. All the actions in one of them have taken place, and we're waiting for the use impairments to disappear so it can be delisted. Of the 17 remaining, we intend to have completed actions in 15 by the year 2012.

A call was made for proposals with respect to Lake Simcoe, and 63 were received. They were reviewed by a technical committee, who completed their work, I believe, approximately two weeks ago and are making recommendations to the minister on projects that will be funded this year.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The environment commissioner, of course, did a review recently--one that I asked for a couple of years ago--not only on the Detroit River but on the areas of concern on the Great Lakes and highlighted some of the work that is being done. Our government is certainly attempting to make significant efforts to improve and protect the Great Lakes. Of course living as far south in Canada and being surrounded by the Great Lakes, it's an area that's important to me, protecting the Great Lakes and their various ecosystems.

In this environment commissioner's report, it was reported that for a significant period of time, better than a decade anyway, previous governments made numerous promises to clean up the Great Lakes, but, as usual, did nothing, didn't achieve that.

Can you update the committee on what the government is doing to protect the future of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem in its attempts to restore the Great Lakes to health, especially in the areas of concern? Can we bore down into that a little bit?

[John Carey]

The main activity is the cleanup of the areas of concern. That was a commitment made in 1987 under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Other commitments also involved improving our science base, developing lake-wide management plans for critical pollutants, and those plans have been developed. We are looking at implementation strategies for those plans so that on a lake-by-lake basis critical pollutants will be managed lake-wide. We're also modifying monitoring programs to support the implementation of those lake-wide management plans.

And the science continues. We're studying things like avian botulism and blue-green algae in Lake Erie, looking at sources, looking for next actions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You have three minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have another question.

Turning back to conservation for a moment, environmental protection is one of the main priorities of this government's northern strategy. The Prime Minister, of course, has announced the expansion of Nahanni National Park, and an historic agreement was reached with the first nations to protect Canada's north.

Can you update the committee on the progress that has been made in that regard? What are the long-term plans for these projects?