Environment Committee on May 28th, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Good afternoon, colleagues. This meeting will come to order.

Before we begin with our witnesses, who we're delighted to welcome here today, there are a couple of minor business items. A notice has not been sent for tomorrow, but a room is available if the committee is available to meet on Bill C-474. I understand that Mr. Warawa and Mr. Godfrey have been or will be discussing the remaining clauses.

Mr. Warawa, do you want to comment on this, in terms of whether you're available and agreeable to meet tomorrow?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Unfortunately, I'm not. Also, one of the department people we need to have there is not available, so perhaps we could stay with Monday. Mr. Godfrey and I will be meeting tomorrow, so hopefully things would move very quickly on Monday.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

We'd all like that. Of course, we'd need to have agreement to meet tomorrow, in any event.

I think Mr. Cullen would like to make a comment.

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

As a note to that meeting, when you folks get together, as much as is possible, documents about what the conclusions and consequences are would be appreciated. One of the challenges with our last meeting was that amendments were being made having all sorts of consequential effects on the rest of the bill. Committee members were being asked to vote parts of the bill out and other parts in. It slows us down beyond what I think we need at this point. So as much as you and Mr. Godfrey are able to settle on something that committee members can see beforehand, rather than in the moment we're facing the clause--decide to strip it out, move it, readjust it--that would be helpful.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Once we finish Bill C-474--which we're all hoping will happen in a rapid manner on Monday--we'll be going to Bill C-469, from Monsieur Guy André. He's been invited to appear before the committee on Monday.

That will be immediately after the study of Bill C-474. Normally we allow the member introducing the bill to make a 10-minute presentation, followed by a question period of about 30 minutes.

That is the approach we would propose to take on Monday. Of course, by then you'll have the regular chairman. Mr. Mills will be back from Russia and be in the chair, and I'm sure you'll all look forward to that.

This is a meeting pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) to consider the main estimates for the Department of the Environment, as well as for the Parks Canada Agency, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. In that regard, I am pleased to welcome, from the Department of the Environment, Ian Shugart, the associate deputy minister.

Perhaps, Mr. Shugart, you would be prepared to introduce the people who are here with you.

[Ian Shugart, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment]

I'd be delighted to do that, Chairman.

With me are Alan Latourelle, chief executive officer of the Canada Parks Agency; Mr. Peter Sylvester, president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; and Mr. David McLaughlin, president and CEO of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much.

I trust you've been advised by the clerk already that we're offering you five minutes per agency, so to speak, perhaps five minutes for you and five minutes for each of the agencies to make presentations, following which we're looking forward to engaging with you in discussion.

[Ian Shugart]

Exactly, Chair. I'll begin.

I'm very grateful to be here with the committee and indeed on this occasion with my colleagues in the portfolio. I think it's the first time we have done that, certainly any time recently.

With me also from the Department of the Environment is Cécile Cléroux, who is the assistant deputy minister of our largest branch, the environmental stewardship branch, and Basia Ruta, our chief financial officer in the department.

It is a pleasure to be here, as acting deputy minister, to respond to questions on the department's main estimates.

We also have other colleagues with us, should the committee members want to put questions of a more detailed nature to us. We're here to provide whatever information we can; and, as always, we'd be happy to follow up if we don't have the immediate information at hand.

I'd like to point out with reference to the main estimates, Chair, that Environment Canada's budget has undergone a few changes in comparison with the previous year. It might be helpful to give you a brief explanation of these.

First, to ensure that our results structure aligns with government priorities, our program activity architecture has changed slightly from the previous year. If you were to reference page 7 of the report on plans and priorities, you will note that the initiative to revitalize the Toronto waterfront, along with the Harbourfront Corporation, has been added to the list of 2008-2009 program activities. For that fiscal year, our main estimates total $957.5 million, which is approximately $115.5 million more than the 2007-2008 main estimates. Of this increase in funding to the department, the majority of the variance is targeted towards grants and contributions, largely relating to the Toronto waterfront revitalization initiative and the Harbourfront Centre—$92 million in this case.

Those two items aside, the department's 2008-2009 main estimates are largely comparable to those of the previous year.

The department also receives re-spendable revenues—what we refer to as “vote-netted revenue”—which amount to $68 million in the current year. That amount is mostly attributable to activities such as licences, permits, and the meteorological services we provide to National Defence and NavCan. VNR is netted out in the main estimates.

