Environment Committee on May 12th, 2021

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As I understand it, there has been no money for that kind of project, but there could be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

A quick answer, please.

[Douglas Nevison]

Yes, that is correct. We have put money aside in the hope that this will be attractive to indigenous communities and provide additional flexibility in terms of funding in their particular circumstances.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Your turn, Mr. Bachrach. Go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

My first question is around the estimates. I note that there are several areas in the estimates related to climate action and clean growth that have fallen quite substantially. Notably, transfer payments for climate action and clean growth have fallen by more than a third, from more than $0.75 billion last year to less than $0.5 billion this year. In particular, contributions to the low-carbon economy fund decreased by more than $180 million. Other transfers for clean growth and climate change have also decreased by nearly $12 million. Innovative Solutions Canada funding is also nearly halved. None of these cuts seem to be balanced by increases elsewhere.

Could you explain how these reductions are consistent with the ambitious action we need to be taking towards our fair share of emissions reductions in Canada?

[Christine Hogan]

I'll make a start on that question, and if my colleague Mr. Nevison wants to add, I will let him do so.

As Minister Wilkinson indicated in his opening comments, a big part of the main estimates story relates to the low-carbon economy fund and the re-profiling of those resources, in part because of some delays encountered in the submission of proposals to access and some of the ripple effects that come with that.

I would also underscore that the main estimates that we're discussing today do not reflect a number of decisions that are in budget 2021, which will be, following approval of Parliament, appearing in future estimates and will reflect an increase in our effort around climate action and clean growth.

Mr. Nevison, would you like to add anything?

[Douglas Nevison]

I think that covers the question very well.

Maybe I would just point out one additional item; that is, a decrease of around $100 million in the climate action incentive fund. This was a two-year program coming out of carbon pollution proceeds in 2018-19. It was set to sunset. It ended at the end of 2020-21. That made a significant contribution to the decline in the main estimates as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I'm not sure if it's Mr. Redekopp or Ms. McLeod next, for five minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks, Chair. I'll go ahead.

Ms. Hogan, I want to come back to the question of Safety Power and the aftermarket emission controls. I'm not sure who's best to answer this question.

We're talking about the fact that these new regulations are coming in, I think, within the next month. In this case, this clean tech company is struggling with understanding how these regulations are going to impact it. The minister seemed to think it was more important to maintain the climate standards than jobs in Canada.

What specific steps is the government taking to ensure that clean tech companies like Safety Power can remain in operation in Canada after these regulations come into play?

[Christine Hogan]

I will ask my colleague Helen Ryan to take this question, if she's able to, please.

[Helen Ryan]

Yes. Thank you.

The regulation contains specific provisions to allow for alternative testing measures. The consideration of the company in question is that they use a different technology than what is currently certified. Under the regulation, they can apply for and seek approval of alternative testing so we can confirm that their equipment meets the requirements laid out in the regulation, to ensure that we're reducing the NOx and other emissions from these engines.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Ms. Ryan, has that process been defined?

[Helen Ryan]

The elements in terms of requirements for alternative test methods are laid out in the regulation. With respect to the specifics on an individual test method, that would need to be advanced in the context of the specific engines and technology they're using.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

This question is maybe for Parks Canada and Mr. Hallman.

In conversations I've had with some stakeholders, there has been confusion as to the exact definition of a protected conservation area. As we seek to have more spaces defined as protected, it can be anything from a national park to all kinds of things.

With respect to first nations in this definition, if you were to designate a parcel of terrestrial land as protected, what rights and responsibilities does that confer on the first nations, where that may be their traditional land?

[Ron Hallman]

Chair, I may turn to Darlene Upton, our vice-president of protected areas establishment and conservation, if time permits, but I would say this by way of introduction. In terms of indigenous peoples, the majority of our national parks created in modern times have been done as a result of some kind of agreement with indigenous peoples, through an impact benefit agreement or other treaty-type work.

