Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2022

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

With respect to reducing emissions by 11 million tonnes, RBC says it would cost $5.4 billion per year to double the electricity output of the country. Is that something you've looked at?

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

Unfortunately, I don't have that report in front of me, so it's difficult for me to comment on it.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Have you looked at what is going to be required to build out the EV charging network across Canada? The RBC report suggests that it's going to cost $25 billion per year for this to be built out across the country. How much has your government allocated towards this?

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

Again, I'm really sorry, MP Seeback, but I don't have the RBC report in front of me, so it's difficult for me to comment on something I can't see.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Whether you have the report or not, and whether you can say you don't know if it's going to cost $25 billion a year, as RBC says, I think they're probably right. You may disagree.

What is the government saying it's going to spend per year for the build-out of electric charging stations. Is it anywhere near the $25 billion per year that the RBC report says is required?

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

Again, I haven't seen the report. I can't comment on those numbers. What I can comment on is that we're in the process of installing 25,000 charging stations across the country right now and the investments are there for that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

What's it going to cost?

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

In the emissions reduction plan, we made a commitment to double the number of charging stations that will be installed in Canada in the coming years to 50,000 charging stations across the country. That obviously excludes charging stations that people install at their homes; we're talking here about public charging stations. I don't have the emissions reduction plan in front of me, but I believe, for that, we're providing somewhere in the order....

Maybe I could turn to Associate Deputy Minister Halucha for the exact number.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, maybe you could submit that in writing, because we're past the six minutes and we have to go to Ms. Thompson—with pleasure, of course.

Go ahead, Ms. Thompson.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

I want to touch on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. In the text of your opening remarks, you mentioned that the Impact Assessment Agency's main estimates total $80 million, which represents “a small increase of $1 million from last year”. Could you please explain what this increase in operating funds is?

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

As you know, the impact agency of Canada, or IAAC, is a federal body accountable to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. It serves Canadians by delivering high-quality impact assessment that looks at both positive and negative environmental, economic, social and health impacts of potential projects. IAAC contributes to informing decision-making on major projects in support of sustainable development in Canada.

This $1 million in additional funding supports the agency's continued delivery of high-quality assessments to support government decisions on major projects across the country. It will ensure that the agency can deliver what the Impact Assessment Act requires—namely robust, timely, comprehensive assessments that will look at the positive and negative environmental, economic, social, health and gender effects of designated projects.

It will also make sure that the assessments are based on science and indigenous knowledge and that they will protect our natural environment, respect the rights of indigenous people and support our natural resource sector. As well, it will support meaningful public and indigenous consultations, including important participation and indigenous capacity-building funding programs.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

On a slightly different topic, a few weeks ago, Minister, you announced a national ecological corridors program. Can you tell us what the benefits are of this program, and also whether there is any funding related to it?

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

The funding that was announced is a funding amount of $60 million over five years. The reason is simply that experts agree that biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate. Habitat loss and fragmentation are important contributions to this decline. Additionally, the impacts of climate change, such as the increased likelihood of extreme temperatures and precipitation and the changing frequency and intensity of wildfires, droughts and floods may force many species to move due to changing conditions.

Ecological corridors help species adapt to these impacts by facilitating movement from one area of habitat to another and helping to maintain biodiversity. Corridors also support ecological processes and functioning ecosystems that provide resilience against the effects of climate change.

Furthermore, ecological corridors offer numerous benefits. They support vital ecosystem services, such as the provision of food, clean air and water; contribute to sustainable livelihoods for local communities by supporting various compatible economic activities, such as agriculture and tourism; and provide opportunities for reconciliation with indigenous people through land stewardship and connection.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Switching once again to Parks Canada, I'm aware that Parks Canada has made significant investments in assets over the last five years. How will Parks Canada maintain its asset portfolio for Canadians with a decrease in capital funding?

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

Parks Canada applies available funding to priority projects to maintain asset conditions, protect cultural and natural heritage, deliver high-quality visitor service and experiences, and address health and safety concerns.

