Science and Research Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I'd like to thank my honourable colleague for bringing up all the other funds. It kind of tweaked on me. It's not just the $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money being wasted on this fund; it's all the other wasted funds and potential fraud. I think I'd just roughly try to add up quickly all the billions that this member has bragged about that are potentially also in fraud.

I would say amend this motion, then. To this point, we should be investigating all the funds that this government has started to address climate change research. It's not just the $1.5 billion. Ryan is right: It's in the tens of billions of dollars now that has been funnelled into green initiatives. The truth is coming out that people are getting rich. There are companies that don't even exist that are getting paid. There are numerous examples of wrongdoing that affect our ability as a country to conduct the science and the research that are needed to address the challenges that face our country.

I would amend this motion, then, to include the words.... We'd have to work with the analysts here, I think, a little bit on it. I believe they have the English and French versions on this one. Include the SDTC, because it's the one in the news and it's the one with the most evidence out there of wrongdoing, but it really should be all the funds. It would be, “the SDTC and all other funds allotted to the research of climate change in Canada”.

The analysts are typing away over there. Could you repeat what that amendment looks like?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Hilary Smyth]

I believe I'm responsible for writing—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

The clerk is okay. It should be, “and all other government-funded programs that support climate change research”.

[The Clerk]

Just to confirm, is that after “relevant SDTC officials”, or is it further up in the motion?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

It's further up, at “surrounding wrongdoing at the fund”.

[The Clerk]

Okay—“at the fund”.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Perhaps we could hear that list again. My eyes were watering. I quickly wrote down all the billions of dollars, but I would hope that my honourable colleague would get on the speaking list. Please, I would like to hear again, of all the funds he has listed that have received billions of dollars, which ones we should be investigating for fraud and the misuse of taxpayers' dollars.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Does anyone want to speak to this amendment?

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Again, to speak to this in the context of the relative inelasticity of carbon fuels in Canada, ostensibly research and development funding in Canada should be driving towards the production and deployment of technologies that would provide affordable and readily available technologies to Canadians to change behaviour on the consumption of carbon fuel. If we're not seeing the results of that investment of, as my colleague Mr. Turnbull said, billions and billions and billions of dollars, then perhaps it is appropriate for this committee to ask how the government can be making better use of that funding from the perspective of ensuring that the money is actually delivering results in substitute goods.

Be it basic research or whatever, the government shouldn't just be articulating spending when this government is not even 50% of the way to meeting our emissions reduction target. They're talking about spending tens of billions of dollars, if not more.

I mean, we have how many billions of dollars...?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

It's over $20 billion.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It's $20 billion for sure, just right now. Those are billions of dollars. Where's the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? How come we're only 50% of the way to meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets? If spending is the metric, how come we're not all the way there? If Canadians are being asked to pay all of this money, how come we're not 100% of the way in meeting our targets?

That is a question. Maybe this amendment is right. Maybe this is an inconvenient truth that the government needs to look at. We're spending a lot of money and we're not even 50% of the way to making our greenhouse gas emissions targets. We have people who are paying for all these, and we have one part of the country that gets an exemption on heating fuels. Well, what about the people in my riding? You had the minister in Edmonton saying that people should convert from natural gas to heat pumps. Again, seriously, colleagues....

I come out of an academic administration where we were asking questions about how to research and develop technologies and deploy them. If all the Liberal government can do after eight years is list tens, twenties, hundreds of billions of dollars being spent and if we don't have those technologies on the table, if they're not being developed and they're not being deployed for Canadians, if Canadians are having to pay all this money in carbon tax and if that behaviour's not shifting, then maybe something's not working. Maybe we as a committee should ask, at least when we know there's a “sponsorship-scandal level” of scandal on this stuff, if this is the best way to use this money. Maybe there's a more effective way to support research. I would argue, I think, that in the case of SDTC, there probably is. I think that's pretty clear, at least.

Again, we can talk about solutions, but the government should not be so dogmatically attached to something that's not working when the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This government has failed. They're not even 50% of the way to meeting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The reality is that the only time greenhouse gas emissions materially decreased in Canada was under a Conservative government—yet another inconvenient truth.

We're talking about climate change and the fact that this government has failed to deliver. They're going to block a motion, I guess, to study $1.5 billion of tax dollars that are supposed to fight climate change and research.

I don't know; let's talk about science some more, and climate change. Let's keep doing that in the House of Commons. I'm happy to stand there all day if these Liberals vote against it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I would thank you to address comments through the chair, as I requested at the beginning, so that we're not doing the back-and-forth.

Mr. Tochor is next.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I want to put on the record a bit of why I'm so disappointed in this government and why I think many Canadians are coming to this conclusion.

Of the communication that I get in my office, one piece that sticks out is from Gladys. She's a retired senior and she's out of money. The cost of living is out of control in this country.

