Environment Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Bob Hamilton]

I'd have to go back and check exactly why. They didn't have enough projects ready to fund. They fund projects on commercialization of technologies, and there just weren't projects of sufficient quality for them to invest in. They couldn't use the money in that year, so it lapsed.

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

Are these all technology projects?

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes.

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

Are they technology projects in a particular environmental area?

[Bob Hamilton]

I believe it was in the biofuels area. I'll have to go back and check. We can get you that information.

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

I would be interested, and I'm sure the committee would be as well.

The other moneys are rolled over. Am I correct on that?

[Bob Hamilton]

In this case, yes. Where we don't spend money in a particular year—the balance of that $43.4 million—we have up to a limit an ability to carry those funds into the next year. In this case, we are able to carry these funds forward to the next year. If the number gets big enough, we can't carry it forward at all. Money that wasn't spent in that year we can spend in the next year. Some things may not be able to get done in this year, but we can defer that task until the next year.

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

In your research on diluted bitumen, the big issue is that diluted bitumen hits water and goes directly to the bottom. How are you going to handle that? Where is that research going? This is a very significant issue, certainly in my area. A great many watercourses cross between Sarnia and Montreal, and this affects the largest population base in Canada. I'd like to know the state of the research in diluted bitumen, because that's how it's going to flow from Sarnia to Montreal. Where are we on that?

[Bob Hamilton]

Let me come to the diluted bitumen in a second. You raised a number of other specific lapses from the public accounts. I don't have a copy in front of me, but we will get you a written response on all of those.

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

I was expecting you would.

[Bob Hamilton]

I just wanted to say that we haven't forgotten about them and that we'll get them to you.

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

I know you're an honourable man, Mr. Hamilton.

[Bob Hamilton]

Thank you very much.

On the diluted bitumen, I can't give you the results of the research. They're not ready yet, but we hope they will be out soon. We've been working pretty hard on this, and we've also been testing our research in a peer review manner. We are looking at the question. The answer is not as simple as you just characterized it—when the diluted bitumen hits water it sinks. That's the question we're trying to answer: what happens to it when it hits water? It can depend on a variety of factors, as you can imagine.

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

There are a lot of “soons” and “when we're ready”, yet we have an NEB pipeline decision, line 9, coming up very quickly. One of the major issues is the flow of diluted bitumen across watercourses. Does “soon” mean this month, next month, or next year?

[Bob Hamilton]

Yes, soon—I mean, we can get into trouble when we put specific deadlines out and they're not met.

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

I wouldn't do that to you.

[Bob Hamilton]

Suffice it to say, we're trying to make sure that this analysis is out there in time to prepare us for decisions that will have to be taken.

I would say.... I'm not going to put a date on it. But soon. We're into the final stages of that analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you Mr. McKay.

We'll move now to Monsieur Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us this morning. I will use the few minutes I have to learn from your expertise, since I am relatively new on this committee. The questions I would like to ask you are mostly about parks. So I would imagine that Mr. Latourelle is the person to answer them first. If the rest of you also feel the need to clarify something, please go ahead.

I have read a quotation from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society to the effect that, for every dollar invested in national parks, $5 is generated. Do you agree with that statement? In your view, is it accurate, slightly different or not accurate at all?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, Parks Canada, together with the provincial parks, did a study on the economic benefits that parks generate across the country. The results show that the economic benefits really are that high.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

That obscures my understanding of the government's strategy even more.

I'm fortunate enough to live in a riding that is home to a national park, Forges-du-Saint-Maurice, which you are, no doubt, familiar with, and the next riding over is home to La Mauricie National Park. But for a number of years, no resources were invested in La Mauricie National Park to help it reach its full tourism potential and so forth.

It goes without saying that the $55 million or so in budget cuts didn't help matters. So a strategy was put in place, and I'd like you to explain it to me. Where I'm from, we've seen guided tours disappear, and they really went a long way towards showcasing everything we have to offer visitors and enhancing their experience. The season was shortened and fees went up. Same thing with La Mauricie National Park, where the cost of a cross-country ski season pass will go from $49 to more than $100, somewhere around $110. The fee is more than doubling.

Adding insult to injury, it would seem that decision making around a park's operation depends on its visitor volume. You and I are more or less from the same generation. You probably remember that popular ad for Hygrade hot dogs that said more people ate them because they were fresher and they were fresher because more people ate them. I get the feeling this is the reverse situation. We're in a downward spiral: the less we invest, the less parks can draw visitors, and the fewer they draw, the greater the justification for budget cuts.

There are two possibilities. Either you explain the strategy to me, because I can't wrap my head around it at all. Or you tell me that the aim is to close some of Canada's parks, including Forges-du-Saint-Maurice, to balance the budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Monsieur Latourelle.

[Alan Latourelle]

Thank you for your question.

I want to make it perfectly clear that none of Parks Canada's parks or historic sites are closing. In fact, Parks Canada's budget changes did not result in a single closure.

Keep in mind that, while we have made budget cuts in the past two years, during that same period, the number of visitors to our national parks has gone up by 2% and the total number of people visiting Canada's national historic sites has gone up by 5%. From our perspective, then, I would say it's not always possible to draw a correlation between budgets and visitor volume.

I'll give you an actual example. The S.S. Klondike National Historic Site in the Yukon experienced an increase in visitor volume of 33% this year. That's also a site where we partnered with the private sector to offer self-guided tours.

There are different situations across Canada, different economic realities and different challenges. At Parks Canada, our goal is to increase visitor volume at all our national parks and historic sites. That's in our business plan. Our target is to increase visitor volume by 10% over 5 years. That's still our goal today.

As far as self-guided tours are concerned, I have to tell you they've been very successful in some areas. Agencies in other countries use the technology as well. The U.S. National Park Service, for instance, uses it at Alcatraz Island, one of its biggest national historic sites.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I just have a quick question.

We've also seen an increase in rental opportunities at sites such as the Forges-du-Saint-Maurice park, in order to generate new revenue. Could that revenue be tagged for future development or does it go into Parks Canada's consolidated revenue fund?