---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

EVIDENCE

---

SAINT JOHN, Thursday, April 25, 2019

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 8:03 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Rosa Galvez. I’m a senator from Quebec, and the chair of this committee.

I will ask my colleague senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting at my left, Senator McCallum.

Senator McCallum: Senator McCallum, Manitoba, Treaty 10.

Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Cormier: René Cormier, from the Acadian Peninsula here in New Brunswick.

Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Quebec.

Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.

Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.

Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan, Quebec.

Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.

Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.

Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.

Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.

Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.

The Chair: I would like to introduce the two analysts of the Library of Parliament, Mr. Jesse Good and Ms. Sam Banks, as well as the clerk of the committee, Ms. Maxime Fortin. I want to thank also the stenographer and the translators, and all the staff who are travelling with us and making this possible.

Colleagues, today we are continuing our study of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Today, for this first panel, we welcome, from Red Head Anthony’s Cove Preservation Association, Lynaya Astephen, Spokesperson; from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Scott Kidd, Member; and from the Atlantic Centre for Energy, Colleen Mitchell, President.

I will invite Ms. Astephen, then Mr. Kidd and Ms. Mitchell to make their opening statements.

Lynaya Astephen, Spokesperson, Red Head Anthony’s Cover Preservation Association: We were a community group that formed due to the proposed Energy East pipeline that was supposed to end in our community. My job was to represent my neighbours and community when speaking in front of the National Energy Board, NEB panel, NEB modernization panel, the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications, and to the New Brunswick climate change committee.

I want to thank the Senate committee for allowing me to speak with you today on a very important bill, Bill C-69. It would repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and replace it with the impact assessment act.

After being in this role for nearly five years, I have learned some information about our democratic system that has not sat well with me. One point I want to discuss, from a community representative standpoint, is fair and open participation. When my neighbours needed help navigate the application process to become intervenors, help locally was just not there.

If my neighbours, who would be classed as directly affected, wanted to simply write a letter of comment, they had to apply to even write a letter. Many were elderly people; some with no cellphones or the Internet. One neighbour I helped for four hours to fill out the lengthy, 11-page application process. After all that work, my neighbour was never granted permission to speak to the NEB.

Another neighbour applied and, when they weren’t approved to speak, they were so frustrated they gave up. This is due to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. These bills took the voice away from ordinary citizens, and skewed it in favour of industry. It skewed it in favour of the industry that is here to present to you today.

I am not here with a team of lobbyists or gang of lawyers like I saw during the National Energy Board hearings. I feel the Senate committee must listen to ordinary Canadians like me. I have no other agenda. I’m not here to increase profits of a corporation. I have no shareholders that I answer to.

The oil and gas industry has deeper pockets than I will ever have. I have read, for instance, how CAPP lobbied to repeal and replace the Fisheries Act and to review the Species at Risk Act, and the environmental assessment process for oil and gas projects. Then, with the Harper government, Bill C-38, the oil and gas industry got what it wanted.

These changes woke up citizens like myself. This is what has broken the confidence of ordinary citizens in our government, and has us crying foul.

Here in New Brunswick, we know that corporate interest is king. The Irving family owns the refinery, and our premier also worked as an executive for Irving. My point is, New Brunswickers have the deck stacked against them, and the same thing happened at the NEB.

The system for environmental assessments must be changed if you want to regain the confidence of Canadians. If you want projects fraught with challenges, then water down or stall this bill. But I certainly hope this doesn’t happen.

This bill passed Parliament twice by duly elected MPs. They voted for it. I hope this Senate committee is not going to hold up this bill from being passed. We are very worried that these hearings, at this late stage, will prevent this from passing before the next election.

I feel that you are interfering with the will of the people. Time is running out, and we don’t want this legislation to die on the order paper.

Another point I want to stress is funds for participants. It was clear that funds that the oil and gas industry had compared to ordinary people were not fair. Citizens had a maximum of $10,000, and groups had a maximum of $40,000. When you’re up against a proponent with unlimited funds, the system not set up to be fair. The environmental assessment must have more funds for participants for citizens without deep pockets.

My next point is that Bill C-69 must recognize Indigenous rights, which includes free, prior, and informed consent. Our government says it wants reconciliation with Indigenous people, but we’re still arresting them while they protect their lands from oil and gas projects we keep approving.

It is my understanding that nuclear projects fall under this assessment, as well. We want to make sure that any new nuclear reactors, including smaller reactors, get the strongest level of environmental assessment. The same goes for the use of spent nuclear waste.

My final point is on the importance of a proper climate change test. The assessment of major projects must consider the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change. It must include the impacts of upstream and downstream emissions. We have less than 11 years to not exceed 1.5 degrees to meet our commitments in the Paris Agreement.

St John is experiencing the effects of climate change now. Just a short distance from here, people are trying to save their homes from record floods. For a second year in a row, Saint John will be affected by rising seas. This will even affect where Irving Oil has property. A proper climate test will protect their land from rising seas, as well.

Governments have failed for decades to take serious action on climate change due to strong influence by oil and gas interests. Now, it is a climate crisis. Failure is an intergenerational crime.

This week, researchers, mainly from Environment Canada, have reported that CO2 emissions are 64 percent higher from four major tar sands surface mining operations, which means that Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions would be 2.3 percent higher than previously thought. With just a short time remaining to meet targets, without stringent regulations, I don’t know if we can do it.

In closing, I hope this committee doesn’t bow down to the oil and gas groups that have had the ear of government for far too long. I hope that you remember to honour UNDRIP; that citizens have access to fair and open participation that is broader; more participation, not just directly affected in a narrow zone; and finally, when our governments look at projects, it must fit within the Paris Agreement so we meet our targets. Thank you for your time this morning.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Kidd.

