Evidence of meeting #8 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
March 24th, 2009 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I suppose we could always send some of the submarines or icebreakers the Liberals built over the last 15 years.
Notwithstanding that, Mr. Minister, thank you for coming today.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
We could send you. It's in your riding. We could send you. You work hard for the people of the Yukon.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'd like to concentrate a little bit more on the pollution prevention aspects of this particular amendment. We've seen some of the parks you've been involved with setting aside, some of the enlargements of those parks, some of the new ideas this government has had relating to the environment in Canada in setting those aside, including some of the ballast water legislation, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994—that came into force just before, but we're enforcing—and offshore patrolling through asset purchase and asset build, which obviously creates a lot of jobs.
What is the real effect of this, basically, from the environmental perspective, that you see with your background as the Minister of Environment for some time, in extending this 100-mile limit? Do you see that this will create a lot of animosity for the north, or a lot of positive benefits? Obviously those new patrol boats will create jobs. They will create more infrastructure. Do you see positive benefits from this ongoing for 100,000 years, or how do you see this going as far as the environment is concerned?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
When you regulate and enforce in the environmental area, it would be a mistake to say that this will immediately solve all problems. We have a Criminal Code, but we still have crime. What this is is a major effort, a major step forward to demonstrate that this is a huge priority, not just for the Government of Canada but for Canadians. And this law being passed by Parliament, and then proclaimed, and then enforced, each will be big steps on a journey to do more in the Arctic so we don't repeat the same mistakes we made in the Great Lakes or in other parts of this planet. There are a lot of pristine areas that are relatively environmentally clean, and we want to ensure they stay that way.
So this is not the be-all and end-all. This will not solve every unanticipated problem, but I think it is a big step forward. Once it's passed, the next big step forward that will be required is adequate surveillance and enforcement, which will be other steps that we take in the journey.
In respect to environmental protection in the north, we moved forward on the East Arm, we moved forward on the Ramparts, we moved forward on Nahanni, and we moved forward on the whale sanctuary in Nunavut. None of those individually was a gigantic step, but collectively they mark a significant environmental agenda and protection. This is just part of that.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Minister, I thank you for joining us today. I know your officials are going to stay for the next hour, and I'm sure there are more questions to be asked. We appreciate your time and we look forward to your coming back to the committee in the near future.
Mr. Watson or Ms. Hoeppner, do you have any questions? And then we can go to three rounds. No?
Is there anyone else with questions? I have Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bevington.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'm glad you've stayed, even though your minister has abandoned you.
I want to pick up where I left off. It seemed to me what you were describing is that a relatively low level of incremental activity is anticipated as a result. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
In the additional area beyond the 100 miles, yes, that is correct.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
So the present need for this from a protection standpoint is not enormous. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
Perhaps I will put it the other way around, in this perspective. The main set of pollution prevention measures under this act and its regulations, called the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations, is directly related to the construction and the equipment and the qualifications of the crew for ships operating in that area. So the standards are higher than international standards at the moment, and therefore these extend to a vessel now entering that area, which has to comply with those standards.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I understand, and in the main I think you've heard different people say that it's laudatory that we would be attempting to upgrade, if you like, the protection. But I think it's an important context for people to know that this is something of an apprehended need.
Do we have any evidence that the lower standards have permitted pollution even at the lower levels of activity that you were describing before? Have there been issues and problems up to now in that area that we're aware of in our vigilance from our current zone?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
The short answer is no.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
You referenced before that we've heard claims in terms of the north Beaufort Sea and other things that are happening, but there must be a threshold of credibility where the government assesses that there is a likelihood of an increased activity. This is not just an empty exercise per se, a totally hypothetical preventative one. Is there anything the government analysis can share with us about where or when this increased activity is most likely to happen, or is it only speculative at this point?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
It's mostly speculative, because everything ends up depending on what the price of oil is today and what the price of minerals is tomorrow. So it's not easy to anticipate, although there are a number of projects in the offing and a number of companies indicating that regardless of the price of oil they will continue to plan for increased activity.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I assume these activities are both exploration. Is there any test drilling that we're aware of involved in those plans?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
That's correct. Yes, it's likely.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I assume our greatest concern would be that oil would get into the Arctic environment. Are the measures that protect that ecosystem tough enough under the current rules?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
Once you go to the site of the exploration, NRCan has the responsibility for the offshore aspects, and they indeed, through the National Energy Board, have the regulations in place. I could not tell you exactly what it is. I could tell--
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Sure, but on the transportation component, if they were to bring product away, and even test samples and so on, would that be under transportation?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
That is correct. That is covered under the current regulations.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Even if there were stepped-up activity in this area, is our experience with those that they are sufficient?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
Yes, they are.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
The minister said he had to check his inbox to see if there was anything at the ministerial level by way of an integrated plan, but I know that sometimes well-prepared bureaucracies run a little bit ahead of ministers. I'm wondering if there is emerging or if there exists something you could point the committee toward on an integrated plan between departments. I think you saw the minister at a number of points having to defer to other ministers, and I don't know if it's entirely efficient to bring every single minister with responsibility before us.
Is there a lead ministry within government, and is there an integrated plan in development? Or is there perhaps one that, because it wasn't at the ministerial level, the minister couldn't speak to earlier? Is there something there so that we know there is a plan that draws together these different considerations?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Design, Equipment and Boating Safety, Department of Transport
There are two aspects I could address. One is that in the preparation to propose the extension of the geographic area of coverage for the Arctic act, there was consultation, of course, particularly with the other two ministries, with NRCan and with Indian and Northern Affairs, and also with other departments of interest, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and indeed Foreign Affairs. That is from the perspective of consultation, then, with the other departments because of the various responsibilities.
With regard to when there are particular projects, for example, I know that right now Indian and Northern Affairs, which is the department that has the lead for initiatives in the north, is the one that coordinates amongst departments when there is a licence provided for exploration. Then we are called in to the different departments to coordinate what the possibilities are. That is going on for a particular project that is being proposed by a large company.