Environment Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, as you know, we're very much focused on the potential development of the Ring of Fire, and we recognize the need for enforcement as well as other oversight and engagement responsibilities there. But at the moment there are no changes that I could share with you now. But again, with regard to efficiency that we found in the enforcement area in the past year—and you may have heard me remark on this—we have found efficiencies in aligning enforcement capabilities within Parks Canada as well as within Environment Canada. So some efficiencies have been found there, but the responsibilities with regard to enforcement, I believe, have not been diminished.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to move now to Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Calgary Centre-North, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Minister, for your time in coming out today.

I too am interested in the progress that we've made on some of our greenhouse gas emission regulations, and specifically, I was hoping you could speak a little bit to the heavy-duty vehicle regulations that we just put in place. One of the things that I think we've been trying to do is also ensure that there's a positive impact to consumers. You spoke about the need to consult a wide variety of stakeholders in the development of regulations. Obviously, looking at things like impact on consumers, impact of supply and demand on various services is part of the modelling for these regulations.

Could you speak a bit about the heavy-duty vehicle regs and the importance of taking time to look at things such as pricing, supply, etc., when considering further regulations in other sectors?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you. Those are all questions that are taken into consideration as we move through the sector-by-sector regulatory process.

With regard to transportation, I can't remind Canadians often enough that the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada is the transportation sector, which produces fully 25% of our annual GHGs.

After addressing cars and light trucks with regulations, first from 2011 to 2016, and recently 2017 to 2025, we brought in heavy-duty regulations for full-sized pickup trucks, heavy vehicles, tractor-trailer units, and what are called “vocational trucks”, that is, garbage trucks and a variety of heavy-duty service vehicles. I was delighted that these regulations were welcomed by the trucking industry a week ago when we made the announcement. They achieve significant reductions in our GHG reduction targets, and we estimate that between model years 2014 and 2018 we will reduce GHG emissions from this heavy-truck category by fully 50%. At the same time, fuel consumption will be reduced by 50% and the operators of these heavy-duty tractor vehicles will see savings to the tune of about $8,000 a year.

As we publish these regulations, going sector-by-sector in the regulatory impact analysis statements, we always recognize there are some costs. But in every sector that we have regulated so far, the benefits have outweighed the costs by billions of dollars, on the order of 4:1 to 6:1.

I should come back and say that GHG reduction from the heavy-truck sector is 23% but the fuel savings are almost 50%.

There has been some comment from some quarters asking why our heavy-truck regulations, which are aligned with those of the Americans, came in two years after the American announcement. The answer to that is we have very different regulatory circumstances in Canada. We have to work with the provinces and address climate and road differences in the vast expanses of Canada, and we wanted to make sure that we got it right. We are now aligned, and I was delighted that the industry issued its support for the regs.

[Michelle Rempel]

If I may, I'll just switch gears. Our federal contaminated sites plan is something that is important to the mandate of Environment Canada. I know there were some announcements, and there are also related lines in the estimates on the plan to address the contaminated site at Randle Reef. Perhaps you could speak a little bit to the progress of that project and how it's represented in the estimates.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canada and the U.S. committed to address toxic hot spots in the Great Lakes. On our side, we have remediated, or begun remediating, four major sites. Randle Reef represents the largest remaining toxic site on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. It is a toxic soup of contaminants produced over the decades as a byproduct of the steel industry. It is on the bottom of Hamilton Harbour. It covers hundreds of acres. The plan involves the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada, the City of Hamilton, Hamilton Harbour, the local region, and the Municipality of Burlington. It will create a containment structure with steel provided by U.S. Steel, which is now the owner of the industrial property that will contain the main portion of the toxic site. The surrounding ooze, if you will, will be backfilled, and it will be permanently capped. This is a 10-year project costing almost $150 million. We hope that with the completion of this project we will see a restoration of water quality in Hamilton Harbour on par with what we have seen in some of the surrounding natural areas.

[Michelle Rempel]

Briefly, in my time remaining, to my colleague's questions about the Species at Risk Act, I would like to have you confirm that in budget 2012 there was a substantive increase to funding for the management of that program.

Perhaps you could briefly speak to that as well.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure. Well, it is a very important program. As I said earlier, it is a young program. We do have a backlog of recovery plans. We try to prioritize and address those that are the most challenging, where the risk threat is at the highest and where recovery plans need to be put in place.

Again, I think this is a significant accomplishment that Environment Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service can be very proud of in terms of.... After years of study and consideration, we introduced the national recovery plan for the boreal caribou a year ago. It has been welcomed across the range. There are some criticisms in some areas, but by and large the scientists, the independent scientists, have said that it is a good start.

[Michelle Rempel]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

Thank you, Minister Kent. If we want to pursue that later, possibly we can.

We'll move to Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and to the officials for coming. We're grateful for your time.

I'd like to begin with this. Of the $3.9 million in budget 2012, we already know the program activity, but could you tell me the sub-activity that was cut?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The $3.9 million in which...?

Are you talking about the parks, or the...?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Let me go to my notes....

I'll come back to it.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That's unless you have it.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No. I mean, the planned spending decrease in Environment Canada is—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The $3.9 million.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, no: it's $13.3 million, of which $12.3 million is in operating and $2.8 million is in grants and contributions. Then there were additional decreases with regard to capital and the employment benefit plan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, I have it: it's the $3.9 million in Parks Canada.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Oh, you're coming back to Parks Canada.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure. Well, the $3.9 million....

Alan, I don't—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

If I've read your statement correctly, that was an increase in funding. At the top of page 3 in your opening comments, it says “$3.9 million in funding for two items”.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Alan?