THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 21, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
Whenever possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
Welcome to all senators and all Canadians who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I’d now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Hello, everyone. Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Loffreda: Good morning and welcome. Tony Loffreda, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. Welcome. I live here, on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people of Ontario.
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
We are pleased to have a number of senior officials with us today from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada and Natural Resources Canada. I understand that one official from each department will make a short statement, and that those accompanying them will help answer questions.
I’d like to introduce our witnesses: Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada; Richard Goodyear, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Louis Desmeules, Director General, Finances and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Financial Planning and Resource Management, Transport Canada; and Francis Brisson, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Management and Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. With that, I’ll give the floor to Ms. Drainville, followed by Mr. Goodyear, Mr. Desmeules and Mr. Brisson. You have five to seven minutes.
Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here with you and members of the committee this morning to discuss Environment and Climate Change Canada’s 2024–2025 main estimates.
I would like to begin by noting that we are meeting on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Environment and Climate Change Canada has made significant progress on its mandate over the past year, including taking action on clean growth and climate change, conserving and preserving Canada’s nature and biodiversity, protecting Canadians from harmful pollutants, and ensuring that Canadians have critical weather information.
[English]
Over the past year, Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, ramped up the implementation of Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy: Building Resilient Communities and a Strong Economy to enable Canada to be more resilient. With an unprecedented year of wildfires and other extreme weather, more than ever, Canadians rely on Environment and Climate Change Canada as a leader in the fight against climate change and in the protection of Canada’s natural environment.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is working hard to meet its commitments to Canadians through the implementation of various climate tools and policies. Last year, for example, ECCC published the zero-emission vehicle regulations as well as updates to the federal Output-Based Pricing System and introduced the Regulatory Framework for an Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap.
Our work on climate change is making an impact. We have meaningfully bent the curve on Canada’s greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions trajectory and we will continue to forge ahead toward Canada’s 2030 and 2050 emissions targets. Environment and Climate Change Canada will continue to work with Canadians, partners in industry, Indigenous communities and provinces and territories to maintain momentum in 2024-25 and beyond.
The department also has, and will continue, to provide sound stewardship of Canada’s water and air, leading Canada’s agenda to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030 and protecting freshwater ecosystems through major investments in the strengthened Freshwater Action Plan.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is leading the development of Canada’s 2030 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in response to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We have undertaken a series of engagements to ensure the final 2030 strategy reflects the diversity of Canadian perspectives and issues.
[Translation]
Finally, I would like to highlight the department’s ongoing efforts to advance and prioritize true and genuine nation-to-nation reconciliation through extensive and collaborative consultations in the development of regulations and programs.
Notably, investments in the Indigenous Guardians program over the past year have resulted in more than a quarter of all First Nations communities having active guardian programs from coast to coast to coast. This is a testament to the importance of Indigenous-led conservation efforts, which are at the heart of Canada’s plan to protect 30% of our lands and waters by 2030.
Mr. Chair, all of this important work is reflected in the department’s 2024–2025 main estimates, which present approximately $2.8 billion in total planned spending. This is a net increase of almost $315 million over last year’s main estimates.
To achieve our climate goals and maintain the momentum to reduce emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030, more than $1 billion of spending is allocated to initiatives related to taking action on clean growth and climate change. These include implementing key aspects of the strengthened climate plan, implementing the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, advancing initiatives outlined in the Emissions Reduction Plan and leading the implementation of Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy.
[English]
These estimates also include a one-time investment of $530 million for an upfront multiyear contribution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the Green Municipal Fund to provide much-needed funding to municipalities and municipal partners to support adaptation initiatives.
There is also more than $229 million in grants and contributions for the Low Carbon Economy Fund which supports projects that help to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, generate clean growth and help build resilient communities.
Over $45 million in these estimates is for grants and contributions to support Canada’s international climate finance program. This funding helps developing countries in their transition to sustainable, low-carbon and nature-positive economies.
Environment and Climate Change Canada will continue to work with federal partners, provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples, local governments, conservation organizations, the private sector and civil society on an ambitious plan to conserve 25% of Canada’s lands and oceans by 2025, 30% by 2030 and achieve full recovery of nature by 2050.
It is why these estimates also include more than $736 million to conserve nature, including over $309 million for contributions to support the Canada Nature Fund and over $121 million to implement the Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund.
In addition, Mr. Chair, there is also more than $450 million for preventing and managing pollution. This will be used to make historic investments to protect and restore large lakes and river systems and invest in the Experimental Lakes Area in Northern Ontario to support international freshwater science and research. This includes funding that will transition to the Canada Water Agency once it becomes an independent stand-alone agency later this year.
[Translation]
In addition, Mr. Chair, almost $272 million is earmarked for weather and environmental forecasting in order to invest in weather services; modernize infrastructure; and support efforts to predict, prevent and prepare for floods, forest fires, droughts, shoreline erosion and other extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change.
Lastly, over $265 million will be spent on internal services to support all these major programs.
Mr. Chair, I hope that this summary will provide committee members with a comprehensive overview of the 2024-25 Main Estimates. Thank you again for the invitation. Mr. Moffet and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Drainville.
[English]
Richard Goodyear, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I’m happy to be joined by fellow officials from the department, including Stephanie Hopper, Director General, Small Craft Harbours; Todd Williams, Acting Director General, Fisheries and Resource Management; Kathy Graham, Director General, Marine Planning and Conservation; Katia Jollez, Director General, Priorities, Engagement and Planning, from the Canadian Coast Guard; and Doug Wentzell, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region.
Mr. Chair, today, we are appearing here before the committee to discuss the 2024-25 Main Estimates for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard. At the end of my opening remarks, we will be glad to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Chair, through these main estimates, the department sought a total of $4.7 billion in planned spending for the 2024-25 fiscal year. This amount represents an increase of $573.8 million compared to the 2023-24 Main Estimates.
This increase in expenditures is a result of changes to funding requirements for several existing and new departmental initiatives.
These key initiatives include: $506 million for projects related to the Canadian Coast Guard fleet renewal program, including procurement of new vessels; $127.7 million related to the signing of new collective agreements for employees; and $52.7 million to continue our work to modernize the Fisheries Act.
[Translation]
It’s important to note that the decrease of $254.2 million associated with other expenses offset the increase for this fiscal year. This amount includes $89.8 million in temporary funding from the Hurricane Fiona Recovery Fund.
This funding helped repair critical infrastructure, recover and responsibly dispose of lost fishing gear and offset the costs of engineering assessments. That way, future infrastructure and ports can withstand extreme weather conditions occurring more and more frequently as a result of climate change.
[English]
We also have an $83.5 million decrease this year as part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s contribution to the government’s commitment to find operational savings that can be reinvested in other areas of priority.
Mr. Chair, you’ll notice spending on the Canadian Coast Guard fleet is the largest item in the department’s main estimates.
This $506 million in new funding will be used for procurement of new ships for the Canadian Coast Guard and to hire and train personnel, while also allowing it to do the necessary work to keep existing ships operational.
You will note that another main spending item for the department this year is for work to continue to support the implementation of the fish stock provisions of the Fisheries Act. These provisions include new obligations to maintain fish stocks at sustainable levels and to rebuild depleted stocks.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is working with Indigenous peoples, provinces and stakeholders to develop the necessary policies and regulations needed to help ensure Canada’s fisheries and marine resources are sustainable for generations to come.
[Translation]
In Budget 2024, the Government of Canada awarded Fisheries and Oceans Canada $463.3 million over three years to repair and maintain small craft harbours owned by the department, including those damaged by Hurricane Fiona.
Repairs made with this funding will allow small craft harbours to better adapt to significant weather events that occur as a result of climate change.
Canada’s small craft harbours provide essential support to the commercial fishing industry. Budget 2024 funds will be used to strengthen and support our network of ports across the country.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I thank you and appreciate the opportunity to appear today. My colleagues and I would be happy to take any questions you have.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Desmeules, please proceed.
