Jonathan Wilkinson

[The Environment, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, I clearly have a different perspective on that.

If one reads the pan-Canadian framework, there are measures relating to the transition toward energy efficiency in vehicles, but also a longer-term transition toward lower emission or zero emission vehicles. There are provisions relating to new building codes for new buildings, and also retrofit building codes, to ensure we actually are reducing GHG emission levels that come from buildings. There are provisions relating to the accelerated phase-out of coal. There are provisions relating to the development of a low-carbon fuel standard, which will lower the emissions intensity of the fuels we are actually using.

There is an enormous number of measures that will help us in a step-wise way to get to our targets. There is clear visibility outlined in the pan-Canadian framework as to how we will do that. Implementation of a climate plan has never been done in the history of Canada, and we will do it.

[The Environment, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member alluded to, the initial question actually related to the One World summit, but the question is a little different, and I am happy to address the question the member has posed.

This government was elected on a platform that included a significant commitment to addressing the issue of climate change. Many who ran for the Liberal Party, as ran for other parties, certainly the Green Party, did so in large measure because they were committed to addressing the issue of climate change. I for one ran in large measure because of a commitment about addressing climate change.

Once elected, the government played a constructive role in the context of the development of the Paris Agreement. The hon. member was in Paris with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for those conversations. Subsequent to that, we worked with the provinces and territories in the federal architecture that is Canada to come up with a plan that would allow us to have visibility about how we actually address this matter and meet the targets to which we had committed under the Paris Agreement.

As the hon. member mentioned, the target that was established had been established under the previous government, but the previous government had established a target with absolutely no plan in place to actually meet that target. As the hon. member knows very well, many of the changes that are required for us to make substantive progress toward achieving emission reductions require major changes in the way we conduct industrial practice, whether that is phasing out of coal, changing the nature of the transportation system to move toward more electric vehicles or other kinds of alternative vehicles, or bringing in new building codes that over time will affect the energy efficiency of not just new buildings but retrofits of existing buildings. Those are all things that take time to thoughtfully develop and then they take time to thoughtfully implement. The government was in a position where it had 12 years to actually work through and implement a process that would allow us to have visibility on meeting our target.

This government is very much committed to addressing climate change. We are committed to achieving the targets we established under Paris. To the extent we are making progress in that direction, we are open, as the minister has said on many occasions, to ratcheting up our level of commitment over time. However, let us be clear. In Canada, governments have histories of establishing targets with absolutely no plan and no actions to meet them. This government has taken the exact opposite perspective, which is to say we need a target, but we actually need a plan. We need to show Canadians that this is something we actually can do, and that we work step-wise to show progress on this critical issue. As the hon. member has talked about, it is something that is not only in the interest of Canadians but is in the interest of all citizens of our planet.

[Canada-India Relations, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members say they want the facts about this matter, but now their leader has been offered a full briefing, and he is not taking it. I think that makes their motivation pretty darn clear.

The invitation to Mr. Atwal was issued in error. The invitation was rescinded as soon as the mistake was discovered. However, the Conservatives see a partisan political opportunity here, so they have spent the last few weeks trying to sully the reputation of a distinguished, non-partisan, career civil servant. They engaged in a 24-hour stunt of a voting marathon during which they voted against things like funding for the RCMP and funding for border security, and refused a briefing on the very subject they claim to want to know more about.

Their leader should accept the offer.

[Canada-India Relations, March 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are going to try to keep milking this one mistaken invitation for all it's worth, but this is getting to the level of being completely ridiculous.

I will tell the hon. member what he has been told now many times. The invitation should never have been issued. The member for Surrey Centre has acknowledged that he passed along a couple of dozen names and that the name of Mr. Atwal should not have been included. The member has taken responsibility for this mistake. When the government became aware of the invitation, it was rescinded.

Any attempt to use this situation to try, for partisan purposes, to impugn the reputation of a distinguished, non-partisan national security official who has served this country with honour for decades is very unfortunate.

If there were any lingering doubts as to whether the Conservatives are actually interested in examining the facts, they have surely been dispelled by now.

The Leader of the Opposition has been offered a classified briefing from our non-partisan professional public service and he has not accepted. it. While the Conservatives remain more interested in political gamesmanship, I will remind them of what was actually accomplished during the Prime Minister's trip to India.

During the trip, the Prime Minister was delighted to announce an investment of over $1 billion shared between Canadian and Indian businesses. These investments will help create nearly 6,000 well-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians.

