Environment Committee on March 8th, 2011

[Alan Latourelle]

We have a set model for new parks in terms of the capital investment for putting the parks into operation and in terms of the ongoing operation of those parks. We have two models, one for southern Canada and one for northern Canada, because there are different realities. For example, in northern Canada we will invest $12 million in capital investment and then approximately $2.5 million a year in operations.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Is that globally for all of the new parks you're talking about?

What we want to know is how much it will cost to make these parks that have been promised, some of which haven't been started yet. Is there a timeframe, capital, and an operating plan you can table for us today so that we can see the cost of these promised new parks very specifically? Is that available today?

[Alan Latourelle]

I can provide that to the committee.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Kennedy, your time has expired. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, good morning, Mr. Minister. Welcome to the committee and best of luck in your new responsibilities.

Based on what you said to Mr. Kennedy, I understand that you cannot go into detail. But it seems to me that it is your duty, as Minister of the Environment, to protect the budgets available to you.

When we look at the main estimates that were submitted, we see a reduction of 20% expected for your department. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is not very active. It seems to me that he is a ghost Minister of the Environment, obedient and at the service of the Minister of Finance, who is prepared to make cuts in his department. You can understand that people expect the Minister of the Environment to be proactive and to protect the budgets placed at his disposal.

When I looked at the main estimates, I was very much interested in the Meteorological Service of Canada, among others, and in everything having to do to the deterioration of the climatological networks.

I don't know if you know that an Environment Canada report, issued by your department in June 2008, stated that Environment Canada's abilities were compromised in recent years because of the collection, interpretation and dissemination of information on the state of our national climate system. Major errors slipped in.

Environment Canada's clients, both internal and external, cannot get the information they are looking for. So I went and looked at what was planned in the main estimates. In fact, there were some contributions. I had a nice surprise.

But after I saw what you did with these contributions and the funding that you had been given, I was disillusioned. I was disillusioned when school principals and guide and scout leaders called me up and told me that, with that money, you were sending weatheradios to the various people involved so that schools and guide and scout leaders could "monitor the broadcast for weather information including warnings."

While you have cut back on Environment Canada's meteorological services in recent years, how can you now justify an expense in the order of $888,000 to help school principals who have taken your device, put it on a shelf and never used it? How can you justify such an expense now?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

I will start with your original question. Let me assure you that as Minister of the Environment I will be a fierce champion of those programs that have proven effective over the course of recent years--for example, the program on air quality, the chemical management program, and the contaminated sites programs. But I can't divulge my cabinet conversations with the Minister of Finance on the worthiness of these programs. You'll simply have to wait until the budget on March 22. I will be glad to come back and discuss exactly what the budget contains and what the supplementary estimates will be for these important programs in my department.

With regard to the weather operations, the Government of Canada is committed to providing a world-class weather service, and we are recognized around the world for the quality of that service. That does not say there are not improvements that can be made.

With regard to your point on the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, he revealed a number of risks, a number of challenges, a number of shortcomings with regard to a severe weather warning capacity. We accept those recommendations and we are moving to improve them.

We are also moving in Canada's north to improve the weather services provided there. We are working to provide the north with the same sort of high-quality forecasting and warning service, weather alert service, that Canadians in the south enjoy. With the diminishing ice in the Arctic, and the fact that more and more commercial vessels as well as coastal vessels are in need of accurate and safe forecasting, and in light of our commitment to fulfilling our international obligations on navigable waters, I made an announcement just a couple of weeks ago in Yellowknife that we will invest in improved technology there.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Monsieur Bigras, before you continue with your supplemental, you have a prop on the table that's going to have to be removed. The rules of the House apply in the committee as well.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to the specific program that you highlighted, I'm not familiar with it. I will find out for you and discuss with you the parameters of that program.

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

I invite you to try it out. I would be curious to find out if any schools in east or west Montreal would be able to use this kind of device.

You told us that Canada is a leader in meteorology. But your own internal report indicates the opposite. The report establishes that the Meteorological Service of Canada is having trouble achieving the international standards of the World Meteorological Organization. We are not a leader; no, we are losing our role as a leader, which is worrisome.

You spoke about the observation that needs to be done in the north. I don't know if you are familiar with the PEARL observatory, which is currently looking for funding and is losing its funding simply because your government has cut back on funding to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.

You have cut back on funding to scientists, you have cut back on funding in your department. You cannot provide reliable information on weather and climate. So how can you say today that you are able to meet the objectives with regard to adapting to climate change when you are cutting back on funding to researchers and to climate change programs? You are doing everything to ensure that Canada not only does not achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets, but also cannot adapt to climate change.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bigras' time is finished, so you can give a final answer.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Our meteorological service is recognized, despite the tasks and challenges that the commissioner recommended, as a world-class meteorological service. There are challenges. The department continues to prioritize its resources to address new challenges and shortcomings as identified. We'll discuss in further questioning our commitment to climate change and climate change science.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome you and your officials, Mr. Minister.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to go first to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I noted that in the main estimates they are slated to have only a 3% increase, despite the fact that $400,000 is being dedicated to litigation.

