Environment Committee on March 22nd, 2018

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Once again, we really believe in the importance of regional strategic assessments. When you look at cumulative effects, it's not one project. It's often multiple projects that have had an impact. We will be looking at conducting these strategic and regional assessments.

In terms of federal projects on federal lands, the same tests will apply. We think that you need to be robust, and then there's also, once again, the project list where a project could fall under the project list once it meets the criteria.

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

Excellent. Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I want to thank both ministers again for being here because I've been in that seat before, and it's sometimes not a pleasant place to be. I found that it's sometimes easier simply to answer the questions. If it's a yes-or-no question, you either say yes or no, and then the committee has the answer it needs or that it has asked.

On five occasions now, Minister McKenna, you have been asked, “Do you know how much your national carbon tax backstop will reduce greenhouse gas emissions?” We still don't have an answer. I know you've found ways around the question, but we really need to know. Do you and those in your department know how much that carbon tax will actually reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?

Yes or no?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Once again, we have provinces that already have a price on pollution. You can look at British Columbia. It has a price on pollution. The prices are not the same right now. At the end, we have said that it's a $50 price by 2022. Some provinces have cap-and-trade systems, but our focus is on how we meet our 2030 target and how carbon pricing fits in with the overarching plan.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I believe our questions were specifically on a $50 per tonne price on carbon and whether you or your officials know what impact that will have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We're going to keep asking that question because you're not answering.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Maybe my deputy can do a better job in being clear, because I'm trying to be clear, but I will pass it on to my deputy.

[Stephen Lucas]

As I noted over the past decade or more through our reporting to the United Nations and in alternate-year reporting to Canadians on emissions, that includes our modelling. That modelling includes all measures that have been undertaken and implemented by the Government of Canada or the provinces and territories, including carbon pricing in provinces such as British Columbia, going back a decade.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If there were a $50 per tonne carbon price across Canada consistently, each province and territory, what kind of greenhouse gas emissions reductions would we achieve as a country?

[Stephen Lucas]

I don't have that number offhand. As I noted, it's built into the modelling along with other measures such as—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm not mixing it with other measures. This is one tool. Before we implement tools in government, we like to make those decisions based on evidence, on science, and I'm not hearing that. You've said that you don't have that figure available. Could you provide it to our committee?

[Stephen Lucas]

We've been transparent on our modelling and the assumptions that underlie it, the contributions of both measures in place and planned measures. We will—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Lucas, I'm glad to have you at committee. We've known each other for quite a while, but that answer isn't going to provide any assurances to Canadians that this Liberal government knows what it's doing on the climate front because there are no answers.

We've asked, “Yes or no, do you know what these carbon taxes are going to do to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?” We still have no answers. It's very disappointing.

I did want to add one last question, Madam Chair, and that's to Minister McKenna.

Earlier, I asked you about the economy and the environment going hand in hand, which is something you've said regularly, something Minister Carr has said regularly. There is nothing in this legislation, however, that actually addresses the economic benefits that will accrue to Canadians at the review panel stage or at the agency stage.

Section 63, which you referred to, actually refers specifically to the minister's decision in that she has to take into account sustainability writ large, but in fact, there is nothing that compels the review agencies, either the review panel or the agency itself, to take into account the economic benefits that will accrue to Canadians as a result of a project being approved.

Where in this whole process, which is supposed to be about the economy and the environment going hand in hand, are the economic benefits going to be considered if not at the agency or review panel stage?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would just like to correct that actually the sustainability test does require looking at the positive and negative impacts, including economic, environmental, social, and health impacts. This is different from the previous government. Under the legislation brought in by the previous government, which you were part of, there was no consideration of the economic impacts.

I'll ask the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Where in the legislation do we see the agency or the review panel being charged with taking into account the economic benefits to Canadians?

[Ron Hallman]

In the current act, what we looked at were adverse environmental effects.

In the proposed legislation, several new factors have been added. I won't list them all. However, one of them that speaks to the sustainability focus is that we will be required to look at environmental, health, social, and economic effects, and to assess both the positive and negative effects in each of those areas. That work will translate into tailored impact statement guidelines for the proponent to provide.

