THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 28, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to examine the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I want to welcome all senators and all viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan. I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance.
I’d now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Good morning. Sandra Pupatello, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. I’m replacing Senator Kingston.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, representing the De Lorimier senatorial division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec.
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we’re continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
For our first panel today, we are pleased to welcome representatives from the Department of Justice Canada: Mr. Bill Kroll, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector; and Mr. Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector. We also welcome representatives from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Dr. Paul Hébert, President; and Mr. Jeff Moore, Vice-President, Corporate Services and Transformation.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
We will now hear opening remarks from Mr. Kroll.
Mr. Kroll, you have the floor.
[English]
Bill Kroll, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Management Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Kroll, and I am the assistant deputy minister of the management sector and chief financial officer at the Department of Justice. My pronouns are he/him/il.
I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People.
I am joined today by my colleagues: Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector; Christina Van Loon, Director General, Programs Branch; and Pamela Rudiger-Prybylski, Director General and Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
We are pleased to be here today to provide you with an overview of Justice Canada’s Main Estimates for 2026-27 and answer any questions you may have.
As highlighted in the 2026-27 Departmental Plan, Justice Canada’s priorities focus on strengthening Canadians’ trust in the legal system, keeping Canadians safe in our communities and on-line, building a stronger economy and expediting nation-building projects, including by advancing the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Justice is also working to make life more affordable for Canadians by reforming systems, policies and laws so that they better serve Canadians. For example, we plan to modernize the Federal Child Support Guidelines to create a more efficient, cost‑effective child support system. The department is also reducing operational costs by modernizing service delivery through digital innovation and the adoption of artificial intelligence.
In addition, the department continues to deliver high-quality legal advisory, litigation, legislative and policy services in support of client departments, the federal government and the public interest.
The Department of Justice advances these priorities through key legislative reforms aimed at combatting hate in Bill C-9, strengthening bail and sentencing regimes in Bill C-14, protecting victims and survivors of gender-based violence in Bill C-16 and addressing court delays in Bill C-22, among others.
[Translation]
The department is also modernizing service delivery through digital innovation and the adoption of AI solutions, such as AI‑assisted legal research and automated document processing.
Justice Canada continues to work with its partners from the provinces and territories and the justice sector to ensure a fair, effective and responsive criminal justice system. The department is also advancing reconciliation and equity through the implementation of the Indigenous Justice Strategy and Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, while improving access to justice by strengthening the capacity of legal aid services in immigration and refugee matters. Together, these efforts support a fair and accessible justice system that meets the needs of everyone in Canada.
Our work would not be possible without the funding obtained in the Main Estimates for 2026-27. A total of $1.1 billion has been allocated to Justice Canada in voted and statutory authorities.
Moreover, through its vote-netted revenue authority, Justice Canada is also authorized to collect and spend revenues from the delivery of legal services to client departments and agencies.
For 2026-27, additional spending authority is estimated at $527 million, bringing our total authorities to nearly $1.7 billion.
[English]
The 2026-27 total spending authorities in Main Estimates increased by a net amount of $3.6 million when compared to last year. Most of this increase is related to new funding sourced from Budget 2025, as well as the 2024 Fall Economic Statement. This is partially offset by a decrease in funding related to the Comprehensive Expenditure Review as part of Budget 2025.
For example, Budget 2025 included $182.3 million in funding for immigration and refugee legal aid over three years. The 2026-27 Main Estimates include $46.9 million of this amount.
Additionally, as part of the 2024 Fall Economic Statement, Justice received $22.9 million over two years to establish Canada’s Black Justice Strategy, $12.5 million of which is included in these estimates. These increases are offset by reductions. Specifically, funding of $25.9 million related to advancing the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, $6.9 million related to Community Justice Centres and $1.4 million related to support for Indigenous Justice Systems are all showing as sunsetting in the Main Estimates.
However, I would note that we are planning to seek a renewal of funding for these programs in Supplementary Estimates for this year.
Justice Canada also participated in the Comprehensive Expenditure Review and has identified savings of $43.5 million ongoing. We will be ramping up to this amount over the next three years with $22.8 million in savings this year.
In summary, these Main Estimates will allow the department to continue supporting many government priorities, including those of our clients, as well as advancing access to justice in Canada.
[Translation]
This concludes my opening remarks. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Dr. Hébert, you have the floor.
Dr. Paul Hébert, President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for inviting me to discuss the 2026-27 Main Estimates.
As President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, I will share with you some of the work our agency is doing to advance health and life sciences research in Canada.
I’m joined this morning by Jeff Moore, Vice-President of Corporate Services and Transformation, and Jimmy Fecteau, CIHR’s Chief Financial Officer.
As the federal funding agency for health research, CIHR plays a foundational role in supporting discoveries and innovations that improve the health and prosperity of Canadians, and strengthen our health care system.
[English]
The impacts of health research can be measured in many different ways, including longer and healthier lives, strengthening health care systems and reduced disease burden. Its economic returns are also myriad. Research is the engine of innovation and a driver of national productivity.
When we fund research, we directly fund highly qualified personnel, the people who form the backbone of Canada’s scientific and health enterprise. In fact, over the last five years, over 60% of CIHR’s total grant funding has gone toward the salaries of research personnel and trainees. We are helping grow the economy by increasing investments across the life sciences portfolio, attracting foreign investments and supporting the growth of companies across our great nation.
It’s important to also recognize that the world is experiencing a biological revolution, fuelled by artificial intelligence, biotechnology and data. This rapid expansion is further amplified by unprecedented disruptions across the global political landscape, which are also impacting research directly.
For Canada, there is an urgent need to position the health and life sciences sector for transformative change so that we can deliver meaningful results to Canadians.
As part of the 2026-27 Main Estimates, CIHR proposes $1.48 billion in spending, representing a net increase of $112 million compared to the 2025-26 Main Estimates.
In 2026-27, new funding of $50.15 million will support the Canada Global Impact+ Talent Initiative, part of the $1.7-billion investment over 12 years announced in Budget 2025, to attract leading researchers and emerging scientists from around the world to establish research programs at Canadian universities.
This builds on other investments for core research and research training announced in Budget 2025. In 2026-27, CIHR will continue the gradual roll-out of increased funding for core research grants, resulting in an increase of $40.72 million.
Funding to CIHR for the Canada Research Training Awards Suite will also increase by $16.71 million, bolstering graduate scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships.
Additionally, you will see in the Main Estimates an increase of $7.75 million to continue advancing the national research program on cannabis and $3 million for research that will inform school food policy and programming across Canada.
Finally, CIHR is reporting a transfer of $3 million to Health Emergencies Readiness Canada to support medical countermeasures readiness.
As the committee knows, Budget 2025 also took steps to protect public investment in research by limiting the expenditure reduction targets for the three federal research granting agencies, including CIHR, to 2% collectively. As a result, CIHR’s revised spending proposal is now undergoing Treasury Board review.
[Translation]
This exceptional measure during a time of widespread fiscal constraint sends a clear signal that science and research underpin Canada’s national interests and strategic priorities.
CIHR stands ready to support a world-leading health and life sciences sector here at home and, above all, to ensure it delivers concrete and lasting benefits for Canadians.
Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Hébert.
[English]
Senator Ross: My question is for you, Dr. Hébert.
CIHR has 13 institute advisory boards with 173 total members, but only two of those members are from New Brunswick. We really need more regional representation to ensure that New Brunswick is considered in program development. I’ve been quite involved with ResearchNB, and they’ve been very helpful in informing me of the work they’re doing and about the various projects in New Brunswick.
Can you tell me the plans you have to provide more equitable representation for New Brunswick?
