Debates of May 15th, 2012

Environment—Main Estimates, 2012-13

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, no, but I will explain why the Canadian Environmental Network is not considered to be one of those sources.

Times change, relevant contributions to the body of science change, and modalities change. In that sense, the CEM, like the national round table, NRT, represents quality services, but services of the past.

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

Madam Chair, again, the minister could not answer the question and list examples of this community of environmental stakeholders. I will give him one more chance.

I would ask him how these stakeholders are going to continue to provide analysis and policy advice when changes in the budget bill exclude them from environmental and pipeline reviews. Will environmental NGOs be considered directly affected or as having relevant information or expertise for the purposes of environmental review processes?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, my colleague obviously needs to pay some attention to the detail of Bill C-38.

The responsible resource development legislation has four very simple, very clear and environmentally logical provisions and principles. They are: to strengthen environmental protection first and foremost from my perspective as the Minister of the Environment; to make reviews of resource projects more predictable and timely; to reduce duplication and regulatory burden; and to enhance consultations with aboriginal Canadians. That is what Bill C-38 would do.

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

Madam Chair, we have read the bill and we know that it would exclude environmental organizations that have much to offer and much to teach the government about environmental assessments.

I am going to move on to environmental emergencies and give the minister the opportunity to respond to the question that he did not respond to from the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

Since the environmental emergency offices are being closed in places like British Columbia, how many people in total worked in this program before the restructuring? How many people will work at the two consolidated offices? How many jobs in total will be lost from this program? What jobs specifically are being cut?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, I would be glad to answer my hon. colleague, but I would remind him again that the environmental emergency offices are not first responders. Environment Canada personnel very rarely attend the sites of pollutant spills, oil spills or gaseous emissions. They support the lead agencies in any of these cleanup situations, be they municipal organizations, fire departments, police departments, provincial organizations, or in the case of federal departments, where a seaborne spill is involved, the Coast Guard under Transport Canada, and for rail accidents, Transport Canada, or the appropriate federal lead agency.

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

Madam Chair, the former head of environmental emergencies said that the staff were regularly sent out to the scene.

In the 2010 oil spill at the Chevron refinery in Burrard Inlet, did Environment Canada respond on the ground?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, of the roughly between 1,500 and 2,000 spills that occur across Canada every year, Environment Canada personnel very rarely attend the scene. They do, and there have been instances in recent months, where they have been requested by a lead agency, be it a province or a federal ministry, such as the Department of Transport, for example, with two recent rail accidents. However, for the most part, they support telephonically with advice and scientific data to assist whatever lead agency is in charge with the cleanup.

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

Madam Chair, I appreciate the minister correcting himself. Indeed, they are present on the ground.

Could the minister tell us how many incidents the environmental emergencies program has been involved in responding to for each of the last three years?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, again, I do not have those numbers at hand but I can certainly find them for my colleague. However, as I said in my earlier response, very seldom do Environment Canada personnel attend spill sites. They provide support and essential data but on very few occasions would they attend the site.

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

Madam Chair, it would be helpful if the minister could actually respond with the number of times that has happened, and we can make the judgment as to whether that is often or not.

We asked this earlier and we ask it again. How many positions have been cut in British Columbia and what is the total jobs that will be present and will continue at the two consolidated offices?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, I can tell my colleague that in the consolidation of the six offices to two, which will not in any way compromise the efficiency or the services provided by the environmental emergencies office, the reduction is from 59 jobs to 36, which leaves a net job loss of 23.

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

Madam Chair, I hear the Conservatives clapping for the loss of jobs in British Columbia.

I would like to come back to asking the minister another question. What is the estimated time for environmental emergencies program staff to arrive on the scene of an incident, for example, in Vancouver from offices back east now that the regional offices have been closed?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, again my colleague cannot seem to grasp this.

Environment Canada personnel or not first responders. The responsibility lies with the municipal, provincial or the federal department or agency that is in charge of the cleanup and actually accomplishes the containment and the cleanup with advice generally from a distance and scientific data provided through a variety of technologies.