Louis Desmeules, Director General, Finances and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Transport Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered is the unceded and traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am joined today by several other Transport Canada officials: Craig Hutton, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; Joshua LaRocque, Director General, Transportation Infrastructure Programs; Lisa Setlakwe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security; and Vincent Robitaille, Assistant Deputy Minister, High Frequency Rail.
We are pleased to be here today to discuss Transport Canada’s main estimates for fiscal year 2024-2025.
[Translation]
Transport Canada’s mandate is to ensure that our transportation system is safe and secure, efficient, green and innovative. To support these goals, the Main Estimates include $3.7 billion for the Department of Transport and $2.6 billion for the Crown corporations in the Department of Transport’s portfolio.
Compared to the previous fiscal year, Transport Canada’s Main Estimates have increased by $38.9 million, or by 1%. This increase is found in our capital vote. It mainly supports additional work on the Crown-owned airports and other infrastructure work on our fixed assets.
In addition, Transport Canada’s contribution to the government’s refocusing government spending initiative announced in Budget 2023 is included in these Main Estimates. Savings of $39.4 million in 2024-25 will be achieved by finding efficiencies through the modernization of processes and tools; by reducing activities in areas of low value for money; and by eliminating functions no longer aligned with the department’s core mandate and Government of Canada priorities.
I’ll now take a couple of moments to highlight some of the important work carried out by Transport Canada and the Crown corporations in the portfolio funded by these Main Estimates.
The Main Estimates include funding for the Oceans Protection Plan. This funding will allow us to continue building meaningful partnerships with indigenous peoples, coastal communities and scientists in order to make marine shipping safe, increase protection for marine ecosystems and enhance emergency response capacity. As such, we’re helping to protect the environment by reducing the impact of commercial shipping on marine life and by building a cleaner world for generations to come.
Another important focus is the safety and security of our transportation system.
Transport Canada’s Main Estimates include, under the core responsibility of a safe and secure transportation system, $530 million for a wide variety of programs across all modes of transportation. Modernizing how the transportation of dangerous goods is overseen and regulated, continuing to test vehicles, child car seats and new technologies and providing guidance for the safe and responsible use of increasingly complex drone applications are just a few examples of initiatives contributing to the safety and security of the transportation system.
The department’s Main Estimates also include funds for investing in our supply chains to ensure that they stay resilient and that they can provide people with the goods they need, when they need them, at an affordable price. Supply chains play a pivotal role in sustaining and bolstering Canada’s economic competitiveness. We’re moving forward with the implementation of our national supply chain strategy.
The Crown corporations are important entities within the transportation portfolio. Funding in the Crown corporations’ budget will allow the corporations to carry out their important mandates.
[English]
For example, these current Main Estimates will provide all the necessary funding for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority operations. It will support the organization in its mandate to provide effective and efficient screening of persons, maintain its level of service and strengthen security measures at airports.
Also, funding for Marine Atlantic and the Federal Bridge Corporation will support the transportation of Canadians who rely on ferry services and international bridges while keeping fares affordable for users. These initiatives represent a sample of the diverse activities that Transport Canada is undertaking to achieve its mandate.
Funding provided through the 2024-25 Main Estimates will enable Transport Canada to continue offering Canadians a trustworthy and dependable transportation system.
My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desmeules.
Francis Brisson, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Management and Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Francis Brisson. I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporate Management and Services Sector at Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
Let me begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Natural Resources Canada’s Main Estimates for 2024-25.
In the Main Estimates for 2024-25, the department is seeking a total of $5.6 billion, comprising of $886 million for operating expenditures, $38.4 million for capital expenditures, $2.8 billion for grants and contributions, and $1.8 billion in statutory authorities.
[Translation]
It represents a net increase of just under $500 million, or about 9%, over the 2023-24 Main Estimates, which were $5.1 billion.
[English]
The funding requested in these Main Estimates will contribute to ensuring Canada delivers on the climate change agenda and transition to a low carbon economy. It will support the government’s strategy to seize key economic opportunity in accelerating sectors, including critical minerals in the EV supply chain, hydrogen, biofuels, nuclear technology and carbon management. It will support Canada’s competitiveness; build affordable, reliable, and clean electricity networks; and further economic reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
Key increases from last year’s Main Estimates include transitioning from oil to heat pumps, increasing the rate of building retrofits, developing critical minerals, advancing Canada’s forest economy and supporting the new tree-planting projects, as well as creating safe and secure communities, including wildfire resiliency.
[Translation]
That said, I would like to elaborate on a few programs included in this year’s Main Estimates.
[English]
Natural Resources Canada’s Main Estimates include $778.1 million for home retrofits to support the government’s new Oil to Heat Pump Affordability program and existing Canada Greener Homes Grant program. The new Oil to Heat Pump Affordability program will help low-to-medium-income Canadians offset costs of transitioning from oil heating to electric heat pumps.
Natural Resources Canada is partnering with provinces and territories to provide up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to eligible homeowners for installing a heat pump, as well as a targeted one-time incentive payment of $250 to those who commit to adopting a heat pump.
The Greener Homes Grant program continues to provide existing applicants with a grant of up to $600 for the cost of EnerGuide home energy evaluations, and up to $5,000 for energy-efficient retrofits.
Also, $421.2 million will be used for Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program to enable a net-zero electricity system by 2035. This supports commercial-scale renewable energy and electrical grid modernization projects and supports capacity-building projects helping communities and organizations acquire the knowledge and tools needed to develop renewable energy and grid modernization projects.
Natural Resources Canada’s Main Estimates include $389.2 million for the Clean Fuels Fund to support new clean-fuel production capacity, the establishment of biomass supply chains, and the development of codes and standards to help accelerate the transition to net zero by 2050.
[Translation]
Lastly, $296.3 million will support the government’s commitment to plant two billion trees in the next decade as a crucial part of Canada’s climate plan to restore, better manage and conserve Canada’s natural ecosystem.
[English]
Together, these programs account for $1.9 billion, or 52% of the $3.7 billion requested in voted authorities. This focus on building a clean economy for the future was reflected in the recent budget. Budget 2024 delivered significant clean economy investments, including the Electric Vehicle Supply Chain investment tax credit, new measures for biofuels to the biofuel sector and $800 million to stand up the Canada Greener Homes grant program.
Budget 2024 also announced a $5-billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, which will ensure that Indigenous communities will derive long-term benefits from key energy and resource projects.
Finally, I would add these Main Estimates reflect the department’s contribution toward the government’s efforts to refocusing government spending. The department has met its established target for reductions.
[Translation]
With that, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the Main Estimates. My colleagues and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brisson.
[English]
Senator Marshall: My first question is for the Department of the Environment. Ms. Drainville and I were speaking just before the meeting and I wasn’t sure I would have questions for her department, but I do. A couple of weeks age, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development released a report on contaminated sites. I was looking for some more information on that because, in your Main Estimates, you are looking for $2.7 billion, but the liability that’s on the books of the government is actually $10.1 billion.
My first question is, when that liability is increased, does it flow through any of your appropriations or is it recorded somewhere else?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much, senator, for your question. The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan is in place to oversee all the contaminated sites across the country. The secretariat is sitting within ECCC, but ECCC has its own decontaminated sites to go through. Funding is allocated to that, and the funding is prioritized to the sites that are highly contaminated and where we have accessibility — easy access, I would say. In some remote areas, it is more difficult to process the contamination. That being said, there is an assessment made of all of our sites. We prioritize and we have a long-term plan to address all of them.
The funding is there. We try to maximize the funding we have. Obviously, if we were to address everything in the same fiscal year, funding will never be sufficient. As we have a long-term plan, we try to ensure that the funding is there to address all of this. It’s an ongoing activity, as you know.
