THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 7, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now call this meeting of the National Finance Committee to order.
[English]
Honourable senators, I am Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online.
[Translation]
As a reminder to those watching, the committee proceedings are open to the public and also available online at sencanada.ca.
[English]
I would now like to ask all honourable senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Good morning. My name is Éric Forest, and I am from the Gulf region in Quebec.
Senator Pratte: I’m André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, Yukon.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Welcome. I’m Josée Forest-Niesing from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: I would also like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who team together to support the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators and members of the viewing public, the mandate of this committee is to examine matters relating to federal estimates generally, as well as government finance.
Today, we continue our consideration of the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.
This morning, we will hear from three organizations and discuss their requests for funding in the Main Estimates.
[Translation]
This morning, we have with us Carol Najm, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[English]
We will be joined in a few minutes by John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch. From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, we have Alan Kerr, Vice President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer.
[Translation]
With him is Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Policy Development Sector.
[English]
Finally, from Health Canada, we have Randy Larkin, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Health Canada.
[Translation]
With him is Edward De Sousa, Director General, Resource Management Directorate.
[English]
Thank you, witnesses, for accepting our invitation to be here to share your opinions on the requests from the budget in question.
I have been informed that Ms. Najm will be the first to speak, followed by Mr. Kerr, to be concluded by Mr. Larkin, and then questions will be asked of the witnesses by the senators.
[Translation]
Ms. Najm, you may go ahead with your presentation. The floor is yours.
[English]
Carol Najm, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services and Finance Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Honourable senators and colleagues, I am pleased to be with you today to discuss the 2019-20 Main Estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada. My colleague, John Moffet, is running late and sends his apologies. He will be joining us during the meeting.
I would like to begin with an overview of the Environment and Climate Change Canada 2019-20 Main Estimates, the increase in authorities from 2018-2019 and the additional detail on the four budget implementation votes that have been included in our Main Estimates.
The department has requested total authorities of $1.8 billion in the 2019-20 Main Estimates. This includes $837.3 million in vote 1 for operating expenditures, $82.3 million in vote 5 for capital expenditures and $787.6 million in vote 10 for grants and considerations. This also includes $94.6 million in statutory authorities, as well as four new budget implementation votes totalling $26.3 million.
The Environment and Climate Change Canada 2019-20 Main Estimates represent an increase of $312.3 million, or 21 per cent over the 2018-2019 Main Estimates. This increase is mainly due to new funding that has been requested for protecting Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces, and the reprofiling of funds for the Low Carbon Economy Fund to support action to address climate change and grow a clean economy.
The increases in year-over-year authorities are $186.9 million in grants and contributions, mainly due to new funding for protecting Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces, and a reprofile for the Low Carbon Economy Fund; $84.7 million in operating, mainly due to new funding for protecting Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces, and for the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan; and a total of $26.3 million in relation to four new votes, including votes 15, 20, 25 and 30, for initiatives announced in Budget 2019. The funding for these votes will be available upon Treasury Board decision.
We also have $8.1 million in statutory authorities related to employee benefit plans and $6.2 million in capital, mainly due to revitalizing Canada’s weather radar network and adapting Canada’s weather and water services to climate change.
I would like to provide further information on the four new budget implementation votes included in these estimates. The budget implementation votes capture new funding that was announced in Budget 2019 and ensure the alignment of our Main Estimates and the federal budget.
These new votes include vote 15, for Canada’s marine safety response to continue to improve marine environmental response planning. This will bring together federal, provincial and Indigenous partners to jointly plan for a quicker and more efficient response to marine pollution incidents.
Vote 20 is for ensuring better disaster management preparedness and response to improve emergency management in Canada, including Indigenous communities. The investments will directly contribute to strengthening Canada’s posture to improve understanding of disaster risk, predict, mitigate and respond to weather and natural resource-related disasters.
Vote 25 is for implementing a federal carbon offset system to develop the information technology infrastructure and tracking system required for a national carbon offset credit system. The development, implementation and maintenance of IT systems for registration, reporting and credit tracking is critical to the implementation of the output-based carbon pollution pricing system. It will ensure that regulatees are able to meet their compliance obligations related to registration, reporting and compensation for excess emissions.
Finally, vote 30 is for strong Arctic and Northern communities to ensure that Arctic and Northern communities can continue to grow and prosper. This investment will support critical repairs and necessary upgrades to the station’s systems, such as the aircraft runway, sewage, ventilation and plumbing. It will help ensure continued safe operations of the site for weather and climate forecasting and as a key hub for Arctic research and government military operations.
As a priority, the department will continue to protect Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces. Major investments made in conservation will increase protected areas and help protect biodiversity, sensitive ecosystems and species at risk. The actions and investments of the department will support the commitment of Canada to conserve at least 17 per cent of its land and inland waters by 2020.
Furthermore, the department will continue to drive action on climate change through the Low Carbon Economy Fund. The Low Carbon Economy Fund aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, which supports Canada’s commitment under Paris Agreement and helps facilitate Canada’s long-term transition to clean growth through energy savings and job creations.
I hope this summary provides the committee with the insight they are seeking on the 2019-20 Main Estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada. I look forward to your questions.
Alan Kerr, Vice President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, for the opportunity to discuss the 2019-20 Main Estimates for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
The agency is requesting $74.2 million in the 2019-20 Main Estimates, consisting of $53.5 million in operating expenditures, $14.5 million in grants and contributions, and $6.2 million in statutory payments for employee benefit plans.
[Translation]
This represents a net increase from the 2018-19 Main Estimates of $40.5 million. This increase in funding reflects the Budget 2018 announcement of the government’s intention to invest up to $259 million over five years to support the proposed new impact assessment regime and the establishment of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
[English]
The funding requested in the Main Estimates supports the continued delivery of environmental assessments under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, as well as new and expanded activities for the implementation of impact assessment and the establishment of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
New funding accounts amount to $40.5 million of the Main Estimates total of $74.2 million. A portion, $9.8 million, is allocated to grants and contributions, bringing the agency’s total grants and contributions budget to $14.5 million.
New funding is spread across the agency’s programming, beginning with impact assessment, $17.2 million. Under the proposed Impact Assessment Act, the agency will become the lead organization responsible for the federal impact assessment of designated projects and will conduct assessments within strict legislated timelines.
This includes a new early planning phase for project assessments, improved cooperation with other jurisdictions, increased opportunities for public participation and transparency, and supporting Indigenous peoples and the public in an expanded role in monitoring impacts during the implementation and operation of approved projects.
This funding will contribute to greater transparency through the introduction of a modern user-focused public registry, which is being developed as a single-window hub for information related to projects.
For partnering with Indigenous peoples, $10.9 million. The significant new responsibilities and enhanced programs proposed under the legislation also include increased opportunities for participation, transparency and supporting Indigenous peoples and the public in an expanded role in monitoring impacts during the implementation and operation of approved projects.
