:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation to speak to the committee this morning.
I'm pleased to be here today to speak to the supplementary estimates (C), but I will as well address the main estimates.
This is the first time I have had the pleasure of appearing before the committee since being named minister for Environment Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and Parks Canada, and I'm looking forward to working with all of you in the committee in the days ahead.
As you know, the position of environment minister carries great opportunity, the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to preserving Canada's spectacular natural legacy.
This government is keenly interested in striking the right balance between economic renewal and environmental protection. We have put in place a plan that is already reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a plan that takes a strategic sector-by-sector approach, a plan that focuses on real, measurable progress. And this plan, members, is already working. In partnership with provinces, territories, and others, we have already taken actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65 megatonnes, bringing us to about one-quarter of the way to meeting our target of reducing our emissions to 607 megatonnes by 2020.
Yes, there is much still to do, but over the past five years a solid foundation has been laid. Together with our provincial and territorial partners and others, we've made significant progress in a number of areas, including establishing new standards for emissions from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks, and we are in the process of doing the same for heavy vehicles; announcing standards that will phase out the use of dirty coal to generate electricity, another major emitter; signing the Copenhagen accord, an international agreement overseen by the United Nations that inscribes the greenhouse gas reduction targets of all major GHG emitters and establishes a framework that enhances the transparency of all parties' mitigation actions; providing $400 million in new and additional climate financing in 2010—the largest-ever contribution by Canada to support international efforts on climate change; and introducing aggressive new environmental enforcement rules, which have just passed into law.
With respect to climate change—one of the most serious environmental dangers facing the world today—we have made clear commitments and taken significant action. Along with the United States, we've pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It is, I agree, an ambitious target. To achieve that, we've developed a comprehensive plan to achieve real emission reductions in the short, medium, and long terms, while at the same time maintaining Canada's economic competitiveness and capacity to create jobs.
In some key areas Canada has strategically aligned its policy with that of our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States. Although this approach is by no means a boilerplate environmental solution, in some sectors the highly integrated nature of the North American economy makes it the most practical and efficient approach. This builds on a long and successful history of collaboration between our two countries. In particular, I would note that 20 years ago this month Canada and the United States signed the air quality agreement. At that time, acid rain was causing serious damage to our lakes and our ecosystems on both sides of the border, and smog was a serious threat to the air we breathe. Working together, Canada and the U.S. have cut in half the emissions that lead to acid rain, and cut by one-third our smog-causing emissions in the transboundary region established under the agreement.
On the transportation front, which is responsible for about 22% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, we've worked closely with the United States on 2011 vehicle emission standards. That makes sense because of the seamless cross-border characteristics of the automotive industry. We will continue to work together on even tougher standards for 2017 and beyond.
In the case of electricity, however, we're taking our own path. The United States relies on coal to generate about half its electric power. The United States has 650 coal-fired plants, compared to Canada's 51, which means we're in a better position to pursue an independent regulatory course to phase out coal plants and to become a world leader in clean electricity.
To repeat, this approach reflects our commitment to realistic and pragmatic policies, aligning with the U.S. where it makes sense, as in the case of transportation, and pursuing a unique path, such as electricity, where it does not. The government is also taking action to ensure that the economic benefits of developing the oil sands are balanced by a strong, clear environmental mandate. To that end, we have accepted the recommendations of an independent advisory panel of scientists who reviewed water monitoring practices in the area around the oil sands, specifically the Athabasca River and connected waterways.
We are currently developing a technical plan based on those recommendations. Working with Alberta and other stakeholders, including aboriginal communities, environmental groups, and industry, the scope of our plan will expand to include air quality monitoring, plant and animal habitats.
Especially at a time when oil prices are historically high and the incentive to ramp up production is strong, there is a need for clear, strong leadership on this file, and we are providing just that.
As for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Mr. Chair, our focus for the upcoming year will be on delivering high-quality environmental assessments on major projects and playing a lead role in shaping the future of federal environmental assessment.
We're also working to ensure that aboriginal people are consulted on environmental assessments affecting them. This is particularly important, of course, because the agency, on behalf of the Government of Canada, is responsible for encouraging and supporting aboriginal participation in the environmental assessment process.
In addition, I would also like to add to the actions that Parks Canada is taking to establish more and more protected wilderness areas. These areas are known to be natural buffers that protect our planet against the impacts of climate change, such as droughts and floods. They also provide safe havens for plants and animals that help nature respond to changing conditions. These past four years alone, we have taken steps that will add more than 133,000 square kilometres to the existing lands and waters administered by Parks Canada. That's a 48% increase, or an additional protected area equivalent to the size of a country such as Greece.