We've heard from proponents before, “Why are you guys just picking on the environmental stuff?” There is a lot of negative stuff. There are a lot of good benefits coming here in all of these areas.

What this proposes is that this will be required up front. It will be in the public impact statement that the proponent files. It will be commented on and challenged, and it will see the light of day through the public process that the agency will lead and report on prior to providing advice to the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. That was a thorough answer.

Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you, ministers, for being here. I know our committee certainly appreciates your appearance.

Madam Chair, I have one question, and then I would like to share my time and give Ms. May the opportunity to have a few minutes to speak to the ministers as well.

Ministers, back home in Nova Scotia, the Halifax Port Authority administers about 260 acres of federally owned land situated at multiple points around the navigable waters of beautiful—I am a little bit biased—Halifax harbour.

I'd like to know more about how Bill C-69 would change the way ports conduct their assessments and whether this may mean a strengthened oversight for projects on port lands.

I also would like to know if there is a possibility that Bill C-69's assessment of projects could be conducted by the agency itself.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The impact assessment act provides oversight for all projects on federal land, so that would include port lands, and they would be required to undergo a rigorous assessment.

The port authorities would be required to look at whether a project is likely to cause significant environmental impacts. They would need to consider adverse impacts on the rights of indigenous peoples. They would need to consider indigenous traditional knowledge, community knowledge, and public comments as well as mitigation measures that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects.

I'm going to ask the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to add to that.

[Ron Hallman]

I would add to the minister's comments that on all federal lands, including ports, federal authorities will be required to assess the environmental effects of a potential project that is not designated on the project list. They're already required to do that, but now the new act is going to stipulate the types of things they need to look at.

It's also going to require them to provide opportunities for public and indigenous engagement, and to report transparently on the registry what is being done and the follow-up from those assessments.

In addition, as the minister noted, if a project, activity, etc., is on the project list then even if it's on federal land, it will be subject to an assessment by the agency.

My final point would be that even for a non-designated project on the project list any Canadian, or even the federal authority, the port itself, could request the minister to designate the project, and she would be required to provide a response as to her decision related to that request.

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

Thank you.

I will share the remainder of my time with Elizabeth May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I want to start by thanking Darren and other Liberal members of the committee who agreed to allow me to put a question to the minister.

I thank both ministers for being here.

Preparing for this morning, I reviewed your mandate letters and found that the Prime Minister used identical language in the letter to Minister Carr and Minister McKenna on the subject before us today.

I'm going to read it into the record that you are to “...restore robust oversight and thorough environmental assessment of areas under federal jurisdiction”. To determine what areas of federal jurisdiction will be recipients of this review, and robust oversight, I turn to the recommendations of the final report at the expert panel, in which the expert panel, under findings and recommendations at page 18 says the following:

Federal IA should be only be conducted on a project, plan, or policy that has clear links to matters of federal interest. These federal interests include, at a minimum, federal lands, federal funding and federal government as proponent, as well as...”

In the interest of time, I won't read out the 11 sub-categories, but they're all important: species at risk, fish, marine plants, indigenous peoples and lands, and so on.

My question, particularly to Minister McKenna since the IA portion of the legislation is under her name, is whether she agrees with the high-level panel that this is the minimum level of federal review as required by her mandate letter.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I want to thank you, Ms. May, for all your advocacy and all your work over the years. I know you care greatly about the environment, but in particular about environmental assessments.

We certainly took the input of the expert panel. We received a lot of other input as well.

The goal of environmental assessments—now we're calling them impact assessments—is to make sure you're considering the projects that will have a significant impact on the range of factors.

There was a proposal to have them on any federal funding, but the impact could be that you could have very small works because there was a tie to federal funding that would necessarily trigger a review. We think that our focus has hit the right.... We're consulting on the project list, but we think we should focus on federal impact assessments on projects that have the most potential for adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction related to the environment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The minister must be aware that, since the early 1970s, federal environmental assessments have primarily been a tool of planning and information for the federal government in exercising its decision-making. Since 1974, federal planning for any project involving federal funding right through until 2012 has always had at least an initial screening. Recently—