Environment Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Michael Martin]

I believe.... I'll verify. I apologize to the committee. I'm sorry. I should have these facts readily at my fingertips. I think it was about 726 million tonnes, but again, I would like to verify that, because I don't have it in front of me.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

As we know, carbon dioxide is the first chemical in the photosynthetic equation. Obviously, plants, especially trees, photosynthesize. Do we have any idea of how much carbon dioxide is taken up by photosynthesis in Canada?

[Michael Martin]

Well, I would have to verify whether the inventory provides that level of detail. It is extremely detailed, though, so we probably would be able to provide you that information based on the published information in the inventory.

There are complex methodologies behind these calculations. Overall, there are a series of specific categories established by the IPCC under which we report whether it's a source or a sink, forestland in various compositions, or agricultural land, and we can make that specific detail available to you.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

In terms of the calculations of our emissions, drilling down on the issue of carbon sinks, do you calculate the work we're doing under the national conservation plan as contributing to the creation or maintenance of carbon sinks?

As a specific example in my own constituency, there was a watershed called Broughton's Creek where Ducks Unlimited did a major study of wetlands and concluded that wetlands were very efficient at sequestering carbon. Under our national conservation plan, we have a significant wetland restoration program. Do you count the carbon sequestration capabilities of wetlands in terms of our national calculation of GHG emissions?

[Michael Martin]

We do an estimation of the total impact of wetlands. There are some data challenges in that area, which we're continuing to work on in order to refine those estimates going forward.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I would think though that would be a fairly straightforward calculation simply because we do know what wetlands do in terms of carbon sequestration. Through aerial photography and those kinds of things we can come up with a pretty good number in terms of how many hectares of wetlands we have in this country. One of the things that have always bothered me is that our general conservation programming under the national conservation plan, such as the natural areas conservation plan, the wetlands component that I mentioned, the habitat stewardship program, and of course the largest conservation program in history, the North American waterfowl management plan, are all very important programs that are never brought into the discussion of greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is a major oversight, not by you but by everybody, in that we do know that wetlands, for example, not only sequester carbon but also have multiple benefits for society in terms of biodiversity conservation, water quality enhancement, flood protection, flood control, aquifer recharge, and so on.

I would just like a comment on why those items aren't discussed in the manner that I think they should be.

[Michael Martin]

I would agree that there are a whole range of co-benefits that arise from wetland conservation. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, as I understand it, that's been a challenging area methodologically. Only in recent years has the IPCC developed advice for all parties in terms of how to approach GHG emissions from wetlands. We continue to do that work. We are committed to ensuring that we have the most comprehensive inventories of both sources and sinks of GHG emissions. We have a considerable, constant, and ongoing effort in that area, and I'm quite sure we'll continue to make progress in fully capturing wetlands in the inventory going forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Mr. Choquette, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the Species at Risk Act. Chapter 6 of the 2013 report says:For the 146 instances where a recovery strategy was required but not yet in place, we looked to see the extent to which they were overdue. We found that 79% of these strategies were overdue by more than three years.

Has there been an improvement in that 79% of the programs that were overdue by more than three years? That is a huge number. If so, can you send the numbers to the committee?

[Michael Martin]

Thank you for the question.

On December 23, 2014, we published a three-year recovery document posting plan on the species-at-risk public registry. That outlined our plan to complete the overdue recovery documents. Parks Canada Agency has also published the anticipated date for delivering on its one outstanding proposed recovery document.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Fine, Mr. Martin, but has there been an improvement or not?

[Michael Martin]

Yes. In 2014-15 we posted recovery documents for 63 species, the most in any fiscal year to date. Under our plan in the current fiscal year we've committed to post recovery documents for 71 additional species. As of April 7, 2015, we have posted recovery strategies or management plans for 366 species, and 155 remain to be posted by the three departments: 129 by Environment Canada, 24 by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I think two by the Parks Canada Agency.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

I ask the question because there are more and more problems with the Species at Risk Act. There are more and more cases before the Superior Court. I am thinking about the sage grouse, for example. I do not know what has happened, but the legislation has been so badly enforced that some petitions to the House of Commons are asking for the emergency order to be rescinded and a more voluntary approach. There seems to be a lack of consultation with local people.

We also have a problem in Quebec with the striped chorus frog. Once again, the matter is in Superior Court. The Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement has made an application to the Superior Court. It looks like there is a problem with enforcing the Species at Risk Act, with the result that people often have to go the Superior Court.

