Environment Committee on March 24th, 2022

[Christine Hogan]

I will make a first attempt and then pass it to my colleague, Paul Halucha, our associate deputy minister.

I would say that this very active area of climate change policy related to transportation and ZEVs, in particular, is a collaborative effort among a number of federal departments. Innovation, Science and Economic Development has a particularly important role to play with the automotive sector, as does Transport Canada. We have a key role to play on the emissions dimension of the issue.

Paul, would you like to respond as well?

[Paul Halucha, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment]

I'd be very happy to.

It's a pleasure to see Mr. Carrie again.

There are a couple of things. The transition to electric vehicles is critical for the environment. It's also critical for the auto sector, as you well know. Competition is at the core of investments that the government is making, so Minister Champagne and Innovation, Science and Economic Development have been working in close partnership with provincial governments—Ontario in particular—to support the assembly plants as they have been making commitments to transition their facilities in Canada to manufacturing electric vehicles.

In addition, we're looking to capture the greater supply chain. We have a strong strategic advantage around critical minerals and getting those supply chains in Canada, and linking that into the assembly is a critical part.

We have two government-wide policy objectives here. The first is the transition and the reduction of the emissions from the sector. Equally important is the retention and even strengthening of our assembly plant mandates in Canada, and continuing to ensure that they can provide the strong, well-paying jobs that they currently do. That transition is really critical.

The minister has talked about the partnerships with oil and gas executives, and the fact that he's been meeting with them. We are also meeting with executives in the auto sector.

On the point of regulatory coherence, I'll note that we are in alignment with the U.S. The North American standards continue to be absolutely critical to competitiveness for other reasons, as you well know, sir, in terms of our ability to continue to attract mandates and to secure them. We have a very close eye on ensuring that the CAFE standards and the air quality emissions have alignment between the two jurisdictions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much. I would like a bit more detail. Perhaps you could provide the comprehensive plan, if you have it, or even the fuel standards. Moving forward, I'm hearing a bit more about that.

Regarding the critical minerals, as you so rightly pointed out, we have an advantage there. However, I was wondering if we have, from an environmental standpoint, some way to encourage the mining sector, so that we can be supplying that technology and those minerals to the auto industry.

The second question is about the canal system. It's such a great potential economic driver. Just north of Oshawa, we have the Trent. What is the infrastructure deficit on our canal system now? Do we have a plan to remediate it? One of the things the minister said is that he wants to protect Parks Canada and support safe and sustainable tourism, but what is the infrastructure deficit in our canal system right now?

[Andrew Campbell]

Thank you, MP Carrie. We can certainly get you what our infrastructure deficit is.

I can say, though, that over the last several years we have made historic investments in the Trent-Severn Waterway, with the replacement of everything from bridges and swing bridges, from a historic perspective, to investments in the lock stations and major investments in the dams. We will continue to move forward in making those investments.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Thank you for your investment in the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue canal. It's a big hit. The jetty is a big, big hit.

We will go now to Ms. Metlege Diab.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here this afternoon. I'm here to take advantage of subbing in for Ms. Thompson. I'm really appreciative of that opportunity.

I would like to direct my questions to environmental issues that are important to Canadians but really to my community of Halifax West. I come from Nova Scotia. That's why, when the member talked about his riding and mentioned Nova Scotia, I was really happy to be on the committee, because I think I'm probably the only Atlantic Canadian here on the committee.

Let me direct my questions to Parks Canada initially, if I may. Can you explain for the committee the development of our national urban parks policy with the selection and development of certain national urban park sites? Obviously, I'm very interested in the potential site in my riding, Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes, which is an important ecological and recreational asset to my residents and also a tourist site.

Quite frankly, the last two years with COVID, we have seen so many people, regardless of where they live, come to those sites. I had the opportunity this summer for the first time to go and see it. You really have to walk through mud and dirt. There's no access to it. You get to it through a business, which apparently has given folks the okay to go through it and keep their eyes kind of....

I'm really interested in hearing where that policy is and where we are on that.

[Andrew Campbell]

On that, I'm very happy to be able to turn to my colleague Darlene Upton. She is the head of the protected areas establishment and conservation group within Parks Canada and is working on that policy as we speak.

[Darlene Upton, Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you very much.

Last August, we launched the national urban parks program. We're concurrently developing the policy while we have assigned currently six collaborative agreements with municipalities and indigenous communities in a variety of locations, one of them being in the Halifax area. We're excited about the objectives of the program and are working off a policy framework that has been developed. We're looking to ensure that the program contributes to nature and biodiversity. That also includes climate, particularly in urban centres on mitigating climate effects, connecting Canadians to nature, and working to support reconciliation with indigenous partners who are a part of these projects.

We have six under way now. We're in discussions in the Montreal area. The commitment is for 15 more. We are continuing to invite municipalities and communities that are interested to contact us for more information on the program.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

If I may, just as a supplementary on the specific one, I know that $130 million was announced last year for the national urban parks program. What is the projected cost to be spent over whatever number of years, and will it all be on planning and feasibility and consultation? Is there money set aside for infrastructure costs, like parking lots or trail clearings?

If you have any of that kind of specificity, I would appreciate hearing that.

[Darlene Upton]

Yes. Thank you.