However, Environment Canada personnel are not emergency first responders in any instance.

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

Madam Chair, we have had the former head of environmental emergencies say that staff were sent out to the scene. The minister said no and then admitted later that it does happen but he cannot provide us with the numbers.

I have a last question. Given that the minister was unable to respond to the member for Halifax and unable to respond to many of the questions from the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, why does the minister have difficulty responding to basic questions about his ministry with respect to information that Canadians want to know?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Chair, my colleague trivializes this entire process. However, I am here tonight to say that with regard to the environmental emergencies office or any of the other offices, departments and agencies within Environment Canada, we are dedicated to making Canada a cleaner, safer and more environmentally sustainable country now and for generations into the future.

[The Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

That completes this round. I will turn to the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Madam Chair, it is an honour to address my remarks regarding Bill C-38 to Canada's magnificent endowment of freshwater resources that are so important to our country.

I think Canadians treasure our freshwater endowment almost above all other resources. Our freshwater resources are vital sources of safe drinking water, key transportation routes and are the basis of our freshwater fisheries, as well as important for tourism recreation. Our lakes and rivers simply are what makes Canada Canada.

Our government has recognized that we have a tremendous responsibility to ensure our freshwater resources are protected. We understand that there are significant pressures affecting the health of some of our freshwater. We are addressing those challenges by taking concrete and measurable actions to restore and protect nationally significant bodies of freshwater, such as the Great Lakes, Lake Simcoe and, in my own backyard, Lake Winnipeg.

Environment Canada is carrying out this work by conducting leading edge science, research and monitoring to better understand issues, identify threats and inform decision-making to protect our precious water resources.

Our government is building partnerships with other levels of government, stakeholders and the public to plan and deliver on water-related priorities. We are cleaning up problem areas and addressing specific issues, such as eutrophication and to improve overall water quality.

In my own riding of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette, we have many beautiful freshwater lakes, rivers and wetlands that are used for both recreational and commercial fisheries and are very important to local communities, the local environment, the ecosystem processes, our economy and our rural way of life.

I would like to take a moment and focus on three nationally significant bodies of freshwater, their importance, what we have accomplished and where we are headed.

The Great Lakes and the major rivers that connect them constitute the world's largest freshwater system and they are fundamental to the well-being of millions of Canadians. This region supports Canada's highest concentration of industry, nearly 25% of total Canadian agricultural production, a commercial and recreational fishery that has been estimated to be worth about $7 billion and a transportation corridor with shipping from all over the world. The Great Lakes provide the foundations for billions of dollars in economic activity, sustain a rich a variety of plants and animals and are a direct source of high quality drinking water for one-fourth of Canadians.

The Government of Canada has made significant investments in the Great Lakes, resulting in important gains for both the environment and human health. Our investments include over $538 million since 2007 to enhance municipal waste water treatment infrastructure, which directly improves water quality within the Great Lakes. We provided $48.9 million from 2008 to 2016 to accelerate the remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes and the renewal of the Great Lakes action plan in budget 2010. We are committing $8 million per year on an ongoing basis to support the remediation of Great Lakes areas of concern, locations that have been identified as experiencing environmental degradation.

Budget 2011 provided new funding of $5 million over two years to improve nearshore water and ecosystem health and better address the phosphorous issues in the Great Lakes.

These significant investments in the Great Lakes are resulting in important environmental gains but more work needs to be done.

To that end, the Governments of Canada and the United States are in the process of finalizing amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Since 1972, this agreement has guided the efforts of both countries by aligning objectives and coordinating action across multiple jurisdictions.

The agreement has been an international example of effective management of shared water resources and was instrumental in reversing eutrophication issues in the late 1970s and 1980s, significantly reducing persistent toxic substances in the ecosystem and cleaning up contaminated areas within the Great Lakes.

