Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you. We'll ask for that. If you're able to provide it to this committee, that would be appreciated.
I now turn the floor over to Mr. Bigras.
You have two minutes.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions. The first concerns the $66 million over the next two years for the introduction of key elements of the regulatory regime. This is an electronic monitoring system for units exchanged in the carbon market. I think that's what was written in the federal budget. I'd like to know whether you sought outside expertise. Is there a business that is responsible for establishing that system, or is everything done in house?
My second question is for Mr. McLaughlin. I want to know whether you contracted out last year. Is all your research conducted in house? If not, how many businesses received contracts from the Round Table, for what amounts and for which studies? Is it possible to tell us, for each of the studies that you carried out, which business was directed to conduct the study or analysis, and for what amount? Is it possible to provide a breakdown and to submit that information to the committee? I assume the Round Table doesn't conduct all the studies alone. It must contact outside businesses. Is it possible to table all that information, not immediately, but later?
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
That's fine. Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's it.
First, I have just a quick question. I have a government document--more on the side of government propaganda out to the general public--claiming to spend $4.7 billion in the last fiscal year and $4.6 billion in this current year on the environment and climate change. Can you help me square the numbers between that claim and estimate and what we see before us in the 2008 estimates?
5:30 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I cannot in detail at the moment, although my colleague might. I know that the primary distinction would be between our own departmental investments or spending and environment-related initiatives that were spent across the Government of Canada.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If these numbers actually exist and are being spent, three times the equivalent of Environment Canada's budget is being spent outside of Environment Canada on alleged environmental initiatives. I expect that nuclear energy is included in the government's assessment of what it is to be environmental.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Actually, from the government's own document it says that includes spending on nuclear safety and liability as an environmental initiative.
I have one question just with respect to CEAA. I don't want Mr. Sylvester to feel left out of this.
Do you have any assessment of how much per applicant under a CEAA request for say a mining project when a first nation is participating in the assessment of a project to and fro? Is this a question that falls within your purview?
5:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I'm not sure I understand the question.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When a project is going through an environmental assessment analysis, participants are given a certain amount of funding to participate. Many first nations in my region are frustrated. They are unable to fully participate in the science analysis of a project. Funding seems to be very difficult to come by.
Do you go on a case-by-case basis? Is it per first nation? How do you manage to distribute the funds?
5:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Mr. Chair, there are a couple of sources for funds, for both allowing the agency to play a leadership role in managing the consultations with first nations, but perhaps more important, providing capacity funding for first nations to participate as part of the government's recently announced initiative to improve the performance of the regulatory system for major resource projects. There was a sum of $2.3 million that was earmarked for funding this proactive leadership of the consultations but also for participant funding for the 14 review panels that are currently being forecast coming forward.
Indeed, some of that work and some of the allocation of this funding has already taken place--for example, projects like the Lower Churchill hydroelectric development, the Joslyn Creek oil sands project, and in B.C., the Prosperity Gold Mine initiative is also benefiting from agency involvement in leading the consultations but also access to capacity funding.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen. You'll be glad to know that you did get Mr. Bigras' extra 30 seconds, and a bit more, as it turned out.
Mr. Warawa, for two minutes.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
In my two minutes I want to thank each witness and each department that's here today for answering some tough questions. I'm very proud of you and the hard work that you do for the government, but also for Canada.
Today the United Nations awarded the Prime Minister an award for Canada's contribution to biodiversity--another example of excellence in leadership. I want to thank you for making that possible and for your commitment to have Canada's toughest environmental plan in Canadian history to clean up the air that Canadians breathe, both for Canada and for the globe.
So thank you so much.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much, Mr. Warawa. I don't know if that's unanimous, but we'll go on here.
Our thanks to you is certainly unanimous, and we appreciate your presence here today. Thank you so much for coming.
Before we leave this, we could follow our procedure. We voted on the estimates separately, but I'm guessing what we're going to do is not vote on these estimates, because obviously they're deemed reported to the House if we do not do so. Do I presumably allow them to be deemed reported back to the House? Is that the way we'll approach this? In which case, again, thank you to the witnesses and to all colleagues. We'll see you on Monday.
The meeting is adjourned.