Environment Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No, but they participated. You were well represented, I believe.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Could you give us an idea of our current position in the post-Kyoto negotiations?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Our stand is as it has been since our government took office and since the Prime Minister signed the Copenhagen accord. It is to achieve a new international climate change regime which includes all of the world's major emitters of greenhouse gases. That includes countries that were considered developing countries in the 1990s but which today have very strong and vital emerging economies and very significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

According to the seed funding promised in Copenhagen, $400 million has been paid to delivery partners in the first year of the swift implementation period, and over $394 million in two years. Are those additional funds, or is that just money that would have been spent anyway?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The original fast-start financing under Copenhagen provided for $1.2 billion over three years. We are now in the third year of allocating the remaining money of that $1.2 billion. By the end of the next fiscal year, the $1.2 billion will have been fully committed. Half of it is repayable and half of it is considered a grant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

The time has expired.

Mr. Sopuck, you have five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Back in 1989, the Mulroney government passed the PPERs, the pulp and paper effluent regulations. They had a dramatic impact in terms of improving water quality from the outfalls of pulp and paper mills. I view the waste water regulations that you've talked about as similar in scope, albeit the issue will be much more complicated than the PPERs were.

Do you anticipate over the time that the waste water regulations are implemented a fairly dramatic improvement in Canada's water quality?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely. As I say, we are prioritizing with those three deadlines: 2020 for the highest priority improvements and corrections required, 2030, and 2040.

As you know, there are still discussions and arguments against our waste water regulations in some places where communities are used to flushing their waste into the ocean. I can assure you that our government will not accept that standard of behaviour.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Right, nor should we.

As you know, I represent a large dispersed rural constituency with a lot of small communities, so I'm very pleased to hear you talk about the possible assistance for small communities, because way too many of them are under a boil water advisory. I applaud the department's focus on real environmental results that we can measure.

In the budget, a transfer of almost $1 million from Fisheries and Oceans was talked about to “continue the environmental restoration of key aquatic areas of concern” identified under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The topic of restoration, as you know, is very near and dear to my heart. Can you briefly describe some of the activities you see occurring in that program?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

There's a variety. Under the renewal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, it provides for more vigorous action against invasive species. It provides for, again, more vigorous action with regard to cleaning up hot spots, toxic areas, toxic deposits around the Great Lakes and into the St. Lawrence basin.

To that point, we're very close. There's been some discussion in Parliament and at other levels of government over addressing the worst Great Lakes hot spot toxic area, which is known as Randle Reef in Hamilton harbour. It seems that all parties are preparing to go ahead. We've remediated three of Canada's 17 hot spots on our side of the lakes, and we're proceeding with others now, but we're looking forward to attacking Randle Reef in Hamilton harbour.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I think the undertaking of projects and programs that generate real, measurable environmental results that Canadians can see and understand is very important, so I strongly support this particular direction.

I'd like to focus a little bit on the unsung heroes of conservation who simply do not get their due. They are getting their due with our government, but they haven't in the past. I'm talking about hunters and anglers and farmers and trappers, the people on the land, the kind of people I represent. These are the heroes of conservation, in my view. Whether they're planting trees, restoring wildlife, putting up nest tunnels for ducks, or all those kinds of things, they never get the due they deserve.

As you well know, Minister, our government created the hunting and angling advisory panel, where all of these groups are represented under one roof in providing advice to our government. Can you elaborate on the activities of the hunting and angling advisory panel, and where you see it going in the not-too-distant future?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure. You've actually set the stage very well.

The hunting and angling advisory panel represents many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are among our country's greatest conservationists. They use the wild and they use the habitat, but they are exceptionally responsible. They have been an unheard voice over the decades.

At our first meeting a few months ago and in our coming meetings we're looking at some of the advice. Some of the conservation groups that are represented one way or another are already participants in such programs as Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited, but it goes far beyond that. We are seeking advice from this panel with regard to species at risk, with regard to better land use practices, with regard to re-establishment of wetlands, with regard to pretty much across the environmental spectrum in Canada and the contribution those voices can make to our considerations.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

The time has expired. Thank you.

Mr. Pilon, you have five minutes.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, in your brief, you say the following:

And on this front I am proud to say that 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.

Unless I am mistaken, this means that, for the time being, you will focus on the most urgent matters, but you will set the rest aside. And if some day, you happen to realize that there is an emergency, you will take care of that area. Is that correct?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No, that's not it at all.

First of all, if I could just remind you, Environment Canada is a very broad and complicated department. It includes the chemical management plan, Parks Canada, species at risk responsibilities, air and water diversity responsibilities, as well as biodiversity. We also have responsibility for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with regard to industrial projects. Environment Canada is very much a science-based department. We have responsibility for the Meteorological Service of Canada, the national weather service. We have responsibilities, as you know, for climate change, mitigation on one hand and reduction of greenhouse gases, but also adaptation to those changes, which are already taking place and will continue to take place, we expect.

