Environment Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Dr. Meinhard Doelle]

I can't answer that, so I'll defer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately, the time has expired.

Do you want to give a very quick answer, Dr. Kenny?

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

That's fine. We have the same response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I want to thank the witnesses.

On a point of order, Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Having heard the comments about witnesses presenting two different pictures, I would like to ask Monsieur Choquette to acknowledge that when we have witnesses who present two different pictures, it's very helpful to know the qualifications and the expertise of the witnesses when assessing their evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

That is not a point of order; it is debate.

I want to thank Dr. Doelle, Dr. Kenny, and Ms. Swanson for being with us. We really appreciate your spending time with us today.

Colleagues, we are going to suspend until 4:30, at which time we'll have the minister, department officials, and the deputy minister. Then we will be meeting for an hour with the minister.

We will now suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

We will continue with this 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We welcome Minister Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment, along with Mr. Latourelle, Mr. Hamilton, and Ms. Feldman. Thank you so much for being with us today.

Minister, you have up to 10 minutes, then we will open it up to questions from the members.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues.

As you have heard, with me today is my deputy minister, Bob Hamilton; the CEO of Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle; and Ms. Elaine Feldman, the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. In the back row ready for the call should we get into deep financial and accounting matters is Ms. Carol Najm, Environment Canada's chief financial officer.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to start off by expressing my sincere appreciation to the committee for the invitation to appear here today to discuss the supplementary estimates (B) tabled in the House earlier this month.

I will begin with a brief statement. After that, I would be pleased to answer any questions the members may have for me.

Since I last appeared before this committee on the main estimates, Environment Canada has continued to maintain its focus on the effective and efficient delivery of its mandate. I'm pleased to note the department is making steady progress initiating meaningful actions to protect Canada's environment, to protect Canadians, and the economy.

As a regulatory department our strength lies in our ability to successfully create, implement, monitor, and enforce effective federal regulations and legislation. On this front I am proud to say Environment Canada is a world-class regulator leading the way by integrating science into good regulatory decision-making and strengthening and deepening its monitoring networks where it matters most.

The department is continuing to engage expert scientists by using the best available research and relying on effective collaborations with its partners at home and abroad.

Environment Canada is protecting endangered species and our nation's rich biodiversity through strong leadership and effective partnerships.

Since 2006, thanks in significant part to the department's efforts, Canada's protected areas have grown by fully 53%. Almost 10% of Canada's land mass is now protected, an area greater than that of the province of British Columbia.

On climate change, the department is heavily engaged in implementing our sector-by-sector regulatory approach and in working with the provinces and territories to reduce emissions. We have combined efforts to reduce electricity emissions through a range of measures designed to shift away from high-emission sources of electricity and to reduce demand through energy efficiency.

We've already put into place light duty vehicle regulations for the model years 2011 to 2016, and we're working with the United States to extend those regulations to model years 2017 and beyond. We proposed on-road heavy duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions regulations for the years 2014 and later. We also introduced regulations to implement new standards to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in the marine sector. In September we announced final regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity generation.

These regulations will apply stringent performance standards to new coal-fired electricity generation units and units that have reached the end of their useful life. Greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are now projected to decline by a third between 2005 levels and 2020 despite significant increases in economic activity and electricity production over this period.

Collectively, colleagues, our efforts have already brought Canada about halfway to achieving our greenhouse gas reduction target by reducing emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. The department is continuing to push forward. We're now turning our focus to the oil and gas sector.

When it comes to water quality, the department tackled one of the largest single sources of water pollution by introducing this past summer the first national standards for waste water treatment. It also supported the enhancement and renewal of the Great Lakes water quality agreement with the United States to address such issues as aquatic invasive species, habitat degradation, and the effects of climate change. It launched the Great Lakes nutrient initiative to address toxic and nuisance algae.

Environment Canada is continuing its work with Ontario to develop a renewed Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Under the St. Lawrence Action Plan, Environment Canada is also focused on monitoring the St. Lawrence to improve biodiversity conservation, water quality and sustainability.

The department also progressed on its collaborative work with the provinces, with environmental non-governmental organizations, and with industry to improve air quality, when provincial and territorial ministers of the environment endorsed the air quality management system just a few weeks ago.