The two prime ministers announced plans to finalize an arrangement this year to facilitate the export of Canadian pulses to India. This is a critical announcement for Canadian farmers, and it is why the chair of Pulse Canada's board of directors said, “It is clear to me that we can count on the Prime Minister to be in our corner.”

The trip resulted in significant announcements related to clean energy and environmental protection, combatting gender-based violence and empowering women and girls, working together to combat terrorism and radicalization, and enhancing people-to-people ties between our two countries.

Canada and India have a long-standing bilateral relationship based on a mutual commitment to democracy, a shared tradition of pluralism, and strong interpersonal connections.

The Prime Minister, along with six ministers and 14 members of Parliament, visited India to deepen those ties and make progress on important issues in the interest of all Canadians, and all the Conservatives can focus on is one invitation that was issued in error and was immediately rescinded.

If the Leader of the Opposition believes he needs more information on the subject, he should accept the briefing he has been offered.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements in this piece of legislation that attempt to respond to the concerns that Canadians were expressing about the fact that they felt that they did not have the opportunity to participate in an active way, in the context of many of the reviews that were undertaken after the changes and the gutting of the environmental legislation that was undertaken by the Harper government.

In this legislation, one element of it relates to early engagement to try to identify obstacles to a particular project early in the process so that these could be discussed and addressed before getting further down the road where that becomes much more intractable and much more difficult.

We have also eliminated the test that says one has to have direct involvement in the project in order to participate, because Canadians felt that they wanted the opportunity to be able to have their say. That is an important piece in terms of inclusivity.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation responds very much to what we heard from organizations across the country. That includes companies and industry associations. It includes indigenous organizations and indigenous communities. It includes environmental organizations and it includes interested Canadians. We have tried to respond in thoughtful ways to the comments that we heard. Obviously, there were different comments coming from different sectors of society.

The focus for us, as I said during my comments, was to ensure that the environment and the economy go together. At the end of the day, we as an organization and we as a country want to ensure that good projects can proceed, but they need to proceed in an environmentally sustainable way. To the extent that this is not the case, then those projects should not go ahead. Those projects that can go ahead and be done in an environmentally sustainable way should proceed. That is the whole point of this exercise. That is what Canadians told us they want. That is what companies told us they want. That is what environmental organizations told us they want and that is what is reflected in this legislation.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member, but she is just plain wrong.

The recommendations of the expert panel were actually responded to in a very fulsome way in the context of the legislation that was brought through. If the member reads through the recommendations of the expert panel, she would find that to be true.

Obviously, whenever there are expert panels, not everything is accepted. Many of the recommendations were taken out for further consultation. The vast majority of them actually were, in the end, incorporated into the legislation. Some elements were not, and there are obviously very specific reasons for that. If the hon. member wants to sit down and review those, that can certainly be arranged.

This is an enormous step forward, and most, virtually all, of the stakeholders we have talked to over the course of this would say that this is in fact the case.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation, as I said in my comments, is the product of extensive consultation over the course of the past 14 months, and reviews that included a number of different papers that were published by a number of different panels. As we move forward, we look forward to the comments the committee will bring forward.

The hon. member needs to look very seriously at the legislation, as I am sure he has done. The discretion provided to the minister is actually not more extensive. It is appropriate in the context of a parliamentary democratic system. However, there are significant measures to enhance transparency, to enhance the integrity of the science, and to enhance the ability of people to actually weigh in on the process to ensure that there is a robust process that goes into forming a decision, that any decisions that are ultimately taken are very much transparent, and that those decisions are publicly available for people to assess and determine whether they think the appropriate decision was taken.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are moving this bill to the committee precisely so it can engage in robust discussion around the bill and invite witnesses to participate in that conversation. That is an important part of the process. We are very confident in the work that will come forward from the committee, which includes amendments. The committee has been a very thoughtful voice in the context of many of the conversations we have had with respect to environmental matters, and we look forward to receiving its report.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the environment and the economy go hand in hand. We are going to implement better regulations to protect our environment, fish, and waterways. These regulations will help restore Canadians' confidence and ensure respect for indigenous rights. They will strengthen our economy and encourage investment.

Better regulations will help to protect the environment, ensure that good projects can move forward, and create new jobs and new economic opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Better regulations for major projects, such as mining, pipeline, and hydroelectric projects, will help us protect the environment and communities, promote economic growth, and advance the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples.

Previous legislative and regulatory reforms undermined the public's confidence. They were implemented without any regard for science and put our environment, fish, waterways, and communities at risk.

