Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 247
View Yasmin Ratansi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Welcome, committee members and Minister.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the subject matter we're studying today is the supplementary estimates, votes 1b and 10b under the Department of the Environment and vote 1b under Parks Canada Agency.
Before we begin, I'd like to advise members that Mr. Hallman has a problem with both his ears. He can lip read, so if he asks you to repeat your question, I will stop your time and then let him continue.
With that, Minister, welcome. I presume you have a statement for 10 minutes.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's certainly a pleasure to be here for the first time as Minister of Environment and Climate Change to provide an update on our progress on climate action and environmental protection and how it is reflected in the supplementary estimates.
I am joined today by Christine Hogan, the deputy minister for Environment and Climate Change Canada; Ron Hallman, president and chief executive officer of Parks Canada Agency; and David McGovern, the president of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
I would like to start by recognizing that this meeting is taking place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.
Our world faces a number of very significant environmental challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution of a range of types, but perhaps the most topical issue in the recent days has been plastics pollution. All three are critically important and all three are certainly interrelated. All three are challenges, no doubt, but they all offer opportunities for those countries that move early to address them.
Climate change is the existential threat of our age. The science is clear and overwhelming.
If global emissions continue to rise at their current rate, the world could see at least 3 degrees of warming by 2100.
The implications are very real: a warmer climate will intensify weather extremes, result in sea level rise, and reduce the amount of snow, ice and freshwater.
In this regard, the climate issue is a science issue. It is not a political issue and, quite honestly, it should not be a partisan issue. The climate crisis calls for effective and clear-eyed policies that will measurably reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over the decades to come while promoting clean growth.
Going forward, Canadians understand that economic progress will need to take place in the frame of environmental sustainability. No longer can we think of economic opportunities without also considering environmental impacts. This is increasingly understood in all sectors of our economy. For example, leading money managers and investors, like BlackRock, are making sustainability and climate risk key elements of their investment strategies. Resource companies are committing to a net zero target, as did Canadian steel producers just last week. Others, including Microsoft, have adopted even more ambitious targets.
In the 2019 election, Canadians overwhelmingly demonstrated their concern about climate change. Our government committed to two key climate policies—exceeding our 2030 target of 30% below 2005 levels and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
We have made tremendous progress in addressing greenhouse gas emissions since 2015.
Early in our mandate, we developed the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, the first real climate plan this country has ever had. It contains more than 50 different measures, from phasing out coal to major investments in public transit and electric vehicle infrastructure to energy efficiency for buildings and industries. We invested over $3 billion to scale up clean technology, and we put in place a national price on pollution, because there can be no credible plan to fight pollution if polluting is free.
Achieving net zero will require an economic as well as an environmental transformation and the mobilization of significant amounts of private capital. Certainly a key component of any pathway will be a focus on clean technology. Hoping for technology to save us from the hard policy choices that are required to reduce emissions is not a climate plan. However, a thoughtful approach to clean tech must be part of an effective strategy to get to net zero, and in particular to help us decarbonize key sectors of our economy. Clean tech offers enormous economic opportunities for Canada.
We all have a role to play in fighting climate change, and I would point out that, when we work together, we can achieve great things. Take the Montreal protocol for example. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—a Conservative prime minister—worked with politicians across party lines, the United States, Nordic countries and the United Nations to protect the ozone layer. It was tremendously effective—197 countries signed on and the treaty went down as the most lauded environmental treaty in history.
Achieving our goals will certainly be challenging and will require leadership from every region of this country.
Now, very briefly, I would like to walk you through our updated estimates that account for changes or developments in particular programs or services. Let us start with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
The 2019-20 supplementary estimates (B) for Environment and Climate Change Canada outline $134.9 million in adjustments that relate mostly to the implementation of the framework, which included the climate action incentive fund. The fund applies to jurisdictions where the federal carbon pollution pricing system is in effect so we return the fuel charge to Canadians. The new estimates reflect increases of $9.5 million in voted appropriations and $109.1 million in statutory funding.
To support cleaner and more efficient travel, we have also allocated an additional $5.8 million to Natural Resources Canada for a contribution to the City of Brampton for an electric bus trial.
The estimates also reflect $4.7 million to start federal contributions toward eliminating plastic waste.
Let's now turn to Parks Canada, Madam Chair.
Parks Canada is responsible for protecting our treasured natural legacy for future generations to enjoy, as well as important historic and heritage sites.
