THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 1, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] for the purpose of studying the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
Senator Éric Forest (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I wish to welcome all of the senators, as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
Welcome to our witnesses. I see that we have a quorum. You will see that our committee is very knowledgeable about these matters.
My name is Éric Forest, senator for the Gulf senatorial division, Quebec, and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. Clément Gignac, independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Montreal, Quebec.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Today we will continue our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 21, 2024, which was referred to this committee on March 7, 2023, by the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Today we have the pleasure of welcoming senior officials from Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Since there are so many of you, I’m going to introduce those that will be making opening remarks, and I’ll ask the others to please introduce themselves if you’re invited to answer a question.
We welcome Catherine Blanchard, Vice-President, Finance, Parks Canada; Grace Chenette, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Management and Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada; Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada. They will each be making a short statement.
Ms. Blanchard, you have the floor.
Catherine Blanchard, Vice-President Finance, Parks Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Chair.
[English]
It is a pleasure to be here with you and the committee members this evening to discuss the Parks Canada 2023-24 Main Estimates.
I would like to start by recognizing that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[Translation]
Before getting into the details of the Main Estimates, I will highlight a few notable achievements from this year, which continue to move Parks Canada forward.
[English]
Parks Canada is advancing commitments made in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework by advancing new protected areas. For example, we have signed an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, to launch a feasibility assessment to establish a national marine conservation area in the South Coast Fjords, Newfoundland.
Moreover, we are advancing reconciliation on many fronts, notably by the continued sharing of Indigenous stewardship with the development of new Indigenous Guardians programs throughout Parks Canada-administered sites.
We are also supporting the recovery from storms like Hurricane Fiona, as well as managing other flooding and forest fire incidents. We are addressing the real impacts of climate change by continually adapting our assets and monitoring approaches to this new environmental reality.
[Translation]
And finally, Parks Canada had a tremendous year welcoming Canadians and the world back to Canada’s special places with visitation numbers rebounding to near pre-pandemic levels.
[English]
I’m here today as we illuminate the path mapped out for Parks Canada by the 2023-24 Main Estimates. The agency’s Main Estimates total $1.3 billion, which includes $663 million earmarked for operating funding, including our grants and contributions, and $331 million earmarked in capital funding. These 2023-24 Main Estimates include an amount of $421.4 million in funding to help Parks Canada’s transition toward long-term sustainability of its infrastructure portfolio.
The agency’s asset portfolio includes visitor infrastructure that serves as a cornerstone for the tourism industry, including iconic heritage assets such as the fortifications of Quebec City and the Citadel in Halifax. Asset investments also support essential public infrastructure such as maintenance of large sections of the Trans-Canada Highway and approximately 300 dams in Ontario and Quebec that are critical for flood control and water management. With the capital funding provided within these estimates, we continue to prioritize critical investments to improve asset condition and to green our real property portfolio. We are working to renew key infrastructure essential to the tourism industry, as well as to contribute to the local regional economies across the country.
Funding is also included for the Enhanced Nature Legacy program. The total amount for Enhanced Nature Legacy is $154.8 million within the Main Estimates. It is designed to advance conservation targets, monitor and restore ecological integrity and protect species at risk in Parks Canada- administered places. It is also used to administer existing national parks, national marine conservation areas and the Rouge National Urban Park, as well as to establish new and expand existing sites so that we can contribute to the Government of Canada’s objectives to protect 25% of Canada’s lands and fresh water by 2025.
Funding to support climate change adaptation and storm response is also included in these estimates, with an additional $15.3 million for Hurricane Fiona recovery.
These estimates also provide new funding in the amount of $9.6 million for the Federal framework to address the legacy of residential schools. With this initiative, we are continuing to implement Call for Action 79 by taking firm steps toward healing, education and commemoration by spotlighting the history and enduring legacy of residential schools.
Finally, these estimates include $11 million to support the renewal and expansion of the Trans Canada Trail, with the goal of maintaining and growing the trail’s network as well as connecting community trails within the vicinity of the Rouge National Urban Park. Not only will these investments improve community connections and trail infrastructure, they will support enhanced accessibility and new measures to strengthen inclusive use of the trail and better integrate the Trans Canada Trail into local, regional and national tourism offers.
[Translation]
I will stop here, but I hope that I have been able to show you that the 2023-24 Main Estimates signify more than numbers; they encapsulate our vision, dedication, and drive to ensure Parks Canada, in collaboration with partners, protects and presents national historic and natural sites, and that we help people to understand, discover and connect with history and nature, and appreciate them more.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I now invite Ms. Chennette from Natural Resources Canada to come forward.
Grace Chennette, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Management and Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Good evening, honourable senators and colleagues. My name is Grace Chennette and I am Deputy Chief Financial Officer at Natural Resources Canada.
Before I begin, I would also like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss Natural Resources Canada’s Main Estimates for 2023-24. These Main Estimates represent items within the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources portfolio, including Natural Resources Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada, Canada Energy Regulator, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Northern Pipeline Agency.
I am joined today by several of our departmental senior officials : Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector; Glen Hargrove, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Services; Erin O’Brien, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fuels Sector; Christina Paradiso, Director General, Energy Systems Sector; Kimberly Zinck, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Nòkwewashk.
[English]
In the Main Estimates for 2023-24, the department sought a total of $5.1 billion, comprising of $767.4 million for operating expenditures, $29.2 million for capital expenditures, $2.5 billion for grants and contributions and $1.8 billion in statutory authorities.
This funding, as approved by Parliament in March, will support growth by creating prosperity and sustainable jobs across Canada while ensuring that the country’s natural resources contribute to the sustainability of energy, forest and mineral sectors as we work towards our goal of net-zero emission by 2050.
NRCan remains committed to moving along the path to full reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
These Main Estimates include a net increase of $1.5 billion, or 41% over our 2022-23 Main Estimates. The change in these Estimates is primarily due to an increase of $1.17 billion in statutory funding related to Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Resource Revenue Fund, and the remaining increase relates to voted items to deliver on the climate change agenda and towards transitioning to a low carbon economy.
I would like to highlight a few programs that account for most of the funds requested in these Estimates, beginning with the Greener Homes Retrofit program. This year’s Main Estimates sought $826.3 million for the program. This was announced as part of the 2020 Fall Economic Statement to provide homeowners with a grant of up to $600 for the cost of an Energuide home energy evaluation and up to $5,000 for energy efficient retrofits.
The department also sought $409.3 million for the Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways. This was first announced as part of the Strengthened Climate Change Plan in December 2020 and included $962 million and then was subsequently recapitalized in Budget 2022 and provided an additional $597.3 million over a total of eight years. The new funding will further advance the government’s commitment to enable a net-zero electricity system by 2035 and deliver on the government climate change agenda and low carbon economy objectives by growing the use of clean electricity. This program 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.
As part of these estimates, the department also sought $393.1 million for the Clean Fuels Fund. This fund was announced in Budget 2021 and included $1.5 billion over five years to support building out of new clean fuels production capacity, establishment of biomass supply chains and developing codes and standards to help accelerate the transition to net zero by 2050.
