Evidence of meeting #3 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you so much, Mrs. Smith. I really appreciate that.
We will start with questioning from Mr. Fast. Thanks.
February 18th, 2016 / 12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I noticed that a number of you raised the fact that our decisions have to be based on science. I want to strongly affirm that all of our responses and actions in addressing not only climate change but any environmental challenge have to be based on science.
I'd like to go straight to climate finance.
I believe, Ms. Métivier, you were lead negotiator in Paris. The Prime Minister made the announcement leading up to the Paris climate change conference that there would be $2.65 billion spent abroad on climate change support for developing and least-developed countries. That was a five-year commitment going forward, and it's being scaled up over those five years. As I understand it, the contribution in the fifth year will be $800 million.
Having reviewed the agreement on a number of occasions, it's pretty clear to me that the expectation in the agreement is that developed countries will make this funding permanent, or at the very least that funding will go on indefinitely well into the future, and that the funding will be scaled up over time. Am I correct in that understanding?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
If I answer right away, I didn't know if you—
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
You're right about how you describe what was announced. I mentioned on one of the slides that some of it has been allocated, but there's still an amount that's not yet allocated that we're going to allocate based on where we see the greatest need.
You will remember that developed countries had a commitment under Copenhagen of $100 billion global from all sources, not just from government sources but from all sources, up to 2020. What was agreed to in this agreement is that this would represent the floor after 2020.
Therefore, yes, it will continue, but from all sources, as we indicated, and by 2025 we would indicate a new target for developed countries. Under this agreement, we would set a new target. Those are the commitments under the agreement.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Is it fair to assume, then, that after 2020 Canada will be expected to continue to make commitments to the Green Climate Fund and other types of funding mechanisms, and that the expectation is that those amounts will continue to increase over time?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
The commitment is a global commitment. I think that in Paris Canada was clear that it would do its part in continuing to support developing countries. There are various mechanisms to do that. We're doing a lot of work to mobilize the Canadian private sector in that, but the commitment is what's in the agreement.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Yes, but you do accept that the Paris agreement actually talks about scaled-up financial resources from developed countries?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
It said it was a floor from all sources.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
On the same subject, I've had quite a number of Canadians raise concerns with me as to where the money will be spent, how it will be spent, and most importantly on what kinds of monitoring mechanisms will be in place from the Canadian side to ensure that those investments are made in a way that represents true value for Canadians.
One of the big concerns is there's this $2.65-billion announcement to spend Canadian taxpayers' dollars on foreign climate change initiatives, but very few commitments made for investments in Canada today, so I believe Canadians do have a right to be concerned, and specifically to be concerned about how we will actually monitor how that money is spent.
It's my understanding that the Green Climate Fund is administered internationally, that Canada only has one member out of 24 on that board, and that numerous different funding mechanisms will be used to disburse our commitments. Could you explain to us as a committee exactly how Canada will keep its finger on how the billions of dollars that we expect to commit to this will be spent over time?
12:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Negotiator for Climate Change, Department of the Environment
Yes, of course. First of all, I cannot answer exactly where all of that money is going to go, because the government has not yet decided how all of it will be invested, but we have history on managing climate finance. We will have to be accountable for that money under various Treasury Board rules and internal checks and balances. About a year ago, I think, the commission did an audit on that and provided recommendations.
Internationally, there is a lot of work being done by all countries on tracking the flows of climate finance globally and having robust methodology to be able to track and report on it. That's separate, but it's a key piece of work that we're part of. We do report on our climate finance through various reports, including the biannual report that Dan just mentioned, so we will be subject to normal—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Thank you.
I'm going to head right over to Parks Canada and start with some questions.
Just in the spirit of transparency, I did work for Parks Canada for 32 years, across five provinces and two territories. I've been off for about two years. We had a mutual severance of relationship just over 100 days ago, so I'd like to do a little bit of catch-up on what has happened to my much-beloved Parks Canada in the last two years or so.
I'm going to start with the systems plan. You touched on that and indicated that it's currently 77% complete. I'd like to relate back to something from the commissioner. I was with Parks when the Brundtland commission was happening in the eighties and I remember the report calling for completion of the system at that point.
To get to it simply, how active is the systems plan and the negotiations for the remaining 23%? If you could touch on that very briefly, I'd then like to talk a bit more on the systems plan. Where are we at now in the negotiations for the remaining natural regions?
12:10 p.m.
Chief Administrative Officer, Parks Canada
Parks Canada has an ongoing series of discussions with provinces, territories, and indigenous groups across the country to advance thinking and planning for national parks. They can be at all stages of the process, and indeed some of the discussions around establishing a new park can take years. One that has been in the press recently is the discussion on the southern Okanagan. There have also been discussions around Lancaster Sound being an NMCA.
We had very good success last year in announcing three new national parks with legislation completed. There is a very activist, ongoing process to try to reach agreement with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples about moving forward on those new park establishments.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Is there a timeline goal for completion, or are you simply plugging away at it?
12:10 p.m.
Chief Administrative Officer, Parks Canada
It's difficult when you're one of three potential partners—provinces, territories, and the local indigenous groups—that need to agree on the boundaries and on establishing new parks. Internally we have our focus on advancing some of those discussions, but in some ways we're very opportunistic. If British Columbia were to say that they're open to discussing the southern Okanagan, we would welcome that and move forward with those discussions. The same applies if another province or territory is willing to enter into those discussions.
Another one we're working on now is Thaydene Nene, with the Northwest Territories and the indigenous group up there.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I think that's good. I just wanted to give the committee a sense of where the discussions are at and where we're going.
In your presentation you talked about collections and assets. I'm wondering, since I didn't see it in here, if there's anything on condition assessments and the state of the assets within that fairly extensive collection. Do you have any information in the presentation that we could refer to, or would you be able to get information to us on the archeological collection and the built heritage collection?
I don't know if condition assessments are still being used, but are there condition ratings? Are we overall in a good state of repair, a poor state of repair? Do you have any comments on that?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Administrative Officer, Parks Canada
Just to clarify, are you specifically speaking about built heritage assets or the...?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Administrative Officer, Parks Canada
On built heritage, there is nothing specific in the document, and I don't have anything specific with me—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Is that something you would be able to get to us, just for future reference?
12:15 p.m.
Chief Administrative Officer, Parks Canada
So you're looking at the state of...?