Environment Committee on March 16th, 2010

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

I am trying to get some sense of the minister's logic when it comes to research. On one hand, there is funding for carbon capture and storage research. On the other, there is no funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.

Does that not show that, at the end of the day, the government is in fact limiting its research to funding the oil industry, not researchers, who are there to do climate change modelling?

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

Nothing could be further from the truth. The $1 billion fund relating to green technology investments, including carbon capture and storage, which was set up in the 2009 budget, is not a research investment. These are demonstration projects investments. I would say to my friend, if he's someone who is passionate about climate change, that they're extremely important, because the only known technology to abate carbon emissions from thermal coal plants is carbon capture and storage. It is the only technology that has ever been discovered that can actually abate emissions.

It's of obvious importance, because the world is going to build 2,000 new coal-burning plants in the next 20 years. Canada is making signature investments in that technology. We will lead the world in that technology, and I submit to you that's a shrewd thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Bigras, tu as fini.

Ms. Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you, Mr. Prentice.

I find myself quite frustrated in the questions to put to you. While you are the minister considered to be responsible for climate change and you are the signator for a number of agreements, including the U.S.-Canada clean energy dialogue, one does not find anything in your budget related to that.

If one looks extremely closely at it with a magnifying glass, one might be able to find it in Natural Resources. Nonetheless, I'm going to ask you some questions and I'm hoping you can answer to the best of your ability. Time after time, when questions are put to you, you speak about some of these technologies, which you're proud the government is financing. Among those is carbon capture sequestration. Almost half of your government's five-year, $1 billion clean energy fund has already been allocated to three carbon sequestration projects, as far as I can tell from the budget document you've tabled. Those moneys have been gifted to one coal-fired power company in Alberta and two oil companies.

Coal-fired power remains the largest source of greenhouse gases emitted in Alberta, as far as I've looked at the figures.

Last year, Michael Martin provided the committee with Canada's climate change strategy, tabled presumably at the Copenhagen negotiations. That strategy reported that Canada is phasing out its coal-fired power industry. If that is the case, why the massive subsidy in the form of almost $1 billion for CCS? If it is not being phased out, could you also speak to the issue of how much additional money the government is planning to expend this year from that fund? More than half of it is already gone, and it's supposed to be for five years. One of the facilities--coal-fired power is being expanded in Alberta, as we sit here; two new facilities are about to be commissioned. One of those undertook that they would be commissioned on the condition that they would operate equivalent to a natural gas combined cycle, therefore substantially reducing greenhouse gases. They have now filed an application to the Government of Alberta to renege on that, seeking to amend their licence and no longer reduce to that level.

Are we putting money for naught? Why are we subsidizing the dirtiest source of electricity in Canada if it is being phased out, according to your officials?

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

You raise an important issue, and that's the subject of coal emissions, which you and I have spoken about often before. I know you are passionate about this subject.

I think it's important contextually to start by noting that 41% of the carbon in our atmosphere today came from burning coal. Coal is the greatest source of carbon emissions and the buildup of greenhouse gases. The importance of carbon capture and storage—as I said earlier, and not to reiterate—is that the world continues to burn coal. Canada doesn't, on a relative basis—and I'll come to this—but the rest of the world does. Over 2,000 plants are slated to be constructed in the next 25 years, all of them emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The only technology we know of to abate those emissions is carbon capture and storage.

I'm proud as a Canadian that between the $1 billion in the fund that you refer to, set up by the Government of Canada, close to $2 billion set aside by the Government of Alberta, and another $1 billion set aside by the Government of Saskatchewan, we're actually leading the world in terms of investments to try to find a technology that works to reduce those emissions.

Canada burns very little coal; 73% of our electricity system emits no carbon at all. We have only 21 coal-burning facilities in this country. By contrast, the United States has over 650 coal-burning thermal plants at work today. Our plan, as Michael Martin said before Copenhagen, is to deal with those in a regulatory manner.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My question then, Mr. Minister, is when can we finally expect the greenhouse gas regulations, and why do we not see any line item in either of the estimates for the public review of those regulations?

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

We have adequate dollars set aside for the regulatory functions of the department, and you'll find those dollars set aside in the estimates.

There is no doubt that the Department of the Environment, as a regulator, has adequate resources set aside to do that. In terms of your question of where are the regulations, you will see the regulations imminently in terms of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. You have heard previously that we are harmonizing with the United States.