Dr. Hébert: Senator Ross, thank you for your question.
I have also been talking an awful lot with Research New Brunswick. There are considerations about the regional representation of our funding, broadly speaking, across our country.
When you look at the dispersion of our funds, a sizable portion goes to Central Canada. When you look at the distribution across our country, Atlantic Canada is disproportionately less, as are Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There are a lot of reasons for that dispersion. It’s not just representation; although I would agree with you, we can do better.
In our governance structures and our council, we are intensely involved in looking at how we will improve representation. We are also acutely aware that the dispersion of our funds needs work. I would just put it that way.
I would also say, though, that there’s complexity to what I’m saying. Our success rates currently are 13%. That means only one in ten grants gets funded. The reason for that is that our scientists are incredibly competitive and we have amazing science.
What it also means is that, at every competition, there’s great science left on the table. If you think about it, SickKids has more scientists in that one building than all of New Brunswick, and they’re some of the best scientists in the world. The question then becomes, in this area of scarcity of funds, how do you do that distribution? I would agree with you; we have choices to make.
Work has to be done at both ends. I’ve had a lot of chats with candidates about how to strengthen New Brunswick’s productivity and research. It’s a two-way street.
Are we going to improve representation? We are acutely aware of it, and we’re working on it. Are we looking at the distribution and representation of our funds?
[Translation]
I’m from New Brunswick.
[English]
I’m an Acadian, and I can tell you for a fact that it concerns me. That’s about the best I can do for an answer. It’s a long-winded one. I wish it were straightforward. Representation will not get us all the way, but it’s a start.
Senator Ross: Do you have any sense of a timeline to which you can commit to representation and funding being spread a little more eastward?
Dr. Hébert: On our governing council, that’s a GIC appointment, so you’d have to ask others on timing. What I mean by that is that it takes time. If you’re looking for representation on the governing council, we’re actively looking at strengthening that and looking at geographic representation. That’s our governing body.
Our institute’s advisory committees advise our 13 institutes, and the board chair and I are responsible for that. We constantly revise them, and we are actively in the process of looking at representation. That’s a quicker fix.
The timelines around GIC appointments is someone else’s job. That would take a year or two. That’s my guess for that one.
Senator Ross: Could we work together on the 173 and get a few more New Brunswickers there?
Dr. Hébert: I’d be happy to.
I was asked by that same person to think about what a task force would look like in order to look at regional representation. We’ve provided a lot of data on grants.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the National Finance Committee.
My first questions are for the Department of Justice officials. Don’t be surprised.
Could you explain to me the distinction between grants and contributions?
[English]
For example, I’m looking at the following programs: grants under the Indigenous Justice Program and grants under the Indigenous Partnership Fund. Then we have contributions under the Indigenous Justice Program, contributions under the Indigenous Courtwork Program and contributions under the Indigenous Partnership Fund. What’s the distinction between all these programs? Is there some cross-referencing to do?
[Translation]
Owen Ripley, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the question, senator.
As you’ve noticed, the department has several programs that support Indigenous justice and the legal traditions of Indigenous communities. The objectives of the programs you mentioned differ somewhat. I’ll go over them fairly quickly. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
[English]
The Indigenous Justice Program is about equipping Indigenous People to assume greater responsibility for the administration of justice in their communities and to include Indigenous values within their justice system. For example, a key component of the Indigenous Justice Program is supporting 211 Indigenous programs delivered by community-based organizations in roughly 650 Indigenous communities.
The Indigenous Partnership Fund that you also mentioned is our primary program designed to support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDA. That is about building the capacity of Indigenous communities to work with the government in the implementation of that legislation.
Finally, you mentioned the Indigenous Courtwork Program, which is a long-standing program that is actually designed to support Indigenous individuals who have come in contact with the justice system, including the criminal justice system. It provides wraparound services and court workers who will accompany them as they navigate the criminal justice system or family law processes within the justice system.
Senator Dalphond: They are important programs.
The contributions for Immigration and Refugee Legal Aid are going to $130 million this year. In 2024-25, it was $100 million, and the Main Estimates was $86 million, but there are Supplementary Estimates. The number of refugees and the number of immigrants are being reduced, so why is the budget going up? I suppose there are old files to carry on.
Mr. Ripley: You’re right that the program has increased. There have been a couple of injections of funds. There was an injection as part of Budget 2024 and then a subsequent injection of funds in Budget 2025. The program is $130 million this year, and then, over the next couple of years, it will taper back down to around $55 million per year, absent additional investments.
The reason for the increase is because we have heard very clearly from stakeholders, provinces and territories that support is needed to help immigrants and refugees navigate legal processes around that. While you’ve noted that the government is taking steps to reduce the levels of immigration, in fact, that can sometimes actually increase the number of people challenging various orders within the immigration system. This is the federal government supporting those individuals who may not have the economic means to hire a lawyer, for example, and to ensure that the federal government is doing its part to make sure those processes move forward efficiently and that, ultimately, the law is upheld.
Senator MacAdam: My question is for Dr. Hébert. One of your planned results in your 2026-27 Departmental Plan is that Canada’s health research is internationally competitive. How competitive are we currently? Do you believe the current funding that you have is sufficient to be as internationally competitive as you expect to be?
Dr. Hébert: Let’s start with the end. Are we internationally competitive? Absolutely. We generally punch above our weight when you measure metrics of where we publish. The arc of science is long so if you discover something, it takes somewhere between 5 and 20 years. You have to keep that in mind. So investments today pay off tomorrow.
We repeatedly show how we discover. I’ll give you examples. Ozempic. Everyone knows Ozempic. It is a Canadian discovery. Dan Drucker from Toronto discovered it. That particular product makes $60 billion a year for Novo Nordisk. PCSK9 is a new lipid-lowering agent in a pathway. Forty years of work at Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, or IRCM, in Montreal by Dr. Nabil Seidah. It’s going to make Merck a fortune. It works beyond normal lipid-lowering agents. It’s a Canadian discovery.
We go back to insulin, fine. These past few months, prime editing and gene technology. We’ve edited away a chronic disease in a young kid. Again, that’s Sainte-Justine in Montreal.
So, yes, we’re really good. We discover well. As I was talking to the chair ahead of the meeting, we just don’t commercialize very well. Point number one, do we discover well? We have amazing scientists. Do we have enough money for them — the second part of your question? The answer is, as I’ve said before, that our success rate is 13%. Other major funders have higher rates than that. That means, at every competition, we leave great science on the table.
Our ecosystem is growing, much like some other things in Canada. We’ve just hired more talent — $1.7 billion more — and our funds need to keep up. That is my best answer. I look to the government to hopefully keep that funding stream going.
I would also look to the government to help us in all kinds of different ways to support the pathway to get our products into our patients first. Right now, there are a lot of examples of things discovered in Canada that are first being used in other countries. That would be my best answer. We’re very good. The funds we give out do some amazing things, but we still have work to do as a country.
Senator MacAdam: In June 2024, the institute released an internal audit entitled Audit of Funding Opportunity Design and Delivery. There were five key findings resulting from that audit that dealt mainly with the governance and the processes for design and delivery of funding opportunities. I’m wondering if you could speak to what action has been taken on those findings and recommendations.
Dr. Hébert: I started my current position in January 2025. That audit was conducted with work done by my predecessor. My colleagues would probably tell you that we’re in the business of peer review. What we do as a job is to get money out the door by the highest standards of excellence, and that’s generated through national and international reviews of our funds.
With regard to the funding opportunities we’re putting out, when I took over, we had 120-odd funding opportunities in that audit that were waiting 12 to 18 months to get out the door.
