Environment Committee on March 19th, 2024

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Martians didn't produce that report, scientists from around the world did, and we ranked 62nd.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll allow the minister to answer. You don't have much time left, but go ahead. I'll give you a little more time.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I'm sure you've read the report in detail. You know very well why Canada's ranking is what it is in the report. The report explains that it's because of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. We're doing everything we can to reduce that impact, but unfortunately, your party is doing everything it can to oppose it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll stop there and go to Ms. Taylor Roy.

By the way, I'd like to welcome Mr. Scheer, who is joining us.

Ms. Taylor Roy, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Guilbeault, we are proud to have you as our minister of the environment. Thank you for the work you have been doing. We have made significant progress.

My question is actually around the supplementary estimates. I saw some additional money for the freshwater action plan. I was in my riding last week on Friday, where we were able to talk to a number of the groups that are very excited about funding they're going to be getting to help fight the phosphorus loading in Lake Simcoe, which I believe is part of that plan.

I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the freshwater action plan and whether the Canada water agency is going to be responsible for that plan.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The majority of our efforts in terms of the freshwater action plan were amalgamated in 2017 through that plan. Since then, and more specifically in budget 2023, we have invested $650 million to strengthen the freshwater action plan, which is an historic investment in the history of our country for freshwater management and freshwater protection. This includes $420 million over 10 years for the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes area, as well as a number of other bodies of water across the country. There is, however, a clear focus on the Great Lakes—and yes, the Canada water agency will be responsible for implementing the elements of the freshwater action plan as well as managing those investments announced in budget 2023.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

To follow up on that, in talking to the environmental groups, the conservation authorities and the activists last Friday, it was clear that there is a lot of work to be done to address the damage that has been done to our lakes and our freshwater bodies.

How will this freshwater action plan address stopping further degradation of these water bodies? Will this money and the agency also be used to ensure that no further damage is done?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

That's a good question.

In my initial remarks, I talked about the fact that we hold about 20% of the world's freshwater reserves. I think that sometimes we tend to take it for granted, but right now, as we speak, in Alberta they're having to ration water for residents, for farmers and for the private sector, for companies. We have farmers not just in Alberta but in the Prairies who are selling their livestock because of the droughts. They just can't feed them or give them enough water.

Despite the fact that we're a nation that's rich in fresh water, we have to do a lot of work to protect it and to ensure that, moving forward, with the activities we have—especially the industrial activities, but also in the agriculture sector—we put in place measures that will minimize the impact on our freshwater reserves.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island actually live on Lake Simcoe, on Georgina Island. I think indigenous knowledge is very important to pay attention to here. We often talk about fresh water as a resource or a commodity, whereas for them it's very different: It really is life. I appreciate the work that's being done through the Canada water agency.

I'd like to turn now to nature-based climate solutions, because I noticed we also had funding for that. How is Canada encouraging nature-based climate solutions, not just here but also globally?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As part of our COP26 Glasgow commitment, in which countries like Canada and many of our G20 partners were encouraged to step up to the plate when it comes to climate financing, we did that. We doubled our climate finance commitment to $5.3 billion over five years. We dedicated 20% of that to nature-based solutions.

We know that in the fight against climate change, our biggest and strongest ally is nature. When we protect a wetland that will filter our water, it will do so at roughly a sixth of the cost of building a plant to do it. Once you've protected the wetland, you don't have maintain it. You don't have to invest in keeping it up to date the way you would have to do with a plant. Unfortunately, we can't do that all the time, but whenever we can use nature, it is the best investment in the fight against climate change.

I can talk about a number of our initiatives. Basically, $1 billion of our climate financing will go to nature-based solutions. I recently made an announcement of $15 million to support the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance and the Global Fund for Coral Reefs. We know that coral reefs are being heavily impacted by climate change.

There are a number of initiatives that Canada is broadly supporting here, obviously, in terms of nature-based solutions.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Fantastic.

I think I have time for one more quick question.

In Ontario, my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill is in the Greenbelt, on the Oak Ridges moraine, where there are a lot of very sensitive areas—not just hydrologically sensitive, but also other green areas. I've found that the provincial government currently seems to be going in the opposite direction from us. How can we work more effectively with the provincial governments to try to ensure that we move in the same direction and preserve these green spaces and don't build highways like the Bradford bypass or the 413 through farmland and wetlands and over rivers? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we'll have to work that answer into another answer at some point.

We'll go now to Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here with us. Welcome to the committee.

I would also like to thank all the officials who are with you.

You talked a lot about water with Ms. Taylor Roy. So I'm going to ask you about that.

I would like to talk to you specifically about the water from Chalk River, where the well-known near-surface disposal facility is located. The site has been off limits to the public for at least the past 80 years. The site is very close to the Ottawa River. It's an environment that provides a source of drinking water for millions of Quebecers, as well as large mammals.

