Environment Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

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

Could you give me some figures?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The regulations apply at the end of life.

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

You say that it is effective, and I am glad to hear that you agree with the polluter pays principle. That is a principle I would very much like to see applied with a concrete strategic plan, which I am however not seeing. You talked about $14 billion for reaching the international GHG objectives, but we don't know how much your sector-by-sector strategic plan costs. Unless I am mistaken, you don't have any figures today either

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The actual cost of achieving our megatonnage reduction sector by sector is far less important than the fact that we are 50% of the way towards achieving our 2020 Copenhagen targets.

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

But it is important to us.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

But why?

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

It's important because we have to know in what areas the approach is effective. We need to know how we can then recognize any readjustments to be made. We need to know whether we are doing well and being sufficiently productive, whether we are monitoring the situation adequately. You talked about being effective when it comes to investments, but you are unable to assess each specific sector. I find that alarming. It's very worrisome, coming from my own minister.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The important thing is the absolute reduction of greenhouse gases sector by sector—

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

But do you have the figures on that reduction?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Madame Quach, time has expired.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely. As we said, we reported in an internationally accepted measurement of our greenhouse gas trends that we are at roughly 50% of achieving our 2020 Copenhagen targets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth, you have seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Minister and other folks, welcome. It's always good to get an overview of things and to look at the estimates as we go. I think everyone around this table understands that this is the parliamentary process, that budgets proceed in this fashion, and that as the details get filled in, we hear from you. I appreciate that.

I want to ask about a matter that's somewhat important to me and to other Canadians. It comes out of the supplementary estimates (B) in relation to funding of areas that might involve the oil sands in the west.

We know that the oil sands are a strategic natural resource for Canada, that they are a key driver of economic development, and that the Government of Canada works with the Government of Alberta to make sure that they are developed in an environmentally responsible way.

In particular, this committee, in the previous Parliament, spent quite a number of months studying the oil sands and being concerned about them. Subsequent to that, your ministry went through an excellent science-based consultation with experts in the field regarding the monitoring of the oil sands and came up with a plan, which was announced in February of this year, jointly with Alberta, I think.

I wonder whether you could give us an update about what it has achieved so far, what you have seen in it, and how it may relate to the estimates.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely. I think there's no better point of accent than the report that was released at the annual SETAC conference in the United States last year, at which they talked about the detection of monitored contaminants far further afield from the oil sands than earlier expected. This is the latest chapter in a good news story of our government's having in 2010 accepted the advice of scientists across academia, scientists in the west, who said that monitoring at the time was insufficient and needed to be improved.

We took that advice. A monitoring program was designed, and it was peer reviewed by scientists and is now being implemented. We began in the spring melt this year. Again, it is being funded, with a nod to my colleague who is interested in bottom-line numbers and costs, at $50 million a year for the first three years of implementation, paid for by the industry and administered jointly by the Government of Canada, Environment Canada, and the Government of Alberta.

As I say, we're in the first year of implementation, but in the next three years, as the complete, comprehensive monitoring of water, air, biodiversity, land, aerial dispersal, and downwind impacts on lakes that are sensitive to acid contaminants is done, we will provide even greater evidence, which will allow us to work with the industry to ensure that contaminants are reduced while at the same time responsibly developing a great natural resource.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Excellent. I appreciate that update, and I'm glad to hear that it's proceeding and is producing solid, reliable results.

The other thing in your remarks I was quite interested in was in relation to water quality, in particular the launch of the Great Lakes nutrient initiative to address toxic and nuisance algae—this is an issue in southern Ontario, where I come from—and national standards for waste water treatment.

In particular, I'd like to ask you about those waste water systems effluent regulations. Can you describe what you hope to accomplish with those, how they're going to be implemented, and what the costs will be?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Certainly. Waste water management is probably the greatest challenge we have with respect to clean water in Canada today. About 75% of our communities have effective primary or secondary waste water management, but fully 25%, 850 communities, large and small, first nations and otherwise, still have inadequate waste water management and treatment.

In consultation with the provinces and the territories, in July we announced that Canada's first national waste water management regulations will be brought in. They will focus on three priority areas. The highest priority, the greatest degree of pollution, will be treated with a target date of 2020. The next intermediate level will be done by 2030, and the lowest level of correction required will have a date of 2030.

This will probably lead to a subsequent question on infrastructure support for the cost. Environment Canada estimates a cost of significantly under $10 billion to bring the full country into compliance. I've spoken with the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, mayors across the country, east and west, and others. They estimate something beyond $20 billion. We are talking. We are working together. Our government has already invested more than $2 billion directly in waste water management. Of course, the annual gas tax refund of $2 billion is available to all municipalities, large and small, to apply against that waste water management.

If that infrastructure money were to be applied fully to waste water management over the next five years, and one knows that it has to be spread a little bit more broadly, one would think the country would be very close to being in full compliance from coast to coast to coast.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's a good example of green infrastructure funding that will benefit Canadians for years to come—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That's right.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I think you'll find a lot of support around this table for that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired.

Ms. Duncan, you have seven minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and officials for coming.

I have some concerns. I hear about strengthening and deepening monitoring networks, when there were cuts of 700 announced at Environment Canada, and more recently, 200. When it comes to Canada's protected areas, we always want to hear about them. You talked about 10% of land being protected, and that's a good thing. On the other side, less than 1% of our marine areas are meaningfully conserved.

On water quality, the nutrient program is important. On World Water Day, there was an announcement about protecting the Great Lakes. It was 0.7% of what was needed to protect them.

I'm going to start with climate change. Canada was a founding member of the new Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants.

Why is there the willingness to address the short term versus the long term?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That's a good question. I'd love to answer some of your run-up questions, as well.

With regard to short-lived climate pollutants, or short-lived climate forces, the reason we joined initially with the United States and Mexico, then Sweden, Ghana, Bangladesh and other countries, and now the EU has jumped in—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Why is there the willingness to look at the short term?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

By reducing short-lived climate pollutants—methane, black carbon, hydrofluorocarbons—we can—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Almost.