Environment Committee on May 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

I will now turn to Mr. Bonin for two and a half minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've not had time to do so, but I'd like to express my appreciation to public servants, who mean well and work hard—I have no doubt about that—and have been thrust into a situation where the government has taken a major turn on climate change. I want to recognize that.

Environment and Climate Change Canada's 2026–27 departmental plan shows that Canada's national adaptation strategy is one of the initiatives with significant decreases in funding or that will sunset in 2028-2029.

Is this strategy going to be renewed?

[Mollie Johnson]

We are working on our plan. I believe that at our last appearance we shared the list of the sunsetters that were coming forward, so you have that information. As part of our due course, we look at a series of those. We will be proceeding through our regular federal processes, and adaptation is one of those pieces. We continue to see a huge opportunity and need for the work on adaptation moving forward.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is there a date?

[Mollie Johnson]

If I could control those things, it would be delightful. We're continuing to do our work in due course.

Thank you.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

A look at the numbers on Environment and Climate Change Canada's funding through the GC InfoBase tool shows that the department's budgetary expenditures for climate change adaptation will decrease by around $532 million in 2026-2027 compared to 2024-2025, when they were much higher. They were $569 million and will decrease by $37 million.

Could you explain this spending reduction?

[Mollie Johnson]

Thank you for your question.

I see my friend Kurt desperately looking through the numbers. I don't want to waste your time. Perhaps we could get back to you with the details on that in writing.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay, thank you.

When will the progress report on the national adaptation strategy be issued?

I believe that according to the departmental plan, it will be this year.

[Mollie Johnson]

Yes, we are working towards that. I believe it was in 2019 when we committed to coming out with a national adaptation strategy this year.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

We are now going to Mr. Leslie for five minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Have all decisions under the expenditure review now been finalized?

[Mollie Johnson]

I'm happy to turn this one over to my colleagues afterwards.

We have finalized the decisions and are in the process of implementing them. It's a three-year process, and we are on track for delivering on the first year.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Could I get you to table the full expenditure review with this committee? That's the cut list, not the summary. It's the exact programs that have been cut—the dollar amounts cut, the locations that have been affected, the positions affected and whether each cut affects science, forecasting, enforcement, regulations or grants and contributions. What exactly are they aimed at? The trouble with the main and supplementary estimates is that this is grouped together. It's very difficult to understand what's actually happening until some stakeholder comes out and says, “Wow, this is gone.”

I would love it if our committee could see, in detail, what all these changes are. Would you be willing to table that, now that decisions have been made?

[Mollie Johnson]

I'm not trying to be cagey by any stretch of the imagination, but I would like to make sure I'm considering the people and programs involved—those sorts of things. Perhaps I could get back to you on how I can respond to that.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay. Was that a commitment to try, at least? Do you understand what we're aiming for here? I'd love to know what exactly is done, and not just a grouping of.... “One fund has now been reduced by over $7 million for the next three years” doesn't mean anything to anybody.

[Mollie Johnson]

Absolutely. I completely understand.

I also think there is a challenge regarding the perception of, or views on, what has happened and not happened. I think we have a shared interest in being very clear about what the impact of decisions is, why they have been made and what the opportunities are as we go forward.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I hope you take the opportunity to explain why a change in funding isn't going to make a consequential difference. It's an opportunity to highlight why these changes are being made.

[Mollie Johnson]

I share your view.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I'll move over to the discussion document on the major projects side of things.

I assume that there was a lot of homework done as to why these changes are now being proposed. Is that correct? You tried to understand what exactly needs to change in order for the Impact Assessment Agency to enable projects to be built.

[Terence Hubbard]

Yes. There are ongoing efforts to continue to improve our approach and processes, as well as ongoing engagement and consultation to support these. This is a product of learnings.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The discussion paper says that major projects would often take more than five years to receive the federal decisions needed to begin construction.

I'm curious about the evidence that led you to a timeline of five years.

[Terence Hubbard]

I can't speak to the specific timeline in that paper. Presumably, it's some sort of averaging of the time it's taken both proponents and governments to review projects.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I recognize that I have you a little on the spot, but I hope you would be willing—if I send in some written questions that are more specifically about the analysis done in the lead-up to this discussion—to table responses with this committee.

[Terence Hubbard]

We would be happy to work with colleagues.