:
Thank you. Good morning, everyone, Mr. Chair and committee members.
This is my first appearance before this committee, Mr. Chair, and I would like to start by saying how delighted I am to meet with you today.
Thank you for the invitation to appear here today to discuss the supplementary estimates (B) for fiscal year 2013–14 for Environment Canada, Parks Canada, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
I will begin with a brief statement that will highlight our government's actions on and investments in the environment. After that, I will be pleased to answer any questions that honourable members may have.
As this is the first time I'm meeting with many of you, I would like to start with a little personal background and my goals going forward. As a northerner, I know first-hand how important the environment is for our livelihood, our culture, and our traditions. Our relationship with the land and the water is an important part of our identity and our everyday lives. We still rely on wildlife that feeds our families. We understand how essential it is to protect the quality of our air, water, and environment.
There are multiple jurisdictions, players, and partners, and the issues have broad implications for our quality of life, standards of living, and economy. The degree of collaboration required to tackle environmental issues is something I am quite aware of. It was also a major part of my previous role as Minister of Health.
In the north, it is not a choice between the environment and the economy. Sustainability and balance are a significant part of the approach towards the environment. It is also the approach the government is taking.
Environment Canada has a broad and important mandate. Our business is protecting the environment, conserving the country's natural heritage, and providing weather and meteorological information to keep Canadians informed and safe.
Sound science is central to our work, and that's why, since 2006, our government has invested over $4 billion in science at Environment Canada. These investments support scientists working in well-equipped labs on important environmental issues such as air and water quality. This record level of support has made Environment Canada a world leader in scientific research, and we are proud of this.
By having a strong science base to work from, we are able to manage and deliver policies that will actually make a difference and improve the lives of Canadians, their families, and their environment. It is my goal to make sure our actions at Environment Canada continue to be based on the best available science and information.
Since we formed government, we have continued to advocate for increased transparency and access to scientific data. The joint Canada–Alberta oil sands monitoring data portal that we launched with the Government of Alberta is a perfect example of these efforts. Earlier this fall, I travelled to Alberta and was fortunate to see, first-hand, the great research being done on the ground. We will continue to make great strides on this front and provide the public with access to the scientific data collected through the joint oil sands monitoring plan and the methodology used to produce it.
Mr. Chair, since I became Canada's Minister of the Environment, I've had an opportunity to meet with many of the Environment Canada employees and to see the important work they are doing. In August, I was lucky enough to visit Environment Canada's Ontario Storm Prediction Centre. Here, I got to meet Environment Canada's scientists who provide Canada with globally respected weather services and world-leading scientific expertise and technology.
Our government is making important advancements to protect the quality of our air and water, and we are also enhancing our ability to ensure that our natural environment is clean, safe, and sustainable. For example, when it comes to climate change, our government has introduced strict new rules on light-duty vehicles for the 2011–2016 model years. We also proposed more stringent emission regulations for light-duty vehicles for the 2017–2025 period, and we published the final regulations for heavy-duty trucks.
We also became a world leader when we introduced new, stringent, coal-fired electricity regulations. In fact, it is important for this committee to note that in the first 21 years, the regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of about 214 megatonnes, which is equivalent to removing some 2.6 million personal vehicles per year from the roads.
Moving forward, we will continue to play a leadership role by taking concrete actions to reduce carbon emissions. We will build on our actions to date by working with provinces to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector while ensuring Canadian companies remain competitive.
On the international scene, Mr. Chair, I just returned from the UN climate change negotiations in Warsaw, Poland, where it was a privilege to represent Canada. I think this committee would be interested to know that Canada was very well received at this conference. Throughout the conference, several other countries personally thanked me or even made statements mentioning all of the support that Canada has provided.
During the conference, Canada played a constructive role and pressed for a global climate change agreement that includes all major emitters and supports meaningful global action. This has allowed us to come out of Warsaw with the momentum needed for achieving a new climate agreement in Paris in December 2015.