Senator Marshall: I want to pick up on one point where you said there’s not enough funding. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that a significant amount of funding was lapsed. I am interested in when that liability is increased. There was a significant increase between 2022 and 2023, about several billions of dollars. Since the Main Estimates is under $3 billion, where does that increase get posted? Which department bears that increase? It can’t be your department because you don’t have enough money there.
Ms. Drainville: You’re right. The money is spread across multiple departments. As I mentioned, this is a broader question that probably needs more information than what I can provide to you today, but the secretariat is managing this for the entire Government of Canada. Billions of dollars across the ecosystem is shared so that we can address —
Senator Marshall: Can you send to the clerk, for the increase, what departments bore the increase? Where, exactly, is the increase recorded? I was looking at that.
Concerning the $10.1 billion, I read the Environment Commissioner’s report. The way the report reads, it seems like the $10.1 billion is not really sufficient. It did say that a number of the assessments were not done. They focus on the Faro Mine and the Giant Mine, especially. It seemed from the report that $5 billion is needed for the Faro Mine and $3.9 billion for the Giant Mine but the liability is only at $10.1 billion. The numbers don’t really match.
When do you expect to see another increase? That increase will be significantly more than the $2.7 billion that’s in the Main Estimates.
Ms. Drainville: That’s a very good question. The program, as you know, is an initiative that is funded on a temporary basis. Every five years, we go back to add more funding to the program itself. The program will come to an end in the near future. We’ll seek additional funding. We’ll go through the entire process to get that.
As far as what the Commissioner of the Environment is sharing with you and how it doesn’t add up, we’ll have to go back and get back to you with that information because I cannot reconcile that myself.
Senator Marshall: I’d appreciate that. I’d like to know which vote it gets charged to, in your department. That would be great. That would be helpful.
To Fisheries and Oceans, there’s been a lot of discussion recently about professional services, Mr. Goodyear. I notice in the Main Estimates that the request is going — I think you had $747 million requested in Main Estimates last year to over $1 billion this year. Why would there be an increase there, given that the government is trying to decrease the amount of money they’re spending on professional services?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. One of the accounting issues with professional services is that our shipbuilding is also part of professional services. The large part of the increase is not related to what you would think of as contracting or consultants but to our shipbuilding requirements.
Senator Marshall: Okay. You’ve got an increase, but Natural Resources Canada also has a request for an increase, from $5 million to $5.5 million. Why would yours increase? It just seems like the departments are all asking for more money in professional services when it’s been in the media that they’re concerned about how much money is going toward professional services. You have an increase of almost half a million dollars there. What would be the reason for that?
Mr. Brisson: Thank you for the question. From our perspective, professional services is something that we take seriously, given the government’s mandate to look at reducing this.
I’d like to point out that, similar to fisheries, some of our professional services are associated with scientific activities and specific needs associated with that.
Also, the reduction in our professional services and the reduction associated with the government spending review reduced our professional services funding at a certain point in time a few years ago. Since then, we’ve added additional resources allocated to us for new activities, new programs, and so on. Some of these activities need professional services to be able to look into that.
That being said, we are extremely careful in trying to ensure that we only use professional services in cases where we need them. We’ve been looking internally as well to leverage internal capacity to be able to use our own resources — our employees and so forth — instead of going out to professional services on all of that.
Senator Marshall: I have one question for Transport Canada related to professional services because you also have an increase. Put me on second round if somebody else doesn’t ask that question.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Marshall.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for joining us this morning. My first question is for Mr. Goodyear and it concerns the shrimp crisis.
Despite the department’s assistance plan, fishers and workers in the East are really worried. The measures didn’t stop Quebec’s oldest shrimp processing plant, Fruits de mer de l’Est, from shutting down and laying off over 55 employees and at least 104 temporary foreign workers who didn’t show up.
With the low quotas of 3,060 tonnes allocated this year by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the 80 fishers in Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, plants will surely need to turn to imports.
What’s the plan to help shrimp fishers in Eastern Canada, so that we don’t lose all this expertise and knowledge and this key economic activity for eastern Quebec?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question, senator. I’ll ask my colleague to answer it.
Todd Williams, Acting Director General, Fisheries and Resource Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for your question.
[English]
We have seen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence’s shrimp fishery this year and in recent years significant declines with that fishery. The department has responded in a number of ways, including providing flexibility and enhanced flexibility for those licence holders so that they can combine and properly share those licences and help with the costs associated with those.
We’ve also worked with the Province of Quebec to ensure that their programming is aligned to assist that fleet. Recently, the minister announced 10% of the reopening of Unit 1 redfish to be allocated to those shrimp harvesters in the gulf. Those are three measures in which we are working with that fleet to address those concerns.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Do you think that the measures in place will help maintain the fishing fleet and the plants still in operation — because the Matane plant is closed?
Mr. Williams: Thank you for your question, senator.
[English]
It is a challenge. We notice with this particular fleet, there are structural economic challenges in which the fleet has structural and significant debt loads which make it challenging to address those.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not have the existing mandate or programming to assist in relieving those loans or relieving that debt of those licence holders. As a fisheries manager and as a department, we have the mandate to respond to these by providing opportunity in other fisheries, which we have, by relaxing existing policies, which we have as well, and working with the provincial government to address those concerns.
It is a challenge dealing with a fishery and a resource like this, which is so susceptible to changing environmental conditions.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Mr. Goodyear, in your highly insightful remarks, you talked about the significance of small craft harbours. These harbours are key infrastructure for the fishing industry across the country, particularly in Eastern Canada. I’m thinking in particular of Rimouski, where the largest snow crab quota is shipped.
This infrastructure is already significantly underfunded. It’s found all over the country, in both the east and west. When I look at the 2022 and 2023 budgets, I see that actual spending on small craft harbours is around $2.5 million. Budget 2024-25 includes $750,000 for Canada, which is a drop in the bucket. How can we maintain such vital infrastructure? When I consider DFO’s commitment to reduce spending by $85 million in 2024-25, $105 million in 2025-26 and $135 million in subsequent years, I see a major challenge when it comes to prioritizing our investments in small craft harbours. Coming from an eastern region, I know that this is vital for the fishery and for maritime activity in the country.
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question, senator. I’ll start and then turn the floor over to Stephanie Hopper. In terms of budget cuts, the funding for small craft harbours was protected. This was obvious in Budget 2024, as we secured a significant allocation for the next three years, amounting to $463 million. Of course, there will never be enough money, especially given environmental events such as Hurricane Fiona. We still need to work on continuing the repairs needed as a result of the hurricane. However, with our prioritization system, we’re trying to determine where the greatest needs lie. We believe that we have enough money to maintain our own small craft as a result of the funding just received through Budget 2024. Stephanie, could you say a few words?
Stephanie Hopper, Director General, Small Craft Harbours, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I think that the $750,000 was earmarked for planned contributions only. We have a current budget for national small craft harbours of $90 million a year. In addition, for the past few years, we had temporary funding under Budget 2021 that allowed us to invest $300 million over two years in small craft harbours. Prior to that, Budget 2018 provided $250 million in funding over two years. Now, with the $463.3 million investment in Budget 2024, we should be able to improve the situation of harbours across the country. As Mr. Goodyear said, we’ve also secured $70 million from the Hurricane Fiona Recovery Fund over the past two years. This has helped us make progress in improving and repairing our harbours.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hopper.
Senator Gignac: I want to welcome the witnesses. Ms. Drainville, we may talk about taxonomy. If anyone from your team needs to come forward, please let them know. First, in your opening remarks, I gather that you talked about reductions of 35% to 40% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Where do we stand in 2024 in relation to the reference year, which is 2005? Apart from the carbon tax, can you identify the three or four main measures that will help us reach our target by 2030?
Ms. Hopper: Thank you for the question. I would like to invite my colleague, John Moffet, to answer your question, Senator Gignac.
