Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have three indigenous nations represented within my riding—the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, the Algonquin, and the Métis. As you know, traditional knowledge is a keystone that guides indigenous communities in looking forward seven generations.

Can you comment on the importance of the consideration of indigenous knowledge within the impact assessment process?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

When Minister Carr and I announced the interim principles that would govern environmental assessments, we were clear at that early stage that indigenous knowledge was key, that it wasn't a nice-to-have; it was a must-have. Of course, we need protections around the intellectual property associated with indigenous knowledge, but also to allow an understanding of how decisions were made should they incorporate indigenous knowledge. That is a key part of this legislation and I know it's extremely important for indigenous peoples. They have made that clear.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I've put forward a number of amendments in this specific area. I hope we can be assured that you will take those into consideration.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We're happy to consider amendments. Thank you.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'd be happy to pass the rest of my time over to Elizabeth May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have two minutes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Minister, as you know, I'm disappointed by C-69, but I have hopes, and all the hopes I have for the bill being repaired have to do with the degree.... You prefaced your remarks often by saying what we heard in consultations before the bill for first reading, but I hope that you've heard a lot of the witnesses who have come before this committee with really big concerns that this bill will not rebuild trust. It's not all about transparency and consultation. It's often about whether the bill will work. I just want to focus on one piece, because I hope you heard from the expert panel that was convened that did really great work.

One of the things they mentioned was that environmental assessment—or impact assessment, if we will—of projects under federal jurisdiction is not just about major projects. Smaller projects can have really negative environmental impacts not caught by provincial EAs. I could mention a couple of projects. I will mention one right now. It was a shocker. It was the jet fuel line built in the Vancouver International Airport that Minister Garneau didn't know about that got signed off by the port authority, which wasn't the sort of thing that we might have thought of in a project review.

A project-by-project list can miss things. The only way to make sure we don't miss things is to cast the net wider, as we used to, and then make sure we're not wasting a lot of time on deep-dive reviews of things that don't need them. Small projects, though, can have a big impact.

I'm wondering if you're open to amendments that will allow us to have environmental assessment legislation, impact assessment legislation, that really rebuilds trust by going back to the pre-Harper days, which we had from 1976 until 2012, of assessing every project under federal jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have about 10 seconds.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I think that we focus on how we make sure that we're considering projects with major impacts. We have provisions for projects on federal lands. Also, there's the ability for citizens to raise issues and then the minister to designate projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sopuck, go ahead.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

One of the things I noticed, Minister, when you gave your list of interest groups and people you consult with, you talked about indigenous communities, environmentalists, the various levels of government. You've never, ever mention municipalities, rural communities, or agricultural communities. It's as if those people simply do not exist to this government.

I mention this over and over again in committee and over and over again these groups are always excluded. I'm really getting tired of it. Also, in terms of traditional knowledge, I represent a large, rural constituency with farmers, ranchers, hunters, trappers, and so on. They, too, possess a high level of traditional knowledge, and I would hope that their traditional knowledge is given equal weight.

You mentioned in your opening remarks about competitiveness. I've never heard so much nonsense. This government has made Canada's economy completely uncompetitive. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that if the goal was to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.

I know it's uncomfortable for some to hear this, but our resource economy is beginning to collapse. This is the truth. Foreign direct investment is down to $31.5 billion in 2017, down 56% since we were in office, which totals $71.5 billion. This is relevant, Madam Chair, because the minister talked about competitiveness right off the bat.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

John Ivison in a recent column wrote that the slow bleeding of corporate Canada was about to get under way and only the finance minister could stop it.

How can you sit there and say you're making Canada more competitive when people who are actually economic practitioners and investors are fleeing Canada in droves?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm not entirely sure of the question, but of course I care greatly about farmers and ranchers and small communities. That is why we are trying to rebuild trust for everyone in our system, which was sorely lost under the previous Conservative government, where decisions didn't take into account what communities had to say, what indigenous peoples had to say, and where decisions were made on a political basis, and projects, as a result, became polarized and did not go ahead.

Let me be clear, we are actually trying to get to a better spot, because we believe that we can do this. We believe that the environment and the economy go together, that we can rebuild trust by making decisions based on science, evidence, and indigenous knowledge, taking into account the real impacts of climate change and how projects fit within our climate plan, and also providing certainty for proponents.

As I expressed very clearly, we believe that by engaging on the front end you can have shorter timelines on the back end, which was something that proponents had very clearly expressed to us. I've had numerous meetings with proponents, with indigenous peoples, with environmentalists, with Canadians, with provinces.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

But not with municipalities. Here we go again.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Municipalities have also weighed in.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Why didn't you say so?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm happy to name every single person that we've engaged with if you would like, but we're going to run out of time.

We believe that it is important that we include community knowledge. That is reflected in the legislation, at proposed paragraph 22(1)(m), “community knowledge provided with respect to the designated project”. We want to be more competitive. We want to attract investment, and that is exactly what we're doing with this legislation.

Polarizing and dividing Canadians, not making decisions based on evidence and facts, and not including indigenous peoples or community knowledge are ways to ensure that projects don't go ahead.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

That is pure nonsense.

Given the criticism you had of our government's environmental record, which, by the way, was exemplary, I'd like you to name one quantified environmental indicator that got worse under our government, one quantified environmental indicator related to the environment itself, not some stuff about consultation or any of that kind of stuff.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I could go on. Once again, I think I'll probably run out of time. But I think—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

An indicator.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

—that you could say almost all indicators went down—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Name one. Name one.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

—under the previous Harper government.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Name one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Let her answer.