Parks Canada Agency's spending has gone up $3.5 million, including $2.7 million to commemorate Indian residential school sites in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 79.
The supplementary estimates also seek approval for a vote transfer of $12.9 million from the agency's program expenditures to the agency's new parks account in order to set this money aside and protect it until need for the development of capital infrastructure in the Rouge National Urban Park.
As for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, it is requesting two interdepartmental transfers that total $1.8 million for these supplementary estimates (B).
I am going to stop here, Madam Chair.
I hope this summary provides committee members with the insights they were looking for in the supplementary estimates.
I want to assure the members of this committee and all Canadians of our commitment to fighting climate change and protecting our natural environment. We certainly intend to engage Canadians in discussions around these issues every step of the way.
With that, I am very happy to take your questions.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Minister and officials. Thank you for being here. It's always informative when you spend some time with us in committee, and we appreciate it.
Minister, with respect to the supplementary estimates (B), the sum of votes 15, 20 and 25 on marine safety response, disaster management preparation and implementing a federal carbon offset system totals over $1.1 million that is left over. Why hasn't that funding been fully expended?
Carol Najm
View Carol Najm Profile
Carol Najm
2020-03-12 8:54
Thank you.
With respect to votes 15, 20, 25 and 30, those are frozen allotments that came with budget 2019 for expenditures of PSPC, Public Services and Procurement Canada and Shared Services Canada for their support in implementing programs.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Have those programs not commenced? I wonder why they have not been expended.
Carol Najm
View Carol Najm Profile
Carol Najm
2020-03-12 8:54
Those are frozen allotments carried forward to the future year. This means they will come into our main estimates for 2020-21.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
Minister, the Globe and Mail has reported that the government plans to add plastics to schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the list of toxic substances. Plastics, I would suggest, are ubiquitous in Canada because they are affordable and can be used for so many applications.
How do you think declaring plastics as toxic without any further definition that we know of—unless you're going to give it to us today—will impact the production and availability of plastics in Canada? How could this impact the cost of living for Canadians, especially low-income Canadians?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
That's an important question. Plastic pollution in the environment is a problem. We recently went through a scientific report that identified a range of different issues with respect to macroplastics and microplastics, and it is important that we take action to address the plastic issue generally.
There are a number of tools through which that can be done. This was part of a conversation that happened during the 2019 campaign. We committed to a ban on harmful single-use plastics, and the work to identify the items that will be on that list of banned products is under way at the present time.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
We will be looking at putting the costs of collecting and recycling plastics back on producers through extended producer responsibility. As you will know, this is actually in place in British Columbia—the only place in Canada. We will be looking at issues around things like recycled content requirements. That is a strategy we will be coming forward with in the coming months. Certainly the ability to regulate plastics is enabled by CEPA, and that will require a listing under schedule 1.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
With respect to the use of plastics, I think you would agree that some plastics are used to keep food safe. Do you not think there's a risk that without definition this could lead to an overall reduction in food safety?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
That's an important point. The development of a list of those specific items that would be banned will relate to the availability of alternatives and the cost impacts that would be associated with those.
That being said, for those items that will not be on the list of banned products and that will continue to be in use, we need to ensure that we are actually doing better with respect to recycling and using recycled content. People think we do a great job of recycling in Canada, but if you look at the plastic stream, a very low percentage is actually recycled. For those kinds of products, where we need to have them, we need to be better about reusing them.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
I agree with you on that. I think it's 87% that ends up in landfill. It's unacceptable that a small percentage actually gets recycled.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
One of my concerns is that CEPA, as it is now, is not really designed to deal with broad classifications of products, such as plastics. As plastics do not currently meet what we would normally define as a substance, it seems you are declaring that something is toxic in order to deal with a recycling and litter problem.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2020-03-12 8:58
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
Is this relevant to the estimates?
View Yasmin Ratansi Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think the minister did make a statement about plastics. I will let it go for the time being.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm wondering if CEPA is also going to be used to address other critical nutrients, like copper, zinc and that sort of thing.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
As I indicated, the precursor to being able to use CEPA as a tool was the science assessment, which actually demonstrated environmental harm. Certainly the nature of the listing will need to be something that we are thoughtful about in terms of how we do that. We certainly all recognize that we're not going to be eliminating plastics entirely from use in the economy. There are certain types of products that certainly can be banned.
I think Canadians are far ahead of us on this. Many countries are. By the end of this year, China is banning plastic bags. Rwanda and Kenya banned plastic bags years ago.