Canada's leadership was also instrumental in achieving a breakthrough in Warsaw on an important initiative to help developing countries reduce deforestation and forest degradation, which account for nearly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As well, Canada is actively promoting a North American protocol to add HFCs to the Montreal protocol. HFCs are potent greenhouse gases that are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, and addressing them will further our efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
Likewise, Canada is also an active player on other international bodies dealing with climate change. This September I travelled to Norway to take part in a high-level assembly of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. These potent greenhouse gases and dangerous air pollutants are of particular concern to arctic countries like Canada. They are one of the reasons the north is warming faster than other parts of the planet. In fact, I think it's important to note that Canada is a founding member and a major financial contributor to the CCAC.
Through Canada's chairmanship of the Arctic Council, the overarching theme is development for the people of the north, with three sub-themes: responsible arctic resource development, safe arctic shipping, and sustainable circumpolar communities. Reflecting the importance of taking action on short-lived climate pollutants, Canada has focused work in this area through its chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
The Arctic Council has working groups on a number of environmental issues, such as monitoring and preventing pollutants in the Arctic, climate change, biodiversity, and sustainability. The council is working to ensure responsible arctic development and to protect the arctic marine environment. It is also continuing to pursue cooperation among arctic and non-arctic states to support the conservation of migratory birds on which northerners rely.
The government has also taken major actions to protect air quality. We are implementing the air quality management system, which is endorsed by the Canadian Lung Association. This comprehensive approach for improving air quality in Canada results from years of extensive collaboration with the provinces and the territories as well as stakeholders. Continuing this collaboration is essential to its success, as federal, provincial, and territorial governments all have a role and responsibility in its implementation.
Another important development I would like to highlight for the committee is that in October Canada signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury. This is a global agreement to reduce mercury emissions and releases to the environment. This agreement is important, as 95% of the mercury deposited in Canada from human activity comes from foreign sources.
We're also building on our achievement in conserving and restoring Canada's natural heritage through programs such as the ecological gift program, the habitat stewardship program, and the Species at Risk Act. For example, in budget 2013 our government committed $20 million to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive lands. This builds on the $225 million that Environment Canada has already invested in the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
Our eco-action community funding program continues to support grassroots conservation activities at the local and regional levels. In September I announced our intention to introduce an emergency protection order for the greater sage grouse.
This initiative again builds on the actions of our government that have increased the size of our protected areas by creating three national wildlife areas, three marine protected areas, two national parks, and two national marine conservation areas. The total of these protected lands is equal to an area larger than the size of Denmark.
Going forward, as promised in the throne speech, our government will build on its record of conservation and protect Canada's rich natural heritage by unveiling a new national conservation plan. The national conservation plan will further increase protected areas for focusing on stronger marine and coastal conservation.
As we move forward we will work with communities, non-profit organizations, and businesses to create and protect more green space in our urban and suburban areas.
I would now like to turn to the supplementary estimates (B) for 2013-14. This is the first budget adjustment for—
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister.
I tend to focus my questions primarily out of the Public Accounts of Canada, volume II, page 8.6 and thereafter.
I'm just going to ask a whole series of questions, because I have only seven minutes and I'd like answers, and I'm perfectly prepared to accept written answers.
The first, page 8.6, under vote 1, you have total authorities of $768 million, and you lapse $43 million; you have $60 million, and you lapse $14 million; you have $171 million and you lapse $67 million. So out of a total budget of $1.1 billion, you lapse $125 million, roughly 10% of your budget. That seems to be an extraordinary amount of moneys given back to the treasury, which calls into question whether the original budget presentations are accurate and what it is that members of Parliament are voting on when they receive budgets from your department.
The second question comes from page 8.9, the top line, “Climate change and clean air”. Total authorities available are $240 million; authorities used in the current year $157 million, and that also comes out in your documents on November 28.
On “Threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution are minimized”, you're spending upwards of $70 million less than the authorities have granted to you. When you add in “Substances and waste management” and “Compliance promotion and enforcement”, all of those budgets take a hit as well. You have total authorities available of $375 million, you spent $278 million, so $100 million less than you have authority for.
Also on page 8.9, “Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency”, you have $32 million available to you and you've only spent $27 million.
I have several other questions.
Over to 8.12, you have total authorities available there of $4.7 million for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. You've used $1.9 million, almost $2 million, and you've lapsed $2.7 million. Again, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is a pretty important agency and you've walked away from the better end of half of their budget.
