Environment Committee on March 16th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll call this meeting to order.

We're lucky to have Minister of Environment Jim Prentice joining us today for the consideration of supplementary estimates (C) as well as the main estimates, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) and Standing Order 81(5).

I welcome the minister to the table.

I know that your time with us is short and you're committed at 5 o'clock, so I will turn it over to you for your opening comments.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your invitation to speak to the committee.

I have with me today Mr. Ian Shugart, the deputy minister of Environment Canada, Alan Latourelle, who is the chief executive officer of Parks Canada, and Peter Sylvester of CEAA.

Mr. Chairman, 2010-11 will be a year in which we hope to emerge fully from the economic recession, wind down the stimulus program that has seen us come through this much better than many of our trading partners, and look ahead towards balancing our books once more.

With regard to the environment portfolio, we have come through the tough economic times with solid progress on several key environmental priorities.

Environment Canada's 2010-11 main estimates reference level will total $1.1 billion. While this gives a snapshot of the annual planned spending for the department, these main estimates, if approved by Parliament, outline more planned spending at the beginning of the year for my department than any main estimates in recent years. I will get into more detail in a minute.

The estimates for Parks Canada for 2010-11 total $805 million, a net increase of $185.7 million over the 2009-10 main estimates. The majority of the net increase relates to improvements and upgrades to national historic sites and visitor facilities, twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park, and for federal contaminated sites. I think it's fair to say that the investments made in our national parks system over the last several years are historic in size.

Mr. Chair, this year and next, Parks Canada will invite Canadians from across the country and visitors around the world to "Come Celebrate", come celebrate 125 years since the creation of Canada's first national park, come celebrate the centenary of the world's first national park service.

For the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the 2010-11 main estimates are $29 million, which is a reduction of $3 million from last year. It's related mostly to the agency's temporary funding to cover shortfalls in resources needed to support panel reviews prior to 2010-11. These resources were earmarked for sunsetting in 2010-11. I would, however, note that the funding for aboriginal consultations announced in Budget 2010 significantly closes this gap.

However, not reflected in the main estimates are a number of Budget 2010 items that are typically reflected in supplementary estimates or through the budget implementation bill.

The budget includes more than $190 million for a number of departments and agencies in new measures to support a cleaner and more sustainable environment and to help meet Canada's climate change objectives. This includes a range of investments, from the next generation renewable power initiative in the forestry sector, to a new permanent commitment of resources to the Great Lakes, which we will discuss in a moment.

Let me highlight some of our portfolio's activities, beginning with the Great Lakes initiative.

Last year, Canada and the United States celebrated the centennial of the Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the United States—a visionary treaty for its day, which has led to the creation of the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. I am very pleased that the governments of Canada and the United States are negotiating to strengthen the agreement.

In the meantime, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action to protect the water quality of the largest group of freshwater lakes on the planet. In fact, Budget 2010 includes $8 million per year, ongoing, to continue to implement the Great Lakes action plan.

With this commitment, current Environment Canada funding to address issues in the Great Lakes is now in excess of $28 million per year. This includes government spending of $48.9 million between 2008 and 2016 to accelerate the remediation of specific areas of concern in the Great Lakes region, as well as $30 million over five years to promote the cleanup of Lake Simcoe, which is part of the Great Lakes basin.

This funding is supplemented by an additional $22 million annually from other government departments, bringing the total that this government invests on an annual basis in the health of the Great Lakes to $50 million per year.

I would also remind the committee that federal infrastructure programs also contribute to the government's efforts in cleaning up the Great Lakes. Since 2007, the government has spent or committed to over $325 million for the Great Lakes on infrastructure programs that benefit the environment--most particularly, improving municipal waste water infrastructure.

Perhaps nowhere does the Government of Canada's infrastructure investment make more of a difference to the lives of Canadians today and for generations to come than the funds invested to improve the management of municipal waste water. In 2010, it is unacceptable that some municipalities continue to dump waste water into our rivers, lakes and shorelines. This government has taken decisive action—both in creating the standards and regulations that will mean cleaner rivers, lakes and shorelines, and in helping municipalities meet those standards.

It has taken years of hard work, but my provincial and territorial colleagues and I have developed a Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal waste water effluent. New draft regulations have been developed. They will be gazetted on Saturday, March 20.