As a result of the agency's capital program, the percentage of assets in good to fair condition has improved from 50% to 69% over the last five years. Parks Canada is working on a long-term investment strategy to ensure that assets needed to meet its objectives are sustained into the future.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians have turned to the safety and well-being offered through the outdoors for recreation and vacation time. How many visitors went through Parks Canada in 2020 and 2021, and what is Parks Canada predicting for 2022?

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

Thank you for your question, MP Thompson.

Maybe for that I could turn to Ron Hallman, president and CEO of Parks Canada, to provide that data.

[Ron Hallman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you, Chair.

Total annual visitation for the 2021-2022 operating year, meaning April to March, is projected to come in at between 21.1 million and 21.5 million, which would be an improvement over the last year, although it's still lower than historical values.

We have been very proud, though, that when we had to suspend visitor services in March 2020, we were able to reopen the majority of our parks and sites on June 1 and provide wide outdoor spaces for Canadians to come to during the pandemic. We have received great feedback. Visitors continue to poll in the mid-90s in terms of satisfaction and enjoyment at our places, even where some of the services may be reduced.

We're looking forward to a good year coming up. It's hard to predict what it will be with international travel, but domestic use has been strong.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're pretty much done, unfortunately, but there will be another opportunity in a bit.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Guilbeault, I greatly admire the work you have done in the environmental sector.

This morning, I was following the debates from the climate summit, and you made a statement that somewhat intrigued me. You made the following comment:

I am an environmental activist and warrior.…Today, however, I must represent all Canadians and accept that I cannot win every battle. You are disappointed with the Bay du Nord decision, I know.

This intrigued me because I am in a position similar to yours. I am a sovereignist and have been promoting that cause for the last 25 years. I am convinced that the cause of Quebec independence goes hand in hand with the people I represent. However, your quote led me to believe that you think that the environmental issue may go against the interests of Canadians.

Can you confirm this?

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

No, not at all.

I thank you for your question, Mr. Simard.

As I have said publicly on many occasions, the Bay du Nord decision was a hard one to make for my government and for me, both professionally and personally. In a pluralistic society like ours, whether in Quebec or in Canada, people do not agree on everything. This is true for many topics, and it is certainly true for the issue of the environment.

In the environmental community, many people were disappointed by the Bay du Nord decision. The speech that I gave this morning simply recognized that fact.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand.

Reading between the lines, I understand that you, too, were disappointed by the decision.

Earlier, you referred to the 2030 emissions reduction plan. Most environmental group representatives with whom I speak frequently tell me that Canada has no plan for getting away from fossil energies and that your emissions reduction plan cannot be considered as such. As evidence, I cite what the Prime Minister said when he presented your emissions reduction plan, that the desire was to offer the entire world low-carbon oil and gas.

When I heard that, what came immediately to mind was what a contradiction it was. It is like wanting diet poutine. It will never exist. Low-carbon oil will never exist.

I get the impression that, in your emissions reduction plan, the path that you have taken is instead to make oil acceptable in terms of carbon emissions. It is as though you want to end a prime environmental principle, the polluter pays principle.

Do you agree with that?

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

I strongly disagree with both your statements.

First, it's important to take the time to read the report from the International Energy Agency, presented just before the Glasgow conference, or the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

These two international organizations—which are made up of eminent people, it's safe to say—state that, in a scenario of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C, the planet will consume between 25 million and 35 million barrels of oil per day in 2050.

This is a significant reduction compared with today, when we are consuming approximately 100 million. There will therefore be a lot less oil. According to those two agencies, the oil we will be using at that time will no longer be in the form of commodities, but derivatives. This includes solvents or the production of asphalt, among other things. We will continue to use oil, even in a scenario in which we attempt to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Mr. Simard, you know as well as I do that low-carbon oil is not some fantasy or fabrication.

When I approved the Bay du Nord project, I was speaking to an oil sands company, telling them that a project that produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions per barrel, no matter how you calculate it, would not be acceptable in the context of the Canadian plan.

If you want to believe that emitting 10 times more greenhouse gases makes no difference to the atmosphere, then we are not on the same page.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Guilbeault, the IPCC also tells us that we must not accept new oil and gas projects. In that sense, this directly contradicts the findings in the IPCC report.