On 8.13, “Water resources, Regulatory services”, you have $163,000 available for water resources, and none of them have been used.
Also on page 8.13, under “Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, External revenues, Environmental assessment services”, you have available, $7.4 million and you've only used $2.2 million.
All of that indicates a substantial number of lapses certainly in areas of significance to Canadians. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is an important agency and a $5 million lapse on a budget of $8 million is a substantial lapse.
Possibly all of these have explanations. On the documentation that's before the committee it's not readily apparent what these explanations might be, so I'll leave those questions with you.
My final question has to do with your oil and gas regulations, and in response to Ms. Leslie's question, you say you're working on with the provinces.
Do you expect a decision will be made before or after President Obama makes the decision on Keystone?
:
Thank you for that question.
You're absolutely right, our government is playing a leadership role, and Canadians should be extremely proud of our record in the area of conservation.
Currently, Canada has protected approximately 10% of the terrestrial areas. This is equivalent to approximately twice the size of Spain. Building on this record, our government has increased the size of our protected areas by creating three national wildlife areas, three marine protected areas, two national parks, and two national marine conservation areas. Again, this area of land is equal to an area greater than the size of Denmark.
Further, since 2006, we have also protected more than 90,000 hectares of wildlife habitat, an area about twice the size of the city of Toronto.
In addition, thanks to our investment, the Nature Conservancy of Canada has secured more than 300,000 hectares of wildlife habitat, an area approximately half the size of Prince of Edward Island.
Finally, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has protected nearly 800,000 hectares, an area approximately the size of Kuwait.
These achievements on conservation have been recognized by the World Wildlife Fund, as they have presented Canada with a Gift to the Earth award for everything we have done since 2006.
Thank you.
:
I think it's a very important area, and one that I'm very happy to answer questions about.
Aboriginal traditional knowledge, ATK, or as we call it in my language Inuit qaujimajatuqangit, is an important source of information to inform policies and programs and science across the environment portfolio.
Environment Canada considers aboriginal traditional knowledge to be equal to traditional science and does not place a higher value on one over on the other. It is widely accepted that by hearing from and listening to and integrating the experiences of people who have lived on the land for thousands of years, we can greatly enhance our scientific knowledge. I would use polar bear management as an example.
Aboriginal traditional knowledge is used in management decisions related to species at risk, wildlife management protected areas, reporting on biodiversity, and environmental assessment. As an example, Inuit traditional knowledge has broadened current understanding of the birds and ecology of the arctic ecosystem, which is very important in making harvesting decisions.
I am very proud that the environment portfolio has been a leader in this respect. Parks Canada is recognized internationally because of the agency's work with indigenous people and its relationships with various groups.
I want to add that the Arctic Council has also put forth integrating Inuit traditional knowledge or aboriginal traditional knowledge in science as part of our two-year chairmanship, which has been accepted by the Arctic eight. All the countries that are part of the international Arctic Council forum have adopted a policy that will do better at incorporating into the science the traditional knowledge of people who have lived in the Arctic for thousands of years, followed by the United States' northern policy, which has also identified this area. I honestly think this will improve and enhance the scientific work being done on the arctic regions, as an example. I am very proud to be part of a department that is leading in these efforts with this government.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll note at the outset that in addition to Ron and Alan, we have officials behind us who can help with some of the detailed questions. With your permission, I could call them up to the table from time to time as we go.
Let me start on the Great Lakes issue, and I would ask our chief financial officer, Carol Najm, if she would come forward and provide specific details on what you've asked.
You're right to point out that the work we do at Environment Canada in the area of water is one of our priorities. We consider it quite important. It covers the Great Lakes, as you've mentioned, but there's also Georgian Bay, Lake Winnipeg, and a number of areas across the country. We're looking at what we can do to prevent the harmful effects of algae and other substances by trying to limit the amount of phosphorous that goes into the water, and we have a number of programs we've set up to do science, research, and action on those fronts. We work together with DFO in a number of circumstances.
Before I turn to Carol on the specific transfer to Fisheries, I'd just mention that our work with the U.S. on the Great Lakes is quite an important part of our activities as well, and we did agree to a renewal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 2012. That provides a very important part to our work, together with the U.S., in an area that obviously has very sensitive environmental impacts and a large population living around it. That's an area where we focus a fair amount of attention, and we were very happy to have that agreement renewed.
