Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have two minutes left. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Julie.

I'll go to Alan or Christine. We studied Bill C-69 for quite some time, late into the night. I know you guys know that because you were with us sometimes. In the supplementaries, there's $19 million to, as it says, begin assisting the transition from the old assessment system to the new impact assessment process. We heard a lot of testimony from various witnesses about the importance of ensuring that there weren't any unfair delays to proponents during the transition process. Is that what that money's for?

How will you guys be using these funds to avoid delays to the assessment process during this all-important transition?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

The funding that we've received now, and in particular the advance that Alan had indicated earlier, was to ensure that the agency could bring staff on board to be able to develop the policies, the technical guidance and the proposed regulatory consultation papers, in order to ensure that we can have a smooth transition to the new impact assessment legislation, should it be passed by the parliamentary process. We did hear loud and clear that, going forward, we need regulatory certainty.

For the regulations, we've consulted on two regulatory consultation papers for the information and time management regulations, as well as the project list regulations. We've begun that consultation process and we'll be coming out with a second round of consultation papers, so that there is certainty of process and people understand what the requirements would be, should the new legislation be passed.

As well, we're working on the technical guidance paper so that, should it be passed, we'll be ready to hit the ground running and transition projects smoothly to the new system.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Is that it, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair]

You have 10 seconds.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have 10 seconds. Are those the 100 employees you're talking about, with 65 already hired?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

Yes, and—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I understand. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair]

Next up, we have Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing once again before us. You are becoming an old hand at this. We will probably get to know each other better from year to year since we work together, and we all have the same objective: putting mechanisms in place to protect our planet.

We have to think of the future of our children and grandchildren. The two elements we can influence as parliamentarians are the budget deficit and the impact on our environment, on our planet. As a parliamentarian, I find those two points very important.

Today, a request for close to $20 million in additional spending was submitted to us. Obviously we don't break down that amount number by number. That said, however, I would like to understand one thing, and I'm going to compare the situation to private enterprise. When there are additional expenses, it is because people want to do something quickly. I think that for measures to protect our planet and reduce greenhouse gases, it would have been pertinent to add an additional $20 million.

Here are the elements in the list that justify the $20 million: a new impact assessment process; the indigenous guardians program; the federal carbon pollution pricing system; protecting nature, parks and wild spaces in Canada; government advertising programs; and funding to solve issues related to compensation administration.

Are those really our priorities to finish the year?

This is a big problem for me. You are asking for additional funds, but what will be the immediate impact on the environment? I cannot identify it. Two weeks ago, there was a march in Montreal, Quebec, and I took part in it. People were raising the emergency nature of the situation. And yet, people come to us, the government, for money simply to improve the six points on the list, and I will not read them again.

In what way does this request for $20 million align with the need to act quickly? What will be done in concrete terms to reduce greenhouse gases?

[Carol Najm]

I think it's important to appreciate that we have a very diverse department, and these estimates include all aspects of the work of the department, be it climate change, conserving nature or our role in impact assessment. It is about all of the priorities that we are dealing with on behalf of the department. More specifically, with regard to the direct actions to reduce climate change, there are a number of specific items in these estimates that are geared towards immediate outcomes.

Matt, do you want to speak to some of the more direct climate change items?

[Matt Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Department of the Environment]

Sure. I'd be pleased to. I think the bulk of the resources that are available to the department and to Parks Canada and to the Environmental Assessment Agency have been provided through previous budget allotments. In this case, we have asked for some specific funds for some specific purposes. It's more of a fine-tuning kind of approach, I would say.

In terms of climate change, I would point to the Canadian centre for climate services, for which we've asked for some modifications to the monies to change from one vote to another to allow for a more efficient application of that program. I have perhaps mentioned this program at other appearances before this committee in the past, but this is one through which we are finally making available to Canadians the government's data on the impacts of climate change in a format they can use. We're very pleased to be able to do that. We feel that it's overdue, and we're trying to do that as efficiently as we can.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I appreciate your answers, but I still find two points problematic.

First, I do not understand why you would ask for additional funds to run a government advertising campaign. Unless you are in an election year, there is no need to conduct a campaign to say that the government is taking concrete steps to benefit the environment. This was not in the initial budget, it is new and it comes out of nowhere. I find this disappointing, and it is not what I expected from Environment Canada.

That said, I understand that you may be between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand the government gives you guidelines, and on the other you must deal with daily reality.

The other point concerns issues with pay administration. None of that goes to the environment. I think it a waste, and grandstanding. I remind you that Bill C-69 has not yet been passed. You are asking for funds in connection with a bill that has not yet been approved in the Senate.

