Environment Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

That's awesome.

More generally, I suppose, I'll go back to ECCC.

If the government is proposing these reforms now, is it safe to say that it's been accepted that the status quo is not working, in terms of building major projects in this country?

[Mollie Johnson]

Reflecting on that question.... We are spending a lot of time thinking about the difference between the “what” and the “how”.

The “what” is environmental protection—the things we have obligations, as a ministry, to do. That's not changing.

As for the “how”, there's a lot of opportunity to improve how we do our business. We're thinking about improving how we permit, how we work with our partners and how we can be more efficient and effective. We have some opportunities there.

The protections themselves—the “what”—remain core.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I appreciate that.

The paper proposes giving cabinet limited power to exempt specific projects from the Species at Risk Act jeopardy test. What problem is the proposed exemption trying to solve?

[Tara Shannon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment]

The jeopardy test requires a scientific assessment on whether you can fully mitigate the impacts on a species—its recovery or its survival. There are two tests under SARA. I could provide you with more detail, but I won't, because I know you have limited time. It is essentially a valve whereby, if you can't meet the jeopardy test after pursuing a number of these—you follow the mitigation hierarchy, you avoid, you mitigate, you take all measures—it would allow, in an exceptional circumstance, the potential for a permit. Again, it's a theoretical situation. We've never seen that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leslie.

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

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be sharing my time with MP Greaves—I promise.

My question is for Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Fisher, the estimates for 2026-27 include a transfer payment to the Canada Water Agency of about $42 million in support of freshwater stewardship. Can you share with us examples of some of the projects funded in the freshwater ecosystem initiatives, for instance, or in any of these initiatives?

[Mark Fisher]

I'll start with the question that you raised to the minister about the area of concern in the Bay of Quinte.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I'm glad you circled back to that. Thank you.

[Mark Fisher]

You may know that there are a total of 43 areas of concern that are shared between the United States within the Great Lakes basin. Twelve of them are Canadian, and five of them are binational. The Detroit River is a great example.

The Bay of Quinte is one of those areas of concern. As you know, we've been tackling it for a very long time. I'm pleased to say that we've completed all actions with respect to the beneficial use impairments, which is very positive. I'd say most actions have been completed. Then we'll move into assessing the recovery of those impaired ecosystems and putting that on a pathway to delisting. That's one concrete example that we're doing through the freshwater action plan.

As you know, in budget 2023, the government announced $420 million over 10 years to really try to accelerate that work. Restoration is a big part of that, in addition to looking at how we're tackling toxic and nuisance algae throughout the system, looking at coastal resiliency and working with our indigenous partners to make sure that they're more directly engaged with Great Lakes stewardship and governance. Those are some examples in your own backyard of how we're putting that investment to use.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

I yield my time to Mr. Greaves.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much, colleague.

Good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us today.

My question is for Mr. Campbell and Parks Canada.

As you are aware, my home riding of Victoria is one of the great destinations in this country, receiving more than one million visitors a year to explore the best of our region. That includes a number of national parks and national historic sites as well. I'm wondering if Parks Canada has data from last year about the effect of the Canada Strong pass in terms of attendance at those kinds of sites and parks, not necessarily specific to Victoria—though that would be welcome—but more broadly. What impact did that program have on attendance for Parks Canada?

[Andrew Campbell]

I'm trying to remember everything, but I do not know every place and how much it went up. I would say that across the country Parks Canada had slightly over 26 million visitors last year. As to our places, there was an increase of about 9% in national parks and over 20% in national historic sites.

One of the major national historic sites in the Victoria area was, in fact, one of those places that had well over the 20% increase. As well, we had increased visitation in the past year in the Gulf Islands National Park in your area. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but it's certainly substantive.

I will say it is substantive across the country. A number that we like to talk about is that this number of visitors ends up contributing $16 million per day to the Canadian tourism economy.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Absolutely. We see those effects in our region every day.

Relatedly, in the context of the government's 30 by 30 conservation targets, national parks and national urban parks play an important role in increasing access for Canadians to natural spaces and conservation areas.

I'm wondering if you could speak to the process of establishing those new national urban parks and, in particular, the way Parks Canada interacts with indigenous nations and communities, whose territories may be implicated in those projects.

