Jonathan Wilkinson

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the Government of Canada has an obligation to enforce environmental laws and regulations and takes its responsibilities seriously. Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, is responsible for administering and enforcing the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish, and the wastewater systems effluent regulations, WSER, made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, FA.

ECCC aims to enforce the WSER in a manner that is fair, consistent and predictable.

If ECCC enforcement officers become aware of an alleged violation they may take appropriate action in accordance with the compliance and enforcement policy for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. This ECCC policy states that if there is evidence of a contravention, officers can take a number of different enforcement measures considering factors set out in this policy, including issuing warnings or directions. Warnings are administrative documents, which brings an alleged violation to the attention of an alleged violator in order to promote any necessary action to come back into compliance with the WSER. Directions are legal documents in which the enforcement officer orders the alleged offender to come back into compliance with the WSER. Warnings and directions are enforcement options used before prosecution, and do not involve monetary fines.

Further, according to the Fisheries Act, FA, no one can be convicted if the person establishes that they exercised due diligence or reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would render the person’s conduct innocent.

With more serious alleged offences, officers can conduct investigations to collect evidence for the purposes of prosecuting in court. The evidence collected is sent to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. A decision to prosecute an alleged offender is the sole discretion of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Once the person has been charged, an option that does not involve court proceedings is “alternative measures”. Alternative measures are agreements negotiated with the accused by the Attorney General of Canada, in consultation with the Minister of the Environment. It will contain measures that the accused must take in order to restore compliance.

Where there are no alternative measures, a person who is found guilty of contravening the WSER following court proceedings is liable to a fine the amount of which will differ greatly depending on whether the offender is an individual, a small revenue corporation or another person and whether it is their first offence.

These regulations do not fall under ECCC legislation, which allows for ticketing or administrative monetary penalties, the contraventions regulations and the administrative monetary penalties regulations, for violation to certain other ECCC acts or regulations.

In response to (b), Environment and Climate Change Canada will not provide any funding related to Q-138.

In response to (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have any remedies related to Q-138.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in February 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada published a cost-benefit analysis framework outlining the approach for undertaking the cost-benefit analysis that will estimate the cost impacts and benefits attributable to the proposed clean fuel standard regulations. Feedback on this framework is being considered as we continue to conduct economic analysis.

With regard to (b), as the design of the clean fuel standard has not been finalized, there has been no final economic impact assessment shared with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

With regard to (c), a full cost-benefit analysis will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the draft regulations for liquid fuels.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which received royal assent on June 21, 2018 as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, establishes the framework to implement the federal carbon pollution pricing system in provinces and territories that request it and in provinces and territories that do not have a system that meets the federal stringency requirements. The federal system has two components: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, which is the “fuel charge”, and a trading system for large industry, which is the “output-based pricing system” or OBPS.

The federal fuel charge applies, as of April 1, 2019, in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; as of July 1, 2019, in Yukon and Nunavut; and, as of January 1, 2020, in Alberta. The government has announced its intention to no longer apply the fuel charge in New Brunswick, as of April 1, 2020, as the province proposed to implement a provincial carbon levy, as of that date, that meets the federal stringency requirements for the sources that it covers.

The federal fuel charge rates reflect a carbon pollution price of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e, as of April 1, 2019, which will rise by $10 per tonne annually until it reaches $50 per tonne in 2022.

The OBPS started applying in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and partially in Saskatchewan on January 1, 2019, and in Yukon and Nunavut on July 1, 2019. Rather than paying the fuel charge, covered facilities provide compensation for the portion of their greenhouse gas or GHG emissions that exceeds their applicable emissions limit, based on an activity-specific output-based standard. If a covered facility’s GHG emissions exceed the prescribed emissions limit in a year, it may compensate for its excess emissions in three ways. It may submit surplus credits it earned in the past, or that it has acquired from other facilities; submit other prescribed credits that it acquired; or pay an excess emissions charge. The excess emissions charge rates reflect a carbon price of $20 per tonne of CO2e in 2019, and an increase of $10 per tonne annually until it reaches $50 per tonne in 2022.

First ministers have committed to reviewing carbon pollution pricing across Canada in 2022. This will inform the path forward and help ensure that carbon pollution pricing is fair and effective across Canada.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that economy-wide carbon pollution pricing is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas or GHG emissions. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act provided the legal framework and enabling authorities for the federal backstop carbon pollution pricing system. This system is composed of two parts: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, which is the fuel charge, and the output-based pricing system, OBPS, for industrial facilities. The OBPS creates a strong financial incentive for the least efficient facilities to reduce their emissions per unit of output and for strong performers to continue to improve.