I would like to turn now to the estimates documents that are before Parliament for consideration. There are, as you know, two main documents: the supplementary (C) estimates for the 2010-11 fiscal year, and the main estimates for the 2011-12 fiscal year. We will be looking at these estimates for my portfolio, including Environment Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and Parks Canada.
Let's start with the supplementary (C) estimates. These estimates are the final requests for adjustments to our funding allocations for this fiscal year. For Environment Canada, this fiscal year started with a request for $1.1 billion in planned expenditures. This was a 10% increase over last year.
The first thing you will probably notice about these estimates is that they are not seeking additional funds. Rather, they are seeking to transfer $4.7 million to other departments.
The majority of these funds will be directed to departments as part of Canada's climate change financing. This money comes from Environment Canada's $5 million share of the $400 million that was approved to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, as outlined in the Copenhagen accord.
For Parks Canada, the supplementary estimates (C) are requesting to redirect $5 million from program expenditures to the new parks and historic sites account. This transfer would cover additional costs associated with new national parks and national marine conservation areas.
Mr. Chair, let's turn now to the main estimates--the first request for departmental funding for the next fiscal year.
Environment Canada is requesting $872 million in these main estimates. This amount is a portion of the funding that the department will request over the course of the fiscal year. We expect further adjustments will be made to our funding through the supplementary estimates tabled later in the year.
As you all know, departmental expenditures can change from year to year. This is especially true for a regulatory department like mine, where a portion of the funding has been temporary in nature and is subject to further scrutiny before renewal. This fiscal year, a number of our programs based on temporary funding will expire. This does not mean that programs such as the chemicals management plan, the species at risk, the clean air agenda, and the federal contaminated sites action plan will end.
In this context, and as reflected in earlier reports on planning and priorities, these programs are following the renewal process. The extension or enhancement of their temporary funding is subject to government decisions. Once approved, funding amounts will be included in the supplementary estimates to be tabled later this year.
As for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the 2011-12 main estimates propose $30 million in funding for the agency. This request is $1 million higher than was requested in the main estimates for the last fiscal year. The agency is seeking this additional funding to fulfill its additional responsibility for aboriginal consultation during environmental assessments by federal review panels.
The 2011-12 main estimates for Parks Canada, on the other hand, total $690.5 million. The net decrease you may note with these estimates is largely attributable to the end of funding under Canada's economic action plan. These estimates also reflect some reductions that have been made to reduce the rate of growth in Parks Canada's operating expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, let me close once again by thanking the committee for this opportunity to join you, and for your ongoing work on behalf of Canadians. As a new minister I value your insights and welcome your suggestions. I look forward to working with all of you to lighten our footprint on this planet and preserve our incredible natural legacy for future generations.
I'd now be delighted to answer your questions.
Thank you.
First, good morning, Mr. Minister. Welcome to the committee and best of luck in your new responsibilities.
Based on what you said to Mr. Kennedy, I understand that you cannot go into detail. But it seems to me that it is your duty, as Minister of the Environment, to protect the budgets available to you.
When we look at the main estimates that were submitted, we see a reduction of 20% expected for your department. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is not very active. It seems to me that he is a ghost Minister of the Environment, obedient and at the service of the Minister of Finance, who is prepared to make cuts in his department. You can understand that people expect the Minister of the Environment to be proactive and to protect the budgets placed at his disposal.
When I looked at the main estimates, I was very much interested in the Meteorological Service of Canada, among others, and in everything having to do to the deterioration of the climatological networks.
I don't know if you know that an Environment Canada report, issued by your department in June 2008, stated that Environment Canada's abilities were compromised in recent years because of the collection, interpretation and dissemination of information on the state of our national climate system. Major errors slipped in.
Environment Canada's clients, both internal and external, cannot get the information they are looking for. So I went and looked at what was planned in the main estimates. In fact, there were some contributions. I had a nice surprise.
But after I saw what you did with these contributions and the funding that you had been given, I was disillusioned. I was disillusioned when school principals and guide and scout leaders called me up and told me that, with that money, you were sending weatheradios to the various people involved so that schools and guide and scout leaders could "monitor the broadcast for weather information including warnings."
While you have cut back on Environment Canada's meteorological services in recent years, how can you now justify an expense in the order of $888,000 to help school principals who have taken your device, put it on a shelf and never used it? How can you justify such an expense now?