There is more, but in the interests of time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to turn to the supplementary estimates (B) before us today.

As you will note, Environment Canada's submission in the supplementary estimates (B) includes 12 items, a number of them further to budget 2012, which due to timing could not be included in the main estimates. I'd like to highlight them.

The major items include a proposed $17 million increase to support such initiatives as the Species at Risk Act, the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative, the Major Projects Management Office, and the health of the oceans initiative.

This amount includes $11.8 million for ongoing improvements to the species at risk program and $2.1 million to support watershed, land stewardship, and freshwater science initiatives under the renewed Lake Winnipeg basin initiative program. There's a request for $2 million to renew funding for the Major Projects Management Office to ensure timely and quality reviews of more than 70 high-profile major resource projects and to support implementation of the responsible resource development initiative. As well, there is a $1.2 million request to enable the health of the oceans partners and the Government of Canada to respond to an ongoing need to protect the health of Canada's oceans.

It also includes just under $13 million in savings that the department has identified for the budget 2012 deficit reduction action plan.

When considered together, this submission works out to a departmental request for about $5 million in additional funding.

As for Parks Canada, which also falls under my purview, supplementary estimates (B) include three transfers to and from other federal departments, which amount to a reduction of about $12,000. The agency would like to invest $3.7 million in the species at risk program and $800,000 to advance the establishment of two marine conservation areas through the health of the oceans initiative.

Mr. Chair, this highlights some of the activities these estimates will financially support in the department's work to provide Canadians with a clean, safe and sustainable environment.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, for your time today. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Minister.

We will begin our seven-minute round with Mr. Toet.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to have the minister and his colleagues with us today.

I want to start with laying the framework of what we're dealing with in these supplementary estimates. You spoke about it a little in your presentation, when you talked about the main estimates and the additional items that come in here.

I wonder whether the minister or one of his colleagues could inform the committee about how the estimates process works. Perhaps they could specifically describe the role of supplementary estimates as a complement to the main estimates, which were tabled in the spring. One of the examples I could bring forward is how the report on plans and priorities work in conjunction with the departmental performance reports as we go forward.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You're quite right. I referred indirectly to the fact that the items in the supplementary estimates (B) here today were in large part not available to be placed in the main estimates.

The supplementary estimates serve two purposes. They seek to revise spending levels that Parliament will be asked to approve. They also provide all members of Parliament information on changes to estimated expenditures to be made under the authority of the statutes already passed by Parliament.

The supplementary estimates, as most of you know, are tabled three times a year: the first in May, the second in late October, and the final one in late February. Each of these supplementary estimates documents, labelled (A), (B), and (C), can be published in any given year.

They reflect the government's planning priorities and resource allocation priorities and the fine-tuning of those priorities. In combination with the subsequent results achieved in departmental reports, this material helps Parliament hold the government to account for the allocation and management of public funds.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you for that explanation. I think it's important, as we lay the groundwork here.

You referred to fine-tuning and adjustments. One of the adjustments I've noted in here, and you probably knew I'd bring this up, is the funding to address excess nutrient problems in Lake Winnipeg. I'm very happy to see that in here.

Could you articulate what the government's plans are exactly for this funding, and what the accomplishments will be through this funding?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

This new funding for the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative is actually the second phase of a program focusing on the challenges of science, of nutrient loading from a variety of sources, from the well-established nuisance, and in some cases, health-threatening algae that have accumulated in the lake.

To correct some of the media accounts we've seen in recent weeks, of this funding, barely 25% will go for the staffing costs, for the human resources costs. The rest of it is going into science funding with partners, and working on ways to once and for all address the problem of nutrient loading in Lake Winnipeg. At the same time, we're embarking on a similar program in Lake Erie. The science developed in both of these areas will be applied to other lakes experiencing nutrient loading to a lesser extent, Lake Simcoe for example.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Right.

I'm very glad to hear you use the phrase of dealing with it “once and for all”, because it's been an issue dear to the hearts of many Manitobans for a long time.

