Environment Committee on June 5th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Minister, this is a very important question. You said that Canadians did not trust the Conservatives on the environment. However, for the past five years, the Liberal Party has shown a demagoguery that is totally disproportionate in this regard.

You're a smart woman. You know the ecoTrust program, an environmental platform that dates back to 2007. On that occasion, Mr. Harper and Mr. Charest gave a press conference. The budget envelope for this program was $1.5 billion. We transferred $338 million to Quebec to support its environmental plan. It isn't without reason that Canada has been able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 2% in recent years. Indeed, there was a real plan that the Conservatives had put forward.

You are being demagogic when you say that the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing in this area. There was the ecoTrust program and the greenhouse gas emission targets, targets that you kept in the Paris Agreement.

The minister talks about public confidence, but how can she have censored the results of the research done by her department and the Department of Finance?

How could she hide the figures that indicated how much the Liberal carbon tax would cost per capita?

Madam Minister, since you are talking about public confidence, you must tell us today how much the Liberal carbon tax will cost per capita.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm going to have to cut that off because unfortunately your question went over time. Maybe you could pick that up in the next round of questioning.

Next up is Mr. Rogers. You'll be sharing your time.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you again, Minister, for being here. We appreciate the fact that you are able to sit in front of our committee and take questions. I know you have a busy schedule, so I'll get to a couple of points I want to make and then ask you a couple of questions.

We know the Conservatives don't care for opinions that are different from theirs. That's why they refused to hold committee meetings on the 2012 changes to the environmental assessment process. Indeed, they even tried to remove the important role of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board from the review panel process in the Bill C-69 review. This was attempted despite massive objections from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the experts. It was quite shocking to people involved in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also know that prior to tabling Bill C-69, unlike the Conservatives with the 2012 changes, you engaged with stakeholders from a variety of sectors and perspectives for over a year. We know that you were engaged thoroughly with industry throughout the entire process, and the same can be said for our other environmental initiatives. Can you comment on the robust consultation processes that went into designing Bill C-69 and how they've been designed in consultation with industry?

Could you also comment on how the competitiveness of Canadian industry goes into designing the programs and initiatives under your purview?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I think this is a really important question because when we had to rebuild trust in how we did environmental assessments, so sorely lost by the previous government, we needed to hear from Canadians because they had said they lost trust. We spent a lot of time with Canadians. We spent a lot of time with industry. We spent a lot of time with provinces and territories. I know the Government of Newfoundland was very interested in the role of the offshore petroleum boards. We also listened to environmentalists. We listened to all Canadians, and that started from the very beginning.

When we came into government, we knew it was important to do what we could to build a more robust system, so we brought in interim principles that increased indigenous consultation, ensured decisions were made on science, and that we looked at the emissions associated with projects. Then we had an expert panel. There were three other ministers involved. One other minister had an expert panel. There were two committees that were involved. There was a whole process there with thousands of consultations literally across the country. Then we brought this all together in a document, which we then consulted again.

I sat down with industry many times, including at tables that were organized by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, in order to listen to them. I also did the same with environmentalists. I did the same with the provinces and territories, and we listened to indigenous peoples and worked very hard to design something that made sense. We know that competitiveness is hugely important, that goal of “one project, one assessment” is important, but it's also important to ensure that we can approve projects in a timely manner with a clear process and ensure that good projects go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Mr. Bossio.

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

Once again, Minister, it's great to be able to ask you questions and we really appreciate your once again coming to our committee.

The proposed impact assessment act opens up new opportunities for indigenous peoples to participate in the conduct of impact assessments. How would these changes improve the assessment process and meaningful public participation?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

This is really extraordinarily important. We know that under the previous system, there wasn't proper consultation with indigenous peoples. As soon as we came in, we made it much more robust through the interim principles, but we've also spent time working with the national indigenous organizations and also in listening to indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples from coast to coast to coast. We know that indigenous peoples are often the most profoundly and directly impacted when a project is built, and they also want the capacity to be involved, to evaluate and assess potential impacts of projects, and also to monitor them.