We are working to correct the way we measure the potential impact of major projects, such as mining projects, pipeline projects, and hydroelectric projects. Better rules will help ensure that project reviews are timely and predictable, and will encourage investments in Canada's natural resources sectors.

The environment and the economy go hand in hand. Better rules will help restore trust and help the government better protect the environment. These rules will ensure that good projects can move forward responsibly, transparently, and in a timely manner. These better rules are the result of 14 months of consultation with the provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, businesses, environmental groups, and Canadians across the country.

Over the past 14 months, we have undertaken significant consultations and engagements. This started with the implementation of the interim principles to ensure additional public consultation, consultations with indigenous peoples, and appropriate assessment of greenhouse gas emission impacts. These were all included with respect to all ongoing projects. Then we conducted expert panels and parliamentary committee reviews, which then formed the discussion paper that the government released in the summer. We then conducted additional consultations, which further informed the legislation that was recently introduced into the House of Commons.

Consultations that took place over a period of 14 months with indigenous organizations, environmental organizations, with companies, and with interested Canadians were extensive and exhaustive.

Moving the bill to committee is now the next step in the process. We look forward to hearing from the committee and its further consultations that it will conduct. We are very open to refinements that would improve the legislation.

I am very proud to have been part of the development of this very important legislation. I would thus reiterate that for the government, and I know for Canadians generally, the environment and the economy can and must go hand in hand.

With the legislation, we are putting into place better rules to protect our environment, our fish, and waterways, rules that build public trust and respect indigenous rights, that strengthen our economy and encourage investment. These better rules will protect the environment and ensure that good projects go ahead. They will create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

A few key elements of the bill include the goal of one project, one review. We will streamline the process and coordinate with the provinces and territories to reduce red tape for companies and avoid duplicating efforts in reviewing proposed projects. We are making the process more predictable and more timely to clarify the process, to engage stakeholders effectively, and to identify potential issues with project proposals up front. These better rules will increase regulatory certainty and clarity, encouraging investment in Canada's natural resource sectors.

Our focus is also on better early planning, which will build trust, improve project design, and give companies certainty about what is expected of them in the review process.

Decisions on projects will be guided by scientific evidence and indigenous traditional knowledge. We will increase access to science and evidence, and make easy-to-understand summaries of decisions publicly available.

We will also create a new early engagement phase to ensure the recognition and respect of indigenous people's rights, working in partnership from the very start. We will ensure companies will know then what is required of them and that communities will have their voices heard from the start. There will be a single agency, the impact agency of Canada, which will lead all impact assessments for major projects to ensure the process is consistent and efficient. The agency will work with and draw on the expertise of other bodies like the Canadian energy regulator, currently the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and the offshore boards. Projects will be held to a high standard, because that is what Canadians expect and that is what they deserve.

By recognizing indigenous rights and knowledge in project reviews and working in partnership from the start, we will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation and to get better project decisions. We will work in partnership with indigenous peoples to ensure their involvement in studying project impacts from the start is recognized and accounted for. Indigenous peoples will have opportunities to participate in implementing new protections for navigation, for fish, and for fish habitat.

We will make project decisions in a transparent way and we will clearly communicate the reasons behind our decisions.

As I indicated, we will increase access to science and evidence, and make easy-to-understand summaries of decisions publicly available. Government scientists will review any studies provided by companies, and independent scientific reviews will be done where there is strong public concern or the results of a study are uncertain. The federal government's chief science adviser will periodically review the methods and integrity of science used in making decisions.

To ensure projects start with the best available science and evidence, we will be proactive in studying and providing information on the state of the environment across Canada. We will do regional and strategic assessments with provinces and territories, indigenous groups, and stakeholders to understand the environmental big picture. This will provide greater clarity for companies and help to inform decision-making.

With better rules for major projects, we can protect our environment and communities, and advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Previous reforms to environmental laws and regulations, particularly those brought forward by the Harper government in 2012, eroded public trust, disregarded science, and put our environment, fish, waterways, and communities at risk. We are fixing how we measure the potential impacts of major projects. Better rules will lead to more timely and predictable project reviews and will encourage investment in Canada's natural resource sectors.

The environment and the economy can and must go together. Better rules will restore confidence in the government's ability to protect the environment, all the while ensuring good projects can move ahead in a responsible, timely, and transparent way. These better rules are a product of 14 months of consultations with Canadians. They represent an important step forward to ensure that on a go-forward basis, we can be sure, and Canadians can be sure, the economy and environment will go together.