Environment Committee on June 4th, 2013

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With respect to your question and the preceding question, the methodology Canada uses to measure the anticipated achievement of our 2020 emission reduction targets is accepted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The numbers are checked, and the changes....

Again, there was a mistake in the assumption by the previous questioner in that we shouldn't be measuring the annual inventory numbers that we report in terms of emissions. We should be looking at the benefits that our regulatory approach and the actions of the provinces, territories, industry, and individual Canadians will have in achieving the outcomes by 2020.

With regard to the oil sands, there's been some wonderful news, which again has not been widely covered in the pages of our newspapers. A large new plant, Imperial Oil's Kearl plant in Alberta, has developed and opened a mine and gone on stream. The new technology they're using is a frothing technology, which I haven't seen. We haven't seen proof of their expectations, but they say that in this particular operation, they will reduce their emissions intensity to almost that of conventional oil once they get fully up and on stream.

We need to recognize that since 1990, for example, emissions intensity in the oil and gas sector, including the oil sands, has decreased by 26%. It is the intention.... The industry is committed to further reducing emissions intensity and to complying with the regulations, which we are now completing. The oil sands operators themselves have made a commitment to reduce their emissions intensity to that of conventional oil just as soon as possible, again using technology and better practices.

I think there is good news, both in our sector-by-sector approach and in the cooperation of industry, again ensuring that we continue in the still fragile economic recovery in terms of some global uncertainty but at the same time we do our part to address climate change.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have a minute and twenty seconds.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I'll share my time with Madame Quach.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Storseth. I appreciate that very much.

My questions will be about Parks Canada.

On page 26, it says that the intent is to have more programs and broaden the network of protected areas in Canada. To better measure progress, for instance, you have to have more personnel. However, there were $29 million in cuts to Parks Canada, and 600 biologists, archeologists and others were laid off. It is very difficult to do effective management with less expertise.

How can the minister ensure that there will be more protected areas and that the Aichi sites will be respected?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, I disagree with your summary. We are indeed committed to increasing the amount of protected space, both in traditional parks as well as in other forms of conservation and protection.

As I said, unlike previous governments which addressed deficit situations by cutting health and social transfers and education transfers to the provinces, our approach, after a very successful economic action plan to get us through the recession, has addressed the deficit by downsizing responsibly and modestly the size of government. All departments and agencies are participating in that.

It has forced some changes—

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

With your permission—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you. The time is up.

We'll move now to Ms. Leslie, for five minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a second to thank Mr. Storseth for that gesture. That was kind.

I think this committee actually isn't that adversarial, and we don't have a history of being very adversarial.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I agree.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I have a couple of follow-up questions, Minister Kent.

First, you said that government has phased out fossil fuel subsidies. I think you're specifically talking about the tax breaks specific to the oil sands.

We do still have the Canadian exploration expense and the Canadian development expense. These are pretty sizable tax breaks. I wonder, is the government committing to phasing out these subsidies?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you for your question.

It was good to see harmony restored to the committee.

In terms of industrial development, there are benefits for those who risk embarking on responsible resource development. But as I said, and as my colleague said, the oil and gas sector pays exactly the same corporate tax as all other sectors. The only significant subsidies today are there with regard to climate change and carbon capture and sequestration. In terms of the basic incentives that are available for industrial development, they are there for all responsible industries and responsible resource development.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

When you said that government was willing to phase out the subsidies, does that include the Canadian exploration expense and the Canadian development expense?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You would have to raise that issue of the timing and the extent with the Minister of Finance; that's beyond my file, but we are committed. We are on the record, and we lead at the G-20 in making that very firm commitment to eliminate those subsidies.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

When we closed off about energy efficiency, you mentioned there were specific pieces in budget 2013 for renewables and for energy efficiency. With renewables, there is only a very tiny tax credit there and I haven't seen anything specific for energy efficiency at all.

Can you tell us exactly what government is doing on energy efficiency?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I recognize that our time is running short, but I understand you'll have the head of Sustainable Development Technology Canada speaking later this morning. Ms. Sharpe can address very fully exactly where our investments have been going. They are significant investments into renewable energy and into clean technologies.

I won't read the list to you, but I suggest you take a look at the environmental section of economic action plan 2013, the budget document. There is significant investment both in my department and in other departments.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Are you not actually able to tell us what those investments are right now?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I could, but I think we're down to a couple of minutes.

If the chair has time for me to dig out all of those numbers, for sure. Again, there is a significant investment in these technologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

There are two minutes left.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm going to go back to the overall sustainable development strategy.

When I look at environmental assessments, last year with the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, almost 3,000 environmental assessments were cancelled. Some 678 of them involved fossil fuels; 249 of them involved pipelines; and only 18 of the screenings that were in process were continued.

When I look at the environmental assessment, I would say it was gutted. You would say it was streamlined. I don't understand how reducing 3,000 environmental assessments to 18 would fit into any kind of sustainable development strategy.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Actually, we're not down to 18 environmental assessments. I don't have the current numbers at hand, but I believe there are 78 environmental assessments now being conducted under Environment—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Just to clarify, it's 18 continued screenings.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes, under the previous designation we considered them significant. An example is the offshore exploration and development of Old Harry. We continued that as an environmental assessment because there is public interest and there is the possibility of significant impact on the environment.

We did streamline CEAA 2012 and it is proving itself and will prove itself in the years ahead. The streamlining has eliminated duplication and redundancy. The provinces and municipalities have capacity for the literally thousands of minor screenings, which in many cases were paper experiences with check-the-box compliance. We are addressing and focusing, and the new project list reflects this. We are focusing on all industrial projects that have a potential for significant environmental impact. Again, in this first year of CEAA 2012, we are seeing that the new legislation is working as it was intended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Leslie.

I want to thank Minister Kent, Ms. Lyon and Mr. Young for being with us today. We'll look forward to the committee report as we come down to the end of this.

Thank you very much.

We'll take a three-minute recess. We will suspend for three minutes and ask our other witnesses to take their places at the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I call the meeting back to order.

I want to welcome as witnesses, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Neil Maxwell, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; Mr. James McKenzie, principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, audits and studies; and from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Mr. David Sawyer, vice-president; and from Sustainable Development Technology Canada, Ms. Vicky J. Sharpe, president and chief executive officer. We welcome all of you.

We'll give each group a 10-minute opening round. I'll ask the indulgence of the committee, because of the length of time with three witnesses giving an opening statement, to go immediately to five-minute rounds rather than the initial seven-minute round. That will give more opportunity for questions.

With that, we'll begin with Mr. Maxwell.