Environment Committee on March 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like call to order meeting number 63 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Today, we're dealing with supplementary estimates (C) 2012-13, votes 1c and 10c under Environment. We're also dealing at the same time with the main estimates, Standing Order 81(4), votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

It's great to have Minister Kent with us today.

Minister Kent, welcome, and welcome to your witnesses who are joining you today: Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Latourelle, and Ms. Feldman.

Mr. Kent, we're going to proceed with your opening comments. Thank you for providing them for us in written form. The floor is yours.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Good morning.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Chair, I will start by expressing my sincere appreciation to the committee for the invitation to appear here once again to discuss the supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal 2012-13 and the main estimates for 2013-14.

As you said, joining me at the table this morning are my deputy minister, the Deputy Minister of Environment Canada, Bob Hamilton; Alan Latourelle, the CEO of Parks Canada; and Elaine Feldman, President of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

As usual, I will begin with a brief statement and after that, I would be pleased to answer any questions that honourable members may have of me.

As you know, time has passed very quickly over the past couple of years since I took over my role as Canada's Minister of the Environment. During this time I have been privileged to see many of the proposals presented in these estimates come full circle as they develop into successful initiatives and grow into achievements for our environment and our economy.

Environment Canada's job, of course, is to help ensure Canadians have a clean, safe, and sustainable environment. The department achieves these goals largely through its collaborative work to develop, monitor, and enforce effective federal regulations and legislation. It is proceeding in a consistent, systematic, science-based manner, taking responsible actions across a range of issues, from climate change, to air and water quality, to the conservation of ecosystems, and to protecting Canadians from harmful chemicals.

The department delivers important services to Canadians 24 hours a day, every day. On average, the department issues 1.5 million public forecasts every year. It conducts more than 8,600 inspections and over 340 prosecutions for violations of environmental laws. It also publishes over 700 peer-reviewed scientific publications.

In terms of protected areas, Canada now protects almost 10% of our land mass, which means our nation is about 60% of the way to meeting the 2010 international target of protecting 17% of our land mass in protected areas. The Government of Canada is helping our nation to achieve this target. Environment Canada's collaborations with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and with other organizations have resulted in the protection of more than 338,000 hectares, including habitat for 126 species at risk. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has taken actions that will add almost 150,000 square kilometres to Parks Canada's network of protected areas, which is a 53% increase.

Working in collaboration with the United States, we enhanced and renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, reinforcing ongoing efforts to deal with harmful algae, toxic chemicals and discharges from vessels using the lakes. We also added new provisions addressing issues such as aquatic invasive species, habitat degradation and the effects of climate change.

Our action plan for clean water is enabling large-scale investments to ensure clean water for Canadians. Last year, we contributed $46.3 million toward the cleanup of Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour and we launched the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, investing $16 million over four years to address the re-emergence of toxic and nuisance algae caused by excessive phosphorous discharges to Lake Erie.

On the international stage, we are focused on achieving a new, legally binding global agreement on climate change that covers all major emitters. We are honouring our United Nations commitments under the Copenhagen accord by implementing a domestic regulatory plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are also showing leadership, I believe, in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to address short-lived climate pollutants.

We are advancing on our sector-by-sector regulatory approach at home, putting forward greenhouse gas regulations to significantly reduce emissions from cars and light trucks, heavy duty vehicles, and coal-fired electricity.

Our actions, combined with provincial, territorial, and business efforts, are projected to bring Canada halfway to achieving our Copenhagen target of a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Moving forward, we're working towards achieving additional reductions from other sectors of the economy, focusing now on the oil and gas sector.

Our work is not done by any means, but these achievements I believe make it clear that we are on the right track. These estimates before us today signal continued efforts to continue that progress. As the chair said, today we're discussing two sets of estimates: the supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal 2012-13 and the main estimates for fiscal 2013-14.

The 2012-13 supplementary estimates (C) are the last set of budget adjustments to Environment Canada's reference levels for fiscal 2012-13.

In these estimates, Environment Canada is requesting $24 million in funding for the Nature Conservancy of Canada to help the organization continue its important work to secure ecologically sensitive lands and to protect diverse ecosystems.

The department is also asking for $21.3 million for grants and contributions. This includes more than $21 million for the international climate change strategy 2012 fast-start financing. It includes a request for just over $511,000 to renew the Lake Simcoe initiative program, which sunset in March 2012. This funding will allow for continued progress on addressing Lake Simcoe water quality. The supplementary estimates also include a reduction of $12.5 million introduced in budget 2012 savings measures.

For supplementary estimates (C) 2012-13, Parks Canada is requesting $3.9 million in funding for two items. This includes $2.1 million for the development of the Rouge National Urban Park and $1.8 million in funding for Canada's fast-start financing commitments under the Copenhagen Accord. These spending requests are offset by savings that Parks Canada identified in budget 2012.

Now let's move forward to the main estimates for Environment Canada for fiscal 2013-14. The net amount for the 2013-14 main estimates works out to $959.4 million, which is 1.4% or $13.3 million less when compared to last year's main estimates.

