Environment Committee on March 10th, 2021

[Niall O'Dea]

Then in terms of the interim target question that you posed, the international target is for 2030, and the international target that we're working towards is 30 by 30. For Canada, 2025 is an interim target, which is actually unique globally.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay, so it sounds like there are no interim targets between those years of 2020 and 2025, or between 2025 and 2030.

Moving on to the enforcement pieces, Environment and Climate Change Canada is requesting funds to modernize the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. I'm glad to hear it. The request is $2.3 million for this purpose, and $116,000 under capital expenditures.

Can you provide a bit more information about what that modernization will undertake? What practices, laws and regulations will this modernization affect? Really, are you drawing lessons learned from the Volkswagen defeat device case?

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you so much for that question.

I think, as Minister Wilkinson indicated in his comments, the amount that you see in supplementary estimates (C) is the first of an injection of resources into the enforcement branch and the enforcement work of Environment and Climate Change Canada so that we can move in this space towards more risk-based enforcement activity, and of course, have more boots on the ground, more enforcement officers in place.

I'm happy to turn it over to the chief enforcement officer, Anne-Marie Pelletier, who's with us today, to elaborate further.

[Anne-Marie Pelletier, Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, deputy.

For supplementary estimates (C), what we're requesting in the vote is really to look at revamping our technology. We're going to be looking at developing a forensic lab that will provide us with even more modernization when it comes to investigation. We're also going to be looking at our database and how we can increase that so we can actually look at our risk assessment further down the road. It's an initial investment throughout the five years, but this is the foundational piece that we will need in order to do our modernization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We have time for one more round, but a slightly shortened round. We'll do four minutes and two minutes instead of the five and two and a half.

We'll start with Mr. McLean for four minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask the deputy minister a question.

Supplementary estimates (C) ask for an extra $70 million for your department, and the minister was kind enough to let us know that part of that is being sent once again to Smart Prosperity. These proxy organizations where all the money is being sent through your department include Smart Prosperity, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Institute for Sustainable Finance and Clean Energy Canada. At what point does the department realize that they are only a proxy for a bunch of organizations that are being funded by this government and that they are just a flow-through vehicle with no input to the government? How are the Canadian people going to feel about that?

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you very much for that question.

There is a very specific item in supplementary estimates (C) that is a flow-through to Agriculture Canada and then on to Smart Prosperity. That is a fact of the supplementary estimates. I would not necessarily agree with the premise of the question in terms of this being how we conduct business. I think at times there are external players out there who can contribute to advancing our work and we will use that tool, but the vast majority of the dollars coming into the supplementary estimates (C) that we're talking about today are investments directly into Environment and Climate Change Canada.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

Canadians will look at it and recognize it's a boondoggle. I have to call it here as straight as it is. It's a boondoggle. It's a funding boondoggle. I think I have to warn you that there comes a point in time here where that funding boondoggle is going to have to result in decreases in your department as far as the funding goes, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, obviously.

There are other issues here, and I want to follow on with the questions that were raised with the minister about the math around how we actually plant trees and pay for the planting of them. The math is incredibly suspect, as even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has articulated very clearly. Industry has also said that the numbers are way too low. At what point in time here, between your department and the Department of Natural Resources, do we actually start to come to grips that we can't continue to just guess at these numbers? We actually have to put real plans on the table about where we're spending Canadians' money.

[Christine Hogan]

I would reiterate the very important leadership role of Natural Resources Canada on this particular piece of work contributing to the strengthened climate plan.

This is an area, particularly from Environment and Climate Change Canada's perspective, where we are very focused on the biodiversity impacts and the nature-based climate solutions orientation of these new investments related to tree planting. As my colleague Mr. O'Dea mentioned, that's a very important preoccupation for us in terms of how it contributes to the climate change mitigation story.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, but frankly, it's as clear as mud.

