Environment Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I thought you were talking about a bursary program through the translation.

In terms of the efforts of provinces related to greenhouse gas reductions, I commend every jurisdiction for doing their part to deal with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If we did nothing, as a country we would not be seeing the reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions. We are seeing the evidence of reductions in that.

I think it's also important to know that the footprint of Canada on the global stage of greenhouse gas emissions is less than 2%, and the efforts we're undertaking in Canada involve the provinces, the territories, as well as industry and our targeting areas of our own footprint. So our sector-by-sector approach to dealing with our footprint, to dealing with a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is working.

As an example, we are the first country to introduce the coal-fired regulations and to ban that. Internationally, we were the first of its kind. It is also important to recognize that provinces are a partner in any efforts that we do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Minister.

We have about four minutes left. The minister needs to leave. We kept her for another 15 minutes, because we were late starting.

For the last four minutes we'll be going to Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your attendance with us here today.

As you know, my riding is Kitchener Centre, which is in the middle of southern Ontario, southwest Ontario. It's a region rich in ecosystems, both natural, urban, and agricultural. It literally supports millions of people. So I have great interest in the Great Lakes water quality, which supports all of those activities and people.

The committee, at my request, is just wrapping up a study on Great Lakes water quality. We have learned that much of the heavy lifting has been done, but there is work yet to do. A multilateral approach is the best approach. I have the idea that our government's Great Lakes action plan, in fact, adopts that approach.

I wondered if you could give us some details about the Great Lakes action plan.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

Before I begin I also want to thank the committee for the work that you've done related to this initiative. I know that many hours were spent dealing with the issue of water quality.

On the Great Lakes action plan, as you're well aware, the sheer size of the Great Lakes and the watershed that feeds into them means that we have an area that requires all levels of government—municipal, federal, provincial—as well as society to do their part. For their part our government continues to work with local and provincial partners to protect and restore the water resources for the benefit of all Canadians.

This is why we have renewed the funding for the Great Lakes action plan in budget 2010. To restore the quality in the area, $8 million was invested in that per year and it's ongoing.

As well, in 2012 our government also announced it would commit $46.3 million to support its part of the project to clean up the contaminated areas in Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour with Ontario, the City of Hamilton, Hamilton port, and U.S. Steel. As well, in the main estimates we are spending an additional $19.1 million to speak to the Randle Reef initiatives. Again, the total cost of the project is being shared equally with Canada and Ontario. As well, investments related to contaminated management projects have been completed in some areas.

Investments are being made to address the very concerns that have been raised by the committee as well. Again, we wouldn't be able to do this without the partnerships of various stakeholders and governments in addressing that. We are moving forward in this important initiative.

Thank you.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

One of the emerging issues recently in the Great Lakes, particularly in the west of Lake Erie, is a recurrence of algal blooms. We learned in our study that this is in part related to phosphorous discharge of nutrients into the Great Lakes.

We've also learned that the government has pivoted to deal with that and has something called the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, which is at least in part addressing that. I wonder if you could provide us with some of the details of that important initiative.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As an update on that, in October 2012 we announced the Great Lakes nutrient initiative and $16 million was invested to specifically address the toxicity of the algae in the Great Lakes and with an internal focus on Lake Erie.

The Great Lakes nutrient initiative will also assist the Government of Canada in delivering on its commitment under the recently amended Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Government of Canada in conjunction with the United States will review the International Joint Commission recommendations as we work together to try to address the issues related to what you've just identified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

Thank you, Minister, for the time you've given us today and for staying a few extra minutes.

We're going to suspend for just a few minutes while we allow the minister to leave. Then we'll reconvene with her officials hopefully in one and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to reconvene as quickly as possible, please.

We are going to proceed with our witnesses from the Department of the Environment, Bob Hamilton, deputy minister, and Carol Najm, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer; from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ron Hallman; and from Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle.

