Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Then rule me out of order so you're on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm ruling the question out of order. I'm on the record that this question does not relate directly to what we're studying, which is Bill C-69.

I will move on to another member, although I don't want to do that. Do you have another question before I move on?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Listen, I am insisting that I have a right to ask the minister the questions that are relevant to Canadians, that Canadians are interested in, and that have to do directly with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Are you challenging the chair?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Listen, you have a majority on this committee. Challenging the chair will simply result in the same outcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ed, I've given you a lot of time to put your point forward.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I know you have. I have respect for you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I have respect for you, which is why I'm giving the time.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I will now cede my speaking time, because it's very clear that this committee and its chair are suppressing the information that Canadians need to know about the carbon tax and its impact on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Are you ceding it? Thank you very much.

I'm going to give the time to Ms. Duncan, please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much. It's nice to see the minister and her officials back. I look forward to the second hour of being able to spend more time with the officials as well.

I'm presuming, Madam Minister, that you've been well briefed on the extensive and significant concerns raised about this bill that people have welcomed. Finally, the government has come forward with an amended three bills in one, in this 800-clause bill. My understanding is that we've received almost 450 amendments. That's only the tip of the iceberg. Regrettably, so far, the members of the committee have only actually seen one half of the briefs that have been submitted, mainly because this review has been so fast-tracked.

We will have 450 amendments to review in the next four meetings, maximum. That means that we regrettably won't be able to consider a great many of the amendments that industry, NGOs, and indigenous, Métis, and Inuit communities put forward. I would encourage the minister to consider the briefs that have been put forward if we are not able to raise their concerns in our process.

Madam Minister, you have again repeated here—and I appreciate that—your government's commitment to the UNDRIP. The request that I am putting to you is the same request that I put forward in this committee to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and was not accepted.

Are you willing to amend your bill to specifically reference the UNDRIP as requested by first nation, Métis, and Inuit people appearing before this committee?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, and thank you very much for all your hard work. I know you care greatly about this.

Just to your previous point, there have been submissions from indigenous peoples, from industry, from environmentalists. We take them all very seriously. I've been personally engaged in discussions but also in reviews with them, and I have great faith in the committee.

We have committed to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship based on respect, co-operation, and partnership rooted in the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would confirm that this bill reflects the commitment that we have upfront recognition of indigenous rights, mandatory consideration of rights and culture, and provisions for arrangements with indigenous groups to exercise powers and duties under the legislation. There is a focus on aiming to secure free, prior, and informed consent through processes based on mutual respect and dialogue.

I've spent a lot of time meeting with indigenous peoples, meeting with communities.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Minister, if I could interrupt, I'm well aware of what is provided in the bill.

My question is very specific. Are you willing to accept an amendment to this bill to specifically reference the UNDRIP, yes or no?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We are happy to consider any amendments.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

A lot of concern has been expressed about the discretionary nature of this bill. Nobody knows yet what will be on the project list, and many have expressed concern, including industry, that we don't yet know what will be covered by this bill.

You've brought forward the same discretionary power that existed in the Harper assessment bill. That is where, if you're informed of significant potential impacts to health or environment, you have a discretion. Are you willing to consider changing that provision and making it mandatory, when information comes to your attention that there may be potential significant impacts to health or environment, that you would require a federal assessment?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just to start, you mentioned that proponents are concerned. Proponents are weighing in quite strongly—there's a project list, a paper that's under consultation—as are indigenous people, as are environmentalists.

We know we need to be able to rebuild trust in environmental assessments. We need to hear from communities. We need to work in partnership with indigenous peoples. That's why we've rebuilt the process through the early assessment.

We've also—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

With all due respect, Madam Minister, that's not my question. I'm not asking about the right of people to participate.

I'm asking if you are willing to consider an amendment that would make it a mandatory duty, not a discretionary option, to trigger a federal assessment if you become aware of potential significant impacts to health or the environment.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We have made the decision that we believe we should review major projects based on a project list. There's a long discussion going on right now. Many folks are weighing in. There is always the ministerial discretion. I think the consultation, the project list, is really important so that we can figure out how we review major projects with the potential for adverse environmental impacts that are clearly within federal jurisdiction.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm taking that as a no.

In terms of Bill C-69—and this is regrettable—my party did make the request that the bill be split. We note there are two representatives of the natural resources committee here. We don't have that option, because we have only one member on the committee. We had hoped that the navigation would go to the transport committee, that the new CER would go to natural resources, and the assessment bill here. But you are responsible, as I understand, for the full bill.

Right now the bill exempts the CER commissioners who would join a review panel from considering climate impacts. Are you willing to consider amending the bill so that those members will also have to consider climate impacts when they're reviewing a project?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We're certainly committed to, as we review projects, the need to understand the climate impacts of projects, and we are looking at amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Great.

Mr. Bossio.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here once again to discuss this very important bill.

As you know, I have a long history as a community activist fighting against a mega-dump expansion that threatened my community's water supply, and I've been through environmental assessments on a number of occasions. I want to ensure, as you do, that public participation in the process is strong and meaningful. I have put forward several amendments this week to strengthen public participation by ensuring the words “meaningful public participation” are added to the bill.

Is this something you would support? Can you comment on how this would strengthen the regulations that will follow?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We believe that public participation is critical. Unfortunately, under the previous government that was sometimes unnecessarily curtailed or prevented. We are happy to consider amendments that would make it stronger, for example, the words “meaningful public participation”. The only way you're going to make good decisions on projects is if you listen to the people who will be impacted by them. We need to do that. That is our commitment to rebuilding trust, and I think that's a critical part of this.

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

Thank you.

Also, Minister, the environmental appeals tribunal process in Ontario was a crucial tool for my community to oppose the mega-dump expansion. I know first-hand how important this additional body can be to ensuring we get things right.

This week I put forward an amendment to Bill C-69 to establish a Canadian assessment appeal tribunal. Is this something that you would support, and can you please give me your rationale?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We have heard from some groups that are supportive of this approach, and a number of other groups that aren't. In terms of the folks who have expressed concerns, I think it's the idea that it provides uncertainty. It increases the complexity and the unpredictability with timelines. As we say, we need to find the proper balance, the proper approach, and we have, obviously, a number of different stakeholders.

We have made it much clearer how the process will be conducted in terms of doing assessments, including early engagement. We've been clear about the factors that would be considered in assessments and in decision-making and that we have to provide transparency around the decisions. We believe it also provides for meaningful opportunities for participation by indigenous peoples, stakeholders, environmentalists, and the public. We believe this, in combination with other provisions in the bill, provides sufficient safeguards without the additional expense and regulatory uncertainty and the additional timelines that would result from a separate tribunal.