We have $130.9 million for the next five years to work on the establishment of six national urban parks. That will be mainly for feasibility studies and support for partners to work with us and to get those parks to establishment. There is some limited money for some infrastructure work, but once these places are established and the governance structures are set up, we will be looking at funding for the future management of those.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

With the time remaining, let me turn my attention to a very different topic. I am very happy and privileged to sit on the historic parliamentary committee on science and research. Let me ask some questions regarding the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.

In the remarks, there was mention of $155,000 going to NSERC to contribute to grants that will ultimately support the new impact assessment system. Can somebody please explain to me how this evaluation process works better to protect the environment? Can you shed some light on that?

[Terence Hubbard]

Thank you for the reminder, and thank you for the question.

The new Impact Assessment Act puts in place a number of new features to really increase the robustness of the evaluation process around major projects. In supporting the implementation of the new framework, we have a number of funding programs within the agency, including a modest research program, that are intended to encourage research and development into practices that support impact assessment.

Because it is a modest program, we've looked at how to best leverage the resources we have at the agency. We've leveraged the existing networks that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council has in place with universities, post-doctoral students and post-graduate students. We're leveraging those relationships in place to provide supplemental funding to encourage further research into areas that will advance research and science, and will support impact assessments. We're leveraging that research to further enhance the science and understanding of approaches that impact the environment with major project developments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses who have stayed with us.

I am going to give a quick bit of background about Natural Resources Canada's Emissions Reduction Fund. When Commissioner DeMarco testified before the committee, he said that it was a complete mess and was doing nothing to reduce emissions. In my opinion, the Department of Environment and Climate Change should be responsible for monitoring the funds to make sure they are contributing to achieving the right objectives.

Now I want to talk about funds at the international level. I have some figures here.

In just over five years, Canada has put $2.6 billion dollars into some 50 projects, under the heading of "Canada's international climate finance". That's good; that's one of Canada's commitments.

From 2021 to 2026, we will be committing $5.3 billion. Again, this is positive and is one of our commitments under the international agreements.

However, when a government department or organization sets up funds like these, again, I think it is up to the department to make sure the money is actually being used to reduce emissions.

Is there an accountability system for this fund, which is going to total $8 billion?

[Christine Hogan]

Thank you very much for the question.

This is a very important question, because it is a lot of resources, when you think about it: $2.65 billion, which has now been doubled to a level of $5.3 billion.

We work very much in lockstep with Global Affairs Canada as a delivery partner for our international climate finance work. There's an array of programming, whether it be delivered through multilateral investments that the government makes or through bilateral work that we do in the developing world. We will be ramping that up and doing the planning work around where the $5.3 billion will be invested.

There are a couple of things to be aware of. At COP26 in Glasgow, the government did make a couple of commitments about the allocation of those resources. One was very specifically around the phase-out of coal, and also a commitment that 40% of our international climate finance will be dedicated to the existing adaptation challenges. There was also a commitment that 20% of our international climate finance will be going toward nature-based solutions and biodiversity. There are a number of dimensions to our planning going forward.

Your point on accountability is very important. We report on an ongoing basis about the results that we achieve against those programs.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to note that when the Commissioner met with the committee, I asked him more or less the same question, and he had to do an audit on the subject. We can see on the government website that there are two departments and some 60 organizations. So we might wonder whether there is accountability.

Can we know where the money is going? Will the result not be the same as for Natural Resources Canada's Emissions Reduction Fund?

[Christine Hogan]

I think for every investment we make, particularly in the area of international development—and I used to work at the Canadian International Development Agency—there are very clear accountabilities around those dollars, and that information is available. Maybe there are things we can do to better tell that story and explain it to you so we can—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So it is the responsibility of the Department of Environment. Okay.

In the supplementary estimates (C), there are funds for government advertising programs.

On that point, something came to mind when my colleague spoke about electric cars. We know that the makers are spending billions of dollars on advertising. Because people respond to advertising, Ford F-150s and Dodge RAMs, among others, are selling well. This is actually a critical situation for the environment. Back to the subject now.

Regarding advertising, there is spending on page 1-23 of the supplementary estimates (C) to raise public awareness, but why is the Department of Environment not involved in these communication initiatives? That spending totals $19 million, but there is nothing for the Department of Environment.

I could draw another parallel. When we wanted people to stop smoking, billions of dollars were invested by governments to explain the harms and persuade the public. So it seems to me that the Department of the Environment should also get its share of the advertising budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There are 30 seconds left. I don't know who wants to answer.

Actually, is that a question or a comment, Ms. Pauzé?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It was simply to say that I want the department to have money for advertising.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand.

Who wants to respond to that?

[Christine Hogan]

I'm happy to respond. That is part of our supplementary estimates this time.

One of the things I would highlight is that in the mandate letter of Minister Guilbeault, there's actually a really important reference to enhancing communications with Canadians, particularly around the climate issue. We are working very hard on elaborating on a much more robust approach to communications, advertising, outreach and engagement with Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Ms. Collins, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

The department is requesting an additional $1.3 million and proposing to transfer $2.5 million to the Department of Natural Resources for the terrestrial cumulative effects initiative, which is open to indigenous groups on the 2019 Trans Mountain expansion project's consultation list, and to additional indigenous communities consulted for the 2021 NOVA Gas project.

Will this funding support capacity building within indigenous communities for cumulative effects monitoring, and will the project's mitigation measures be adapted if cumulative effects monitoring data reveals increasing negative environmental effects?