If you were to look at how we were funding and the distribution of funds, we had a ton of them that were $5 million to $7 million worth. Virtually none had a program of investment where you took small amounts of money to grow into bigger pots of money.
We’ve revised entirely how we fund since I’ve taken over. If you’re investing in small things, there have to be bigger things that follow.
As Ms. Bégin famously said, Canada is the land of perpetual pilot projects, and that was in the 1980s. The unfortunate thing is that it seems that we were not helping, so we have revamped our funding strategy.
I am now getting every single scientific director to think of their big programs, and investments are aligned with those bigger programs. That’s going to be transformative, in my belief.
We’re focusing on impact, not on delivering small, “peanut butter strategies” for our country. You all know what “peanut butter strategies” look like, I assume.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: It will be no surprise to you that my question is for the Department of Justice officials. It’s about results indicators.
As I’ve asked this question to all the previous panels, I commend the fact that departments and agencies publish their performance indicators in InfoBase. It’s an excellent tool for showing Canadians how the public sector is performing.
However, when examining the results by indicator over a six‑year period — since the published data begin in 2020 — it’s clear that the Department of Justice has never achieved more than half of its targets. I’d like to hear your comments on this situation.
There are even more concerning elements. You’ve surely noticed that the indicators that were not achieved include the level of public confidence in the justice system. By the way, the target was just 70%, which is not particularly high. I would have expected a more ambitious target, something over 90%. It’s even more concerning that, despite this low bar of 70%, the department is still far from achieving its target.
I’d appreciate it if you could comment on this. It’s important to reassure the committee members and the public. With such catastrophic results, what action plan has the department put in place to at least meet its own target?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you for those observations and questions.
The department agrees with your assessment. The level of confidence in the justice system is worrisome. It’s a fundamental indicator.
It’s one of the reasons why the government is currently implementing an ambitious legislative reform program. As you know, four bills are currently before Parliament: Bill C-9, on combatting hate; Bill C-14, on bail and sentencing; Bill C-16, to protect victims and children; and Bill C-22, which proposes better tools to support law enforcement. These bills show that the government is well aware that Canadians have less confidence in the justice system, which, of course, includes the criminal justice system. That’s one of the indicators we’ve identified. It will be essential to monitor the indicator closely to measure any changes over the coming years.
The second point I’ll make, which is something we’re working on, is the importance of a healthy justice system. We’ve had important discussions with your colleagues here and in the House of Commons on this issue and on how the department is currently monitoring the health of the justice system.
I imagine you’re aware of the excellent work we are doing with our colleagues at Statistics Canada on specific indicators. We’re currently working with our provincial and territorial counterparts to identify the most important indicators to tell us whether we’re moving in the right direction or things are getting worse.
We’ve identified the indicators you raised as being among the most important. This work is already in progress. There’s a crime index, the issue of efficiency — where there are delays — issues of overrepresentation in the justice system, the issue of release and whether there’s a decrease in repeat violent offences.
We’re currently developing a results framework that we hope will show whether the situation is improving or deteriorating. This feedback is essential to determine whether our interventions in the justice system are appropriate.
Senator Hébert: My first question is for Mr. Kroll.
In your remarks, I believe you mentioned that funds were allocated to combat gender-based violence. Could you specify the exact nature of those investments?
[English]
Mr. Kroll: I will turn to my colleague Mr. Ripley to provide more detail. That’s a program or initiative that falls under a number of programs. Mr. Ripley might be able to provide details on which programs those are.
This year, you will see in Main Estimates that the amount for this initiative has sunset. The amount that it has sunset by is about $25.6 million.
We continue to support those programs. The department is working to bring forward a proposal to renew funding for those programs this fiscal year.
[Translation]
Mr. Ripley: More specifically, the funding is intended to support legal representation, namely assistance for individuals who have experienced gender-based violence. It also supports certain programs related to family violence. For example, it supports supervised visitation services.
This currently shows a decrease in the Main Estimates. However, we’re in the process of renewing this funding to ensure its sustainability.
Senator Hébert: This is very concerning, especially at a time when the number of femicides is on the rise and the masculinist movement is leading to violence against women. I find this extremely concerning. Thank you for your response.
I have a question for Dr. Hébert.
Along the same lines, I notice that funding for the Substance Use and Addictions Program is being substantially reduced, from $161 million to $122 million, if I’m not mistaken. How do you account for that, when treating people struggling with addiction is increasingly complex, as we read again this morning in La Presse?
I’m not a specialist in the field, but I know the new drugs are wreaking havoc. Having lived in the United States and with Philadelphia being nearby, I was able to observe the effects of substances like xylazine. We know that these are drugs and that treatments are extremely difficult because they differ from the treatments for opioids. How do we face these challenges? These drugs are flooding our streets, and yet, if I’m not mistaken, if I’m reading it correctly, I see a significant cut in the budget.
Dr. Hébert: There are two types of funds: strategic funds and open grant competition funds. We have $860 million in open funds.
We have a Canada-wide research network on opioids and substance abuse that includes all researchers. We fund this initiative every year.
As part of these funds, researchers submit open fund applications in our programs. They are reasonably successful. I don’t have the total expenditures in front of me, but, in the past five years, about $106 million has been allocated for opioid research. All this is possible because we have both types of funds, open funds and strategic funds.
The latest competition is related not to opioids, but to cannabis. A bit more money was allocated for two specific cannabis projects because of changes in the law. When you look at our investments, some are strategic, others are open. Mental health and drug use are serious issues. A large amount of funding is allocated for that purpose. However, I don’t have those details in front of me.
Senator Hébert: Could you follow up?
Dr. Hébert: We can follow up on the specific funds, and I can provide you with the annual amounts allocated to substance and drug use and the other programs.
The Chair: For each sector?
Dr. Hébert: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Hébert: You’re talking about opioids and cannabis. However, I see and read that other drugs are flooding the market, such as xylazine. According to the experts I’ve read, it seems that they require different treatments than opioids.
Dr. Hébert: To clarify things, we have funding for basic research that looks at the development of new drugs to combat addiction. There are projects in social services to keep these people within an ecosystem. Our projects range from basic research — research into treatments and understanding the mechanisms of addiction — to population health.
I can give you the details. I’m a critical care and palliative care physician. I’ve seen the effects of addiction my whole life. It’s very rare to see someone taking medication. Given the nature of substance use, you take whatever you find or have on hand.
I agree. As it progresses, there’s no way of knowing what people are putting into it. There’s a reason it’s not controlled. I can provide a detailed breakdown of all our investments if you’d like.
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses.
My question is for Dr. Hébert.
As an economist, a former minister of economic development, innovation and export, and head of research in Quebec, I agree with your opening remarks on the importance of research as a source for creating wealth. One of Canada’s problems is that there’s a lot of investment in research, but the problems are related more to productivity and innovation.
An observation emerged at the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, which I chair: We are losing intellectual property. Correct me if I’m wrong: We have excellent researchers, but foreign companies come along and take them. I’d like to hear your thoughts on what we could do about that. Would a right of first refusal or a profit-sharing arrangement with the researcher help? Canadian taxpayers, who invest heavily in research — and it’s necessary — need to have some sort of mechanism, if nothing else is found, while waiting on companies and capital market funding. What’s happening with respect to intellectual property? I’m asking this question with foreign companies in mind, and there doesn’t really seem to be a right of first refusal mechanism, if I understand correctly.
Dr. Hébert: Senator Gignac, you’re absolutely right. You’ve started to list all the issues in the system, including intellectual property. It’s clear that Canada doesn’t have a Canada-wide policy, and that doesn’t help us. I believe we’re the only country in the G7 or G20 that doesn’t have a national policy. When multinationals come here, they’re very well equipped. A small researcher and a small university, even McGill University or the Université de Montréal, can’t do it. The small poorly funded offices in our universities are trying to fight against Apple and Google. Imagine. That’s not reasonable competition. Do we have any reasonable rules? Are we able to protect our intellectual property? The answer is so-so.