The major changes reflected in these estimates are proposed savings of $31.5 million that follow up on savings measures announced in Budget 2012 and the sunsetting of $1.6 million for the Renewable Fuels Regulations.

The estimates also request $20.8 million in renewal funding for three programs: $12.5 million to renew the Species at Risk Act program; $4.2 million to renew the Lake Winnipeg Basin initiative; and $4.1 million to go towards implementation of the Great Lakes nutrient Initiative.

For Parks Canada, its 2013-14 main estimates total $597 million, which is a $51.2-million decrease from last fiscal year's main estimates. Parks Canada identified $19.7 million in savings as part of budget 2012. This difference also includes a $15-million reduction from last year due to work that has been completed on the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park.

The 2013-14 main estimates for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency total $31 million, which is $14 million more than the $17 million in its main estimates last fiscal. The difference reflects funding that was originally slated to sunset but was renewed under budget 2012, which is as follows: $7.4 million to enable efficient and effective regulatory reviews of major resource projects and advance government-wide efforts to modernize the regulatory system for major resource projects, as well as $6.6 million to support consultations with aboriginal peoples during environmental assessments of major development projects.

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

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the chair of this committee.

I'd be happy to take questions at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Minister Kent.

As the committee is aware, we'll proceed now to four rounds of seven minutes each, beginning with the government side.

I believe Mr. Toet has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. It's always a pleasure to have you join us and to talk about our main estimates and supplementary estimates.

I wanted to highlight this a little bit initially to make sure we have this clear for me in my own mind, but I think it's also good for the discussion as we go forward here to understand the process on main estimates and supplementary estimates, etc.

I know the federal process works quite differently from the provincial process, which some of us may be used to. The provincial process has a system where your budget, your estimates of revenue, and your estimates of expenditure essentially all come out at the same time each and every year, so it's very fair to compare from year to year your estimates of expenditures from one document to another.

By federal law, the federal government has to have its expenditures put out by March 1. They have to be shown for the following fiscal year. Quite often, as is the case this year, that is before a budget is actually tabled.

From my understanding, we cannot have anything in main estimates that may come in a future budget but is not in a budget as of today. We have to be looking at estimates based on essentially the previous year's budget that came out. That can make some real challenges for us as we try to compare a main estimate from one year to a main estimate from another year. In fact to a large degree I would say we're trying to compare an apple and an orange lots of times, which gets us in a lot of hot water. I think it's good to set that out.

In fact the savings identified, for example, in budget 2012 cannot be reflected at all in these particular main estimates, because those are things that were brought forward afterward. There are changes and adjustments constantly being made. Again I think it's worth reiterating the fact that it's basically fundamentally flawed to compare main estimate to main estimate, because you have not taken into account your supplementaries, your changes, and your new upcoming budget that will have a major effect typically on the main estimates that have come out at this point today.

Again I think that's the parameter we really want to approach this from and make sure we're not trying to compare an apple and an orange, but compare what's really happening in programs and what the estimates reflect as of today with the knowledge that there are going to be changes.

We know we're dealing with supplementaries (C) here, which are asking for more funding on several fronts. Two examples are $24 million for the Nature Conservancy and $21.1 million for the international climate change strategy 2012. These are items that did come forward in 2012 that wouldn't have shown in estimates 2012. I think it's important we have that context as we go forward in these discussions.

Maybe you could comment on that, and let me know if I am on the right track in my understanding of that.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

You're absolutely correct. It is what it is. The budget process and the supplementary estimates process are significantly different from many provincial budget processes. The mains are not a budget, and sometimes there is some confusion about the provision for programs that have sunsetted and that may or may not be reconsidered for renewal in the budget, which is still some weeks ahead of us.

The main estimates do have three main parts, though. I won't go too deeply into this, but they provide, as you said, the overview for federal spending and summarize the relationship of the key elements of the main estimates. They directly support the Appropriation Acts, again, these estimates having been tabled by the President of the Treasury Board. Part III is, as you have said and as I've outlined, departmental expenditure plans divided into reports on plans and priorities, which are about to come up; individual expenditure plans for each department and agency excluding our crown corporations, of course; and departmental performance reports, which are individual department and agency accounts of results achieved against the planned performance expectation sent out in the RPPs.

Then again in addition to and after the budget, the department has the opportunity through the year with the supplementary estimates to revise spending levels, which allows us to seek authority for spending levels as the year goes on and at different stages in the year. Second they allow us to report to Parliament with information on changes in estimated expenditures and to come to committee to discuss these changes, as I'm always glad to do.

I would reinforce again that a misunderstanding that often occurs is that this is the budget, but in fact it is not. Some of the questions I'm sure that will be posed here today will have to wait until the budget to be appropriately answered.

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

Thank you so much for that.

I just want to also touch quickly on two items I see in here of great significance. They are the renewal of the Lake Winnipeg Basin initiative and the implementation of the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, two extremely important initiatives. I have a small bias, being from Manitoba, toward the Lake Winnipeg initiative. Maybe you could speak to those initiatives and the importance of them, because they're extremely important.