[Andrew Campbell]

Absolutely. One of the projects that I'm most proud of in my own career is the Rouge National Urban Park. The very first thing we did when establishing that national park was to set up an indigenous round table. That's become the gold standard for how we do national urban parks across the country—we first set up an indigenous round table.

Within that process, of course, with the municipality, the province and indigenous people, we all work together in order to see how we can contribute. We have conservation authorities at the provincial level as well. We've had some universities come on board to look at their land. That all gets assembled under a process that certainly has all the groups I talked about as contributing members to co-operative management.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

As we still have a few minutes remaining and all of these expert witnesses, I propose that we do three minutes per party for one last round, if there's no objection.

We will proceed.

I will begin with Mr. Leslie for three minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

Going back to the discussion paper, could a federal economic zone be used to advance a project over the objection of a provincial government?

[Terence Hubbard]

It all depends, but the answer is probably no. If there's provincial jurisdiction involved in these projects, we would work in co-operation and collaboration with provincial partners.

A good example of work I would point to in this space is the regional assessments that we have done offshore in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are working through the joint management regimes to assess common issues, doing it on a regional basis and putting in place standardized mitigation measures and approaches that support faster downstream individual project decisions. This is the approach we're looking to replicate with willing partners across the country, moving forward.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

“Willing partners” seems like an interesting point. There's some discussion among the provinces regarding a pipeline to the Pacific coast right now and very specific, purposeful language in the discussion document, which I assume is intentional, as part of spurring that discussion. It's something I think we should be aware of. I hope people will be giving comments on that, particularly those in B.C. I want to see a pipeline going through there, but the federal government creating this could be problematic. I'm curious about whether you could report back, over time, on what that turns into through the consultation.

Madam Chair, I would like to move the motion I tabled verbally on Tuesday, regarding a request to the Prime Minister's Office on the letter discussed in the media by CBC/Radio-Canada in which 14 Liberal MPs sent their concerns about the government's environmental policy direction to the Prime Minister.

This is a group of elected members of Parliament raising concerns with their Prime Minister about environmental policies. If those concerns are serious enough to put in writing to the Prime Minister—and I assume, to be leaked by one or more members of that group—then I believe they are serious enough for the members of this committee to see, because members of Parliament have a duty to be open and honest with the Canadians who sent us here.

I'm very open and honest about my criticisms and concerns with government environmental policies. Each and every day, I get the pleasure of sitting around this table and in the House of Commons. If Liberal MPs are privately warning the Prime Minister that his government is backsliding on the environment, then Canadians deserve to know exactly what those concerns are, especially given that they are coming from members of the Liberal caucus.

The environment committee exists to examine these very issues. We can't do our jobs properly if relevant concerns from members of the governing caucus—those who should know the most about what policies are being undertaken behind the scenes—are kept secret simply because they are politically inconvenient for the government of the day.

This is about accountability. Liberal MPs can't say one thing privately to the Prime Minister and another thing publicly to their constituents. In my view, Canadians deserve to know where their elected representatives stand, especially on questions as consequential as pipelines, major projects, economic development and the future of Canada's entire regulatory system.

Madam Chair, sunlight matters, and if these concerns are legitimate, as I assume they are, they should be aired publicly. If the government disagrees with them, it can explain exactly why. Keeping them secret, though, serves only one purpose—to protect the government from political embarrassment. I assume that is why this letter was leaked by one of the signatories, and it is not good enough simply to protect yourselves politically. Canadians have a right to know what concerns are being raised inside the government about its own environmental agenda. Given that we are in the environment committee, perhaps there are signatories within this room.

I hope that we take this opportunity to pass this motion, bring this issue to light and see what specific concerns the 14 signatories have regarding this letter sent to the Prime Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Mr. Grant, you have the floor.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Chair, we have important witnesses here today, and we have a number of members who would like to continue asking their questions, as we did extend this meeting for three minutes each. This motion is not the subject of this meeting today, and I think we should continue our scheduled business. Therefore, I move to adjourn this debate.

(Motion agreed to)

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, with all due respect, my hand was up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

We can't debate a dilatory motion, Mr. Bonin, but you may now speak.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I wanted to speak before we moved to a vote on this matter, which is important and also concerns our party directly. What my Conservative colleague summarized is that this important letter sent to the Prime Minister by 14 Liberal members is of public interest in the sense that we have issued a number of media statements on this matter and there has been no—