Environment Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Minister, I've read that declaration, and it does no such thing. With the greatest of respect, what the declaration does is commit the premiers and the federal government to go back and establish four working groups. One of those working groups is to continue to study carbon pricing, but there is no formal endorsement or commitment to a national carbon price by all of the premiers.

I challenge you at this table to prove to us that in fact that is not the case.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It is difficult for me to prove what someone believes. I can go back to the Vancouver declaration, where it's quite clear that we have a working group and a commitment that carbon pricing is a part of the solution.

You know I am heartened we have so many people who are coming around to the fact that carbon pricing is critical. Ontario Conservative Leader, and former MP, Patrick Brown said, “Climate change is a fact. It is a threat. It is man-made. We have to do something about it, and that something includes putting a price on carbon.”

As I've said, the Mining Association of Canada.... I know premiers obviously care about what the business community is saying. I would say the business community is saying put a price on carbon.

As I've said, I was out in Washington, and I was with the CEOs of leading companies, including energy companies. They said, “put a price on carbon. We are so heartened to see Canada's leadership. You know we need your support to make this happen everywhere. This is key“.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

By the way, I'm not debating about the merits of carbon pricing. It was a clear statement you had made that all the premiers had endorsed carbon pricing, I don't believe they did.

Now, my follow-up question—

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm going to quote, if you let me quote—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm running out of time.

My follow-up question has to do with this. You made a statement that all environmental assessments under CEPA need to be done based on science. I agree with you on that. You won't find me challenging that.

But, Minister Carr, the Minister of Natural Resources, has said that ultimately the decision will be a political one made by cabinet.

That is disheartening for me, when we have the National Energy Board in place, and we have a process in place that is supposed to be science-based. In fact, even your Member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, this past week, articulated that he believed the NEB should have the final say.

Yet we have Minister Carr saying this is a thoroughly political decision that will be made by cabinet. Which is it?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I will point you to this. First, ministers commit to transition to a low carbon economy by adopting a broad range of domestic measures, including carbon pricing mechanisms.

To your point about environmental assessments, when there's an environmental assessment I am tasked, or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is tasked, to provide a report and look at the significant environmental effects. Assuming there are significant environmental effects then a decision needs to be made, and ultimately it will go to cabinet. That is not a change. That is actually the process. What we have said is that decisions need to be made on science, evidence, facts. They need to take into account the public consultations. They need to take into account the views of indigenous peoples, engagement with indigenous peoples; and they need to consider the greenhouse gas emissions, both direct and upstream.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Minister, when Minister Carr says this is going to be a political decision, by definition it means you're going to go off science as the basis for that decision. That should be of concern not only to you as the minister responsible and who is committed to science, but it should be of concern to all Canadians that decisions that go through a thorough, scientific-based process at the end of the day are based on politics. That is a frightening thought.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would say that's a surprise, given that the previous government's decisions were generally based on politics.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

They weren't.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

However, I will say there's an environmental assessment process where they look at the facts, the evidence, the science, consultations. We are looking at upstream greenhouse gas emissions and the overall impact. Assuming a decision is made that there are some significant environmental impacts for major project decisions—so for a particular decision—then it is up to cabinet. Cabinet makes the decision considering all of the facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You're right at the end of the time there.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Welcome, Minister, to our committee meeting. I just want to start by saying that I'm extremely delighted to hear that there could be more effort put towards leading by example, and particularly around the Hill. My wife and I are on our second electric vehicle, and it's so discouraging when I drive up to the Hill here and see that there isn't a single electric charging station. In addition to that, I live in a brand new building that was just built in Ottawa that doesn't have an electric car charger in it. If we're going to be projecting this onto the private world, we have to start leading by example, and I'm extremely delighted to hear that you're committed to that.

My questioning was going to centre on carbon pricing, but I appreciate the fact that a lot of it has already been discussed. Notwithstanding the fact that you indicated already that you are looking forward to the provinces coming together with a model, I'm wondering if you have any sense as to what form that carbon pricing will take.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. On my list is electric vehicle charging stations on Parliament Hill. I hear you on that.

In terms of carbon pricing, as I said, we already are in a situation through the leadership of the provinces; four provinces in particular...80% of Canadians will live in a jurisdiction where there's a price on carbon. Alberta and B.C. have a tax, and Ontario and Quebec, cap and trade. This is why we do need to have a discussion to understand how these different systems interrelate, what the concerns are. I understand there are provinces that may have different views or concerns. In the north there are very legitimate concerns about the impact on carbon price on the cost of living, which is already very expensive. Those are things that I certainly take seriously, and that's why we need to have this discussion.