[English]
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning, senator. I’ll speak to two parts of your question. First, we have been updating our analysis of the relative significance, the relative contribution of carbon pricing to the government’s overall emission reduction efforts.
As we’ve explained in various settings, it’s impossible to perfectly disaggregate the contribution of any individual measure because the measures work together. However, our current best analysis is that carbon pricing — both the fuel charge and the industrial pricing systems across Canada — are contributing and will continue to contribute approximately a third of the overall emission reductions that we are seeing today and that we project in the future.
As we’ve explained in the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan and in the update that we recently published, the government’s overall approach comprises a suite of measures which includes pricing regulations focused on various sectors and sources that require additional direct intervention to drive investments in decarbonization in the near term, as well as various pricing measures.
I’m not able to identify a ranked list of which are the most significant. The overall approach is designed to work together so that while we require changes via regulations, we also enable investments to be made and avoid adverse impacts on competitiveness of business and avoid adverse impacts on households.
Senator Gignac: Fair enough. We know that Canada has to make a significant investment to achieve net zero by 2050. We talk about maybe $115 billion a year, something like that. I think Mark Carney referred to that.
In Montreal last week, I attended the Sustainable Finance Summit. They mentioned that a lot of countries have already adopted taxonomy but Canada has not yet adopted that. Could you describe what that is exactly? Why do we lag our partners regarding that file? When will it be released? Apparently, it’s important.
Mr. Moffet: For the benefit of others, what the senator is referring to is a development of a taxonomy or sort of a generally accepted approach to identifying and accounting for both the benefits of accounting for climate change and the potential risks of climate change to investments and to businesses. And as much as generally accepted accounting principles have evolved over the last century, there is a global effort that is moving at different rates in different countries to standardize that approach, both so that companies don’t have to develop it themselves and also so that investors can compare apples to apples and know exactly what you’re saying when you claim that you’ve accounted for the climate risks in your investment decisions as a company.
Canada is active in developing and working on that taxonomy and has published a draft taxonomy. I can follow up with you on the precise details of exactly what the status of that taxonomy is in Canada. It is being actively developed under a program that is under the leadership of Finance Canada, with the support of Environment Canada, but working directly with the investment community. We’d be happy to follow up with that.
To your question about why we are a little slower than others, there are probably various reasons, but one fundamental one, of course, is the nature of the Canadian jurisdiction, where the federal government does not have authority to regulate security, as was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Smith: I have some questions for Mr. Brisson. I’d like to ask about the Growing Canada’s Forests program and the 2 Billion Trees program. These estimates include $338 million to advance the 10-year program.
Can you provide updates on how many funding agreements have been signed to date, how many trees have been planted, how are the trees distributed across the country and is the department on track to meet the 2-billion targets?
Mr. Brisson: Thanks for the questions. Given the importance of them, I’ll ask my colleague Glenn Hargrove to come and help me answer those questions.
Glenn Hargrove, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you for the questions. The government remains committed to the goal of planting 2 billion trees. We are making strong progress.
As of March, we had agreements signed or in the late stages of negotiation to plant 553 million trees. We have over 200 agreements signed. We have fully committed on the federal funding stream, so projects with other federal departments. We’re essentially fully committed in terms of our commitments around urban tree planting. We’ve made solid progress on the private stream, and we’ve also co-developed with national Indigenous organizations a distinctions-based approach to the Indigenous funding stream and are making solid progress there as well.
We also have agreements in principle with nine provinces and territories. The bulk of the planting and the funding is in that provincial-territorial stream. We’re continuing to work on that stream diligently and to get more and more long-term agreements.
This is a major undertaking, as you know. We like to say that it’s a marathon, not a sprint. It’s a 40% increase in tree planting across Canada over a decade. We’ve been ramping up the supply chain and working on getting those long-term agreements in place. We are at 553 million trees to plant now under our commitment under the program.
Senator Smith: How do you foresee the timing of this project? Can you anticipate any form of completion date?
Mr. Hargrove: We remain committed to the goal. I can’t give you an exact date when the 2 billion trees will be planted exactly, but I think we’re making strong progress. Again, we know that there has to be a ramp up. At this point in the program, we’re at 553 million committed.
Senator Smith: Do you have any idea of where you are with GHG emissions in terms of reductions? Is there any way of measuring that?
Mr. Hargrove: It’s really too soon to measure those GHG predictions. It’s all sorts of modelling at this point.
Senator Smith: Is a model in place?
Mr. Hargrove: Yes. We had initial projections and we’ll continue to calibrate those. The major emissions reductions will be toward 2050 as opposed to in the next few years.
When you plant trees, the activities that take place in order to ready the soil in the area to plant those trees also disturbs carbon. Young trees absorb less carbon than mature trees. It’s sort of like human beings — babies eat less food than teenagers. If you think of it that way, once the trees start to grow, that’s when they really start to absorb that carbon. That is a little way down the road before we start to see a change.
Senator Kingston: I have a question for Mr. Desmeules. I’m thinking about the $588 million for rebates under the Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles Program, e-vehicles and other things related to that.
First, when you’re looking at the development of electric vehicles across Canada, where is the biggest uptake? You say there’s been an increase from 3% to 11% in vehicles sold. Where is that happening most frequently?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. We have the stats by provinces. For the light-duty vehicle, 48% of the incentives are paid to the province of Quebec. We also have 22% in Ontario, 22% in British Columbia and the 8% remaining is across the country.
Senator Kingston: Thank you for that. My follow-up question is regarding what I feel goes along with it. You’re providing $2.1 billion to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable and then $1 billion to build more charging stations across Canada.
With the uptake or the deals you have to make across Canada regarding these charging stations, does that follow what you talked about in terms of who is buying the most vehicles?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. In terms of charging stations, maybe my colleague from Natural Resources Canada can answer because that’s under their department.
Mr. Brisson: Thank you for the question. I’d like to invite Ms. Van der Kamp from our team to be able to expand on the numbers associated with the stations.
Anna Van der Kamp, Executive Director, Transportation and Fuels Decarbonization Programs, Natural Resources Canada: I am executive director on several programs, particularly our zero-emission vehicle infrastructure program, which is our charging program.
Yes, the chargers we are giving out federally do follow the demands across the country. The largest do go to Ontario right now. That is partly because Quebec already has substantial initiatives in place, as does B.C. But then it would go Quebec and B.C. after that.
Senator Kingston: Okay. Another sort of intersection — and there may be one more because when I heard you talking about having regulations around electric vehicles, also in the budget it speaks about introducing the new electric vehicle availability standard, which will improve the availability of new electric vehicles across the country. What, exactly, is that, to whomever is responsible?
Mr. Desmeules: Maybe I can start. Environment Canada is responsible for this, right, Ms. Drainville?
Ms. Drainville: Mr. Moffet will answer that question.
Mr. Moffet: That’s a very clever name for the regulation. It’s the regulation that we promulgated last year setting standards for new vehicles for fleets from manufacturers to include an increasing portion of zero-emission vehicles among their fleet, increasing to 100% by 2035.
Senator Kingston: When does the government plan to eliminate the rebate as sales of zero-emission vehicles continue to grow? Is there an out date for that, or are you still in the beginning stages, Mr. Desmeules?
Mr. Desmeules: Right now, I can say that we have the necessary funding to continue to provide these rebates for 2024-25. Throughout the fiscal year, we will work on developing options for consideration of the cabinet and Finance Canada for future years.
Senator Kingston: Are you happy with the development, or do you think it needs to ramp up? Or is it steady as she goes?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. I cannot answer this question right now. It will be a cabinet decision on the future of the program.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, everyone, for being here. I would like to ask my first question to Ms. Drainville. It was near the beginning of your message this morning around plastics. I heard the goal of plastics, and I have just come back from being part of a round table with our U.S. colleagues about this. I feel as though I had a workshop on how complex this is. People think of plastic bottles, but we have cardboard boxes that we think are good, that are lined in plastics. We have cups that are lined in plastics. Plastic is an amazing hard-to-replace material. The more we learn about the complexity of eliminating plastics, do you believe it is reasonable to achieve what we are talking about in Canada in 2030?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you for your question. I will bring the expert on the matter, and he will give us some insight.