That agreement identifies specific areas of concern, which you've raised. I would note one that's very topical at the moment, which we've just got agreement to move forward on, and that's Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour. It has been identified as one of the areas of concern, and we are now moving forward with the agreement of the Government of Ontario, the municipality, and the Hamilton Port Authority on a very major remediation effort there. That's going to last a number of years, but we will finally be able to take care of the contaminants that are located there. That, again, is a very important part of what we're doing in the Great Lakes, in addition to the other areas across the country.
Carol, if you want to add anything on the specific transfer, go ahead.
:
That obscures my understanding of the government's strategy even more.
I'm fortunate enough to live in a riding that is home to a national park, Forges-du-Saint-Maurice, which you are, no doubt, familiar with, and the next riding over is home to La Mauricie National Park. But for a number of years, no resources were invested in La Mauricie National Park to help it reach its full tourism potential and so forth.
It goes without saying that the $55 million or so in budget cuts didn't help matters. So a strategy was put in place, and I'd like you to explain it to me. Where I'm from, we've seen guided tours disappear, and they really went a long way towards showcasing everything we have to offer visitors and enhancing their experience. The season was shortened and fees went up. Same thing with La Mauricie National Park, where the cost of a cross-country ski season pass will go from $49 to more than $100, somewhere around $110. The fee is more than doubling.
Adding insult to injury, it would seem that decision making around a park's operation depends on its visitor volume. You and I are more or less from the same generation. You probably remember that popular ad for Hygrade hot dogs that said more people ate them because they were fresher and they were fresher because more people ate them. I get the feeling this is the reverse situation. We're in a downward spiral: the less we invest, the less parks can draw visitors, and the fewer they draw, the greater the justification for budget cuts.
There are two possibilities. Either you explain the strategy to me, because I can't wrap my head around it at all. Or you tell me that the aim is to close some of Canada's parks, including Forges-du-Saint-Maurice, to balance the budget.
:
Thank you for your question.
I want to make it perfectly clear that none of Parks Canada's parks or historic sites are closing. In fact, Parks Canada's budget changes did not result in a single closure.
Keep in mind that, while we have made budget cuts in the past two years, during that same period, the number of visitors to our national parks has gone up by 2% and the total number of people visiting Canada's national historic sites has gone up by 5%. From our perspective, then, I would say it's not always possible to draw a correlation between budgets and visitor volume.
I'll give you an actual example. The S.S. Klondike National Historic Site in the Yukon experienced an increase in visitor volume of 33% this year. That's also a site where we partnered with the private sector to offer self-guided tours.
There are different situations across Canada, different economic realities and different challenges. At Parks Canada, our goal is to increase visitor volume at all our national parks and historic sites. That's in our business plan. Our target is to increase visitor volume by 10% over 5 years. That's still our goal today.
As far as self-guided tours are concerned, I have to tell you they've been very successful in some areas. Agencies in other countries use the technology as well. The U.S. National Park Service, for instance, uses it at Alcatraz Island, one of its biggest national historic sites.
:
Yes, I can speak to that.
As you've noted, we have a fairly significant project with the Government of Alberta to enhance monitoring in the oil sands area, which includes monitoring of water, air, land, and biodiversity. That's been agreed to relatively recently, and we are now starting to put in place a credible scientific plan.
We were always monitoring. Now we're increasing that in recognition of the fact that there is interest in the impacts of oil sands activity on the surrounding environment. We take that very seriously. We work very closely with Alberta, as the minister said. It's often important for us to work hand in hand with the provincial government.
The idea is a good thing for governments, industry, and citizens for a few reasons.
One, we'll have a better sense of what the impacts are. If there are impacts in the water, aquatic species, on the land, in the air, we'll know better because of this enhanced activity.
Two, it's also good for the industry itself because it shows we are paying attention. To the extent people outside Canada, or even within Canada, have concerns about the oil sands, we are making efforts to understand those impacts. If we see the impacts, we'll know better what to do.
Three, it's in our “open science” commitment. All of the information and the monitoring we do is available on the portal that we have established, and that is accessible to everyone. Again, it's putting that information out there that people, researchers, can use and can do their own subresearch projects on.