:
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
This process, quite frankly, is severely flawed.
We were given the bill on Monday night and told to have amendments by Tuesday, which clearly isn't enough time. The government members have all the resources of government staff. It's completely unfair to the rest of us to not have the same consideration.
It's quite absurd that we had to request the sponsor of the bill to appear before the committee. This is a standard practice, and the proposal for the sponsor not to appear should never have been brought forward by the chair without consulting committee members.
Furthermore, a bill should not be brought forward without witnesses and passed at the same meeting.
We have a number of technical questions for the sponsors and officials that we need to address. Only once we receive those answers is it possible for us to draft our amendments. The fact that there's no Q and A in this particular.... As I see in the agenda here, the sponsor is supposed to speak for 15 minutes. There's some staff there, and then we go to clause-by-clause without questions.
We have questions about this particular bill.
The idea that we should have to submit amendments to a bill before it has been discussed at committee and without members having the opportunity to have officials or at least the sponsor respond to our questions is quite simply wrong.
We will be requesting that clause-by-clause consideration be delayed to the next meeting to give us adequate time consider the responses to our questions and draft amendments based on that information. If we move this bill this particular way, this sets a very bad precedent for further bills.
That's my point of order, Madam Chair.
Let me respond.
I appreciate your point of view. There are a lot of what I would interpret as inaccuracies in it, so I want to clarify them.
I never said we weren't going to have John speak to his bill. The witnesses have been heard. This private member's bill has come out of the discussion and the study we had on heritage. If you look at our report, this is a recommendation that came out of it. In essence, we've already studied this issue. We have made this recommendation to the government as a committee. John has taken that recommendation and brought it forward in a private member's bill.
We have had witnesses. We've responded to the recommendation from witnesses. In essence, it's been studied by the committee through the heritage study that we did.
I never, ever suggested that John wouldn't come and present his bill. I'm not quite sure where that's come from, but I just want to make it really clear to everybody around the table that I never said we wouldn't have John come and present his bill to the committee.
While the Q and A may not be listed, he's here to answer questions. I think there have been some assumptions that are not what was ever intended by the chair. I want to make that clear. Absolutely we've given time for Q and A. Although it wasn't necessarily spelled out, that's the way we do things. We have the witnesses make their deposition, then we have Q and A.
I just want to make it clear, Q and A is there; John's here. There was never an intention not to have the sponsor of the bill come and explain the bill to us. We have studied this bill, not as a bill, but we have made this recommendation in committee through our previous study. We've had witnesses on it. That's where it's come from.
I hope that clarifies why we are where we are and why it's gone this way.
Okay?
Is there any further discussion on that?
I'm going to proceed with it. I think I've explained that this is why we are where we are, and why it's appropriate that it's been the way it is.
Okay.
I'm going to call clause 1, which opens the discussion of the bill.
John, the floor is yours.
:
That's perfect. Thank you.
Madam Chair, honourable colleagues, and distinguished panellists, it's great to be here today to introduce Bill .
There is a bit of background information that I'd like to give. I think that many on this committee can tell as well as I can that it arises very much from my personal background and my career prior to politics, in which I spent more than three decades working for Parks Canada. Over that very privileged career, I was able to travel, move around the country, and work in a number of very diverse national parks and national historic sites.
I had the great opportunity, which very few Canadians have, to live and work with indigenous communities in a variety of settings and it really helped inform my opinions about the need to do things differently with indigenous communities. When I was elected, I came across the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There's a section on commemorations, and it really spoke quite personally to me about the need in the commemorations field to do things differently.
I'd like to give a couple of examples.
In the last decade of my career, I was on the national historic sites program and I dealt fairly extensively with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. I saw great examples of commemorations that had been done respectfully and that incorporated indigenous histories, and then there were some examples that were maybe not as well done. One that comes to mind is a plaque that I'm sure is still sitting in the garage at the Fort Langley National Historic Site. It was for a commemoration at Stanley Park National Historic Site that was commemorated in the 1980s. We were never able to put that plaque up because the commemoration was very much a Eurocentric colonial construct in celebration of what parks mean. However, it didn't recognize that there were indigenous peoples from the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh, and Squamish nations who had lived in what is now Stanley Park, who were evicted from their properties, whose dwellings were burned down, and whose generational presence on that land was not recognized and not celebrated in commemoration. The plaque is still sitting there in a garage because it failed to recognize the importance of indigenous history in that context. That's an example of the kind of issue that we're trying to get to with Bill , to make sure that the commemorations that come forward are respectful of indigenous history.
