Debates of May 15th, 2012

Environment—Main Estimates, 2012-13

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, can the minister even confirm that there will be money spent on public consultation this coming year?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the short answer is yes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is great that the minister was able to answer my question. I applaud him for that.

Moving on, the changes in part 3, division 1 of the budget implementation bill hand over the decision on who is an interested party to the National Energy Board, or whoever is carrying out the assessment. It says in new paragraph 2, “a person is an interested party if, in its opinion, the person is directly affected by the carrying out of the designated project,” et cetera. How does the minister define “directly affected”?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, as with panels and comprehensive studies under CEAA in the past, it will be up to the individual panel to determine those who are appropriately in the affected category, whether they are people living in the immediate vicinity of a proposed project, whether they are first nations, or whether they have significant scientific expertise to share with the panel.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate actually getting some information from that answer.

Has the government developed guidelines to determine who will be considered directly affected or is this simply a panel decision?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is normally decided by the panels in compliance with the circumstances, the location and the scale of the proposed project.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is normally decided by panel, but I am wondering if the government has actually developed guidelines to determine who is directly affected.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the guidelines, as they are set out in general terms in the new legislation on the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission side of the assessment regime will be effectively harmonized, brought into line with processes, procedures and considerations already in place under CEAA.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, would people who live two kilometres from a proposed facility be considered directly affected or would it be a 5, 10 or 20 kilometre zone, such as with Fukushima? What is his opinion on how far one would actually need to be?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I have already explained, that is to be determined by the panel on the basis of what the proposed project is, where the proposed project is and which of the three groups I earlier outlined for my colleague is involved.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, what does the minister think our sustainable practice is in the oil sands?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, in short, they are practices that will, in the very least measure, have significant negative environmental impacts and those actions and measures which would be taken to mitigate that possible impact.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I will move on to schedule 2 that I spoke about. Subparagraph 5(1)(a)(iv) of the budget implementation act and clause 5(3) refer to the fact that environment effects are caused by, and there is a list of criteria there, but it says that items including “any other component of the environment that is set out in Schedule 2”.

Could the minister describe what is in schedule 2?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, yes I could.

My colleague is quite right, schedule 2 does allow the government to add to the environmental effects which are listed in section 5. Only effects within federal jurisdiction are relevant. The law could evolve and at some point in the future we might have other areas that would constitute federal jurisdiction.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, does the minister have a list or a draft list in the works of what would be in schedule 2?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, by the time this legislation comes into effect there will be additional information with regard to the regulatory side that complements the legislation itself.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to rise this evening. Actually, this is my third time in the past week that I am here at this late hour speaking to Canadians about issues that are important to them. Indeed, as the former chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment, it is great to be able to speak to the House about the important work being undertaken by the government, work that has a real impact on the health of all Canadians and the environment in which we live.

As everyone knows, Environment Canada is a regulatory department. As one of the federal government's most active regulators, Environment Canada has wide-ranging regulatory powers. In fact, the department is responsible for more than a dozen statutes and 80 regulations in a number of areas, including controlling the level of toxic substances in commercial products and protecting migratory birds and species at risk.

Although Environment Canada's strong regulatory performance goes uncontested given these realities, it is necessary for the department to aim for progressively higher levels of regulatory excellence. Changes to the regulatory processes will be a key component in enabling the department to achieve its goals for all Canadians. To this end, the department's next steps in improving regulatory measures involves streamlining and increasing the efficiency and transparency of its regulatory processes so they can be more efficient and effective.

While these are significant aims, there are broader, practical considerations as well, especially given the impact that environmental rules and standards have on our economy. We have to uphold these high standards at the same time as we ensure Canadian businesses hold their own in an intensely competitive global marketplace.

Given the key role that first-class environmental regulations play in a well-functioning economy, it is easy to understand why striving for regulatory excellence is so important. The commitment to regulatory excellence is perhaps best demonstrated through the internationally recognized chemicals management plan. Launched in 2006 as a combined effort of Environment Canada and Health Canada, the chemicals management plan has elevated Canada to the position of world leader in addressing threats to the safety and security of Canadians for new and existing chemical substances.

