Environment Committee on March 16th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia, we always want to show the appropriate courtesy and fairness to the witnesses, so we'll let the minister finish.

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

All of the investments being made will be made with full regulatory approvals and all of the necessary environmental approvals accompanying them, Mr. Chairman, so those issues will be attended to.

With respect to Ducks Unlimited, certainly, this government has a very important relationship with Ducks Unlimited. I met their executive team a week or more ago and discussed these projects and others that we are working on with them. We have a very sound working relationship, as we do with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. I spoke at their annual general meeting about three weeks ago. We continue to inventory the wetlands we have, and particularly with the Nature Conservancy of Canada to work in southern Canada on protecting those wetlands and areas that are needed for biodiversity.

You raise the Great Lakes initiatives. I think it's important just to put some of this into context. On an annual basis, Environment Canada spends $28 million per year on the various specific Great Lakes initiatives that we work on. In addition, another $22 million per year is expended by other government departments, so the Government of Canada, on an annual basis, expends $50 million, in addition to approximately $4 million per year of alien species dollars that are allocated specifically to Great Lakes initiatives. That is $54 million per year. You can compare that to what is being done in the United States if you wish, and you will find that on a per capita basis, Canada is spending more on science and those investments in the Great Lakes than is being spent in the United States of America. I challenge....

My friend Mr. McGuinty is shaking his head. He can do the math himself, but if the spending in the United States--

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

But what about the St. Lawrence, Minister?

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

--is $475 million per year, and they're ten times our size, our expenditures of $54 million per year would rate pretty favourably.

In addition, there is the question of infrastructure. I pointed out earlier that $325 million has been expended for the period from 2007 to 2014 in improving the health of the Great Lakes. This is extremely important. I would add to that fact that this government is in the midst of negotiating with the United States on the modernization of the agreement that we have relative to the health of the Great Lakes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Scarpaleggia's time has expired, Mr. Minister, but he did ask you about the St. Lawrence. Do you have anything on the action plan, just briefly?

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

When I refer to the Great Lakes, I'm essentially including the St. Lawrence as part of those expenditures--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. The time has expired--

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

--since it is the basin that drains the Great Lakes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. Thank you, Minister Prentice.

Mr. Armstrong, you can take us up to the top of the hour.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you mentioned in your opening remarks that you reached an agreement last year with the provinces and territories on a Canada-wide strategy for managing waste water, and that shortly the draft federal regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette, part I, as a federal commitment to implementing the strategy.

Municipal waste water treatment has always been managed by the provinces, and we hear concerns in some parts of the country about the cost of upgrading the infrastructure, particularly in these difficult economic times. In fact, I understand that Newfoundland, Nunavut, and Quebec did not sign this agreement.

Could you please explain for us why you feel it is still important for the federal government to regulate waste water and what you're doing to ensure that this does not bankrupt the country?

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

Well, I think it's pretty clear that in Canada in the year 2010 we should not be discharging raw sewage, untreated sewage, into our lakes, our rivers, and our harbours. That is in fact what has been happening in some quarters in this country. Some municipalities are better than others, but clearly there is a need for national standards, and I hear very few Canadians who disagree with that. We've worked long and hard with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to arrive at these standards. They are national standards. They will be brought into place in an orderly way. The drafting is completed. As I said earlier, we have prioritized the infrastructure systems across the country. There are some 4,000 municipalities in Canada with discharge facilities. Those that need upgrades to achieve these standards have been categorized into high risk, medium risk, and low risk, with the availability of additional time in the case of the lower-risk facilities.

I would say that the facilities that are more pressing are in larger cities. In the city of Victoria, for example, we have been dumping raw sewage with absolutely no treatment into the Pacific Ocean. Both the British Columbia environment minister, Mr. Penner, and the premier have indicated that this needs to be brought to a halt, so discussions are under way as to what kind of infrastructure will be needed.

Certainly there are other communities where significant upgrades will need to take place. The intent here is to do this in an orderly way over a period of time. All of these kinds of investments are eligible under federal infrastructure programs that will run over the next many years. But making these investments will require prioritization on the part of municipalities.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much.

My second question has to do with the Great Lakes. I just want to clear up any confusion. Could you please elaborate on government investments in the Great Lakes and the seaway?

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

Certainly there have been significant investments. I referred earlier to the waste water investments. You can look, for example, at a state-of-the-art water treatment facility that is being constructed today in Brockville, which will significantly improve the quality of the water downstream. You can also look at the announcement that was made this past weekend in Hamilton regarding a $500 million facility. The federal government announced a $100 million investment in that facility. So these are waste water investments that relate directly to the water that is being discharged into the Great Lakes. There are a number of communities that still require upgrades. Some of those are under consideration, under discussion, but these are the kinds of investments that will have to be prioritized and will have to be made.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I have just one more question. Could you also elaborate on the government's investments this year in our national parks?

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

I mentioned that you would find $185 million of infrastructure-related investments referred to in the main estimates. What you have seen really over the course of the last two years have been investments in our national parks system that have been historic because of their size. For many years in this country we allowed under-investment in our national parks system. Through economic stimulus, through the actions of this government, we have made very significant investments. One of the most tangible of these has been to improve the highway that runs through Banff National Park to the British Columbia border. The upgrade into that highway will be completed in the next year or more. It is a highway on which there have been many fatalities. It's been quite controversial.

I speak to that upgrade because it underscores the quality of the work that's been done by Parks Canada. People come from all over the world to look at the nature of the animal overpasses that have been built into that construction, which allow safe passage of bears, caribou, deer, and so on over the highway. As I recall, there have been in excess of 200,000 safe crossings to this point documented by way of night cameras and so on. So people actually come from all over the world to see how Parks Canada does the extraordinary work that they do.

Investments are being made in all the parks right across the country in historic sites. They're not limited to Banff by any means. I simply refer that one to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Ouellet would like to ask one very short and quick question before we suspend.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for agreeing to answer one last question of mine.

As for the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, have you in fact set aside money for Stratégies Saint-Laurent's plan, in other words, the ZIPs or areas of prime concern? Has funding been earmarked for the St. Lawrence?

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

There are certainly priority areas. Included in the Great Lakes action plan, as you are aware, there have been previous plans that have focused on very specific areas. We will continue to do that. I'm referring to the global budget of the department. The $54 million I referred to is not allocated to specific projects. It is the investment on the part of the Government of Canada on an annual basis relative to the health of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence system.

The infrastructure investments I referred to are all available on a community-by-community basis, whether you're talking about the stimulus funds, the green infrastructure fund, the gas tax fund, or the Building Canada fund. St. Lawrence investments are equally eligible, as are the Great Lakes investments and others. I'm simply referring to the historic investments that have been made at this point, the dollars that have been committed by the government.

We are aware that there are significant investments, particularly in relation to waste water, that will need to be undertaken. In particular, the city of Montreal has waste water systems that are in dire need of upgrades. It is certainly an issue of which we are aware and that we will continue to discuss with the province and the city.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The time has expired.

Minister, I know you have other places to be right now. I appreciate that you took the time to fit us into your schedule to be able to talk to supplementary estimates (C) and the main estimates.

Before we suspend to go in camera, we have supplementary estimates that are due to be reported back. Do you want to have them deemed as reported back or do you actually want to do the line votes on vote 10(c) and vote 25(c) right now--

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. We will suspend.

I would ask everyone who is not tied to a member of Parliament at the committee to clear the room so that we can do other committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]