Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You can answer very briefly, Mr. Minister.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll address the first one. I probably won't have time to go through them all.

The previous government had given money to Dr. Gordon McBean, a well-respected scientist. As it was presented to me by the public service, that money was to last him till 2010, and he spent it before then and expected to be able to come back, despite having been given money to last until 2010, to get more money.

I have to scratch my head sometimes and wonder, was there some sort of a strategy to do everything but reduce carbon? We have a gazillion reports, a gazillion science...that says greenhouse gases are going up and here are the terrible consequences. We're focused on getting greenhouse gases to go down.

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

So you don't think we need any more scientific investigation.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think science is fantastic. We need a lot more--

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

On the subject of adaptation and climate change...?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

And mitigation? At some point, though, you have to do something to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases going into the mix. We had been doing everything in this country but reducing greenhouse gases.

Every single mitigation study has said the best thing you can do is reduce the amount of carbon going into our atmosphere. As someone who has read the science, been briefed on the science, and is passionate about this, I say we must at some point actually have the rubber hit the road and reduce greenhouse gases going into our atmosphere.

We have to do it here in Canada, and we have to do it around the world. Long since past are the days when we just studied the problem to death. It requires action. That's the mandate I was given by the Prime Minister and that's what I'm doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I guess I could bring that message from London last week as well, that we all have to do something. There is not a single country in the world that doesn't have to do something.

I want to thank you for being here.

We'll now go to the officials for three quarters of an hour and then we will go to future business.

Mr. Regan, five minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When the minister was here last week I asked him to direct his officials to prepare and provide to us a chart similar to the graph he had on the fourth page of his presentation. This chart, though, would show us in per capita terms the projected growth of greenhouse gases in the major countries across the world that are major greenhouse gas producers. The one last week showed the comparison between China and India and Canada and the U.S. and so forth in total volume terms. Obviously we have a much smaller population, and in terms of looking at our share and doing our share, each of us as individuals, it's much more valuable and more relevant, it seems to me, to look at a per capita graph in that sense.

I'm wondering when I can expect to receive that.

[Ian Shugart]

Mr. Chairman, we have noted that request in the department and are working on that. I'm not sure when exactly we'll be able to provide that to the committee, but the request has not been lost.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

I'd like you to give us an update with respect to an Inuit impact and benefit agreement for Nunavut. I'm looking for it verbally today, if you could, but also for any and all background and supporting documentation that you could provide for us.

As I'm sure you know, Inuit organizations and the Canadian Wildlife Service began negotiations in 2002 for an umbrella IBA, and this included migratory bird sanctuaries in national wildlife areas in Nunavut. In fact, I understand there were a total of 13 conservation areas with nine affected communities. These negotiations were completed in 2006, and there was supposed to be a Treasury Board submission in February of this year that would have concluded the agreement and allowed the funds to flow. But apparently officials did not get the Treasury Board sign-offs, so that didn't happen.

The question is, when does the Canadian Wildlife Service expect the funds to flow? There are a lot of questions about a funding cut or a funding freeze for the Canadian Wildlife Service, of course. Is this connected to the IBA not moving forward?

[Cynthia Wright]

That agreement is still going through the approval process. It was finalized early in this year, so it's not part of the Canadian Wildlife Service budget that's before you. We're still finalizing the approvals through the government process.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Has, in fact, a proposal gone to Treasury Board, and if not, will there be one going to Treasury Board soon? If so, what's the timeline you're looking at, and what's the next window of opportunity to make a Treasury Board submission?

[Cynthia Wright]

We hope to be able to take it to Treasury Board as soon as possible, and that would be early in the new year.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So January, you think?

[Cynthia Wright]

We hope so.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay.

The question for me is, if it was supposed to be February of this year, it suggests the possibility of a problem. I take it that means you are still committed to this agreement. Is it your impression that Treasury Board is looking favourably upon it, and furthermore, will funding come through INAC through its land claims envelope for this kind of program?

[Cynthia Wright]

I can't speak for how Treasury Board will speak about it, but it is part of a larger discussion on a land claims envelope that INAC is in charge of.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Let me turn to the question of the Atlantic coastal action program, which has provided funding for a lot of groups that are doing worthwhile work on the coastal areas of Atlantic Canada, such as environmental rehabilitation and other kinds of activity.

My understanding is that officials have indicated that the department is committed to ACAP for another two years. Generally speaking, in the past, the commitment has been for five years, which of course allows stability for these groups in their planning. The question I have is, why not five years again? Is this an indication that this government is not that committed to it? Is it in fact being phased out?

[Cynthia Wright]

It's not that it's being phased out. You're right that normally we had these plans on a five-year cycle. But we had various kinds of plans. We've had Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, northern ecosystems, boreal forests, as well as the ACAP and the Georgia Basin.

We're trying to put them all on the same cycle--for those that were going to end, we just extended them for a two-year period--so we can look at them all collectively and make sure we're trying to achieve the same kinds of objectives and outcomes across the department on all of these six major ecosystems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to know when the last audit of the department was conducted.

[Ian Shugart]

We have a complete internal audit program. An annual plan is used to examine programs, a kind of reference framework for determining in advance those programs that are to be audited in terms of risk. We've also established an outside committee responsible for audit. It took up its duties this year. I don't know whether we exactly have the last audit, but, as regards programs, here we're talking about an ongoing plan based on a risk analysis.

[Basia Ruta]

I simply want to add that, once the reports are completed, they are available on our Web site.

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

What is the planned date of the next one?

[Basia Ruta]

A number are currently underway.