Many of the chemicals reviewed under the chemicals management plan are pervasive in the everyday lives of Canadians. They range from chemicals used in various industrial sectors, including fuels, energy, pulp and paper, household products, children's toys and in food. Bisphenol A is a well-known example. Here is a case where a comprehensive series of measures have been put in place starting with banning its use in baby bottles. This was followed by controls to limit the release of industrial effluents to water and the implementation to research and monitoring programs to determine if further action is required. In addition, the chemicals management plan is a predictable science-based regime that provides regulatory certainty for business.

Canada is also using its research and monitoring data together with our regulatory experience to provide international leadership in chemicals management. For example, last summer, Canada hosted the International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in Halifax. That brought together several hundred researchers from around the world and showcased the results of Canada's work in this field. In particular, this science has identified that over 95% of mercury, a potent neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to pregnant women and children, is coming from other countries and accumulating in Canada's north.

Canada's science is informing UN negotiations for a mercury treaty aimed toward limiting atmospheric emissions from these countries and, thus, protecting Canadians and our environment. It is also informing the international community on the progress that has been made in managing persistent organic pollutants, such as PCBs.

Together, over the past five years, Environment Canada and Health Canada have made great strides in a wide range of chemical risk assessments, regulatory activities, monitoring and research. That work must and will proceed.

In 2011, the government announced $500 million over five years to ensure the significant work on chemicals, which we began back in 2006, continues at full speed. We have made solid progress under the chemicals management plan in addressing a significant portion of the chemicals that are believed to be in commerce and that have been identified as having potential risks to human health or the environment. We have now worked through the assessment of about 1,100 chemicals on that list and will tackle close to 1,500 over the next five years. We will also ensure that new harmful chemicals do not enter the Canadian market.

The chemicals management plan exemplifies many of the hallmarks of a world-class regulatory system. It is a transparent regulatory program that provides for stakeholder participation and is responsive to the growing body of new science in this field. Last year, for example, stakeholders asked for reconsideration of one of our regulatory decisions on the basis of new science. A board of review was established composed of a panel of experts in this area and they examined new information, including studies carried out by Environment Canada. The board found that the substance did not pose a danger to the environment and, as such, the department was able to conclude that the substance was not toxic and regulatory control measures were not required.

Another strength of the chemicals management plan is the government's ongoing commitment to consult and share information with stakeholders and the public at key stages throughout the regulatory process.

Since 2006, about $400 million have been spent by Environment Canada and Health Canada to ensure that the health of Canadians and their environment is protected, which is a key priority. We are determined to ensure that existing chemicals used in our homes, businesses and public spaces are properly managed and that the risks to Canadians are minimized. We are equally determined to keep close tabs on any and all new chemicals that enter the market.

There is no question that protecting the health of Canadians and their environment is a key priority. This priority is clearly reflected through the funding of the next phases of the chemical management plan.

Moving forward, I am confident that Environment Canada and the entire department will continue to regulate in a manner that is evidence-based, efficient, effective, transparent and adaptable, firmly establishing itself as a world-class regulator.

I have a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary.

First, how can the government say that it is a world leader in chemicals management when Canadians and the environment are still exposed to harmful chemicals?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, I want to personally thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his hard work on the Lake Winnipeg file. He has been a tireless advocate for the health of that lake. I know he supports our government's continued funding for the important environmental protection work that we are doing in that area.

With regard to his question, Canada's chemical management plan is leading the world on many fronts. We are the first country in the world to conduct a systematic assessment of all chemicals in commerce. This has put us in a position where we are pioneering the management of certain chemicals. For example, Canada was the first country in the world to take action to prohibit the importation, sale and advertising of baby bottles that contain BPA.

The CMP will continue to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. We will continue to work with industry to support stewardship and innovation, to partner and engage with all stakeholders for effectiveness and efficiency, to invest in research and monitoring, to work with our international partners and to make information on chemicals publicly available so that Canadians can participate in consultations with us and make informed decisions.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary mentioned Lake Winnipeg and its south basin is in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake. This has been one initiative that I have been so pleased was undertaken by our government.

Over the past four years, Environment Canada has invested $18 million in research to look at things like nutrient loads and ways to control agricultural run-off and to monitor and improve municipal waste water treatment right through the entire basin. The basin consists of four provinces and four U.S. states. It has been incredible to have the participation of stakeholders throughout the Lake Winnipeg basin. They have contributed to the knowledge and the reduction of nutrient loads going into Lake Winnipeg.