The agreement and the leading edge work it produced has also served as a powerful driver for developing and reforming environmental laws and policies within the United States and Canada, including our own Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a key tool in delivering the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians.

An amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement would allow our government to comprehensively address current problems in the Great Lakes, including cumulative stresses acting on the nearshore environment, aquatic invasive species, habitats and species loss and climate change impacts, and move quickly to prevent future problems.

For over 40 years, the Government of Canada has worked in co-operation with the Province of Ontario on Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem health through a series of Canada-Ontario agreements respecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The Canada-Ontario agreement establishes a domestic plan of concrete actions that the federal and provincial governments will undertake to implement the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes. We anticipate a new Canada-Ontario agreement later this year that will align with the newly amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

The Government of Canada is also working to restore, protect and conserve water quality and ecosystem health in other bodies of water, such as Lake Simcoe in Ontario. Located north of Toronto, the lake is a major recreation area generating millions of dollars a year in tourism revenue. It lies in a major agricultural area and supplies drinking water to eight municipalities. The lake has been suffering some stress due to phosphorous inputs and eutrophication.

The health of Lake Simcoe has been declining for many years. Since 2008, the Government of Canada's $30 million Lake Simcoe cleanup fund has supported initiatives to preserve and protect the environment of Lake Simcoe and has allowed Canadians to live, work and play near Lake Simcoe to enjoy the benefits of a cleaner lake. I am proud to say that our government has supported, which I find unbelievable, approximately 160 local projects so far, including over 90 habitat and non-point source pollution improvement projects to restore and preserve the health of Lake Simcoe. That is what I call delivering real environmental results.

Recognizing the success of this program, budget 2012 continues to provide new investments to ensure we are able to work together with local partners toward improving the water quality and ecosystem health of Lake Simcoe and deliver on our commitment to clean water.

The Government of Canada is also taking action on Lake Winnipeg to restore its ecological integrity, reduce blue-green algae blooms, ensure fewer beach closings and ensure continuation of a vibrant and sustainable fishery. Lake Winnipeg is the sixth largest freshwater lake in North America and supports a $50 million per year freshwater fishery and a $110 million per year tourism industry. The lake is situated in and receives inputs from a drainage basin of almost one million square kilometres that encompasses four provinces and four U.S. states.

Beginning in 2008, the Government of Canada committed $17.7 million over four years to work with our provincial partners to clean up Lake Winnipeg through the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative, again delivering real environmental results. This initiative has contributed to cleaning up the lake and supporting science.

Despite the work done to date, Lake Winnipeg continues to experience poor water quality due to excess nutrient loading from multiple local and transboundary sources. The excess nutrient load causes increasingly large, frequent and potentially toxic algal blooms. Without a reduction in nutrient inputs, primarily phosphorous, deterioration in the lake's water quality will continue.

Budget 2012 also provides renewed funding for Lake Winnipeg to continue the important work begun in 2007, which will enable us to work with partners to take action to resolve problems that threaten this great resource. Through our work on Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe and the Great Lakes, the Government of Canada is ensuring clean freshwater for all Canadians.

We will continue to deliver on that commitment through our government's investments in research, monitoring, leading edge science, partnerships with other jurisdictions and targeted actions to clean up problems of the past. We hope to prevent future problems because Canada's freshwater resources are not only a source of immense pride for our country but are vital to supporting our environment, our economy and our society.

I cannot emphasize enough that this government provides resources to deliver real and tangible environmental results.

I have questions for the minister. I was wondering if the minister could please explain and elaborate on what our government is doing to protect the Great Lakes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette who really cares about Canada's environment. He does a great job on the environment committee. He is a great superstar for our team.