What is the priority? Are you really working in the interest of the environment? I'm asking myself some serious questions about that. Why run a publicity campaign at this point?

[Carol Najm]

Thank you for the question.

On the campaign funding, it is a horizontal initiative led by PCO. That money for Environment Canada is being used to promote the nature legacy fund. It will ensure that Canadians have a better understanding of the new nature agenda and what we are going to be doing with the money and how to access it.

The $1.4 million we're asking for is broken down into three components—experience nature, funding and indigenous—and the campaign will target specific audiences depending on the component.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

At this point, that operation could be postponed until the next budget. I would have appreciated being asked for funds to immediately decrease greenhouse gases. It would not be instantaneous, but at least it would be a start.

Is my speaking time up, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair]

You're out of time, but if anyone one would like to offer a quick comment...?

[Mark Cauchi, Director General, Protected Areas, Department of the Environment]

Maybe just quickly, the money provided in budget 2018 for the Canada nature fund is time limited. We recognize that if we're going to make any progress on protected areas or species at risk we need to work in partnership with communities. It's absolutely imperative that those communities across the country understand that there is money available, that government wants to partner with them and that there are the means to work together.

Without that basic understanding of the availability of funds under the Canada nature fund, the government's interest in forging partnerships and the matching money contained in the nature fund, it's going to be all the more difficult to make progress in that time-limited window.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Mr. Stetski.

[Wayne Stetski, Kootenay—Columbia, NDP]

Again, thank you for being here.

I want to start with the $24.9 million that is being sought by various departments and agencies “to strengthen internal capacity to address human resources and pay administration issues”. Is a lot of that specifically aimed at trying to cure some of the problems with the Phoenix pay system?

I'm the critic for national parks and I've heard from individuals who weren't getting paid at all, including students trying to go back to university. I've heard from people who were paid in the following year, which increased their tax bracket because they didn't get paid in the proper year. I've heard from people who were overpaid by, let's say, $1,000, and of course you only see about $700 on your paycheque because of the deductions, but government wants $1,000 back from those people. I don't know how you recover your deductions from all the various departments to get your $300 back from those departments.

Is that specifically what this is for? Is it to try to deal with the Phoenix cases, which are extreme in national parks, certainly, because of the variety of the job positions they have there, and perhaps in the other departments as well?

[Carol Najm]

Yes, thank you. It is specifically to enable the department to establish internal capacity to do a better liaison with staff and resolve the issues facing employees as a result of the Phoenix implementation. We are focused on ensuring that we have the data analytics and are able to resolve those cases on behalf of our employees. This money will go towards strengthening that internal capacity and also focusing our efforts on establishing a team to resolve the overpayment issue, which is continuing.

[Wayne Stetski]

Phoenix certainly was a disaster. I know that staff would appreciate any assistance you can offer in trying to resolve that in the long term.

On the $1.3 billion, I believe that's the $1.3 billion that a number of us advocated for and signed a letter to the finance minister on, which I think is very necessary. I didn't hear any talk, though, about what's happening with the Canadian Wildlife Service, which has been chronically underfunded. I'd like to give you an opportunity to talk about what the new funding might mean for the CWS.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

Thank you for the question, and indeed, the Canadian Wildlife Service is going to benefit from the $1.3 billion, although it's really important to note that a good part of that—half a billion dollars—is actually going to the Canada nature fund, which will allow funds to go out to other organizations to partner with and join us in the effort for conservation.

We did get funding primarily in the area of strengthening our capacity to deal with species at risk and in the movement toward protecting 17% of Canada's terrestrial environment. That will allow us to deal with some of the gaps we've had in our organization. We will grow our organization by somewhere around 250 to 300 employees over the course of the next five years.

[Wayne Stetski]

There's nothing in the supplementary estimates, at least nothing that was spoken to directly.

[Sue Milburn-Hopwood]

Yes, there are a few bits—and I don't have the exact amounts—programs through the indigenous guardians program, funding through the nature funds. It's small numbers of FTEs and some Gs and Cs funding to very specific pieces. It was really more of a cleanup, as a result of the approval of the submissions.

[Wayne Stetski]

When I saw the government advertising programs, I had some of the same questions and issues. Whenever you're heading into an election year, of course, there is a little bit of cynicism that comes with government advertising dollars.

The only advertising dollars you have are the $1.4 million that you referenced to promote the nature legacy campaign, at least in the supplementary estimates.

[Mark Cauchi]

That is correct.