For cumulative effects, $5.7 million. The agency continues to support the government’s deliberative approach to cumulative effects. Working with other federal departments, provinces and Indigenous groups, the agency will undertake three regional assessments over five years, which will support the management of cumulative effects and provide important information for future project assessments.
Work has begun on the first of these studies looking at the potential impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration on the Newfoundland and Labrador east coast.
[Translation]
The agency has established and staffed a new office in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, as part of the Atlantic regional presence, to work on the regional studies for exploratory drilling in the offshore area of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The figure for internal services is $6.7 million. Internal services are those groups of related activities and resources that the federal government considers to be services in support of programs and/or required to meet corporate obligations.
[English]
In 2019-20, the agency will strengthen its financial, human resource and performance-monitoring capacity to ensure support for the delivery of key priorities in accordance with our expanded responsibilities.
I welcome your questions.
Randy Larkin, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Health Canada: Good morning and thank you for inviting us to discuss the Health Canada 2019-20 Main Estimates. I welcome this opportunity to highlight some of the department’s priorities and to share with you the work the department is doing to support the health of Canadians.
[Translation]
With me today are several colleagues in the event you have questions that require more detailed program responses.
[English]
In these Main Estimates, there are $2.5 billion in proposed spending which represents an increase of approximately $350 million, or 16.1 per cent over 2018-2019. I will begin by providing a summary of the $2.5 billion in proposed spending, followed by an overview of the budget 2019 items.
Through these estimates, Health Canada will continue to provide national leadership to support a health care system that offers appropriate and effective health care to Canadians. The department will remain focused on helping Canadians lead healthier lives by working to protect them from unsafe health, consumer and commercial products and substances, and continue to take action to modernize regulations for food and health products.
Some significant areas of investment follow. In budget 2017, the Government of Canada committed $11 billion over 10 years to support improved access to home and community care, as well as mental health and addiction services for Canadians.
In this fiscal year, Health Canada will spend approximately $1.1 billion through working with its provincial and territorial partners to fulfill this commitment. These funds will support a broad range of programs and services that will improve access to essential health care for Canadians, from palliative care in rural communities, to mental health services for Indigenous youth, to programs that will allow seniors to stay in their homes longer.
The national opioid crisis is a top priority for the government. Budget 2018 announced $176 million over five years for Health Canada, with an additional $7.3 million in 2019-20 received through Budget 2019 to address the opioid crisis.
With this funding, the department will continue to focus on reducing stigma, increasing access to evidence-based treatment services and identifying barriers and opportunities for expanding access to a safer drug supply.
The department will also spend approximately $88 million in this fiscal year to support the Canadian Institute for Health Information to deliver comparable and actionable information to accelerate improvements in health care, health system performance and population health across the continuum of care.
In this fiscal year, Health Canada will also spend $75 million to promote a more innovative health care system through the Canadian Health Infoway. This investment will continue the development of pan-Canadian e-prescribing system and virtual care initiative. This will support the continued adoption and use of electronic medical records, help patients to access their own health records electronically and better link electronic health record systems to improve access by all providers and institutions.
[Translation]
In 2019-20, the department will spend approximately $21 million to continue fulfilling the government’s commitment to legalizing, strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis by supporting community-based and Indigenous organizations in leading public education awareness, harm reduction and prevention initiatives.
[English]
These estimates also include funding for a new Canadian thalidomide survivors support program, which will provide approximately $36 million in 2019-20 to meet the lifetime needs of Canadian thalidomide survivors. This new program will replace the previous Thalidomide Survivors Contribution Program and will provide a fair and comprehensive approach to identifying thalidomide survivors based on international best practices.
[Translation]
The department will provide approximately $23 million to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health for strengthening the management of drugs and non-drug technologies.
[English]
Finally, Budget 2019 was tabled this Parliament on March 19, 2019. It announced investments in key health priority areas such as approximately $25 million for bringing innovation to regulations, approximately $11 million to support the Terry Fox Research Institute, $5 million for introducing the Canadian drug agency, as well as $1 million to support Ovarian Cancer Canada.
The proposed spending will ensure the government can continue to focus on important health priorities that are designed to result in better health outcomes for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Thank you once again for inviting me to appear before the committee today. I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Larkin.
Honourable senators, I will need your cooperation, and I know you will be asking me for a second round. That said, being succinct in your questions and answers will accommodate all the senators that want to ask questions.
Because of the number of senators identified, we will ask each of you to work within the process of five minutes for questions and answers. Time permitting, we will have a second round.
Senator Marshall: My first question is for Ms. Najm. In the Main Estimates document under grants and contributions it says, “grants in support the low carbon economy” and “contributions in support the low carbon economy.”
Could you tell us what those two items are? What is the difference between the two? Could you also give us some information as to who would qualify?
It is quite a substantial amount. It’s in excess of a half-billion dollars.
Ms. Najm: The Low Carbon Economy Fund has different components. There is the leadership component for provinces and territories. Then there is the challenge component, which is further split into the champion stream and the partnership stream. Those contributions are all targeting a variety of all stakeholders involved in actions to address climate change. Each stream has eligible criteria and targets different projects.
Then there is the grant component. The grant component also targets stakeholders that were not previously targeted in the climate change actions. They are geared toward students, youth, Indigenous peoples and organizations that would not qualify for the other streams. It is a very diverse strategy to award money under the Low Carbon Economy Fund.
Senator Marshall: It is broken down into several categories.
Ms. Najm: That is correct.
Senator Marshall: Is funding provided for the various provinces and territories, or is this for organizations?
Ms. Najm: The Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund is targeted to provinces and territories. There have to be finalized agreements with the provinces to access that funding.
Senator Marshall: What about the provinces that don’t have the agreements?
Ms. Najm: That element of the program is currently being revised and is yet to be finalized.
Senator Marshall: Is the funding for the provinces that have not reached an agreement included in the half a billion dollars?
Ms. Najm: It will be there. The short answer is yes.
Senator Marshall: They are in there somewhere, but we don’t know the amount yet. Is that right?
Ms. Najm: Correct, until the agreements are finalized.
Senator Marshall: Is there a breakdown of the $554 million that you can provide to the committee?
Ms. Najm: We would be happy to do that, yes.
Senator Marshall: I have another question for Environment and Climate Change Canada. Is the federal carbon offset system an IT system that is being developed?
Ms. Najm: Yes. The funding included in the Main Estimates to date is exactly for the creation of the system to track credits.
Senator Marshall: Is there anything done on that system yet, or is this something that will start this year once Treasury Board approves your plan?
Ms. Najm: It will start this fiscal year 2019-20 once we get the budget implementation vote.
Senator Marshall: I am asking this question because the government doesn’t have a good track record developing systems. Is the 4.7 the total cost?
