Environment Committee on March 12th, 2020

[Carol Najm]

I'll answer that, if I may.

This is about financial pressures within Environment and Climate Change Canada that were experienced as a result of increased costs and public prosecutions and litigation costs, which our main estimates amounts were insufficient to support. We sought additional support from our colleagues in the portfolio and the agency. We are presenting this transfer through the supplementary estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Pauzé, you have 27 seconds left.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The money had been allocated to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, so what was it meant for originally?

[Terence Hubbard, Vice-President, Operations Sector, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

It was meant to support our partner in the portfolio.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Madam Collins, you have six minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

To follow up on Madam Pauzé's question about the grants and contributions, that adjustment, the $4.3 million, is directly related to the funding to strengthen environmental protections and address the concerns raised by indigenous groups. Is that correct?

[Carol Najm]

Yes, that is correct.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Great.

Can you explain the consultation process with indigenous groups that led to these measures? How was indigenous input incorporated into the planned environmental protections? Will any of the funding be going directly to indigenous groups who are best placed to provide stewardship and protect culture and biodiversity through control of their own territory?

[John Moffet]

Perhaps I can respond.

This funding is part of a full suite of funding that the government has provided as accommodation measures for indigenous communities directly or indirectly affected by the Trans Mountain pipeline. The decision around the nature of the accommodation measures and the magnitude of the accommodation measures was taken following intensive consultations with all affected indigenous communities along the line of the pipeline and in the Salish Sea. That engagement was coordinated by our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Will the communities that are still in opposition be receiving equal amounts of funding to strengthen environmental protections and address their concerns as the communities that are in support of the Trans Mountain extension?

[John Moffet]

I don't think I can say that any one community will receive an equal amount to others, but the program is targeting all affected communities regardless of any position they took during the consultations. It's actually primarily not a program for dispensing money directly to a community to use as it wants. These funds are established under certain programs focused primarily on building capacity to monitor cumulative effects.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The funding won't necessarily go directly to indigenous groups.

[John Moffet]

Ultimately, a lot of it will, for capacity building, but some of it will also be dedicated to doing environmental studies on issues identified by indigenous communities.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have about three minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Great. Okay. Maybe I'll change to a new topic quickly.

With the $454,000 that's being transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to respond to indigenous concerns on the overall health of the Salish Sea, can someone explain the plan for how this money is going to be spent? What was the consultation process with indigenous groups that led to these measures? How was that indigenous input incorporated?

[John Moffet]

Again, that's all part of the accommodation measures that were developed under the TMX decision.

I think it's primarily a vagary of the way government budgets are dispensed. Money was allocated to departments early on, and then as the design of the program evolved and different departmental responsibilities became clear as a result of the ongoing engagement with indigenous communities, a decision was made that Environment Canada needed a little more and DFO needed a little less. Again, the decision that led up to that was informed by the ongoing engagement. It wasn't engagement about that half million. It was engagement with the communities in the Salish Sea about what kind of government-supported activities would be appropriate to address their concerns.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm representing the riding of Victoria, and my riding and the neighbouring communities on Vancouver Island are all very concerned about the impact of the Trans Mountain pipeline on the Salish Sea. It will mean a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic. We need to know the risks to our coastal communities, to our economy and especially to indigenous rights.

I'm curious about the money that's being transferred. Will this $400,000 which is specifically marked for the Salish Sea be going directly to indigenous groups? They are the ones who are best placed to steward and protect the biological diversity on their own territories, and they need to have control over them to do so.

[John Moffet]

This funding is part of larger program around the Salish Sea. It is a program designed to engage all the indigenous communities in a discussion and planning process to identify the cumulative impact of the issues of concern to them, and then to develop ongoing monitoring activities to enable those communities as well as relevant decision-makers outside those communities to manage those impacts in the best way possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We now go to the five-minute round.

Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

I have a question around agriculture and the impact of certain government practices on rural Canada versus urban Canada. There were comments made around the climate action incentive fund as it relates to the pricing of pollution—there you go; I got the two items in there—or the carbon tax, as it's commonly known.

In my riding, there was about $12 million removed in the name of the carbon tax from agriculture alone. In one broiler barn, a supply management barn, they have baby chickens and they raise them up to so many pounds. It takes fuel. They were charged a 42% increase because of the carbon tax—$420 on a $1,000 fuel bill, all in the name of the carbon tax.

Those kinds of disproportionate things are going on every day in agriculture. How do we monitor that? Where do we look in the supplementary estimates (B) to prove that? Where do we look to start building a case so we can show the departments and the people that this is going on? How do we give ourselves the tools to get this turned around? It is removing millions of dollars in the name of the carbon tax, yet it's a detriment to our agriculture production and food production in this country.

[John Moffet]

This is an issue of concern and interest to the government. The initial design of the carbon-pricing system explicitly addressed considerations of the agricultural community. The federal pricing system is designed to minimize the impact on the agricultural community.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Where would I look for that?

[John Moffet]

I can provide the committee with documents around the design of the federal pricing system as well as documents we developed with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that describe the impact of the carbon pricing system on various components of the agricultural sector. I'd be happy to share those documents with the committee.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay.

The scale is huge. When we talk about consumers getting their money back, there is a blend in that grey area, and rural Canada is getting caught right in the crossfire every day.

When it comes to modelling, what models are we designing? When we say rural Canada is emitting this and urban Canada is emitting that, what models are we using and are they up to date? I know we've been struggling with those models. How are they all based on the climate action incentive fund? The numbers and the models have to be based on something, so how are they being reconciled? Who do we talk to about that?