Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[Michael Horgan]

I'm not aware of that, sorry. I'll look into it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to speak about mining tailings. That was in the news a while ago because it wasn't certain whether the mining industry was required to report mining tailings under the national pollutant release inventory. Was that ever cleared up?

[John Carey]

The effluent from mine tailings is required to be reported, but the waste rock from mining activities is not.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What about the tailings ponds in the tar sands? Are they required to be reported?

[John Carey]

They're not an emission.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But are they required to be reported to the Government of Canada?

[John Carey]

Not as part of an emissions reporting system.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Are they reported in any way, shape or form?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, your time is up.

If you want to answer that in the next round, you may.

Mr. Harvey.

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

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here and for clarifying certain points.

Sometimes a number of prejudices appear in the opposition members with regard to budget developments and things like that. The fact that you're appearing here in a neutral and impartial light gives credibility to the direction the department has taken and to various decisions.

A news release entitled, “Environment Minister John Baird Moves to Protect Environmental Programs,” was issued on September 25.

Are you aware of that?

[Ian Shugart]

I'm not sure what exactly the release is--

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

It's dated September 25: “Environment Minister John Baird Moves to Protect Environmental Programs”. It states, among other things, that the minister has instructed his officials:

to provide the financial flexibility required to programs and services in critical areas, such as the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Meteorological Service of Canada.

It also states:

The Government of Canada has invested $375 million in funding for conservation programs, which is the largest investment in conservation ever. This includes $225 million for sensitive species and ecosystems with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, $30 million for the Great Bear Rainforest, and millions for Stanley Park in Vancouver and Point Pleasant Park in Halifax.

Is this information accurate?

[Ian Shugart]

Yes, it is.

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

It further states:

We have invested an additional $110 million to protect species at risk as well as $10 million for protected areas in the Northwest Territories.

Is that accurate as well?

[Ian Shugart]

Yes, sir.

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

Since it's accurate, do you think that what has been done for the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Meteorological Service of Canada is enough?

[Ian Shugart]

Mr. Chair, our strategy, from the standpoint of financial managers, is to support the department's programs with the available funding allocated by Parliament. From the standpoint of program managers—and I imagine this is quite difficult—there is always pressure as a result of which additional funding would be useful. That isn't our choice; that's Parliament's decision.

The programs mentioned in Mr. Baird's new release, the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Meteorological Service of Canada, were priorities. As I just said, there are operational pressures in these budgets and at the department, and that continues. The route our minister and managers are taking is to support the most sensitive, the most important programs and to manage available funding in order to guarantee that those programs operate well.

As to whether those actions are enough, I'd say that's a matter of judgment and the ultimate judgment is for Parliament and for the government to make.

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

Is the amount allocated to you to discharge your responsibilities enough?

[Ian Shugart]

We believe that, to date, the various aspects of the programs are covered by available funding. There are pressures, but they are not serious enough to jeopardize the most important aspects of Environment Canada's programs. I believe my colleague Cynthia Wright, who knows the program better, said that the aspects of the program were covered by available funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

This is a series of questions, for Cynthia Wright perhaps.

I'm a little confused. During the week of September 17 of this year, reports were saying things such as the environmental monitoring and assessment network, which observes changes in ecosystems, had lost 80% of its budget; the migratory bird program, monitoring the health of the bird population, had seen its budget cut by 50%; and the budget for national wildlife areas, a program that protects nationally significant habitats for wildlife and birds, had been slashed from $1.9 million to zero. Then the following week, as has been alluded to, the minister made an announcement that sounded like a restoration of funding.

To your knowledge, was there ever a time when that description, that cuts were either planned or contemplated for those three activities, was accurate? You did say there had been a reduction of the budget, but to your knowledge, were those three things I talked about in the works, or where did that story come from?

[Cynthia Wright]

That story has been puzzling to a lot of us. Like a lot of stories, there are elements of reality, but the specifics are quite puzzling.

The ecological monitoring and assessment network you mentioned is a very small program in Environment Canada. Essentially we coordinate and help other community groups share their environmental information. We're conducting a review of all of our monitoring, including our biodiversity monitoring. We've slowed down on some of the expenditures in that area, but we are still maintaining the coordinating function.

With respect to the protected areas budget and the migratory birds numbers, I don't understand the story that was reported in the news.

We did have a tight situation in our operating budget. That's the budget for buying small equipment, paying travel expenses, contracting, and that sort of thing. What we've done is to assess our priorities. We've reduced spending in terms of the number of people we send to meetings and conferences. We're focusing on mandatory training in priority areas--

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

Can I ask whether there was any moratorium placed on field studies of the Canadian Wildlife Service?

[Cynthia Wright]

No, there wasn't.

The way budgets work is that people get a budget at the beginning of the year and they start making commitments and expenditures against that. We did a six-month review and we asked people to stop making any further commitments at their level. It was still available at a more senior level to make commitments, but we wanted to make sure we weren't foreclosing on prudent decisions we might want to make in terms of priorities.

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

Is the way in which you dealt with these issues different from the previous years?