Ms. Najm: That’s the total cost in the budget. We allocate from our internal resources, our A base of experts and IT resources, to also work on that project. That is in addition to what has been requested in the budget.
Senator Marshall: What is the total estimated cost of that system? There is 4.7 there. How much for the entire system, right up to the implementation?
Ms. Najm: When we originally did the budget, we had certain parameters for that system which are continuing to change. We haven’t finalized the full requirements, based on where we are from a policy perspective, so I cannot give you a final answer.
Senator Marshall: You don’t know what the total cost will be.
Ms. Najm: Correct.
Senator Marshall: What about the implementation date?
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I can answer that. Let me come back to the costs. We’ve been allocated a certain amount of money. We are now in the process of going out and procuring the service. We are just receiving proposals now.
Senator Marshall: You did an RFP.
Mr. Moffet: Exactly, the criteria to pre-qualify. We’ve identified parties that have done this elsewhere, so we are not starting from scratch. We will have to customize it to the needs of the federal government.
Other jurisdictions already have operating GHG credit trading systems, including in Canada. We will work with them. Then our goal is to do two things in parallel. One is to get the IT system up and running this fiscal year. The second is to put all the policies in place so that we can start to identify and accredit offset projects which can then generate credits that will be tracked in this system.
Senator Marshall: No costs and no implementation date.
Senator Pratte: My first questions are for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I was curious to understand how you came up with the estimates for the new impact assessment regime.
It says here that you are requesting $17.2 million, and $7.2 million of that is for the new registry. Did you try to estimate, for instance, the number of additional assessments that you would be required to conduct? How did you arrive at this amount?
Mr. Kerr: The agency embarked on a costing exercise under the assistance of the Treasury Board costing centre of excellence. When we prepared our submission, we based it on the forecast number of assessments, as well as the expanded mandate.
We used standard costing methodologies. Our costing was reviewed by subject matter experts at the Treasury Board of Canada.
Senator Pratte: How did the expanded mandate have an impact on your expenses? Why is it more costly if Bill C-69 is adopted? Why is it more costly than the present besides having additional assessments, which I understand you will have to conduct? Besides that, what is more costly?
Mr. Kerr: The scope of the assessments has increased. When you move from environmental assessments to impact assessments, you are considering a broader range of factors. A significant part of the legislation is enhanced participation of Indigenous peoples and the public, as well as greater transparency. All of those activities drive the resources that will be required to support the agency moving forward.
Senator Pratte: It is indicated here that for impact assessment you estimate 113 FTEs. How does that compare to the current staff of the agency?
Mr. Kerr: The agency had approximately 275 full-time equivalents at the end of 2017-2018. We finished last year, 2018-2019, at 330 FTEs. If the legislation moves forward, we expect the agency would grow to approximately 450 full-time equivalents.
Senator Pratte: You mentioned that you would work on improved cooperation with other jurisdictions. As you are well aware, some provincial governments are concerned that the new regime may hinder their work in impact assessment or allow the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdiction.
Could you give us a sense of what you will be working on as far as improved relationships with other jurisdictions, notably the provinces?
Christine Loth-Bown, Vice President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: I’d be happy to answer that question, Senator Pratte.
With respect to cooperation agreements, we’re working with willing jurisdictions on developing a cooperation agreement that would enhance the principle of “one project, one assessment.”
For example, our president signed a memorandum of agreement with the head of the BC Environmental Assessment Office in early March of this year. We’re working on developing a cooperation agreement.
We’ve also sent correspondence to all jurisdictions and received positive indications from about nine jurisdictions for a desire to move forward on cooperation agreements.
Basically, when an assessment is being undertaken, they will outline the roles and responsibilities for each jurisdiction and the opportunities for us to collaborate. If we are requesting information on a proponent or we’re conducting consultations, where possible, we can do those in a united and cooperative way. They will also go so far as to outline substitution arrangements should a jurisdiction request that the assessment be substituted to them.
We have great examples of cooperation with jurisdictions now. We’ve had cooperation agreements in place since the mid-2000s. Our process now will be to update those for the new system.
Senator Eaton: Thank you all for coming today. I would like to talk about the Low Carbon Economy Fund for half a million dollars and the impact assessment.
Is there any money in your budgets for either an impact assessment or for changing the fact that we have almost 2,000 cargo ships taking diesel to the Arctic? You probably know better than I do, having only been there once, that Arctic heat and light are generated by diesel fuel, which is hardly what one might call clean fuel.
When I read about the funding that will support the protection of Canada’s ecosystems, landscapes and biodiversity, including species at risk, and I hear about your four initiatives for the low carbon fund, I keep thinking wouldn’t this all be much better if we had hydroelectric instead, or wind, or other ways of heating and lighting the Arctic.
Is there anything in any of your budgets to support initiatives along those lines?
Matt Jones, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pan-Canadian Framework Implementation Office, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you for your question about diesel. The Low Carbon Economy Fund is one fund among several elements of our national climate change plan.
Senator Eaton: Is there money in your budgets to deal with the diesel?
Mr. Jones: There have been funds allocated through past budgets, primarily to NRCan and CIRNA for programs that are targeting moving away from diesel in remote communities.
A number of programs are targeting, both Indigenous communities non-north of 60 and south, hybrid systems of hydro and wind with diesel and other programs to reduce reliance on diesel because of the environmental impact.
Senator Eaton: As you probably know, the Senate Arctic Committee went there last September. We went from east to west for a week. We found they’re all talking about it, but there doesn’t seem to be any deadlines or much movement in that direction.
Have you set deadlines to stop heating the Arctic with diesel?
Mr. Jones: Certainly there are time frames associated with the programs that exist. We at Environment and Climate Change Canada don’t administer those programs directly. They’re administered by CIRNA and NRCan, but we could follow up with our colleagues there and provide you with more specificity on those programs if you are interested.
Senator Eaton: That would be helpful to both the Arctic Committee and Finance Committee.
There are $7.3 million to deal with the opioid crisis. Is this for greater border checks? What are those $7 million for exactly?
Mr. Larkin: I think it might be best for one of my program colleagues to answer that question because I’m not sure of the specifics around the actual $7.3 million.
Eric Costen, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: The monies allocated in Budget 2019 look to support two complementary but different initiatives.
The first is to make available more widely in Canada a drug called naloxone. You might have heard of naloxone as an overdose reversal drug. There has certainly been progress made over the last number of years to make it more available. This funding would allow us to contract out to a third-party organization that would do a scan across the country to understand where naloxone is presently and where the gaps exist. Then it would allow us to proceed to fund the purchase of naloxone and then its distribution to those sites that have been identified as critical service areas.
The second dimension of the project is to pilot innovative treatment models. It’s commonly known as the safe supply initiative. You’ll see the language in the budget itself. Safe supply is shorthand for enabling pharmaceutical grade drugs to be provided, under the oversight of a physician, to individuals who are drug users as a substitute to the available lethal contaminated street drugs.