The new impact assessment act now provides for meaningful collaboration with indigenous peoples, including through an early engagement process where we will design with indigenous peoples the consultation plan that we will be working in partnership with them on. Indigenous traditional knowledge will be a “must have“, not a “nice to have“. We know that this is a way to develop better relationships, to build better projects, and is also better for our longer term goal of reconciliation.

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

In 2017, the budget put forward by the Honourable Bill Morneau invested in the establishment and expansion of the land-based guardians program. How will these programs contribute to reconciliation and how will they help indigenous youth?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I had a great opportunity to see the indigenous guardians program in action at Gwaii Haanas. I would encourage everyone to go there if you haven't been there. There you see indigenous youth with elders, protecting the land, caring for the land, but also explaining to visitors about the history of indigenous culture. We now have built this in with other projects that we're moving forward with. Even if you visit the Franklin ships, there's a guardians program there designed by Inuit for Inuit. I think this is extremely important. It's about learning, healing, and nation building, especially for indigenous youth. There is so much that we can be doing and learning from indigenous peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing. I'm glad you changed your mind and are defending the estimates, as other ministers have done.

I must say I am somewhat disappointed at the adversarial and highly partisan way in which you approached this meeting. Your introductory comments were effectively an attack ad on the previous government, when in fact the previous government did a lot for the environment, setting aside an additional 50% of parkland in Canada, having great relationships with groups like Ducks Unlimited to expand and protect wetlands, and it goes on and on.

You didn't do yourself a service, I will tell you, by going on an attack in your 10-minute presentation, and then when Mr. Boulerice asks a question you talk about how it's important that we all work together. Suddenly there's a Kumbaya moment. I think you can do better, Madam Minister. You and I have known each other now for quite a while. I have the greatest respect for you, but you're going to have difficulty getting your climate change agenda through if it's all partisanship and attacks on the other parties in Parliament. We're all members of Parliament who believe we're doing our job in representing our communities and promoting a better Canada.

I want to go back to a question I asked you a long time ago, which we still don't have an answer to, and that is the carbon tax. The carbon tax in 2022 will be $50, and it will be right across Canada in every province and territory. We've been asking what that will mean in costs to the average Canadian family. Can you answer that question today?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would just like to repeat that I think we work better together. I do not like seeing attack ads using my public servants, and that was a Conservative attack ad using a public servant who was talking about carbon pricing. I take great offence at that and I think Canadians take great offence.

In terms of a price on pollution—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Minister, with respect, you're in a political arena and—

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

—we've repeated it over and over. In terms of a price on pollution, we know that 80% of Canadians—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If you're going to be partisan at committee, you can expect an equivalent response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Do you want an answer, Mr. Fast?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, then let's let the minister have the floor.

Go ahead.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Eighty per cent of Canadians live in a jurisdiction where there's a price on pollution through the leadership of the provinces and territories. The federal government has said that we have a backstop, but we are hoping that provinces step up like they've already done—Alberta, Quebec, and British Columbia.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What will this cost the average Canadian family?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

What have we seen in those provinces? We have seen that they have been able to tackle climate change while also being the fastest-growing economies in the country. The question you're really asking is what happens with the revenues. That is up to the provinces to decide and—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Don't tell me the question I'm asking.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

—we've seen that B.C. has given the revenues back. They gave the revenues back so people had more money in their pockets, while they were also doing what was necessary, which was reducing emissions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Minister, British Columbia, which is my home province, no longer has a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Every penny of that carbon tax goes into general revenues and is spent on the B.C. government's political priorities. You know that. There is not a jurisdiction in Canada that has a carbon price or a carbon tax where money is being returned to taxpayers. It's all going into general revenues. Those governments spend it on their priorities.

I will ask you the question again. How much will your carbon tax of $50 per tonne cost the average Canadian family?