There are a great many sublevels of scientific focus within Environment Canada with, I can tell you, wonderful people who are eager to fulfill their individual mandates and to ensure that Environment Canada maintains its international reputation as a world-class regulator. Much of what we do involves regulation. Much of the science done is to allow the establishment of standards and the maintenance and defence of those standards through regulation.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

I have a municipal background. So I have a question about wastewater management, which costs municipalities a lot of money. What portion of the budget will go to municipalities to help them renew and maintain their wastewater management infrastructure?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It's a very good question. It's a very challenging question for some municipalities that perhaps have not been as diligent in past decades in terms of maintaining waste water management capability and capacity.

As I said in answer to one of your colleagues, in recent years we have invested more than $2 billion directly through the economic action plan to communities that applied for and received funding to improve and increase the capability and to add new levels of treatment. Every year we have made permanent the $2 billion gas tax rebate, which is intended for and can be applied entirely to infrastructure. That said, we also have the building Canada fund. As you know, and the Minister of Transport has addressed this in the House a number of times, we are considering renewal of that fund. When it comes to this sort of infrastructure funding, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is very forthright in their insistence on federal assistance. This will certainly be much easier once the deficit is eliminated and we can move forward and get back into a balanced budget situation.

That is our intent. We recognize that these costs are significant. There is a difference between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' $20-plus billion cost and our estimate of somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion. That said, we want to move forward and to assist communities large and small to ensure they treat their waste water appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Time has expired. Thank you so much.

Mr. Lunney, you have the last almost five minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thanks.

I am going to move quickly because I'm going to try to pass the last moment or so over to my colleague, Ms. Ambler, who has a question as well.

I want to roll two questions together, but first I have a comment. I did hear in response to a question earlier about SARA that there is a question about deficiencies in science. I presume we want to make sure that responses are based on sound evidence, to make sure that we actually get results from our interventions.

I noted with some interest that there was an article in the news this past week about the international census of marine life 2010. The headlines were that two-thirds of ocean species remain unidentified, even after a decade of science, according to the article in Current Biology. Obviously we want to make sure that our responses are appropriate.

I noticed that you have $1.2 million in supplementary (B)s to enable the health of the oceans partners to respond to the ongoing need to protect the health of Canada's oceans. Question one is related to where you see that $1.2 million going.

The second question has to do with the item in the supplementary (B)s for the habitat stewardship contribution program of some $4 million through transfer. This program helps Canadians protect species at risk and their habitats through enhancing existing conservation activities and encouraging new ones. It leverages funding. Through the program I think we have leveraged about 1,000 projects for $62 million up to a total investment of $215 million with partners.

I wonder if you would explain to us this habitat stewardship contribution program and if that is part of the comment that says there will be $11.8 million for ongoing improvements to the species at risk program to support watershed, land stewardship and freshwater science. I presume that $4 million is part of that investment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes, that's right.

To respond to your first question on the health of the oceans initiative, you're quite right in that there's a number of partners. That money is shared among, for example, Parks Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The only person at the table who can speak to the health of the oceans initiative is Alan Latourelle. I would just say that much of our focus has to do with our national marine protected areas and ensuring that, while they are accessible to use by a variety of recreational and commercial interests, we are responsible in those fairly significantly vast areas to ensure the health of the oceans and the species that are there.

Alan, would you like to say a couple of words?

[Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada]

Yes. In Parks Canada's supplementary estimates, for example, we have $797,000 this year for marine, and it is to advance our work on marine conservation areas in Lancaster Sound and the southern Strait of Georgia in British Columbia.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With regard to the species at risk funding, you're quite right. That $4 million is set aside for habitat stewardship. The rest is for other departments applying Species at Risk Act, SARA, obligations. Again, Parks Canada has a piece of that, and Fisheries and Oceans has as well.

Essentially, the habitat stewardship program has been highly effective over the years in maintaining habitat not only for species at risk but for all wildlife. Again, we have advanced that through a variety of conservation organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited, and with individual landowners, and with better practices with provincial and territorial governments. The interest there is to ensure that we preserve across Canada the great abundance of biodiversity that this country has.

In one of those areas, beyond formal national parks, and it is a mandate from the Prime Minister, we're also looking to continue to work to protect each of the 39 distinct locations, habitats, in Canada, as well as to develop—what's the total number of national marine protected areas? I think it's 29—

[Alan Latourelle]

It's 29, yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

We're still at the beginning. We're at five right now, either committed formally or in the works, but again, it's a process that can't take place overnight.