Those are the two initiatives.
Senator Boehm: My questions are for Environment and Climate Change Canada and are specifically on biodiversity.
We saw yesterday a massive report from the United Nations that suggested that a million species could go extinct. I notice in the Main Estimates that there’s a request for $101 million in contributions for the Canada Nature Fund and $29 million in contributions for conserving nature.
I would be interested in knowing the difference between the two entities for conserving nature as a program and the Canada Nature Fund, which is to look at species at risk, both terrestrial and maritime ecosystems.
Niall O’Dea, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada: There are funds available for conservation of nature in two separate envelopes. The first, conserving nature, is our generic terms and conditions for grants and contributions that come from a series of programs that have for a long period of time existed for the support of a variety of activities.
Key examples would be the Habitat Stewardship Program and the Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk, which provide funding for proponents advancing projects that result in either habitat restoration or species at risk conservation.
The Canada Nature Fund was established under a separate five-year program. It was an historic investment by the federal government of $500 million to be matched by counterparts to advance the establishment of new protected areas in Canada contributing toward the doubling of protected and conserved spaces in Canada and more robust action toward transforming our approach to species at risk conservation through priority places where we focus on multi-species action plans, priority species such as caribou and priority sectors and threats, so things like the agricultural sector or invasive species.
Senator Boehm: I’m going to interrupt you because the chair will take away the rest of my time. On this matching fund you’re going to look for $500 million from a range of actors, including provincial governments.
I’m particularly interested in corporate, not-for-profit and perhaps philanthropic foundations because the track record across Canada hasn’t really been that great in terms of getting incentives out there, certainly for the corporate sector and others to contribute.
There might be an international dimension there, too. There might be international actors, large corporations, that would be interested in making contributions. Could you explain how you’re incentivizing that or whether any funds have arrived?
Mr. O’Dea: There has been strong interest in partnership with the Canada Nature Fund. In particular, a funders collective or a group of foundations led by Canadian foundations has gathered together to look to leverage the funding available through their own resources against the resources the Government of Canada is putting forward.
We have seen strong interest in that. The Quick Start program that ran in 2018-2019 was a six-month exercise where the Canadian government invested $12 million in 38 projects, establishing new protected and conserved areas. That was matched by a combination of both corporate and foundation actors, as well as by provinces, territories and Indigenous communities.
There has been strong interest to date. We’re going through the challenge fund process now. It is a much bigger fund of up to $175 million. We expect a strong match there as well.
Senator Boehm: Related to that and given the numbers you’re looking at, are you also looking at land purchases?
Mr. O’Dea: Yes, land purchases are possible through this program. The Natural Heritage Conservation Program, which has just been launched, is $100 million over four years. It is run by the Nature Conservancy of Canada in cooperation with Ducks Unlimited Canada and a series of land trusts across Canada. It is purposed for private land acquisition in particular and in fee simple or otherwise. It will yield a 2:1 leverage of federal dollars to partnership dollars.
Senator Neufeld: Is vote 15 that you spoke about on marine safety and response planning inclusive of the building of a world-class response to oil spills on the West Coast? Is some of that money going to that process, or is that money being allocated someplace else?
Ms. Najm: The money is to continue the work we do with respect to marine emergency response planning. I can confirm but I believe the funding there is to improve overall capacity and not for any specific project.
Senator Neufeld: That would be, then, the East Coast and nothing for the west. Do I understand that?
Ms. Najm: No, it’s a more integrated marine environmental response strategy.
Senator Neufeld: In thinking about the time, you might want to send something to us through the clerk in response to that.
Mr. Moffet: We can do that, but I will briefly confirm that a considerable amount of this money is dedicated to the West Coast to continue the work that’s under way in collaboration with Canada Coast Guard.
Senator Neufeld: How much?
Mr. Moffet: We’ll have to get the specific number. Canada Coast Guard, DFO, Transport Canada and Environment Canada are collaborating to continue to enhance existing spill response measures.
Senator Neufeld: Also on vote 20, in the last sentence, you say:
. . . to improve understanding of disaster risk, predict, mitigate and respond to weather and natural resource-related disasters.
Can you tell me what you mean by “natural resource-related disasters?”
Ms. Najm: For example, the current flooding.
Senator Neufeld: I have another question in addition to Senator Boehm’s questions. Could you break down where you’re getting the money from for the $500 million fund so that we understand?
You’re soliciting it from different groups and organizations, whatever they happen to be. We don’t have enough time to go through that list, but could you please provide through the clerk where you’re getting the funds from and who they are?
I’m interested in Tides Canada. I’m interested in those types of things. Are they funding part of this? How are they funding part of this?
Mr. O’Dea: There is a broad variety of eligible recipients. Funders can be from a variety of different types. Foundations are among them.
Those partnerships would be established on a project-specific basis. The funding associated with any specific approved project is something that we can certainly provide.
Senator Neufeld: You can name any funding you have received to date. That’s what we’d like.
Mr. O’Dea: Yes, and recalling that it’s not the federal government receiving that funding. It’s the project proponent that receives funding from the federal government in partnership with project funding provided by other sources, whether that be a province and territory or other funding partners.
Senator Neufeld: Or who you’re funding with, then.
Mr. O’Dea: Right.
Senator Neufeld: If the federal government funds a project that is being put forward by whatever identity, we’d like to know what the federal government is putting their money toward and who is leading something. That would help us.
Mr. O’Dea: Sure.
Senator Neufeld: I have one last question. The conservation of land across Canada is targetted at 17 per cent. I don’t know what we are at today. When you go to the provinces, because British Columbia is already protected over 15 per cent of its land base, does that mean we’re done, or does that mean that the federal government will come in and actually look for another 17 per cent?
Mr. O’Dea: I’m happy to answer the question. Canada’s targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity include 19 separate targets of which one is the target to protect 10 per cent of marine areas and 17 per cent of terrestrial and freshwater areas.
That is a Canada target established in cooperation with provinces and territories.
Senator Neufeld: That doesn’t answer the question.
Mr. O’Dea: To answer the question, the amount of land we had was 10.5 per cent terrestrial and freshwater in 2015. Now we have 11.8 per cent. Those are the gains we’ve made in the past couple of years.
We are on a fast ramp toward the 17 per cent target by the end of 2020. All those projects will be done in partnership with provinces and territories, recognizing that control of the land base in Canada, apart from private lands, is largely in the hands of the provinces and territories.
We’ll look for those opportunities for partnership, but those are other agreements.
Senator Neufeld: I got it. B.C. is 15 per cent on land. Does that mean it is all inclusive of the 17 per cent the federal government is looking for? Are you going after more land in British Columbia than what is already protected by the province?
