Environment Committee on March 7th, 2013

[Natasha Rascanin]

Personally, I wouldn't say there's a gap. The major projects are typically ones that larger communities are able to participate in. In order to avoid creating a gap, there is a community's component that focuses on the smaller communities. Also, the gas tax fund is accessible to all communities across Canada, large or small.

That's all I would say.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

There really does seem to be a disparity there, but I'll move on.

Does your department view parks, trees, ecological assets, as critical parts of the urban infrastructure?

[Natasha Rascanin]

Do we view it as a critical part of infrastructure? We are administering our programs within the terms and conditions that have been approved. I was going to give an example to try to—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Sorry, before you do that, is that part of the conditions? Is this considered—this is really key to this study.

[Natasha Rascanin]

It's not outlined as specifically as that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, that's what we really need to know.

[Natasha Rascanin]

But it doesn't mean it's precluded.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

But it's not outlined, and maybe that's where we're having some of the awareness issues.

As you've heard, various witnesses have suggested to the committee that federal infrastructure programs should be extended to recognize green infrastructure and innovations in grey infrastructure. Can you comment on that?

[Natasha Rascanin]

Again, I think that is possible under current programming. It's about how different kinds of projects are designed by the proponents and incorporated. We certainly see those elements in projects that are currently funded.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

There really is a gap here, from what we've heard from the witnesses and from what you're saying. I know you can't make recommendations. There seems to be a gap, in that these folks are saying that this is part of their critical infrastructure and you're saying that it's not part of the conditions, but that they can apply for this.

[Natasha Rascanin]

Within the flexibility of the terms and conditions we have, there is scope to have projects with those components and so on.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, so the scope's there, but what's not there is that the ecological assets are not part of the conditions as they stand today.

[Natasha Rascanin]

I'm not sure I fully understand the question, that ecological assets are definitely part of what's possible?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

They're not considered critical parts of the urban infrastructure. This is the key part. That's really what we're trying to drive at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, Ms. Duncan, your time has expired. Thank you.

I'm hearing some vibrations that you possibly want to continue further. I'm open to the committee's input on this. If there's agreement that we have another round or so, I don't know if our witnesses are available for 15 minutes?

Okay, if I hear nothing I'm going to suggest that we take one more round and have each party ask at least one question, or share a question if they so choose.

So, does the Conservative Party have someone who would like to ask a question? Mr. Sopuck. If you want to share your time that's fine.

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

No, that's great.

I want to follow up on the points of Ms. Duncan, Mr. Woodworth, and all of the previous speakers, because I think what we're driving at is that we would like to see another category added to the existing categories of eligible projects. Let's just call it ecological infrastructure, if we're managing for outcomes like clean air and clean water that you pointed out many times. In the course of the study, we heard of the beneficial effects of trees on air quality and the effects of constructed wetlands on water quality, as Ms. Rempel talked about. It's a very specific ask of ours, or we may recommend it as a committee. Do you think it's possible to add ecological infrastructure as a category of infrastructure funding?

[Natasha Rascanin]

That would be a decision for the minister and cabinet and Treasury Board.

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

I understand that, but would that be possible to do, if it were decided?

[Natasha Rascanin]

If it were decided.

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

I ask because the following has been shown in a number of studies and projects. In New York City they do upstream watershed work to obviate the need to build a billion dollar wastewater treatment plant. In short, the watershed conservation obviated the need for expenditure on hard infrastructure. Moorhead, Minnesota, right now is also looking at constructed wetlands for exactly the same reason.

We're asking you to think non-traditionally. My colleagues and I made a few disparaging comments about engineers, and I think we tend toward engineers' solutions. Ecological infrastructure is something the public really likes, and it provides multiple benefits. Could you speculate on that?

[Natasha Rascanin]

No, I'm afraid I can't speculate on that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Natasha Rascanin]

I can tell you, though, that the funding we provide is cost-shared. Most often it's one-third federal, one-third provincial, one-third municipal. As I've mentioned already, some of these engineered wetlands have already been part of a number of projects that have been considered and funded and are built, so—

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

Can you give us some specific examples?

[Natasha Rascanin]

I think I'd have to come back to you with names and where they are and so on, but I do know there were nine different projects. I don't have the list here.