Catherine McKenna

[Carbon Pricing, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to go through a stunt like the Conservatives are going to pull because we have already answered the question.

Eighty per cent of Canadians live in a province where the province has decided what to do with the revenues. The revenues have gone back in tax cuts or into investment in clean innovation. We have been clear that provinces are best placed to decide what to do with the revenues. Once again, what Canadians want to know is what the Conservatives' climate change plan is.

[Carbon Pricing, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk to Canadians. You should go to provinces and ask what provinces are going to do with the revenue. There is a lot of misinformation here, misinformation from the other side. All revenues will stay in the province and the provinces can give back the revenues as tax cuts. What Canadians really want to know is what the Conservative Party's climate plan is.

[Carbon Pricing, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep on saying the same thing. We published a report on April 30. I am happy to personally give it to the member opposite. What does it say? It says that pricing pollution works. It says that it reduces emissions by 80 million to 90 million tonnes and that we have been clear that revenues will go back into the provinces they come from. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, or B.C. where there is a price on pollution. The member can ask those provinces what they do with the revenues, but for example, British Columbia gives the revenues back in tax cuts.

[Natural Resources, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in Canadians' right to legal, peaceful protests.

[Natural Resources, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes in the right of peaceful protest.

[Carbon Pricing, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer I can be. All revenues from pricing go back to the provinces. It is up to provinces to decide what to do.

Let us talk about the economy. Let us talk about the 600,000 jobs that our government created with Canadians. Let us talk about the lowest unemployment rate in generations. Let us talk about how we can take serious action on climate change and we can grow our economy. The previous government could do neither.

[Carbon Pricing, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we published a report on April 30 doing exactly that. It talks about pricing pollution. It talks about the 80 million to 90 million tonnes, the equivalent of taking 25 million cars off the road, that pricing achieves. We believe provinces are best placed to decide what to do with revenues. We have been clear revenues will stay in the province. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in a province where they have a price on pollution. They have given back money in tax cuts, in rebates. They have invested in clean innovation. They should go ask those provinces what they are doing with their revenues.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member opposite that we need to make decisions based on science and we need to look at climate impacts.

When we came into office, the first thing we did in January 2016 was introduce interim principles. What did those interim principles say? They said that we would make decisions based on science, facts, and evidence; that we would work in partnership with indigenous peoples and incorporate indigenous knowledge; and that we would look at climate impacts, which is critically important. This is what we have incorporated. When we look at the new legislation, that is clearly there.

When it comes to the project to which the member refers, it went through a robust environmental assessment. We included additional consultations. We looked at the climate impact. The member should know that it fits within the NDP Government of Alberta's climate plan, which includes the first-ever hard cap on emissions in the oil sands. Therefore, it went through a good process.

We are now here talking about how we are going to ensure we have a proper process to ensure good projects go ahead, while taking serious action on climate change and protect our environment.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what the previous government was unable to do, which is get a pipeline built to tidewater.

We need to ensure we have a process that is robust, a process that makes decisions based on science, fact, and evidence. What is our ideology? It is that facts and evidence matter in decisions. That is how we will make decisions.

I have had many discussions with industry, pipeline association members of CAPP, and from energy companies, and we have listened to their concerns. This is why we have a process that is transparent. We have a process that is shorter in timelines.

We know we can get good projects going ahead in a sustainable way, which will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and create good jobs.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat my thanks to the members of the committee. I know they worked extremely hard. They went through a large number of amendments and they accepted amendments. That is the way to do things. We listen, and if we can do things better, then that is great. That is what we will always do, whether it is from environmentalists, indigenous peoples, or business. The committee considered this and we think got into a good spot.

It is important to know what factors will be considered, which is critical to a robust process, both in ensuring we are evaluating the right things and also providing clarity to business. Therefore, we will be looking at factors that include positive and negative effects on the environment, the economy, health, and communities.

Before, the focus was on the environment. However, we think it is also important to look at the negative and positive impacts, including on the jobs associated with the project, the health impacts, and the impacts on communities. These would be in the assessment report. We would also consider public interest factors, including how the project would contribute to sustainability. These will be clearly reflected in decisions.