Scott Kidd, Member, Conservation Council of New Brunswick: Founded in 1969, the Conservation Council is the largest New Brunswick environmental organization, and one of the oldest such organizations in Canada. The Conservation Council has participated in a number of federal and provincial environmental assessments. Most recently, the Conservation Council, with my assistance, was an intervenor in the National Energy Board hearings for the Energy East project and a funded participant in the comprehensive federal environmental assessment of the proposed Sisson tungsten and molybdenum mine.

Before I begin my remarks, I and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick want to thank the Senate committee for inviting me to speak with you this morning about the important legislation that Bill C-69 represents.

This morning, I will briefly, one, discuss why the Conservation Council of New Brunswick supports Bill C-69; two, address several points made by those opposed to Bill C-69; and three, how weakening Bill C-69 may be detrimental to efforts of reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

Regarding our support for Bill C-69, the Conservation Council believes there is great value in robust impact assessment processes. When done right, impact assessments promote more public participation and trust in government decision-making; increased transparency and accountability; and sound environmental, social, health, and economic planning and decision-making.

Strong impact assessment processes, among other things, further fairness in the sharing of the costs and benefits of projects.

It is because the Conservation Council supports strong impact assessments that we also support Bill C-69. Bill C-69 represents an improvement over the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Areas of Bill C-69 that we are in favour of include its recognition of the respect owed to the rights of Indigenous peoples; the inclusion of a planning phase into the assessment process; the list of factors set out in clause 22 that are required to be taken into account during an assessment; the removal of project assessment responsibilities from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board; and finally, that the minister or cabinet must provide written reasons why they consider a project to be or not be in the public interest.

Moving to the second part of my discussion, I will now address some or the general statements of opposition to Bill C-69.

There has been from some parties a misunderstanding or mis-portrayal of the purpose of impact assessment. They describe impact assessment as simply one in a line of regulatory approvals. At its core, this is not what impact assessment is about. As I discussed earlier, impact assessment is a participatory process aimed at improving planning and decision-making. It is about understanding the present and future impacts of the positives and negatives of projects and other activities.

For example, it was estimated that, if built, Energy East would have contributed 121 direct jobs in New Brunswick during its 40 years of operation. In comparison, in 2008, the New Brunswick portion of the Bay of Fundy, through various sectors such as fishing and tourism, supported over 9,000 full-time equivalent direct jobs and contributed over $475 million yearly in direct GDP to the New Brunswick economy.

Proper impact assessment allows us, among other things, to question and answer whether we are willing to put those certain jobs and economy at risk from a possible catastrophic oil spill in the Bay of Fundy.

One other issue of opposition that I would like to address is that Bill C-69 should be amended to provide for only limited rights of judicial review. This amendment is unnecessary. I know of no substantive decision to allow or not allow a project to proceed that has been overturned by a Canadian court. Canadian courts only quash impact assessment decisions when the process, i.e., the law, has not been followed correctly. Surely there should be no limits placed on ensuring that the rule of law has been complied with.

Finally, for those who are opposed to stronger impact assessment, I have to say that that ship has sailed. Whether you want to call it social licence or something else, Canadians now expect to be able to participate in impact assessments and, the less robust assessments have become, the more discord that has arisen.

The last point I would like to make is regarding the issue of reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples. In the 2004 Taku River case, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that consultations with Indigenous communities regarding the accommodation of their rights can take place during environmental assessments. It is clear such consultations cannot be done in haste; that there is no time limit on the length of these negotiations. Shortening the time for the assessment of large projects from what is proposed in Bill C-69 will likely result in situations where an impact assessment is completed well before consultations and negotiations with Indigenous communities are.

It is the Conservation Council’s concern that, in these cases, it is these consultations that will become the target of blame for purported delays in the development of projects. Obviously, such a result would not advance reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

That concludes my remarks, and thank you again for listening to me this morning. I look forward to answering any questions the committee may have for me and to discussing Bill C-69 further with you.

The Chair: Ms. Mitchell.

Colleen Mitchell, President, Atlantica Centre for Energy: Thank you for taking the time and your interest to hear the various perspectives from a cross-section of New Brunswickers here today. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you in your role by supplying information on the implications of Bill C-69, specifically as it applies to New Brunswick.

As Madam Chair mentioned, I am Colleen Mitchell, with the Atlantica Centre for Energy. We are composed of education and research sectors, the community at large, government, producers of energy, as well as users of energy. We focus on the regional energy sector and provide information to help the public make informed decisions.

As evidence of our emphasis on energy education, our largest single source of revenue is from the University of New Brunswick, where we lead a certificate program called energy fundamentals.

I’d like to start by placing our economy in context, for all of you in particular not from the Maritime Region. The Bank of Canada recently commented on the underperformance of Canadian exports. New Brunswick, here where we are today, is the most export-dependent province in the nation. The economic gap between New Brunswick and the rest of Canada remains significant. Although the energy sector has been one of the principal economic forces in Canada, it has not become a major economic driver in New Brunswick. In fact, New Brunswick’s transfer payments from Ottawa, what some call provincial welfare, account for over 30 percent of our provincial budget.

Going forward, there is certainly strong potential for the energy sector here in New Brunswick. There are proposed projects for oil and gas; for non-emitting energy sources, such as wind, solar, hydro, and small modular reactors; plus there are potential energy export projects.

If these projects do proceed to completion, they could have a profound impact on the New Brunswick economy, but these will be impacted by Bill C-69 if it is passed without the revisions that, in our opinion, are required.

