Environment Committee on May 12th, 2021

[Helen Ryan]

With respect to the assessment of the cost, the listing of plastic manufactured items on schedule 1 of CEPA is a means to access authorities under CEPA. When we then go forward with specific actions, we will undertake a cost-benefit analysis [Inaudible—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You cut out a bit at “undertake a cost-benefit analysis”.

[Helen Ryan]

It's to define the approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Did you get that, Mr. Jeneroux?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I think that's a long no until later, I guess. If that could be clarified, it would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know if Ms. Ryan wants to make a clarification in writing. Basically, what they're saying is, as we get down to specific items, there will be cost-benefit analysis and impact assessments as part of the regulatory process, I guess.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

So you do speak on behalf of the government, Mr. Chair. That's interesting and noted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I'm not. I'm trying to say what I know about how the process works, but I could be wrong.

Mr. Bittle, for five minutes, please.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'd actually like to follow up on Mr. Scheer's question to the minister in regard to cost overruns at Parks Canada.

I was hoping you could expand on that. I know the minister didn't necessarily have a fulsome answer, but I know we have Parks Canada officials here and I was hoping they could expand on what Mr. Scheer was asking about in terms of cost overruns.

[Ron Hallman]

Thank you, Chair. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak more on this.

I would start by acknowledging the incredible effort and work that so many Parks Canada employees and contractors have been putting in over the last year and a bit, during COVID, to keep so many of our critical infrastructure projects moving.

I would start with the point, in response to the member's very good question, that more often than not it's not delays that are driving the cost increases; it's actually the nature of the project, as one might expect, given the complexity and often the heritage nature of certain iconic assets.

In terms of the examples referenced earlier by the other member, project costs for the Whistlers Campground in Jasper, the Trent-Severn Waterway, which is 368 kilometres long, and Province House in P.E.I. were initial project estimates. Often you can't determine what the costs will be until you get into it and find out what you're dealing with. Anyone who's had the joy of doing renovations and repairs would probably relate to that. Infrastructure work of this nature often requires adjustments to the initial estimate as more is learned about the scale and scope of the work needed. That's why we transparently communicate those cost adjustments.

For example, Province House, which members will know is the provincial legislature in P.E.I., has unique needs. It's an excellent example of the complexity of not knowing what you're dealing with in a heritage property until you get the walls opened up and take a look inside.

In terms of the previous member's comment about it being understandable when there are delays with municipalities, that's actually a great point, and I would agree with that. In fact, in the case of Whistlers Campground in Jasper, which the member referenced, members may be interested to know that Parks Canada delivers 120,000 nights of camping at that campground each year across 800 campsites, making it the size, frankly, of a small municipality, for which we do the electrical, the water service, and everything. Now, that campground was built back in the 1960s and has had very little recap since then, so you can imagine what we found when we dug in and started finding out what the underground infrastructure was for what is, frankly, comparable to a town of 2,000 people in Alberta, if you look at an average of 2.3 people per household.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can you raise your mike just a bit, Mr. Hallman?

[Ron Hallman]

Certainly. Thank you, Chair.

The other thing I would say, Chair, is that the reasons for the cost delays are often quite similar. As I mentioned with the campground example, a lot of these assets haven't been reviewed for many years because of fiscal constraints. More recently, over the past decade and a half probably, successive governments have put priority on our looking at these assets and recapping them and improving them. I'm very proud that we are now at this place where we have more than 80% of our assets in fair to good position. Some of the MPs who have been around a lot longer will remember just how bad some of our assets were about 15 years ago.

What I would say, as a final comment, if I may, is that we really try not to confuse additional scope with additional cost. As we get into an historic waterway sometimes, where not doing the dam properly or the canal properly can have catastrophic effects downstream, etc., once we get into a project, we have to follow through. That's why, for the examples that were referenced earlier, the big campgrounds, canals and iconic places like Province House, those costs go up. Again, it's not necessarily because of delays and it's not entirely unexpected, given the nature and age and complexity of those assets.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Perhaps I can make an analogy—I know you're not involved in this project—of how as members of Parliament perhaps we can look to our own Centre Block and West Block, and the great number of unknowns that existed before the walls were opened up, such as the amount of asbestos or lead or knob-and-tube wiring, and whether there was structural damage or not. Those things couldn't be assessed from the outside.

Is that a fair comparison? I know Centre Block is a bigger project, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have to stop the analogy, but I think you've made your point, Mr. Bittle.

Ms. Pauzé, the floor is yours.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, before you start the timer, I have a point of order. In the second hour, I thought that the timers were set back to zero and all members had six minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You are right, in principle. That is what we do when the groups of witnesses change. However, as I see it, we are continuing with these officials. That's why I started a third round, and then we will have a fourth. I see it as the same group, except that the Minister has left.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So that means I have two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, but you are asking good questions, so we will keep that in mind.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of the Low Carbon Economy Fund is partly to fund projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Of the $500 million in the fund, how much has already been allocated to projects in the Low Carbon Economy Challenge, and how many projects have been funded?

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you very much for that question.

I will ask my colleague, Doug Nevison, to answer that question on the Low Carbon Economy Fund.

[Douglas Nevison, Assistant Deputy Minister, Climate Change Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chair, I will reply in English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, go ahead.

[Douglas Nevison]

The low-carbon economy fund is a $1.4-billion fund. Of that, $1 billion has been approved or already paid under the leadership fund.

There are a number of aspects to it. There's the leadership fund, which is the larger of the two; and there's the challenge stream, which is about $500 million.

Under the leadership fund, $1 billion has been approved or already paid out. Under the challenge portion of the fund, which is smaller scale and a competitive funding stream, $370 million has been allocated to 105 projects.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So there are 105 projects. Okay, that's what I wanted to know.

Have any projects in nuclear energy or carbon capture being given grants under this program? Yes or no?

[Douglas Nevison]

The grant component of this program has been set aside for indigenous organizations to provide added flexibility in that particular situation. To date, no money has been allocated under that stream, but we have $2.5 million allocated in these main estimates in the hopes that flexibility will be available to indigenous organizations.

Thank you.