:
Where do I start? I have an entire book here that is full of good-news stories regarding Environment Canada, across the parks system, the meteorological service, as we discussed. There are some significant and very real challenges to be resolved. But there is a great deal of good news in terms of addressing the responsible and sustainable development of our resource industry, and the protections, regulations, oversight, and assessments that play into that.
I was at the Hamilton harbour yesterday to announce what has gone on, what is going on, and what will go on in terms of our commitment to the Great Lakes action plan in addressing areas of concern in terms of required remedial action. This is part of our agreement with the United States, the Great Lakes water quality agreement. There are still significant challenges to be resolved with regard to municipal waste water treatment and invasive species of fish, for example, into the waters of our Great Lakes and the boundary waters.
In Hamilton, the number one area of concern, of course, is a phenomenon known as Randle Reef. That is offshore from a large steel plant originally owned by Stelco, which is now owned by U.S. Steel. I'm encouraging our partners, the province, the municipalities of the area, and other stakeholders—Halton Region—to start the remedial action that will clean up the worst hot spot in terms of an environmental area of concern in Canada. It's very similar to the action that will be required on the Sydney tar ponds, for example.
In terms of other good news, certainly the expansion of our national parks and protected areas is significant, and it's something Canadians should be proud of. We've also worked with those who live and work and operate businesses adjacent to protected areas.
I met with the Cattlemen's Association a couple of weeks ago, and we reviewed the significant environmental benefits that have come from Parks Canada allowing cattle herds to graze in Grasslands National Park. That has helped to restore the natural habitats and the balanced environmental cycles that used to come when the buffalo roamed, and others.
Again, we are aware of dire projections with regard to climate change in the Canadian Arctic, and we are working with both Canadian stakeholders and our neighbours on the Arctic Council to ensure that species at risk, species that face adaptation to changing realities, are protected, and where necessary recovery programs are put into place.
:
Let me start at the beginning of your intervention, and you won't be surprised if I disagree wholeheartedly with your characterization. After 13 years of Liberal lip service to climate change and international remediation efforts, our government stands in stark contrast in the actions we have taken and the commitment we have made and continue to make.
With regard to your characterization that the 65-megatonne reduction is all that will happen between now and 2020, I would return to the fact that we have started with the transportation sector. Last year it was with automobiles and light trucks, and with renewable fuels to gasoline and to diesel. I'm about to bring in new regulations for heavy trucks on the road. Eventually--in the not-too-distant future, not too many months down the road--there will be regulations for off-road new heavy vehicles.
With regard to vehicle greenhouse gas reduction and emission controls, the first round will end in 2014 for automobiles and light trucks. There will be even more stringent requirements in those last five years. But if you take a look at that 65 megatonnes, that is what is now forecast to be achieved by 2020. That does not take into account the significant reductions that we will achieve in the coal-fired electricity generating sector, in other heavy emitting sectors, or the reduction, for example, of private and commercial and governmental residences across the country, which are in themselves large contributors to greenhouse gases and where remedial action is taking place and will take place.
The “retire your ride” program was a largely successful program, which was not intended, as some have suggested, as a stimulus to the automotive industry but as an environmental targeted program to reduce the number of pre-1995 polluting vehicles on the road. In that sense, the retire your ride program provided a modest incentive, $300, which was enough of an incentive to remove more than 126,000 vehicles from the road, and prevent the emission of some 4,000 tonnes of noxious fumes into the atmosphere. Newer vehicles of course meet higher standards now, and will meet even higher standards under our new regulations, and there are incentives from a number of quarters to move to electrical vehicles. I've talked to some of the scientists in my department, as well as to those in Hydro-Québec, which, for example, has a world-leading initiative in lithium battery storage, for more efficient storage of electricity, which will enable and encourage the auto sector to move into that area.
A couple of weeks ago I met with ambassadors from the United States and Canada, who met with the automotive sector, with the major manufacturers here in Canada, who are themselves committed to cleaner and leaner vehicles, including all hybrids and electrical vehicles. We are already considering the sorts of common standards that will be required for the charging and the electrical standards to be met by those vehicles.
Again, in our continuing dialogue, colleagues, and certainly in continuing discussions and debates, on some occasions, with environmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, Canadians at large, and our international friends and partners, we need to conduct these discussions on the basis of facts and science. Sometimes we get somewhat derailed when there are exaggerations, misrepresentations, or deliberate untruths made to score points on one side or another of these arguments.
As we go forward, it is always relevant to remember that Canada does in fact contribute barely 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. If I may remind the committee again, transportation and the coal-fired electricity generation sectors are the largest contributors of those gases. Some other sectors receive more domestic and international coverage, but they are minor contributors to total greenhouse gas emissions.