Mr. Moffet: First of all, I would emphasize that like most countries, Canada’s goal in addressing the issues associated with plastics is focused on plastic waste and on eliminating or preventing plastics from getting into the environment. To put it simply, it is not an anti-plastic agenda. Plastics remain an important and essential part of the economy and provide numerous services throughout the economy. The goal is to establish a life cycle approach that only uses plastics when we need them, only uses the kinds of plastics that can be, ideally, recycled or reused, that prevents plastics from being disposed of and, if they are disposed of, ensures that they are disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.
Our action plan has been developed with the provinces and territories. This can only be accomplished through intra-jurisdictional cooperation with provinces and municipalities, who are responsible for various uses of plastics and the actual management of the end-of-life of plastics.
We are also working closely with industry to establish extended producer responsibility programs that are standardized across Canada so that producers then take responsibility for ensuring that plastic doesn’t become waste and gets reintroduced into the economy and reused.
Some aspects of that programming are targeting 2030, but others don’t have a timeline. They are much longer and, indeed, when I say that this has to be a national endeavour, of course, as I think you hinted, it needs to be a global endeavour. That’s why we are also actively working with other countries to negotiate an international agreement related to plastic waste, and the most recent negotiating system was just held in Canada.
Senator M. Deacon: Yes, these are the folks that we met with. Thank you.
I will follow up on Senator Smith with respect to the $338 million in contributions for the Growing Canada’s Forests program. I think I am looking now at you, Mr. Brisson. The angle I am looking at is a little different. We are changing. We have a dramatic change in the course of our wildfire season. It has been very sudden. With the changes in the duration of the wildfires, do we see programs in ways that we did not anticipate in 2020 when it was announced. How is that connected to this today?
Mr. Brisson: Thank you for the question. I will ask Mr. Hargrove to help answer the question. Thank you.
Mr. Hargrove: Thank you for the question. It’s a great question. One of the things we tried to do with the program is to be nimble and adjust to how things are changing on the ground and as we learn through the program. As you’ve said, the wildfire season last year was unprecedented. It was completely off the charts.
That has impacted how we’re thinking about a lot of different things in terms of forest management, including how we are delivering the program. The program does support regeneration and restoration, post-fire. That is something that we continue to support and advocate for as we are working with provinces and territories in terms of the program.
One thing that our scientists are starting to tell us is that we are seeing what they call “short-interval reburn,” more frequently. Normally, in a boreal ecosystem especially, fire is part of the natural landscape that happens. It is part of the ecosystem. But usually those cycles for burns are decades and decades long. What we are seeing is when the same area is burned within a short period of time more than once — let’s say a certain forest area gets burned — and then 10 or 15 years later, it gets reburned, that makes it much harder for that forest to regenerate on its own.
That is also an opportunity to use this program to help restore those ecosystems that have been devastated by these fires.
Senator M. Deacon: Is the capacity and budget there for night firefighting? Are we moving in Canada toward more aggressive firefighting at night?
Mr. Hargrove: At night? The actual on-the-ground firefighting is a provincial jurisdiction. One of the things we are doing at the federal level, though, which you may have heard of, is WildFireSat. That will be the world’s first purposes-driven, launched satellite for monitoring wildfire activity.
Senator M. Deacon: Good to know. Thank you.
Senator Ross: Thanks, everyone, for your remarks today. I have a question for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In your departmental plan, you state you will work closely with partners to develop a strategy to restore and rebuild the Atlantic salmon population and their habitats. I see dedicated funding in the estimates for aquatic ecosystems, and I wonder what portion of that funding will be dedicated to developing the strategy or funding projects to achieve this end with Atlantic salmon. Are there any projects under way as part of this initiative?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. I’ve got Doug Wentzell beaming in from the Maritimes. Mr. Wentzell, are you able to take that?
Doug Wentzell, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Yes. Thank you so much for the question. We are in the process now of finalizing the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Strategy. We’ve embarked on a number of consultations with partners and are looking to advance on a couple of key streams, including habitat restoration, work to recover wild stocks, including research, and the funding that we’re looking to dedicate that will depend on where we can get the most mileage in terms of actual conservation/restoration benefits. Those discussions are happening with partners, with stakeholders, with Indigenous groups, and we will have more precision in terms of how those funds will be apportioned to accomplish the greatest benefit.
Senator Ross: Thank you. Mr. Chair. I have a supplementary question for Mr. Wentzell. Thank you for that information. I appreciate it.
When you talk about stakeholder engagement with the provinces, municipalities, Indigenous groups, et cetera, are you also working with the local conservation groups in this regard?
Mr. Wentzell: Thank you, senator, for the question. Mr. Chair, we definitely work very closely with a number of conservation groups. In my region alone, we work closely with groups like the Atlantic Salmon Federation as well as a number of environmental NGOs who are very passionate about the work under way to recover salmon. They are key partners in supporting this work.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: My question is for Environment Canada and maybe Mr. Moffet, or Ms. Drainville. It relates to the recent incorporation of the right to a healthy environment in the Canada Environment Protection Act, or CEPA, and a private member’s bill that is currently at third reading in the Senate involving environmental racism.
Recent research underscores that Indigenous communities are disproportionally affected by wildfires and on-reserve Indigenous populations face nearly three times the risk of wildfires than other populations. First Nations account for 40% of evacuations in Canada but make up only 4% of Canada’s overall population, according to climate author and Queen’s University fellow, Ed Struzik.
As summer approaches, we are aware of the devastating fires that impacted the country last summer — zombie fires, the kind of fire that destroyed much of Lytton First Nation village in 2021 and 2023 — are already being reported. I am curious about the concrete steps you are taking to address the disproportionate risks faced by Black, Indigenous or other rural, remote or marginalized communities and to afford access to a healthy environment for all Canadians?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you for your question. I will ask Mr. Moffet to take this one.
Mr. Moffet: We will do a tag team answer because the substance of the question was the prevention of wildfires. I will start by addressing the two statutory provisions that you referred to.
As you correctly noted, the Parliament passed amendments to CEPA last year in Bill S-5 which included the codification of the right to a healthy environment under CEPA. That’s the first time that such a right has been acknowledged in Canadian laws. That right is limited to decisions made under CEPA. So it does require the government to account for impacts on vulnerable populations, including Indigenous people and people in underdeveloped communities more generally, as well as people with vulnerabilities related to various health considerations in making decisions both about whether a substance, for example, is problematic, or how to manage an issue. CEPA is a broad-ranging statute, but it does not address things such as forest fires.
This right requires us to develop a framework to explain how we will implement it. We have a discussion paper out now in public and it is being discussed, and we intend to finalize a framework within the next year and a half, approximately. At the same time, there is a private member’s bill, which if passed, will call on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop an overall strategy related to environmental justice which would be more broad-reaching and would presumably encompass risks from various natural occurrences such as wildfires. We are actively supporting that bill as it moves through Parliament, and we are working to try to develop the framework for the implementation of the right to a healthy environment in such a way that it would supplement and provide part of an overall approach to a strategy for environmental justice.
That’s kind of the way we are envisaging the two working together.
As to your question related to the impact of wildfires on vulnerable populations and what the federal government is doing, I will defer to my colleague from Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan.
Senator Pate: Before you do that, could you please clarify the key outcomes you are looking for? I understand you have a framework document. You must have some outcome measures that you are anticipating. Could we add to that before we go to your colleague?
Mr. Moffet: In the interest of time, can I commit to follow up with you? We do have all those details.
Senator Pate: That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Hargrove: Thank you for the question. The government is making investments to support Indigenous communities and to prevent, mitigate and respond to wildfire risk. So many of those are through Indigenous Services Canada and Public Safety Canada and so I’m not really well placed to speak in detail to those.
