Environment Committee on May 1st, 2017

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

We are certainly committed to the ongoing protection of Wood Buffalo National Park, and we welcome the review by UNESCO. It is a reminder that we need to always work to protect Canada's special places, and it's a call to action.

We know we need to be working with the Mikisew Cree. In fact, I met with representatives of the Mikisew Cree just a few months ago when we hosted our Parks Canada conference. I had a good conversation, but clearly we need to be doing more and we need to be working with all levels of government. It is not just the federal government. It is provincial governments also, industry, stakeholders, and other indigenous partners. We're certainly going to be continuing that process. We're going to do this, and we need to ensure we do a lot better when it comes to the ongoing protection of Wood Buffalo National Park.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you. It's not very reassuring. It doesn't sound like an immediate response, and I'm hoping this doesn't put that world heritage site at risk as we are thinking of designating new ones.

On environmental impact assessment, I'm wondering, Madam Minister, if you would consider issuing a white paper stating your government's views on the recommendations from your expert report and the feedback you receive before you table a bill. My concern is that there has been a propensity in your government not to accept amendments. Would you give consideration to issuing a white paper as has been the practice of a number of previous governments when they tabled major environmental legislation?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sorry. I'm not sure I understood your comment. Are you talking about the review of environmental assessments?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You had an expert panel. You called for comments. I'm wondering if, in between this work and the tabling of a bill, you would consider issuing some form of white paper stating where the government is at so that people can be prepared when the legislation comes forward.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sorry. I just wasn't sure if you were talking about environmental assessments. That is our intention. We don't call it a white paper anymore given the history. We will call it a discussion paper, but the intention is absolutely there. We are now taking comments and feedback.

I was just in Halifax last week where I met with what is called the ACE committee. It's the AFN's committee on the environment. I met also with representatives of industry, and we're going to continue the discussions. Then it is my intention to release a discussion paper. I want to be constructive. Of course, we need to make sure we do better and rebuild public trust in environmental assessments, but we also need to make sure we listen to the concerns of industry, and we get it right. This is a major piece of legislation, and I certainly look forward to working with the committee.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Meanwhile, Madam Minister, there are projects proceeding and being approved and those include the oil sands. Under the previous government, the Harper government, they chose to exempt a good number of the oil sands projects from federal assessment.

One of the areas that the first nations in northern Alberta are concerned about is the use of solvent for in situ, and currently in situ are exempted from CEAA. Six aboriginal groups contacted me last October making that request and I'm wondering if you are moving forward to make some kind of interim measure to make sure that for any new projects that are proceeding as we sit here, potential impacts to first nations lands and to northern Alberta are considered as those projects go forward and may be approved.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We certainly understand the need to get environmental assessments right. That's why we release interim principles that provide certainty to industry about how we're moving forward, but it's also to rebuild trust. That includes additional engagement with indigenous peoples. That includes making decisions based on science and evidence. We know that going forward we have an opportunity to review exactly what you're saying, what types of projects fall under environmental assessments. We know we can do better. That's why we are listening to stakeholders, indigenous groups—and as I said, I have already started meetings with them—as well as industry, environmentalists, and other stakeholders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Next up is Mr. Bossio.

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

Thank you, Minister, Jonathan, and others for being here today. We really appreciate your taking the time to answer our questions.

As you mentioned earlier, we are just finishing up a study on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, as you also know, I have raised this issue before. Since Darren doesn't bother you, I'm sure I don't. I spent almost 20 years fighting the spread of toxic chemicals in our water as a result of landfills, in particular in my own home community, with the impact of that at home and in the neighbouring community. The key problem is that our drinking water standards are not good enough.

The drinking water standards are federally made and then they are adopted in part or in whole by the provinces or in some cases not at all. One of those chemicals is 1,4-dioxane. It is a chemical for which the U.S. EPA and many of the states in the U.S. have established a one to three microgram standard, but here in Canada the federal level is 50 micrograms, so it's very outdated.

As a result of that, when we find these toxic chemicals in our environment, as we have in this particular instance, the company that is responsible for contaminating residential wells doesn't have to do anything about it. Because there are no drinking water standards, there is no health impact. It doesn't matter that there are thousands of chemicals that exist in leachate and that are found in residential wells, if the drinking water standards don't reflect the toxicity that exists—and 1,4-dioxane is a known toxic carcinogen—that doesn't happen.

What I'd like to know is this. As we move forward around this issue and around CMP, the chemicals management plan, in particular, are we dedicating the financial resources to add personnel around the assessment of chemicals and setting drinking water or even air quality standards right now, today?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to thank the member for his question and also I'll say I'm always happy to hear from everyone. We're in this together.

The focus of your question is related to guidelines for drinking water quality. This activity is actually the responsibility of the Minister of Health in collaboration with provinces and territories. Our government continues with the implementation of the chemicals management plan. We know we need to reduce risks posed by chemicals to Canadians and to the environment.

