Environment Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Michael Martin]

In the CCME process there's a deputies' committee that meets annually to prepare the final agenda. We met about two weeks ago in Toronto, and of course we ask ourselves that question. A minister's time is limited and the priority for this meeting will be on climate change—the work program that will go forward under CCME on climate change—as well as a discussion of how we will be engaging the provinces in the negotiating process towards Paris. That will be the principal focus of discussion.

We did, pursuant to the motion, propose a discussion of microbeads and that was supported. There will be some other routine business updates. For example, there will be an update on the air quality management system, which is a very important CCME process related to air pollution that we are now implementing. We will also provide a couple of other working updates. But, again, this meeting primarily will focus on climate change.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

In terms of mandates, I agree with that mandate. Climate change is the most important issue facing us today.

I'd like to come back to follow up on the microbeads piece.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth, please.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everyone who's come here today to provide information to us.

I'd like to ask some questions for Environment Canada, so I'll direct them to Mr. Martin. I'd like to focus on the Great Lakes.

As you may know, my riding is Kitchener Centre. It's smack dab in the middle of southern Ontario and equidistant from the Great Lakes. We are millions of people dependent upon the water in the Great Lakes, so I initiated a study some time ago in this committee on Great Lakes water quality. We learned about the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the renewals since that time, and the advances that have been made in restoring and protecting Great Lakes water quality and ecosystem health. We had evidence about the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and how, as the point source pollution has been mastered over these many years, new items such as algae growth, aquatic invasive species, chemicals, and microbeads are now moving to the fore in our examination. I was very pleased to see the Government of Canada is on top of these issues and investigating them.

I did notice in the estimates a decrease in funding of $1.6 million related to the Great Lakes nutrient initiative. I didn't know if that was a sunsetting issue that is going to be restored or not, but I'd like to hear about that. I'd also like to hear about what else the government is doing to protect the Great Lakes and how it is working in collaboration with the United States in order to achieve that protection.

[Michael Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the minister mentioned in remarks, we have a whole series of initiatives under way related to improving the health of the Great Lakes, including some important intergovernmental agreements in terms of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the associated Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. Under those frameworks we undertake a wide range of scientific activities and targeted programmatic activities designed to continue to improve our understanding, as well as to improve remediation of specific contaminants and enhance our collaborative work with many stakeholders in that regard.

There have been a series of investments and you referenced some of them. Specifically on the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, that program is ongoing. It is in its final year of funding. It will sunset in this year, and therefore, will be examined for renewal in the context of budget 2016.

We're also moving forward in other areas, including one of the most challenging areas of concern, which is Randle Reef, and we continue to work to put in place effective remediation of that site.

I should mention that around this ecosystem and the whole watershed there are other interventions that do have an impact. You mentioned non-point source pollution as being an area of concern and some of our work focuses on that. In fact, some of the work we're doing under the national conservation plan related to wetland restoration will also contribute to the health of the Great Lakes and the habitat on which many species depend.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to say when it comes to the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, unless and until all of the possibilities have been exhausted for research and control of nutrients flowing into the Great Lakes, you'll find some political support at least from this chair to continue and renew that program.

You mentioned the Randle Reef. From our study, I understand that to be the largest contaminated sediment site on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. We heard in our study those sediments are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—PAHs, for short—and also heavy metals that were accumulated over as long as 160 years. I wonder if you could give us a bit of an update as to the timetable, the progress, and the investment remaining from the Government of Canada to clean up those contaminated sediments, not only in Randle Reef but elsewhere around the province of Ontario.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay. We need to have a fairly rapid response. We're well beyond our time. I think you're taking lessons from each other, committee members, on exhausting your entire time with your question and then expecting to get another minute and a half.

Mr. Martin, please, as quickly as you can.

I think Mr. McKay led it off.

[Michael Martin]

I'll make two quick points. We did lead the development of a public-private partnership involving the municipality, the province, the company involved, and others to put in place an overall approach on the remediation. We're now tendering that process in order to proceed with the first phase of the project, and I hope we will be successful in terms of the bids that come in the coming weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. Woodworth.

Mr. Carrie, please, for five minutes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question would be to Mr. Martin.