In terms of NRCan, a couple of things that you may be aware of, and these are related to the Main Estimates as well, one program is Fighting and Managing Wildfire in a Changing Climate Program. There are two components, one is around equipment and another portion is around training. We have focused mainly toward Indigenous communities and building the capacity of Indigenous communities to respond to wildland fire.
There was a pilot, phase one. There was a mandate letter commitment to our minister that included training 1,000 new wildland firefighters. Through the pilot with our partners, we trained 630 new wildland firefighters, again, focused on Indigenous communities, as well as 125 Indigenous guardians. That was phase one. We are now moving into phase two. We are making really good progress there.
We also have, through the Wildfire Resilience Futures Initiative, we are looking at an investment in research around prevention, mitigation and wildfire resilience. An important component of that is the integration of Indigenous traditional knowledge in terms of managing wildland fire. Obviously, Indigenous peoples in Canada have been managing wildland fire for centuries. We really need to make sure we are incorporating that knowledge into how we as a society respond.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My questions are for the Department of Transport.
The first question concerns contributions, in particular for the Lac-Mégantic rail bypass project. I see that last year and the year before, no amounts were earmarked for contributions. This year, the figure is $188 million. Could you explain who is receiving the contribution and what percentage of committed budgets it represents? Does this include expropriations and construction costs, or just construction costs?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. Yes, the $188 million contribution in the Main Estimates is earmarked exclusively for construction costs.
We have two contribution agreements for construction signed to date. One agreement is with the rail line owner, which will build the bypass. The other agreement is with the City of Lac-Mégantic for the relocation of sewer and water supply infrastructure.
Some infrastructure will be affected by the relocation of the road.
In terms of construction and percentage of costs, unfortunately the call for tenders hasn’t been completed. We don’t have any idea of the total project cost. I can’t answer that question right now. When the call for tenders is completed, we’ll have an idea of the total project cost. The project will be funded by a federal contribution of 60% and a provincial contribution of 40%.
Senator Dalphond: In terms of a call for tenders, no bidders have been selected to date. What’s the time frame? Will the process take one year or two years?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. Right now, we’re working with the rail company to complete all the necessary documents for the project’s regulatory approvals with the Canadian Transportation Agency. Once this has been done, we can complete the call for tenders. The construction of the bypass is scheduled for completion in 2026-27, and the dismantling and remediation of the old track is scheduled for 2027-28.
Senator Dalphond: The figure here is $188 million, but the call for tenders hasn’t been launched yet. The tender documents are being worked on. What will cost $188 million this year? Is the work scheduled to start this fiscal year? What’s the scheduled start date? How will the $188 million be used this year?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. Transport Canada and all the people of Lac-Mégantic hope that construction will begin as soon as possible. For our part, we’re ready and the funding is available.
Now, when will we receive regulatory approvals? We aren’t sure. When can construction begin? We still aren’t sure. The funding is there. If we’re ready, the money will be available. If construction doesn’t start this year, the money will be carried over to next year.
Senator Dalphond: You’re calling for tenders, but you can’t call for tenders until the Canadian Transportation Agency gives you the necessary authorizations to approve the project. You said that you’re negotiating with the regulatory authority. Does this mean that you can’t fully define the project until you have answers from the regulatory authority?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. The call for tenders has started, but hasn’t been completed. The rail company is taking care of the call for tenders. The two processes run concurrently, but both must be completed before construction can begin.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In Budget 2023, the government committed to reduce spending by $14.1 billion over the next five years and, starting in 2023-24, $4.1 billion annually. When I look at your 2024-25 departmental plan, I notice that as part of this commitment, your department is planning to reduce spending by close to $85 million in 2024-25; $105 million in 2025-26; and $135 million by 2026-27. I have a note that the reductions will be through reducing travel, professional services, effective planning, leveraging efficiencies and internal management, virtual technology and reduction in transfer payments.
Could you elaborate further on how these measures will affect the level of service your department does offer? How will these savings take place? Are you confident in achieving these objectives?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the questions. We took great care to ensure that service to Canadians was paramount in terms of the exercise we undertook during the refocusing government spending exercise. Service to Canadians was the number-one consideration in terms of the work that we did. We left no stone unturned. We looked across the broad spectrum of all of our activities. We looked at what we did and how we did it, to be more efficient where we could.
We are confident going forward that we will not have an impact on service to Canadians. We started to look at areas where we could be more efficient before the requirement to look at spending reduction. We started to cull travel. We looked at how we could combine activities across various components of our business to be more efficient, sharing administrative staff in some cases to ensure that we had collaboration where we could save money. Basically, we looked at all aspects of our business. We are confident that the $85 million this year — and, as you noted, $105 million next year and $135 ongoing from 2026-27 — while a fairly profound exercise, will not impact services to Canadians.
Senator Loffreda: You mentioned sharing staff among departments. To what extent are best practices shared between departments?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. As colleagues, we met routinely — even with my colleagues here at the table — to talk about the sharing of best practices. We met in conjunction with the Comptroller General. We were all brought together to talk about how we might share best practices. From that exercise, a lot of what Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard are doing in terms of how they are managing some of these reductions, is accomplished by sharing best practices.
Senator Loffreda: So you meet with the other department heads on a regular basis?
Mr. Goodyear: Yes; absolutely.
Senator Loffreda: How often would that be?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. We meet routinely on a variety of issues, not just on spending reduction. We met last week. If not monthly, we meet every couple of months.
Senator Loffreda: Maybe we can continue with that. What mechanisms do you have in place to be certain that the savings are met and the levels of service are not decreased?
Mr. Goodyear: That’s a good question. Going into this exercise, it was absolutely important that we had those metrics to monitor spending to ensure that we were meeting the targets assigned by the government and approved by our minister and the Prime Minister.
We have a tracking mechanism in place to ensure that we are on target. We are constantly working with our programs to ensure that services are not being impacted in the areas where these reductions have occurred. This is a work in progress. It is not perfect. Undoubtedly, we will have some shifting and we will have to adjust. Although we are early in the process, all our metrics show that we are on track and service to Canadians has not been impacted.
Senator Loffreda: Will the mandatory work in office affect your savings?
Mr. Goodyear: No, it does not. We accounted for that.
Senator Loffreda: You accounted for that already?
Mr. Goodyear: We did.
Senator Marshall: My first question is a yes, or no for Ms. Drainville.
I was looking for some additional information on personnel costs because it went from $848 million in mains last year to $1 billion. But when I went on the Open Government Canada site, there’s a message that says, planned spending and planned full-time equivalent data does not include data values for Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Could you follow up and make sure that that information is on the website? You may have it, but it’s not on the government website.
Ms. Drainville: Yes, I can follow up.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. My big question is for Mr. Brisson from Natural Resources Canada.
In 2022, your department released the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. In December, your minister came to the Senate, and I had asked him about the strategy and how he was planning to report on it. I think there was about — I’m trying to think — maybe $3.8 billion or $4 billion that were put in the budget over a number of years.
He said he was going to report at least annually, but I can’t find very much information on how the strategy is progressing. I have been reading some articles. I read one the other day from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute that left the impression that we’re not doing so great and that China is out there, way ahead of us.
My question is, what’s happening with the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy? Did that annual report ever materialize? Because I can’t find it.
Mr. Brisson: Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair.
The critical minerals program is definitely a flagship program for NRCan. Unfortunately, we don’t have any experts in the field here today, but I can attest a lot of work is being done within the department and across the country in supporting that very important priority for the department.
I could, this morning, commit to looking at what’s available in terms of sharing information and what can be shared back in line with the commitment that was made in the past and looking at sharing information that is available.