You're going to tell me that issues related to Chalk River and nuclear waste are your colleague Mr. Wilkinson's responsibility. However, some aspects affect the environment, including faunal richness, which is remarkable; the forest is home to three species of endangered bats, migratory birds at risk and active black bear dens. In addition, a wetland is home to Blanding's turtles, which Canada has identified as an endangered species since 2006. The Species at Risk Act is the responsibility of the Department of Environment and Climate Change, and it's directly related to the Chalk River disposal facility.

Mr. Minister, are you going to intervene so that at least a regional environmental impact assessment is done for this project, which I feel I should qualify as senseless?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As you said at the beginning of your question, Ms. Pauzé, that project falls under the Department of Energy and Natural Resources. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for conducting public consultations and the impact assessment, as provided for in the federal Impact Assessment Act.

We absolutely operated under the federal impact assessment legislation for that project. The assessment and public consultations took a number of years.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The fact remains that certain aspects of Chalk River are the Department of the Environment's responsibility.

A number of stakeholders have called for a regional impact assessment for the area around Chalk River, including the Ottawa River, which borders part of Quebec and part of Ontario.

Once again, everyone is working in silos. This involves the Department of the Environment, Indigenous Services Canada and the Department of Natural Resources. All three departments are involved.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I agree with you, but what's true for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is, generally speaking, also true for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. When the agency conducts an impact assessment, it also holds public consultations—we could say that this doesn't necessarily concern the environment. Efforts are being made to reconcile with indigenous peoples. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is mandated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to assess nuclear projects. It has the expertise. According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed in 2019, it's responsible for that, not only for the nuclear component, but also for public consultations and compliance with federal environmental law. Just because that agency is doing it doesn't mean the environment isn't considered.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

There were 140 municipalities that rejected the project, and all the indigenous communities rejected it as well. I was told in the House that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is independent. If I wasn't elected to take the people into account, to work on behalf of the people and their health and to protect the environment, then I don't know what I'm doing here. I'm a little disappointed in your answer, but I'll move on to another question.

I'd like to talk about the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I met with representatives of two indigenous nations that are distressed by Imperial Oil's presence and neglect. For 20 years, they've been asking the department and Health Canada to conduct investigations in their region to shed light on the impact of toxic substances dumped in the Athabasca River.

Can you explain to me why these communities are not being heard? Representatives of these communities came to my office to tell me that the government was ignoring the communities. The requests were urgent, and they go back more than 20 years, but nothing is happening.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Since I became Minister of the Environment, that is to say for the past two and a half years, I have probably had around 10 meetings with representatives of those communities. A few weeks ago, I met with representatives of the Mikisew Cree First Nation. We have set up a working committee on the issue of settling ponds. This committee is made up of federal and indigenous representatives.

I don't know if I can call it a white paper, but we released a first report last summer and, if memory serves, it proposes more than a dozen measures that could be put in place to address the problems in these ponds. This has never been done in the history of the country. This is the first time that a federal government has sat down with indigenous people to find a permanent solution to the issue surrounding these ponds.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It has to do with health. The chief appeared before the committee. He told us that he hadn't been able to meet with the Minister of Health. He met with someone from cabinet, but he wasn't able to meet with the Minister of Health. It seems to me that this directly involves the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, your time is up.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and to all the officials for coming today.

Minister, you talked about how Canadians are concerned about the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. You mentioned the $25-billion slowdown in our economy that is expected because of climate change.

Last night, hundreds of youth from across Canada joined us for a town hall on a youth climate corps. We had MPs from across party lines—Ms. May and Mr. van Koeverden were in attendance—and there is a real appetite from young people for this kind of transformative program. They really want an answer.

If this government is serious about tackling the climate crisis and supporting young people in entering into the jobs of the future, are you considering funding something like this?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I've met many of those, including one of the instigators of this proposal, Mr. Klein, just a few weeks ago. It wasn't my first meeting with him, obviously. I think the proposal has merit, but I would somewhat beg to differ with the characterization of your question: We are supporting youth employment in environmental issues every year.

Not doing this doesn't mean we're doing nothing, and this certainly looks like an interesting project. I'm not the Minister of Finance. This is.... We are studying the possibility of supporting that project.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm glad to hear you're considering it and I hope you meet with young people. We have hundreds of young people across Canada who joined in-person watch parties, and they are passionate about making a difference. They're worried about the climate crisis. They want to get engaged. This is a really tangible way to do that.

Last year when you were here around this time, I asked you about the Trans Mountain pipeline. At the time, the costs had ballooned to $30.9 billion. This year, the costs have risen even more, bringing the total to $34 billion. At the time. I asked you if you thought purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline was a mistake. You said you couldn't answer and that would be a question for the Minister of Finance. I'm curious if now, a year later, with costs rising even more, you believe that purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline was a mistake.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would unfortunately give you the same answer I gave you last time. This is a question that you should ask the finance minister. The environment minister is not responsible for the financing of—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You are part of this government. You sit at the cabinet table. You make decisions with this government. Do you think it's a mistake?