We need to be thoughtful about how we actually ensure that we do get rid of those things that we can. For those things that we can't, we do a better job of recycling. That will be the strategy we will be bringing forward in the coming months.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, and thank you to all of you for being here today.
Minister, I represent Etobicoke Centre, a community on the outskirts of the city of Toronto. When I speak to my constituents about sitting on this committee, they almost unanimously ask me about the steps we're taking to fight climate change.
In the supplementary estimates you note the need for climate risk assessments by various departments. I wonder if you can tell us more about climate risk assessments, why they're important to Canadians and why they would be important to my constituents in Etobicoke Centre.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you for the question.
As you know very well, climate change is an existential threat from an environmental perspective. It is an existential threat for human health and it's certainly an enormous threat to our economy. Last year, we released “Canada's Changing Climate Report”, which highlighted the severity of the problem and the increasing intensity of the problem. It pointed out that Canada is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. In fact, in the northern part of Canada, it is even faster than that. We are feeling the effects of climate change through the changes to permafrost, flooding, wildfires and deadly heat waves.
Climate assessments are an important tool to allow us to better understand how our infrastructure may be impacted and what we need to do from a climate resilience perspective going forward. Climate mitigation is critically important in order to not make the problem worse. The problem exists and it will get worse irrespective of the mitigation efforts. We need to ensure that we're focused on mitigation. It is very important that Canadians have that kind of information to make the appropriate choices.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
We appreciate that.
Minister, climate change is obviously an immense challenge, as you just alluded to, and we know that, as you pointed out, carbon pollution has a cost. Some of the funding we're looking at today includes our government's climate action incentive fund. I'm wondering if you could explain to the folks who are watching at home how the incentive fund helps us fight climate change and how it helps families and businesses in Etobicoke Centre.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
I think we all know that putting a price on pollution is the most cost-effective way to cut emissions and to create good jobs. That has certainly been demonstrated in British Columbia, which is where I'm from and which has had a price on pollution since 2008. A family of four in your riding will get $486 back as a climate action incentive when they file their taxes.
Additionally, we are helping businesses invest in projects, through the incentive fund, that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as installing solar panels or making buildings more efficient. Putting a price on pollution is a practical way to reduce emissions, support clean growth and make life more affordable for families.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Baker.
Welcome, Minister.
As you know, any discussion about climate change necessarily leads to a discussion about water resources. At the end of the day, climate change impacts our water resources, whether through flooding or droughts. As you know, during the last election campaign, we committed to creating the Canada Water Agency. It's a pretty innovative idea, and you're responsible for bringing it to life.
Can you share with us your vision for the new agency that is in the works?
Are you envisioning a large-scale organization that will bring together everyone at the federal level responsible for water management and protection?
Otherwise, do you have more modest beginnings in mind, perhaps focusing on a few foundational pieces such as flood prevention and adaptation?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you for your question.
I'd like to start by thanking you for your work on the protection of Canada's freshwater.
As you know, our government committed to keeping Canada's water safe and clean, and creating a Canadian water agency is vital to that objective. I've asked my parliamentary secretary, Mr. Terry Duguid, the member for Winnipeg South, who is responsible for the Canada Water Agency, to lead this important work.
Although the specifics of the agency's role have yet to be determined, we will work closely with parliamentarians, indigenous groups, governments at every level and the public to ensure Canada's water is safe, clean and well managed.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Some would argue that Canada's water legislation needs to be modernized.
Have you had time to consider ways to keep the legislation relevant, so it can serve to better protect our water going forward?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Of course. The conversations about the Canada Water Agency will probably focus on setting priorities and examining possible legislative changes, but that still has to be determined.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, thank you for your appearance today and your opening statement.
In fact, my question ties in with something you said in your statement. It's about the Trans Mountain expansion project. You said, and I quote: No longer can we think of economic opportunities without also considering environmental impacts.
I'd like to take you back to June 2019. A provision stipulated that, should costs be revised upwards, the bill would be passed on to users, similar to toll highways. That wasn't retained, however. Trans Mountain rejected the option. The Canada Energy Regulator could have stepped in to prevent taxpayers from being stuck with those costs, but it didn't, so taxpayers are the ones who will be on the hook.
Oil companies will get to use the pipeline at a lower cost than the market value. The pipeline won't bring in any profit. Taxpayers are the ones who will have to pay for it, since pipeline users won't be paying any tolls, so to speak. Those costs weren't exactly laid out clearly in the budget.