I can't say this enough: Canada is a leader in the global science effort to address the phenomenon known as climate change. We are an active participant and contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As my colleagues will know, recent scientific results published in a variety of highly respected scientific journals have illustrated the significant contribution the scientists at Environment Canada are contributing on the world stage. They have also shown Canada's commitment to addressing the challenges of climate change and to encouraging the largest emitters to reform and remediate and adapt, because adaptation is a large part, certainly, of Environment Canada concerns and programs.
For example, in the Canadian Arctic, some damage that has been done and some challenges that need to be addressed cannot be fully corrected. With regard to plants, animals, and the human beings who live in those parts of Canada and in affected regions around the world, there needs to be funding and support in terms of adaptation.
With regard to that, the $400 million commitment made to the fast-start program, to which money is already flowing, is being applied to developing countries and to places such as small island states, which are already seeing rising sea levels. In some extreme cases they will require the eventual relocation of populations to other islands or higher ground.
You have seen in the supplementary estimates (C) the redirection of funding to CIDA for application in Haiti, where a large part of the environmental remediation is going to require reforestation on a scale that is probably unprecedented anywhere in the world.
The commitment is there. I offer to all of my colleagues, both on the government side and on the opposition side, any supplementary information, briefings, or updates you require. I will ensure that the information is made available and that we work together. This is one of those areas where we can and should put partisan dynamics aside, because, and I can't say it enough, there is so much good that is being done by the various departments within Environment Canada.
Thank you all for appearing. I particularly appreciate being able to appear in Mr. Scarpaleggia's absence as his replacement.
The minister in his presentation, which some of you heard, said that he valued our insight and welcomed our suggestions, and I'm hoping you would continue that theme with this discussion.
He indicated on page 4 of his presentation that the government had developed a comprehensive plan to achieve real emission reductions and at the same time maintain Canada's economic competitiveness and capacity to create jobs. I want to speak specifically about ecoAction and the ecoENERGY initiatives, which were a continuation of what the former Liberal government had presented under the enerGuide program. We're frankly appreciative of the continuation of that program, notwithstanding its rebranding.
If I can personalize this for a moment, in Guelph a company developed around that ecoENERGY program called Guelph Solar Hot Water. It created jobs installing hot water systems on buildings. When that program was surreptitiously abruptly ended last year, the owner of that company, Steve Dyck, came to me. We spoke and he was literally in tears from the loss of opportunity, the loss of jobs for his employees, and the loss of income for himself. It was just a terrible experience.
I then received e-mails from I can't tell you how many people, including a lady from Mount Forest, Corey La Chanse. She owns Green-Seal Technologies, which installs insulation in people's homes, and her business has also been affected. This is a program that allowed people to participate in climate change mitigation. It helped local economies. It spurred innovation and created jobs.
The minister indicated, “I will be a fierce champion for those programs that have proven effective over the course of recent years”. He said that, and yet he has already signalled in the House of Commons that this is a program that would not be coming back, which I regret.
So these are my questions to you. Was that program successful? How many jobs did it create? How many jobs have been lost because it has stopped? In your capacity working with the minister, will you be recommending to him that those programs be reconstituted?
I'm just going to fire my questions out there--I've got about four. For those of you who feel comfortable responding, please do so.
The first thing I'm going to talk about is the Species at Risk Act. This committee is undergoing a study of that right now. We've heard from other department officials that the expenditures to date under the Species at Risk Act have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not one species at risk has been moved off the various schedules in that act. Can you tell me what's being done in the department, as far as budgetary allocations, on any evaluations to determine dollars versus results, to ensure the taxpayer dollars are being used wisely for species at risk?
Mr. Boothe, you brought up rail. In my constituency there is a rail siding used by CN in the hamlet of Mirror, where CN constantly leaves their motors idling in close proximity to residents. This can't be very good for the environment. Are there any programs or any expenditures through Environment Canada that would either change the regulatory approach in dealing with these large diesel engines idling for excessive hours at a time, or programs that might encourage rail companies to reduce their footprints and their fuel consumption?
Mr. Latourelle, I'm going to come at you with park fees. Right now, if citizens of Calgary or Edmonton who drive west into British Columbia, or vice versa, say at the park gates that they're not going to be staying in the park, they get free passage through. Yet the 7,500 residents of Rocky Mountain House and 1,500 residents of Bentley who head west on Highway 11 are hit with a $20 fee for driving for 20 kilometres on the parkway. They end up driving south to Cochrane or north to Hinton to avoid that park fee. Wouldn't it make more sense for the environment to allow a shorter distance of travel from central Alberta to British Columbia by removing that fee? Frankly, I don't think it's fair, and it is quite punitive to people, depending on where they live.