I'm happy to report that under the Government of Canada infrastructure funds, including the Building Canada fund, green infrastructure fund, stimulus, and gas tax funds, over $3.25 billion has been spent or committed already for waste water and water infrastructure. That represents the federal contribution.

In fact, such projects are a top priority for these funds. Take the city of Hamilton, for example. Just this past weekend, on March 12, the Government of Canada committed $100 million through the economic action plan to upgrade a water treatment plant. Our investment levered support from the city and from the province. The end result is a $456 million investment that will protect water, remediate the harbour, ensure the city's sustainable growth, achieve the objectives of our municipal waste water treatment guidelines, and also significantly improve the health of the Great Lakes.

Mr. Chairman, the era of dumping raw sewage into our rivers, lakes, and coastal areas is coming to an end in Canada. We have a Canada-wide strategy on municipal waste water, and we are helping communities across Canada meet these new standards.

Let me turn briefly to some of the highlights from Parks Canada. The United Nations has declared 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity. Canada has made a major contribution by setting aside wilderness and water for the benefit of future generations. In fact, in the past few years, we have made remarkable strides. It took 121 years for Canada to set aside essentially 277,000 square kilometres of our nation as a system of national parks and national marine conservation areas.

Since 2006—since this government came to office—we have added an additional 45,500 square kilometres to the system and have taken actions that will result in a further expansion of 40,000 square kilometres. In total, since this government came to office, we have increased the size of the land set aside in this country for such purposes by 30%.

In addition, the Government of Canada has invested $275 million to improve the science, recovery, and overall implementation of the Species at Risk Act. Since 2000, more than 1,600 projects have been delivered under the habitat stewardship program to protect and to assist the recovery of species at risk. As an illustration, Parks Canada recently reintroduced the black-footed ferret to Canada after it had disappeared almost 30 years ago.

As I come to a close, these are a few of the highlights of a very broad and far-reaching portfolio. We will meet the changing needs and priorities of Canadians for weather forecasting. We must respond as well to new developments in the environment, changing technologies, and increasing public demand.

Budget 2010 includes $8 million over two years to support community-based environmental monitoring, reporting, and the collection of baseline data in the north. Another $18 million over two years will support the annual reporting of key environmental indicators, such as clean air, clean water, and greenhouse gas emissions.

We will also continue to ensure that chemicals that may pose risks to human health and the environment are managed safely through the Chemicals Management Plan.

We want to accelerate the pace of risk assessment and risk management to address the substances that have not yet been assessed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

When it comes to this government's stated intent to reduce the amount of red tape and bureaucracy that now encumbers the approval for large-scale resource energy projects, let us be crystal clear: we are not talking about any weakening of the environmental review process, especially when it comes to the oil sands.

We aim to improve the efficiency of the existing system in order to attract investment and encourage the creation of high-quality jobs. We will reduce duplication, not the stringency of our high standards.

In closing, the environment portfolio manages some of the issues that affect Canadians most directly in their daily lives, such as weather forecasting, and it includes some of the issues that will affect their lives for generations to come, including climate change and protecting biodiversity.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to be with the committee, and I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your respecting our timeline as well. You're well under our 15-minute timeline for ministers.

I'm going to be very judicious in allocating rounds. The first round is seven minutes to all parties, and then we'll try to get as far into the second round of questioning of five-minute rounds.

Mr. McGuinty, you have the floor.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Minister, for being here. I want to pick up with you on a question I raised yesterday in the House of Commons with your colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. In my view, and in our view as the official opposition, it has a direct bearing on both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (C) that we're discussing here today, particularly supplementary estimates (C), which are due back next week in the House of Commons.

I asked the President of the Treasury Board yesterday if he could explain to Canadians how much is being spent by your government on its national advertising campaign. I put to him yesterday that the estimates are now somewhere between $200 million and $250 million, which media and advertising experts have confirmed is the largest single media buy from the private or public sector in Canadian history.

In my riding of Ottawa South, I'm not convinced that my constituents have to see a bonanza of advertising on the six o'clock or eleven o'clock news, or for that matter roughly every nine minutes during the entire Olympics. Whether it's on the Internet or TV or radio or print, Canadians are being bombarded with what is now arguably--approximately, according to experts in the media--a quarter of a billion dollars of advertising.