I'd also note that through the 2008-2009 supplementary estimates (A), tabled on May 13, Environment Canada is seeking $74.6 million in new funding for initiatives such as the implementation of the national vehicle scrappage program and the implementation of fresh water initiatives. These were referenced in the budget, of course.

Overall, the funding provided to the department this year will allow us to continue our work on the environmental agenda and meet the government's key priorities in this area. This includes working to conserve our nation's biodiversity, to predict weather as effectively as possible in order to reduce the risks that Canadians may need to control, and to protect citizens and the environment from the effects of pollution and waste in areas such as water and chemical management.

Undoubtedly, climate change is the greatest priority of our department. We are working to implement the “Turning the Corner” action plan, introduced last year for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and air emissions. This framework was recently expanded in March 2008 to include strong new sector-specific reductions aimed at the oil sands and electricity sectors.

Internationally, as the committee knows, we're actively participating in negotiations on a post-2012 international agreement on climate change.

We're also working to protect and preserve the diversity of our environment, for example, through the natural areas conservation program, a partnership created with the Nature Conservancy of Canada last year. A number of properties have been purchased under that program, such as a significant one in the Qu’Appelle Valley region of Saskatchewan this year.

We're making investments to protect our oceans and water, working to fulfill the government's commitments in this area through the action plan on clean water to clean up our rivers, lakes, and oceans—in this case, the Great Lakes, Lake Simcoe, and Lake Winnipeg.

Significant investments are also being made in improving our enforcement capabilities so that we can give our environment the protection it deserves. For example, in the March 2008 budget $21 million over two years was allocated to support the enforcement of Canada' s tough environmental laws by increasing the effectiveness of environmental enforcement officers with better forensics laboratory support, data collection, analysis and management systems. This follows on the $22 million identified in Budget 2007 to support a 50 % increase in the number of environmental enforcement officers hired.

Lastly, Budget 2008 provided an increase in funding for the ongoing work under the chemicals management plan, which, as the committee knows, is Canada's plan to take immediate action to regulate substances harmful to human health and the environment.

Chair, these are the main highlights and some examples of the work that we've been doing and the areas where work is being done to meet our environmental objectives. As the committee knows, we remain committed in the department to advancing the environmental agenda. To do this, we want to ensure that the appropriate conditions are in place so that we can respond to the environmental challenges in front of us with the right mix of laws, regulations, and market incentives.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me this time to make these comments to introduce the session. As you know, we'd be happy to answer questions.

With your approval, I'll turn to my colleague, Mr. Latourelle.

[Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's a real pleasure to be here today. I'm very pleased to work with the committee, including answering any questions that you may have following my presentation.

First, I'd like to share with you how proud I am to be part of the Parks Canada Agency. At Parks Canada, people genuinely care about the issues we're all called upon to work on. We care because we know that what we do has real and meaningful impact on the lives of Canadians.

In the fall of 1883 three Canadian Pacific Railway construction workers discovered a cave containing hot springs on the eastern slope of Alberta's Rocky Mountains. This led to the creation of Banff National Park, Canada's first national park, in 1885.

Parks Canada has grown a lot since then. There are now 42 national parks, covering more than 275,000 square kilometres; three national marine conservation areas; as well as 925 national historic sites, of which 158 are operated and owned by Parks Canada.

Each of Canada's protected heritage areas is part of Canada's collective soul and part of our nation's promise to its future. It's not by accident that in Canada, natural and cultural treasures continue to thrive in the 21st century. They survive because Canadians have chosen to safeguard places of stillness, natural wonder, and meaning.

Through the years, we have increased our knowledge and understanding of ecosystems and improved our legislation.

We are developing our offer to visitors and stand as the largest provider of natural and cultural tourism products Canada-wide with more than 20 million domestic and international visits every year.

I am extremely proud that our efforts in providing services to visitors were recently recognized by two awards of excellence: The Tourism Business of the Year Award from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, and a prestigious award from World Travel Market Global Award to Jasper National Park. These awards illustrate once again the richness and quality of Parks Canada's team.

However, our national parks and national historic sites face a challenging future. In this time of growing urbanization and high dependence on technology, fewer and fewer Canadians are connected to nature. As our success depends on the involvement of all Canadians, we are taking action to engage more and more stakeholders and partners from an increasingly diversified Canadian society. We are also making every effort to provide Canadians with meaningful experiences and quality visitor services in ways that protect resources for present and future generations.

