Environment Committee on June 12th, 2017

[Carol Najm]

I'll ask Parks Canada to answer because they're the lead.

[Rob Prosper]

To start, I would indicate that the response to the IUCN mission has a lot of different elements to it that are going to implicate a number of different departments. From an overall perspective, the response to the mission takes a certain process in which you have to go stage by stage.

The first stage is to undertake a state of conservation. That state of conservation gives an idea of what the area is like in terms of its state, as well as what potentially needs to be done in terms of improving it.

As well, we've initiated a strategic environmental assessment, which is something that was called for. We're just now getting into the stage of looking at a costed action plan. It'll take some time, working with our understanding of the circumstance there and working with partners, to determine what will ultimately be an action plan that's going to speak to the recommendations from the IUCN.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Related to that, I'm wondering if Environment Canada and/or Parks Canada—you can't speak for DFO, for example—has intervened in the joint federal-provincial assessment of the Teck Resources project. That's one of the major oil sands projects adjacent to the park that UNESCO called for Canada to step up to the plate and intervene on.

[Rob Prosper]

I can start.

As you're probably aware, the federal government will work as a team in terms of involvement in the Teck project and review. There's a wide variety of departments that are providing certain types of expertise to that process because they are regulators. Others such as Parks Canada, which is not a regulator in that particular case, provide expert advice to the federal team.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do the terms of reference for that review already include your concerns that the proponent has to deal with, including the issues that UNESCO has raised?

[Rob Prosper]

The typical process that we undertake is to work through the federal department that's the regulator. We provide our advice through that area. The state of Wood Buffalo National Park, for example, is an important element of that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I wonder if you could tell us a little more about what you're proposing to do under this strategic environmental assessment. It's encouraging that you're about to initiate it, but I wish you well in getting that done and reported by next February. Will you also engage the local first nations and Métis in developing that?

[Rob Prosper]

Absolutely. We're following the actual IUCN guidelines on strategic environmental assessment. Rather than develop a new process, we're using the IUCN guidance to frame what the strategic environmental assessment will cover. We are working with all of the indigenous groups on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The Mikisew Cree have contacted me and are deeply concerned that even their phone calls are not being returned. I wonder if you could give an undertaking here today that the Mikisew will be directly engaged as expeditiously as possible.

[Rob Prosper]

We are dealing with the Mikisew Cree at all stages of the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thanks, Linda.

Will.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me first thank our officials from Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada for all their hard work these days.

I know that everyone in your offices is extremely busy because of the various reforms, internal policies, and major projects our government is pursuing. It's very appreciated.

I really want to underscore our appreciation for the hard work being done at Parks Canada and at Environment Canada more broadly writ. As someone who's worked at Environment Canada in the past, I'm thankful, and I want that message to come across loud and clear to your colleagues.

I want to ask about the $7.4 million to continue work on the development and expansion of our national parks, national wildlife areas, and marine conservation areas. Obviously, this committee has indicated its strong desire to see enhancements.

I wonder if you could speak to how the $7.4 million and other prior budgetary allocations will enable greater collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners, because I think that's going to be a major story as we move towards our Aichi targets. It's about how we are actually leveraging the money that we're investing to encourage our FPT partners.

[Rob Prosper]

That's actually two questions, so thank you for those.

On the first, in terms of the identified resources for supplementary estimates (A), it breaks down to approximately $3.9 million for planning and negotiation. This is focused on areas of interest in terms of increasing the number of national parks and national marine conservation areas. Specifically, we're working, as I'm sure you know, in Thaidene Nene as one of the key areas on the east side of Great Slave Lake, as well as in the Lancaster Sound national marine conservation area. We're also doing planning on some other areas. We're utilizing those resources to advance the systems plans that we have. Those include the southern Strait of Georgia, the Magdalen Islands, and a potential NMCA, national marine conservation area, in James Bay and Hudson Bay. These are all based on the premise that the partners, i.e., the provinces, are onside, and we'll be working with the provinces to advance those areas.

As for what we're doing in terms of the pathway to Canada target 1 on a broader scale, we are working with other federal departments, provinces, territories, indigenous groups, industry, a whole variety...through a very complex process of engagement with an advisory panel that was initiated last week. As well, we are working with a circle of indigenous experts. This is a group that we are counting on to help provide us advice on how to advance the idea of indigenous protected and conserved areas in Canada. They have had several meetings and are undertaking regional meetings and working with local and regional indigenous groups that either have an interest in indigenous conserved areas or actually have indigenous conserved areas already and are providing advice on those. We hope that's going to be a key part of the overall initiative.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

I have only one question left, and if I have any remaining time, I would give it to John Aldag, although there may not be much left after this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You do you have two minutes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

In the 2016 budget, funding was allocated for an environmental assessment and then subsequently for build-out of a bike trail in Jasper National Park, I think, leading to Banff. Could you please detail the status of that project? Has it been shelved? If the money is being reallocated, where is the money being reallocated to?

[Mitch Bloom]

It's still undergoing its environmental assessment, which is the normal process. Right now, they're doing the environmental assessment in various segments along the way, and any further action has to be subsequent to that assessment being completed. Some of the money that was allocated in last year's budget is being used in the context of planning the assessment work, but there is no trail being built at this point until the environmental assessment is completed, subject to what it learns.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have one minute.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I want to look at the $20 million related to the payment in lieu of taxes for Halifax. We don't need to get into how we got there, although I am curious. I'm just wondering if we have this kind of liability related to any other PILT, payments in lieu of taxes, with any other municipalities, or is everything else current? Where are we with payment in lieu of taxes, and will we see something like this in future main estimates or supplementary estimates?

[Mitch Bloom]

I'll try to answer that.

It's not Parks Canada that actually maintains the government's payment in lieu of taxes program. PSPC does that on behalf of the entire federal portfolio. We have a very big portfolio. We also have very unique properties across the country. This particular one was the Halifax Citadel. Any municipality evaluates, to the best of its perspectives, what it thinks our properties are worth. The federal government then does its assessment. Hopefully they come to agreement, but that does not always happen. In this case, that did not happen over a period of quite a few years, which led to a final decision being made, and an agreement being negotiated between the parties—the federal government and the municipality of Halifax—for this $20-million back payment.

To pick up your question, we haven't yet even negotiated the payments going forward. The liabilities are there. There has been much jurisprudence on this for a long time, and a lot of debate has gone on about how you value especially our unique properties. I guess at the end of the day, more will be seen in the future, because still more has to be done. I think that's the best way to describe it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I have to cut it off there. Thank you very much.

Jim.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

Well, someone has to answer this question, so I'm going to ask it first off. It deals with the carbon tax.

Pardon?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The price on carbon pollution.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Right. In my research, a number of the provinces have cap and trade. Some are looking at cap and trade. Quebec currently has it, as does Ontario. I believe some of the maritime provinces are looking at it.

My concern with the federal carbon tax is its effect when they start to produce a radically different cost difference. I'll give you an example. Today Quebec is at $16 a tonne. If they choose not to raise...and they don't have to, because Quebec has stated that they insist on carbon price sovereignty. They haven't agreed to anything. They're currently at $16 a tonne. If they choose not to raise by $10 a tonne, as required federally each year, by 2020 the federal tax will be $30 a tonne in the provinces that do agree, such as Alberta or British Columbia. Ontario and Quebec will be at $19 a tonne. By 2022 they will be at $23 a tonne, according to the CaliforniaCarbon.info system, and the other provinces will be at $50.

How does the government see balancing this off when there's such a drastic difference in the carbon pricing?