All of the emissions from the transportation system, I can speak to. That will begin very shortly in terms of harmonized tailpipe emissions standards for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. We will go from there to heavy-duty trucks, and we have task forces at work with the United States on rail, shipping, and aviation emissions. You will begin to see the regulations almost immediately.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'll take you at your word on that.

Let's go on to waste water. You've reported that under the action plan, the government has allocated $3.25 billion towards supporting municipalities to implement those regulations. It has been estimated that the cost is more in the order of $45 billion. I'm wondering if you can speak to how the municipalities are going to be able to comply with these regulations. Do you have a compliance strategy? Are you going to be charging the municipalities that don't upgrade? Is there a timeline? And do you have a specific budget set aside for Environment Canada to take action to protect source water, since aboriginals--first nations and Métis--are also going to have to comply? They really don't have the means and resources to move forward but will need their source water kept clean.

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

First, just to clarify the record, the $3.25 billion I referred to is a combination of investments in water and waste water. The waste water component alone is $1.75 billion, which has been either spent or committed, carrying through, as I recall, to 2014.

We begin, however, with regulations, and I would point out that waste water infrastructure, which by definition involves a decision on the part of the municipality to build such a system, is fully eligible for funding, whether you're talking about the green infrastructure fund, the gas tax fund, stimulus funds, or, formerly, the Building Canada fund. Waste water was an eligible expenditure under all those programs. And that's why you see that $1.75 billion has been allocated. That is only the federal government's share, so you could make the assumption that it should be multiplied by three, because you need the provincial share and the municipality's share, in most cases.

That reflects the immediate investments being made. The waste water regulations--they have been published previously in draft--talk about a multi-year effort. We've taken all 4,000 waste water facilities in the country, and they've been prioritized into high risk, medium risk--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

What is the deadline?

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

--and low risk, the intent being to focus more quickly on the high-risk situations. I would submit to you that the city of Victoria or the city of Montreal represent more pressing cases than a small community in Newfoundland--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Again, I would disagree.

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

--just because of the nature of the water courses we're speaking of and the populations. So it's necessary to prioritize these choices.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired. The last of the seven-minute rounds goes to Mr. Warawa, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here. I'm sure that you're as surprised as the majority around this table that we have the Minister of the Environment here at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Yet the Liberals and the Bloc refuse to ask questions about the environment. Maybe they're happy with the good work the government is doing.

Minister, 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. I know that you, personally, are passionate about supporting biodiversity in Canada, so I'm going to ask what the government has done, what specific conservation actions the government has taken, since becoming the government.

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

Thank you very much.

This is, of course, the International Year of Biodiversity. This is an aspect of what is done at Environment Canada and Parks Canada that is extremely important. I think that is sometimes overlooked.

I made the point that in the course of the time this government has been in office, we will have expanded the footprint of Canada's national parks system by 30%, which is an enormous achievement. It reflects matters such as the expansion of the Nahanni National Park, where, in collaboration with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Dehcho, we have expanded the park by 30,000 square kilometres. We didn't double or triple it or make it four or five times bigger; it is six times its original size.

In addition, there is work under way on other national parks. A month ago, we established the Mealy Mountains National Park. Not much was said about it at the time in Canada. This is a park that is twice the size of Prince Edward Island. It is the largest national park in Canada east of Ontario. Setting this aside represents, really, a historic achievement of the Government of Newfoundland and our government. It's augmented, in fact, by an adjoining provincial park.

We have discussions ongoing with the Government of Nova Scotia relative to the setting aside of Sable Island, either as a wildlife habitat or, alternatively, as a national park. We have other parks initiatives in the north. Torngat Mountains National Park has been brought into the national parks system. We've set aside land on the eastern arm of Great Slave Lake. The Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve, adjoining the Nahanni, has been set aside.

These are all very significant achievements, Mr. Chairman. There have been six new wildlife areas established under the Northwest Territories protected areas strategy. We have set aside close to three million hectares of wetland and upland habitat under the North American waterfowl management plan. We have worked with Guujaaw of the Haida First Nation to essentially produce, in Gwaii Haanas, the world's first park, where everything is protected, from the top of the mountains down to the bottom of the continental shelf, through the creation of a national marine conservation area. We've created marine conservation areas in Lake Superior.

I could go on and on.

