Environment Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Can you explain the cut of $7.5 million for emergency response, please?

[Bob Hamilton]

Certainly, I can explain that in part.

On the emergency response, we've consolidated our operations into one place in Montreal. We really think we've done a very good job, as I look at it from where I sit, of trying to streamline our operation, make it more effective. But it has involved consolidating it in one place. We are certainly prepared to go where we need to go if required, but by taking this activity that had been dispersed across the country and putting it into a central location, we think we can actually do a better job in responding to environmental emergencies, and along the way, we've managed to save the money that you've referred to.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

You know there's great concern about moving this to the central part of the country should there be an oil spill on any of our coastlines. We've seen this with helicopters. We're seeing this with communications, for example, on the Great Lakes. There's real concern there.

Of the $51.2 million in cuts to Parks Canada, how much of that is cuts to scientists?

[Alan Latourelle]

They are not cuts of $51 million; I think the reductions we have implemented are $19.7 million. The other elements are basically funding that we had for specific projects in the past that have come to the end of their program; for example, the Trans-Canada—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I understand that, but what cuts are to scientists, please?

[Alan Latourelle]

In terms of our science program—for example, in the conservation program, to use a practical example—in 2006 we had 442 people involved in research conservation. We still have 656 people now, so we've seen an increase over the last few years.

What we have done in Parks Canada is consolidate and streamline our science policy and professional and technical services.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Could I ask you to table with the committee the areas in which there have been cuts to monitoring? Looking since 2006, in the last budget, and going forward, where are the cuts, if any, to scientists, to monitoring, and by program area, please?

[Alan Latourelle]

Let me respond to this. It is important to understand the difference between changes to our investment in personnel versus what we can achieve with what we have, because we still have a very strong monitoring program across all of our national parks.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, but you will table information on where the cuts have occurred, by area and by how many people we've lost, will you?

[Alan Latourelle]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have about 20 seconds.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I know. I am watching carefully. Thank you.

On climate change and clean air, it looks as though there was a cut of $13.9 million or 7.2%. How does this square with the announcements we've seen about the green agenda that's being presented to the United States? How do you square those cuts of 7.2%? There has really been a flurry of announcements since Obama's state of the union address and the comments of the ambassador of the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'll give you time to respond to that.

[Bob Hamilton]

It is fair to say on climate change and clean air that we're moving aggressively on that front. The minister outlined what we're doing in transportation. We have moved forward with the coal-fired electricity; now we're doing oil and gas regulations. So we are devoting considerable resources to this.

You're quite right that the recent announcements, the President's inaugural speech, and the increased intensity of climate change discussion in the U.S. are important to us. What we have done is outline our target with the U.S. for how we want to reduce greenhouse gases by 2020, 17% lower than 2005 levels. We've aligned our policies wherever we can. Transportation would be a great example of this.

What the U.S. does or thinks about climate change is obviously something important, which we have to consider within our policy structure and framework.

The precise cut that you're referring to is, I believe, some sunsetting funding that was available, which dropped off. We get funding over a certain time period for particular projects. I'll check and I'll get you any additional information on that. What we see in this area is that we get money for a period of time—sometimes those overlap—and the funding drops off. I believe that's what has happened here, but I'll get back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.

I will remind the committee that at the end of this meeting we need to take about 10 minutes to vote on these votes, so I'm going to try to preserve 10 minutes for that purpose.

We'll move on to Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thanks.

I'll start by addressing some questions to Mr. Hamilton.

In the earlier part of my career I spent a couple of years in management consulting, and one of the things we were often tasked to do when looking at both public sector and private sector organizations was to ask questions such as what the mandate of the organization was, how you deliver the services put in the mandate, and then how you resource those things effectively.

We've had a lot of questions here about cuts and whatnot, and we can argue the methodology of presentation of the estimates, etc., but do you think it's reasonable for us to ask as parliamentarians how we can deliver the mandate of an organization most effectively, especially when we're looking at the allocation of resources that are provided by Canadian taxpayers?