Senator Marshall: Okay. That would be helpful. Also, could you confirm whether or not there is an annual report? There’s not much in your performance report. Of course, it’s not mentioned in the mandate letter because the letter is dated 2021, but I’d also like to know this specifically: The minister promised an annual report, so is there an annual report?
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My first question concerns the power of municipalities to pass bylaws for lakes. The growing number of personal watercraft and motorboats is worrying many people. The people are concerned about the health of the lakes, the safety of the bodies of water and the noise generated by these boats. An unfortunate incident occurred last weekend.
Some municipalities that consider it necessary can regulate speed or completely or partially block navigation on the lakes in their area. This should usually happen more quickly.
Can you tell us how many municipalities have applied for this order? How many orders have been issued by Transport Canada under the Canada Shipping Act?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. I will turn it over to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security.
Lisa Setlakwe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. I can’t give you the precise number of requests we’ve received, but I can get back to you on that.
What I can tell you, however, is that every request was reviewed. As you may know, we’re currently making changes because the existing process is quite lengthy. We’re working directly with municipalities and communities to set up a safer system. That is a lengthy undertaking, because it’s a regulatory process.
We’re currently making changes so we won’t have to amend regulations in the future.
Senator Forest: Mr. Goodyear, in the case of fleet electrification, you awarded a contract for a first hybrid electric vessel. We’re quite pleased, as the contract was awarded to Gaspé’s Chantier naval Forillon.
What are the Coast Guard’s objectives, given the transfer of its fleet to propelled, hybrid or electric vessels?
Mr. Goodyear: Thank you for the question. I’ll ask Ms. Jollez from the Coast Guard to respond.
Katia Jollez, Director General, Priorities, Engagement and Plannings, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for the question. Decarbonizing fleets is a decidedly complex challenge. Decarbonizing fleets of enormous ships that require a lot of oil or fuel to break the ice is a challenge. This contract will enable us to build the Coast Guard’s first hybrid vessel. It’s a very positive step forward.
We’re continuing to experiment with fuels that emit fewer greenhouse gases. We’ve already tested new types of fuel. We’re also trying to align with the Green Government Strategy to develop plans for creating the fleet of the future, in order to decarbonize our fleet. But it remains a challenge.
Senator Gignac: My first question is for Mr. Brisson from Natural Resources Canada. If I understand correctly, the Canada Greener Homes Grant program, for which you’re requesting $722 million, ended in February.
But when the program was announced in 2021, people were told that the subsidy would be available until 2027; people are suddenly discovering that it wasn’t included in the budget, that the program is over and that there’s no more money. Can you explain why you didn’t give six months or a year’s notice before scrapping the program?
The Chair: That was a question I also wanted to ask. Is it because there’s no more money? Why can’t people apply anymore?
Mr. Brisson: It’s a program —
The Chair: Oh, is that what was said publicly?
Senator Gignac: Publicly, they stated that there was no more money in the program.
Mr. Brisson: It’s a popular program. I’ll ask Mr. Leyburne to respond to your question.
[English]
Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you for the question. The short answer is, yes, when the program had allocated all the funding or all the funding was spoken for, we had to cease the intake of applications. Having said that, the program will continue as anticipated until the year; it’s just that it will take people a number of years to complete their retrofits. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians will be completing their retrofits under this program.
Senator Gignac: It’s just that there are no more applications? That’s it, that’s all, as simple as that?
Mr. Leyburne: There are no more applications, nowhere in Canada, for the Canada Greener Homes Grant program. The Canada Greener Homes Loan program, administered by CMHC, continues.
Senator Gignac: I understand. I will shift departments because I want to ask a question of Transport Canada.
[Translation]
Transport Canada currently has the Zero Emission Vehicle Incentives program for electric vehicles.
You intend to keep this program for some time. You budgeted $588 million in your funding requests. However, Quebec has already announced that the subsidy program will end on January 1. You’ll receive far more applications this year, because many people will decide to buy an electric car.
What happens if you exceed $588 million? Will the program end abruptly, or do you intend to request additional funding?
We wouldn’t want people to make plans and suddenly find out they won’t get their $40,000 renovation loan for a greener home.
So, what happens if you run out of funds?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for your question. The department’s main estimates include $442 million for personal vehicles plus $146 million for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles, commercial vehicles, for a total of $587 million.
Just approved under Budget 2024 is an additional $607 million strictly for personal vehicles. That is on top of the available $442 million, for a total of $1 billion.
Senator Gignac: I understand all that. I just want to know whether you’re going to take your cue from the Department of Natural Resources, which suddenly terminated the subsidy without notice. Do you instead plan to announce the end of the subsidy six months ahead of time? When people make a decision, it comes as a nasty surprise if there’s no notice.
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for your question. If that happens, we will communicate that information ahead of time. We’ve established quite an effective system for forecasting and tracking. The current volume of incentives being paid out monthly is between $80 million and $85 million, and that is entirely consistent with this year’s available funding.
[English]
Senator Smith: Mr. Brisson, I trust this question is with you. It may be with Mr. Desmeules.
The federal government’s aggressive targets for the sale of zero-emission vehicles by 2035 require adequate infrastructure in place to support the growing number of zero-emission vehicles. Your department has set a target of 84,500 electric vehicle charging stations under development, to be completed by 2029. As of 2022-23, you have achieved just under half of that.
Can you provide an update on the work NRCan is undertaking to develop the required infrastructure of charging stations for electric vehicles? It would be interesting also to understand how you will be able to effect that placement in northern and remote areas of the country.
Mr. Brisson: Thank you for the question. It is with us. I’ll ask my colleague, Ms. Van der Kamp, to come and help answer that.
Senator Smith: If you don’t have enough time, maybe you can give us a written answer too.
Mr. Brisson: For sure. Thank you.
Ms. Van der Kamp: Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada is actually about to announce the next RFP, request for proposals, for additional chargers across the country hopefully later this month. As well, we are putting out a map that shows the areas that are most critical across the country, both along the corridors and in the communities, which gives Canadians an understanding of that. We will prioritize funding for communities in the most critical areas — i.e., the fives and along corridors that are the fives.
Senator Smith: When will your map be ready?
Ms. Van der Kamp: The idea is to release that with the request for proposals because we will be evaluating the applications based on that map.
Senator Smith: Is that going to be current or a year away?
Ms. Van der Kamp: Very interesting question. Thank you for the question. It is set based on the demand we expect in 2026 because when we finally get the funds out the door and they’re actually built, it will likely be in 2026. We’ve looked at forward planning to that time and the capacity that we expect we’ll need at that time.
Senator Smith: Is there any information you can give us on an interim basis before 2026 to see what’s going on?
Ms. Van der Kamp: Absolutely. Right now, we have a charging station locater map which has all of the locations. I can get back to you on current demand in rural and remote areas, if you’d like.
Senator Smith: It would be fantastic if you can do that.
Ms. Van der Kamp: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My question is for Ms. Drainville and it is based on your departmental plan. I’m looking at the Canada Water Act and on quality initiatives in key freshwater ecosystems. To my delight, the Wolastoq/Saint John River watershed is included in that.
I wanted to ask you, is this dependent on the setup of the Canada Water Agency that you spoke to in your initial remarks? Or what are the plans for this particular watershed in 2024-25?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you for your question. I have to say for that specific one, I will have to get back to you with the details because I don’t have all the details by watershed, but there’s definitely a plan for this one.
Senator Kingston: I would appreciate that in writing, if possible.
Ms. Drainville: Yes.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
Senator Ross: My question is for Transport Canada. The Fredericton airport, or YFC, is considered a National Airports System, or NAS, airport, which makes it ineligible to receive funding under the Airports Capital Assistance Program, or ACAP. They need a refurbishment of their runway — it’s been nearly 25 years since they’ve had one. They also need a number of other things, such as lighting, transformers and so on.