As the minister responsible for the Department of the Environment, which needs more and more support all the time, does this square with you? As a member of a cabinet that's approved this advertising, number one, does it square with you? Number two, can you help Canadians who are watching understand how much of this money has been spent, for example, on climate change and climate change measures in order to prepare this country for the climate change crisis that lies ahead?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Minister Prentice, Mr. McGuinty's question is not actually relevant to the discussion, which is on the departmental expenditures, supplementary estimates (C), and the main estimates that relate to the Department of the Environment. Advertising falls under Public Works.

If you want to ask those questions to the Minister of Public Works or the President of the Treasury Board, that is another discussion.

I'll leave it up to the minister as to whether he wants to respond to that question.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the minister oversees Parks Canada's massive advertising budget. It's part of his supplementary estimates (C) and main estimates expenditures.

Parks Canada is running ads now, and it has been throughout the Olympics as well. I don't want to get into the Parks Canada ads--that's not my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

But that's what he's responsible for; it would be constrained to that area.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No. I want to ask the minister in his capacity as Minister of the Environment, how much is Public Works...? How much is being spent by the Government of Canada on advertising for climate change initiatives, for example? It's about a quarter of a billion dollars. The President of the Treasury Board refused yesterday to give us a clear number, but our estimates are about $250 million. We'd like to know, and Canadians would like to know. They're seeing these ads on every newscast.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Minister Prentice.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I'm pleased to respond.

First, I'm here to explain the estimates and the supplementary estimates with respect to my portfolio. I'm quite pleased to speak to that.

You will find within the material before you $360,000 of Environment Canada advertising expenditures. You will find the details of the Parks Canada advertising campaign, and the total campaign over a number of years has been between $3 million and $6 million. The purpose of that campaign has been to expand utilization of the national parks system, because we've seen a significant drop in attendance in our national parks system. I'm pleased to provide those numbers to you and respond to that. I'm not here to deal with the broader issues that you raise. There are other forums, as you know, where they should be raised.

You do, however, mention the Copenhagen Accord and climate change, and I think it's important to take stock of where we are there. The last time I was before the committee we were embarking towards Copenhagen. I'm pleased to advise the committee that at Copenhagen we were able to achieve an agreement in principle that I think represents a turning point in how the world will deal with climate change. This is something that our government has advocated for many years, and we're very pleased with the outcome.

It provides a binding agreement for the post-2012 period. I mentioned in the House of Commons today that as of today, 110 nations have come forward and associated themselves formally with the accord. This includes all of the major emitters, including the United States, China, India, and others. This was something we set out to achieve, and we spoke about it the last time I attended before the committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Minister, you know what it's like in opposition. You have seven minutes to ask a question. I didn't ask you about climate change; I asked you about advertising. That's fair enough if you say you have no answer--that's okay. Canadians will draw their own conclusions. But I have another question for you.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Actually I did not say I didn't have an answer. I provided you with the details of advertising within my portfolio and said I was pleased to respond to questions.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

As a member of cabinet you're not in a position to speak about the quarter-billion-dollar advertising campaign, and that's okay. Let's go on to theme number two.

Yesterday I asked you in the House of Commons about your approach to science and the communication of science. We learned that your scientists in Environment Canada cannot take direct calls from the media. We learned that they have to report any direct calls to your communications director. We learned that if they participate in a panel where media is suspected of being present—I think even if they are attending a conference—they must advise the communications officer of your department, if not your own office. If they are permitted to speak to the media, they must get approval for what they will say before they say it.

Your answer to that question yesterday was that it's not just the policy of Environment Canada; it's the policy of the entire Government of Canada in every department, to which I reply, “Censorship is censorship is censorship”. So not only are Environment Canada scientists being censored; you're saying that every scientist in the federal government across all line departments are being censored in this way. It's never happened before at the federal level, and rudimentary checking of the provinces has revealed that no province in the country has these standards to this regulation, which you brought in, in 2008.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Just yesterday your own department wrote another report that said there has been an 80% decline in media coverage around climate change. That's in large part because four of your senior scientists have been muzzled.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'd like to get your response to that for Canadians who are watching.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Prentice, I ask that you make a very brief response. I have to respect the wishes of the members here that they all get equal time and not be dominated by one member.

Mr. Prentice.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

The response is very clear. We have scientists who work at Environment Canada as employees of Environment Canada. We value their work. I value science, research, and empiricism wherever we find it. It's especially important at Environment Canada.