The department also requested $296.3 million in support to Growing Canada’s forests that was announced in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement, which included $3.2 billion over 10 years. The government’s commitment to plant 2 billion trees in the next decade is a crucial part of Canada’s climate plan to restore, better manage, and conserve Canada’s natural and managed ecosystem.
Lastly, NRCan sought $180.1 million in support of the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program. This funding was initially announced in Budget 2019 and in the Fall Economic Statement, which included $680 million over five years. Budget 2022 further recapitalized with an additional $400 million and extended the program. This funding supports the deployment of zero-emission vehicle charging and refuelling infrastructure by 2029.
[Translation]
Together, the 5 programs I have highlighted account for $2.1 billion of the $3.3 billion requested in voted authorities. Given the timing of the federal Budget 2023 announcements and the tabling of these estimates, no new Budget 2023 funding or measures are included in these estimates.
I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our Main Estimates today. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I would now invite Ms. Drainville to conclude the opening remarks.
Linda Drainville, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for this invitation to present the 2023-24 Main Estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada.
It’s an honour to be here with you, and I would like to start by acknowledging that we’re meeting here today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
My name is Linda Drainville and I am the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister of the Corporate Services and Finance Branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Tonight I’m accompanied by my colleagues.
[English]
They will assist me in providing additional information and perspective as required.
We are happy to meet with the members of the committee to present an overview of the 2023-24 Main Estimates and answer your questions.
I would like to start by recognizing the significant efforts put forward by ECCC’s employees to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians throughout this unprecedented period with consecutive unforeseen natural disasters that took place over the past year.
The departmental 2023-24 Main Estimates represents approximately $2.4 billion in total spending that supports the strategic actions that Environment and Climate Change Canada is taking to spur clean growth and fight climate change, help prevent and manage pollution, conserve nature, and predict weather and environmental conditions.
The 2023-24 Main Estimates represents a net increase of almost $478 million, or 24%, from the 2022-23 Main Estimates. It includes over $1.2 billion in grants and contributions that will mainly be used to fight climate change, conserve Canada’s land and fresh water, protect species at risk, advance Indigenous reconciliation, increase access to nature and implement natural climate solutions in Canada.
[Translation]
It is worth noting that the Main Estimates are the first step in the fiscal cycle and do not include additional approval of funding or spending reduction measures announced in Budget 2023. Funding for future additional initiatives will be accessed through future estimates.
The 2023-2024 Main Estimates include more than $876 million for taking action on clean growth and climate change and include $654 million in contributions to support the Low Carbon Economy Fund which supports projects that help to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.
There is also over $45 million in 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.
[English]
The Main Estimates also include over $677 million to conserve nature. This will be mainly used to reach targets to protect 25% of Canada’s lands and fresh water by 2025, strengthen protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats, advance reconciliation and conservation efforts through Indigenous leadership and participation, support and increase access to a healthy natural infrastructure and, finally, to implement a nature smart climate solutions fund.
In addition, there is also more than $420 million for preventing and managing pollution. This funding will be used to address air pollution, advance remediation work in accordance with the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, advance a circular economy for plastics and to implement the chemical management plan.
The funding includes grants and contributions of more than $53 million to support initiatives such as the Great Lakes Action Plan and engagement with Indigenous partners for various initiatives and projects.
As well, there is almost $200 million toward predicting weather and environmental conditions and $241 million for internal services.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I’m going to stop here. I hope this summary provides members with a comprehensive overview of the 2023-24 Main Estimates. I thank you again for the invitation. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the department’s Main Estimates.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your statements.
We will now proceed to questions. Senators will have a maximum of five minutes each for the first round and three minutes in the second round.
[Translation]
Please ask your questions directly. To the witnesses, please respond concisely, if possible. The clerk will inform me when the time is up.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Welcome. Thank you for being here tonight.
I’m going to start with Ms. Chennette from Natural Resources Canada. My first question is very general in nature. Even when you back out your statutory expenditures, you’ve seen a rapid increase in your funding over the past three years. How were you able to manage or administer the increase in your budget?
Ms. Chennette: Thank you for the question.
Although it looks rapid, a lot of the programming is in grants and contributions. Once you design the program, it gives you a lot of opportunity to understand who all your stakeholders and partners are, and you start engaging right away. Ramping up doesn’t translate into different work. You’re still negotiating and still doing —
Senator Marshall: More of the same?
Ms. Chennette: You’re still doing a lot of the core functions but perhaps with different people, different stakeholders and different programs, yes —
Senator Marshall: Have you seen an increase in staff?
Ms. Chennette: Since 2021-22, our FT complement has increased by about 20% to support the growth.
Senator Marshall: To accommodate the additional funding, okay.
Just in analyzing your numbers, I noticed there is $199 million in the mains for consultants and another $16 million in Supplementary Estimates (A). Somebody mentioned in their opening remarks that there will be reductions in consultants. I’d like to know how much of the $199 million plus $16 million has been earmarked for reduction.
Ms. Chennette: While all the decisions aren’t out, we do have our targets. Our professional services reduction is $30 million by 2026-27.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Is there a certain reduction for the current year? The budget indicated a total of $500 million for all government departments. Do you take a share of that?
Ms. Chennette: For 2023-24, it’s much smaller because we’re slowly ramping up —
Senator Marshall: It’s incremental.
Ms. Chennette: There is about $10 million for professional services this year and a bit in travel reductions as well.
Senator Marshall: Okay. Will you be asking for additional funding in Supplementary Estimates (B) for consultants?
Ms. Chennette: Definitely. We use consultants for a variety of reasons. While we’re trying to make sure that we curb the use of consultants, in the spirit of reductions, given there are new programs, there will always be a need for some surge capacity or subject matter experts.
Senator Marshall: As you’re getting additional funding, you’re going to have to save a portion of that. Okay.
You mentioned in your opening remarks the 2 billion trees. That has been in the media quite a lot lately. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development mentioned last year that it’s unlikely you’re going to reach the 2 billion goal by 2031, I think it is. I think 60 million trees were supposed to be planted in 2022-23. Were you able to achieve that objective? I’m just trying to get an idea as to whether you’ve been able to ramp up that initiative.
Ms. Chennette: The last figure I have, as of August 2023, is that we’ve been able to plant 110 million trees.
Senator Marshall: 110 million?
Ms. Chennette: Yes.
Senator Marshall: So you surpassed your 2022-23 target?
Ms. Chennette: One of my colleagues —
Senator Marshall: I am surprised. I know you ramped up to accommodate the increase in your budget, but it sounds like a really good ramp-up for the 2 billion trees.
Glenn Hargrove, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you for the question. I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Forest Service.
There are a number of factors going on here. When the commissioner and his team looked at the program, he was looking at a particular period of time, which ended in the fall. They were looking at the reports we had for trees that were planted up until a certain point.