Let’s start with what is right about this process. You are here, you are listening, and our thanks to you for that. What we hope transpires after this is that you take what you have heard and you make the changes that are necessary, such as clarity. Please, provide clarity. What specifically are the rules? Provide certainty. If you do these specific things, your project will move forward. And provide consistency. This is the process for everybody, for all involved.

In its current state, there remain ambiguities, undefined benchmarks, lack of definitions, and unreasonable parameters versus other competing nations.

Our concern is that this bill will push investment to the United States, to Mexico, and beyond. The C.D. Howe Institute has calculated, and I believe that you have already received a copy of that report, $100 billion of investment has been lost in Canada since this bill was introduced. So we don’t think that Bill C-69 is going to address the very reasons it was drafted, to enhance Canada’s competitiveness and provide predictable, timely decisions that will instill investor confidence.

With its increased scope of review and lengthened time frames it will, in fact, worsen Canada’s ability to attract investment. Rather than increase pipeline capacity, petroleum is being forced onto railcars.

While this bill has been under review, oil by rail has doubled from 150,000 barrels a day to 250,000 in 2018. This year, it will increase even further, far exceeding historic highs across Canada. Doubling oil by rail in the last two years is not making petroleum transportation safer; nor is it slowing it down. It merely finds a different way to market.

The net result will be that no new investment is made in state-of-the-art pipelines, yet other transportation will continue to grow unabated. Bill C-69 does not increase the protection of health, safety, and the environment by moving oil to rail. Passing this bill without these substantive changes will not balance resource development and the environment. It will not be a win-win; it will end up being a lose-lose.

In summary, we don’t think that the Canadian government has got it right yet with this bill. We think that, with your input here in the Senate, we can do better. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re going to go to the question period.

Senator MacDonald has given you his spot, Senator Mockler, so you go first. You are in your province, in your city.

[Translation]

Senator Mockler: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for agreeing to come here to Saint John, New Brunswick, as you went to St. John’s, Newfoundland, and also to Halifax. Tomorrow, we will be in Quebec City.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to stress the importance of listening to people and also to remind the audience here in Saint John that this is precisely our main objective.

I would also like to congratulate the more than 15,000 francophones of the great city of Saint John, and thank them for their leadership in all economic and social activities.

[English]

To the witnesses, thank you for being here. Yes, it’s all about clarity; and yes, it’s about listening; and yes, it’s about making decisions.

I have not heard the definition of “social acceptance,” but we hear across the country about how important it is. Would each and every one of you please help us understand your definition of social acceptance when we look at an important bill like C-69? Ms. Astephen, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Kidd, could give us your thoughts and opinions on social acceptance? What is it?

Ms. Astephen: I agree with your comments on francophones. I’ve been lucky to go to French immersion, so thank you for that.

[Translation]

Senator Mockler: Do you speak French?

Ms. Astephen: Yes, I also speak French a little.

[English]

Social acceptance, social licence: That’s a really great question. As an ordinary citizen, does a project have a social licence? Does the community say yes or no to it, I guess is the question. What are the arguments against the project? I think that’s what we hear at places like the National Energy Board from people on the streets.

I have been to Quebec. I attended the “Act on Climate” march, I think it was in 2014. There were 25,000 people on the streets. I’ve heard lots of things in the media about people in Quebec. I know there is no social acceptance there.

Here in New Brunswick we had a march in Saint John of 700 people against Energy East. I would say, for us, the same goes. We’re a much smaller location, but I think that people are generally upset. If they’re upset, I would say that there is no acceptance. If people are taking part in democracy; unfortunately, most people don’t take part in democracy. It’s unusual to see someone my age even know anything about politics.

If we’re seeing more of an uprise in engaging in the socio-democratic system that we have, I would say that people might not necessarily agree with a project.

I would say that we have definitely seen that with all of these pipeline projects, and I think, unfortunately due to the previous government with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that’s why we’re seeing all of this public discord.

Ms. Mitchell: Acting in the public interest is certainly something that should be paramount to the Canadian government, and respecting the democratic process, giving individuals, as my co-panellists here have mentioned, the opportunity to participate. But then also following the rule of law and not supporting civil disobedience. The elected government, as well as the people running the actual government, the administration, have to lead change and they have to accept technological advances, as well, in order to protect the public.

But sometimes the public needs protecting from themselves, as well. They don’t have all the information that the government can make available and that they have in making their own decisions.

With respect to social acceptance, it’s also taking responsibility for leading and not following the public. It’s not about pandering to voters; it’s about doing what is right for the people and being true to our heritage and to our future, and keeping Canada strong.

The Chair: Last comment, Mr. Kidd.

Mr. Kidd: At its core, impact assessments or environmental assessments, whatever you want to call them, is a democratic process. When you’re talking about social acceptance or social licence, I agree that there are always going to be some people who, no matter what, will always be happy with a project and, no matter what, will always be unhappy with a project.

What people want through their impact assessments is they want a chance to influence the decision, to know that they were listened to and heard, and that they were responded to. It’s the same as any democratic vote. I had a chance to make my opinion heard, and I had a chance to influence the decision. I may not agree with the final decision, but I had a chance to influence it.

When you take that away through weakening impact assessments, now, all of a sudden my ability to influence the decision is not there, and that creates discord.

In particular, when you look at large-scale projects, they’re going to be on the landscape for tens of years. These are long-lasting projects. If I don’t like this current government and I don’t like how they deal with health care, I can vote them out in four years. But once a forest is gone, once a stream is crossed, whatever happens, that’s going to be there, as I said, for tens or hundreds of years.

As a Canadian, I would like to have a chance to influence that long-term decision.