A couple of my colleagues mentioned that the federal government seems to be taking that approach on targets—the 30% reduction in 2030—without asking the provinces and territories what their goals are.

Could you please let us know? I believe that the minister wrote the provinces in the fall to ask them for their updates, the status of their current targets, and she wrote them again in the spring. Did you hear back from Ontario on those letters?

[Michael Martin]

We undertook an analytical process in order to define and to support decision-making by the government on the post-2020 target. As part of that process, I engaged with my counterparts in the provinces and territories to understand better the measures, the specific measures, that they were implementing or planning to implement under their own climate plans. It was in that regard that the minister also wrote to seek that information.

As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we have an analytical tool, a modelling tool, that we use—and we publish the results every year—that supports policy-making in this area, and we have a long history of working with the provinces in order to support that. That's important because it also supports us in meeting our reporting obligations to the UNFCCC in terms of our national reporting and the new biennial reports that we produce.

What we learned from that process was that the measures that were captured in our 2014 report and our last biennial report to the United Nations were in fact the measures that were currently in place, but some jurisdictions in the subsequent months did indicate that they were examining new measures or were taking a fresh look at their domestic climate targets. For example, Ontario announced, as you may know, that they will implement a cap and trade system, and I think they have now announced as well a specific 2030 target. The precise regulatory details we have yet to see.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think our target is fair and ambitious.

Now it was interesting. I was listening to my Liberal colleague talking about the 30% reduction by 2030. We've heard his leader come out with a plan, something like a Health Canada type of plan, where he would force the provinces and territories to meet certain targets without their input. He also supported the NDP bill. They have a bill on the floor, I believe it's Bill C-619, that says that we need to get to an 80% reduction by 2050.

Now my colleague across the way from the NDP said the 30% reduction by 2030, to quote her, was unrealistic.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

For you guys....

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

So 2030, that would be unrealistic. I believe their interim reductions would be 50% by 2025. Knowing the technologies out there today and knowing the base levels that Canadians use just to heat our homes and for basic transportation, do you think those targets would be reasonable or attainable—a 50% reduction by 2025?

[Michael Martin]

Well, Mr. Chair, I would rather not get drawn into speculating on possible policy measures. I think, from an analytical standpoint, we know that deep GHG reductions require structural change and it is not in every case that cost-effective technology solutions are available. It is an iterative process, and I think the government, in announcing the 2030 goal, is setting a level of ambition that should serve to help continue to drive progress, both in terms of the articulation of policy measures and also, hopefully, to continue to incent the necessary technological change needed to achieve significant GHG reductions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I have a quick one to Mr. Latourelle about the Rouge. I want to get your opinion on that. The Ontario government has criticized our movement forward with the creation of the Rouge Urban National Park. I was wondering if you could comment on the level of protection, federal versus provincial, with our new piece of legislation.

[Alan Latourelle]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The new act that we're responsible for and now operating under, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, affords broader and stronger conservation than any legislation we've seen in Ontario up to this point. We're still waiting, from a process perspective, to get comments from Ontario but we have started operating in terms of Transport Canada lands being transferred to us, a significant amount of land, and there is some land that was in the legislation also.

I think the challenge we are facing is that some of the requests that were put forward as part of the process were, I think, beyond the agreement that we signed with Ontario. For example, the vision that was signed onto by both governments in the agreement, they then proposed amendments that went beyond that and they proposed amendments that go well beyond anything we've seen internationally. For example, in obligating the minister to establish a science advisory body. That doesn't exist in law anywhere internationally, that we've seen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Carrie and Mr. Latourelle.

Mr. McKay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Martin, how much money did the Department of the Environment lapse this year?

[Michael Martin]

Are you referring to the 2014—

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

The fiscal year ending March 31.

[Michael Martin]

March 31. Perhaps I'll ask our CFO to give you the precise numbers.

[Carol Najm]

The fiscal year for 2014-15 hasn't yet closed, but I will give you the numbers for 2013-14.

Environment Canada lapsed $77 million. That is attributable to $51.6 million in grants and contributions, mainly because funding that was—

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

I'm sorry, we've already established what lapsed up to the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. You're not able to say what lapsed for the fiscal year—

[Carol Najm]

The public accounts are not yet complete for 2014-15.