Isn't the government underestimating the project costs to keep them under wraps, to some extent, so the public doesn't become outraged? The fact of the matter is that the costs are going to go up and the pipeline is going to become more and more expensive.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Thank you for the question.
I believe the costs associated with the project are the domain of the finance department.
We took a lot of advice from independent advisers with respect to the structure of the transaction on the Trans Mountain expansion. The intention on the part of the government has always been that it would be transacted back to the private sector once the political risks are lower. That is something we have always intended to do. It will end up being a private sector transaction. We are confident that the Canadian public will recoup the costs and then some.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Let's set the Trans Mountain pipeline aside and turn to fossil fuel subsidies. It appears that there was an agreement with Argentina. The initiative dates back to 2018 and was launched through the G20. Six countries gave themselves 12- to 24-month time limits.
Further to the agreement, where does Canada stand progress-wise?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Our government understands that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. That's why we've invested heavily in the protection of air, water and natural areas for our children and our children's children. Together with our G20 partners, we committed to phasing out ineffective subsidies for fossil fuels by 2025. Naturally, we are currently engaged in a process to determine what we've done so far and what Argentina has done to reduce fossil fuel subsidies.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
They're supposed to be phased out by 2025, but have any tangible measures been taken? Can you give us an example?
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order.
Is that in the supplementary estimates?
View Yasmin Ratansi Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, it isn't.
We do like to stay within what the minister is here for, which is the supplementary estimates.
Your question even about the Trans Mountain pipeline's cost is not.... It's the cleaning costs.
If you stay within that envelope, that's okay.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Forgive me. I wanted to take advantage of our time with the minister to have him answer a question in a way that is also political, since we are in politics, after all.
I'll ask another question, then, but I'm not sure it will be deemed in order, either. It has to do with health and the environment.
Numerous experts around the world are beefing up research on the health impacts of environmental degradation. Since we have to stay on the topic of the estimates, I'd like to know whether any funding has been earmarked to make scientific and medical publications available to the public to help people properly understand the effects of climate change on their health, particularly with regard to endocrine-disrupting substances. As we all know, a significant number of studies have examined the issue.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Yes, the environment department is doing its own research. Outside the department, a report on plastic was completed.
I'm going to ask the deputy minister to answer your question about the research currently under way at the department.
Christine Hogan
View Christine Hogan Profile
Christine Hogan
2020-03-12 9:12
I would just add a few words about the department's scientific program. It's a vast program. We are conducting research into health and the environment, and we are also working closely with Health Canada.
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you so much for coming today.
I am going to follow up on a few of Madam Pauzé's questions.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is seeking a total of $5.92 million to strengthen environmental protection and address concerns raised by indigenous groups regarding the Trans Mountain extension project.
Can you explain which environmental protections will be strengthened and how those were determined?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Sure.
Let me start by saying that there were very significant investments made to address a range of environmental issues well in advance of this particular portion of money. The oceans protection plan, for example, is $1.5 billion and looks at a whole range of issues around response, around strengthening local capacity and around science.
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm sorry to interrupt, but to add to that, to frame it up a little bit, $150 million was unspent from the oceans protection plan and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This is a significant amount, especially compared to the $5.92 million here.
I'm curious about that unspent money as well. Is it being invested back into these kind of environmental protections?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
With respect to the money that you refer to in Fisheries and Oceans, I'd be happy to get you a response. I think that question has been asked in the House of Commons in question period, and the Minister of Fisheries has provided a response, but I'd be certainly happy to provide another one.
With respect to the money for Environment Canada, as you know, additional consultations were done with indigenous communities in the aftermath of the decision of the court of appeal. There was a significant amount of conversation and also of working to accommodate concerns that were raised. A number of initiatives are under way. The initial amount of money is in this year's budget, but it's actually a three-year profile that relates to a whole range of initiatives in terms of strengthening local capacity, for example, of indigenous communities.
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
We are able to dig into and have some transparency around this $5.92 million. The only mention of the Trans Mountain pipeline in the estimates is this $5.9 million. We have recently learned that the construction costs are going to be $12.6 billion to finish construction. That's with us borrowing and it's in addition to the $4.5 billion that we already spent to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, which never came to Parliament. The government hasn't publicly released the Trans Mountain Corporation report that yielded the most recent $12.6-billion cost estimate so the public can actually understand what it includes and what it does not, and assess future risks.
We know that the Canada Trans Mountain pipeline finance corporation borrowed from another Crown corporation, Export Development Canada, yet we've not seen that corporate plan.
