Evidence of meeting #21 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
You have 15 seconds. You have lots of time.
Thanks, Mr. Bevington.
We'll move back to Mr. Woodworth, for five minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
My thanks to my colleague for letting me take his time.
I want to still pursue some of the numbers with you, Ms. Goucher.
You mentioned that your record shows that there has only been $13 million spent in the Great Lakes action plan since 2010, I think is what you said, but the Government of Canada thinks, as I know, that they're spending $8 million a year on that.
What was the source of your $13 million figure?
4:50 p.m.
Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I looked at the federal budget numbers for each of the federal budget reports for 2010 to 2013.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay.
Are you familiar with the areas of concern that were mapped out many years ago and that have been slowly being remediated?
You're nodding yes. You have to say yes for the record.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So you're aware that there are at least 42 of them, I take it?
Maybe one of the others knows the exact number.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Bay Area Restoration Council
There were 42 originally. A 43rd was added in 1991. If memory serves, four have been delisted and one—is it one?—is officially listed as an area of recovery.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Let me just tell you what I've been told. The reason I'm speaking about this, Ms. Goucher, is because of your comment that the Great Lakes action plan spending is only a fraction of what the U.S.A. is spending.
The information we've received is that there were 12 Canadian areas of concern, of which three have already been delisted and two are recovery, whereas there were 26 U.S. areas of concern, of which only two have been delisted. If one were to look at the relative percentage of hotspots there, it would be safe to say that only a fraction of them are in Canada.
Does it surprise you at all that the U.S., with ten times the population, is going to be spending quite a bit more than Canada?
4:50 p.m.
Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I'd say that the U.S. should be spending more than Canada, given population numbers. But when I'm talking about investment, I'm not talking about just what needs to be invested to clean up the areas of concern. I think at this point we need to be looking at the threats to the Great Lakes water quality today, as well as addressing legacy threats.
For instance, a lot of the funding through the Great Lakes restoration initiative on the U.S. side is going towards addressing nutrient management issues that we've discussed, and I feel that's where Canada is lacking in terms of investment.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Are you familiar with the Great Lakes nutrient initiative operated by Environment Canada?
4:50 p.m.
Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I have heard a little bit about it, but I don't have details on it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
There are about 39 different research projects designed to track the flow of non-point specific phosphorus into Lake Erie and ultimately, by I think 2015 or 2016, to come up with targets for loading.
In fact, that was something else I wanted to ask you. You picked on the Great Lakes action plan and compared that alone to U.S. spending, but you've heard that there have been millions of dollars spent on Randle Reef and of course many others, Bay of Quinte and other locations around the Great Lakes, by the Government of Canada, by Environment Canada.
Have you ever actually tried to sit down and calculate the total amount of money that is spent by the Government of Canada on the Great Lakes?
4:50 p.m.
Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I have tried to look at some of those numbers before. That's why one of my recommendations was that there needs to be more clarity on what spending is happening and what programs are taking place so that the public can understand—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So you'd agree with me that it's a little unfair, maybe, just to pick on the one Great Lakes action plan and compare that to all the spending that the U.S. is doing.
4:50 p.m.
Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I definitely said that it's difficult to find comparable numbers, but I would say that the Great Lakes restoration initiative, $1.68 billion since 2010, was on top of what the United States has been spending on areas of concern.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Going back to the question of the 2007 figure versus the current figure.... Actually, I wasn't sure which current year you were talking about when you said it's down to half of 2007.
Can you clarify that for me? Is it the recent budget that you're speaking about?
4:50 p.m.
Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
I researched that in a report, so I could find you some of the original numbers and follow up.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I would appreciate it.
I also wanted to know if it included the areas of Environment Canada responsibility, including Parks Canada and the Environmental Assessment Agency.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for their presence and their excellent work. Their statements were very interesting and instructive. Once again we have learned a lot and we are very happy to have heard them before the committee.
I would like to talk about what Mr. Bevington raised earlier, that is to say, the Asian carp and the problem of invasive species in general, which we have to look at.
Mr. McLaughlin, if memory serves, you referred to invasive species. You said that the problem was also attributable to human activity, which has increased the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus. You also mentioned that human activity may have changed water levels, which could also have had an adverse effect on water quality in the Great Lakes and contributed to the proliferation of invasive species.
How do you explain the proliferation of invasive species in the Great Lakes?