I, my kids and my family love to swim in Lake Winnipeg. We have some beautiful beaches in the south basin and the last thing we want to see is algae blooms. The last thing we want to see is having high E. coli counts and beach closures because of these nutrient loads that occur from time to time. We need to work closely with stakeholders to reduce those nutrients.

The $18 million through Environment Canada and targeted through research within the department and also working along with academics throughout the basin have provided a significant benefit long term. Part of the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative also consisted of the Lake Winnipeg stewardship fund and that component was almost $4 million in funding provided to community stakeholder groups that did different types of projects. One that was particularly successful, and is still running to this day, was the one that was undertaken by the Lake Winnipeg south basin mayors and reeves. They introduced a lake-friendly program to label products that were lake friendly, essentially that they were low in phosphates and nitrates and that they were safe to use if they ever ended up in the lake through the watershed.

In watching the debate earlier today, I understand there were a number of members who already spoke to the benefits of protecting Lake Winnipeg since it acted as the reservoir for the entire southern Prairies and the northern great plains of the United States.

The parliamentary secretary is extremely familiar with Lake Winnipeg. Could she speak of her experience and her ideas and suggestions on how this program has worked and how it may continue into the future?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, my colleague's question is well-informed. He is quite correct. I have a great fondness in my heart for Lake Winnipeg, having grown up spending countless summer nights on that lake. It is dear to many people in the prairie provinces. However, it is important to note as well that the Lake Winnipeg basin's watershed exceeds over one million square kilometres. As my colleague mentioned, it also incorporates part of the northern U.S. states.

Therefore, it is particularly important that we continue the work we do as a government to monitor water quality in the major rivers that contribute nutrients to Lake Winnipeg, including the Red, Pembina and Saskatchewan Rivers. As has been mentioned already tonight, we are also monitoring for biological effects and changes along the southern shoreline of the lake and following nutrient transport from distributed sources.

The one thing I want to highlight in my colleague's comments is the ongoing partnership that our government has with local conservation groups, local research teams and industry groups to get to a point where we have policy in place that balances that need to use the landscape to produce agriculture with that environmental protection component. Our investments into this area are so important and vital. As a former Manitoban, this is really important to the people of that province and the watershed basin. We hope we will continue with those measures well into the future.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chair, in the last Parliament, when I was the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment, I was proud of the work that we undertook in studying the oil sands. We looked at the amount of work that was taking place in monitoring the oil sands and the possible contamination of the Athabasca River and surrounding area and the impact on downstream communities. I am quite concerned about some of the comments that have been made by the leader of the NDP over the last week or so.

What is the parliamentary secretary's take on the comments made by the leader of the NDP, calling the oil sands a disease that was going to hurt Ontario and eastern Canada.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for this very important question, because to put these comments into perspective, we have been talking tonight a lot about funding programs that support the environment.

The oil sands make a very important contribution to the Canadian economy. If developed sustainably, the oil sands are projected to contribute over $2.1 trillion over the next 25 years to our economy. To have the Leader of the Opposition engaging in tactics that would see workers in one region pitted against workers in another is not really productive. It is not productive to help grow the economy; furthermore, it is not productive towards ensuring that we continue to have industrial growth so that these important programs we are talking about tonight—programs we need to fund, such as the Great Lakes Basin protection programs—will continue to have sustainable funding available.

I certainly hope that my colleagues opposite, over the coming weeks, will repudiate their leader's comments and support workers across this country in a unified way.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That will bring that round to a close.

Now we will go to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have been disappointed with the lack of responses to our questions this evening.

However, I am going to come back now to a question that I asked three times earlier tonight. I am sure the minister has now had time to consult his department officials. It is a very simple question around the environmental emergencies program.

How many incidents has the environmental emergencies program been involved in responding to for each of the last three years?

I ask this question for a third time now.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can give my colleague an approximate number. The total number of events, spills or releases of pollutants was approximately 1,500.

Here is the exact number. In 2010-11, there were 1,050 pollution incidents to which Environment Canada provided technical support. Of these events, though, Environment Canada personnel attended only approximately 10%.

I remind my colleague that Environment Canada staffers are not first responders. They very seldom attend unless there is a compelling reason, either in the magnitude of the event or in the scientific complexity, that requires their on-location presence.