Senator Simons: I’m going to direct my question first to Ms. Astephen, and perhaps the other two witnesses would like to add their comments.

One of the issues that we’re wrestling with on this committee is how to make sure that people’s voices are heard in the process. The kind of standing test that you describe does seem ridiculously onerous. On the other hand, we’ve also heard people saying that, if you have no kind of test at all, local voices could get drowned out and swamped by outside lobby groups and people who are well funded. We’ve heard that from Indigenous communities; we’ve heard that also from people who have environmental groups.

How do you think we can best strike a balance between making sure that people who are most directly affected are heard, that the communities that will have to bear the burden of the project get their voices listened to, versus having too onerous a standing test that leaves people out?

Ms. Astephen: A few things. I gave you a couple of examples of a couple of neighbours. Those were just two people. It was such a narrow group of people who were even allowed to apply. Where I live, there are a couple of subdivisions, and then there is where the tanks were going to be built. Where those tanks were going to be built, those were the people who were allowed to apply.

Their subdivisions were just a minute down the road; they weren’t allowed, basically.

I think that the National Energy Board, or whenever we have these projects going on, they need to have local offices. Because I took my own personal time to help my neighbours. I was the person who listened to their concerns, and it shouldn’t be that way. It should be government officials who are non-biased. There should be local offices. Older people don’t have cell phones, even, still. It’s different ways of communicating with them.

It wasn’t fair that my neighbour across the street from me, who was going to be even closer, was not ever allowed to speak at the National Energy Board, after doing plenty of work.

The funds that were available, it’s just that there’s such a huge amount of corporate capture in our government. I’m sure we hear it all the time. The example that’s out there right now is SNC-Lavalin.

There needs to be a more level playing field, so people like myself and my neighbours, who are older, can have a say. Why did they have to fill out an application just to write a letter? I mean, why was that necessary? It was so that they couldn’t even have a say. It wasn’t fair.

So there needs to be something that takes that sort of thing out of there. I know, if we take that out of there, that opens it up for perhaps thousands of people, but shouldn’t Canadians have a voice? Isn’t it fair that they should have to say something? Maybe a town hall-style kind of thing, where people can just go to a microphone and have their say. Just something. But why take their voice away?

It just broke my heart that these people wanted to say something and they couldn’t. Like my neighbour across the street, she has breathing problems, her husband has cancer, and her voice was taken away. The other couple down the road, they lived at the very end of the road. There was no emergency plan for them. Their only voice was me. I was allowed to speak on behalf of the community, and they should have had the chance to say it in their own words, as well.

It was very heartfelt, all of these people who did have a chance to speak. It was from their heart, and they had a right to say it. Thank you.

The Chair: Do you want to add something?

Ms. Mitchell: Thank you for your question. It’s very important for public participation in the process, for sure. But one thing, and it’s a huge issue, and I’m glad it’s not mine, is trying to look at quantity versus quality. People and organizations and groups that truly can add value to the process.

I’ll give you a quick example, and then you can move on. I was talking to a chairperson of an energy and utility board, and about 15 years ago there was a pipeline that had been proposed through a residential area. There wasn’t one group, person, or organization that wanted to participate or had any input, and it was approved, and off it went. Five years later, 1,500 applications came in to participate.

Yesterday I got a call from a group out in Alberta who have sent you 45,000 emails.

Senator Simons: Yes, they’re in my inbox.

Ms. Mitchell: I cannot possibly imagine how you are dealing with that. To think about, okay, is that really one email times 45,000?

The Chair: Exactly. Maybe not.

Ms. Mitchell: Exactly. Or is it 39,000 really good ones and 6,000 not so much? Certainly there is a huge issue, in particular with the adoption of technology that makes it so easy. It’s a huge task for the government to try and determine the balance between people who truly have value to contribute and those who are basically spamming your inboxes.

The second is with respect to teleconferencing. I was able to present to a Senate committee from the Senate in the past. I didn’t have to travel to Ottawa, and you didn’t have to come here. There was teleconferencing that was made available.

Further use of that in the future so that people across the country, no matter where they are in their own communities, can sit in front of a microphone and communicate with you. That saves time, it saves money, and does not dilute the value of their participation.

Senator Woo: My question is for Ms. Mitchell. You juxtapose the slump in Canadian energy investment with impact assessment, and you seem to draw a line between the introduction of C-69 and the fall in investment. You specifically cite a study and, in your words, connect the fall in $100 billion of investment with the introduction of Bill C-69.

You also made some statements about shipment by rail, and tried to make a connection between the increase in shipment by rail, again, with the introduction of the bill. Bill C-69 is not law, as you know.

I hope you can clarify if, in fact, you are trying to make this connection between some very unhappy developments in the oil and gas industry in Canada with something that is not even law. In fact, you run a research and education centre on energy information, and I’m wondering what you are teaching Atlantic Canadians about global energy markets and about how conditions in global markets are affecting investment in this country, and the challenges in the industry today, based on factors certainly well beyond Bill C-69 and certainly well beyond developments in this country alone.

Ms. Mitchell: Thank you very much for your question.

With respect to specifically Bill C-69, I think that it was the point of what one of the objectives of Bill C-69 was to accomplish, which was to create clarity and to create certainty and to provide a process that would encourage economic stimulation in Canada. The introduction of the first draft of Bill C-69, did not appear to be providing that clarity to industry and to investment, that it has been put on pause.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s directly and solely due to Bill C-69, but it did not correct the issues with the current administration of the National Energy Board, their time frames, their ability for participation, and to get some sort of degree that, if a project went through the process, it would have a reasonable chance of, A, getting approved, and B, then getting built.