[Michael Martin]

We are fully committed to implementing the law and doing so in a timely and effective manner. I think one of the challenges in developing recovery documents is that we need to engage stakeholders in great detail, both as we continue to enhance our scientific understanding that supports management actions, but also taking into account the full range of lands, federal, provincial, and private, that are often affected when we have to define critical habitat. It is very important not only to building partnerships to enable the work for that planning part, but it's critically important in implementing management actions.

It does take time. We are continuing to strengthen our investment and our management. As the deputy minister of the Department of Environment, it is a personal priority of mine to ensure that we significantly strengthen the work we're doing in this area, and also the success that we will have to report to this committee and to Parliament.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Latourelle, your budget has increased $125 million this year for infrastructure improvements. I'm curious, within Wood Buffalo National Park, are you going to invest something into Highway 5?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, the investment that's reflected in the main estimates is the result of the 2014 economic action plan. The focus was on highways, bridges, historic canals, national parks, and national historic sites. In due course the government will announce the specific projects, but I can tell you that we're making significant investments across Parks Canada, and across all our places.

To put it in perspective, also on the 14th, the supplementary estimates (A) were tabled, and there's an additional $350 million in investment over and above the $120 million that's reflected here. We will be investing $470 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We have about four minutes for Mr. Woodworth. Then we need to do our votes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly don't mind, having already given my extra minute to Mr. Bevington.

I do have some questions, however, regarding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I know that Mr. Hallman is here for that agency. I'll leave it to you, Mr. Hallman and Mr. Martin, as to who will answer my questions.

The first thing I want to ask about is a comment in the estimates that the difference in funding this year from last year is mainly attributable to the sunsetting of funds to improve Canada's regulatory framework for major resource projects and aboriginal consultation. I don't know if that is telling me that there are two funds that are sunsetting or if that was all about regulatory framework. I would like to put a little meat on that.

Let's start with the regulatory framework. How much is sunsetting on that this year? Is the work done or should we expect subsequent estimates, some further funding coming through for that?

[Ron Hallman, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

The agency's total 2015-16 main estimates is $17.3 million. The decrease that is currently reflected in the main estimates is funding for aboriginal consultation and the agency's portion of the major project management office initiative.

Budget 2015 proposes renewing those funds at the existing levels for a further five years, and if appropriated, will be reflected in future supplementary estimates.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay, very good. We might expect that the numbers will change and become more commensurate with previous years if those two items that are sunsetting should be renewed. Is that correct?

[Ron Hallman]

That is correct, subject to parliamentary approval.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's what I was hoping to hear.

In fact, we get so much doom and gloom around this table from certain parties that I've been surprised. I haven't heard any doom and gloom on the Canadian environmental assessment process in the last year or two, actually. I know there were changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 2012 to allow the Canadian government to better gauge environmental impacts of industrial issues before approving projects. I wonder if you could give us a bit of an assessment, or if you'll excuse the pun, an assessment or update on how those 2012 changes have helped out in the assessment process.

[Ron Hallman]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would note, first, as the president of the agency for the past two years, I'm very proud of the work the agency and the staff in five regions and in headquarters have done to implement the act, by working with provinces, first nations directly, proponents, and expert federal departments.

The new act was a key part of the government's responsible resource development initiative to provide a modern regulatory system for major resource development projects so that Canada's natural resources can be developed in a responsible and timely way for the benefit of all Canadians.

The initiative has four main objectives. First, it's making project reviews more predictable and timely, and CEAA, 2012, provides legislative timelines to that effect. Second, it's reducing duplication of project reviews, and the legislation provides for a substitution of provincial processes where appropriate and where approved by the minister. Third, the RRD provides for strengthening environmental protection, and under the act we do have enforceable conditions now that were not present prior to the new legislation. The other principle is enhancing consultation with aboriginal people. As the crown consultation coordinator for major resource development projects under the agency's purview, we believe we're doing a very good job engaging aboriginal peoples.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

By the way, when I say absence of doom and gloom I think that's a good thing because I know how resourceful some of these folks are at doom and gloom.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

We're going to proceed now to the votes on the main estimates. We have a number of votes that we need to consider.

My first question is: shall vote 1 under CANADIAN NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY carry—

Yes, Mr. McKay.