Here’s an example in life sciences. Most of the last ten companies worth $500 million were from Quebec and Ontario. They were all bought by Americans. First of all, we aren’t able to properly protect intellectual property. Second, there are no funding mechanisms to support them. I’ll give you a concrete example: In the United States, the small business development fund program run by the American National Institutes of Health supports researchers in their market investments.
To clarify things, when discoveries are made in a laboratory, a researcher discovers a new mechanism and begins to identify targets. Once the target is identified, like Ozempic and its molecule, it requires several years of development. For example, a mouse needs to be resuscitated or made less sick, and, then, that needs to be transferred to humans. The first few times it’s done, the molecules are toxic. They need to be detoxified, their benefits amplified, et cetera. This is known as translational research. We aren’t very successful in that work either. The funding isn’t there. Support mechanisms must be put in place in all these processes. They’re a bit shaky; some parts are there, others aren’t. Finally, right now, the Commercialization Working Group led by the government through the Department of Health is focusing precisely on this issue, on all the elements I just mentioned.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: There are stories in the last year or two about the significant shortages in the justice system itself: lack of judges and staffing causing multiple delays. One of the reasons being given repeatedly is all of these new immigration cases. This morning’s The Globe and Mail also listed another story about how bail is being denied across the country in higher and higher numbers, and that’s before the implementation of Bill C-14. So more is coming.
It doesn’t mean we have more space in the jails — which is where they’re waiting — because the bail has been denied. But there also doesn’t seem to be any movement of the staff to move people through the system then. Considering you have more people in the system, there is a higher shortage and more bail is being denied. It’s a real confluence of variables you are dealing with here. What in these estimates will address this issue?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you very much, senator, for that question.
There are a couple of things I would flag. First, at the outset, always remember that the justice system is a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments, so there is our part and there is their part.
A core aspect of their part is ensuring the good administration of justice. That includes making sure that courts are appropriately staffed and ensuring that there are appropriate detention centres available.
Notwithstanding that division of responsibilities, the federal government is a good partner. We come to the table every year with cost-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories to support the administration of justice.
We invest significant amounts in legal aid. We invest significant amounts in cost-sharing youth justice services. We invest significant amounts in supporting the roll-out of victim services at the provincial and territorial levels. The federal government is doing its part.
Some of the bills that I mentioned to your colleague earlier, Bill C-16 in particular, does have elements that are designed to improve the efficiency of the system. There are parts of that bill that are designed to address court delays. We know there is a big issue right now with many cases hitting up against what is called that Jordan ceiling and being stayed. There are measures in that bill to try to address that problem.
The minister has also been super clear that the provinces and territories are very “eyes open” about the measures in Bill C-14 that are designed to strengthen the bail and sentencing system, and the potential impacts that could have on, for example, increased pretrial detention. They understand that, again, that is a partnership. They have a part to play in ensuring that the criminal justice system is working well.
Having said that, one of the key things that we have constantly heard on bail is that bail is about getting the risk factors right. There are elements of Bill C-14 that are really trying to ensure that judges are focusing on the right risk factors when determining whether somebody should be granted bail or not.
You noted that Canada does have very high pretrial detention rates, and that remains a concern from where we sit as well. You want the right people to be detained. You want folks who do not pose a risk to public safety to be able to be released pending their trial.
Senator Pupatello: Could you point to which line here anywhere in the estimate that is meant specifically to address the shortages in the courts?
Mr. Ripley: The federal government, with the exception of Federal Courts — apologies if I was not clear — does not directly fund provincial courts.
Superior Courts and provincial courts are the responsibility — with the exception of Superior Court judges appointed by the federal government — of the —
Senator Pupatello: Shared funding?
Mr. Ripley: No. So the shared funding we have would be with respect to the salaries of federally appointed judges and then the other areas that I mentioned, like legal aid, support for youth justice services and victims’ services. You would see in our Main Estimates funding for those programs, which continues. There is no proposed reduction in those types of programs.
In fact, as we were talking about with immigration and refugee legal aid, the federal government is actually increasing its support for the provinces and territories in that space, recognizing that there is currently a backlog and a higher case load in immigration and refugee legal aid.
[Translation]
The Chair: Dr. Hébert, the research is going well; we’re champions on that front. We’re champions in artificial intelligence, and in many other fields. The problem seems to be a recurring one: It’s the transfer to commercialization within our companies that’s failing.
Does that mean that public funding is not there to ensure this transition? There’s no private funding or pension fund help either. Our pension funds invest in health and infrastructure outside Canada, but not here. They invest almost ridiculous amounts in a wide range of sectors everywhere, except in Canada. The situation is so bad that the government has to announce a sovereign fund and borrow $25 billion to compensate for the lack of funding from these pension funds.
Can you explain how that works in health care? Is it the same?
Dr. Hébert: You’ve identified the problem very well. It’s absolutely and exactly the same thing. Commercialization in technology is a bit faster and, I’d say, possibly a bit easier.
In life sciences, the transition of a molecule to the patient involves numerous clinical trials, which is a completely different funding system. For pharmaceutical companies, 70% of their research investments are dedicated to clinical trials.
Discoveries are publicly funded, whether in Canada, the United States or elsewhere. However, major expenses often happen at the commercialization stage: It’s the transformation of the molecule. For these transitions to succeed, research laboratories are needed, both public and private. We’re a bit short on that, I’d say. There must then be investments.
We have a coordination problem when it comes to aligning infrastructure, programming and investments. The elements are often in place — I’d say particularly in Quebec, where there are many investments in innovation, and Senator Gignac has contributed to several of them — but they’re somewhat poorly coordinated.
In terms of what we do with our public health data, the same problem exists: Everything is fragmented. It’s the same problem for the commercialization of data. It’s a recurring problem: Access, coordination and investments are not aligned with the infrastructure. There are also gaps.
I don’t know if I’m correctly answering your question.
The Chair: You say there are gaps. Go ahead.
Dr. Hébert: The gaps lie in incentivizing investment in the right places, as you rightly said. How is it that the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec invests in life sciences research in the United States, not in Canada? I don’t really understand why.
It’s the same for the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. Why do our public funds invest less in Canadian companies than in businesses abroad, as you mentioned earlier? These are issues that go beyond my area of expertise. However, it’s imperative that we start finding solutions.
The other big gap is when there’s a small molecule that needs to be developed and applied to humans. None of these supports for companies are there. There’s a bit more in Quebec than elsewhere, but it’s limited. Funds need to be put in place to help with this transition.
We put a lot of money into risk and discovery, and then American companies come in and buy everything. One of the major solutions is to develop large companies rooted in the biotechnology sector in Canada. In the United States, it’s venture capital funds and pharmaceutical companies that buy everything. Investments are made, they buy and they make the profits. You described it quite well earlier.
The Chair: Thank you.
I have a quick question for the Department of Justice Canada officials.
You say that you develop key performance indicators, KPIs, to promote justice, but you’re missing a whole lot. I don’t understand how effective KPIs can be established when the RCMP told us last week that they’re unable to bring cases to court. As a result, they’ve developed a new KPI, disruption.
How can files be mixed up and go off course, yet not reach you? Other police officers told us what Crown prosecutors have admitted to them: “Stop bringing us fake warrants, we can’t handle them anymore, they don’t make it through.”