As MPs, don't you think we should have the opportunity to study the financial risks of Trans Mountain? Why is that huge expenditure, which has such significant impacts on the environment and significant impacts on our ability to meet our climate targets, not subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Will the government be making that information available to Canadians?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Let me say a couple of things.
First of all, with respect to the comment that it will imperil our ability to meet our climate target, that's just not true. The upstream emissions associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline were included in the pan-Canadian framework, so all of the upstream emissions are actually included in the plan to achieve our targets for 2030 and eventually to exceed them. That recognizes that we are going through an energy transition, where hydrocarbons are going to continue to be used for a number of decades to come—
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
Would you mind just focusing, at least for a moment, on the transparency?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
I am responding to what you actually said in your question.
The Trans Mountain pipeline is an important part of both an economic and an environmental strategy.
With respect to the costs associated with the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline, again, I think we're here to talk about the environmental estimates, and that's not in the environmental estimates. However, what I would say to you is that there was a public statement by the Minister of Finance with respect to the costs associated with the pipeline. What he said at that time was that we fully expect to recoup those costs when the pipeline is sold.
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
Just to be clear, I am asking why this huge expenditure is not in the estimates. Why are we, as members of Parliament, not able to dig into this the way we are able to question you about the $5.9 million that we're talking about to strengthen environmental protections and address concerns raised by indigenous groups?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Again, I would say to you that I am the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Even if it were in the estimates, it wouldn't be in my estimates.
My understanding is that today we are actually focusing on the estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada, but what I would say to you is that the Minister of Finance made a statement with respect to that project. We fully expect that those costs will be recouped.
View Laurel Collins Profile
NDP (BC)
You did mention quite a bit in your statement and just now about meeting or exceeding our targets. We heard from the environment commissioner, who said, “For decades, successive federal governments have failed to reach their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the government is not ready to adapt to a changing climate. This must change.” This is from our outgoing environment commissioner.
I'm curious whether you agree with that statement, given the estimates that you've tabled today. Is the government not ready to adapt to a changing climate? Do you think that we're on track?
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister and officials, for coming out this morning.
Minister, in 2017 your predecessor, Ms. McKenna, referred to the Manitoba climate and green plan as one of the best climate plans submitted by a provincial government.
Last week, that plan was resubmitted, and it included a carbon levy and exemptions for farm families.
I have a simple question, Minister. Will this government approve the Manitoba climate and green plan, yes or no?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
What I would say to you is that we have not yet received a formal proposal from the Government of Manitoba. We certainly will assess it when we receive it, but it will be assessed against the federal benchmark, as we have done with proposals from all provinces and territories.
As you know, the federal benchmark with respect to the price on pollution is $30 per tonne this year, and it increases annually by $10 per tonne until 2022.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Excuse me, Minister. So, you haven't seen even your predecessor's...and you didn't talk about it at cabinet and you haven't seen the proposal, so you have no idea what that plan was.
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
I am very aware of the proposal that the premier has made publicly in the press.
What I am saying to you is that we actually wait for provinces and territories to provide us with their proposals in writing, and we assess them against the benchmark. That's what we do with every province and territory, and we will be doing that with Manitoba when it submits it. It will be compared against the benchmark, which is $30 a tonne at this time and escalates to $50 over the next couple of years.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Okay.
I don't know if you get the gravity of how important it is to the Province of Manitoba to have this plan approved. There are a lot of struggling farmers out there. They are struggling to pay their bills, and a lot of the struggling on the financial side of it is from the carbon tax that's been imposed on grain drying and space heating.
It's causing a lot of financial stress. It's also causing a lot of mental stress. As a matter of fact, the Manitoba farm and rural stress line is starting to receive increased calls.
I don't know if you see any correlation, Minister, between farmers' accessing mental health services and the impact the imposition of the carbon tax has had on farmers, especially since you have imposed those carbon taxes. I don't know if you see any correlation in that or if you have heard anything about that.
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
Is that relevant to the supplementary estimates?
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
It's the financial stress that has caused this.
View Yasmin Ratansi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Mazier, stay within the supplementary estimates. Bring relevance through our supplementary estimates. How about that?
I know that a lot of you are new members and we have—
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Well, the carbon tax is part of the supplementary estimates.
View Yasmin Ratansi Profile
Lib. (ON)
Go to the item and say that you are referring to item number so-and-so. That way we will note it as being relevant. How about that?
Results: 1 - 60 of 247 | Page: 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data