Since that time, we have had reports back on trees that have been planted that were not reported up to that time, including under The Low Carbon Economy Fund, or LCEF. Any trees planted under that program that meet the goals and objectives of the Two Billion Trees Commitment, or 2BT, are also counted toward that.
Senator Marshall: Okay. So how many trees are planted? Tell me the number again. I understood the target for 2022-23 was 60 million trees, so —
Mr. Hargrove: The number was, I believe, a little under 30 million. I think it was about 28 million. I can check my notes here, but —
Senator Marshall: So you didn’t meet your target, but that’s not going to be the point of my —
Mr. Hargrove: No.
Senator Marshall: So you didn’t meet the target. The point the commissioner was making was that there needs to be a plan; right? It is a $3.2 billion initiative. Is there a plan now? You are behind already, early in, so is there a plan to pick up speed and —
Mr. Hargrove: Yes, there is definitely a plan. We are working in particular with provinces and territories in order to —
Senator Marshall: With your agreements, yes.
Mr. Hargrove: — in order to ramp up. The largest portion of the trees under the program is through provinces and territories, so we have been working with them, particularly in response to this last fire season which was unprecedented. We are looking at ways that we can work with them on restoration and those sorts of tree-planting activities as well.
Senator Marshall: To go back to my original question, is there an actual plan, or you don’t have the plan yet because you are discussing it with the different jurisdictions?
Mr. Hargrove: We have an overall plan for the program and, as we are working through it, we continue to adjust and work with our partners in order to achieve those objectives.
Senator Marshall: Can we get a copy of the plan?
Mr. Hargrove: Sure. We have planning documents that we’ve shared with other committees as well, and we would be happy to share them.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome once again to the witnesses. Thank you for making yourselves available this evening. My first question is for Ms. Drainville, from Environment and Climate Change Canada. Your estimates indicate $129 million in planned expenditures to support the operating expenses of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. I’d like an update on the success of this clean growth fund and the challenges you’ve faced in getting it up and running.
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Gignac. With regard to the $129 million in operating expenses, these funds are related to the development of the regulations we’re putting in place and to research for the sciences. This fund is one of our four core responsibilities. It fluctuates over time, depending on the number of regulations we’re working on and the science in progress. We have no problem implementing it. It’s really a question of operationalization. These are permanent department employees who have been with us for a long time on this.
Senator Gignac: There’s the Canada Growth Fund (CGF), which was created by the Department of Finance; the Montreal firm PSP Investments manages the whole thing. What’s the interrelationship between what they’re doing and what your department is doing to ensure this transition to a cleaner economy? Is there any kind of link or issue table to ensure that you complement each other?
Ms. Drainville: Yes, indeed. I’ll turn it over to my colleague John Moffet, who will give you some of the details
[English]
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Senator, I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister with the Environmental Protection Branch. As my colleague explained, Environment and Climate Change Canada has a central role in developing regulations. We also have some role in providing funding to enable Canadian businesses and households to make investments in order to reduce their carbon footprint.
Of course, we are not addressing this issue alone. We are collaborating with our colleagues at Natural Resources Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and the Department of Finance Canada. The Canada Growth Fund, or CGF, in particular, is one element in a suite of measures designed to enable Canadian businesses to obtain access to funding in order to make investments in deep decarbonization so that they can fundamentally transform — either bring in a new business or transform an existing business — so they can remain productive and competitive but in a low-carbon way. It is one of the many tools we have. As you may know, it was announced about a year ago, and just in the last two weeks, it announced its first investment.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: [Technical difficulty — Editor] very autonomous, or are there discussions in which you are involved in relation to stakeholders?
[English]
Mr. Moffet: There are definitely discussions. Indeed, our deputy minister and I met with them just this week, and they are in regular contact. However, they make independent decisions. We attempt to coordinate and know what each of us is doing. I’m sure my colleagues from NRCan can elaborate on the relationship that they have with them, but again, we are not dictating to them the investments they make.
The Deputy Chair: Maybe your colleague in Natural Resources would like to add something regarding that.
Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Maybe I could just say that the first investment that the fund made last week was to Eavor, a geothermal company, which happens to be a company that NRCan had supported during early phases of their progression in the RD&D sense. Now that they have become a commercial operation, it was a natural hand-off to our colleagues at the growth fund.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I have a question for Ms. Drainville, again. The Main Estimates show $22 million in grants to support Canada’s International Climate Finance Program. We know that Global Affairs Canada manages a large part of this $5.3 billion. Who are the recipients of these grants and for what purpose are they awarded?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you for your question. The funds earmarked for Canada’s international commitment to climate financing are $5.3 billion. Of this amount, only $161 million is allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada, mainly in contributions and grants. I can tell you that 98% of these funds go to international organizations, such as the World Bank, the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These are the organizations that, in turn, manage the whole thing and make sure the funds are put to good use.
Senator Gignac: I’ll turn now to Parks Canada.
[English]
I notice that you have a significant fluctuation from year to year. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think for 2019-20 your Main Estimates were around $1.5 billion, last year it was around $718 million, and now it is back to above $1 billion. What explains that significant drop before the pandemic compared to last year? It has now gone back up. I am trying to understand why there are such significant fluctuations from year to year.
Ms. Blanchard: Thank you for the question.
The main reason we have fluctuations in our Main Estimates is we have a lot of time-limited funding for our assets portfolio. We get a three-year or five-year allocation, and then it sunsets and we have to go back and seek additional funding. You see fluctuations, and we end up topping it up through supplementary estimates during the year.
The other reason is that, in Budget 2021, the federal government allocated $557 million to Parks Canada for the Enhanced Nature Legacy Fund. You can see some increases associated with our efforts to support protecting 25% by 2025 and climate change adaptation.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Smith: Welcome, folks. It’s great to see you.
Ms. Chennette, the home retrofit grants have seen a massive increase in funding, from $53 million in 2021-22 to over $800 million in these Main Estimates. Can you talk about why there has been such a massive uptake in this program over the past few years? Which parts of the country are seeing the biggest uptake?
Ms. Chennette: Thank you for the question.
Maybe I will just start with some general information. In terms of the increase, it’s normal for programs, and this is $2.6 billion from 2021 to 2026-27, so there is a normal ramp-up, and then there will be a ramp-down. It just gives the program a chance to get organized and get their infrastructure in place and start determining their design and stakeholders, and then it slowly ramps up. It takes time, in this case, to also start negotiating with provinces to see whether they wish to become co-delivery partners with the government. It has been given a few years to do it.
Senator Smith: In terms of the biggest challenge being faced with this significant increase, what are the top two challenges that you are being faced with from an operations perspective?
Ms. Chennette: I will turn to my colleague Drew Leyburne who runs the program.
Mr. Leyburne: Thank you for the question.
I would say at the outset that probably one of the biggest bottlenecks was the availability of energy advisers, who are a crucial part of advising the homeowner on what type of retrofit they need and then confirming that the retrofit was done. I am happy to say that in the couple of years since we launched the program, we have doubled the number of energy advisers across the country — not just NRCan, but the industry has grown by twice as much. We’ve seen a huge decrease in the amount of time that the average homeowner waits to get that energy assessment done at the start of the process.
