Environment Committee on June 18th, 2013

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, and thank you for an accurate summary of what I said, and for your concerns.

Your private member's bill is still being considered. Certainly, as with all private members' bills, we on the government side will listen to the debate and we will be informed by different points of view.

But as I said at committee a couple of weeks ago, our first impression is that it would add a great legislative burden. It would add a redundant examination of laws, which our government is focused on eliminating. We're trying to end duplication and redundancy and to cut red tape, while at the same time maintaining and applying the federal sustainable development strategy to achieve the outcomes it was intended to achieve.

Again, as I said two weeks ago, we are still in the very early years of the application of the strategy. As time goes on and we do the periodic reviews of how the strategy is working or not working, perhaps some suggestions or variations of the suggestions made in your private member's bill would return for consideration.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I would now like to know why Canada does not include its ecological debt in its economic debt, as do several European countries.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, we have different procedures and protocols. On a recent visit to a number of European capitals, I discovered that in fact the transparency of our accounting for environmental impact, for such things as emissions impact and across the spectrum of environmental considerations, is in fact more transparent than that of a number of European nations.

This country, as you know, is larger than the original European Union, and the amount of work required to create that sort of negative inventory again would get into areas of redundancy and duplication. We know well where the threats are to the Canadian environment and we're responding with appropriate action.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

How do you see the government's role in promoting sustainable development, and when should the government not intervene?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I think the federal sustainable development strategy makes it very clear that our government—and again it is a strategy approved by the House of Commons, by Parliament—knows where efforts need to be taken. We recognize that some of the provinces and territories in Canada have slightly different interpretations of the priorities under sustainable development, but I think the strategy is very clear on where we believe we need to intervene, and where we need to work in cooperation with the various provinces.

Quebec, as you know, has a very different balance of the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. Our federal strategy focuses more on the impact of government on the environmental pillar, but it is cognizant, it does recognize, in a different way, perhaps, than the Quebec government—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Minister Kent.

Thank you, Monsieur Jacob.

We'll move now to Mr. Toet, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have the minister with us again today. Thank you for joining us.

I wanted to pick up a little bit on what Mr. Sopuck was touching on, and that's really the results-oriented aspects of the work we've been doing. Mr. Sopuck actually referenced the habitat stewardship program announcement that was made last week, and there's a component of that announcement that was also going to the Lake Winnipeg basin stewardship fund.

As I'm sure you're aware, as a Manitoba MP Lake Winnipeg is a very important area for me and for probably every Manitoban. We also realize it is a huge basin area. We focus on the lake, but I think we're really getting an understanding of the need. You touched on the wetlands aspect of it and how that affects it and touches on it. I'm concerned about the health and quality of Lake Winnipeg, and I'm also very happy to see some of the investments, and the budget 2012 with the $18 million investment for the second phase of the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative.

But I'd also like it if you could review for us the accomplishments we have seen in phase 1. Now we're into phase 2. You could touch on that also, but I'd especially like to really focus on some of the accomplishments in phase 1, and how we're going to be able to build on that going forward.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure. Thank you.

The challenges of nutrient loading in Lake Winnipeg are very significant. You mentioned the investment made under phase 1. What we're learning in combatting nutrient loading in Lake Winnipeg, and the amount of effort that is required not only in the water but in the agricultural lands, in the tributaries to the lake, will inform us with regard to similar problems in Lake Erie, elsewhere in the Great Lakes, and in other smaller freshwater lakes in Canada.

In phase 1 researchers had 24 projects that looked at everything from the water in the major sub-basin, which includes the Winnipeg River, Lake of the Woods, which of course is a very large lake. Many Canadians unfamiliar with southern Manitoba are unfamiliar with the immense size and the critical importance of Lake of the Woods.

They looked at the Assiniboine River and the Winnipeg River. They looked at the chemical and the biological integrity of these waters and the practices on land with regard to unintended drainage of fertilizers, for example, into the waters. They looked at the algae bloom, which is massive and recurring. They also announced a number of objectives that needed to be addressed, which is what brought us to the second $18 million, five-year investment in budget 2012 to continue that work and to work with, again, the province, communities, and landowners.

There are waste water issues. There are, as I said, fertilizer drainage issues. There is a tax base concern because it is a large recreational water as well as an important freshwater source. So this is a very important program. The work we do there, the science that is done there, will inform us in similar situations in other parts of the country.

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

Thank you. It is good to see we have a great focus on the Lake Winnipeg area and the basin. You talked about Lake of the Woods. Many people who are unfamiliar think it's one lake, but it's actually a huge series of lakes that are all tied together, and they play a very important role.

I want to change the channel a little and talk about our Copenhagen targets and how we're doing there. I noted in the 2012 “Canada's Emissions Trends” report that as a result of our actions taken to date, Canada is already halfway to closing the gap between what our emissions had originally been projected to be in 2020 and where we need to be to meet our Copenhagen targets.

