Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2022

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'd like to say something, Mr. Chair.

I am grateful to each and every member who has made a comment. We are all entitled to our opinion. I believe that our colleague Mr. Masse, the sponsor of the bill, would also like to say a few words.

I know he's not here as a member of Parliament, but as a witness. However, I see him chomping at the bit, and I wonder if the members of the committee would agree by unanimous consent to allow him to make his comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do I have the consent of the committee to allow Mr. Masse some brief comments?

I don't see any objections.

Mr. Masse, can you be very brief?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee members for their concerns.

First of all, these amendments were prepared by the minister's office. I'm a little surprised to come here and find that they are ruled out of order and that due diligence wasn't done on that. It was done in complete co-operation over the last number of weeks, including in the last few days. That included the minister's staff, so it seems unusual that I would show up at committee today and find that these amendments, which are largely redundant in many respects.... They appear more to be putting lipstick on a pig for the position that the Liberals had about this, versus that of the actual sincerity of getting things done.

On top of that is the suggestion that first nations have not been consulted, when they sat in this very place, right here, with witness Chief Mary Duckworth and Caldwell First Nation as rights holders and title holders of the land. To suggest that there wouldn't be first nations consultations is I think disingenuous at best. I have tried hard to find and build bridges in this, even after the last vote in the House of Commons, where there was still a lot of misinformation. The bottom line is that at the end of the day we have limited opportunities in this House. That's why I went out of my way to work with the minister's office. I had several meetings, including with the parliamentary secretary.

To have the Liberals come here today and not be prepared to even challenge the chair or a decision is rather perplexing. I've only spent 20 years here, but I know what goes on.

I can tell you this much: When we have so many problems going on and so many issues, to hear people talking about how we all want the same thing done but we just can't do it for some other technical reason or some other thing that's already been covered over, is very surprising and disappointing.

I'll continue to go on. I hope that perhaps the government will change its mind.

I'll conclude with this, Mr. Chair. My first statement in the House of Commons after the vote against it, when I had some Liberal members support it, was actually to work together. That's where I'll continue to try to go, because there are 200 to 500 endangered species in Canada here.

I appreciate my colleagues' interest in this, but I'm rather shocked and surprised, after trying to work with the government over the last couple of weeks, that we come here and that this is what has happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand, but here's an opportunity to see if the bill will pass and get your bill back into the House.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, you still have a few speakers on the list. You have Mr. Lewis, Mr. Weiler and Ms. Taylor Roy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Lewis, you have the floor.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.

I just wanted to let the committee know that I, along with Mr. Masse, have done extensive consultation with the mayor of LaSalle, with the mayor of Windsor and with the residents who back up to this piece of property. I have yet to find one person who isn't in complete support of this proposed legislation.

I raise my glass to Mr. Masse for doing all of the work and the heavy lifting along the way. It's discouraging, perhaps, and I can only imagine it, Mr. Masse.

I will tell you with full confidence that I'm quite confident that it's the best thing for the region. It's a great thing for Canada. Conservatives will be supporting it.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is Mr. Weiler next?

[The Clerk]

It's Mr. Weiler, and then Ms. Taylor Roy and Madame Vignola.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I don't want to dispute today that we had one of the impacted first nations here to speak in support of that. I think that's a very powerful message, but we didn't have the other first nation that would be impacted by this, and that should be concerning to all committee members here.

I think everybody around this table wants to see this park established. In fact, there is an ongoing process to do that very thing. The concern here is about passing a bill that could be unconstitutional and that wouldn't reflect the duty that we have with the relationship we have to first nations.

I just wanted to say that. I am certainly disappointed that these amendments were ruled out of order, but I'll just leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Taylor Roy, you have the floor.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I take offence at the insinuation that we're doing this for some backroom reason. That's not it at all.

I agree with you. I'm obviously concerned about our environment and biodiversity as well. There's nothing backroom going on. Quite frankly, we all want this park. We know that this is already in process. I feel like we have to follow the proper procedure. While we did hear from the chief of the Caldwell nation, we did not hear from the Walpole nation, nor did we hear from any of the provincial counterparts. I think we have to respect provincial jurisdiction as well as first nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe we need to suspend for the vote. We'll come back 10 minutes after the vote.

As I said, I don't have the hammer in front of me, but it is deemed struck.

I'll suspend now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We can start.

We have Madame Vignola, and Mr. McLean is after her.

Mrs. Vignola, you have the floor.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to briefly review the positions of the Bloc Québécois, since I was asked about this earlier, in an aside.

The rest of the Canadian provinces can do what they want. In Quebec, however, we are opposed to the creation of new federal parks, and we have trouble understanding why the highest level of government should be involved in managing municipal land. That's our opinion, but we accept that others elsewhere think differently, which I personally don't understand but respect.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of consulting first nations that have not been consulted and with the fact that the municipal government and the Government of Ontario must also be consulted.