I’m not sure if that —

Senator Woo: Sorry, no, that’s not clear. Are you saying that under the current regime people will be more confident and investment would be successful?

Ms. Mitchell: No, I think that definitely there are changes that, if made, would be very helpful to the current process under the National Energy Board. The most current example that the three of us are familiar with and that we referred to was the Energy East application through the National Energy Board process. They did indeed come to Saint John, and we all participated as intervenors in that process.

That process then stopped. There were many, many challenges with it, not only from a participation standpoint, but also from the proponent standpoint. It was over 10 years, I think, from the concept of the project, and after spending literally $1 billion on it, they still hadn’t actually been accepted by the National Energy Board.

Senator Woo: That’s the oil regime, of course. Are you connecting the increase in shipment of oil by rail with the introduction of Bill C-69?

Ms. Mitchell: I would say that the increase of oil by rail has been the lack of new pipeline capacity across the country and into the United States.

Senator Woo: And nothing to do with Bill C-69 as such?

Ms. Mitchell: During that same process, it doesn’t give confidence that any new applications are being brought forward by proponents.

Senator Woo: Okay.

Ms. Astephen: I just want to add something about the oil-by-rail argument. This is a false argument. One of the reasons why I went to Quebec the second time was about an oil by rail project.

The oil and gas industry doesn’t want just pipelines. They want both. There is a proposal to build oil by rail to Belledune, Bay of Chaleur terminal. I don’t know if anybody here has heard of that. It’s been awhile since it’s been in the news. But at the same time they were proposing that, they were proposing other pipelines as well.

So the oil and gas industry certainly want both. They want to get it out of the ground as quickly as possible, and ship it off for export.

[Translation]

The Chair: I would like to ask a question along the same lines as Senator Woo, Ms. Mitchell.

You said two things that sort of shocked me. First, with respect to the energy east pipeline, the proponent withdrew his project, not the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement, not the Government of Quebec. The project proponent withdrew his project.

Second, you said that Bill C-69, which we are currently studying, is the reason for the $10 billion loss. Could you provide us with the reference on that?

Third, you said that the public must be protected from the public.

[English]

And Ms. Astephen, you said you were denied word to the public hearings, so what did you want to tell them?

But let’s first listen to Madame Mitchell.

Ms. Mitchell: With respect to the report, I will have that sent electronically to Francine, and I do have that. I believe it has already been submitted, but I will do so again to satisfy the question.

With respect to the public, we put on a program that we run across New Brunswick, around all of the regions, to help give municipal councillors, as well as community leaders — really anyone interested; we don’t draw a line as to who can participate — information that they can have to help them make better decisions for their particular community, or for the province, or for their particular neighbourhood, in some cases.

What we have found in the past is that many of these individuals who don’t have access to information relevant to, in this case, relevant to New Brunswick, that talks about New Brunswick geology, that talks about New Brunswick’s laws and Canadian laws versus, in particular, the laws in the United States.

They’re trying to make decisions on very limited access to information. What we try and do is make information available to them that is relevant to their community. In the past, they haven’t necessarily had that information, and so they’re not making the best decisions that they can.

That’s what I mean about protecting them from themselves, in that, if they don’t have access to the information, the decisions that they’re making that do have implications going forward are not necessarily the best ones that they could be making, if they had the information available.

In some cases, in particular at the municipal level, where they don’t have a lot of funds available, they’re making decisions based on the loudest voice, rather than on the best decisions for them going forward.

Ms. Astephen: I think you asked me about not being approved. Correct?

The Chair: You said you were not accepted to give your testimony.

Senator Patterson: No, she was accepted. She gave testimony.

The Chair: You gave testimony?

Ms. Astephen: Yes, sorry. Just to clarify, I was accepted as an intervenor personally for my home, and I was accepted as an intervenor for my community, but there were individual neighbours who were not accepted after filling out all the applications. Some didn’t even get an answer. Even while the hearings were going on, they never received an answer.

The Chair: Was their message different from yours?

Ms. Astephen: Yes. Each neighbour had a different message. They had their own way of wording it. They had different research that they did on their own. They have different properties than I do. Some were closer to the tanks; the tanks literally would have been close to their back yards, and I was across the street from where the field where the 22 tanks would have been.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Richards.

Senator Richards: I am concerned about clarity, as well, and the will of the people and ordinary citizens. I’m going to ask the two ladies on the panel to just answer this, because we had ordinary citizens tell us out west that they’re losing their homes because they don’t have jobs in the oil market.

We had thousands of people demonstrating, and bringing their trucks across to Ottawa, because they were losing their employment, and they were dismissed, as well. I mean, they didn’t really have a voice. They had their trucks to drive to Ottawa, but they didn’t have a voice. I felt pretty bad for them.

So I’m going to ask, where does the social licence stop? Who has the final word on all of this? We have an oil industry that now lost billions of dollars, which could help the whole infrastructure of our country, and I’m just wondering if that’s the way we want to go.

If it is the way we want to go, then it’s useless to debate it. If it isn’t, then we have to do something to balance these two sides of the equation. There are a lot of people out there who feel they need jobs in the oil industry, and their voices aren’t being heard, either.

Ms. Astephen: I’m more than happy to answer this question. Some people aren’t aware that my husband worked in Fort McMurray, while I was here being an intervenor.

I think the concerns that you’re mentioning are real, about people being concerned about their homes and their jobs. People need to put food on their table. Here in St John, we have Canada’s largest oil refinery.

I’ll address a few of those things.

Regarding the jobs and the trucks that went to Ottawa, there weren’t thousands of trucks. I saw the pictures. There were maybe a few dozen, and it was a very small crowd on Parliament. I know it was.

