Evidence of meeting #99 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 projects.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Perfect timing. Before I move to Mr. Fast, I want to welcome a few people to the committee. Obviously having the two ministers here together is fantastic, but what's really nice is that we also have natural resources committee members here as well. We have the chair, James Maloney, and the vice-chair, Shannon Stubbs. It's really nice to see you here. Welcome.
We also have Elizabeth May. Welcome too.
Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
It's rare that we have two ministers appearing before us at the same time, so thank you for that.
Minister McKenna, you often say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Minister Carr repeated that in his statement as well. I'm looking at clause 22, subclause 1 of the bill, which articulates the factors that must be taken into account. One of those factors is under (i) “the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change”.
You're well aware that both the Auditor General and the United Nations have highlighted the fact that right now Canada is not on track to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets under the Paris agreement.
Ms. McKenna, do you acknowledge that that gap presently exists?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Of course, when we do environmental assessments, we need to be making sure that they take into account our environmental obligations, domestic and international, including under the Paris agreement. Unfortunately, under the previous government, which took no action for 10 years, our emissions went up.
For the first time ever, we came up with a climate plan—negotiated with provinces, territories, and indigenous peoples—whereby we've taken significant action: phasing out coal, putting a price on pollution, making historic investments in innovation, and making historic investments in public transportation. The second phase of light rail transit in Ottawa will bring the largest greenhouse gas reductions in the city's history.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Minister, the question was very simple. Do you acknowledge that a gap exists between Canada's climate change targets under the Paris agreement and where we're on track to end up right now?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We have said very clearly that we will meet our 2030 target.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Right now, those agencies—the Auditor General and the United Nations—have both said we're not on track to meet those targets. Would you acknowledge that?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We have taken the measures that were negotiated with provinces and territories. I know the opposition member and the opposition party also agree that we need to meet our 2030 target. We will meet our 2030 target. That's why we've taken ambitious action. Some of the action has not come into effect. When you phase out coal by 2030—
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm gathering from your response that your answer is yes, there remains a gap between Canada's commitments and actually where we're tracking. In fact, that gap is increasing as time goes by.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We've been very pleased to see our emissions going down. We need to be ambitious. We need to meet our 2030 target and we are absolutely committed to doing that. I would certainly hope that the opposition would support the measures that we've brought in place under our climate plan.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Minister.
Now, I'm going to repeat that you've often said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. I've gone through Bill C-69 with a fine-tooth comb. It addresses many of the environmental challenges that projects that fall under the ambit of the act will face. Nowhere is there any reference to economic benefits or anything compelling the agency or the review panel to actually consider the economic benefits for Canada.
Despite the rhetoric we hear from you and your government, it appears that in fact the economy and the environment don't go together. This legislation, which addresses economic projects that drive prosperity in Canada, doesn't in any way address the economic benefits that would accrue to Canadians as a result of these projects.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I'd like to thank the member for highlighting the importance of the environment and the economy going together, and for the first time ever, through a sustainability test, we will be looking at the economic benefits of a project. Previously, under the legislation that was brought in by the Conservative government, there was no way to do that. It was through a press release at the end that you were trying to explain to Canadians the economic benefits. We have made it very clear that a sustainability test means looking at the environmental impacts but also the social, health, and economic benefits. We think that's critically important, and that was something that we heard loud and clear from proponents. I spent a lot of time meeting with proponents.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Minister, the sustainability test is not articulated in subclause 22(1). I've looked through it many times. It's not there. This is a one-sided piece of legislation that focuses on the environment without taking into account the economic benefits.
Now, since my time is short, I have one last question. This is one of the tools you're using to hopefully achieve your targets under Paris. Another tool you're using is the carbon tax. Can you tell us today how much you expect the carbon tax backstop that your government has implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Just to confirm, it's section 63 that mentions, under the sustainability test, the economic impacts. Just to clarify, it is very clear there.
Putting a price—
Conservative
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
—on pollution is part of our climate plan, but we've said....
It's in section 63.
We have been very clear that it's up to provinces and territories to determine how they want to put a price on pollution consistent with what we've said is the benchmark, and provinces and territories have taken action. Eighty percent of Canadians—
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The benchmark you referred to is $50 per tonne. It's my understanding that we will not be reducing our—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Ed, you're out of time, and so I need to bring that your attention. Sorry to cut you off, but we have time constraints.
I did forget the last time around to introduce one more member at the table, Kim Rudd, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Carr.
Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you to both the ministers and your officials.
I think you know that we're hoping we can at least have your officials at the tail end of the review—possibly the ministers—so that you can respond to some of the recommendations made by the witnesses who come before us, which we think will be useful. It's good to hear from you at the outset, but it will be good to hear from you at the end about what you think Canadians are asking for.
Mr. Carr, my first question is for you.
Why is it that the CER appointees to panels are not required to consider climate commitments or cumulative impacts?
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
The legislation, I think, is clear on what is to be considered.
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Well, all designated or major projects regulated by the Canadian energy regulator will be subject to an impact assessment.