With regard to Canada's Great Lakes, we have invested millions of dollars to protecting Canada's water over the last years including, for example: $48 million to accelerate the remediation of contaminated sediments in Great Lakes areas of concern under the clean water action plan, and I am not sure my colleagues opposite voted for that; $8 million per year on an ongoing basis to support the remediation of the area of concerns under the Great Lake action plan in budget 2010, and I am not sure if my colleagues across the way voted for that either; $16 million to address the recurrence of toxic nuisance algae in the Great Lakes with a particular focus on Lake Erie in budget 2011, and they did not vote for that either; and over $330 million between 2005 and 2010 to enhance municipal waste water treatment infrastructure within the basin.

These are important measures that result in tangible environmental outcomes, as my colleague has so succinctly said.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Chair, could the minister or parliamentary secretary further elaborate on what the Government of Canada is doing to protect Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg?

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

Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity of being at Lake Simcoe this year to announce further funding for the protection of this great region. Lake Simcoe has an enormous impact on the regional economy. We have several members of our government who are keenly interested in ensuring that this water basin maintains its health. To support that, the Government of Canada's $30 million Lake Simcoe cleanup fund has supported initiatives designed to preserve and protect the environment of Lake Simcoe, supporting 160 local projects since 2008 and leveraging another 600 restoration projects with third party agreements. This means that local community groups are working with government to partner and ensure the health of this ecosystem. However, the NDP voted against this funding as well.

Through the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative, Canada committed $17.7 million over four years, from 2008 to 2012, to clean up Lake Winnipeg, aiming to reduce blue-green algae blooms, ensure fewer beach closings, keep in place a sustainable fishery, provide a clean lake for recreation and restore the ecological integrity of the lake.

Again, we are recognizing a problem that is happening in one of our water basins, investing to support it, working with community groups to come up with real action, but the NDP voted against that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Chair, the members opposite make a great show of being supporters of environmental groups, but one of the most significant environmental communities in our country that they never talk about or support is Canada's millions of hunters and anglers who are the true conservationists in the country. They deliver on the ground programs and projects through local clubs and deliver real environmental results. In fact, this is one conservation group that actually asks to pay tax.

In the minister's department there is a section called Wildlife Habitat Canada, which is funded by the hunting licences that we migratory bird hunters have to buy. I am a very strong supporter of this agency.

Could the minister or the parliamentary secretary make a few comments on the great work that the dollars from hunters and anglers do to support conservation in their department?

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

Mr. Chair, my colleague's excellent question shows how government can work with local organizations whose members understand the community and help support initiatives on the ground that make impactful, significant support for our environment changes on an ongoing basis.

My colleague talked about organizations which we partner with, including Ducks Unlimited. We have heard from Ducks Unlimited in committee several times over the last few weeks, with regard to the development of a national conservation plan. There is the NCC. These are all groups, including our fisher and angler communities, that work to preserve the landscape in a working landscape concept. This means they understand the principle of using land for productivity, while ensuring conservation.

Some of the things we have done to support meaningful environmental protection in our country since 2006, which my colleagues have voted against, include: nearly $200 million to help address the health and environmental risks posed by dangerous chemicals through the chemical management plan; $100 million to support clean energy generation in Canada's forest sector through the next generation renewable power initiative; $97 million to develop and promote clean energy technologies; and $86 million to support clean energy actions, this year. I hope they will support those in the future.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask some questions about the impact of environmental assessments on first nations.

There was $13.6 million in the budget for consultations.

Can the minister tell us what portion of that $13.6 million will be specifically allocated to aboriginal communities for consultations?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the bulk of the money, and I will see if I can put my hands on the specific dollar amount, will go to aboriginal consultation with a very small amount will go to administration costs.

Through Bill C-38, through the responsible resource development legislation, we have ensured that we not only do what has been done so well in the past with regard to aboriginal consultation, but that we engage earlier and that we fulfill our statutory obligations to support and assist their interventions.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Chair, I still have not heard an answer. The minister says he will try to get the total. I hope I will get an answer before the end of the evening.

Given that the budget announced essentially the same amount that was allocated to consultations before budget 2012, and that this is not really new funding since the aboriginal funding envelope program was ending, can the minister tell us how much of this funding is new money?