That's quite a great accomplishment for the short time we've been going forward on this. I was wondering what steps we are going to be implementing to build on this success, to make sure we meet those targets for 2020.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

As I said at committee a couple of weeks ago, the accomplishments to date are partly the result of regulations we have created for the transportation sector and the coal-fired electricity generating sector. This will be further contributed to by the oil and gas regulations, which we're working to complete, and those for other major emitters.

They are also the product of actions taken by provinces, by municipalities, and by ordinary Canadians through practices such as keeping the thermostat a couple of degrees cooler in the winter and perhaps using the air conditioning more judiciously in the summer, things that would seem to have a relatively minor potential impact. There's some confusion, which is completely understandable, between the numbers and the megatonnage we report in our annual inventory updates, and the estimate of what our regulations to date and supplementary contributions will make by 2020.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to explain this, so thank you for your question. If we had done nothing, as, for example, the previous Liberal government did, we would have had an estimated business-as-usual megatonnage of about 850 megatonnes, plus or minus five or ten megatonnes, by 2020. The actions that have been taken to date—supplementary actions by the provinces and industry—have brought us down to an estimated 720 megatonnes by 2020. That has nothing to do with the latest inventory report that says 702 megatonnes.

The 2005 megatonnage was 737 megatonnes. Reducing that by 17% would take it down to 611 megatonnes. So from 850, and we're at 720, we're just over halfway to getting down to our 2020 total target emission reduction of 611 megatonnes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Toet. Your time is up.

We'll move now to Ms. Duncan for seven minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for coming. In 2010-2011, actual spending on environmental assessment delivery was $15,263,000, dropping down to $8,597,000 planned spending in 2015-16. Can you tell me what accounts for this reduction?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

There are a couple of programs that will sunset in 2014-15. The major projects management office will sunset, and the government will assess, as we do with all term projects, the effectiveness of the project and whether or not to renew and at what dollar amount. The other one is the aboriginal consultation funding, which was increased last year for CEAA, but again it comes with a multiple-year term, which is set to expire, as you point out, March 31, 2015.

It would be premature to anticipate, but I would think, given the direction of responsible resource development and CEAA's mandate, that funding will be renewed at appropriate levels.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Is that drop related to the fact that we lost roughly 3,000 environmental assessments over night?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

No. It relates, we anticipate, and as the RPP process is intended to illuminate.... We look at the current fiscal year, but we also look at it over the three-year period and anticipate where sunsetting programs will end—that helps us with our planning—and where we will need to consider renewal.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Are you comfortable with the reduction?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes, and I'll just offer a very brief answer. As we accumulate experience—we have almost a year's experience now under CEAA 2012—from our point of view, from the provinces' and indeed, from the industries' that have been subject to assessments and the assessment process and are anticipating going into the assessment process, it is working.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

With regard to SARA, several stakeholders have said that the concerns in the legislation are questions of implementation, not questions of legislation, meaning the act can be made better without opening it up.

Can you tell me what scientific evidence you have for wanting to make amendments to make the act “more effective” or efficient with respect to the act's stated purpose?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That's a good question. As you know, it's a continuing conversation. No decisions have been taken.

There are indeed those. In fact, some of the original framers of the Species at Risk Act said that implementation at the time was imperfect. Not all of the advice was taken in terms of application of the law and they have been aware of it for some time. Again, it's barely a decade old. It's a young piece of legislation, and over those 10 years some of the problems that were identified and foreseen have accumulated.

One of those problems is the order in which species at risk are considered and the fact that all species are treated the same. There is no opportunity to prioritize with regard to recognizing the impacts of climate change or to recognizing fringe species, which might be just present in a small part of Canada but abundant south of the border.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, could I ask that you table with the committee the scientific evidence you have?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That would be terrific.

We're hearing from the scientists that any move to open this up is going to have the opposite effect. What do you say to that?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With some scientists, as you know, on all of the big environmental issues that society considers, not just in Canada but around the world, there are degrees of agreement and disagreement. Certainly this committee will have abundant opportunity to look at the justification and the logic for whatever might be brought back to Parliament with regard to changing practices in application, or in fact, legislative amendments to the act. There are powerful arguments on both sides of that discussion.

It's something that we won't and we shouldn't rush into, but there are some very real issues to address with regard to the accumulating problems—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm going to jump in because I have a short time.

For whom are trying to improve the act's effectiveness and efficiency?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

For the species at risk. As you know, there are almost 200 species at different levels of risk for which recovery programs have yet to be completed. There is a lot of science to be done. Again, prioritization can be undertaken to a degree, and the courts, of course, as you know, keep an eye on the minister of the day with regard to recovery plans and their creation. The improvements will be for the benefit of the species at risk in Canada.