Environment Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Bob Hamilton]

I don't know if I'd put the word “most” in without having the document in front of me, but in a number of key areas we are seeing improvement. What I would say is that we're doing a better job of monitoring. There may be some cases where we're seeing negative things happening, but it's because we're actually doing a better job of monitoring. On the whole, though, we are seeing some improvements from the things we're doing on air quality, the management system, and the initiatives we're taking.

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

Of course, part of the improvement is due to the ever-improving environmental remediation technology and environmental mitigation technology that the private sector employs.

I guess the conclusion is that in spite of the changes our government has made to environmental assessment processes—removing duplication, changes to the Fisheries Act, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and even changes to budgets—there simply has been no effect on the environment itself.

[Bob Hamilton]

I guess to be a bit more precise, one of the things we see, for example, in water quality monitoring...we know we're having an impact with some of the programs we're doing, but all the time we're moving along, activity is taking place. We're always trying to measure against what would happen if we were to do nothing. We would see activity increasing, and there might be more nutrients going into the water. Our actions can reduce that, and we're seeing that effect.

I would still caution against an overly simple view of the world that said it's not having an impact. We know things are going on out there, and we are trying to do a better job of monitoring. We're seeing some areas of improvement, but we are also seeing some areas where activity is increasing, and we know we need to put further efforts.... For example, in the area of algae, we know....

So despite some of the things we're doing, we would like to see more improvement.

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

I would never say for a minute that we don't have any environmental issues in this country. We certainly do—there is the issue of wetland loss, grassland birds, and so on.

The point is, though—and I stand by it, and I think you're getting there as well—these process changes that our government has made, this reduction of duplication in environmental process and changes to budgets, have simply had no effect on Canada's environmental trends, and for many indicators our trends are actually improving.

The point about government budgets as well...there's an inordinate focus on budgets. For example, when you do a piece of work and you make, let's say, an industry's performance better because of the research you do, they are spending the money on the environment. They are actually doing a much better job because of the dollars you spent, even though the dollars you spent may have been reduced. There has been a change out there that has resulted in improving the environmental quality.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

A point of order.

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

Mr. Sopuck's question is a conclusion that should be properly responded to by a minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Those are comments. That's not a point of order.

We're going to proceed now to the votes on the supplementary estimates. We have....

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

A second point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I hope it is one.

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

All of us can be enlightened, Chair.

In response to questions to Mr. Hamilton about the lapsing of $125 million, he elucidated, quite helpfully, I thought, with respect to the $67 million, that some of it's lost, some of it's not, and similarly others will go over to next year's budget. If that's true—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. McKay, that is not a point of order.

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

Chair, this is a point of order. We're being asked to vote, and I wonder why it's not available for use in subsequent years. That's where it should be disclosed.

So if he has $43 million available for next year, why is it not there?

[Bob Hamilton]

To the question, it's a lapse from last year and available in this year, but maybe I'll....

[An hon. member]

It's not a point of order.

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

But it is. It's a point of presentation as to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm going to ask Ms. Najm to respond.

[Carol Najm]

Just for clarification, at the time the public accounts were published, the carryover to departments was not approved by the Treasury Board, so it's a question of timing.

The approval came subsequent to the issue of the public accounts, and for that reason you don't see them available.

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

Okay. That's helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're going to move to the supplementary estimates.

We have three on the Department of the Environment, operating, capital, and grants and contributions, and one for the Parks Canada Agency.

ENVIRONMENT

Department

Vote 1b—Operating expenditures..........$10,004,395

Vote 5b—Capital expenditures..........$50,316

Vote 10b—The grants listed in the Estimates and contributions..........$2,162,339

Parks Canada Agency

Vote 20b—Program expenditures..........$37,514,062

(Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, and 20b agreed to)

Shall I report the supplementary estimates (B) 2013-14 to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you to our officials for being with us today. Thank you to committee members for a good meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.