Environment Committee on Nov. 4th, 2020

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Environment and Climate Change Canada. I'm looking at the main estimates. I've been seeing some significant changes over the last few years. One of them is on the line item with contributions in support of “Predicting Weather and Environmental Conditions” going from $480,000 two years ago to $3 million, and then this year to about $2.9 million.

I'm also noticing on your department evaluation plan that you're planning an audit on environmental climate services in 2021-22. It looks like some significant things are happening there. Could you maybe clarify where those investments are happening and how things are changing?

I was up in the Arctic a couple of years ago and saw Environment Canada up there doing some tremendous work. I'm hoping that has something to do with predicting climate.

[Carol Najm]

In terms of the funding you see and the changes in the main estimates from year to year, it is a function of sunsetting funds. Within that co-responsibility of predicting weather and weather conditions, we have a number of programs that are on various renewal cycles. For that reason, you will see the fluctuation in the dollars in our main estimates from year to year.

I will turn it over to Diane to respond to the second half of your question.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[Diane Campbell]

Thank you very much.

Building on what my colleague Carol has said, the Meteorological Service of Canada does have a base budget that supports the basic monitoring infrastructure across Canada. You might have been up in Eureka, perhaps, when you saw that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Exactly.

[Diane Campbell]

Yes. That's our weather station. We let weather balloons go and we do base climate monitoring of temperature, etc., there. It's one of the most unique places in the world to do so.

The base budget for those types of activities is ongoing. However, when we are able to acquire funds to upgrade infrastructure, let's say, or to clean up, to adjust programs or to do innovation programs, usually that is time-bound, and that is what my colleague Carol was talking about.

We are in the midstream of some programming right now. Others have wound down. Also, of course, we're thinking about what the needs would be for the future.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you. That station had been defunded under a previous government. It's good to see that we're making those investments. Even on the runway to get in and out, that was very important. I'm glad to see that reflected in the mains.

I have another question on a line item going up for the Impact Assessment Agency. The contributions have gone from $800,000 two years ago to $2.5 million last year. In the coming fiscal year, the mains have it at $3,060,000. I also see that there are audits coming up.

I sit on the public accounts committee—can you tell? I'm looking at where your audits are heading. To me, that's a predictor of some investments that are probably changing some functions within the department. Could you maybe comment on where that money is going?

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

Actually, I'll ask my colleague Brent Parker to comment on the grant and contribution programs and where those dollars are going.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[Brent Parker, Acting Vice-President, Strategic Policy, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

Thank you for that question.

You're quite right. There are new dollars that are coming into the agency. Those grant and contribution dollars are flowing into four new programs. We have existing funding that goes into supporting projects, so that's our participant funding program. That goes out to the public and to indigenous groups to support their engagement in actual project reviews.

The new funding you're noting is going into three different streams. One is a research program. It's really aimed at building the capacity across Canada when it comes to expertise in impact assessment because, as you will know, the environmental assessment agency grew, in terms of its mandate, to look at the full spectrum of impacts from projects. That research program is supporting that.

Then there is the indigenous capacity program. That particular program is new. It's supporting activity with indigenous communities to support their development in being prepared and engaging in project reviews, and—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Terrific. Thank you.

We're out of time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, we are out of time.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

—but my constituents want to know that there is impact, and I'm glad that you're investing in it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

I thank all the witnesses.

Committee members, we're not adjourning until we vote.

If the witnesses would like to log off, please, the committee can vote. By the way, don't forget that the clerk will send you the requests made here from any of the members.

Committee members, we were studying the main estimates. We now have to do votes on different vote items. You can say “yea”, “nay” or “on division”. You can't lower the amount; you can agree to it.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$858,313,855

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$89,793,534

Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$829,881,990

(Votes 1, 5 and 10 agreed to on division)

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AGENCY OF CANADA

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$51,710,081

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$18,939,140

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

PARKS CANADA AGENCY

Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$898,652,518

Vote 5—Payments to the New Parks and Historic Sites Account..........$9,992,000

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)

Shall I report the votes on the main estimates to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Perfect.

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, you've been good. Have a wonderful weekend.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Chair, just before you move on, while I appreciate that we're all becoming acquainted with this hybrid format, I really have to say that we should be having recorded divisions, unless we agree. Perhaps we could have some discussion between parties.

If we had just done that, saying we oppose all of the estimates, we could have done it in a block vote, with one recorded division. I said “no”. In some cases, I didn't hear anyone even say “on division”.

Certainly I do think we can improve on the committee functioning when it comes to taking a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

This type of vote is yes or no, or you can say “on division”. You're right; somebody did say “on division”. Then the chair has to decide to do it on division, but it has to be taken individually. These are estimates. Main estimates votes have to be taken one by one, and it's not recorded. It's normal practice.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Chair, we do have the capacity to ask for a recorded vote, and that really should be how we do it. It should be either by unanimous consent or by a recorded vote. I'm just asking perhaps to talk with the clerk. Maybe we can have some consideration among all parties. I have to say that's not the way that I think we can conduct ourselves. I'm not saying this is any criticism of you or anyone else. I just think it should be either a recorded vote or unanimous. Clearly, I said “no” in every single case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I heard you.

With that, are there any other questions before I move to adjourn?

Thank you, everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.