Senator Richards: Excuse me, ma’am. I didn’t say there were thousands of trucks, and if I said that, I didn’t mean it. I said thousands of people, from emails and messages, are worried about their jobs. When the trucks went to Ottawa, they were pretty well dismissed by our Liberal government. That’s what I was trying to say.

Ms. Astephen: I think that what the workers are missing is a diversified economy, and I think that we should all agree on that. We need to move off fossil fuels if we’re going to meet our climate change targets. My husband is an electrician. What we’re missing is a planned transition for these workers. If we’re going to put all of our eggs in one basket, and the world is moving off fossil fuels, then what are we going to do for these workers?

I don’t know who the next federal government is going to be, and I don’t think this current one is doing enough for these workers to have a just transition, to retrain these workers. This is the big piece that is missing in our government today. About these workers, I think that’s what needs to happen. They certainly have concerns that are real, definitely.

There are various opinions, that climate change isn’t real, for instance, but climate change is real, it is happening, it’s happening to my neighbours’ backyards that are disappearing. The floods that are happening here in New Brunswick are real. This is the second year that this is happening, and the waters are higher this year. We need to do something about that.

Senator Richards: Ma’am, I’m from Fredericton. I know about the floods. One particular flood that we had in Fredericton in 1972; I was there as a student.

Ms. Astephen: Can you tell me if you think that climate change is human-caused?

Senator Patterson: Point of order.

Senator Richards: Can you answer the question, ma’am?

The Chair: Senator Richards, do you have an answer, or you don’t want to answer?

Senator Richards: I’m asking this person here to answer my question.

The Chair: What was the question, Senator Richards?

Senator Richards: She knows the question, ma’am.

Ms. Mitchell: One issues, and it may not be able to be dealt with in this particular bill, is that the ability to participate in consideration of various bills across the country is escalating. Whether it’s a convoy of truckers or whether it’s email spam, I can assure you that there are more emails coming. I’m not sure that it’s contributing to the process, and I would encourage a way to streamline participation. The quantity and volume of emails that proponents or opponents of a bill generate could stall a process rather than actually contributing to you looking at valuable information and assessing its worthiness.

I’m not certain that more is better. I think that the workers who are involved should have a way of participating and should be heard and should not be dismissed. I think that their voices are every bit as important as Lynaya’s, as Scott’s and as mine.

Certainly here in New Brunswick there is no question we have an out-migration problem; that New Brunswick has the most out-migration of any province in the country. It’s certainly something that we deal with on a day-to-day basis, of not enough work here in New Brunswick, and we have what they call the out-migration of two weeks on and two weeks off, if indeed they actually do return to New Brunswick.

We’re having great difficulty in trying to increase our population base in New Brunswick. With respect to those people participating in the process, yes, honestly, Senator Richards, my group and I do not have an answer for that, other than I think that it would be very valuable to come up with a way of participating.

That may indeed be part of this bill, on how we make sure that the voices that do want to be heard, can be heard, while respecting reasonable time frames from the standpoint that, if you wanted to hear from all 37 million Canadians, we wouldn’t ever get anything done.

Senator Richards: Mr. Kidd, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Kidd: If I understand, there is concern about loss of jobs and loss of contributions to the Canadian economy from the oil and gas sector. Two comments I’d like to make. I’m not saying that their view is not real; I don’t want to say that at all. I was reading in the National Post this weekend, comments about delays or purported delays in the Trans Mountain pipeline. One of the contractors was saying that they’re thinking of leaving Trans Mountain or from working on Trans Mountain, not because it’s been delayed, but because there is lots of other work to be done. Lots of other pipelines, natural gas pipeline, work to be done. There may not be oil pipelines, but there seems to be other pipeline work taking place.

The second part is, whether you agree with it or not, Canada has signed on to the Paris Agreement. We have a commitment to make. That is international law, and I don’t think anybody is suggesting that we shouldn’t follow international law. If you want oil and gas to proceed, and that’s going to contribute to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, what are we going to take away from Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions? If you want those projects, what are we prepared to give up so that we can meet those targets? Not you personally, but, what as Canadians are we prepared to change to meet those targets?

When you make those kinds of international agreements, or other agreements, there is, unfortunately, going to be winners or losers. I think we’ve seen that in New Brunswick in the forestry industry, as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We need to move on. Senator Patterson.

Senator Patterson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to direct my question to Mr. Kidd.

Mr. Kidd, you expressed concerns about efforts to shorten the time frame for reviews under Bill C-69. I think this is one of the first times we’ve had a submission like this. Even supporters of the bill say it improves on the time frames that are currently in place under CEAA 2012, although I think that’s debatable.

In this visit to the Atlantic region, we received information about a study done by the international consulting firm Wood Mackenzie to compare the environmental approval process for exploration wells in the Atlantic with international jurisdictions such as Norway, the U.K. and Australia. And they showed that the average time frame for environmental approval from 2000 to 2017 in Newfoundland and Labrador was 905 days; in Nova Scotia, 698 days; the United Kingdom, 18 days; Norway, 79 days, a very highly regarded, rigorous regulatory system there; the U.S. after Deepwater Horizon, 96 days; and Australia, 144 days.

Are you at all concerned about what we’ve heard about investment capital fleeing Canada to meet growing demands for energy in the world? The International Energy Agency says, whether we like it or not, oil and gas demands are going to increase to 2040. So are you concerned about investment capital fleeing Canada to other jurisdictions that have more efficient regulatory processes, or are you just fine with reducing the development of our energy resources?

The Chair: We need a short answer, because we have to move.