Mr. O’Dea: Right. We’re interested in opportunities to protect land where it exists. If the province is interested, that’s what we’ll do.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here today. Most of my questions pertain to vote 20, given the scale of the disaster that has befallen Eastern Canada in recent weeks. The budget sets out $790,033, which seems like a lot. Considering the current situation, however, I would say it’s a modest sum, especially since the idea is to improve disaster management in Canada, including in Indigenous communities. I assume that includes all local communities, which are the first to respond. We saw that in Ottawa and in Gatineau, as well as in a number of other cities.
My question is this. Is there any coordination? Take, for example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is underused, in my view. Given that other resources exist, could your department work with stakeholders that deliver other types of programs to help communities develop remedial measures that would make it possible to better protect the environment as well as the country’s natural and built heritage?
Ms. Najm: If you don’t mind, I’m going to answer in English.
Senator Forest: Please.
[English]
Ms. Najm: Thank you for your question. The funding under vote 20 is about ensuring better disaster management. The amount that you see in our Main Estimates is only the Environment and Climate Change Canada portion. This is an interdepartmental effort that’s led by Public Safety Canada. We work in collaboration with a number of other components and other players in this area, and the lead is Public Safety.
I’d like to come back and follow up with respect to responding to your question in terms of infrastructure.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Given what you’re responsible for, what will the $790,000 be spent on exactly?
[English]
Ms. Najm: It is about continuing to strengthen our ability to understand disaster risks and to predict, mitigate and respond to weather and natural disasters.
The evidence collected through observation is that the impact of climate change is changing the patterns historically seen for disasters. We need to be able to better predict those changes. It is strengthening that expertise within our monitoring and reporting.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Does your department work with Canada research chairs, who have extensive expertise in their specific areas? In particular, I’m thinking of the national research centre on shoreline erosion. Do your experts draw on the help of researchers, who are hard at work in universities? I’m referring to Western, Central and Eastern Canada.
[English]
Ms. Najm: In terms of our observation work, we do it in collaboration with multiple stakeholders at multiple levels. I would have to come back to you with the details specifically on who they are.
I think Mr. Moffet has additional detail.
Mr. Moffet: The short answer is yes. We have meteorological staff embedded in universities. We also draw on the work of universities.
The work we’re talking about is not just work to predict that an event is to occur but, almost as importantly or more importantly, what is to happen once it has occurred.
How big will it be? Where will it spread? What can we do to minimize the effects? That’s where we draw extensively on the work of academics and others, including officials and scientists at the provincial and local levels.
It’s a very multi-jurisdictional approach. As my colleague emphasized, this is to enhance our capacity to provide advance warning and to provide minute-by-minute advice to emergency responders at all levels of government and community.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I’d appreciate it if you would send a list of the types of partnerships you are involved in to the clerk.
Mr. Moffet: Yes, of course.
Ms. Najm: Absolutely.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I’m going to stay on the same topic, the increasing number of natural disasters in recent years. According to logical predictions, natural disasters are unfortunately going to strike even more frequently in the years ahead, because of climate change.
We are going to get more detailed information in response to Senator Forest’s question on the specific efforts being made. I have some questions, however, in looking at the amounts allocated to you in Budget 2019.
Is the funding enough for you to respond adequately to anticipated disasters and to put a prevention strategy in place?
Mr. Moffet: It’s quite difficult for a government official to say whether a certain amount of funding is enough.
[English]
I’ll elaborate in English, if I may. The money will allow us to expand our capacity to continue to work with local emergency responders.
Senator Forest-Niesing: There’s no sense, then, that this amount ought to have been greater.
Mr. Moffet: That’s not something that we, as officials, typically comment on.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: I have a few questions for the Health Canada officials. Obviously, a big chunk of Health Canada’s funding consists of transfers to the provinces and territories. Further to the process for this fiscal year, do you expect greater accountability on the part of the provinces and territories, specifically in terms of their respective efforts to deliver French-language health services?
I ask because most people who speak one official language or the other lose their bilingual proficiency when they fall ill.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question, senator. If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes.
[English]
I believe there is accountability in how those funds are transferred. Perhaps you’re specifically referring to the funding that we use for supporting bilingual health-related education in non-francophone communities. Is that what you’re referring to?
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: Yes and to any other measure that could improve the active offer of health services in French.
[English]
Mr. Larkin: I may have to get back to you on that unless one of my colleagues has a response. I’m not sure if I have that.
Edward De Sousa, Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Health Canada: There is some money included in these estimates. It is an increase of about $3.6 million to actually strengthen official languages communities and to improve access to services in both official languages.
What they’re talking about here is supporting an expansion of francophone institutions outside of Quebec, supporting expanded health networking activities for anglophone communities in Quebec, supporting innovative projects to improve access to health services for official language and minority language communities, and increasing core funding to recipients targeted under Société Santé en français, Community Health and Social Services Network and Consortium national de formation en santé.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: My concern pertains mainly to minority language communities outside Quebec.
Let’s move on to another health-related topic, the opioid crisis. You provided some specifics on the $7.3 million that is being allocated. The two initiatives you described struck me as more reactive, in terms of addressing the tendency of some physicians to over-prescribe opioids.
Take, for example, the case of someone who is close to me. After surgery, they were prescribed 60 tablets of an opioid and took just one of them. What specific steps does the department plan to take to regulate and prevent the over-prescription of opioids, which, as we all know, is at the root of a serious problem?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question, senator. I believe Mr. Costen can answer that.
Mr. Costen: I’ll do my best. Thank you. If you don’t mind, I’m going to switch languages to answer.
Senator Forest-Niesing: No problem.
[English]
Mr. Costen: As you say, it’s an extraordinarily complex crisis that we are experiencing in this country. Certainly a very important dimension of the crisis takes us to questions of prescribing practices.
Of course, that then brings into play provincial and territorial governments and regulators responsible for the care and oversight of medical practitioners.
We work very closely as a federal government with provincial and territorial colleagues, from the ministerial level all the way down through the working level. One area we’ve been focused upon for the last couple of years is exactly the issue you’re describing.
I don’t know exactly when, but not too long ago a national set of opioid prescribing guidelines were published, specifically to try to give doctors like the one you described better guidance on informed decisions. Those guidelines are very important to the question you are asking.
On the second one, about a month and a half ago the Minister of Health announced the creation of something called the Canadian Pain Task Force. This is a group of mostly recognized experts in the field from a variety of different disciplines across the country, alongside persons with lived experience, people who suffer pain and pain advocates who are also looking a lot more carefully over the next few years at best practices for pain management, not only for prescribing but for other interventions such as physiotherapy and psychological supports to address a fairly fundamental gap around how physicians can more effectively care for people who are suffering from chronic pain.
That takes the conversation a bit away from the prescribing problems that you’ve identified, but it situates the bigger issue we’re facing.
Senator Klyne: Regarding climate change and environmental assessments, Senator Boehm referenced the UN Global Assessment Report, which reminds me of the transformative change that is layered over or adding to the long-standing social and economic challenges of people in Arctic and Northern communities.