Parks Canada is also taking action to conserve and expand Canada's system of national parks and national marine conservation areas and our network of places, persons and events of national historic significance.

Because of the actions Parks Canada is taking today, years from now Canadians and foreign visitors will still be able to learn about Canada's journey through history and enjoy landscapes and places unique to Canada such as theTorngat Mountains, the historic district of Old Quebec, Lake Superior, and the Nahanni region. And years from now, plains bison will still thunder across the vast wind-swept prairie that once was their native homeland.

In terms of priorities of the agency for the upcoming few years, maintaining and improving the cultural integrity of our national parks and the commemorative integrity of our national historic sites remains a priority. Maintaining and improving the quality of the visitor experience and renewing our visitor service to Canadians is also a priority. Connecting Canadians, especially urban Canadians, to our national parks and national historic sites is a priority, and so is continuing on our mission to expand our system of national parks, national historic sites, and national marine conservation areas.

In closing, I am greatly encouraged by all Parks Canada has been able to recently accomplish, and I'm confident in our ability to meet the heritage challenges that confront us and to realize the full potential of our magnificent heritage resources.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for your attention, and I shall be happy to answer any questions committee members may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Sylvester.

[Peter Sylvester, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's my turn to thank you for affording me the opportunity to come and talk about the activities of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

This is a very interesting time for the Agency. As you have no doubt already noted, our budget has sharply increased. In my preliminary remarks, I plan to focus on three points. First, I want to provide some brief background on the federal environmental assessment process. Second, I will describe how new funding proposed for 2008-2009 is leading to a transformation of our Agency. Finally, I would like to look ahead to the 2010 review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

First, very briefly, here is some context on environmental assessment. In the simplest terms, EA is a process to predict and evaluate possible environmental effects and then to propose measures to mitigate those adverse effects. Making changes to the design of a project before construction starts is a cost-effective way to protect the environment and the health of Canadians.

Our legislation, CEAA, applies to proposed projects where a federal authority—a department, agency, or crown corporation—has a decision to make as the proponent of the project, as a source of funding for the project, as the land manager, or as the regulator for the project. It is a self-assessment process, and this means the federal body that has the decision-making authority in relation to the project is also responsible for ensuring that the EA is conducted.

The types of projects that are assessed under our system, some 7,000 to 8,000 per year, range from relatively benign projects such as a hiking trail in a national park to much more complex and controversial projects, like a nuclear reactor, for example.

Projects will undergo a screening, a comprehensive study, or a panel review, depending on the potential for significant effects and public concern.

Within this self assessment process, our Agency provides advice and training. We coordinate the assessment of larger projects and support independent review panels appointed by the Minister of the Environment. We also work closely with provinces so that a single EA meets the legal requirements of both jurisdictions.

Turning now to our proposed spending, the 2008-09 main estimates propose a net increase of $17.9 million, for a total spending of $34.5 million, which is slightly more than double our previous budget. This significant increase is due to the following factors.

First, under the government's initiative to improve the performance of the regulatory system for major resource projects, the agency will now lead the EAs of most of these projects on behalf of the responsible departments.

Second, a surge of investment in the resource sector means that additional scientific and technical capacity is required, including support for more review panels. Adding capacity and shifting primary responsibility for delivery of the process from multiple departments to the agency is intended to improve the timeliness and the predictability and to ensure high-quality information for decision-makers.

Finally, where the agency manages an EA, it will also assume the very challenging role of coordinating consultations with aboriginal groups and communities about potential impacts of proposed projects on their rights and interests.

Now how will the transformation that I referred to earlier occur? In practical terms, this new funding means we will be able to recruit and retain additional scientific and technical staff, primarily in our six regional offices across the country. That means an increase in our staff of between 90 and 100 new employees. That's significant growth.

In addition, with this capacity, our Agency will play a more prominent leadership role in managing specific EAs, something that environmental and industry stakeholders have been recommending for years.

It should also be noted that, as part of our transformation, there is an increased emphasis on tracking, measuring and reporting performance.

Finally, I'll say just a few words about statutory review. The act is scheduled for review in 2010 by a parliamentary committee, a requirement coming out of amendments that followed the previous five-year review in 2003. Everything we learned from our continuing efforts to improve the timeliness, predictability, and quality of the EA process will serve to inform this review.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sylvester.

Mr. McLaughlin.

