Environment Committee on May 29th, 2014

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Minister, your line item for climate change and clean air in the main estimates for 2014-15 is $154 million. In your plans and priorities, you go from $154 million in 2014-15 to $54 million two budget cycles later.

How is it that your ministry can drop $100 million for climate change initiatives and expect to deal with ever-escalating climate change catastrophes?

[Bob Hamilton]

If I have your questioning correctly, what you're pointing out is that we have a number of programs in Environment Canada—climate change and clean air being examples—for which we get time-limited funding, so we get it for five years or some other period of time. What you see in the projections going forward are the cases in which that funding is due to expire. It runs out at a point in time, and then a decision is made as to whether it is renewed and at what level.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But Mr. Hamilton, your funding has been flatlined for five or six years now, and your projections in both the overall program and the sub-program.... You project, in the sub-program, where you are actually doing the GHG emissions regulations, that you're going from $95 million to $35 million.

[Bob Hamilton]

But that's the issue I'm trying to explain. When we get that funding, we get it for a period of time, so it expires, say, after five years, which is exactly what's happening here, and it is to be renewed.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I get the point, but this is an extremely significant file, and the Government of Canada's projection at this point is to go from 609 people working on the file to 284, and on the overall file, from around 700 people down to 338. You can appreciate that this doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that the government is prepared to deal with what is arguably an existential issue.

[Bob Hamilton]

I guess, Mr. Chair, what I'd have to say is that the reporting requirement we operate in doesn't allow us to assume that Parliament gives us money at the end of a five-year period. So in our projection, we have to say, if it is due to expire in five years, that it will expire. There will be a decision about whether to extend it, and if it's an important priority, it will be extended.

So it's really a feature of our reporting that shows us having to drop that off, because the decision on the matter will be made at a future time. That is just reflected in the numbers.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You have to take note of the concern that Canadians have about the climate change initiatives. Rather than dealing with the reporting requirements as having a huge drop-off—and I would say a $60-million drop-off is pretty serious and another $100-million drop-off here is another pretty serious drop-off. Rather than actually budgeting now and dealing with the funding requirements that are going to be necessary going forward, we end up with an anticipated drop-off in climate change initiatives by your department.

Does that make any sense?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I can respond to that. I think what the deputy said is very clear. Main estimates processes are time-sensitive, a snapshot in time. Decisions on the renewal of programs are yet to be made. We can't anticipate what the next budget will be. Decisions on those programs are reflected on an annual basis, on renewals and so on.

We are taking a leadership role on climate change. We've done more to address the issue of climate change than the previous government. I think that's evident in the work we are doing and the investments we are making in Environment Canada. When the decisions are made on the issue of the new budget renewal, those will be reflected in the main estimates. But what is before us today is a snapshot in time, and the member knows full well the process of how we produce these reports in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

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

We'll move now to Mr. Choquette for five minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today.

I'd like to discuss the 2014 climate summit taking place this September in New York. Do you know whether the Prime Minister will be in attendance?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I think that's a question you should be raising with the Prime Minister. I'm not aware.

Thank you.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Okay. Are you going to be present at this summit?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I believe I'm going to be there.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Perfect.

Discussions during the summit will focus on post-2020 commitments. What post-2020 commitments does Canada plan to make in regard to climate change?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Choquette, I'd just like to remind you and the rest of the committee that we're here today dealing with the estimates, and to project into 2020 is a little beyond the scope of the estimates for 2014-15. I would urge you to try to keep as close....

I know I give a lot of latitude. I have given a lot of latitude in questioning to members on all sides of the House today, but I think we're going beyond the scope. I'd urge you to try to stay to questions on the estimates.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

We know what's coming up as far as the negotiations are concerned and we also know that a budget is needed to prepare for post-2015 talks. The year 2015 isn't far away at all. So I think the issue does pertain to the estimates, but that's fine, I will abide by your decision.

To what extent do climate change reductions reflect steps taken by the provinces? What percentage of those reductions is due to the economic downturn?

If you don't have the figures with you, could you send them to the committee in the coming weeks?

Do you have the number?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Minister, you can respond to that, or Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton.

[Bob Hamilton]

I don't have those numbers right now, but I will send them to you.

You're interested in the percentage attributable to the provinces. Would you mind repeating the last part of your question?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

The percentages attributable to the economic downturn, basically those tied to the federal government.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Hamilton.

I'd like to congratulate you, minister, on creating national marine conservation areas and marine protected areas.

On that note, I'd like to talk about an area that has been proposed as a marine protected area for some ten years now, around the St. Lawrence. Things are at a standstill.

When do you expect to create a marine protected area in the St. Lawrence?

It's fine if you don't have the answer today. You can consider the matter and get back to us with the answer.

[Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada]

I'm not exactly sure of the area you're referring to.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'm referring to the St. Lawrence marine protected area. It's near Rimouski, where a marine park already exists. In fact, I will send you the question in writing, if you like.

Mr. Chair, I am going to split my time with Mr. Bevington.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Bevington, you have one and a half minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Minister, for attending here today.

You mentioned black carbon. Black carbon is an important element in the fight against climate change. You know we both come from the two ridings that represent the high Arctic in Canada. In Canada today we produce 98,000 tonnes of black carbon a year. That's excluding that which is produced by forest fires and flaring from oil and gas production.

In a speech you gave in October to Yukon College, you said:

It's critical that the [Arctic] council help people adapt to these changes, including by sharing best practices. We must also explore together how best to advance work on short-lived climate forcing agents, like black carbon.

Since it is critical that the Arctic Council does this and explores together how best to advance work, why did you boycott the meeting of the Arctic Council task force on black carbon and methane last month? Particularly, when at the March senior Arctic official meeting in Yellowknife, Canada and the other Arctic states were adamant that the Russian military action in Crimea would not affect circumpolar cooperation. We've seen the cancelling of the meeting in Iqaluit.…

Will you continue to refuse to cooperate in future meetings of the Arctic Council on these very important issues surrounding the environment?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

In terms of the work on the Arctic Council, I appreciate the member asking the question. It's been a while in the House since I've actually gotten a question on the Arctic Council.

It is important for the Arctic Council to tackle issues related to black carbon and methane, which is why I introduced it as a priority item during our chairmanship for Arctic nations, from Arctic to Arctic, to tackle the issue of black carbon and methane. Not only that, we introduced and were the lead in creating the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and we have contributed $1.2 billion to an international fund to support other countries that contribute to the development of black carbon and methane that affect the Arctic nations.

Canada is a founding member along with Sweden. There are now about 70 organizations that are members of the Climate Clean Air Coalition, which tackles those two areas, and to be a member of that organization you have to work and develop a plan to reduce black carbon and methane. So, linking that initiative to the Arctic Council, it's also important for the Arctic nations to work together and put plans in place and do our part as Arctic nations to mitigate the production of black carbon and methane and to work in partnerships, which is what we're doing. We'd be happy to report on that during our chairmanship, which will conclude next year.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Minister.