Other airports like Moncton, Thunder Bay, Hamilton, Charlottetown and St. John’s could find funds. They were able to get exemptions to ACAP and the Airport Critical Infrastructure Program, or ACIP, but YFC didn’t qualify for any of the pandemic ACIP or ACAP funding for this runway project, and their circumstances are quite unique. They also haven’t qualified for the Regional Air Transportation Initiative, or RATI. Is there anything in these estimates that could help YFC with this unique situation?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the question. I would like to ask my colleague, Joshua LaRocque, to answer it.
Joshua LaRocque, Director General, Transportation Infrastructure Programs, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question. I’m the Director General of Transportation Infrastructure Programs at Transport Canada.
As you noted, the Airport Critical Infrastructure Program was a temporary pandemic relief-based program for the Fredericton airport. They did receive funding under the Airport Relief Fund of around $1.5 million. In the Main Estimates, there is mention of the National Trade Corridors Fund, which funds infrastructure projects that help move goods or people. If there’s an upcoming intake, that would be one of the opportunities that the airport could consider.
Senator Ross: So YFC is eligible for the National Trade Corridors Fund?
Mr. LaRocque: Yes, it would be an eligible recipient for sure.
Senator Ross: And for the runway project?
Mr. LaRocque: We’d have to see the details of the proposal, but absolutely, it would be an opportunity for them to consider.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you. To follow up on a question I had in the first round, when you’re providing the written responses for both departments, could you include some specificity around how the Indigenous peoples have been consulted with respect to consent of First Nations, how those consultations have progressed, been assessed and how self-determination has been accounted for in the pursuit of the priorities?
Then my follow-up question is if you could specify what concrete steps are being taken as part of your work to apply the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and uphold sovereignty and decision making with respect to lands in order to remedy underlying inequalities in terms of exposure to pollution, particularly in light of some of the material coming out about Aamjiwnaang First Nation in recent weeks, along with Grassy Narrows, which has been devastated by mercury poisoning since the 1960s. There’s a fair bit of information being released around research in that area. I think this is mostly going to be in writing from both departments, unless there’s something you can add right now.
Ms. Drainville: We’ll take your question and reply in writing. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My question is for the Transport Canada officials. It’s about bridges, specifically the Quebec Bridge. I see you have two payments for the Victoria Bridge. There’s an annual contribution of $2.7 million this year for rehabilitation work on the bridge, and you’re paying Canadian National, or CN, $3.3 million for the elimination of toll collection on the Victoria Bridge, pursuant to an act that dates back to 1963.
Why is CN selling the Quebec Bridge to the government when it still owns the Victoria Bridge?
Mr. Desmeules: Transport Canada isn’t responsible for the Quebec Bridge. That’s actually Infrastructure Canada. As for the Victoria Bridge, we have two contributions, two agreements. One is for $3.3 million to cover the costs of the roadway portion of the bridge, since CN assumes the costs of the railway portion. The other contribution is for major rehabilitation work on the structure of the bridge.
Keep in mind that the $3.3 million allocated annually for operating costs doesn’t allow for major rehabilitation work. The amount hasn’t been indexed for years. Those are the department’s two contributions for the Quebec Bridge.
Senator Dalphond: I take your answer to mean that Transport Canada has no involvement in the Quebec Bridge. Is that right? The acquisition of the bridge and the 25-year program that the Prime Minister announced a week ago do not involve Transport Canada. Is that right?
Mr. Desmeules: I’ll have to get back to the committee in writing on that question.
Senator Dalphond: All right. Thank you. I’d also like to know whether the agreement includes CN contributions for use of the bridge.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Environment Canada. The department’s operating expenditures requested in 2024-25 is 16.5% higher than those in the previous year’s Main Estimates. What is the reason for the increase and to what extent does the department intend to contribute to the announced efforts by the government to reduce overall expenditures to the extent of $14.1 billion over five years?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you for the questions. The increase in our estimates is mainly due to some additional funding. We now have the Canada Water Agency, and funding has been allocated to the department for it. We will prepare the agency while it’s still a branch within our own organization. There are also some programs that sunsetted last year that were renewed with a higher increase. We’re thinking about the hydro methodological services which are critical for the safety of Canadians, especially with the extreme weather taking place.
As far as our effort toward the contribution of the $14.5 million, ECCC will be contributing $91 million over three years, starting with $43 million in this current fiscal year. The major portion this year will come from our operating funds. It will be mainly through the reduction of contracts and travel. We are also looking at how we can find, like my colleagues from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, some synergy or create best practices in how we can provide services in leveraging technologies. There’s a portion also that comes from our grants and contributions, or Gs and Cs.
Senator Loffreda: It’s $14.1 billion over five years?
Ms. Drainville: Yes, for the entire Government of Canada. The portion for ECCC is only $91 million over three years and ongoing following that.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have four questions, and my fellow senators asked three of them. I got my answers, so thank you.
The other question has to do with the Aéroports de Montréal, which announced an investment of $4 billion over the next few years. However, I don’t see a contribution from Transport Canada in connection with that major investment. Will Transport Canada be providing funding? Private financing is one of the options the airport authority’s leadership is considering, but the law prohibits the Montreal airport authority from using private funding. Are changes to the law being considered to allow private funding?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for your question. I’m going to ask my colleague Craig Hutton to answer that.
The Chair: If there is no response, should passengers expect fees to go up?
[English]
Craig Hutton, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Transport Canada: Good morning. It’s good to be with you.
To respond to the question with respect to Montreal, the airport system in Canada and the air sector in general is guided by the policy framework of the user-pay system. It is through users who are using the system who pay for the infrastructure and other aspects that are related to the operation of the system.
With respect to specific projects that an airport may wish to fund, they can look at that through investments from partners. In fact, as noted in Budget 2024, the government will be releasing a policy statement ensuring that there’s clarity with respect to what kinds of investments are permitted in National Airports System airports.
That being said, the National Trade Corridors Fund, or NTCF, is a merit-based program where airports can put forward projects for consideration, depending upon the details of those projects, which is something that can be considered when those projects are put forward as an application.
As a general principle, it is a user-pay system with users bearing the costs of the operation of the system.
[Translation]
The Chair: Currently, then, the federal government is not planning to contribute to the expansion project or $4-billion investment. Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Hutton: In the specific project and the investment that has been put forward, I can come back. With respect to whether there is a specific public contribution, my understanding is, no. The current plan for investment, I can confirm with the committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I have a quick question. I can get the answer in writing.
To Transport Canada, there’s $1 million there for airstrips in Labrador. What airstrips and what work is being done? One million dollars is not very much for those airstrips. Is there any money under any other program?
Mr. Desmeules: Thank you for the questions.
Senator Ross: Thanks very much. I have a follow-up question for Mr. LaRocque.
I understand that the National Trade Corridor Fund is currently fully subscribed and that there is no money left in that fund. Could you clarify that for me, Mr. LaRocque?
[Translation]
The Chair: Please get back to the committee with a written answer.
[English]
Senator Pate: Again for the same two departments — Natural Resources Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada — my question is regarding the environmental impact of critical mineral development, especially considering the Treaty 9 community’s opposition to critical mineral development in northern Ontario without their cooperation and consultation, as well as additional concerns about mineral development in caribou populations in Yukon. The peat bogs in northern Ontario are estimated to store 35 trillion tonnes of carbon which are released when disturbed.
How are the two departments working together to develop Canada’s net-zero infrastructure which requires critical mineral development while also valuing natural carbon sinks, nature-based solutions and centring Indigenous consent throughout?
The Chair: Thank you. No further questions?
[Translation]
That concludes today’s meeting. Thank you to all our officials. I want to remind the witnesses to kindly provide their written responses to the committee by June 4, 2024, if possible.
I would like to remind senators that our next meeting is tomorrow, May 22, at 6:45 p.m. We will be starting our study of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
As usual, before I adjourn the meeting, I’d like to thank all the participants, our technical support staff, the clerk, the analysts, our interpreters and everyone. Thank you and see you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)