Also, I've noticed the Parks Canada funding listed in here. Could you elaborate on how many parks we've created and how much land has been protected in this process?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

As you know, our government is exceptionally proud that, since forming government in 2006, we have increased the amount of protected areas under our formal parks by just over 50%.

This summer, the Prime Minister added our newest park, Nááts’ihch’oh, on the north side of the Nahanni National Park. We are working on finalizing the addition of the national marine protected areas in the southern Georgia Strait and in Lancaster Sound, to the two formalized national marine protected areas in Lake Superior and Haida Gwaii.

We have signed an agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia to create a national park reserve on Sable Island off Nova Scotia. In the coming months, our government and the Government of Nova Scotia will be tabling legislation to formalize Sable as our newest national park.

We continue to work with provinces and territories on national parks, and supplement that by working with a variety of other groups and conservation groups to protect areas, while still allowing land use, which is not allowed in national parks.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Fantastic.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have 30 seconds.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I have a very quick question, then.

We've been dealing with the CEAA. Could you touch on some of the recent changes in how the agency will be conducting its business going forward?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

As you know, through legislation in the spring, we introduced CEAA, 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which will focus on the major projects before the government that represent the greatest potential for impact on the environment. Going forward, Elaine and CEAA staff are focusing on roughly 70 major projects at the moment. Recently, I've been informed that since the implementation and the proclamation of CEAA, 2012, we now have seven new projects for consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you very much. The time has expired.

Madame Quach, you have seven minutes.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister for joining us to answer our questions today.

In your presentation, you yourself said that you had a hard time producing your report on the budget, owing to a lack of time. So several pieces of information are missing. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said today, in a report, that he was unable to complete his own analysis because a number of departments—including Environment Canada—had not met the deadlines or submitted their budget.

You also said that Parks Canada's supplementary estimates did undergo an assessment. You manage both Environment Canada and Parks Canada. How do you explain your failure to produce a report on Environment Canada?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you for that question.

The answer is an administrative one. In years past we would submit the supplementary estimates (B) to Treasury Board, and Treasury Board would then forward them on to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This year the rules were changed; the directions were changed. The department was advised that they should be forwarded within five days of the tabling of the supplementary estimates (B) documents.

My deputy can explain, but officials in the department understood that to be five working days and that the deadline was today. They have been submitted today. You're quite right. They've been prepared. They were ready. They've been submitted. It was simply a difference in administrative interpretation of the new process of submission.

Bob.

[Bob Hamilton, Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment]

That is exactly right. We provided those figures today, five working days after the deadline. It's true that we missed the deadline, but we submitted the figures today. We provided some other figures on budget 2012 to the Parliamentary Budget Office on October 26.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

So there is a lack of internal communication.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, you said you had a sector-by-sector program. Minister, when we met in committee of the whole earlier this year, you said it would cost $14 billion for Canada to honour its international greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. On May 15, my colleague from Halifax asked that you provide us with some figures in support of that statement, and you promised to do so. You also agreed to provide data on global warming's potential financial repercussions on the Canadian economy. However, before that same committee of the whole on May 15, you refused to provide cost analyses on the strategy for greenhouse gas sector-by-sector reduction. You talked about that in your opening statement.

Can you provide us with that information today?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'm not sure if the information I provide will satisfy your question, but in fact the $14 billion that I referenced and that we referenced at the time of the announcement of Canada's legal withdrawal from the Kyoto accord, was the budgetary number.

It's a number that's based on carbon pricing and international markets. The precise number is far less important than our government's decision not to send billions of hard-earned Canadian tax dollars abroad to buy hot air credits from depressed eastern European economies.

That was the reason our government announced, from the day that we first assumed office until we gave notice after the Durban conference last year, that the Government of Canada regarded the Kyoto protocol as ineffective and unfair, particularly in the context of Canada's circumstances.

With regard to the cost of implementing sector-by-sector greenhouse gas reductions to meet our Copenhagen 2020 targets, those costs are borne on the basis of polluter pays. The sectors pay. We've done it in a very non-prescriptive manner, unlike some other countries that use the regulatory tool. We've done this, for example, in the case of vehicle tailpipe emissions. We've done it in alignment with the United States and with our integrated auto industries. With regard to coal-fired electricity generation, we have done it with....