There are also great examples that I've come across. One of them was an early commemoration in the history of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada out at Friendly Cove, located at the end of Nootka Sound on the west end of Vancouver Island. It's a couple of hours boat ride from Gold River. Friendly Cove is the birthplace of the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples, who are a whaling nation. They were there from the beginning of time, yet there was a commemoration that was done in the early 1920s that recognized that point as the place of discovery of North America. It was the first time Europeans had been to that part of our west coast. Again there was no recognition of indigenous people. It's like the story of Columbus discovering the new world, when the new world had been inhabited since the beginning of time. However, in this case, dealing with the Mowachaht Muchalaht First Nation, we were able to come up with a new commemoration that is now celebrated as Yuquot. It's very much about the first point of contact between indigenous peoples and Europeans. I think that's a real celebration, and that's the end point that this bill would try to get us to in a commemorations program.
I'll just take you back to the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. Specifically, Bill is intended to implement call to action 79.i, and I'll just read that, to give you the context of what this is framed on. In the call to action, it says,
We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to
—and this is the section that is covered in Bill —
(i) amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.
That's the starting piece for this bill.
The chair, in her opening comments, referred to the study that this committee did, “Preserving Canada's Heritage: The Foundation for Tomorrow”, a report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
We heard from witnesses, including Ry Moran from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission based at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. Based on the excellent witnesses, the excellent testimony, and the excellent report that this committee reached, recommendation 17 includes four points. The first one states:
The Committee recommends that, in support of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 79 and 81, and in consultation with Indigenous groups:
The federal government introduce legislation amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to add First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.
Again, Bill is the direct implementation of that recommendation.
I will turn to the bill, which everybody should have, and I'll walk you through it.
The original Historic Sites and Monuments Act was most recently updated in 1985. It is four pages in its entirety. There are a few sections here that I'm looking to amend.
The first one, and the most important, is that implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation 79.i. The first change is simply changing the composition of the board from its 16 members. I had called originally for it to go to 19 members, because the 16 existing would have three indigenous representatives added to it.
As a bit of historical context, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, for a number of years, had 18 representatives. There were two members for Ontario and two for Quebec. That was amended by the previous government down to 16. Ontario and Quebec were given just one seat. Over historical levels, that is an increase of one member, but from where we're at right now in legislation, it's an increase of three. The specific wording was going to be to add the three indigenous representatives.
I had consultations with indigenous caucuses, indigenous organizations, and others, and there were some concerns with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's wording. For instance, if you have somebody representing, could it be a Caucasian representing those three indigenous groups? How do you get the right wording to make sure that it meets the intent of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
The wording I put forward in the bill is what's there, and there are some amendments that I will get to when we get to clause-by-clause to clarify the wording. For now, the idea was simply to add those three indigenous members to the existing board.
There are two subsections in Bill that are updating language. Proposed subsections 5(1) and 5(2) refer to “Chairman”, and this makes it gender neutral, to “Chair”.
With regard to the quorum—I believe it's in proposed subsection 5(4)—I think the original bill had it at eight. This is moving it to 10, recognizing that there will be an increased number of board members.
The final piece was a bit of an opportunity to update some of the language. Boards generally receive some sort of compensation for their work, and so the last part of Bill is updating the language to current Government of Canada terminology to make sure board appointees are compensated in the way that all board appointees are compensated. The travel and living expenses are repackaged.
Finally, the original bill allowed for clerical and stenographic assistance of $75 per year for the chairman and $35 for members of the board. This is very outdated language. I'm sure there are members of Parliament who don't even know what stenographic services are, and having a dollar amount embedded in the legislation is a bit odd. It's to try to give the Governor in Council a bit more flexibility in how they can compensate for those types of support functions for board appointees. That's the final piece. Again, it's just changing that piece of the legislation to update it.
That's my context.
As I said, I have some amendments. Since introducing Bill into the House, I have had further discussions with the minister's team and legislative staff. There are some cleanups, and I would like to address those when we move to clause-by-clause today.
:
The basis for this particular clause, as I said, comes from the existing Historic Sites and Monuments Board. The wording right now that exists is in a section in the act on page 4. I don't have the numbering for French/English, but it's paragraphs 8(3)(a) and 8(3)(b). The existing phrase is “clerical and stenographic assistance”, and the existing wording is
There may be paid for clerical and stenographic assistance
(a) the sum of seventy-five dollars per year to the chairman of the board; and
(b) the sum of thirty dollars per year to the other members of the Board appointed by the Governor in Council.