Senator Patterson: Was my question clear enough?

Mr. Kidd: No.

Senator Patterson: Let me put it this way. We seem to be objectively much slower in environmental reviews in Canada than other jurisdictions with which we compete as energy producers. Are you okay with that? Are you concerned about that? Or are you okay with having investment in Canada’s energy industries diminish?

Mr. Kidd: Well, I’m not sure from your evidence that it’s diminished. What you’re presenting is that you’re saying that the time is shorter, but does that mean that —

Senator Patterson: Well, we have other credible evidence that $100 million worth of energy investments have been shelved in Canada in recent years.

Mr. Kidd: You’re just leading me on, here.

The Chair: Yes, Senator Patterson. You always say we don’t present evidence. Actually, you said that to me.

Senator Patterson: Well, there was evidence presented to our committee.

The Chair: But not to the witness.

Senator Patterson: Well, I can give him the chart. It’s pretty clear. It’s evidence that was before the committee, Madam Chair. That’s why I referred to it.

The Chair: If you say you cannot answer, just say you cannot answer.

Senator Patterson: Well, let me ask Mr. Kidd another question, then.

Mr. Kidd: Thank you.

Senator Patterson: About this business of time frames, have you heard the expression “the work will expand to fit the time allotted?” I believe that — and, by the way, I’m speaking from the experience of having been in government in the north, and we had a wonderful proposal to export clean Alberta gas through the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. It was a great project because it had one third Aboriginal equity, and full buy-in, and a very rigorous review process, but it took 10 years. By the time the review process was over, the price of gas had plummeted and the project became uneconomic.

So do you believe that the work will expand to fit the time allotted, generally? That’s my question. The work could be done, whatever time frame is set, whatever reasonable time frame is set.

Mr. Kidd: Well, I believe that two years, or 600 days, to review a megaproject is a reasonable amount of time.

As for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, it may have taken 10 years, but that project was approved. As you said, the reason it went away is because it wasn’t economical. And why it was economical 10 years ago but now, it can’t survive a low period of natural gas prices, would suggest that the project was never viable in the first place.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We need to move on. Senator Cormier, Senator Neufeld, Senator McCallum, Senator Carignan.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: Colleagues, it’s my turn, as a New Brunswicker, to welcome you to New Brunswick.

Clearly, this bill is generating very polarized debates. There are those who are for the environment and those who are for the oil industry. There are those who say that environmentalists are blocking economic development and those who say that the oil industry does not want to take environmental issues into account in the development of their companies. So these debates are extremely polarized on both sides.

Ms. Mitchell, you talked about the need for “clarity, consistency”. I wonder what role the oil industry plays or should play in the process of consultation, education and transition to renewable energy? In other words, in relation to Bill C-69, how can the oil industry at the moment—here we have Irving, of course, which is very, very, very present in our territory—contribute to education and consultation, and educate or reassure the public about a transition process towards renewable energy?

My question is for all three of you.

[English]

The Chair: Short answers, please.

Ms. Mitchell: Thank you very much for your comments. I think it is very timely that you ask this, because certainly you have this afternoon participation — and later this morning — with NB Power and with Irving Oil, and you can ask that question, as well.

I’ll just preface this by saying we do not represent industry, we do not represent oil and gas, but nevertheless I have their perspective. One of the things that has not worked well in the past is that the oil and gas industry tends to be run by engineers and scientists and other people from the STEM program, so math, and they think very logically. They think very factually, and graphs and charts and statistics work for them, but it hasn’t necessarily worked for the public.

I think their role in the future is on the communication side. It is making information available to the public that is in a language that they can understand, and that is through a medium that they can understand. It used to be that you would write a full-page ad in the newspaper, but people don’t read that anymore. Now it’s going through social media and electronic form.

I think that there is a big role to play in the future on the industry side in making information available in the process sooner, and making it available to people in formats they can understand and relate to.

Here in New Brunswick, our illiteracy rate is 50 percent in the anglophone community and over 50 percent in the francophone community. We know that white papers and briefing papers don’t work. People won’t comprehend enough of the information, so we’re switching to infographics and other shorter pieces of information.

I think that industry could play a big role in helping to get information out sooner and faster. I hope that that answers part of your question.

The Chair: Anything to add from our other two witnesses?

Mr. Kidd: This idea that it’s polarized, that’s because, again, impact assessment has simply become this idea of checking a box. Once we are done, we are finished. That’s not what impact assessment is about. It’s about improving decision-making. It should be about learning, group learning, shared learning.

That’s one of the benefits of this pre-planning phase. We have an opportunity to learn about the project together. Now, impact assessment has become winners and losers, right or wrong, and, again, that’s not what its purpose is about. It’s about improving decision-making, and that’s what we should be trying to return to.

Senator Neufeld: There was a question from Senator Woo earlier about the chill of investment and, Ms. Mitchell, you talked about the $100 billion. I thought it would be worthwhile to get on the record that things long before C-69 started that chill in investment: being unable to get the product to market, to overseas; the tanker bill, when the government in 2015 said we’re going to eliminate oil tankers off the northern coast of British Columbia; cancelling Northern Gateway; a whole host of things.

Would you agree with me that that would actually put a chill on investment? I believe it would, and I don’t want it to be left that it seems as though it’s just market price. Market price is part of it, and I totally agree, but the inability to get it to market.

Secondly, there was talk about Quebec. With Energy East, Quebec could have started in their refineries to use oil from Canada instead of importing it. Let’s remember that Quebec is the third-largest emitter of GHGs in Canada, and nobody in Quebec is marching, as far as I know, to say, “I want to quit using oil and gas totally. I want to shut it down.” They are actually quite willing to continue to bring it in by tanker from Saudi Arabia, from other places that may not have the same environmental standards that we have in Canada.

