Evidence of meeting #11 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pricing.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, we are going to be going through a process where we will receive comments about what is the best way forward, how we modernize the system, how we rebuild trust, and how we ensure that we are making decisions based on science and evidence. I think that I will be very interested in hearing the views of the committee in that regard.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So hear my view on this. The fact that the Conservatives, under Mr. Harper, chose to make this decision inherently political and now decry it is a level of strangeness that I can't approach, yet moving it back away from the hands of cabinet would be going a long way to restoring the public's faith that the arbitrator is impartial—as opposed to political—in making these decisions.
You mentioned that GHG upstream impacts will be considered. Why not downstream?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, first of all, we're looking at direct GHG emissions. We're looking at upstream GHG emissions. Downstream GHG emissions are actually going to be addressed through mitigation in many of the different working groups, but I can talk about how we just issued regulations that provide more detail about how to calculate upstream emissions, which is challenging. I will pass it on to my deputy to talk about downstream—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Before we get there, though, oil produced in Canada that remains in Canada is captured in Canada in terms of the GHG emissions, but if we send it to China, it's not really fair to say that it will somehow be handled in some other process that we're not aware of, unless Beijing has told us something different.
It's just a simple question. If it's carbon being emitted from a Canadian source upstream, when it gets used—wherever it gets used on the planet—has it been contemplated to account for that as well when measuring the GHG impacts of our fossil fuels?
Liberal
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. Thank you. I thought that would be a policy question.
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Analytically, it is possible to do an analysis of downstream—
Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
—to do an analysis of downstream emissions, but it is very challenging. Even in the upstream emissions methodology that we've published, we described some of what have become qualitative issues that relate to alternative sources.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think we're up for a challenge.
Here's my last question to you, Minister. Do you have date when you and Minister Garneau are planning to bring in the legislative tanker ban on the north coast that your party committed to?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, that is something that is also with Transport Canada, so there are discussions ongoing now and the lead minister would be in a better position to—
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is there any date contemplated between you and the minister?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I think it would be better to discuss it with the lead minister.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Aldag.
Once again, thank you, Minister. I have one quick question.
We're also doing a review of CEPA. We know that toxic chemicals are in our environment: in our food, our land, our water, and our air. The difficulty we have is the virtual elimination of these chemicals. How do we better define what is a persistent, bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic substance and, by doing so, more effectively virtually eliminate them from our environment?
Will you work with the Minister of Health to put in resources required to conduct this analysis more quickly so that we can establish, for example, reasonable use drinking water standards? The reason I say this is that in my own riding there's a landfill that is emitting 1,4-dioxane, a highly toxic substance. It's very difficult to hold the company accountable for this contamination of the surrounding environment because there's no drinking water standard for it, whereas throughout many other jurisdictions we already have drinking water standards. We're way, way behind on these types of standards.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
I'm very pleased that you're going to be undertaking a review of CEPA. CEPA is really critical. It's the basis for environmental and health protection.
I will assure you that I work very closely with the Minister of Health in this regard. We need to look at how the act can be approved to address some of the concerns you've raised. Certainly, I'm happy to work with the committee in this regard to hear your suggestions and how we can support your work.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
There's another study we're going to be doing, starting when we come back from our next constituency week. It's on protected areas. It will be looking at meeting some of the targets, the 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas by 2020, and 5% of marine and coastal areas by 2017 and 10% by 2020. I hope to be hearing more from the departments as we get into that study.
I'm just wondering, to start, if you could make a comment on the progress of parks establishment, both national parks and marine conservation areas, to help establish a bit of a baseline of where we're at. Then if you want to throw in what Ms. May had asked about, the status of the negotiations on the Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area, I'd love to hear about that.
Another piece I'll throw in is the level of funding you had mentioned, I think $43.3 million over five years, to help with the establishment process. Will that be enough on the parks side to continue along the agenda?
The final piece is on an unrelated topic. We've been hearing a lot about sunken ships. I'm wondering if there's a strategy or any work being done with Fisheries and Oceans to deal with some of the issues of sunken ships because of the work we will be doing on marine protected areas.
There's a lot there.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I guess I'll start with the last one. Obviously it's for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but I know that's something he is looking at very closely.
We are very committed to our 2020 biodiversity goals and targets. As you said, it's 17% land and 10% ocean. Those are ambitious targets, you're absolutely right. In terms of meeting 17%, we need to work, and we are, with the provinces and territories, because a lot of that land would be provincial land. We're working with them to reach it. I can tell you right now that 10.4% of terrestrial areas are protected right now, so there's a ways to go in that regard—0.9%, so a ways to go when it comes to marine areas that are protected.
In budget 2016 you saw that there was funding, that you identified, for Thaidene Nëné as well as Lancaster Sound. So that is a start.
We also committed, in our agreement with the United States, on the part where we looked at the Arctic and we looked at what we can be doing more and increasing the areas that are protected there. We do have a strategy. It requires a lot of work to establish new protected areas. It includes a lot of work with indigenous peoples often, and the communities that are there. I am confident that going forward we will meet or exceed those targets.
I will ask the head of Parks Canada to also give an answer.
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency
As has been asked, particularly in relation to the national marine conservation area of the Southern Strait of Georgia, that is an area where we're continuing ongoing consultations, particularly with indigenous groups in that area and other interested players. That's moving along well.
In terms of park creation, it's a very detailed process that takes a long time because of the range of interests out there, particularly with indigenous peoples. As many members of this committee would know, we have a very different level and expectation of engagement with indigenous people today than in the days when we first set up our national parks.
With regard to the question of the $42.4 million to do parks establishment, in the parks system plan, that work began with the creation of Banff National Park in the 1880s. We will eventually get to covering off all 39 ecoregions within the country, but that is a process that will take decades to complete. We certainly have a range of parks that we're working on now that will help us get, as the minister has said, to the 17% terrestrial target, working closely with the provinces and territories, that will be major contributors.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I just wanted to thank you very much for giving us the full two hours. It allowed us to have questioning by everyone around the table. It was really nice to have that opportunity.
Before we move to a vote on the main estimates, does anybody have any questions on the amounts that have been brought forward for us to vote on? Now is our opportunity, before we let the minister and her department heads go.
Are there any questions on the main estimates?