Because we've had the opening statement from our minister, we will not be having opening statements from our officials. We will proceed immediately to the seven-minute rounds. We'll begin with Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hamilton, I'll perhaps direct this to you, but if someone else is familiar I don't mind it going to them. I ran out of time asking the minister about the Great Lakes nutrient initiative. I am particularly interested in that because I have a bit of brief information or a review of it that suggests to me that it is heavily oriented toward scientific research and monitoring, and there may even be something in the order of 30 or 40 different projects that are being funded to get a grip on the challenge of the Great Lakes nutrient flows.

Can you tell me in any more detail about some of that? Am I right in understanding it that way?

[Bob Hamilton]

Perhaps I can say that, at one level, you're right. There's a lot of scientific activity to try to understand this problem we have with nutrient levels in the Great Lakes.

There are actually some people behind me, one of whom might want to come forward to the table, who could talk a little bit more about the science or the actual programming. Otherwise, if I don't have the people here who know that in detail, I can get back to you with the specifics of our nutrient program, how the money and the effort is being broken down in terms of the science, where the money is going. But I can't break it down for you.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would be happy if you could file that with the clerk for distribution to the members.

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to go back a little bit to the question that Mr. McKay raised, just to make sure I've understood the answer correctly. As I understand it, looking at the main estimates that we have before us, we are not looking at necessarily the end expenditures that we might expect for the year. There isn't a necessary connection between the main estimates and what we will eventually end up spending.

Is that a correct general statement?

[Bob Hamilton]

I think in general what we see is that, yes, there are the main estimates, and then through the year there are the supplementary estimates that add to that. If you look at it at the end of the year, you'll see usually more money spent than was in the main estimates, because we got additional money.

A good example this year would be the national conservation plan, which might not show up in the main estimates but would likely show up in supplementary estimates (B) or (C), where we'd get that money.

That's one issue. The other issue, though, that's tied up there....

Did you want to deal with that one, or did you want me to talk about the forward-looking one?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just carry on, please.

[Bob Hamilton]

The forward-looking one is that when you look at our projections going forward in the report on plans and priorities, it shows a path for what we anticipate expenditures, budgets, to be in future years. That's where we run into this reporting issue, which is that if money is due to sunset because the government provides, say, five-year funding, we show that as ending after five years.

Typically what you see...and in the clean air program, it did sunset at one point, and then it was renewed. That may or may not happen again. It's just that we can't assume that. The money hasn't been given to us yet, so we show it as going off, but as that money expires, there will be a decision made on whether to renew it at that level or at a different level.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I guess the point I want to be clear about, without belabouring it too much, is that someone I think said that the main estimates are simply a snapshot, but the actual budget process is dynamic and may well end up at a different place from what we see in that snapshot. Is that right?

[Bob Hamilton]

Exactly. We may be coming back in front of this committee to talk about supplementary estimates (B) or (C), and it will be those things added to the budget through the course of the year.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Very good.

I noticed a significant reallocation of funds to the sustainable ecosystems program. I must confess that I sometimes get a bit cross-eyed looking at the numbers, but it looked to me as if it was being reallocated from $66.589 million to $92.013 million, a difference of 38.2%.

That looked to me like a significant strengthening of this program. I wondered if you could give me the reasons for that reallocation and give me some details about the sustainable ecosystems program itself.

[Bob Hamilton]

I'll let Carol, who is our CFO, comment on that.

I would note that one thing that's covered in that line is money that we've put toward the Randle Reef project. I think that's about $19 million. That's some money that was reallocated.

So yes, it was a significant increase, but there are probably other things going on in there as well.

[Carol Najm, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of the Environment]

Part of that increase can be explained by a reallocation of grants and contributions to O and M. For the cleanup of the Randle Reef site, the funds were originally provided in grants and contributions and then throughout the estimates process were reallocated to O and M; hence, you see the increase in the funding.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In a sense, then, it's kind of a bookkeeping transfer of funds.

[Carol Najm]

Correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Just for the record, would you mind defining what “O and M” is?

[Carol Najm]

It's operating and maintenance funds.