Judges tell me that they don’t even have a secretary. This causes delays. In my view, not supporting judges in their office administration undermines judicial independence. And none of that reaches you. What’s your view on this breakdown in the justice system?
Mr. Ripley: In my opinion, there are two particularly key indicators. Your colleague noted confidence in the justice system. The other is that Canadians believe the system is fair and equitable.
You’re describing some challenges we are facing. The government is currently looking at the issue of delays. It’s well known that the perception is that cases are thrown out of the system because prosecutors and the police disagree. The issue is also the ability to reach the end of a process before the Jordan ceiling.
As a government, the hope is that the measures outlined in Bill C-16 will help address this issue. However, as Senator Pupatello pointed out, the provinces and territories certainly have a role to play. In terms of funding for the administration of justice, it’s up to them to ensure that the courts have the resources they need. It’s up to them to ensure that there’s enough space for the people who are in pretrial detention.
Ultimately, it’s a partnership. We’re currently doing our part, and there’s excellent collaboration with the provinces and territories. Obviously, we’ll follow up.
Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I have a quick question for Dr. Hébert.
How do you separate your operations or the funding you provide in relation to the National Research Council? Is there any overlap? I see that they play a part in the development of the bioeconomy. Do you communicate, or do some people apply for a grant in two places hoping to get at least one?
Dr. Hébert: Our researchers are very motivated. They apply wherever they can find funding. That’s a good thing. I would say that the NRC is an internal program. Their programming includes a commercialization program, IRAP, which helps with the commercializing process. This program is focused on the digital technology market. It’s less well equipped. About 5% to 7% of the things that happen there are in biotechnology and the rest. Because of that, the fund does not seem to be enough for our researchers.
The other aspect was about whether we work with them. Yes, but not enough yet. We have a joint program with our vice-president, because there is a cell therapy team and an immunotherapy team. Once again, the issue is coordinating between the government’s internal programming and external programming in our funds.
Senator Oudar: My question is again for the Department of Justice official.
Regarding the transfer payment program, we see a very significant decrease in funding agreement contributions for victim assistance funds. You must have the document in front of you. What is this significant decrease in contributions, which are going from $51 million to $39.3 million? I imagine that this will have an impact on the victims. What impacts have you considered?
Mr. Ripley: Thank you for the question.
The decrease in the Main Estimates is related to funding tied to gender-based violence that expired on March 31. However, we’re in the process of renewing this funding. You will see that there is an increase coming, so this is a temporary decrease.
Senator Gignac: Full disclosure: I am the co-chair of the Canada-China Legislative Association. It has come to my attention that CSIS is going around to universities to talk about the risks of collaborating with China. Do you have any guidelines regarding collaboration? The government wants to recalibrate the relationship, with talk of a strategic partnership, and it seems to me that you don’t deal with national security and defence in your sector. I won’t speak about specific cases, but is the Government of Canada reviewing the basis for potential collaboration with China that is not controversial in your sector?
Dr. Hébert: Yes. All the safety and intellectual property factors are still there. China is experiencing exceptional growth in life sciences. There’s no question about that. In terms of its publication rate, the growth has been enormous. Yes, absolutely, we’re looking at how to do it and how to form partnerships. You understand that it’s not quite the same thing as making these same advancements with Great Britain. That’s why we’re doing this carefully. Across the three councils, we often talk about how to do it.
The Chair: Thank you very much to the witnesses.
We are now pleased to welcome our second panel. Representing the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, we have Patricia Brady, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs Sector; and Bram Sepers, Acting Vice-President, Indigenous Relations and Corporate Services, and Acting Chief Financial Officer. Additionally, representing the Canada Water Agency, we have Carmelle Barnabe, Director General, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer; and Gemma Boag, Director General, Freshwater Policy and Engagement Directorate.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
Patricia Brady, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs Sector, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada: I’m pleased to be here today at the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance to provide an overview of the 2026-27 Main Estimates for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, or IAAC.
My name is Patricia Brady, and I’m the Vice-President of Strategic Policy and Programs at the IAAC. I’m joined today by my colleagues: Éric Landry, Vice-President of Operations; and Bram Sepers, Acting Vice-President of Indigenous Relations and Corporate Services, and Acting Chief Financial Officer.
Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting here today on the traditional, unceded territories of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, who have been the stewards of this land since time immemorial.
Turning now to the topic of today’s meeting: As members of the committee are aware, the Main Estimates present the government’s initial spending authorities for the fiscal year. For IAAC, the estimates for 2026-27 total $109.5 million.
I’m pleased to present this total, as it represents prudent financial planning on the part of IAAC to support government-wide spending reductions per Budget 2025’s comprehensive expenditure review.
[English]
The agency’s 2026-27 estimates represent a reduction of $5.9 million, or 5.1%, compared to last year’s estimates, primarily driven by the first year of the phased reductions required through the Comprehensive Expenditure Review.
With these reductions, IAAC has not reduced its capacity to serve Canadians and deliver efficient impact assessments. Rather, reductions have meant a consolidation of resources around our core operations. We’ve refocused spending to strengthen regional project teams, permanent coordination and Indigenous consultation. The agency is also delivering on newer government priorities to support accelerated development of major projects. This includes re-engineering our process to complete assessments within two years, working more closely with federal permitting departments to ensure a more coordinated process for proponents overall, and, critically, developing cooperation agreements with provinces to reduce duplication and implement a “one project, one review” approach to assessments.
With the 2026-27 estimates, IAAC will continue to deliver on these priorities through a more efficient, coordinated and certain process that maintains environmental protections and respects Indigenous rights. I mentioned that we have re-engineered our assessment process. Over the past fiscal year, these improvements have helped us accelerate decisions, with 18 projects having completed the assessment process in an average time of seven months. This supports billions in new investment in responsible development across Canada.
Over the past year, we have also finalized cooperation agreements with Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, and we also have a draft agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador out for public consultation that closes today.
These are in addition to the cooperation agreement we signed with British Columbia in 2019 and will reduce duplication and ensure a “one project, one review” approach.
[Translation]
In addition to helping to carry out effective impact assessments, the estimates include $20.7 million for grants and contributions, which support Indigenous groups, individuals and non-profit organizations to build Indigenous capacity and enhance public participation. These investments play a key role in advancing reconciliation, supporting the Crown’s duty to consult, considering Indigenous and community knowledge to improve the quality of impact assessments, and supporting transparent and timely decision making.
Despite a more constrained fiscal environment, IAAC remains focused on strong operational delivery to support sustainable major project development.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss our estimates and our work.
[English]
My colleagues and I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
Carmelle Barnabe, Director General, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Canada Water Agency: Hello and thank you for that introduction, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Honourable senators, I’d like to first acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the Main Estimates of the Canada Water Agency for the 2026-27 fiscal year.
[Translation]
I will start with a brief introduction to the agency, followed by an overview of the 2026-27 Main Estimates. My colleagues and I would then be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have.
[English]
The Canada Water Agency is relatively new, having launched in October 2024. The agency reports to the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature. The agency is committed to keeping freshwater in Canada safe, clean and well managed.
[Translation]
The agency’s mandate is to provide leadership, effective collaboration federally, and improved coordination and collaboration with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples to proactively address national and regional transboundary freshwater challenges and opportunities.
[English]
Through initiatives like the strengthened Freshwater Action Plan, the agency is helping to safeguard freshwater, support economic growth and drive innovation.
In the past year, we have funded over 100 community-based and partner-led projects to protect and restore water bodies of national significance, including in the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and the St. Lawrence River. We have also supported community-led actions and sustainability projects across Canada through EcoAction. These projects are reducing nutrient pollution, restoring wetlands, and improving water quality and ecosystem health, while working in partnership with Indigenous communities, supporting Indigenous-led projects and capacity building.