As I said, I'm very heartened by the positive atmosphere where we see environmental leaders and business leaders saying the same thing. They are saying, let's use the most efficient mechanism, a market mechanism, where we reduce what we don't want, pollution, and foster what we do want, which is clean innovation because that's not a hardship, that's where the economy and the jobs of the future are, and that's the direction. If we can get this right, China alone will require, I believe, $30 trillion of investments in clean technology—$30 trillion. I was with the Governor of the Bank of England on a panel discussing this subject

If we can find solutions here, those are solutions that we can export, and that is really key. I think carbon pricing is certainly part of the solution. That's why I hear so many companies saying, let's provide the certainty that we like, let's reward what we are looking for, solutions that reduce emissions when it comes to natural resources that foster innovation and clean tech. We need to go through this discussion. It is not an easy discussion. I don't doubt that people have different views, which is why I am very excited about sitting down with everyone because I think this is really a win-win. I certainly approach the discussions with the provinces and territories in a very positive spirit because I know Canadians expect us to do our job in terms of reducing emissions, but they also believe that the environment and the economy go together, and carbon pricing is part of the solution.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I just want to touch on something that relates to my riding specifically. Perhaps, if you don't have the answer right now, you could turn it over to your deputy or somebody else.

I come from the riding of Kingston, which was rich in industrial activity many years ago. As a result, we now have many brownfields in the area. A number of different programs have come along, such as municipalities offering a reduction of property taxes, in order to rehabilitate these brownfields.

What is the government's approach with respect to helping municipalities to rehabilitate brownfields so that these areas, quite often in the centre of municipalities, can start to see life again? Otherwise, they are just sitting there vacant, because they're completely contaminated by the toxic substances that have been put into the land.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Contaminated sites and the remediation of contaminated sites is extremely important. Actually, it also plays a role in tackling climate change. I'm originally from Hamilton. We have one of the most contaminated sites, which we're also working on. I recognize how important it is for communities, and what an opportunity it is.

We have a federal contaminated sites action plan. It was established in 2005. Its primary objective is to reduce environmental and health risks from federal contaminated sites.

I guess I will pass it on to the deputy, because I know we have funding allocated in budget 2016 that will go towards the remediation of contaminated sites.

[Michael Martin]

Yes, as the minister has said, the program has been renewed for funding through 2019, and there were additional funds committed in budget 2016 in order to continue to reduce the overall inventory of federal contaminated sites.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

We'll go back to Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Great. I'll start with some good news. I think the Department of Public Works and Government Services has already agreed to our request to put up a charging station on Parliament Hill, so I'll take one off the list.

Have you ever been to Haida Gwaii, Minister?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's interesting that you should ask, because I am planning on going this summer.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Fantastic. I will see you there. Bring your kids. Mine will be there. For those who have never been, if you want to see the true power of Canada and the beauty of the Haida people in action, come up to the northwest of British Columbia.

I have a question about Bill C-38. We talked about this terrible omnibus bill that came through. It not only changed environmental assessments, it also slashed a number of the budgets in your department. Does budget 2016 seek to restore the funding that was cut, in terms of water quality management and greenhouse gas emissions monitoring? Do you have a sense of that? If you don't, could you get back to the committee with an assessment, perhaps from your department, as to what was cut in Bill C-38 and what you hope to restore in terms of that critical funding?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

In terms of budget 2016, I think there were some concerns about funding subject to a sunset clause. The good news is budget 2016 continues most of that funding.

You know, I have looked into and asked about the impacts, or how we might address any cuts. I feel confident that we have looked at the programs. I think some of the cuts were addressed to programs that were not core to the mandate.

I'm going to pass it over to my deputy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me ask a specific question for a very quick response. If we can't measure, we can't manage. We can't improve water quality if we're not measuring it. We can't improve on our greenhouse gas emissions if we're not measuring them.

Is it possible—not now—to provide the committee with an assessment of what has been cut over that number of years, and whether there have been efforts to restore that funding, or even improve it?

[Michael Martin]

I think the question may relate to budget 2012 reductions that were made across the government in order to help the government achieve its deficit reduction goals. The core monitoring programs of the Department of Environment and Climate Change were not affected.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We have a number of documents showing that some of those core programs were, in fact, impacted. We'll put a written question through to your office, and with the endorsement of the minister, we can get some answers.

Bill C-38 very specifically went after our environmental assessment. I can't help but smile ironically when I hear my Conservative colleagues talk about this decision around the assessment of projects to be a political one, because it was in fact the Conservatives who made the choice to take it away from the National Energy Board exclusively and put it into the hands of cabinet.

Have you considered moving it out of the hands of cabinet and back towards the regulator, which is supposed to be non-political and dispassionate about these things, using the science that we so trust?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Once again, one of my majority priorities is helping to restore confidence in Canada's environmental assessments.