I wasn't intending to enter into any sort of discussion in the bill or trying to set any new precedent. I was simply working within it. I believe that the history of it, in speaking to board members, is that many of the board members have been academics over the years. They're often historians and other leaders in the field. That's part of the criteria, the credentials that they bring. It was recognition that they may be doing their own research and other types of academic material in preparing for meetings and being able to debate the merits of nominations that come forward from the public. It was recognition by the government of the day to offset some of those out-of-pocket expenses.
To your question, in the existing bill that I've put, is there a limit? We're saying that it would be an annual allowance, to be fixed by the Governor in Council, in respect of administrative costs that are incurred in the course of performing their duties. It would be up to the Governor in Council to set whatever that limit is. The vision I'm putting forward is not to have it open-ended but to allow the Governor in Council to fix whatever that administrative cost support amount would be.
:
Well, one thing you can guarantee, knowing human nature—as we all do—is that every individual will bill the maximum amount. That's just natural.
Again, I go back to other members of other boards that I'm aware of, and one person in particular whom I called directly. There are no such things as administrative costs, so I think this is somewhat out of line.
People are appointed to these boards. They're prestigious appointments. They have a lot of influence on this significant designation of “historic site”, which means so much to many communities. To me, it is indeed an honour to serve on one of these boards. A per diem is fine. Reasonable travel expenses are fine. Do you know what? They should be doing this research and thinking on their own, on their own time, and just be thankful that they're on this particular board.
In terms of meetings, on the first page, proposed subsection 5(2) reads:
The Board shall meet at least once in every calendar year at the call of the Chair, but the time and place of each meeting is subject to the approval of the Minister.
I find that very strange. Either this board is independent or it isn't. The act sets how many times the board meets. It's at least once a year. It could say it meets four times a year, but I question why each meeting is subject to the approval of the minister. That implies, to me, that the minister's going to have a say in the designation of a historic site, and so politics and partisanship will clearly enter into the designation of these sites. Why isn't the board completely independent?
:
With all due respect, what Mr. Aldag just said worries me even more. If it had existed since 1950, there would be no need to amend the act.
The bill is being put forward to amend the composition of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. If it were already possible to do this, there would be no need for the bill. The bill is being put forward because there are new rights, it is new terrain; we are doing something different. As my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier so aptly put it, we are creating a precedent, we are creating case law that could be cited by all other boards of the House of Commons or indeed of the Canadian government.
I respect your work, of course. No offence intended. Yet you yourself admit that you did not draft the bill; it was drafted by jurists. I am sure it is well drafted. The real question is whether this is new terrain, whether there are new rights. If there are new rights, the least we can say is that we have not only the power but also the duty to ensure that this is well aligned with our objective. If there is a chance that this could have an impact on other boards, we have to be informed in order to measure the broader impact it would have.
We heard that it has always existed, since 1950, that is. If that were the case, however, we would not have to amend the act. Clearly, it does not exist.
:
It there anything anybody wants to add to the discussion? No? Okay I think all positions have been adequately and appropriately put on the table.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]))
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry, as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill, as amended, to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone, for helping us through that process, and for the good questions. I'm going to suspend for a few seconds to change up our witnesses and move to the next subject matter. Thank you.
:
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we are proceeding with supplementary estimates (C) 2017-18, vote 1c under Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, votes 1c and 10c under Department of the Environment, and vote 1c under Parks Canada Agency, referred to the committee on Monday, February 12.
We're packing all this good stuff in because we cancelled a meeting on Tuesday, and that has caused everything to get jammed into this one day, because there's only so much time to get everything back to the House. I apologize to the committee for the compression of our work, but that was the result of not having a meeting on Tuesday.
Welcome, witnesses. There are quite a lot of you at the table there, so we're going to get started with your names. I'm going to introduce you.
From the Department of the Environment, we have Douglas McConnachie, director general and deputy chief financial officer of the financial management directorate, and Matt Jones, assistant deputy minister of the pan-Canadian framework implementation office. It's nice to see you again.
We also have John Moffet, acting associate assistant deputy minister of the environmental protection branch. You guys are getting to be regulars here. It's fantastic.
From the Parks Canada Agency, we have Rob Prosper, vice-president of protected area establishment and conservation, and Sylvain Michaud, chief financial officer. Welcome.
From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, we have Alan Kerr, vice-president of corporate services and chief financial officer, and Heather Smith, vice-president of operations.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here today to present to us. I know not all of you are speaking, so who would like to go first?
Go ahead, please, Alan.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's my pleasure to join you today to discuss the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2018-19 interim estimates for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. I'm Alan Kerr, vice-president of corporate services and CFO, and I'm joined by my colleague Heather Smith, vice-president of operations.