The agency supports international and domestic water boards, including the Prairie Provinces Water Board and the Mackenzie River Basin Board, which are examples of governments working together to support water management.
The agency also works with others to develop whole-of-government approaches to freshwater challenges and opportunities through policy advice, engagement and coordination.
Turning to the focus for today, the Canada Water Agency’s 2026-27 Main Estimates total $81 million. This total includes a voted spending authority of $35 million for operating costs, $42 million for contribution expenditures and $4 million in statutory authorities. The $42 million in voted contributions support efforts to protect and restore freshwater ecosystems and strengthen governance and collaboration on freshwater in Canada.
In response to the Government of Canada’s commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians, the agency will contribute a $0.7 million budget reduction from the Comprehensive Expenditure Review for 2026-2027.
Reductions in future years are $0.7 million in the fiscal year 2027-28, $1.2 million in the fiscal year 2028-29 and $1.2 million ongoing.
These savings will be achieved through a disciplined approach to modernizing government operations by reducing the number of planned full-time employees and increasing the efficiency of internal administrative and support functions, like accounting, information technology, human resources and leveraging new technology.
[Translation]
These savings will not affect the agency’s delivery of its programs. Our mandate remains strong and our commitment to restoring and protecting freshwater is unwavering. Our work with partners remains a priority, and that commitment is undeterred.
[English]
These efficiencies will ensure that the agency will continue to deliver results for Canadians, protecting freshwater while supporting communities, ecosystems and economic growth.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to present the Canada Water Agency’s 2026–27 Main Estimates.
[English]
We are happy to take questions now from members of this committee. Thank you.
Senator Ross: New Brunswick was the first province to sign the cooperation agreement — the “one project, one review” process. Can you give me a sense of what projects have been targeted going forward? Also, what kind of timeline will there be, that is to say, how much more quickly will those projects be approved?
Ms. Brady: Good question. You’re right, New Brunswick was right out of the gate and the first to sign the agreement. I’m looking fat my colleague Mr. Landry to confirm. I don’t believe we’ve received any new project proposals in New Brunswick since we signed the agreement. No, we haven’t yet.
The agreements will apply whenever we have a project that would be subject to both federal and provincial assessments. That wouldn’t be all projects in New Brunswick. The threshold for federal assessment is quite high, so we’re looking only at major projects.
Were there to be a project proposed in New Brunswick — and there certainly have been in the past — where both federal and provincial would apply, then this new agreement would apply to those projects to ensure we’re running a single process as opposed to two processes concurrently.
In terms of timelines, at the agency now, we are working towards a two-year total timeline for project assessments. We could do that more quickly under cooperation agreements because they enable us to actually work with and through a provincial process. To the extent that provincial timelines are faster, we now have the ability, through this agreement and through amendments to the Impact Assessment Act that were made in 2024, to be able to adjust our timelines even further downward to work with the province to ensure a streamlined, single assessment process.
Senator Ross: I have two quick add-ons. First, what has the industry’s response been to this? Second, would a project like Sisson Brook have been something that could have gone through this process?
Ms. Brady: There was a very positive general reaction from industry to the cooperation agreements. That’s because the duplication of processes has been an irritant for industry as well as for Indigenous groups and community members who have to divide their time between two separate processes, so it has been a very positive reaction generally.
With respect to Sisson Mine in particular, I will again turn to my colleague Mr. Landry.
Éric Landry, Vice-President, Operations Sector, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada: I don’t have the exact threshold of Sisson Mine with me. However, typically with mining projects, our threshold would be 5,000 tonnes per day. If it meets that trigger, then it would be subject to the Impact Assessment Act.
Typically, during the Impact Assessment Act, there is a planning phase. It used to be six months, but now, with our re‑engineered process, we’ve brought it down to roughly 60 days. During that planning phase, we would assess whether there are tools other than the Impact Assessment Act — for example, provincial and other federal tools — to determine whether a fulsome assessment is needed or whether we can rely on other existing legislative and regulatory tools to assess the project.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
Senator MacAdam: My first question is around an announcement that was made in March of this year regarding the government launching efforts to develop the country’s first National Water Security Strategy. Is there a role for the agency in the development of this strategy? If so, what is that role?
Gemma Boag, Director General, Freshwater Policy and Engagement Directorate, Canada Water Agency: Thank you for the question. Yes, within the federal government, the Canada Water Agency is leading efforts to coordinate amongst over 20 federal departments and agencies with water-related activity in this direction. We’ve just started the work, and there is more to come in terms of external engagement. The agency chairs an interdepartmental committee that’s been working together to coordinate on this.
Senator MacAdam: When do you expect the Water Security Strategy to be completed?
Ms. Boag: We are still working through timelines, obviously, with an interest in moving quickly on this, but we’re hoping to move into external engagement in the coming months, and then it is to be determined when the strategy will be finalized.
Senator MacAdam: There were comments about a need to review the Canada Water Act. What’s bringing on the need to review the act? Are there some problems with the current act? What kinds of problems will that address?
Ms. Boag: The government has committed to modernizing the Canada Water Act. In terms of the phase of the process we’re at just now, over the last year and a half, we’ve been talking to provinces, territories and Indigenous partners about how to begin that review and how to engage. We’re still at too early a point to talk substantively about what modernization would look like, but once we move through that first phase of what we’re calling “pre-engagement” with those partners, we will then move into a phase of looking at what modernization could look like.
Senator MacAdam: What role does the Canada Water Agency play on issues related to shared waters with the U.S., for example? Are there agreements in place? Could you talk about those?
Ms. Boag: Yes, it is a two-part answer.
Global Affairs Canada has the mandate in terms of managing the relationship on shared waters. The Canada Water Agency participates in several agreements with the U.S. and supports several international joint commission boards. Ms. Hiriart-Baer’s work relates to this if you’re interested in more detail on that type of work.
Senator MacAdam: Yes, I would be interested in more details about how the Canada Water Agency is involved in terms of the agreements.
Ms. Boag: I’ll turn to my colleague Ms. Hiriart-Baer, who can come to the table and talk about examples in the Great Lakes.
Véronique Hiriart-Baer, Director General, Freshwater Management Directorate, Canada Water Agency: Thank you. As my colleague Ms. Boag mentioned, we have involvement in some agreements, including leading on the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, where we collaborate closely with our Environmental Protection Agency colleagues in the U.S., and we have the sister agreement with Canada and Ontario that helps us with the implementation in Canada to meet our commitments for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
We also participate in a number of international joint commission boards, where we sit with our colleagues in the U.S. and look at some of the issues within some of the trans-boundary watersheds.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I’m going to continue on this same topic.
In fact, in the departmental plan, it’s clear that the agency plays a leadership role and even seeks to strengthen this leadership. Given the responses we just received, I understand that the agency was only involved in certain agreements. I would like to delve deeper into what you mentioned, particularly regarding the concern raised by the American president’s statements about freshwater here. There may also be a desire to revise certain agreements, such as the boundary agreement, which has been in place a long time, and the impact that this could have on the CUSMA.
Can you tell us about your relationship with your American counterparts? Is this intention that hovers over our neighbour to the south really present in your discussions with your counterparts? There is a palpable concern among the Canadian population about the American president’s desire to take control of Canada’s freshwater. I would point out that Canada has 20% of the world’s freshwater supply, so that’s a major concern.
Thank you.
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: Thank you for the question.
Canada-United States relations are a matter for Global Affairs Canada. Our work is focused on the restoration and protection of ecosystems. We work with our American colleagues with the same goal of protecting ecosystems.