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes, I think it's a very reasonable question, and in fact it's one we address every day. In any environment you have to ask yourself about your priorities and whether you're doing the best you can as an organization to deliver on the mandate you've been provided with the resources you have. Obviously, as the resources get smaller you have to do an even better job of trying to find ways to make sure you're delivering on your core mandate in the most efficient way possible.

Frankly, Environment Canada has gone through that process over the last couple of years. There was budget 2012, certainly, but there were other forces that caused us to have a look at the resources we had available, what we were doing, and how we could best focus on the activities that were most productive in ensuring our mandate of a clean, safe, sustainable environment for Canadians.

We talked earlier about some of the administrative efficiencies we've seen. I would argue that the consolidation of the emergency centre is a good example of these. We've seen others. The minister referenced early some things we're looking at on the enforcement and other sides whereby we can, through combining either with Parks Canada or with other partners, find ways to do frankly a better job than we were doing, and in some cases with fewer resources.

Resource reduction forces you in some cases to make some hard choices, but that's what running this department is about, and these are the kinds of choices we have to make with the support of the government, when policy issues are at play.

It's an important question.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

There was some discussion today about the capacity for scientific research within the department. Would you agree that research that falls within the scope of Environment Canada is also conducted across other departments; that there are scopes of research that perhaps we partner with? We also partner with academic institutions, etc.

Would you characterize the scientific capacity that Environment Canada has as sufficient and as something that has actually increased under our government, when you look at the whole of funding to such agencies as the three research councils, other departments, etc.?

[Bob Hamilton]

I've been in this job about six months, and I have to say I'm quite impressed with the science capacity of our department—and it's not just me looking at it, but it's the impression when you talk to others.

We talked about oil sands monitoring. I think the recognition of what Environment Canada scientists bring to that table is impressive. We've talked in the past about the number of publications our scientists have.

They are definitely a core group that we are proud of, and they feed into pretty much every aspect of what we do at Environment Canada. When we're designing a regulation, the science is very important for us, to try to make sure we get it right. When we're looking at what to do about cleaning up lakes, which we talked about earlier, that science is very important.

But we know we can't do it ourselves, and I think the core of your point is that we need to make sure we're working effectively with other science departments around government, whether NRCan, Fisheries and Oceans, or what have you, but also with academic institutions.

I've been across the country and have seen how some of our science labs are operating and where we've done some effective joint partnerships with universities, and it has been very impressive. The science capacity we have levers the amount of work we can do to look at some fairly sophisticated things. I think the science is not only about creating an attraction for great scientists within Environment Canada, but also making sure that we can work effectively with other organizations.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Perhaps I'll close my time with Mr. Latourelle.

It's been my privilege to be in this portfolio and to see, across the different scopes of work that Environment Canada undertakes, significant movement of the yardsticks on such files as our greenhouse gas emission files, species at risk, etc.

I want to focus a bit on your department. It's my understanding that, as Mr. Storseth has pointed out, we've increased the footprint of protected land in this country by 50%. We've actually seen a rebound in visits to the parks, as you mentioned earlier. I think, if we look at the numbers, you actually see an increase year over year, since we formed the government, in Parks Canada funding.

Perhaps you could first of all verify that this is the case, in light of some of the commentary here today, and speak of where you see Parks Canada going in the future under this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're almost out of time. You can respond quickly to that, and hopefully we'll stay within our timeframe.

[Alan Latourelle]

I've been the CEO of Parks Canada for 10 years now. When I joined Parks Canada as the CEO, the budget was $395 million. Today the estimates before you are $600 million. So there has been quite a significant change.

In terms of the future, I think we really have three priorities. They are to continue expanding the system, to achieve real conservation outcomes—we are implementing the largest conservation restoration program in our history as an organization—and to invest time and resources to connect Canadians to these great places. Those are the three key priorities we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Latourelle. Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

We'll move to Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is about the Experimental Lakes Area and the closure of ELA. There have been rumours. We've all read them. I have no inside knowledge, but there's been some discussion that maybe another organization would be willing to take over the ELA. I'm wondering, Mr. Hamilton, if you're able to tell us if there has been any discussion of the possibility of the federal government's keeping the liability for the site, so that if the site is transferred to an organization the government would carry that liability burden.