Now, that litigation, as we're all aware, is because the agency and the Government of Canada are being taken to court because of failure to deliver on the responsibilities under the CEAA legislation. I'm wondering, given the opening up of the Arctic, all of the issues surrounding the oil sands, of course, which as the minister you've inherited, and the concerns raised by the Auditor General about the Northwest Territories and the failure to do proper cumulative impact assessments, why there isn't a more substantial increase.

Do you anticipate, going forward, that there will be a greater infusion of dollars for that agency?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, again, I request your patience for another couple of weeks for budget 2011-12, and I'm sure that you will find items within that budget that will address part of your questions.

But with regard to the balance of the budgeting, the way it's intended to be spent, and the impact of litigation on those expenditures, I'd perhaps invite Ms. Feldman to offer some insight.

[Elaine Feldman, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Thank you very much.

As you've noticed, we are going to have an increase in our budget for next year. It's increasing by a million dollars, to $30 million, which I realize doesn't compare with the budgets of Parks Canada or Environment Canada, but for us, all of the money is important.

In terms of litigation, we have really no control over the amount of funding that's required for litigation. It depends on the cases that are brought against the agency.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

If I may add to that, with regard to the environmental assessments, as you are aware, there is a cost recovery for environmental assessments that pertain to proposals in the extraction industry, for example, or pipeline construction. So the Environmental Assessment Agency I think is a very prudent manager of the resources available.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

With all due respect, I won't belabour this one, but I think the agency and the government do have control over whether or not they have to incur costs in going to court by not complying with CEAA.

Climate change has been mentioned by some of my other colleagues, and a great concern of the public--and I'm hearing from them--is your mentioning not to be concerned about the 60% cuts to climate and air pollution because money might come in the budget. People are deeply concerned about that.

I noted in your speech, Mr. Minister, that you reference liberally in all of your speeches the Copenhagen agreement, but you don't seem to want to mention the Cancun agreement. So my question to you would be, where in the budget can we see the resources for delivering on the promised low-carbon national strategy in the Cancun agreement that Canada signed on to? Who will deliver that and who is to be consulted? Is that being budgeted for?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Certainly we are signatories to the Cancun agreement, and that is the framework we will proceed on as the years come, and which was revitalized, and a recommitment was made by all the signatories in Cancun. I think Canadians can be proud of the role played by the then minister of the department and the Government of Canada in the key role of engaging some of the large emitters to commit to the objectives and the targets of the original Cancun agreement.

The Copenhagen accord and our inscribed commitment to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from the base year of 2005 by 2020 is a commitment that we will fulfill in a variety of ways. We are doing it, as I explained--and as I know you know--by regulation as we go forward. I will be announcing very shortly, for example, new regulations for the coal-fired electricity generating sector, and then we will move on to other large emitters sector by sector as we go around the wheel.

We address transportation first because that is the largest single sector in terms of emitting greenhouse gases, but our commitment is there, and we have the funds to achieve those commitments. As I said in my opening remarks, we have already taken actions that will move us about a quarter of the way to achieving the 2020 targets.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Minister, I have to reiterate concerns being raised by a major industry in Alberta, the coal-fired industry, and by the Alberta Minister of Energy, who are both remonstrating that they can't move forward on actions on reducing carbon until the Government of Canada puts a price on carbon. I guess my question again is, where will the action come from? Is it going to come from your department? Is it coming from the Department of Natural Resources? There is a commitment by this country that we will deliver a national low-carbon energy strategy. I don't see anything in the estimates working on that, in either the Department of Natural Resources or Environment Canada. Maybe we'll see something in the budget. People are concerned that they're not being consulted.

You have given a number of speeches recently that you're going to be taking a lot more action on water. I notice in the main estimates that water is cut by 9%. Of course you're giving us hope that maybe some money might come back. You've made mention of the Athabasca River, and you've made mention, I think, of the Great Lakes, but I don't see mention of the Peace-Athabasca agreement, which is of course 20 years old now. The deputy minister of the Northwest Territories raised great concern; they're waiting for federal leadership. We're also waiting for leadership on Lake Wabamun. We suffered a massive spill on the lake and major impacts from the coal-fired industry. So I wonder if you could elaborate a bit more on what your plans are, given the cuts in water.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan, your time has expired. I'll let the minister respond.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You've left me quite a list of questions to respond to.

I will say again that while Canada until recently was willing to examine the cap-and-trade principles, it is now clear that in the short term at least the United States is not going to that. It's a very thin market. We admire what the western initiative has done—some Canadian provinces, the state of California. But for the time being, we're moving forward quite enthusiastically—and I'll share more information if you wish—with the regulatory tools at hand, which allow us to work through those sectors. I've spoken with the power-generating companies in Alberta, and very shortly we'll be revealing the regulatory challenges they will need to deal with. We're doing it very sympathetically. We don't want to strand capital. We want to ensure that across the country, where there are coal-fired electricity-generating plants that will need to either convert to other power sources—natural gas—or use carbon capture and storage to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, that they will.... Everyone has to play their role.

With regard to the water monitoring, in the next couple of weeks you can expect that I will report to Parliament and to Canadians regarding the implementation plan for the water-monitoring system, which was committed to by my predecessor in December. We accepted all of the recommendations of the expert panel. The plan has been developed and will undergo peer review, and we will implement it in partnership with the Province of Alberta and with stakeholders and the industry itself.

With regard to the wider....