I would add that there has been a different approach brought forward. We have also worked with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. They have acquired and set aside, pursuant to funding provided by the government in a previous budget, 136,000 hectares of land.

All of this is important, because Canadians are passionate about our parks, our biodiversity, and the protection of land. Mr. Chair, I would point out that it also has real relevance to climate change. Not only are these lands biodiverse, but they are carbon sinks that are available on a scale, frankly, that no one else in the world is achieving as set-asides for that purpose.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have about three minutes left.

Minister, you touched on what happened in Copenhagen and the resulting Copenhagen Accord. You led that delegation. I want to thank you for your efforts and for the strong leadership you provided.

The accord represents a package of outcomes that, when taken together, provide a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change. That package includes a clear recognition of the importance of limiting the average global temperature increase to below two degrees Celsius. It also includes a framework for developed and developing countries to establish international mitigation commitments. More than 100 countries--I think you said it is 110 now--including Canada, and all the major developed and developing economies, have now submitted their commitments for incorporation into the appendices of the accord. So it's been a great accomplishment. The outcomes you had set, we achieved. Again, congratulations on that.

Minister, what are the next steps in building on this historic agreement to see real action on climate change?

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

That is an excellent question.

I did reference some of this in the House as I encouraged our friends from the parties opposite to support the Copenhagen Accord and to support the progress that has been made, Mr. Chairman.

As of today, there are in fact 110 countries that have come forward and associated themselves formally with the accord. Of those, 41 are developed countries. This contrasts quite sharply with the Kyoto Protocol. Essentially all of the developed countries, including the United States, are now formal associates of the Copenhagen Accord.

In addition, there are 32 developed countries that have associated themselves with the accord and have submitted nationally appropriate mitigation actions. Those include Brazil, China, and India. In fact the historic nature of the Copenhagen Accord is to bring the major developing countries, along with many other nations, into the accord. In addition, another 36 or so developing countries have associated themselves with the accord with less formal undertakings.

To go from here, basically the accord represented an agreement in principle, a historic turning point. Over the course of 2010--and I would submit probably into 2011--the international community will be engaged in the process of converting the accord into a binding legal treaty. This will take time. It's a complicated document. In the case of Kyoto, as I recall, it took in excess of three years, so we shouldn't be surprised that it will take several years to actually turn this agreement into a full treaty.

Canada wishes to see that happen. We are at the table. I just returned from Washington a week or so ago. I met with the American negotiator, and we are working towards the next ministerial meetings, which will happen this spring, at which time we will take this to the next step.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Time has expired. We're going to go on to our five-minute round.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, please kick us off.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, you've spoken a lot about RADARSAT today and in question period. As you have probably read in the last couple of days, it appears that the Government of Alberta will be weakening its wetlands policy in order to accommodate the oil sands industry. You probably also know that the mapping of wetlands in Alberta goes back to the year 2000. It's not a dynamic mapping. In other words, you can't really project trends and so on in a wetland area.

Up until your government took power, Ducks Unlimited was working with Environment Canada and the Canadian Space Agency to create a Canadian wetlands inventory. Yet funding from Environment Canada dried up for that project so that it never got beyond phase one.

You've spoken a lot about biodiversity and how much it means to the government, but in actual fact the government is putting the brakes on any effort to create a national wetlands inventory, which is extremely important if we want to preserve our wetlands. I think we're the country with the greatest area of wetlands in the world. So I'd like to know if you're planning to renew that funding in your budget so that the Canadian wetlands inventory can proceed.

My second question has to do with carbon capture and storage. There could be some implications of carbon capture and storage for saline aquifers. Is Environment Canada doing any research on that? Are Environment Canada scientists allowed to do research on that?

Third, you said in your statement--and it was in the budget--that you'll be investing $8 million in Great Lakes cleanup, but the Obama administration is going to be spending almost $500 million. What accounts for the difference?

Also, there's nothing in the budget that I can see about the St. Lawrence action plan. So is there going to be any investment in extending the St. Lawrence action plan, or are we just going to concentrate $8 million on the Great Lakes?

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

Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few questions there. I'll do the best I can.

First, with respect to the carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, I'm not aware of any science that has been brought to my attention that calls into question the impact of those CCS projects on saline aquifers. I'm not aware of that.

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

It was the Munk Centre. The Munk Centre did a seminar--

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

Just let me carry on.

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

--a couple of months ago specifically on that topic.

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

If I might carry on...?