[David McLaughlin, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be with you here today to talk about the round table.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is an independent policy advisory agency whose purpose is to play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining, and promoting, in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development. The round table was created in 1988, 20 years ago, and had its status formalized in a 1993 act of Parliament that sets out its purpose and mandate. We report to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment.

The Round Table examines the environmental and economic implications of priority issues and offers independent policy advice, based on its own research, multi-stakeholder consultations, and the deliberations of Round Table members themselves, on how to address these issues.

The 2008-2009 main estimates for the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy are $5.154 million. The round table will expend its full appropriation on a single program activity, which is an advisory program on environment and economy issues.

Over the course of this fiscal year we will be working on a range of policy priorities, including climate change adaptation relating to northern infrastructure, carbon-pricing instrument design, best international practices in greenhouse gas emission forecasting, the economics of climate change, water, and compliance with our legislative responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions committee members might have about the round table and its main estimates.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLaughlin.

Let me thank the witnesses for coming in under the 20-minute mark. It's much appreciated.

We will now proceed with our first round of questions. Each party will have 10 minutes to ask its questions. Then there will be a round of five minutes for all members who haven't yet spoken. The members' time is their own: they may talk or ask questions.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for joining us this afternoon.

Mr. Chair, if I could, for 30 seconds, I just want to make a comment and an observation.

I'm very disappointed, as is the official opposition, that the minister is not here for these estimates. He was invited no later than April 28, 2008. He informed this committee only last week that he would be unable to attend the meeting. In the meantime, he told this committee that the only date he would be available was the last date before the deadline to report these estimates back to the House. He provided no alternative date to members of Parliament or to the committee.

I understand that from time to time things come up that cause rescheduling, but it seems passing strange, despite our profound desire to have a thorough examination of the department's budget for 2008-2009 and with the minister present to be accountable for, after all, $1.1 billion worth of decisions. I was prepared to give him over a month to make himself available. He's been unable to do so, and I think it's very disappointing for the Canadian people that this minister has not made the effort to accommodate this committee and is now absent from these meetings.

Let me go on to my line of questioning, if I might, Mr. Chair. We're here to do our jobs, so let's begin.

To start off, Mr. Shugart, on page 9 of Environment Canada's 2008-2009 report on plans and priorities, I see an additional $8.8 million was spent by Minister Baird on advertising last year under the supplementary estimates. Can you please, in fairly short order, tell this committee what this money was spent on? What is the advertising budget going to be for 2008-2009, and does this advertising coincide with the launching of the “Turning the Corner” plan?

[Ian Shugart]

Chair, I'll respond to our planned amount of advertising for 2008-09 and ask my colleague if we have that information on the spending in the previous year.

We're expected to spend in advertising about $6.38 million in 2008-09, and $6.18 million would be for the promotion of the vehicle scrappage incentive program. And $200,000 is booked as a recurring item for the promotion of the Biosphere, which is an Environment Canada facility in Montreal. So that's $6.18 million for the vehicle scrappage program.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And Last year's?

[Ian Shugart]

As for last year, I'll ask Madam Ruta.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Please, and if you could be short, I'd appreciate it.

[Basia Ruta, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Corporate Branch, Department of the Environment]

For last year there was about $5.6 million on ecoACTION that was spent in advertising, as well as $98,000 in terms of the campaign to unfold in 2008-09 vis-à-vis the vehicle scrappage, and for the Biosphere $190,000, for a total of $5.8 million.

You're quite correct that in the report on plans and priorities there was an amount earmarked of $8.8 million, but we did not spend that full amount.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

What does ecoACTION mean, Ms. Ruta? What do you mean by that? What does that mean in English?

[Basia Ruta]

Well, ecoACTION is a number of initiatives that are sponsored for the promotion of environmental programs in support with communities at the local level.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It would be helpful, Mr. Chair, for all committee members if we perhaps request a copy of the breakdown of the total expenditures in the supplementaries of $8.8 million, or whatever the correct number is, and a detailed listing of the $5.6 million on ecoACTION, whatever that means exactly. Could we get a clearer breakdown of advertising costs, newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements? There were radio advertisements run across the country, for example. Canadians would like to know how much was spent on that. Could we get that in short order?

[Basia Ruta]

We could certainly provide it. And as I say, we didn't spend $8.8 million, but about $5.9 million.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I appreciate that.

Could I go to question number two with Mr. Shugart?

Mr. Shugart, what analysis and costing was performed by your department on the tax-deductible transit pass?