Every member here, if they read their emails, which I hope they do.... I hope residents keep emailing me and every MP who is out there, because people have to know about the suffering and the pain that have been caused in Canada.

Gladys was talking about her natural gas bill. It's not a luxury to heat your home in Saskatchewan in the winter; it's a necessity. Gladys was just in total.... She was commenting on how the fiscal crunches have hurt her. I think of Gladys. What's the follow-up from Gladys finding out that one part of the country is not going to be paying carbon tax on its heat this winter, while she will be?

She is already using the food bank. She can't afford to stay in the house that she has lived in for 30-plus years because of the increase in costs. Right now, we have the signature environmental plan that is now getting carve-outs, and not all Canadians are being treated fairly.

Gladys is going to hear about how billions of dollars that were taxed and collected by Ottawa are being wasted. Next, Gladys is going to hear that there were members who voted down a study to find out about and get to the bottom of who got rich.

I am sorry for Gladys and the countless Canadians who are struggling. Know that I'm listening to you. I'm reading your emails. I am acting as best as I can to get the answers you need, and I hope the members of this committee vote accordingly so that we can get to the truth.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I don't have anybody else on the amendment.

Mr. Cannings has his hand up.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I hate to do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I know. It looks like this is going to go on.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'm going to be very brief, but when Mr. Tochor says we're voting against finding out who got rich, there are three other committees doing that right now. That's why, again, this is wasting our time.

I think it's a serious problem. I agree with that. Let's find out how it happened, but there are other committees doing that, so let's move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We have other witnesses for the next part of the study. Some have flown in from Calgary to be with us this afternoon. Others have come from their traditional territories to be with us. I hope we can get to them.

Mr. Lobb has his hand up.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I don't want to belabour the point either. I don't speak very often about this type of stuff. The only thing I will say is that in the time I've been here, when I think back to the period of time between 2015 and 2019, there were topics that were quite similar being studied by multiple committees. I think we can all remember those.

To think it's limited or that there are only a certain number of committees that can study a certain thing.... I think as long as there is an overlap or a component to it that it makes sense for you to study.... It's up to the members, obviously, on how they vote. You can study things that are being looked at in other committees, obviously, and it's not limited to two or three or four or 10, to be honest with you. I'll just make that point.

Going forward in our committees, I believe that as we work toward getting to a balanced budget and as we look at the mess that the United States is in, as well as Japan, and as we look at the financial crises in other countries, it could be that it is quite a good use of committees' time to look at the expenses and try to find out ways we can better utilize our funds. The U.S. deficit this year is almost the exact same size as the Canadian economy. Our economy is a bit bigger, but that's how critical it is in the U.S.

The last point I will make—and this is actually in your region, Mr. Chair—is that there was an apartment building approved for funding through CMHC financing, which is good, and it's to build about 300 units, which is good, but one of the criteria for the builder to acquire the lowest interest rate financed through CMHC was that the entire apartment building had to be electrical—the entire thing. There are to be no fossil fuels used at all.

Now, I'm not saying that's wrong; I'm saying that's the fact and that's how the builder obtains the lowest interest rate to build that apartment building.

Where is the problem? The building will be completed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Is this on the amendment?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

It is, because the building is going to be completed in 2025. That is exactly the same year that the electrical crunch in the grid in Ontario is coming to pass.

To go back to the motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We're on the amendment.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

The amendment, yes. I understand—the amendment to the motion.

The point is that in everything we do, every decision we make, whether we're looking at the economy, the budget or climate change, we can't be making decisions in Ottawa that are going to impact people in Ontario and potentially cause brown-outs in eastern Ontario.

All I'm trying to say is that committees can study what they deem to be most important. I think that even Justin Trudeau said at one time that committees are the masters of their own domains, and there's long-established proof that you can study similar topics in multiple committees.

I apologize to the folks who were here earlier who didn't get their chance for a full dialogue. Maybe there's a chance, at some time, to make up that time, or maybe they're so mad that they don't want to see us again.

Those are my points, and I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I think we've gone through the speaking list for the amendment, so now we'll have the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

I'd like to suspend for a few minutes while we get set up for our next round of questioning. Try to make it as tight as possible. If we can be back up and running by ten after five, maybe we can get testimonies and some questions in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Welcome back.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 18, 2023, the committee resumes its study of integration of indigenous traditional knowledge and science in government policy development.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, from the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Georgina Lloyd, who is the assistant deputy minister of northern affairs; Rebecca Chouinard, director of natural resources and environment; and Sarah Kalhok Bourque, director of Arctic science policy integration.

From the Department of the Environment, we have Marc D'Iorio, assistant deputy minister of science and technology branch; Patrice Simon, director general of wildlife and landscape science; Myrle Ballard, chief indigenous science adviser; and Paul MacDonald, director of the indigenous science division.

Each department will be given five minutes for your statements, and then we'll go to our rounds of questioning.

We'll start with Georgina Lloyd, assistant deputy minister of northern affairs.