As my colleague alluded to, setting up the co-delivery agreements with various provinces — Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia — took a bit of effort at the outset to get our systems aligned, but once we did, we saw a kind of slingshot acceleration in the uptake of the program.
This is a demand-driven program. We don’t put a clock on the homeowner on how quickly they do the retrofit. It is conceivable that someone could have applied to the program the first day we opened a couple of years ago, is still waiting and has just decided not to do the retrofit yet. We lock in that spending on the assumption that they will do it, so it is spoken for already. That’s why you’re seeing this acceleration as the number of retrofits drastically upticks.
Senator Smith: With the size of the increase of your program and its success, is there a risk of bad actors or people manipulating the system to the detriment of you folks?
Mr. Leyburne: We certainly have a number of fraud management measures in place. The fact that we have an accredited energy adviser going into the home at the outset and going in at the end to confirm the work was done drastically reduces that risk. We are the ones ensuring that the energy advisers understand the importance of their job and are doing it well.
Senator Smith: Can I ask you how many energy advisers you have across the country, just to give us an idea?
Mr. Leyburne: Yes. We were at 900, and I think we are at approximately 1,700 now, but I could get back to you with the exact number on that.
Senator Smith: How do you maintain the service levels when you have grown so quickly with these people? Are they all coming in with minimum certifications or qualifications so that they can do the job that you want them to do?
Mr. Leyburne: They have to meet a standard of training and expertise that we helped to define. We are in constant communication with them and what we call their service organizations, the companies they work for, to ensure that, as the programs evolve or new questions emerge, they are fed a constant update. They are using software tools that NRCan itself designed that are kept up to date and are as easy to use as possible, given that this is quite a complicated field. There are hundreds of different considerations that go into deciding what the baseline of someone’s home energy use looks like.
Senator Smith: If I can stay with NRCan, I am interested in understanding the innovation indicators that NRCan tracks and measures. NRCan funds innovation projects with the hope that they produce intellectual property, codes, standards and regulations. Your target is set at 5% of funded projects. Could you first talk about how this funding program works? Do industry players submit proposals? Are there conditions on the funding?
Ms. Chennette: Thank you for the question. Could you repeat which program you were quoting there?
Senator Smith: Well, I was interested in sort of the innovation indicators that NRCan tracks and measures. NRCan funds innovation projects with the hope that they produce intellectual property, codes, standards and regulations. You have a 5% target of funded projects.
Ms. Chennette: Thank you. I think Mr. Leyburne would like to take that question.
Senator Smith: You are hot today, Drew.
Mr. Leyburne: We were placing odds on who should sit at the table first.
Senator Smith: Some of my cohorts are saying what a hairdo you have too.
Mr. Leyburne: A Bishops grad, too.
Senator Smith: What year?
Mr. Leyburne: 1998.
Senator Smith: You are still a child.
Mr. Leyburne: I can speak specifically to the Energy Innovation Program. We also have forestry, mining, geoscience and other science programs. We run all of our programs through a call for proposals process where we open it up. We have a lot of flexibility with the Energy Innovation Program. We can fund pretty much any kind of entity in Canada, except for an individual, up to a limit of $50 million for any what we call “pre-commercial technology.”
Depending on the type of call for proposals we are running, we might have different program indicators, but all of them will take into consideration some of the things you mentioned: an ability to convert the RD&D into some form of public good, whether that be intellectual property, reducing the cost of an energy technology or climate technology; or specific niche applications in Canada, for example, tailoring an existing global technology to be able to work in the Far North. It will vary program-by-program. For each one of those interventions, we go through an audit and evaluation process and publish those results, and we would be happy to share some of the results of the various programs over the years.
Senator Smith: That would be great for us to get a sense of the involvement that you have.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
My first question is for Environment Canada. The Main Estimates include $1.2 billion in voted grants and contributions. How much of this is for transfers to provincial and territorial governments to take action on climate change? Is any of it to provincial and territorial governments?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much, Senator MacAdam, for your question.
At the beginning of the year, the projections were that 33% would go directly to the PTs. That being said, at the end of the year we will have a clear view of whether 33% went. Obviously, there is fluctuation in the year as we go through supplementary estimates, so we will get more funding through Sup (B) and eventually through Sup (C). We may end up a little lower or higher, depending on how big our grants and contributions envelope is at the end of the year. At the beginning of the year, we were projecting 33% will go to the PTs.
Senator MacAdam: For the transfers that go to the provinces and territories, are there condition attached to the funding?
Ms. Drainville: Yes, there are conditions attached to it, but I would not be in a position to provide details. There are many agreements in place, and I would have to be more specific about which program we’re referring to. My colleagues could probably give you that information.
Senator MacAdam: For the ones where the conditions are attached, how do the funds flow? Do you flow the funds in advance? How does that work?
Ms. Drainville: Every agreement is different, and I would have to go into the details.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
This question is for Parks Canada. You mentioned that there was $15.3 million for Hurricane Fiona recovery in the budget. Is this adaptation funding, or is this just funding to clean up after Fiona? Can you give me a sense of what the money is for?
Ms. Blanchard: Absolutely. My colleague Andrew Campbell will provide a response.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: I’m the Vice-President of Operations for Parks Canada.
The Fiona funding went principally to three areas, and you’ve named two of the three. One was around cleanup. The second is around repairs, so straight capital repairs. The third area was around climate adaptation repairs as well on the capital program. In those three areas, we received funding for Fiona.
Senator MacAdam: Do you have a breakdown by province? I’m assuming it would be Atlantic Canada provinces.
Mr. Campbell: I don’t know whether we have it with us this evening, but that is certainly something we do have.
Senator MacAdam: If you could get that to the committee, that would be great.
How was the $15.3 million arrived at? Was there consultation with the provinces? How did you come up with that number?
Mr. Campbell: I’ll turn it over to my colleague David Millar.
David Millar, Vice-President Real Property and Assets, Parks Canada: I’m Vice-President of Real Property and Assets at Parks Canada. Thank you for the question.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Fiona, we worked with our experts, asset managers and staff across the country. They were able to see the issues on the ground. They worked with engineers and others to estimate what would be required to deal with the issues. This was really about looking at the infrastructure within our places and not necessarily infrastructure outside of the federal sites. Really, it was about working with those engineering experts to figure out what would be required to do both the cleanup and the repairs and also how we can build back in a way that will be more resilient to future hurricane-type damage and other climate effects.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Ms. Blanchard.
You spoke briefly about the impacts of Hurricane Fiona. Climate surprises must certainly have impacts on tourism and the number of visitors who are welcomed to the country’s parks and sites. I’d like to know if you have any figures or projections to provide us on this subject. Have you understood me correctly?
[English]
Ms. Blanchard: Yes, I did, thank you very much. I will ask my colleague Andrew Campbell, Vice-President of Operations, to reply. He has a bit of an on-the-ground perspective on the impacts of climate change from visits across the country.