For the substance in question, 1,4-dioxane, it was assessed by the Government of Canada in 2010 and found not to be of concern to the environment or harmful to the health of Canadians at current levels of exposure. It's included in our national pollutant release inventory, the NPRI, which is Canada's legislated, publicly accessible inventory of pollutants released, disposed of, and sent for recycling by facilities across the country. Industrial, institutional and commercial facilities that meet legislative NPRI reporting requirements must notify Environment Canada of their releases. Certainly, should emissions increase over time, we will investigate and adopt the necessary steps to control releases.

I'm also happy, if you would like, to have my deputy speak to this issue.

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

Sure.

[Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment]

Chair, I would just add that in support of furthering our work under the chemicals management plan, which we do jointly with Health Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has a water management committee of technical officials looking at it. They also looked at 1,4-dioxane in water and did conclude that bioaccumulation, bioconcentration, and biomagnification were unlikely to be significant processes in aquatic systems.

But this is an area, as the minister noted, we continue to monitor through the national pollutant release inventory and will continue to look at going ahead.

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

Thank you.

I'm a member of the indigenous committee as well and I also live right next door to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte and I've been very fortunate. The chief, Donald Maracle, and Dr. Marlene Brant Castellano have become close friends and have educated me a lot on the traditional management of the environment, the cultural nature of that management, and the importance of it within their culture and to their people.

Can you tell me how our government will integrate indigenous knowledge to better understand things like climate change or how to better protect our environment?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

This is a very important point. Indigenous traditional knowledge is already used by Parks Canada, by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, as well as by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

However, I do believe we can do better. In fact, when I was speaking with the AFN's ACE committee, one of the elders there invited me to work with the elders to develop better guidelines when it comes to indigenous traditional knowledge. This was a commitment. For example, when we released our interim principles on environmental assessments, we said we needed to be incorporating indigenous traditional knowledge. It's not just a “nice to have”. We need to be using it. We need to be understanding this knowledge, and we need to be working with indigenous peoples.

It is a challenging area in some ways in that different communities have different approaches to indigenous traditional knowledge and I think you need to be respectful of that.

There are other issues in relation to intellectual property, so I think that having a comprehensive approach—not just for my ministry but for all ministries—when it comes to how we work with indigenous traditional knowledge and incorporate it in a respectful way is going to be very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just so you know what I'm doing up here, I'm trying not to interrupt so that when we are at one minute into the questioning I signal and then when we're done I signal. I like to try to keep it so that everything is fair for everybody.

All right, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with your assembled group. We appreciate that.

Minister, if I'm not mistaken you visited the Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. Were you impressed with the technology that's being used to drastically reduce the CO2 emissions in the coal-fired generation facility there?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I did have the opportunity to visit the Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan, which is using carbon capture and storage technology in a coal-fired plant. In fact, apparently I brought the Minister of Environment for Saskatchewan and that was the first time he actually saw it in operation.

Yes, I certainly thought it was very interesting. I think the challenge, getting back to your colleague's question about price, is that the price of reducing emissions approaches over $200 per tonne, so we look for low-cost ways. I know the Government of Saskatchewan has supported that but if you're looking at cost-effectiveness I think that needs to be a consideration. I know the Saskatchewan utility is looking at whether they move forward with this technology, whether it makes sense from an economic perspective.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Good point.

How much money is allocated for carbon capture and storage technology by your government in the next three years?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm very happy to talk about our support for clean innovation. It's $2.2 billion, but what we don't do is decide what technology is the right technology. I don't think, from an economics perspective, that's the right way to approach it. We need to reduce emissions and we need to figure out what's the lowest cost and the smartest way to do that, working with provinces and territories obviously, and indigenous peoples.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Regarding the postponement of the $1.25 billion from adjusting the low-carbon economy fund budgeted in 2017, what would be the further impact on technologies like carbon capture and storage?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the numbers question.

If your question is “Do I support carbon capture and storage technology?”, I believe it's all hands on deck. But, as your member pointed out, we need to be making sure that we're doing things in a low-cost way. That has tended to be very expensive, but it's possible.

I have said to my counterparts from China and the United States, when they have expressed interest, that I'm happy to take them there to see that technology. Hopefully, with innovation, with the investments we are making, we will be able to figure out all sorts of ways to innovate, and that's really important because that's going to create really good jobs here in Canada. In fact, the member for....

Darren, what are you the member for?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It's Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Dartmouth, sorry.

I just saw their technology, CarbonCure, which is an amazing company. I saw them in California. They actually take CO2, which you don't want, from industry. They then have a process where they inject it into cement, which reduces the emissions in the process of developing the cement, and also makes stronger cement. That's the kind of innovation that's going to create good jobs. That's what I'm very excited about because I want those technologies to be “made in Canada” technologies that we then export to create jobs.