However, Canada-United States relations are really a matter for Global Affairs Canada. I can’t answer that question. It’s not my area of expertise.
Senator Oudar: It might be something to ask your colleagues.
The Canada Water Agency is still quite new, only being established in October 2024. When I look at the agency’s website, I do not see a report for the first year. Indeed, there is a report indicated what you plan to do in 2026–27, but I do not see a report for the first year. Do you plan to publish a summary of your achievements and results?
Ms. Barnabe: Thanks for the question. I’ll respond in English.
[English]
In terms of the report on some of the things that we are doing, we are working on some internal documents to share more of what the agency has been doing and is doing.
In terms of programmatic engagement and activities, I defer again to my colleagues on anything specific to those activities that we have engaged with.
Of course, being a new agency, we are working through some of the documents and reports that we will be presenting going forward. Again, a lot is in the planning stage thus far.
Ms. Hiriart-Baer, do you want to add anything?
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: No.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I understand that the internal documents you are referring to will eventually be published so that the public can read them, and we as well, in that case.
Thank you.
Senator Hébert: My question is for the Canada Water Agency officials.
In the Main Estimates, I note that the actual expenditures for contributions to the employee benefits plan, which were $1.7 million in 2024–25, increased to $3.9 million in 2025–26. This represents an increase of $4 million for 2026–27. It’s almost double. What’s the reason for such a substantial increase?
[English]
Ms. Barnabe: The Canada Water Agency launched in October 2024. Therefore, there is only a half year of expenditures that were incurred. So, obviously, when you go into 2025-26 and 2026-27, now we are at full capacity as an agency, but, of course, the 2024 would have only been half a year.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Okay, thank you. I was wondering what had happened, whether anyone had drunk contaminated water.
Regarding the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, I would like to revisit what is coming.
I understand that there has been a reduction in the proposed estimates and that it’s part of the efforts government agencies and departments were asked to make. In the context of moving towards more consultations on major projects, what measures have you taken to meet the objectives within the given deadlines, deadlines that we know are very important to meet in the current economic context?
Mr. Landry: We are redesigning our process. We’re not compressing what was done in five years; we are placing a lot of emphasis on working with proponents before they enter the system. We want to position them so they can deliver on their end. We also work with First Nations. They’re given funding so that they can participate earlier in the process and so that everyone is ready to work within a two-year time frame.
In the past, we had consultations on individual points. To be able to deliver within two years, we will maintain an ongoing dialogue with First Nations. Our new process targets the major issues, whereas in the past, we went through everything. The focus is really on the major federal impact, which will allow us to reduce the number of issues to work on.
With our new model and our cooperation agreements with our partners in the provinces, we’ll work closely with them to avoid duplication. With the overhaul of our process and the legislative changes, and further to a Supreme Court decision, the focus is on the legislative process and significant federal effects. This is what will allow us to deliver within a two-year process.
In the past, proponents would gather the information and come back to us to have discussions, and the momentum would be lost that way. Dialogue with First Nations and the other stakeholders had to be restarted. A more limited process over a two-year period will allow for continuous dialogue and avoid the pauses that forced us to restart the process and caused inefficiencies.
Senator Hébert: I don’t want to get ahead of my colleague Senator Oudar, but I imagine you’ll have performance indicators or tracking that we’ll be able to consult?
Mr. Landry: Yes.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: I would like to continue in the same vein as our colleague, Senator Hébert.
I understand that the target is now a two-year time frame. I saw on your website that you have five regional assessments in progress, while others are almost six years old. Is there an average time frame compared to what is targeted now?
Ms. Brady: Under the new Impact Assessment Act, the time frame is about three and a half years. The five- or six-year period applied under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the old act.
In the new calculations, the time frames are shorter, and we are trying to reduce the time for a complete assessment from three and a half years to two years with our new process.
Senator Gignac: We will keep an eye on that. I noted that as of early April, seven provinces had signed. However, Quebec has not yet signed. What can you tell us currently about Quebec? What is the stumbling block on that side?
Ms. Brady: We are still in discussions with our counterparts in Quebec. According to the terms of the agreement, there was a delay owing to the political situation in Quebec and the change in leadership. Our relations with our counterparts in Quebec are very effective, and we are currently discussing the agreement.
Senator Gignac: Quebec wants to protect its jurisdiction. Does this mean that you acknowledge that Quebec can conduct the assessment instead of the federal government? Where is the line, when you’re discussing a project or an assessment? What is your level of collaboration?
Ms. Brady: It can be as simple as that, but it all depends on the project. The act specifies that an initial assessment must be conducted to determine the key federal issues. In our new process, this assessment lasts about 60 days to identify the key issues and see whether the provincial process can address them. If that’s the case, the provincial process will take precedence, and we won’t conduct a full federal assessment.
Senator Gignac: For the Alto high-speed train project, following what we discussed here and what we voted on, I understand that you won’t be doing a study. What happened? How were you involved?
Mr. Landry: The high-speed train will be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. In the latest budget implementation bill, there was the High-Speed Rail Network Act. This meant that the different segments will be subject to our legislation.
Senator Gignac: Will it be by segment?
Mr. Landry: Yes. Let’s take the example of a 50-kilometre threshold. For now, the law stipulates that the three segments will be subject to our legislation.
Senator Gignac: Will it be the federal government, not the Quebec government?
Mr. Landry: We are in discussions with our provincial partners, in Ontario and Quebec, if the bill —
Senator Gignac: Which one of the two will do it?
Mr. Landry: At this level, since it’s a federal company, it will be subject to, it will be the federal government. For example, if an impact assessment is required in Ontario, the cooperation agreement with Ontario would allow for cooperation at that level.
Senator Gignac: What about the Contrecœur terminal project? Has the assessment been done? What’s happening? For the thousands of people following these proceedings, I’m referring to the Port of Montreal expansion project in Contrecœur. It’s a special project. Has it also been the subject of an impact assessment?
Mr. Landry: The Contrecœur project was subject to our legislation.
The Chair: Has it been approved?
Mr. Landry: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: On the same, rather compelling, subject, we understand that the major project to expand the Port of Montreal has already been approved, so things can move forward. The Alto project has a regulatory framework in place, but the environmental assessment still needs to be done. The first segment will be between Montreal and Ottawa. It will be under federal jurisdiction because it is a railway company.
You plan to negotiate an agreement with the Quebec government for Quebec portion of the Alto project and an agreement with the Ontario government for the Ontario portion. In the long term, do you anticipate that Bill C-5 will prevent overlap in environmental matters, which will result in real savings for your agency, including in staffing?
Mr. Landry: Yes. We’ve already started testing that out it with our new process over the past two years. By working closely with our colleagues from the provinces, we have managed to align our guidelines with those of the provinces for promising projects. It has been tested in several provinces. That allowed us to do —
Senator Dalphond: In the hope that they are more effective than you.
Mr. Landry: Let’s take the example of a mining project in Quebec. The Government of Quebec has certain guidelines. We will look at the provincial guidelines and analyze where they fall short of our own guidelines. A project proponent will basically see the provincial and federal guidelines in the same document. Proponents will be able to provide the same document to both the federal and provincial governments. That is much more efficient. Proponents told us that these are very positive things in terms of making things more efficient and reducing their burden. It will therefore be a document that complies with federal and provincial requirements.
Senator Dalphond: For the first segment of the Alto project, do you already have a timeline? When will we be able to see the final decision on the project assessment? Will it be in two years? Five years?