I will begin with my presentation of the items that have been requested by the agency in the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C), and close with a brief overview of our 2018-19 interim estimates.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency provides evidence-based environmental assessments that protect the environment, foster economic growth, and serve the interest of Canadians. We support the in carrying out her responsibilities by conducting environmental assessments for major projects, which are based on science, and which include feedback and expertise received from the public, indigenous groups, and other stakeholders.
In the 2017-18 fiscal year, the agency actively supported the minister in leading a national review of federal environmental assessment processes. In June 2017, the government released a discussion paper that outlined a series of changes that it was considering to strengthen Canada's environmental assessment and regulatory processes.
The government has engaged extensively on the discussion paper since its release, both online and through in-person meetings, including through the launch of an engagement website to solicit input on the proposed approach. During this consultation, the minister and the agency's staff collectively held over 100 meetings with indigenous groups, provinces and territories, industry, and non-governmental organizations. The result of these consultations was the tabling of legislation by the minister on February 8 of this year.
Supplementary estimates (C) provide the agency with $1 million in expenditure authority from Environment and Climate Change Canada to assist in managing the costs of these extensive consultations.
In 2018-19, in addition to supporting the during the parliamentary process as the proposed bill is considered, the agency will continue its important day-to-day work in conducting environmental assessments while also preparing for the potential passing of the bill into law.
To accomplish these critical mandates and deliver on the government's priorities, the agency seeks an interim supply of $15.1 million to meet the agency's financial obligations pending approval of the main estimates. Our team will fulfill our mandate of conducting high-quality environmental assessments that contribute to informed decision-making and support sustainable development. In all of our activities, we will continue to consider feedback and expertise received from the public, indigenous groups, and other stakeholders.
We will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2018-19 interim estimates for the Parks Canada Agency.
[English]
I will begin by addressing the Parks Canada Agency supplementary estimates C, which is Parks Canada's third and final opportunity to make adjustments to its 2017-18 main estimates.
The agency's submission amounts to an increase in appropriations of approximately $27.5 million, bringing the agency's total appropriations to $1.7 billion in 2017-18.
Parks Canada is seeking adjustments to its appropriations for three items. The first is $27 million relating to emergency responses to natural disasters and associated health- and safety-related costs due to extreme weather and weather-related events. In 2017, British Columbia and Alberta saw a series of record-breaking wildfires in terms of size, severity, duration and risks to people, infrastructure and economic activity. These fires resulted in Parks Canada having to engage in its largest fire response season in history.
In addition to fires in western Canada, eastern Canada experienced several major flood events that required higher than normal emergency water control responses.
Second is approximately $700,000 to implement activities to pursue a national marine conservation area in the Canadian portion of the Last Ice Area within Canadian Arctic waters and complete a feasibility settlement and negotiations for an Inuit impact and benefit agreement.
The Last Ice Area is a large region within the high Arctic of Canada and Greenland. It is the area where the oldest Arctic multi-year ice is found and is the most likely to retain its summer sea ice into 2050 as the planet warms up due to climate change.
The third is a transfer of $405,000 from Parks Canada to Library and Archives Canada in return of a parcel of land in Gatineau, Quebec, to serve as the future site of the agency's national collections facility.
[Translation]
Next I would like to address the Parks Canada Agency's 2018-19 interim estimates, which are approximately $321 million. These estimates represent the agency's spending requirements for the first three months of the fiscal year and include a list of grants to allow the agency to make grant payments as of April 1, 2018.
[English]
I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair and the committee, for your time today.
We'll be happy to answer any questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, vice-chairs, honourable members.
Good morning.
[Translation]
It is my pleasure to join you today to discuss the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2018-19 interim estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC.
[English]
My name is Doug McConnachie. I'm director general of financial management services and deputy chief financial officer.
I'm joined by my colleagues Matt Jones, assistant deputy minister of the pan-Canadian framework implementation office, and John Moffet, acting associate assistant deputy minister of the environmental protection branch.
I'll begin with a presentation of the items that were requested by ECCC in the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and close with a brief overview of our 2018-19 interim estimates.
Through the supplementary estimates (C), ECCC is requesting Parliamentary approval of a net increase in authorities of $195.8 million. This amount comprises $197.1 million in new spending as well as $1.3 million in net transfers to other government departments. This represents a 17.4% increase in our authorities to date, from $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion.
[Translation]
The supplementary estimates (C) include new spending for three items: the low carbon economy leadership fund, the green municipal fund, and funding for the Pacific Environment Centre.
The low carbon economy fund was announced in budget 2017 with a total budget of $1.4 billion over a five-year period. ECCC is requesting $115 million of this total through these estimates and will request the remainder of this funding through future estimates.
