Evidence of meeting #63 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
That's correct. But as you know, the provinces and the territories have a major role to play in greenhouse gas reductions and air emission reductions.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This bring me to my question. Are all the programs that the provinces suggested intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
I think we can provide the summary of the programs that were indicated at the time the commitments were made. Ultimately the provinces and territories themselves will decide how to effectively use these funds—
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
—but the stated purpose of the trust is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution emissions, and in the case of the territories, support measures related to impacts and adaptation.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is there any cost-benefit analysis done? I'm just wondering how much of a hand the government.... Did the government say they need to spend this money on reducing climate change, which I understand is the intention of this fund? Was there any effort to say they should achieve that in the most cost-effective manner--you know, reductions of so many tonnes, with an ideal of not spending a lot of money and getting few results? Has the federal government ever given that indication to the provinces?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, I can't say. I certainly am not aware of any commitment or condition of that type. I think the principle behind the trust fund is that provinces have responsibilities in this area; they're exercising and putting in place their own plans. They are accountable to their electorates, and they are well placed to make good decisions in that regard; therefore, the federal government's contribution will be managed with those facts in mind.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
British Columbia is suggesting they use some of their money to subsidize a transmission line to open up mining operations in northern British Columbia. Is that seen by the federal government as a good idea in the effort to battle climate change?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with that specific project, but again I would come back to the basic principle here, which is that the federal government is making a financial contribution to support the provinces and territories in their own efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and they will be accountable for how those are funds are spent.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, but the federal government is accountable to the people who elect them. If funds are used that actually then contribute more greenhouse gases to our environment, would there not be an accountability loop that the federal government would be interested in?
It's not simply to the voters in that particular province. If a province goes out and subsidizes a pipeline because they feel that's justifiable to their own voters, that clearly wouldn't be a happy day for the federal government, which is trying to make strong claims to battle greenhouse gases.
I guess what I'm trying to find out here is this. When we cut the cheques--and I'm not sure that we have yet, because according to some provinces they haven't received any money, after many weeks--if the intention was to reduce greenhouse gases, clearly we would still have kept a little bit of a string on it to say that at the very least, you should be reducing greenhouse gases, but that there would be definitely no projects accepted by the federal government that would increase greenhouse gases in this country.
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
I think the purpose of the trust fund is very clear. The stated purpose is to support the reduction projects by the provinces and the territories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. I think that is clearly stated.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So is there anything stopping a province from using the funding on something that will eventually lead to greater emissions of greenhouse gases, like the opening up of an entire area for mining? Is there anything in the contracts, the arrangements that you have with the provinces, to stop that scenario?
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, as I said, the arrangement between the federal government and the provinces is captured in the announcements around each agreement. There is no further arrangement beyond it that may relate to the technical transfer of the funds through the trust arrangement.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm amazed. The reason I'm amazed is that I can't believe that our Prime Minister would go to a summit like the G8 with claims of their Turning the Corner plan, with promises and commitments made to the Canadian people, and then include in that commitment a series of spending announcements that have no real contractual obligation, nothing real to prevent a province or territory from spending the money on initiatives that they deem to be worthwhile but may in fact contribute more greenhouse gases. I'm stunned.
I have a question for Ms. Ruta. I'm just looking at your title: deputy minister and chief financial officer.
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
I'm the assistant deputy minister.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Excuse me. Pardon me, I didn't mean to promote you, although I'm sure you're deserving of it.
You're one of the ones who follow the money. You're the ones who essentially sign the cheques and make sure everything balances properly and that money is being spent well.
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
I am for Environment Canada, yes.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Environment Canada, we have been told by the minister, has spent $1 million on this ad campaign that my colleague from the Bloc referred to. Is that true?
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Well, I have to get the specific details on that. I'm sure we can get that, but I don't sign every single cheque that goes through my department. I cannot confirm whether that money's gone out or what exactly that amount is, but we'll get that information for you quickly.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Are you ever asked to do any sort of cost-benefit analysis on whether spending $1 million on this will produce so much reduction in greenhouse gases versus $1 million on that? Does the government do that assessment?
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
Normally, as part of our expenditure management system, we do have areas within the department with program evaluators who go out and look at the value achieved for money through programs.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is that value for money just with respect to greenhouse gas reductions?
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
They undertake certain reviews, and....
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm just asking if this is one of the criteria? Do you folks ever go through and say that we are going to spend so much here, or we have spent $1 million here and we got so much tonnage reduced, and we spent $1 million there and this was a cheaper or more expensive way to do it? I'm just wondering if that's one of the criteria.
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of the Environment
As for how that's being done more broadly, I know that the government, for instance--and Environment Canada does have a role--has put together a horizontal management accountability results framework. This is prospective, I think, in a real eagerness to consolidate all the initiatives related to climate change and to clean air, and on a periodic basis to allow for a scrutiny and a challenge, in terms of whether the results being achieved--