Mr. Campbell: Certainly we’ve seen a number of different impacts, principally around large climate events at the moment and how large climate events have actually affected the number of visitors that can come. I will use a place like Prince Edward Island National Park as an example. During and after Fiona, we had to shut down all operations during that time just from a safety perspective. The large flood events we had in the Atlantic this year and the forest fires across the country had a dramatic effect on us having to open and close different facilities all across the country.
I don’t want to give you numbers that are too specific because we haven’t done that, but there were certainly more days of the year when we have had to close full sites for full days — and in many cases full weeks — as we recovered from different climate events. During that time, of course, there is no visitation.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Fires, tornadoes and floods are now on the radar. That said, how much do you need to invest now to develop an effective evacuation plan for your sites in the event of a disaster? Do you have a revised evacuation plan as a result of recent events?
[English]
Mr. Campbell: As we are working right now, we are revising our emergency plans all across the country.
[Translation]
From a personal safety perspective, this could be for visitor rescue, on the one hand, and evacuation plans, on the other, if necessary. This summer, we experienced a situation in a village in the centre of Wood Buffalo Park, where we evacuated our employees and village residents who were on site.
[English]
We have been putting those in place, senator, place by place. Each of the different emergency and evacuation processes are different according to each of the locations and jurisdictions we are in, but we’re working with that.
[Translation]
In larger parks, such as Banff National Park, we are working with the tourism industry, the Town of Banff and the Western Alberta District to implement an integrated plan.
[English]
Within each of the provinces, in many cases we have an agreement with emergency management for that province to collaborate on emergency response.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My next question is for Ms. Chennette. You spoke earlier with Senator Marshall about the services of outside consultants, which, I must say, are debatable. I won’t dwell on the costs of these services, but I would like to know what they have improved in terms of your operations and services.
Do you feel it’s money well spent, in the event that these expenses can serve to bolster you in your decisions or validate them, if you don’t want to be blamed later?
[English]
Ms. Chennette: Thank you for the question.
There is always due diligence on the spending that we do. If we have consultants participate in some of our work, it’s because we’re looking for either a surge capacity to support us to deliver a program or we are looking for expertise. Some of the expertise gives us an independent view of the analysis and modelling we’ve done. That’s is very valued in this work we’re doing to ensure that there are peer reviews going on, given the size of the programs and some of the modelling that happens. Those are generally some of the reasons why we have consultants support some of the work that we do.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Chennette.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to all our witnesses and all the teams that are here.
My first questions are for Environment and Climate Change Canada, and they relate to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy overseen by your department. With respect to sustainable development goal number one — no poverty — Canada has committed to reducing the poverty rate by 50% from its 2015 level. While the report indicates that only 6.4% of people are under the government’s poverty line as of 2020, it notes that groups, including Indigenous people, single people aged 45 to 64, persons with disabilities, single parents, newcomers, Black Canadians, individuals from other racialized communities, 2SLGBTQI+ individuals and Canadians with significant health issues were more likely to be impoverished. It also reports that 33% of Canadians — one in three in this country — were not asset resilient, meaning they didn’t have sufficient savings to support themselves for a period of three months in the event of a crisis.
I’m curious from your perspective and from the department’s perspective how progress towards Sustainable Development Goal No. 1 is being assessed to ensure two things: One, that anti-poverty measures are not just moving people slightly above the poverty line but are meaningfully addressing the economic instability and inequality they’re experiencing, and, two, that anti-poverty measures are reaching those most in need, including those who are in shelters and on the streets and who continue to be overrepresented in poverty, including Black and Indigenous peoples.
Ms. Drainville: Thank you, senator, for your question.
Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question verbally. I will have to get back to you in writing. I don’t have all those details, but we will take that question and get back to you.
Senator Pate: Thank you. You may have to do that with the next one as well, then.
I was curious how the department, through the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy or otherwise, is tracking and what kind of data can you share about the impact of increasing environmental and economic stability, including as a result of wildfires, floods and other climate disasters, particularly over the last few years, and how those have been impacting those below the poverty line, again, disaggregated by factors including gender, race, family status, work status and ability.
Ms. Drainville: That is an excellent question. I really appreciate it, but unfortunately I won’t be able to answer it. We will get back to you in writing.
Senator Pate: What concrete achievements have resulted in this regard from Canada’s progress so far towards Sustainable Development Goal No. 1? Maybe that needs to be in writing, too, but if you have any comments, that would be great.
Mr. Moffet: Could I make a suggestion? The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy is something that Environment and Climate Change Canada coordinates, but it’s a compendium report of activities across the federal government. If you’re interested, as a suggestion, it might be appropriate to convene a meeting, and then we could help you identify the appropriate departments to invite to have a discussion on these issues, because, I think, frankly, the answer is more than a couple of lines in a written response.
Senator Pate: I certainly appreciate that advice. I think the committee would have to take that under advisement; otherwise, I’m happy to convene a meeting. If you can send as much detail as is available, that would be great.
You may or may not have thought about this, but Senator Galvez, one of the members of our committee, published her own white paper in 2020 talking about how to link a clean and just recovery with economic factors, so things like basic income, guaranteed liveable income, and she has linked them also to the Sustainable Development Goals. I’m just curious as to whether any of those initiatives by particularly Senator Galvez’s white paper are initiatives that you have looked at and that you have considered, and if you have, what is your assessment of them in terms of the recommendations?
Mr. Moffet: Again, it’s a big question. Senator Galvez’s paper was very interesting and did stimulate a lot of thinking in the federal government and echoed input from many Canadians and people around the world.
Again, it might be useful to convene a meeting with various input where the government could talk about the design of some elements in the overall 2030 Emission Reduction Plan and in the National Adaptation Strategy, the two sides of our approach to climate change, both of which have components specifically targeted at addressing environmental justice and environmental racism — so certain elements. Then the other element that we would be happy to come and talk to you about is some of the thinking that we’re doing that has resulted from some input from Senator Galvez and her work on the reform to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which resulted in the codification of a right to a healthy environment. We now have a two-year obligation to develop a framework to implement that, wherein we will address some of those issues.
Senator Pate: That would be great. If, when you’re responding, you can make suggestions as to who of those groups we should be contacting, that would be great.
For Parks Canada, just before this meeting, I came from the Indigenous Guardians gathering that is taking place on the Hill, hosted by Senator Audette, and I was struck by the incredible growth since I first attended one of their meetings, which was in a tiny room in another location in Ottawa.
Statistics Canada has reported on income-based disparities in access to and use of green space, in particular for racialized communities, and they’ve also talked about the resulting implications in terms of physical health, mental health and overall well-being. How do you facilitate? You mentioned in your opening comments trying to create more meaningful access to green space. How do you do that in particular for some of the most marginalized, impoverished and racialized communities, and how are you monitoring that? What are your outcome measures, and how do you determine whether you’re making progress in terms of your performance in those areas?
Mr. Campbell: There are a number of ways that we are, in fact, looking directly at that, and having inclusive places, Parks Canada places, is one of those.