In this situation, what floors me is that the people from the minister's office who worked on two amendments to allow for these consultations were not aware that these amendments would be out of order. Personally, I can't believe that. How is it possible that members of the minister's office aren't aware of the procedures?

I seriously wonder if the work that was done wasn't more of a political game. I find it strange to use the word “game” when talking about politics, since we get paid well and do serious work. That's why I don’t like the word “game”.

That said, I hope this isn't a political game to take credit away from a member of Parliament and give it to a minister who is about to make an announcement at the UN Biodiversity Conference about the creation of more than a dozen urban parks in Canada. I hope this isn't some cheap political game, because I would be very disappointed. I hold the work of the committee in very high regard. This committee does important and good work. I don't see the point in playing politics when it comes to the environment.

I'll use an analogy to try to get my point across to my colleagues: when a ray of sunshine breaks through the clouds and hits the ground, it not only lights up the circle it hits on the ground, but the whole landscape as well. The amendments we have worked on allow the sunlight of the bill to shed light not only on the sponsor of the bill, but also on the entire committee and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

If I may digress for a moment, it is rather strange that the government is authorizing drilling in a protected marine environment, but seems to be preparing to do some greenwashing in Montreal by announcing the creation of protected urban parks. It's my little brain that makes these connections.

Whether we're on a committee or in the House, we're not there for our own glory or to outshine the other; we're there for our constituents, including those who aren't born yet. In my opinion, this is even truer for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, because we're not just working for the people of today, but for the people of tomorrow, too.

I would hope that the work that was done by the minister's office wasn't an intentional waste of time to take credit for the bill from one person in order to give personal glory to another.

I hope that's not the case. I hope the work was done in good faith. I don't understand how we could put so much work into this bill only to ignore it.

I'm wondering how else these amendments could be in order, and the municipality and the Ontario government could allow this bill to go forward with the agreement of the people involved, those first nations who haven't been consulted. I hope there's another way than to pull the rug out from under us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I thank my colleague for that intervention. I agree. I raised my hand to intervene before I heard her words, obviously.

I wanted to point out to my colleagues on the other side that the words I've heard here today are exactly what I think we need to consider here. That's coming from that side of this discussion, from my colleagues in the Liberal Party. They talked about the constitutionality of this bill, which should have been covered long before now, as we're in the final reading.

I also heard my colleagues say, and I think I'm going to be able to quote them going forward, that we shouldn't be enacting this without provincial consultation on so many of these matters. That is part of what has been missing from this government's approach on so much of their legislation—consultation with the governments that actually deliver services across this country.

I will recall those and I will bring them up repeatedly in this committee's discourse. I want to make sure they know that they can't say this in one instance, regarding this legislation, and then ignore it in the rest of the legislation that they are moving forward through this House and through this committee.

I'll rest on that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers? I can't see from here.

Mr. Clerk, perhaps you could tell me if anyone else is lined up.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Just very quickly, I'd like to thank Madame Vignola and Mr. McLean for their comments.

I want to ask just one question. I think what was called into question was whether we all want this park to actually come to be. I believe we do. I know I do.

Could I ask Parks Canada whether this very park that is actually being considered is under way right now? What stage are we at?

Thank you.

[Caroline Macintosh, Executive Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you for the question.

We have people from our team on the ground right now in Windsor. They are actively in consultations. They have been for over a year. We have a policy designation process that is intended to establish new national urban parks across the country. We are well under way with the pre-feasibility phase of Windsor.

We also have secured an agreement. We have an MOU in place with Transport Canada so that the most sensitive land, the Ojibway Shores piece of land, is effectively managed right now. It is not officially protected, but it is being reserved to be transferred to this eventual national urban park.

We do have an urban parks policy draft that is in consultation. It will be released for public consultation shortly. I think it's important to understand that the national urban parks program was really only launched in 2021. The team has made remarkable progress in a very short period of time to formalize the policy, prepare it for the public consultation that is imminent, and advance projects across the country in five different municipalities where we are actively working through the finalization of the pre-feasability stage.

It includes consultation with the relevant first nations and NGOs. Provincial parties are at the table. There's a partner committee for Windsor in particular that includes members of all those different groups. We are actively working with both Caldwell and Walpole first nations to support their participation in the process. We expect that upon establishment of the agreement for the national urban park, we will be pursuing co-governance with first nations to ensure that they have an active part in managing a national urban park that is on their traditional territory.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there anyone else on the list of speakers?

[The Clerk]

I see no other speakers in the room, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, can we proceed to a vote on the bill? I don't think we've done that. We've voted on the title.

Shall the bill carry?

(Bill C-248 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Shall the chair report the bill to the House?