The water quality in our Great Lakes and in Lake Winnipeg is really symptomatic and needs to be addressed. I'm very happy to see our government putting funding toward making sure we're looking at these areas that we can deal with and making sure we do, going forward, have good, clean water in these major lakes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, thank you very much.

You're absolutely right. Lake Winnipeg represents a significant continuing challenge and a challenge that's been with us for many years. Last year in budget 2012 we announced an additional investment of $18 million over five years for the second phase of the initiative. It will continue to build on the successes that were made in the first phase, with regard to addressing the really significant challenges of restoring the ecological health and balance of Lake Winnipeg. It is, first and foremost, a nutrient-loading problem, but it is also a problem that has become so massively installed in the lake that the answers are not as easy to find and the restoration of that balance is not at easy as some would wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Kent. I'm going to have to ask you to add that on to another question. We're a little bit over time.

I do want to thank Mr. Toet for bringing attention to this. I'm sure all of you have this from cover to cover. There's really good introductory material that helps us to know the summary that Mr. Toet gave us.

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's very nice to see you here, Minister Kent, and your colleagues. Welcome back. It's always a pleasure to have you here. It is such a pleasure to have you here that actually my first question is that I'm offering an invitation to come back.

You and Mr. Toet discussed part of the process here, and my first question is about the process, because as you know, part of the main estimates, the report on priorities, has not yet been tabled. It is challenging to really get into the main estimates, so I'm wondering if you would be willing to come back once that report has been tabled.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Wonderful, and we'll welcome you back.

My next question is about the climate change and clean air line item. There is a decrease, as you know, of $14 million there. Despite that, we are still waiting for oil and gas regulations. Your department currently projects a 113-million tonne gap between our emissions in 2020 and Canada's 2020 target. In the sector-by-sector approach, obviously oil and gas is the biggest piece of the pie that's left when it comes to controlling emissions to close that gap.

When can we expect to see those regulations? You've said in the House that they're coming soon. Do we have an idea of a date?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

We don't have a precise date. You'll appreciate that the writing of these regulations—the preparations, the scientific analysis, working with stakeholders, working with partners, working with industry—does consume time. We saw that in the writing of the original recommendations for the transportation sector. Again, that was doubly challenging in the sense that we were working with the United States EPA to make sure that the tailpipe emission regulations were aligned.

The coal-fired electricity sector regulations took somewhat longer than we thought because the consultation process between Canada Gazette I and Canada Gazette II was lengthened by the volume of interventions we had and reconsiderations that the provinces, industry, and stakeholders asked us to consider.

We've been working since the fall of 2011 on the oil and gas regulations. We deeply engaged last summer and we are now in the final stages, but what we're trying to do is ensure that the draft 1 regulations are as close to having agreement as possible so that we don't have a prolonged consultation period before we can publish the final regulations, the final draft 2.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I understand it is a lengthy process and there is a lot of negotiation that's going on, and evidence before us changes. So do you expect that these regulations will actually make real headway when it comes to closing that gap? Can you commit that those regulations will actually help close that gap in a substantial way?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That is our objective, and as I said, we are in the final stages now of setting the stringency levels, and I would hope that certainly by mid-year we would be in a position to share those.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

By mid-year, that's great news. Thanks.

My next question is about species at risk. When you were last at this committee I asked a question about progress on species at risk and you forwarded a letter to committee. The letter specifically stated that we still have 257 species that don't have a recovery document posted on the public registry. In these estimates in your opening statement, you talked about $12.5 million for the renewal of species at risk. What does that mean exactly, “renewal of species at risk”?

Do you have plans to introduce amendments to this law? Is that what that means?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That funding is for the continuing operations of the species at risk program.

As you know, there has been some discussion. There have been requests from a variety of quarters suggesting reconsideration of this still very young piece of legislation, the Species at Risk Act, that it be examined to see if changes are required, either in practices in terms of application of the act or in legislative changes to address unintended errors that were made in the original drafting of the act.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

So renewal means—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

This has come from even some of the drafters. So we're examining this, we're talking with stakeholders, first nations, NGOs, the hunting and angling advisory panel. So across the spectrum of stakeholder groups, we are considering whether or not legislative changes might be required or simply changes in practice in application of the act.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks for that information. I appreciate it.

I have a question about a particular Environment Canada office, the Environment Canada office in North Bay. I'm wondering if there are plans to eliminate certain positions there, or transfer those positions out, or if there are plans to close that office.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

First of all, there are no plans to close the office in North Bay, but as with all of our regional offices—and depending on levels of activity and some of the benefits and efficiencies that we have seen in the past year in terms of consolidation of some positions in some of these offices—that does remain a possibility. But I can assure you there are no plans at the moment to close the North Bay office.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I can't remember the word you used. Was it restructuring?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Consolidating.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Consolidating, yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Streamlining? Is that the word?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you. Yes. I should know that word by now.

Are you able to tell us if there are plans specifically about that office to move positions out? I'm thinking in particular of the enforcement positions there that are responsible, for example, during a fire, that are responsible for spills in that area. What are the plans with those positions?