Environment Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Andrew Campbell]

I was up in Kitasoo Xai’xais on the weekend and had the opportunity to talk to many people within the community through the chair. One thing we are looking at within that area is being continued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It would continue to have that relationship with Kitasoo on the licensing of the fish farm, so that will also continue to go forward. The regulations that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has in place remain the same.

There was an agreement, and I just start from a—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The plan is to continue the phase-out to June 30, 2029.

[Andrew Campbell]

The plan is to continue to work through the process that they have with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's regarding the phase-out. Okay.

In that respect and in that decision, consent wasn't a big term back then, but now it is. Will Canada be pursuing consent from Kitasoo to phase out fish farms by 2029?

[Andrew Campbell]

I think it would be more appropriate if you had that question go to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and certainly that would be better—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Is this not a conversation for the agreement itself, the conservation agreement?

[Andrew Campbell]

That is within the conservation agreement, both within the indigenous protected and conserved areas agreement among the six nations—not between the six nations and the Government of Canada—and the agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of B.C. and the six nations. There is an element of that which, again, comes back to the unfettered regulation of the Minister of Fisheries to continue that.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

I'm trying to understand the process in terms of fast-tracking or pre-approving a major project, especially a linear project that goes across provincial boundaries, and I didn't really get a good answer yet, even though this is the third kick at the can.

Really, when we're talking about the fragmented process that we have now between the Major Projects Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, we still don't understand how aboriginal rights and title interests get addressed on a one-year approval process under the Major Projects Office. Does that timeline coincide with the consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title for those affected first nations along a pipeline, for example?

[Terence Hubbard]

Thank you for the question.

We'd maybe start with responding to your question about the process itself. It's a multi—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I get the process, and when I say “third kick at the can”, I mean that I still haven't had an answer on the process.

I'll leave that aside and try to decipher what the minister said, but in the context of aboriginal rights and title between the Major Projects Office, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the new first nations hub they're proposing, will the timeline for consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title coincide with a fast-track approval or a one-year approval term for approval of major projects?

[Terence Hubbard]

The government has been clear about its commitment to continue its efforts to consult nations through these processes.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me give you a scenario. There's a pre-approval of a project, but you haven't completed the consultation and accommodation. You don't have the consent yet. Does the pre-approval still stand even though you haven't completed the rights and title consultation and accommodation process?

[Terence Hubbard]

That initial decision under Bill C-5 would include and be informed by consultations with indigenous peoples as part of that government decision on whether a project can move forward.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, but isn't that the chicken before the egg? You're talking about pre-approval, but you haven't completed the consultation and accommodation. You don't have consent. In that context as well—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Ross, I'm sorry. Your time is up.

Did you want to do a quick response to Mr. Ross?

[Terence Hubbard]

As I mentioned, the government would consult on a certain amount of information that's required to support its decision on whether a project can move forward. That would be followed up with further consultations with impacted communities on how best to develop that project to avoid as much as possible any impacts on rights, as well as to mitigate and potentially accommodate any impacts further downstream as we get into those details. It's built into the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to Mr. Watchorn for five minutes.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. This time, I will do my best to share my time with MP Grant.

We had a great conversation, Mr. Fisher, just before the meeting started, and a bit of it was about groundwater. I'd like to talk about groundwater. As you know, in the last 20 years, a lot of municipalities have transferred their drinking water systems from surface water to groundwater. I'd like to know how the agency is going to approach the water safety of groundwater, which is capital in my region, and how you guys are going to try to make sure that is taken into account in the strategy.

[Mark Fisher]

Through you, Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

Natural Resources Canada, as you know, is the federal department responsible for the day-to-day management and science with respect to understanding groundwater in Canada.

As I mentioned in the context of floods and droughts, we expect that groundwater will come up in many ways as part of our consultations and discussions around the development of a national water security strategy, and we expect that it will come up with our provincial and territorial partners. I don't want to prejudge the outcomes of those discussions, but we know that it will be a front-and-centre issue for many Canadians. It is the largest source of fresh water in Canada, and we need to understand how that might change over time as we draw more from groundwater.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

I have one last question for Mrs. Johnson. My region depends a lot on the winter for our economy. I met with a group called Protect Our Winters. I don't know if you know them. They're made up of advocates and Olympic athletes who are trying to make sure that we'll be able to ski for the next few years in our region and in Canada overall. How is our strategy, let's say, on methane or gas reduction going to help us maintain our economies in places where winter is super important to us?

[Mollie Johnson]

What a great question. Thank you very much. I'm a big fan of the winter.

I may pass it over to my colleague Judy Meltzer, who has really been leading a lot of our work on methane, to talk about how this is a significant and important part of our climate change-reduction activities.

[Judy Meltzer]

That's right. We're really pleased.

Addressing methane is one of the most effective low-cost strategies to address climate change. Of course, action on methane regardless of where emissions are from is going to make a significant impact in addressing climate change, both in the near term and the longer term. In December, the government released what are, frankly, fairly world-leading enhanced methane regulations for oil and gas, as well as landfill methane. Those are going to drive significant reductions in methane and are a key part of a broader set of measures, investments and strategies to tackle climate change. Those methane regulations provide a lot of flexibility and pull forward Canadian technologies for abatement of methane, which we're a world leader in doing. We're really excited about the regulations and negotiating equivalency agreements with provinces.

Thanks for the question.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Thank you.

I will pass my time to Mr. Grant.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you Mr. Watchorn, and thank you all for being here.

Mr. Campbell, we heard earlier about the signing of a national marine conservation area reserve agreement last week between the federal government, the Government of British Columbia and the Kitasoo Xai’xais, Nuxalk, Heiltsuk, Gitxaała, Gitga’at and Wuikinuxv nations. I saw the great turnout there.

Could you elaborate on the potential of this model? There's no one-size-fits-all model, but would this model include agreements with indigenous peoples based on mutual collaboration moving forward?

[Andrew Campbell]

One of the things Parks Canada has been most proud of—including me as part of its leadership—is indigenous stewardship.

First, I will say that today is my 35th anniversary with the Government of Canada, so I have had a bit of time to talk about this.

When we look at what we have done from an indigenous stewardship perspective and what went into that agreement, the underlying agreement was actually between the six nations first. That is fairly extraordinary from a conservation perspective. They first put in place an indigenous protected and conserved area. Both the provincial and federal governments then brought in federal and provincial law set on top of that to give it further protection.

As we have looked at this at Parks Canada, I think this model of collaboration is the way forward for Canada. That's why we have put in a lot on the cogovernance side, and every place that we have across the country that is managed by Parks Canada will have a plan of indigenous stewardship by the end of the next two years.