We looked at four main barriers, in fact, and the first of those barriers, actually, ends up being one that was surprising, I think, to most people, and that was people’s general knowledge. Through that, we began the Learn-to Camp program, which then became the Learn-to Paddle program, which then became the Learn-to Hike program, which then became the Learn-to be Outdoors program. There is a full learning program that we have for Canadians, because that is, in fact, one of the hurdles for people to feel at home in green spaces.
The next one was around cost, and the main cost driver was distance or the distance factor. Parks Canada is moving forward with the national urban park program and developing urban parks, and in the minister’s mandate letter today are ten cities across the country, one in each of the provinces. That’s a second way we looked at the barrier.
Another is looking at who we partner with, because welcome was another major factor. How do you feel welcome? We’re one of the largest employers of youth within the federal government. We bring in about 2,000 youth per summer to welcome, and 46% in the last year of those youth hires were from equity deserving groups. People are then seeing people welcome them into places of groups that are within the same demographic population, and that has been important.
The other thing, just discussing on the Hill, is that we have direct relationships across the country with over 300 First Nations, Métis and Inuit groups, from the furthest co-management down to collaborative management of our places administered by Parks Canada. Within that, we have over 60 guardians programs, as they’re called. They’re hosting people on the Hill today and tomorrow from guardians programs. It is in concert. It is not exactly the same program, because ours is direct to those 300 communities that we work with, but it is much like the guardians program that is administered by our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: If my colleagues will permit, I will allow myself to ask a question about a federal park located in my senatorial division, Forillon National Park.
Last year, an envelope of $9.8 million over three years was announced, the objective of which was the restoration of matrimonial buildings and the commemoration of family history. The Regroupement de personnes expropriées de Forillon et leur descendance was very enthusiastic. This summer, at the launch of the Grande-Grave heritage accommodation project, some 100 people from the Regroupement called for the return of 3,000 to 4,000 Forillon artifacts that are stored in Gatineau.
It is essential that these objects be repatriated to the Gaspé territory, ideally to the Forillon Park territory. These artifacts are of great value to the expropriated people. They represent a part of their history.
Is Parks Canada working to repatriate these objects? Is there a budget for this? Where are you with the building restoration and reclamation project for which an envelope of $9.3 million over three years was earmarked?
Mr. Campbell: I’ll probably answer that question again.
The Grande-Grave project is absolutely paramount for Parks Canada. This project was conceived from the outset by the expropriated, and that’s very important. As for the repatriation of artifacts and various objects from Forillon Park, mainly the large pieces, they are in the park and will continue to be. Only a small proportion should be in our collection centre in Gatineau, which will open in a few months’ time. Thus, a reconstitution of the various collections from across the country will be stored in this building.
The management units are having discussions to determine which objects come from this location. Field units are regional Parks Canada organizational groups. They contact interested local parties to hold these discussions and, in most cases, the objects are returned or repatriated to their local communities. This has been the case with many Indigenous groups across the country. However, for the expropriated, if they have the same collection with a certain object, they have a process to follow for repatriation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll be following this one closely. We’ll now begin the second round of questions.
[English]
Senator Marshall: My question is for Environment Canada. I noticed that about 10% of your budget in the Main Estimates, $247 million, is allocated to professional services. What would that be? Ten per cent is a large percentage. Can you just give us some information on what exactly would be in there?
Ms. Drainville: Yes. Thank you very much, Senator Marshall.
Professional services for us is always a way to complement some of the expertise that we need from external people in order to make sure that we advance some programs. Interestingly, it might seem like a lot, but because I’m personally a big owner of that portion of the $247 million, it mainly has to do with the recapitalization of our infrastructure.
People don’t necessarily appreciate that ECCC is the custodians of buildings. We need to proceed with maintenance and major repairs to keep that infrastructure available for employees to perform their duties in healthy and safe environments.
Mainly, those $247 million was for our installation on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut. It is also for our global atmospheric weather observatory in Alert, which is also in Nunavut. There is also the replacement of our weather radar network that is coming to an end but that we have money for over the last few years. There is a lot of that.
Senator Marshall: Would you be looking for additional money in professional services in Supplementary Estimates (B) or (C)?
Ms. Drainville: I can’t give you a number, because I don’t have that off the top of my head, but as we welcome new programs or programs are growing, we sometimes have additional professional services coming in.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
To go back to the cuts, as I was mentioning earlier, over five years, the government wants to save $7.1 billion, but this year, I think the target is $500 million. How much of that is going to come from your department? What I’m trying to reconcile is that I don’t understand why the government is giving you money in Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates (A), Supplementary Estimates (B) and Supplementary Estimates (C), and then they’re asking you to save a certain percentage. Why did they just not give it to you to begin with? So what percentage is your cut?
Ms. Drainville: It’s a very small cut, as we know it now. We know for a matter of fact that, out of our mains for 2023-24, there is a little less than $10 million that will be taken away.
Senator Marshall: From professional services?
Ms. Drainville: For professional services and travel. I don’t have the specific number for professional, because it’s combined together. That said, as you might know, the process is still ongoing, and the final decision will come later.
Senator Marshall: It will cover more years. Okay.
Ms. Drainville: Exactly. I will be in a better position next year to provide you with a broader perspective as to what that will mean.
Senator Marshall: I looked at your departmental results reports, and you’re always near the bottom — in the lower half, but in the low part of the lower half. What are the challenges you are having in meeting your targets? You set your own targets, but you can’t meet them. You met 8 of 56 targets in 2020-21 and 28 in 2021-22. What is the problem? Why are you at the low end of the spectrum?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much for your question. I didn’t know that we were at the lower end.
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Ms. Drainville: So there you go.
Senator Marshall: Could you look at it and get back to us? I would be very interested in knowing what the problem is and also what you’re doing to correct the problem.
Ms. Drainville: Might I offer some views on your question? I might have some insights for you.
Senator Marshall: I think the chair said “no.” But if you could follow up in writing, that would be great.
Senator Smith: I’d like to go back to NRCan, please. I wrote a few notes. My questions earlier regarding innovations were based off a general performance indicator which falls under your planned results for innovative and stainable resource development in your departmental plan for 2023-24. You mentioned there are several sectors of the economy, like energy, forestry, mining, et cetera, which received funding for different innovation projects.
I’d just like to know on a general level whether NRCan takes any form of ownership. One of the things that was talked about was the whole idea of developing scaled intellectual property. Do you have some examples of NRCan-funded projects that were successfully developed and scaled, or is it too early to tell? Once the intellectual property is created and potentially scaled up, would NRCan have any form of ownership in that? With all the money you are investing, can you get some form of return? That’s what I’m trying to understand.
Ms. Chennette: Thank you for the question. I will turn to Mr. Leyburne to address it.
Mr. Leyburne: To answer the first part of your question, with the lower technology readiness level, TRL, which ranges from zero to nine — 10 means it is commercial; zero means it is a figment of someone’s imagination — the lower TRL we invest in, the higher the technology risk, therefore more willingness to take risk we have to absorb. We try to have a portfolio approach to all of our RD&D programs, whether they are in energy or otherwise, to make sure we are balancing the right risk-reward ratio.
