Environment Committee on March 22nd, 2018

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

As I said, violence is never appropriate. We have the rule of law in our country, and there's.... I don't know how I can be more clear.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I think the way that you can be more clear is just to say that, yes, you condemn those violent acts.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Violent acts are never appropriate, so any acts of violence against RCMP officers—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm asking you specifically about what occurred on Monday in Burnaby.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Can you give her a chance?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Member Stubbs is badgering the witness. This is inappropriate and unparliamentary.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Dad, but I was just asking for an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I do believe that you keep repeating the same question and you're not giving a chance for an answer, so let's give her a chance.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Very feminist.

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You're very close to being out of time.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay, we'll give you one more chance. Just to be clear, do you condemn the violent actions of the illegal protesters who injured two RCMP officers on Monday?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I condemn violent acts of any sort against RCMP officers. With regard to particular incidents, it's up to the Minister of Public Safety to comment, but I certainly condemn violent acts, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

All right, we're going to move on to Mr. Bossio.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your patience and for the decorum that you've exhibited here today. We appreciate it.

Your mandate is to restore public trust in the environmental assessment, to provide meaningful public participation, to ensure that decisions are based on science, and to advance reconciliation through nation-to-nation co-operation with indigenous peoples.

I have a group of questions, and they are aimed at determining whether, or to what extent, those goals are actually satisfied in Bill C-69 and whether further amendments are going to be needed.

First, why are the five public interest factors for ministerial cabinet decisions, found in clause 63, merely considerations? For accountability purposes, why are they not the mandatory basis for decision-making?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Those factors are mandatory. The legislation spells out clearly that they must be considered for decision-making. Those factors, just to be clear, are the project's contribution to sustainability, the impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights, the adverse effects, the mitigation measures that are in place to reduce the project's impact, and Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and climate change commitments.

We think that these are critically important. Also important, as we've mentioned repeatedly, is transparency. When we make a decision, it will have to clearly set out the basis on which it was made, and it will need to show that these factors were considered.

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

Would you consider that to be a legally enforceable approval test?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, it says that they are mandatory for decision-making. Ultimately, the minister or cabinet has to make a decision about a designated project. While those are factors that might be considered, there's no magic formula for how you weight these things. You need to take into account all of these factors when you make a public interest decision, and it will be made in a transparent way with the reasons posted.

This is a new step that did not occur under the previous government. There was no transparency in terms of how decisions were made, and that really eroded public trust. We believe that it is important that you have clear factors and that you also need to explain to Canadians how you made a decision about a particular project.

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

Thank you.

What does “contributes to sustainability” actually mean? Once again, this is in clause 63. Precisely how will this be determined or evaluated by the minister or cabinet?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sustainability was something that was very important. We heard that from Canadians and from environmentalists. This is really about sustainability in the long term. It's about how you can protect the environment, how you can contribute to the social and economic well-being of Canadians, how you can preserve health in a manner that benefits present and future generations. That's how you would look at sustainability.

We've also been clear that there needs to be a gender-based plus analysis as part of this, and we think that this gets you to better decisions.

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

Will the government be proposing to include all high-carbon projects on the project list?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

As we've said, we're absolutely committed to our domestic and international obligations, including with respect to climate change. We have announced that we will be doing a strategic assessment when it comes to climate change.

In terms of the project list, we are consulting on the criteria for the project list. We believe that it should consider an environmental threshold, including greenhouse gas emissions.

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

I think, if I heard you correctly earlier—and maybe just to verify this—you'd said that the project list would be a part of the final legislation.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's a regulation, but we do believe that the timing of the project list ideally would coincide with the legislation.

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

Okay.

In the absence of mandatory strategic regional assessments, precisely how will the act effectively address the cumulative effects of multiple small projects, including projects on federal lands?