In addition to protecting Canada’s nature, parks and wild spaces, who is protecting the peoples of the Arctic and Northern communities and their distinct and unique way of life, which includes trapping and hunting survival skills?
Besides conducting studies on the situation already, which could probably fill an oil tanker, do you collaborate and consult with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada? Are you collaborating in Canada’s Arctic Policy Framework? What activities are you undertaking in your budgets to protect this unique way of life and these people?
Ms. Najm: Indigenous engagement is a very important part of the work we do. Indeed we are working with CIRNA on the Arctic framework. I will leave it at that and ask colleagues if they want to elaborate.
Ms. Loth-Bown: With respect to current environmental assessment and the proposed impact assessment, CEAA 2012 and the proposed Impact Assessment Act only apply in very limited areas in the North because Northern regimes such as the Nunavut Impact Review Board conduct assessments in the North.
For broader Indigenous engagement, which you referenced, traditional land use and Indigenous knowledge are components of our current environmental assessment process and the proposed impact assessment process.
We work collaboratively with communities. What is being proposed in Bill C-69 is for the federal government to increase collaborative presence in order to work with Indigenous communities right from the beginning through the early planning process, to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to assess the impacts on rights, to look at the necessary studies that need to be done to assess impacts such as those on traditional land use, to bring Indigenous knowledge into the impact assessment system in a mandatory way, to continue to work throughout the entire process of engaging with communities and aiming to seek consent of a project, and to extend cooperative arrangements where an Indigenous jurisdiction would like to actually take on a greater role in the actual process.
Mr. Moffet: I can elaborate a little. My colleague has emphasized how the environmental assessment agency, and indeed all departments, collaborate with Indigenous people including people in the North when we are undertaking specific projects.
In addition, Environment and Climate Change Canada and other departments play significant roles in generating science that provides information to decision makers about the impacts of climate change.
Earlier this year, we released a very significant study that highlighted the impacts of climate change on Canada, in particular the starkly enhanced impacts of climate change in the North relative to Southern Canada and relative to most of the rest of the world.
While this doesn’t directly protect Indigenous people in the North, one of our roles is to generate science that can in turn be used by decision makers in Canada and elsewhere to generate support for increased mitigation action on climate change.
Senator Klyne: There are no specific activities in your budgets or estimates to protect that unique and distinct way of life. Do you collaborate, meet and exchange ideas?
Mr. Moffet: The short answer is that you are correct. However, that’s not the case for the Government of Canada as a whole. As my colleague Mr. Jones explained, there is funding in other departments to enable Indigenous communities to continue to function while transitioning from diesel. There is funding in other departments like Indigenous Services Canada to enable communities to enhance their resilience to climate change so that they can continue to remain in place and continue to carry out traditional activities, while being more resilient and adapted in the face of inevitable climate change.
Ms. Loth-Bown: To add to that, there is specific funding in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency budget. Particularly, $10.9 million is there for partnering with Indigenous groups. I highlight that $6.1 million of that is for grants and contributions to be able to give contributions directly to communities to be able to participate in some of the data gathering studies, Indigenous knowledge studies and follow-up monitoring programs.
We often hear communities want to be involved in identifying the impacts, in working to identify solutions and in being able to participate in the ongoing monitoring and follow-up. We have funding identified for that, and funding specifically to develop an Indigenous capacity program to support communities to be able to participate together in the assessment process.
Senator Duncan: Being from the North, I have quite a bucket of questions. I would suggest that I put the questions on the record and ask that you provide the answers in writing. That might be a little easier for everyone.
With regard to the evolution of the Main Estimates for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, I believe Ms. Loth-Bown mentioned the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Of course, Yukon has the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.
A question was asked earlier about what funding model was used to do the cost estimates. Are the funds for YESAB included in this budget line or elsewhere? Was the funding for YESAB used as a model? Were the northern socio-economic and environmental assessment boards used as models for costing that funding. Was there significant economic and Indigenous participation in those assessments?
Given that the North has these boards already, was that $6.1 million funding targeted for Indigenous participation south of 60 Indigenous involvement, or was it across the board?
For the environment $186.9 million is identified for protecting Canada’s nature and parks and then $6.2 million for The Weather Network. Could we have that broken down by province and territory or site?
Specifically with regard to protecting Canada’s nature and the impact of climate change on Canada’s national parks, I’m sure Kluane National Park and the Kaskawulsh Glacier 100-year event of the glacier reversing that took place recently have been identified. Could I have identified the funding with regard to protection for the existing national parks in the North?
Specifically on the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, I noticed in the budget estimates transfer payments to the Government of Yukon for care, maintenance and closure of contaminated sites in Yukon have gone from 22.5 in 2017-2018 and 75 in 2018-2019 in the Main Estimates, down to 6 for 2019-20 in the Main Estimates. Could I have an explanation for that, please?
Finally, I have a question for Health Canada. Mr. Larkin, Open Caucus recently had a presentation regarding vaccinations in Canada. In a presentation Anna Banerji noted that Nunavut had an issue with the implementation of the universal vaccination for RSV among babies. Implementation of the universal vaccination of 400 babies for six months’ coverage for all of Nunavut would cost $3 million. It would save $4 million to $5 million on the transportation south of these very ill babies.
The deputy chief medical officer of health for Nunavut recognized the astronomical rates of RSV in Nunavut babies, but she is not sure from where she would get the funds to implement the vaccinations.
I understand that there are innumerable priorities in the department of health. You mentioned naloxone and the opioid crisis, but this issue of vaccination of Nunavut babies is also significant. I wonder if the departments have identified any initiatives to work on with the Government of Nunavut in this regard. Those are my questions.
The Chair: That was four minutes and 33 seconds of questions. Hopefully, the witnesses from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and Health Canada could provide answers ASAP through the clerk, so that we could bring you back if we want to ask for additional information.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m still processing those very good questions. One was similar to one I have, so I will hold off on that.
This question is for Mr. Larkin. I am certainly looking at all of the work and the estimates from the perspective of what is encouraging healthy life styles, which we know in the long haul will save us money. It is hard to see that when we have so many acute issues we are trying to react to.
I’ve been thinking about one of the areas that Budget 2019 announced around the Canadian drug agency. We hear from, meet with and visit in our offices with folks concerned about the variety of drugs, the effectiveness of prescription drugs, drug prices and what drugs are of most value for Canadians, et cetera.
In this budget, $35 million over four years is being used to establish a transition office and another million to introduce the agency. I’m trying to take a close look at that to understand what Health Canada needs to do to establish this agency.
What does the cost of $30 million to $35 million look like over four years? Where is that money going? When can we expect to see it open for business?
I’m not sure if you already have TSOs on your marker that are interested in working with you on this, but it would be great if you could provide some information there.