The second “D” in RD&D is demonstration. A demonstration project means it’s close to commercialization but needs to be proven in the real world. Typically, we see the immediate impact with those projects. We build the project, and either it works or it doesn’t. We immediately know what the impact is. When I am investing in TRL 3, for example, which is kind of moving out of a university research lab stage, it may take 10, 15 or 20 years to know the full impact of that.
One of the things we pride ourselves on in running these programs is to ensure we know where the leverage is. Does a federal dollar of investment result in $10 of investment from others? It varies by program, but we have strong, robust leverage rates for the investments that we make.
On your last point about intellectual property, a lot of the spending we do in the RD&D space is external, vote 10 grants and contribution funding. We keep a certain accountability for that to make sure that companies and organizations are doing what we expect. We also do important work at federal laboratories themselves. We have a practice of licensing whatever innovations we come up with to the broader world to get some payback for those investments. That’s common, but I wouldn’t say every dollar we put into a laboratory investment is automatically sold to someone because a lot of what we are doing is research that helps many parties instead of one licensee.
Senator Smith: Can you send us a one-pager of examples and some of the examples that you have had come to term that were successful? For example, if you had one, two, three, the best case, moderate case and an example of an entrepreneurial case or some form of a low-end case, that would be interesting just to see where you’re headed. You have explained that it takes time to get results in many of these projects. Could you give us three indicators of a great-looking project that has already come to term, something that’s sort of evolving and then something that’s maybe in the creative stage? Can you give us a background of understanding about the type of activity you’re involved in?
Mr. Leyburne: Sure. We can certainly provide a one-pager. When we sign a contribution agreement with a company or a project proponent, written into that agreement is an understanding that if they are currently at technology readiness level 6, by year two or three, or whatever, we expect them to be at TRL level 7 or 8. We set clear expectations about how far they move along the innovation curve.
Senator Smith: To Parks Canada, in the information that we have, it says that many federal departments are facing risks associated with aging IT infrastructure, cybersecurity and digital services. Your agency noted that this is also a primary risk and will affect your ability to protect the health and safety of park visitors and result in potential revenue losses. Can you talk a bit about the risk? How old are some of the IT systems that Parks Canada uses? How does that impact on your operations? If there is a risk, how are you mitigating the risk? Have you made specific progress that you can share with us in terms of how much funding is geared toward updating your IT infrastructure?
Ms. Blanchard: I am happy to have an opportunity to speak to that, but I will ask my colleague Jewel Cunningham, who is responsible for the IT program at Parks Canada, to come to the table as well.
Parks Canada has a diverse portfolio of information technology. We have our systems for parks reservations and point-of-sale. Those are being renewed right now through various contracts with Public Works and Shared Services Canada. As well, we have a number of contracts out to replace aging avalanche systems and our internal network systems and cybersecurity. We do have a renewal plan under way, as I said, to expand the e-commerce and our reservations systems area, but also the internal operations for the organization.
I will now turn to Jewell to give an update on that.
Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President Strategic Policy and Planning Parks Canada: Thank you for the question.
Certainly the risk you have identified is a real one that many government departments are facing today in regards to cyber security. We recently conducted an internal audit review on ourselves because we knew that we had work to do in this area. We are in the process of establishing a three-year plan with a funding requirement associated with it to try to tackle —
Senator Smith: Were there priorities that stood out to you? What were they?
Ms. Cunningham: One is an automated service of monitoring the external environment of the types of infiltration that is happening. We work with and rely on Shared Services Canada, as many departments do, certainly for our network infrastructure. They take care of that part. Inside the department, within Parks Canada, our own systems are under attack on a regular basis. One investment that is required is an automated service that will continue to monitor the types of infiltrations and attacks that are coming into our system. That’s one investment.
Another one is awareness. A lot of folks could use further information with regard to the procedures that would happen, for example, if you lost an iPhone or your computer system. Phishing is happening on our system on a regular basis. We are corresponding externally, so our email systems are under attack. Retention of personal information poses a risk as well. A number of internal policy measures need to be implemented, and awareness and training programs.
Senator Smith: [Technical difficulties] technology in your own mind, or do you need to do a lot of upgrades? Are you facing a continuous upgrade process?
Ms. Cunningham: It is a continuous effort. We will be looking at an annual expenditure and investment that will happen, and it will have to stay. This is obviously a dynamic environment. It is not a one-size project that starts and ends and fixes the problem. It will be a continuous effort. A lot is happening out there. In the media, we’ve seen a lot of cyber security attacks. As Catherine mentioned, digital infrastructure is an area of priority for us for investment.
In addition, we work with third parties. Security testing and monitoring on third-party service providers who are doing things like the reservation system on our behalf is an area where we have put a lot of time and energy and investment to ensure that we are doing the security and risk assessments associated with third parties that we work with.
Senator Smith: Are all of your parks up to the same level, or do you have gaps?
Ms. Cunningham: It’s a corporate function, so I’d say all our parks are at the same place. We’re managing this centrally. I wouldn’t suggest that one would be different from another.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Drainville.
To answer a question from Senator Gignac, you talked about Global Affairs Canada’s $5.3-billion climate change budget. You mentioned that there was a small amount of $161 million allocated to your department. I’d say that $161 million is still a significant sum.
Can you tell me why this sum is detached from the overall budget of Global Affairs Canada? I imagine it’s to be distributed by your department to international organizations. Who decided that this money should go through your budget? Who decided on the $161 million? What control do you have over the use of this “small amount” of $161 million?
Ms. Drainville: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Dagenais.
All in all, $161 million is a lot of money. Compared to $5.3 billion, however, it’s a small amount. In short, it’s all a matter of relativity.
I’ll ask my colleague Sandra McCardell, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, who always works closely with our partners at Global Affairs, to answer your question.
Sandra McCardell, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Affairs Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
In fact, the distribution of the amount between Global Affairs Canada and Environment Canada is based on the specialties and particular skills of each department. It’s a combination of the environmental experience and knowledge available within our department and the international cooperation network that exists within Global Affairs Canada. This was brought together in the mandate letters of Foreign Affairs Minister Joly and Minister Guilbeault.
[English]
To that effect, it has both ministers working together exactly to mobilize and provide climate finance support, particularly to less developed countries to help them with adaptation, mitigation and resilience.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much. I have a question for Ms. Blanchard.
Ms. Blanchard, you said that, in your budget, there was money for the Quebec Citadel; obviously, this is of interest to Quebec senators. Can you give us more information on the investments that will be made at the Quebec Citadel? Is this a soon-to-be-realized project or a long-term one?
[English]
Ms. Blanchard: I will call on my colleague David Millar. He is the Vice President of Real Property and Assets, so he will have a greater line of sight on that particular undertaking.
Mr. Millar: Thank you for the question.