The federal backstop system applies in any province or territory that does not have a carbon pollution pricing system that meets the federal benchmark, or in those that request it. Currently, the federal fuel charge applies in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Yukon and Nunavut. Currently, the federal OBPS applies in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut, and partially in Saskatchewan.

Carbon pollution pricing will make a significant contribution toward meeting Canada’s GHG reduction target. Carbon pollution pricing across Canada is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 50 to 60 million tonnes in 2022. As noted in the June 2019 OBPS regulatory impact analysis statement, the federal OBPS is estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 3.6 megatonnes in 2022.

While pricing carbon pollution is key, it is not the only thing we are doing to fight climate change. Canada’s clean growth and climate plan includes more than 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, foster clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada modeled a scenario for the clean fuel standard, CFS, in the late summer/early fall of 2016 in support of the pan-Canadian framework on climate change.

The energy, emissions and economy model for Canada, E3MC, was used, which integrates the simulation of the supply, demand and price of all sources of energy and emissions and has a macroeconomic model that examines consumption, investment, production and trade decisions.

The 10% reduction in life-cycle carbon intensity of the CFS was modelled through assumed changes in combustion intensity as follows: 10% renewable content by 2030 for diesel and gasoline, including light and heavy fuel oil, in transportation, buildings and industry, including off-road transportation; 5% renewable content by 2030 for natural gas in buildings, industry and electricity generation; 90% of petroleum coke and heavy fuel oil switch to natural gas in industry, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador.

A full cost-benefit analysis with updated greenhouse gas or GHG emissions reductions projections will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the CFS regulations. This will include an estimate of emissions reductions in 2030.

In response to (b), the E3MC is not a probabilistic model and has no built-in representation of uncertainty. In turn, no margin of error for the 30 million tonnes was estimated.

In general, a variety of factors could affect the projected emissions reductions from a policy such as the CFS, including other policies that are targeting the same sources of emissions, such as carbon pricing; changes to assumptions on economic growth and world energy prices; and future developments in technologies, demographics and resources that cannot be predicted.

A full cost-benefit analysis with updated GHG emissions reductions projections will be published as part of the regulatory impact analysis statement that will accompany the publication of the CFS regulations. This will include a detailed discussion of the uncertainty associated with the modelled impact of the CFS.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. The Impact Assessment Act protects the environment and respects indigenous rights, while strengthening the economy and encouraging investment.

The Impact Assessment Act sets out a federal process for impact assessment of major projects that considers both positive and negative environmental, economic, social and health impacts of potential projects.

To support Canada’s competitiveness and attract investment, the impact assessment system provides clear expectations and shorter legislated timelines, and aims to avoid duplication with other jurisdictions wherever possible, with the goal of one project, one review.

While our intention is not to reopen the legislation for amendments, we are open to constructive suggestions and discussions moving forward as we look to implement the law.

[The Environment, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected us to protect the environment, grow the economy, advance reconciliation and create good jobs. They also expect their government to oversee a fair and thorough environmental assessment process.

The Teck Frontier project is a major project that is under active consideration by our government. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the decision on this project must be made by February 2020. We will consider a whole range of factors, including environmental impacts, very much including greenhouse gases. We will consider advancing reconciliation and growing the economy in making our determination.

[Ethics, January 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, this investigation, the resulting legal action and the judge's approval of the penalty imposed on Volkswagen are independent of the minister's office.

As a result of the investigation, the company had to pay a record-setting fine in Canada. That fine is 26 times higher than any environmental fine ever imposed at the federal level, and the money will go toward environmental protection projects.

[Natural Resources, December 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Impact Assessment Act has been put in place to ensure that good projects can move ahead, that we can ensure that the environment is protected, that good projects proceed and that investments proceed. It is a far superior process to what was put in place when Stephen Harper gutted the environmental assessment process in 2012. It will ensure that good projects proceed.

This morning I had the opportunity to meet with the minister of environment for Alberta. We discussed this issue. We have been consistent in saying that we are open to how we actually implement that. We will work together with all provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast.

[Natural Resources, December 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Impact Assessment Act kept an important promise that we made to Canadians, and that is to reform a broken system and restore public confidence in how decisions are made about major projects.

The best rules that we put in place to review major projects will cut assessment times in half, increase transparency, protect the environment and encourage investment.