Evidence of meeting #110 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
—because they wanted a government that was committed to the environment.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
They wanted a government that was going to believe in climate change—
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
—and have a real approach to climate change. They wanted a government that would ensure clear air and clean water, and that is exactly what we're doing.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Good.
I want to go back to competitiveness. What is it about CEOs like Steve Williams from Suncor? The Royal Bank pointed out that capital is fleeing at an incredible rate. One of the big reasons is that these project processes.... I happened to cut my teeth as a biologist on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. There are communities in the western Arctic that are impoverished because that pipeline wasn't built due to an environmental process that ran amok and actually killed investment, and this is exactly what your government is doing.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We've clearly taken in competitiveness concerns. We believe we are getting to a better spot where we will rebuild trust. We will engage properly with indigenous peoples and with communities. We will have stricter timelines. We will make decisions based on evidence and knowledge, and we will ensure that good projects go out of their way to protect the environment, which will lead to competitiveness. We understand the importance of attracting investment. I was very pleased to see Amazon make a decision just the other day. We have historic economic growth rates—the highest in the G7 right now—and the lowest unemployment rates, while under the previous government, it was actually the reverse. Our economy was in decline, and we weren't—
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Amazon moved in because of the carbon tax...?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
—tackling climate change and we weren't growing the economy.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, and Parliamentary Secretary, and our civil servants. We appreciate this very much.
I have three issues I want to address today. One has already been raised by my colleague Ms. Duncan around the issue of incorporation of climate considerations. I intend to bring an amendment to seek to lock down more firm climate considerations at all stages, but particularly through the panel reporting.
I wonder if you could indicate whether you will you be open to these amendments. The testimony that came across from witnesses was fairly clear that we really need to do a better job of that. I wonder if you could comment.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We certainly agree that we need to be considering climate change when we make decisions on projects. Once again, all parties supported the Paris Agreement and meeting our goals under the Paris Agreement, which I thought was extremely helpful. So clearly, there should be support across parties for doing this. Proposed sections 22 and 63 talk about considering the climate impacts.
Also, we are going to be issuing a discussion paper shortly on doing a strategic assessment on climate change. It's really important. We want to provide clarity to proponents, to stakeholders, to the agency, and to Canadians as to how climate change and Canada's climate plan will be considered in project assessments.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Another issue that came up frequently in the written testimony, which we obviously take just as seriously as the oral testimony, was the issue of the incorporation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have many constituents in the riding of Pontiac who belong to the Algonquin nation, and they have communicated to me the same thing, that they expect this bill to be reflective of our government's commitment to UNDRIP, to Bill C-262, which is presently being evaluated by another committee. I intend to bring amendments that would seek the incorporation of UNDRIP into this bill.
What is your reaction to those requests?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
As I've been clear, we're committed to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship that's based on rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. We believe that's also incorporated into this bill, but we are also willing to consider that as well.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you.
My last question deals with the role of regulatory bodies, particularly entities such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the offshore petroleum boards. We heard testimony from a significant number of stakeholders bringing into question not only the weight of their participation, the number of members that could be included in a panel, but also concerns about the potential for them to predominate on panels, and particularly their potential role in a chair position.
I intend to bring amendments on this issue because I think it's a matter that goes to public trust. For better or for worse, there have been questions raised about those entities. I wonder if you could speak to that issue and to whether or not you'd be open to reducing the role of those bodies in the context of review panels.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We did hear concerns about regulatory bodies, and that's why we made the determination that we should have an impact assessment agency that would be leading major projects, designated projects. We think that's critically important.
However, we know we do need to be working with life-cycle regulators. They have a role to play. They bring expertise and particular knowledge. We think we have the right balance, and that the lead once again is the impact assessment agency. There's one agency that will be doing this, which is different than is the case.... We do still believe that life-cycle regulators and their expertise are important in how we make decisions.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Madam Chair, I don't have any more questions. I'll hand the time to Madam May if she has another one.
11:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you so much.
With your permission, Madam Minister, I want to pursue this notion of expertise. I'll be brief. We have very little time. These are life-cycle regulators. That's a fairly recent new buzzword to describe them. I have extensive experience with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. They have expertise in approving offshore oil and gas. That is their mandate. It is a mandate in legislation that created them. They cannot be seen as having expertise that's valuable for this process. I'm going to ask again if you could name the kind of expertise you think is valuable to this process that comes from those regulators, because I can't think of a damn thing.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
First of all, let's step back. We said that the impact assessment agency is the agency that will lead all reviews. Remember we've talked about one project, one review. We need to provide some efficiency, we want to make sure that we're able to monitor the project, and we have conditions that are going to be relevant and are going to apply throughout any project that's approved. That's why we do think it is important that they have a role to provide expertise in that.
