Environment Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[Michael Nadler]

In that corridor, you're probably acutely aware of the environmental conditions that can affect transportation. Flood-proofing is one, and we know the flood season there along the Columbia River can be quite significant. We also know that avalanche season can be equally significant. Both are impacted by climate change, but that wouldn't be the limits of it. It would even relate to the stability of the road surfaces themselves and—

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

If the reports lead to additional funding to improve those highways, that would be very welcomed, as you know, by people who live in my riding and people from across Canada and the world who use them.

[Michael Nadler]

As part of our $3.6-billion investment program, we are undertaking some twinning in that region and some improvements in that region.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The dream is still twinning right from the Alberta border through to—

[Michael Nadler]

Yes, fair enough. I understand.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm just happy to see the agreement with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet first nations. I think our report indicated that aboriginal parks are the way of the future, and hopefully we'll see a lot more allocated in future budgets to make that happen.

[Michael Nadler]

We're encouraged also. We have collaborative relationships with the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet in New Brunswick but also in Nova Scotia, as you might be aware. The Peskotomuhkati are also part of that relationship and an important partner for us in southwestern New Brunswick.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

We certainly need more of that going forward.

[Michael Nadler]

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's the end of your swap time.

Now I'll go back to Mr. Stetski, who I assume will respect the gentleman's agreement that he has with Mr. Lake.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I think I could use a cookie....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm happy to turn it over to Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

It's funny. I feel obligated to talk about the parks in Alberta after hearing my colleagues talk about parks, but rather than get Mr. Stetski a cookie, I will say how much I enjoy travelling through his area. I spend a significant amount of time, of course, in the neighbouring province. It's right on the border with Alberta. It's a beautiful part of the country.

As much as I'd like to talk about those things, I'm probably not going to take up too much of your time in terms of where I'm going to go with my time.

We have had a few challenges in this committee in terms of those of us who believe in the principle that the minister should come before the committee on supplementary estimates when we're voting on an extra $85 million being spent, especially when we hear that the minister has turned us down but was in the House literally immediately before the committee speaking. She's clearly here; she represents a riding that's here. We want to make sure as committee that we give her every chance to appear, because I'm sure she really wants to come before the committee. Maybe we were too restrictive in our time frame by only offering committee slots to her.

I'm going to move a motion right now, which I gave notice of previously:

That the Committee invite the Minister of the Environment to appear before the Committee at any time over the next two weeks to answer questions on the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19.

Just to be clear on this motion for Liberal colleagues, it's an invitation. It's not a demand that the minister appear. It's an invitation from our committee. We are the environment committee of the House of Commons and it seems to make sense that we would invite the Minister of Environment to appear before committee. We're giving a broad window of time to the minister to appear. We want to give her every opportunity to come. I note that in taking a look at the history of this committee during the years from 2006 to 2015 there was only one year, I believe, when the minister didn't appear on supplementary estimates, and I don't believe that this minister specifically has appeared on supplementary estimates yet.

That is where we would like to go. Given that the last time we moved a motion similar to this the Liberals basically moved adjournment to shut down debate on it, I'm excited to see an Alberta member of Parliament on the Liberal side here today, because of course, he'll be interested to know that there's significant money to implement Bill C-69. I'm sure he's hearing from constituents on that issue just as much as I am, so given the opportunity to vote on whether to invite the minister, I'm certain the member will be excited to have that opportunity.

I would love to get an indication from Liberal members before I give up my time, so if anybody were to indicate that they would support the motion, it would be nice to know that now. We could move on. I'm not seeing any indication, so I'll continue with my arguments, and hopefully we can convince somebody over there. We only need to convince one.

In doing that, I will reference, as I did at the last meeting, the mandate letter to the environment minister. I think it's an important place to start. It's a letter from the Prime Minister, who was, I guess, the host to 2,000 Calgarians, it sounds like, or thousands of Calgarians, who came out to get the chance to be in the neighbourhood of the Prime Minister—maybe not in his presence—to express their thoughts on Bill C-69 and other policies of the government in the last week.

His mandate letter to Minister McKenna says in part, “Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments, and it is my expectation that you will do your part in delivering on those promises to Canadians.”

