Evidence of meeting #15 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I'm glad to take the question.
The answer is that we have not.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Okay. I guess I'll go back to Paul, then.
There was supposed to be $60 million provided to schools, hospitals and municipalities over five years through the MUSH retrofit stream and climate action incentive fund. ECCC's website says, and I quote, “Information about funding for municipalities, universities/colleges, schools and hospitals under the MUSH Retrofit stream will be posted on our website as it becomes available.”
The website has not been updated since 2020. Zero money has flowed to hospitals and municipalities despite this promise. Why is this?
12:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
MUSH programming has been and is being delivered.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
It's not, not in Manitoba. There's zero in Manitoba. Why?
12:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Doug Nevison is on the line, and he's the program manager for that program.
Doug, do you have information specifically around that—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Maybe you could send that in writing, because we have to go to Mr. Longfield.
12:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
We can provide that information in writing.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Getting back to the estimates. There are increases of over $323 million in estimates from 2021 to 2022-23 on votes 1, 5, and 10. I know it's largely the result of the government taking action on clean growth and climate change.
As we accelerate toward our 2030 targets, especially in the wake of the emissions reduction plan having been tabled this month, could we anticipate further increases to achieve our climate change goals, including building in accountability, something that this committee is very seized with? How confident are we that this plan, and the associated funds, will be effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions going forward?
That was for the minister, please, or the department.
Minister, are you tight on time?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Could you repeat the question one more time? I apologize.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
It's a long question.
We're accelerating our funding, and it's showing in the estimates. Is that the result of us accelerating our targets? Are we looking at further accelerations going forward?
12:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
Yes, the funding will accelerate. Many of the programs are, and were, new. There were obviously some impacts on program delivery as a result of the COVID crisis, so many of those have been worked through, and those affect transfers between years, but the programs are delivering in line with our expectations, and they will increase.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I know funding comes from our budgets, and that's a political realm. You work with what you get from our decisions. I'm glad to hear that you're looking at that in terms of getting results.
I visited the High Arctic in 2018. We have the polar research station up there that's co-located with Environment Canada, looking at predicting weather patterns. Many of our weather forecasts, the five-day forecasts, come through Environment Canada's prediction services, and some of those are in the High Arctic, where Canada plays a global role. In fact, having access to the High Arctic, we're one of the only countries that can do this type of work.
These estimates are showing some funding coming from FedNor. There's other funding coming from Natural Resources Canada. Could you comment on supporting Environment and Climate Change Canada in the High Arctic?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment
I would absolutely agree with your statement around the importance of Arctic research. It is absolutely critical, and our High Arctic research centre plays a really important role, both on the planetary science on climate change, and then obviously for Canada as well.
The expenditure that you're specifically talking about is $16.3 million over three years, starting in 2021. This money will be essentially for infrastructure and to recapitalize the facilities in the north. This will allow for the continuity of critical and important data. I would note in particular that a lot of research is happening on climate, in addition to the atmosphere in general, and on water as well.
It's critical for much of our programming. The observatory supports many of our domestic priorities, as well as international obligations. I can give you a number of those: the chemicals management plan, the northern contaminants program, the Arctic Council and the Arctic monitoring and atmospheric program. There are numerous programs that the money supports directly.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Great. Thank you.
In the minute I have left, I want to follow up on MP Thompson's line of questions around the ecological corridors.
The University of Guelph is receiving $100,000 over two years to look at monarch butterflies, rusty patched bumblebees, gypsy cuckoo bumblebees and yellow-banded bumblebees. We also have the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association in Guelph that's looking at $437,000 over a two-year period to look at biodiversity impacts. This is closing the loop on climate change in terms of what is happening to our biodiversity.
Could you comment on our investments in that area? How important are they?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Maybe I can take a stab at that, Paul.
We now know that not only do we have a climate crisis, but we have a biodiversity loss crisis as well. We can't solve one without solving the other, and this is becoming an international consensus. Not everyone is there, but we are getting there; hence the massive and historic investment that Canada is making in conserving and protecting biodiversity.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Guilbeault, earlier, we talked about fossil fuel subsidies, and it is unfortunate, because the government has never wanted to define what it means by “subsidies”. However, a report from Oil Change International refers to a ratio of about 1:14, meaning that the government invests $1 billion in green energy and $14 billion in the oil and gas industry.
I mention this because I often have the impression that the 1:14 ratio is reproduced in your programs. In particular, I am thinking of the low carbon economy fund. I have never seen any criteria in your programs that promote industries that are more competitive in carbon sequestration and capture, including the forestry industry.
You probably know this better than I do, but the forest is a carbon sink. Today, many products that replace petrochemicals can be made using forest waste. People in that industry, known as the bioeconomy, tell us that your government is completely absent. You are there when you need to reduce the carbon footprint of the oil and gas industry, but you are absent when it comes to supporting an industry that is a natural carbon sink.
Do you not find that contradictory?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
First, I have before me a recent study by the independent international NGO Energy Policy Tracker, which asserts that Canada invests more in renewable energy and clean technology than in fossil fuels. This was updated a few days ago, on April 27, 2022. I will send you the reference.
As I said earlier, we are still investing in fossil fuels, but we have committed to eliminating those subsidies. We are therefore on the right path. I entirely agree that more must be done.
As for your question about the forestry industry, in particular, as you know, that industry falls under the Department of Natural Resources, not the Department of the Environment. I would be happy to forward your question to them.
Now, Mr. Chair, I am very sorry, but I am expected, so I will need to leave you.