Yes, our investments in the fortifications of Quebec City are, in many ways, an ongoing initiative because it is a large complex of heritage structures that requires regular investment and rehabilitation. Right now, we are investing in restoration work, obviously, to deal with priority issues there, dealing with both safety and heritage concerns. That will deal with some of the current issues, but it is really an ongoing process of assessment and recapitalization because of the age of the structures. As someone said earlier, it is not “one and done.” It’s the kind of thing where we have to constantly assess and make the priority assessments where things are beginning to fail.
Senator Pate: My first question is for Parks Canada. In your departmental plan, it indicates that you are embarking on a process to facilitate an increase in Indigenous stewardship in heritage places and programs, noting that this will support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Can you provide more details on how Indigenous people have been involved in the planning of this process? Certainly, if you are on the Hill, you heard many times, “Nothing about us without us.” What are your expected outcomes of this process? How will the department be evaluating that in terms of upholding inherent rights of Indigenous self-determination, particularly with respect to Indigenous lands? I know you have mentioned a bit about some of the initiatives, but if you could elaborate, that would be great.
Mr. Campbell: That is an excellent question, senator.
The Indigenous stewardship framework of Parks Canada has been done very much from a bottom-up or community-up perspective. Indigenous organizations were involved right from the beginning of that process. The entire process of putting it together was done using what’s called ethical spaces. I don’t know if you are familiar with it, but another term often used around that is “Two-Eyed Seeing.” How do you put together that type of strategy from the perspective of Indigenous communities and then non-Indigenous communities? It was brought from that.
The Indigenous stewardship framework is overseen by a group called the Indigenous stewardship advisory committee, made up of a group of Indigenous leaders from across the country. In fact, we just met a week ago. They continue to give us ongoing advice around that. We’ve gone out and done consultations in about 70 of the 300 communities with which we have direct relationships.
We use that as the overarching framework, but then within each park and site, there will also be an Indigenous stewardship plan that comes down whether through co-management or through rights and recognition or through Indigenous impact and benefit agreements. There are a number of different ways that we do that. Obviously, that is led, from a large percentage, by Indigenous people.
Look, the entire history of Parks Canada has not been a happy story for Indigenous people. In many cases, we are rebuilding that relationship. You may have seen a story just in the last week about Jasper National Park, which doesn’t have a great past in how that park was established. Both the Stoney and the Simpcw First Nations came together and had a reconciliation event between themselves to look at the history again. Through that, we’re doing an Indigenous harvest within the park. We have an Indigenous Forum within Jasper where they come up with ideas on how to bring that forward, how to have those rules, and then we work alongside them as they re-establish their own rights within the park.
Senator Pate: Is the information on the oversight advisory body publicly available? What is the appointment process? Do the communities appoint the members?
Mr. Campbell: We went out to those 300 organizations that we work with and had them bring forward names. The national Indigenous organizations also tend to have a voice in how we move forward with those individuals, but in many cases, it is very much community-led. That appointment progress — it is hard to call it an appointment process, quite frankly. It is more of a representation process. Again, it is Indigenous-led. Names come forward, and they sit on the Indigenous advisory committee. From a public perspective, we don’t keep formal minutes from those. They are advising our senior management committee as we continue to move forward with the framework.
Senator MacAdam: I have a question for Parks Canada. Coming from Prince Edward Island, I’m very interested in the Province House National Historic Site in Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation. Can I get an update on that project? It’s been a number of years since it started. Are there funds here in the Main Estimates for that project? When do you expect it to be completed? What’s the estimated total cost of the project?
Ms. Blanchard: Thank you very much for that question. My colleague David Millar is the lead on that particular project, so he can share details with you.
Mr. Millar: Thank you for the question. Province House is a very interesting project. I am from Atlantic Canada myself, and I have spent a lot of time in Province House recently, with all the work going on there.
We have been completing the project in phases, as you might be aware. The first couple of phases dealt with the main structural issues, the walls and the roof and things that were really deteriorating, to rebuild and restore them in a way that reflects the heritage character. That work will also ensure that it stays standing for many years to come. The two first phases are now complete. The main structural work that was needed to essentially save the building has been completed in those first two phases.
The next phases of the project are to reintegrate the systems into the building, things like electrical, plumbing, all the things needed to be able to reoccupy the building. That work is now being initiated and will continue over the next one to two years before the building is able to be occupied again. The final stages are to get all the systems back into the building, to get it fit up so people can actually use it and also to reinstall our exhibits and interpretation in the building.
The project is well under way, getting toward the final stretch. I am a happy to say that the biggest pieces of the actual physical construction are now completed.
Senator MacAdam: Do you have an estimated final cost for the project?
Mr. Millar: We’ve been announcing funding incrementally as we do each stage because of the fact that when you are restoring a 175-year-old building, you never know exactly what you will find. Until we get through the next phase, we won’t know the absolutely certain final number, but it is reasonable to say it will be in the $130 million range to complete.
Senator MacAdam: Do you have an estimated completion date or within —
Mr. Millar: We are expecting the building can be reoccupied in 2025.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: I have a couple of brief questions for Parks Canada. What is your IT budget? I’m sure you are aware that the Auditor General released a report a couple of weeks ago which was very critical of all systems within government but mostly, I think, from oversight, Treasury Board and Shared Services Canada. They were very critical. They did not get into individual departments or agencies. I would be interested in knowing what your budget is.
Ms. Blanchard: I don’t have that detail with me today, but we can provide it in a follow-up question.
Senator Marshall: None of your associates here would have that number?
Ms. Blanchard: No.
Senator Marshall: When you get your budget at the beginning of the year, is it broken out by province and territory? Do you know how much you will be spending on projects within each province or territory? Is it possible to find out that allocation once the expenditures are all in and the books are closed off?
Ms. Blanchard: Our budgets are allocated, as with most budgets within the federal government, by business units. For Parks Canada National Office, we have directorates. It is allocated by directorates, and then across the country to what we call field units. It is allocated in that fashion and not necessarily by province. We don’t track, let’s say, salaries or goods-and-services spending by province.
Senator Marshall: For Fiona, whatever was spent in Newfoundland is not broken out separately? You don’t track the money like that?
Ms. Blanchard: For certain projects, we do. So for Fiona —
Senator Marshall: I see, but not overall?
Ms. Blanchard: Not the overall budget, no. Other things like grants and contributions, we can track by province, but overall budget is not sliced by province.
Senator Marshall: I understand. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Smith: People have done a great job. I must say I’m a bit tired. I was young at one time, but I took too many blows to the head.
The Deputy Chair: We’re with you, senator. You can count on us to support you.
[English]
Thank you. We have reached the end of our time. We thank you for appearing today. It is much appreciated.
[Translation]
I remind witnesses to please send their responses in writing to the clerk. You will have plenty of time to do so, by the end of the day on Wednesday, November 15, 2023.
I would like to remind senators that our next meeting will be next Tuesday, November 7, at 9 a.m., for the continuation of our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
Thank you to the committee’s support team, both those in the room and those behind the scenes. Thank you for your contribution to the success of our work, especially our analysts, André Léonard and Shaowei Pu, and our clerk, Mireille Aubé.
(The committee adjourned.)