Of course, we're here assessing an ask for an extra $85 million in a context of a budget that's almost $20 billion in deficit. Again, the Prime Minister has written, “Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments, and it is my expectation that you will do your part in delivering on those promises.”

I'll reference one particular promise from the Liberal platform. I'll quote it here. This is from the 2015 Liberal platform and I think is an important context to the conversation. It's from page 12. Some members of the committee might be very familiar with this. It says:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class. After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

It's a very clear promise, just in case anyone had missed it. I noticed that Mr. Amos is on his phone, so maybe he missed this and would be interested.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

No, I got it. Thank you.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'll repeat it. “After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return to a balanced budget in 2019.” This is 2015, by the way.

It's a very clear promise. Reflecting on the mandate letter to the Minister of Environment which says, “Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments, and it is my expectation that you will do your part in delivering on those promises to Canadians”, one would expect that she would be excited to come and talk about supplementary estimates. It has her asking for spending of $85 million more.

Now, moving on within that mandate letter, it says, “I expect Canadians to hold us accountable for delivering these commitments, and I expect all ministers to do their part individually and collectively.”

I would note that many ministers have appeared on supplementary estimates. In this case, we have $85 million and we have yet to hear from the minister on this.

I'll just continue because it's interesting reading here. It says, “Our platform guides our government. Over the course of our four-year mandate, I expect us to deliver on all of our commitments.”

I assume that means a balanced budget and also transparency and accountability in government, which was a big promise that was made.

I will note, just as an aside, that there was also a significant promise made over and over again about no more omnibus bills. It's interesting to note that promise in the context of maybe the biggest BIA we have ever seen in the history of our Parliament. There is no more use of closure or time allocation. I think the government is well on their way to the record books in terms of the use of time allocation. But, those are asides.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We'll never catch up with you.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Darren says they'll never catch us. The interesting thing about it is we didn't actually promise not to do it. It was a very clear promise on your side though.

I am just reading again from the Prime Minister's words. This one is particularly interesting in the context of the conversation we're having today. It reads:

As Minister, you will be held accountable for our commitment to bring a different style of leadership to government. This will include: close collaboration with your colleagues; meaningful engagement with Opposition Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Committees and the public service.

Apparently, as Prime Minister, he's saying that his ministers will be held accountable for commitments. I think it's in that spirit that our committee wants to make sure we give the minister every opportunity to come before the committee because she's going to be held accountable for that. It's incumbent on us to make sure we open up our calendars, make sure that we're available at any time to fit within her busy schedule.

I've talked a lot about that. I want to talk about the importance in terms of her being here.

Look at the context of what's happening right now in Canada and what's happening in Oshawa. Our hearts go out to the folks in Oshawa. When you combine that with the tens of thousands of jobs lost in Alberta....

Kent, you'll know about this. Many of your constituents will have faced job loss in Calgary.

Look at the impact of the inability to get pipelines built in this country. When the election happened, there were three pipelines in the pipeline, so to speak. Three pipelines were in process. We had one that was approved, northern gateway. We had energy east, which was well on its way, and Trans Mountain, which was under way as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Lake, I'm just going to jump in here.

I appreciate the context that you're giving, but as we discussed the last time, we're working here on the supplementary estimates (A).

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm sorry; I thought Bill C-69 was a part of the supplementary estimates. It has everything to do with pipelines, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

There's money for implementation, so I'll give you that connection.

I just wanted to make sure that we're keeping it in context.

I was thinking of that in light of the Parks Canada piece today, because we have had the discussion on the others. I'll let you keep going on the broader umbrella of supplementary estimates (A) .

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Lake is speaking to a motion. There's no time limitation on a motion, providing he's speaking to the motion. The motion is in order. You didn't challenge the validity of the motion. I believe there's no time limitation on his....

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm not offering any time limitation. I was just seeing if—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Why was he stopped from speaking?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I was just saying that last week we got a bit broader than the discussion, what we were studying, and that it would be great to keep it tied to what we were discussing.

He's given his response. Now I'm turning the microphone back to him.