Let's look at your own department budget here. If you think about the clean fuel standard and the opaqueness around the financial modelling associated with the clean fuel standard, everybody is begging for the model. Finance Canada is asking for the financial model around the clean fuel standard. Industry is asking for it because, right now, it seems you're just guessing at what's going to happen as far as carbon dioxide reduction is concerned, which is our objective. We don't want to be spending money for the sake of spending money.

How do we cut the boondoggles and actually get some veracity around the numbers we need to get to here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, our time is up.

We will go to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Really, the tone of our questions should be respectful of our witnesses and the time they've taken to be with us. I personally appreciate their time.

Mr. Campbell, it's great to see you again. I see your brother, Malcolm, at the University of Guelph, has a COVID thing going on that you don't, so I'll pass that on to him about family differences. However, thank you, all, for coming.

Guelph is drawing its water from a well. It's one of the only cities in Canada, especially our size, that relies on well water, so water conservation is as important to Guelph as energy conservation.

Ms. Hogan, when we're looking at the supplementaries, at what place does water come into the supplementaries? We have some general headings, but looking at the development of the Canada water agency, is that included anywhere in the supplementaries? What programs are we developing around water protection, water conservation and water treatment?

[Christine Hogan]

I appreciate the comments on the role the supplementary (C)s can play with regard to water. There is a fairly limited scope here in terms of the supplementary (C)s that are in front of us for the purposes of this committee appearance that relate directly to water.

As you know, though, we have been very actively engaging in consulting on the Canada water agency. It's a very important commitment for the government going forward. We look forward to working with the committee and seeing how this evolves in the months ahead as we work toward delivering on the government's commitment in this regard.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I know you're working across departments. You've mentioned Natural Resources and the work they're doing on tree planting. I wonder about the development of clean technologies. We had some comments earlier about carbon capture and storage, a great opportunity for some Canadian businesses.

What steps is Environment and Climate Change Canada taking to advance our global position on clean technology?

[Christine Hogan]

That's a very important question and you're right to point out that this is something that is very much a priority across several federal departments. Of course, ISED has a very important role to play and has been managing some key programs in this area, and Natural Resources Canada, and of course, Environment Canada.

Members will have taken note that the strengthened climate plan outlined a number of new commitments in this area, including such significant programs as a new net zero accelerator and some new investments in the area around fuels. Environment Canada is very pleased to be engaged with our colleague departments on not just developing these programs, but also working with industry, the private sector and small and medium-sized businesses to bring these new programs and initiatives to life.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You mentioned clean fuels, the clean fuel standard coming forward. Canada Gazette part I is there. The comment period is finished.

I spoke with the Canola Council of Canada last week and they had some really interesting opportunities around oilseeds and what that can do in terms of new fuel resources for Canada, clean technology solutions for farmers out west, as well as the soy farmers in eastern Canada.

[Christine Hogan]

One of the objectives of the clean fuel standard is to help to spur on innovation in this space. If there were time, I would invite my colleague, John Moffet, to elaborate a bit on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We're really at the end of the four minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, you have two minutes for a good question and a good answer.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I admit that I didn't understand the response to my question earlier about national parks and new national marine conservation areas. It was related to vote 1c, and I'd like the answer in writing if possible.

We've also talked a lot in committee about zero-emission vehicles. The 2017 performance of light-duty vehicles on greenhouse gas emissions, GHGs, improved by 17%, but the target was 21%.

Why hasn't this performance improved as much as expected? How many tons of GHGs have these vehicles emitted?

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you for your question. Ms. Ryan will answer it.

[Helen Ryan, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

Vehicles purchased by consumers had a larger carbon footprint than previous ones, reflecting people's preference for these larger vehicles, which emit more greenhouse gases.

Original estimates were based on a choice of smaller vehicles. In our modelling, the regulations called for a variety of vehicles. Our data reflect the vehicles that were produced during that period.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

But—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we've reached the end of the two minutes, Ms. Pauzé.

We'll now go to Ms. Collins for two minutes.