Mr. Larkin: The money we received this year for the drug agency transition office is just to establish the office, and to figure out what it will be and how we will manage it as things unfold.
As you know, pharmacare consultations have been ongoing. I understand that a report or a final publication is coming out very soon.
I have to get back to you with the specifics around this because I really don’t have the details. We will be setting up and establishing an office. We will be working with the provinces and territories on what that means as we go forward.
Senator M. Deacon: The pharmacare folks have been on our doorsteps too. We’ve had a lot of conversations. I’ve been trying to do a better job of understanding $35 million versus 10, versus 15, versus 20. Any help with that would be appreciated.
Mr. Larkin: I understand.
Senator Marshall: My question is for Mr. Larkin. Indigenous Services took over some programs or some funding from the Department of Health. I notice your operating expenditures are practically cut in half compared to 2017-2018.
Could you talk about what impact Indigenous Services has had on the Department of Health and your funding?
Mr. Larkin: Mr. De Sousa managed that transition. If there is any real detail, he would be able to provide that.
We transferred the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch in its entirety. Then we transferred all the supporting services: anything within corporate services branch that would have been IMIT or HR related or any areas within my branch which would have to do with finance or procurement. We transferred all those people in direct support of the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch and anything we determined to be an attribution that was close enough to transfer the funding or an individual.
We couldn’t transfer half an individual, so we worked it out by transferring everything to Indigenous Services Canada. The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch is fully supported in the same way it was while it was at Health Canada. There are no gaps in anything that branch is doing in how Health Canada supported it.
As far as the funding is concerned, we transferred everything we had related to the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch and any dollars that went to supporting it as well.
Senator Marshall: Could you provide a listing to the committee of the funding transferred and a breakdown of the funding?
Mr. Larkin: Sure.
Senator Marshall: We received information from Indigenous Services, so I would like to look at the two departments together.
Senator Pratte: I have one question for Mr. Larkin. I notice $25 million are set for what is called “bringing innovation to regulation.” Would you elaborate on what that means, exactly?
Mr. Larkin: That was part of a broader Government of Canada regulatory modernization regime. Health Canada in 2019-20 received about $25 million, so about $8.8 million is for modernizing food regulations.
We are going to redesign and restructure the current food regulatory framework and the Food and Drugs Act. We will be amending existing marketing authorizations for food additives, developing regulations for food fortification and supplemented foods to encourage the development and adoption of safe and innovative food products.
There will be work done on life-cycle licensing. We will be amending the Food and Drug Regulations and the Medical Devices Regulations to implement adaptive, modern licensing to effectively regulate products throughout their life cycle. The goal is to remove the unnecessary requirements and create a more streamlined and easy to understand regulatory framework to meet the needs of the complex global drug and medical devices development reality.
Next, we will be spending $1.3 million on enabling advanced technology therapeutic products, point of care therapies and innovative practices. We will be creating a flexible regulatory process to bring innovative products to market while still applying rigorous oversight. Some examples would be advanced cellular therapies, 3-D printed implants or artificial intelligence powered diagnostics software.
The next item is clinical trials of about $5.5 million. We will be modernizing the regulation of clinical trials. Health Canada will address existing clinical trial irritants and challenges to increase the number of clinical trials that will ultimately lead to better access to the needed health products and certain foods for Canadians.
Finally, we are transferring an amount of about $7 million to the Department of Justice for their work in supporting us on regulatory reforms.
Senator Pratte: Is this a one-year initiative?
Mr. Larkin: No, it is a multi-year initiative. We have $103 million over five years.
Senator Pratte: Is that Health Canada?
Mr. Larkin: Yes.
Senator Pratte: I have another question. I’m sorry I missed it, but you mentioned amounts for Infoway. Could you repeat those?
I am curious as to whether there was any evaluation done of this program. I know a lot of money has been put into it. I don’t know the situation in other provinces, but I know that in my province very little progress has been achieved as far as electronic medical records and the things that Infoway is supposed to help.
Mr. Larkin: I will let Mr. De Sousa respond to this one because I am having difficulty finding where that is in my binder.
Mr. De Sousa: For this fiscal year there are increases going to Canada Health Infoway as well. It is to continue the work that they are doing on the pan-Canadian e-prescribing system, as well as the virtual care initiative. They are also supporting the adoption and use of electronic medical records, as Mr. Larkin mentioned at the beginning.
Senator Pratte: Has there been any evaluation of this program, either by Auditor General or internal audit?
Mr. De Sousa: I’m not aware. I can get back to you on that.
Senator Pratte: I would appreciate it.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Larkin, you’ve gone from $28 million to $52 million for substance and addictive use. Statistics Canada reported that cannabis use was on the rise with 646,000 new users in the first quarter of 2019, with 514,000 people reported going to work after using cannabis, and 675,000 people reported driving after using cannabis.
Will this amount of money be enough? Are you going to do it by province? How are you dispensing the money and how are you using it?
Mr. Larkin: I have to turn to my colleague, Mr. Costen.
Mr. Costen: This is funding for a grants and contributions program called the Substance Use and Addictions Program. It is a program like many run in government, where applicants submit applications to the government. It is not something that is allocated.
Senator Eaton: Perhaps you could back up. Is it provinces that make application or is it specific health units across the country that make application?
Mr. Costen: It is different organizations. It could be anything from a First Nations group to a treatment centre, a boys and girls club or a school. There is a whole variety of different types of organizations eligible to apply. There is not a per capita formula that goes from one province to the other. It is a program that assesses the project on its own merits and then funds it or not.
Senator Eaton: At the time it went through the Senate, there was a lot of talk about information and education. The government was going to put in lots of money to make sure people understood the risks or what they had to be careful of when using.
I have not seen anything except at airports, “Beware, you can’t take cannabis across the border.” I don’t see it on television. Are you doing it in schools, perhaps, where I would not be conscious of it?
Mr. Costen: It is interesting. The target audience is really young people. Predominantly young people are on social media, so predominantly the target media we’ve used have been a variety of different social media platforms that we know young people use.
It is actually quite common to hear that adults or older Canadians don’t see it in traditional media in the same way as young people are seeing it. Quite frankly, a lot of young people are feeling quite saturated when they use Snapchat or others.
Senator Eaton: You have obviously tested its effectiveness.
Mr. Costen: Yes, there is constant evaluation. This may be an area where we would be happy to provide, in writing, some metrics in terms of the reach and the different types of activities we have done over the last 12 months.
I remember this was certainly part of the discussion last year. We have quite a bit we can tell you about the reach and the types of things we have been doing.
The Chair: Please provide the information through the clerk.
Senator Klyne: I’m looking at the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. I assume a number, if not all provinces, signed into that framework. Subsequently some withdrew but received monies. Prior to receiving monies, was there any agreement at all that if they withdrew they would have to return the monies? How much might those be? Will they positively or negatively impact or affect your estimated budget?