Since I have been the minister at Environment Canada I have not received any complaints from our scientists that they feel hampered. So let's be perfectly clear about that. The rules that apply to any employee of the Government of Canada, quite apart from what their educational background is, are the same across the government. There is nothing different at Environment Canada in any respect relative to the employees of Environment Canada.

We value their efforts at science. We base our decisions as a regulatory agency at Environment Canada on the empiricism and the fine work they do. They're valued employees as such. The questions you raised relate back to 2007, 2008, and some counting of media interviews back at that time. They're not germane to the issues currently.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bigras, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister, and welcome to the committee. I am going to pick up where my colleague, Mr. McGuinty left off.

We were indeed a little surprised to see that scientists at Environment Canada were muzzled and to read that your communications policy actually included a good scientist's guide.

But I was even more surprised yesterday when scientists sent me a note that appears not only on your parliamentary site, but also on your intranet. The communications policy includes an appendix entitled Environment Canada Standard for Scientific and Technical Publications, a guide for authors.

After the guide on media relations, there is now a good scientist's guide. That is quite something, what you are telling us.

On page 4 of the French version of this document, where it talks about the document approval process, it says that authors must ask themselves the following five questions, which are listed in the approval process for scientific documents.

The first question asks, “Who is the intended audience?” The second asks, “Is it a formal or complementary publication?” The fourth asks, “Is the publication significant and relevant to key policies, priorities or regulations of the government?”

After the communications guide, there is now a good scientist's guide. Is that not direct interference with scientific content? Is your department not attempting to control scientific research and content? Do you think that is acceptable? Do you see it as a good measure, something that represents the principles of scientific independence?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I will explain in English.

The principles of good science involve empiricism. They involve the integrity of research that is carried out by scientists, the accuracy of the information they produce, the basis upon which they reach their conclusions, their methodology, and the way in which they report. We value science. It is carried out on that basis.

You're referring to a document that deals with advice on media communications, which is a separate issue from the way in which science is conducted. You're referring to a guide that simply asks what I would suggest to you are fairly germane questions.

If a person, whether a scientist, a businessperson, or any other professional, is going to sit down with the media, those are questions that would be germane. No one is suggesting that in any way there is limitation on the scientific research, the way in which the methodology is determined, what the conclusions are, or how they're reported.

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

Why put out a guide? Is it because the minister does not trust Environment Canada's scientists? Is it because the minister does not trust science?

Let's talk about the strategy for sustainable development. The minister did not tell us about his sustainable development strategy. It was presented to us late, just last week. What did we see in the strategy? First, we saw that the government and the minister reduced GHG targets as compared with those set in Copenhagen. Then, they cut funding to scientists. Later, they decided to muzzle them. Finally, they will announce a program review.

In short, we are not dealing with a strategy for sustainable development, but an environmental tragedy. Isn't this government's problem the fact that it does not believe the science? That is why it is cutting the foundation's funding, muzzling scientists and giving them guides for defining the scope of their research.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, nothing could be further from the truth. My friend rolls a number of accusations into what purports to be a question.

First, with respect to the climate change foundation of which he speaks, this is a foundation that was established in 2000. It has been provided with $110 million of public money to carry out research. It is not the only vehicle through which the Government of Canada carries out environment research or climate change research.

I would remind my friend that on March 22, 2001, he voted against the creation of the foundation and its funding. I don't know how it lies in his mouth today to call into question its continuation. He voted against it. My point is that this foundation has had ten years. It's carried out important work, which we value. It is time to take stock of what has been accomplished, to assess the results of the research, to determine over the course of the next year what additional research needs to be done, and to hear from them.

That's not to say that the government does not have many other initiatives under way, which are extremely important to climate change. I would point out for the benefit of the members that there are meteorological and navigational investments referred to in the budget, which will allow Environment Canada to do work in northern Canada that has never previously been done. The Minister of Industry has also made reference to the significant support for the RADARSAT constellation satellites, which will, frankly, put Canada in the foremost position in the world in terms of capacity to do climate change research, meteorological research, and research relating to ice conditions in the north. These are scientific investments. They're not being funded through the foundation. They're being funded through the appropriate agencies, such as the Canadian Space Agency.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have 45 seconds.