Their rights under the Constitution continue to apply, and we work with them to ensure they have appropriate access to their traditional lands. In many cases, we share governance with them to one degree or another—depending on the nature of that protected area—in national parks and national marine conservation areas.... One can think of the Haida in British Columbia with Gwaii Haanas, where we have from seabed to mountaintop protected through the NMCA and the park reserve there. We're very proud of that relationship.

We are evolving those relationships over time in many of our protected areas. If there's time, I might switch to Darlene and ask her—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Actually, that's fine, but one question that may be a follow-up on that is, how do we empower first nations while still protecting the rights of current landowners, whether they're private landowners or provincial Crowns? Do first nations get exclusive rights? Maybe a bit more of a general question is, have you done any sort of charter analysis on the implications of such a policy?

[Ron Hallman]

I will limit my comments, Chair, to the federal lands that Parks Canada stewards in partnership with our indigenous communities. In terms of private land or provincial Crown land, I don't think it would be in my remit to speculate on those.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. That's fair.

[Christine Hogan]

If it would be helpful for the member, we're also joined today by our assistant deputy minister for Canadian Wildlife Services, who may also want to comment on this, because this is quite an important area of discussion around our protected areas.

[Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Services, Department of the Environment]

What I would say is that when we approach the protected areas discussions, we do so in collaboration with provincial and territorial partners, as well as with indigenous partners. We do not use the protected areas to advance or assert rights, but we develop these areas in partnership.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Baker now, for five minutes.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Thank you to all the officials for being here today. It's wonderful to have so many of you here. I'm really looking forward to being able to meet in person, whether that's in the House of Commons or in committee. I don't know how we would manage this meeting if we were all in person, because there are so many of you. If there's a silver lining to being in a pandemic, it's that we have access to so many wonderful folks in a single meeting. Thanks to all of you for being here and making time to answer our questions.

What I want to do is go back to the estimates. I'm thinking about my constituents in Etobicoke Centre, who are watching this or following our committee meetings. I know that when I look at the main estimates, I'm looking at page 2, I guess, or the first page, anyway, and the figures there. Near the bottom, there's a table called “Main Estimates by Purpose”. It breaks down the estimates into key categories: taking action on clean growth and climate change, preventing and managing pollution, conserving nature, and predicting weather and environmental conditions.

These are major areas of spending in terms of protecting the environment and fighting climate change as a government, if I understand correctly. I'm wondering if, for those first three categories, somebody could just walk me through, at the highest possible level, where that funding is going.

For example, taking action on clean growth and climate change has $540 million allocated to it. Could somebody just talk me through what that money is being used for and what's the benefit of that investment for the environment? I think the taxpayers of Etobicoke Centre and Canadians in general would appreciate knowing that.

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you very much for that question. I'll let my chief financial officer and ADM for corporate services and finance, Linda Drainville, respond to that, but just so you are aware, the four themes or the four areas are those that are of course reflected in our departmental plan and our results framework, and they track, as you said, very much against where the levels of investment and investments are being put in the department.

Linda, could you take the question, please?

[Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much.

I will walk you through it briefly. Bear with me, as it could become a bit technical.

What you see at the bottom of page 2 is a comparable table to the table you have above, where you see vote 1, vote 5 and vote 10. When you look at it by purpose, the first one, which has to do with taking action on clean growth and climate change, is mainly the funding we have there for the low-carbon economy fund, as well as the temporary initiative related to modification and adaptation to climate change. That's your first purpose, your first core responsibility.

The second one, which has to do with preventing and managing pollution, is mainly the different programs we have on a recurring basis that are funded on a permanent basis for preventing and managing pollution, as well as addressing air pollution. What we also have there is a portion that is related to the federal contaminated sites action plan, to make sure we keep our environment safe and healthy for our people.

The third core responsibility, which is conserving nature, shows contributions for protecting Canadian nature parks and wild spaces, as well as some permanent funding for conserving nature. Everything that has to do with species at risk is also reflected there.

The last one, which is predicting weather and environmental conditions, has everything to do with our weather radar replacement, as well as our Eureka weather station in Nunavut. That's what it's comprised of, predicting weather and environmental conditions.

Internal services is all the support we provide to those core responsibilities.

I hope this answers your question. Thank you.