Mr. Jones: An agreement was not concluded with Saskatchewan because the fund was explicitly for the purposes of supporting the implementation of the framework, and the Government of Saskatchewan has not signed on to that framework.
Senator Klyne: I’m just wondering about those who signed on, received money and then subsequently withdrew.
Mr. Jones: The only province in that category is Ontario. We did have a contribution agreement with the Government of Ontario. We had identified the projects and the programs that we were to co-invest in. With the cancellation of those projects, that agreement was terminated.
We are in the process of reconciling funds with the Government of Ontario for the monies that were dispensed for those programs before the agreement was terminated. The remainder of those funds will be put into new programming for the people of Ontario that is under development currently.
Senator Klyne: What’s the dollar amount we are talking about?
Mr. Jones: It is still being reconciled with respect to the various program receipts coming in from the Government of Ontario. It would be less than half of the original allocation, and the original allocation for Ontario was $420 million.
Senator Neufeld: I have two questions. One can be answered with a yes or no, please. I went back and look at the land set-asides in the province of British Columbia. The federal government says that 15.3 per cent was set aside in parks and protected areas.
Does that mean we are only looking for another 1.7 per cent? Yes or no.
Mr. Costen: No.
Senator Neufeld: You’re looking for more. That’s good.
Mr. Costen: Our overall target is 17 per cent by the end of 2020.
Senator Neufeld: I’m going by the report here which says 17 per cent.
Mr. Costen: That’s for the end of 2020. If individual provinces or territories are interested to go further, clearly we welcome that.
Senator Neufeld: Certainly, yes.
For my other question I’ll give you a little history. I live in northern British Columbia, and that’s not Prince George. Prince George is central British Columbia. I actually live in the north of British Columbia. The other day when I got up to come to Ottawa, it was about 5 below at three o’clock in the morning. It hasn’t been over 6 or 8 degrees through the last week. I fly to Ottawa through the day. I get here and it’s 23 degrees.
I haven’t had a chance to totally research it, but I heard that an Environment and Climate Change Canada scientific report says that Canada is warming at twice the world rate and that Northern B.C. is twice that of two times the rate. I don’t dispute the fact that the world is warming, but I have a hard time believing that we’re warming at twice the rate Canada is warming at.
Could you please help me with that a bit? I just use that one example. I fly every week back and forth. There’s quite a difference. Help me a bit in the short period of time we have.
Mr. Moffet: This study is done by a group of scientists across Canada, including northern scientists. The data show average trends. The assertion that a particular region is warming at a particular pace has no correlation with what the temperature will be on any given day.
The fact is that the Northern parts of Canada are warming faster. That does not mean they’re as warm as the South, but they’re experiencing warming at a faster pace than the rest of Canada, which in turn on average is warming faster than the rest of the world.
This warming is a question of single degrees: one, two, three and four degrees. We’re not suggesting you’re going to see a change of minus 4 to plus 10, but a small average change in degrees can have fundamental changes in weather, in availability of pests, in the presence of invasive species and in changes in glaciation.
These are profound changes resulting from relatively small average temperature changes on regional, national and global bases.
Senator Neufeld: How did you pick out Northern British Columbia? We’re all in the same atmosphere. Please tell me.
Mr. Moffet: I will have to get back to you on how the scientists who conducted the study decided to group the particular regions of Canada for the purpose of the study. I don’t have that information available. I apologize.
The Chair: On that same matter, you could probably identify the number of government scientists who were part of that study.
Mr. Moffet: Yes, we would be happy to do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a quick question for Mr. Kerr on the new registry and its $7.2 million budget. Currently, I believe that one of the biggest challenges in terms of the credibility of impact assessments is that powerful lobbying goes on on both sides and pressure is exerted in one way or another.
You are providing $7.2 million to increase public participation and transparency. What tools will you use to get there given that this will prove to be a definite challenge which will set the tone for things to come? Will you use sample-based surveys? Will you better inform people and ensure that local communities are also taken into account? Will you provide information before meeting with people? What will you do to increase public participation and transparency?
Mr. Kerr: Thank you for your question. May I reply in English?
Senator Forest: Of course.
[English]
Mr. Kerr: My colleague will augment my answer, but first I would like to highlight, in particular, the public registry established within the agency in 1995.
One can appreciate that technology changes. We did upgrades to the software in 2003 and 2012. We’re currently completely overhauling the public registry so that it’s more accessible. We will have much more documentation that supports the actual assessment process available to the public.
This is one example of how the additional investment of the Government of Canada will play out for the new legislation. I’m sure my colleague would like to augment my answer.
[Translation]
Ms. Loth-Bown: I can add a few more bits of information. In the proposed bill, I there are approximately 50 new measures. There is the obligation for the agency to make information public on its website to increase transparency. Moreover, we have brought the maximum contribution up to the $2,000 mark in order to increase public participation.
I’ve already spoken about funds to be used to increase indigenous participation, but there will also be funds for the public. We have established a strategy to define public participation in activities. It could be holding meetings within the community, allowing people to make comments on our website or by mail or hosting various public events. What is certain is that we will improve our strategy.
Senator Forest-Niesing: I had two questions, but enough has been said already. Thank you.
The Chair: You have another question, Senator Forest?
Senator Forest: I just want to check something. Basically, improving access to information creates an ideal environment for organized groups. What is troubling me, however, and we see this during consultations, is that we are dealing with lobbies. I’m not bothered about which side they are on, this is how our system is set up and that’s fine. It doesn’t, however, give us a chance to meet ordinary citizens; we don’t get to hear them. Yet when it comes to social acceptance and sustainable development, they are the ones who are primarily affected.
We have to be creative, set up focus groups, as you say, but ideally, local and indigenous communities should have access to information beforehand, because it’s in those meeting rooms that people come together and get involved.
The Chair: That’s an excellent observation, Senator Forest.
[English]
Before we close, I have three questions that I’d like to share. You can answer now or bring it to the attention of the clerk, please.
[Translation]
What kind of budget will you be giving to the Société Santé en français in 2019-2020?
[English]
The next question is a follow-up to the questions asked by Senator Klyne and Senator Duncan.
How many Indigenous knowledge studies are you planning to do in this fiscal year? What is your overall budget for conducting such studies across Canada?
I know from a round table that I had in New Brunswick with First Nations that they are very concerned about what is being requested for your Indigenous knowledge studies.
My last question is for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. How many projects are currently undergoing assessment with your agency? Also, could you provide us with a list of projects and their locations across Canada?
Is there any sense of timing in which you could provide the information to those and previous questions that were asked of you?
Ms. Loth-Bown: On the question for the agency, there are approximately 75 projects being assessed currently in the system. We can provide the firm details on them, as well as the locations as requested.
The Chair: To the witnesses, thank you very much for providing very helpful information.
(The committee adjourned.)