When it comes to litigation, this committee just examined Bill a little while ago. Various environmental organizations, like Ecojustice, and so on, assured this committee that the cost of litigation for this bill, which actually.... The clauses in the bill actually create a litigious environment and make it easier for litigation to happen. Has anybody in the department prepared any expenditures to examine, should that bill come to pass, what the cost would be? They assured us that litigation would not happen if the bill were passed, yet we've seen increased budgets for litigation. I'm hearing conflicting stories from groups like Ecojustice that the taxpayers of Canada are going to be on the hook for these lawsuits against the Government of Canada.
:
I'll just make a quick comment about the Species at Risk Act. The reason why it has been such a failure goes back to the architecture of the act itself. It's an act that really inhibits citizens. I come from a farming and resource constituency and my constituents do a lot of voluntary conservation work, but the coercive nature of the Species at Risk Act is a grave weakness. I would urge the department to move from an enforcement approach to the conservation of species at risk to an incentive approach.
My question relates to how you develop policy within the department. I'm specifically referring to the policies related to greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and all of that.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy a couple of years ago put out a report called “Achieving 2050”. I was on the round table at the time when that report came out. The report, as I recall, looked at the economic impact of a cap and trade system, which seems to be off the table in North America. Nevertheless, it was an analysis of what a cap and trade program would do to the economy of the country.
One thing in particular stuck out for me, and even more so now that I am a member of Parliament for a remote rural constituency. The economic impact of a lot of these programs is disproportionately felt by people who live in rural areas or have low income.
I don't think there has been nearly enough discussion about the effect of a lot of the stuff on low-income Canadians and rural Canadians, because low-income people in this country, as well as rural people, spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy. Even though the majority of Canadians live in cities, what I really worry about is that too much policy is designed for urban Canada, which is fine, but often the needs of rural Canadians and low-income Canadians—and the two are often synonymous—are not considered.
In your department, when you're looking at these kinds of programs and policies, do you do an economic impact analysis and do you specifically look at the effect of what you're proposing on rural Canada and low-income Canadians?
:
Thank you for the question.
The issues you raise are indeed,key issues in the course of the policy analysis on various options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We use various sets of analytical tools that pull together different types of information.
One of the things we do is we match up what a regulatory instrument, whether it's a price instrument or a performance tender, would do in terms of industrial activity, what that does to prices, and then we work that through in terms of the impact on households. You can see the different impacts by location in the country, you can see it by income class of households. So it is a factor we regularly look at in the context of our economic analysis.
The second point I would make is that the impacts of these measures depend greatly on the details of the measures. For example, generally there's an assumption that any action to address greenhouse gas emissions increases the price of energy, and households thereby have to pay more. That's not always the case.
I think one key exception would be the performance standards the Government of Canada has put in place for light-duty vehicles, in collaboration with the U.S. government. Those are now working their way through the first period up until the model year 2017. It will generate a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
It will also reduce the total cost of operating motor vehicles. What happens is the vehicles cost a bit more because we require manufacturers to put technology in, but the fuel savings when people operate their vehicles means, for example, that for somebody driving a car a lot because they live in a rural community and they have a big commute distance, their overall cost of operating that car will be less as a result of these regulations. Yet greenhouse emissions will be reduced significantly in the country.
First, continuing with the matter of greenhouse gases, I have a lot of difficulty understanding your analysis. In the chart on your website—Mr. Ouellet referred to it—the calculations were 701 megatonnes for 2009, 718 megatonnes for 2010, 720 megatonnes for 2011, and 728 megatonnes for 2012. These numbers clearly include federal measures. So, I am seeing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
On your website, your chart is showing numbers that include federal measures and numbers that don't. With the federal measures, with what you are proposing, the trend is not toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emission for 2009-2012, but rather an increase. That's the comment I wanted to make.
Next, it seems to me that research is fairly important. So far, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has financed a number of centres, including centres in the Arctic. I'm thinking of the atmospheric research centre in Nunavut. That centre was funded by the foundation.
Here's my question. In what you are proposing today, is there something that is going to make up for the cuts in funding to the foundation? You are saying that, in a few years, only infrastructure will be left, so a building, and that there won't be any researchers funded by the foundation. Has Environment Canada planned to offset the cuts in funding that the foundation is providing to these research centres? It's nice to have infrastructure, but it doesn't work very well if there are no researchers.