[English]
The low carbon economy leadership fund is a key component of the pan-Canadian framework that will help provinces and territories deliver on leadership commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The fund will deliver clean sustained growth, support innovation, and reduce energy bills, helping Canadians save money and contribute to fighting climate change. The low carbon economy leadership fund also supports implementation of the pan-Canadian climate plan by investing in projects that will generate clean growth and reduce carbon pollution. These investments support Canada's Paris Agreement commitment and align with the 2030 national climate target.
[Translation]
Additional funding of $125 million for the green municipal fund, which is administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, was announced in budget 2016. ECCC is requesting $62.5 million through these estimates, with the remaining half to be requested by Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
The green municipal fund provides loans and grants that have a positive impact on the health and quality of life of Canadians by reducing greenhouse gas emissions; improving local air, water, and soil quality; and promoting renewable energy by supporting environmental studies in projects within the municipal sector. The green municipal fund supports the investing in Canada plan, a long-term ambitious plan of transformational investments in infrastructure that will help us to build strong communities, create jobs, and grow the economy.
ECCC has requested $19.6 million through these estimates to increase baseline funding for the Pacific Environmental Centre. ECCC's lease for this site requires the parties to conduct an independent review of rental costs every five years. In June 2017, the ECCC received an arbitration decision that increased the annual rent by $7.2 million, retroactive to the beginning of the five-year review period in 2013-14.
[Translation]
Finally, ECCC has requested four transfers of authorities to other government departments through these estimates. These transfers are $1 million to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to assist with temporary operating pressures; $0.2 million to Correctional Service of Canada to help address contaminated sites under their jurisdiction; $0.2 million to Global Affairs Canada to support whole-of-government initiatives internationally; and $0.1 million for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to be applied under the Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk.
[English]
I will now provide a very brief overview of the 2018-19 interim estimates. The tabling of interim estimates is a new process that has been designed to provide more coherent information to Parliament and to better align the federal budget and the estimates.
In past years, the main estimates were tabled by March 1, followed by an interim supply bill that was typically based on 25% of the main estimates. The interim supply bill ensured that the government had sufficient funding to commence the fiscal year.
[Translation]
The 2018-19 main estimates will be tabled on April 16, after the federal budget has been presented. This will allow parliamentarians and Canadians to more clearly see the alignment of the federal budget and estimates as compared to previous years.
With this change, through the 2018-19 interim estimates, ECCC is requesting funding for the first three months of the fiscal year and the authority to make commitments up to the amount of planned spending.
[English]
The ECCC is requesting funding of $357.4 million to the 2018-19 interim estimates, which represents one-quarter of its anticipated planned spending for the fiscal year. This amount comprises $188.2 million in operating expenditures, $19 million in capital expenditures, and $150 million in grants and contributions. The most significant increase in year-over-year funding is related to the anticipated planned spending for the low carbon economy fund of approximately $500 million.
I hope that this summary of initiatives in the 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2018-19 interim estimates provides the committee with additional clarity on ECCC's request.
Thank you very much.
I have a couple of quick questions for Parks Canada. I am the critic for Parks Canada, although I prefer "advocate", because that's really what I am.
The $26.7 million is basically to cover last year's costs, I assume.
Is there going to be money in this budget anticipating additional natural disasters like fires, particularly in British Columbia where I'm from? Climate change is not going away.
Second, it was announced that people aged 17 and under will have free entrance to parks. This is perhaps more a budget question, but are there operational dollars to replace lost revenue from the decrease in entrance fees?
The third question is specifically for my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, where there are four national parks, Kootenay, Yoho, Revelstoke, and Glacier. I would love to see additional money going into the highway, particularly through Revelstoke and Glacier parks, where there continues to be an unreasonably high level of fatalities.
:
Before we leave the room...wait. Wait. You're not scaring anybody; just let me finish this up.
Thank you very much to our guests. I'm just going to carry on into what we're going to do. I want to make sure that when we come back...wait. Wait.
I'm sorry. You guys are fine to leave; the committee is not fine. They just have to listen for a minute.
It is very likely that we will be getting Bill very soon. I want to make sure that the committee is as prepared as we can be; I want to make sure everybody is okay.
I would like to let the universe know that it's likely going to come to the committee and I'd like to call for submissions. I want to make sure everybody is okay with our putting out a call for submissions.
We've already been polling for your witnesses. Some of you have sent them; not everybody has. We will get the witnesses as fast as possible so that we can put out a list to all of you, which we can then work on in the first week we're back.
An hon. member: That's perfect. Well done, Chair.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. Well done, everybody.
The meeting is adjourned.