Mr. Landry: We are in the preplanning phase. We are in discussions with the proponent and with our other colleagues from other departments to lay the groundwork. We want to equip Alto, so that it knows the requirements, not only of the agency, but also of our counterparts in other federal departments. Once our process has been initiated, they will submit an initial project description to us. It’s in the proponent’s hands. The two-year period would begin —
Senator Dalphond: If I understand correctly, it’s an ultra-fast train, but will there be an ultra-fast process to ensure that it starts quickly?
Mr. Landry: Our two-year process will apply to the Alto project as well as to any other project. The government’s directive is to accelerate our impact assessment processes and the coordination of federal authorization permits. It is a two-year process.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: My question is more general. I am not sure who can answer it. It is related to the Water Agency.
Do you create your own priority area in order to determine what projects you’re funding? Is it by subject matter? Is it by region?
When I look at the transfer partners that you have funded for several years, although you’re so new, I don’t know how the amount that goes to the Great Lakes, for example, continues. It’s five years of funding, so it must have been through some other mechanism before your agency was set.
I’m curious. Who picks which ones are getting the funding, and how are they picked?
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: Thank you for the question. For the agency, in terms of the funding programs that we have, we have eight ecosystem initiatives that fund projects for restoration and protection within Canada.
We have as far west as the Fraser River and as far east as the Wolastoq/Saint John. Then we have the Mackenzie River Basin as well in the North, and a few in between, including the Great Lakes.
Senator Pupatello: You say water shared between jurisdictions so that you need that national overlay. I’m looking for characteristics of why you’re funding what you fund.
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: The initial eight freshwater ecosystem initiatives were identified for their national and transboundary significance. There is a federal role for us to work in those watersheds with our partners, including provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders within the various watersheds.
Senator Pupatello: Who makes the priority? Is it the provincial government that determines that these are their priorities, and then you fund what is already on the go, or are you creating the projects? Are you coming in as a funder or a source of revenue for projects already under way, or are they being designated as important by others?
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: Across our eight ecosystem initiatives, we are at different areas of maturity.
If we take the Great Lakes as our most mature water body, we have had an agreement with Ontario to work on the Great Lakes for 50 years plus and have invested in understanding the issues and actions required to address them and get to the ecological outcomes that we’re looking for.
Priority setting has been a collaborative process with our partners, including the provinces and our Indigenous partners. Those projects that respond to those priorities are the ones that we solicit applications for.
Our process is that we launch a call for applications. We have specific areas of priorities. In the Great Lakes, for example, it’s nutrients in algal blooms as an issue that we’re trying to address. That was a stream for which people could apply for funding.
Senator Pupatello: We heard from one of the Indigenous ministries, suggesting that they had hit some 95% of all their boiled water order being resolved. So they’re cleaning the water across the board. Some are still there who have been there for many years. So with Grassy Narrows, whose responsibility is it to select that particular issue as a priority? Is it yours, or is it based on who sends you applications, then?
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: It really is a call for applications, in large part. However, in the Great Lakes, for example, we have some agreements with the Anishinabek Nation and the Chiefs of Ontario, where they have now been empowered to look at priorities within their area of influence to determine what projects they want to fund.
We are still, however, continuing to address, through those agreements, the priorities for the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.
Senator Pupatello: You actually don’t set a community priority. It is what comes to you. Is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Hiriart-Baer: In this particular case, yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: My question is for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada officials.
At this committee, we sometimes hear that many things are broken in terms of health and infrastructure. Impact assessments do have excellent credibility, so much so that Bloomberg New Energy Finance stated that “Canada has one of the most credible impact assessment frameworks in the world.” That is to your credit. I understand that delays have been a problem, but now we’re hearing about the complete overhaul of a system that works well and is one of the most credible in the world.
Big projects are coming. Some are announced even before the impact assessment is done. What measures are in place to ensure that the independence of the agency and its scientists is secure and protected, and that they can communicate the results transparently, for both the agency’s assessment and the scientists’ work?
Mr. Landry: In that regard, our two-year process aims to make sure we have a credible process that respects our environmental obligations and Indigenous rights. Under our process, several federal departments and scientists will continue to contribute. This part of the process will not be affected. We will continue to work closely with our scientists. They inform the process. We will focus the impact assessments on the major issues. We will continue to receive —
The Chair: What measures are in place, the safeguards in your legislation, your code of ethics or your constitution that will prevent Canadians from losing trust in the environmental impact assessment of projects that have been announced even though you haven’t assessed them yet? This could affect credibility.
Ms. Brady: I would say two things. Internally, both within the agency and the Government of Canada, there are scientific integrity policies that are there to protect scientific advice and scientists. There are processes in place to ensure that their opinions and knowledge are shared —
[English]
— to decision makers freely such that their science is provided without influence.
Internally, we have policies in place to protect the scientific integrity of our processes. We have ombudspeople within the agency that scientists can report to if there are perceived violations of the scientific integrity policy. There are internal practices we employ, and those apply throughout the Government of Canada in their science organizations.
The second is that the law provides for an almost completely transparent process. All of our records and documents that decisions are based on are provided on the public record. Almost everything we do is put out on our Impact Assessment Registry, including the impact assessment reports that include the scientific advice and information that comes to us, for decision makers to consider in making their decisions.
So we have internal practices in place to protect the integrity of our process, and then the law ensures that information is transparent.
[Translation]
The Chair: Does this include the decisions you don’t make? I understand that scientists are protected in these tests, but are all the assessments or decisions not to conduct further studies for fear of prolonging the evaluation also part of the process? Will the decision or the relevance of not conducting X or Y assessment or test be published and communicated?
[English]
Ms. Brady: In all cases, the basis upon which decisions are made will have to be rigorous and adequate, and that information will be provided publicly. There are opportunities and recourse. If decisions are taken on the basis of what’s perceived to be insufficient science, then those decisions can be challenged through the courts and otherwise.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you.
I have a question about the goal of completing assessments in two years. You set a target of completing 80% of assessments within a two-year period. This means that 20% of the studies will exceed the two-year period. Is it acceptable that 20% of assessments will take more than two years to complete?
Ms. Brady: I think that’s probably realistic. Our goal is to complete all our assessments within two years. However, there are always challenges, such as consultations with Indigenous Peoples, which can take longer. There are also situations where proponents do not have sufficient information and want more than two years. These objectives are realistic.
The Chair: Are we talking about external factors that are not under your control?
Ms. Brady: That’s right.
Mr. Landry: If I may, I’d like to add that it is the proponents who will dictate the timelines. Service standards will be set with the proponents. As for the timeline for our part of the process, proponents have to commit to certain deadlines to ensure that the two-year timeline is met.
In some cases, not all proponents will want a two-year process, so there is some flexibility. It is the proponents who set the timelines for the projects. For example, for certain mining projects, newer companies do not have the financial resources to move at this pace. They might want a slower process, and we would accommodate them in those circumstances. It is the proponents who set the timelines. We have a process in place where we can deliver not only our decision, but also our colleagues’ decision on permits within two years.
The Chair: I understand. Thank you.
Senator Oudar: I also have a question for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada officials.
Quickly, when looking at full-time equivalents, I see a considerable decrease. In 2025-26, there were 581. In 2026-27, there are 564, and in 2027-28, there will be 203. I understand that it’s related. These people are covered by temporary funding that will end in 2028, but are these 361 employees permanent? Yes? Will they be laid off or moved to other programs? We’re talking about more than 300 employees.
Mr. Landry: I will start, and then I’ll let my colleague provide more information. Our funding expires at the end of the next fiscal year. As of the fall, we will begin preparing our submission to renew the agency’s funding. We had funding for six years, but it is coming to an end. Our funding needs to be renewed.
The Chair: Thank you very much to the witnesses. Your participation is always appreciated.
We’ll meet again on Wednesday at 6:45 p.m., to continue the study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)