If others want to comment on that, I’m quite all right with that.

Senator Carignan: If I may, just a point of order, because Quebec doesn’t import oil and gas from Saudi Arabia. But the big part of —

Senator Neufeld: You can have that argument with me later.

Senator Carignan: — it is coming from the west.

Senator Neufeld: And that’s wrong. They import all their natural gas from the U.S., I’m sorry.

The Chair: I think that point has been clarified before, in other previous meetings, that Quebec doesn’t import oil from Saudi Arabia anymore. Actually, it imports it from Alberta, at least one third.

Senator Patterson: Let’s let Senator Neufeld ask his question.

The Chair: He asked his question; it was directed to Ms. Mitchell.

Senator Neufeld: I’m sorry I touched a nerve with my Quebec colleagues, but I’m from Western Canada.

Ms. Mitchell: With respect to your first question, the answer is yes.

With respect to your comments on tanker activity in the Saint Lawrence Seaway, again, I think that there should be comparable rules on the waterways in Canada, whether they be coastal on the West Coast or through waterways on the East Coast and the oceans on the East Coast.

Ms. Astephen: I just want to add that it was Line 9 that brought the Alberta gas to Quebec.

Quebecers are wanting to get off fossil fuels. They actually have a website called Le Pacte where they talk about that. That’s why there are a lot of people in the streets. Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say.

Senator McCallum: Thank you to all the presenters. I wanted to thank everyone who has come to present here, and I think it’s very important for us to hear not only from a distance through videoconferencing, but to actually meet the people who have made the time to come and to present.

This is a critical discussion that we’re having, on many issues that wrap around impact assessment. We are looking at climate change; we’re looking at the contribution of boom and bust to this situation. We’re looking at Indigenous issues, ecological damage, human rights, loss of jobs, pipelines, moratoriums, loss of investment. That tears people apart and yet, despite that, we need to have that conversation because we’re all Canadians and we need to move ahead together.

All these are important points of view that need to be heard. As an Indigenous person, my voice was ignored for many years, so that’s why it is very vital for me that we hear from everyone. It is also a participatory process.

How do you see reconciliation between all that I have mentioned and what you have presented, and how do we determine what is the most urgent way to move forward together?

Ms. Astephen: Reconciliation. If you had asked me this five years ago, I wouldn’t have had a clue. But, being involved in this process, I met Wolastoqiyik and Mi’kmaq people here in New Brunswick, and I took part in the blanket exercise a few times, and I’ve learned about the real history of Canada and what it’s done to Indigenous people, something I wasn’t taught in school.

I think that ordinary Canadians need to take part in those exercises. I think that we need to recognize UNDRIP. From my understanding, nation-to-nation doesn’t mean, like, a reserve. It means the actual nation, like the Wolastoqiyik Nation or the Mi’kmaq Nation. I think ordinary Canadians need to educate themselves; read the TRC, for instance. I hope that answers the question.

Senator McCallum: The reconciliation was between the oil and the groups. But that was a good answer, thank you.

Ms. Astephen: I have spoken to a doctor in Alberta who has lost his job and got into trouble because he spoke the truth, Dr. John O’Connor. I heard that people in Fort Chipewyan who lived downstream from the Alberta oil sands, tar sands, whatever you want to call them, have rare cancer. And here we are talking about approving more projects that will affect their health.

I have spoken to Chief Allan Adam, and I know he’s been in the media — I speak to him through Facebook Messenger — and I know his community is in tatters, and I know that they want to survive, really. They can’t fish, they can’t hunt, they can’t drink their water.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I know that this is not the way that we should be treating our Indigenous people here in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Thank you. I have a point to make and clarify. Right now, 44 per cent of the oil consumed in Quebec comes from the west, transported by pipeline, and another 40 per cent comes from North Dakota, shale oil transported by rail.

This brings me to my question about social licence. I come from Village Champlain in the suburbs of Montreal. We had a farm and a woodlot through which a pipeline ran. A waste site was set up on the woodlot, to the south of which was a railway. Of course, the waste site caused the most problems, as did the railway. As for the pipeline, I never gave it a thought.

I didn’t realize that the first house I bought in Saint-Eustache was 20 feet from a pipeline. My second house was 150 feet from a pipeline and my third house was 500 feet from a pipeline.

A pipeline also runs right through the city of Saint-Eustache, and I taught my children to ride a bike on the bike path there.

Is the problem not with information when it comes to social licence? Is there not a social licence problem or a public misinformation campaign being conducted with respect to pipelines? In your opinion, does Bill C-69 allow or will it allow for a debate to make people understand that there are not necessarily risks or to enlighten the public on the various means of transportation?

The Chair: Is your question for Ms. Mitchell?

Senator Carignan: It’s for all three witnesses.

The Chair: Please make your answers very brief.

[English]

Ms. Mitchell: It’s great that you had that experience with respect to pipelines and your residences. Here in Saint John, where we are today, there’s a pipeline, a gas pipeline actually, that goes right through the largest municipal park in the country. I was at a meeting there, and someone stood up and said, “Thank God that there’s no pipeline anywhere near us.” Well, except right underneath us.

I think that’s one of the issues with respect to pipelines is that when they operate well, which 99.9 percent of the time they do, it’s not news, because it’s business as usual. Nor should it be making headlines. Unfortunately we hear about the exceptions, and not the day-to-day rule of life.

I think that there is a huge opportunity to get information out to the public. The difficulty is that we all have our days where we’re trying to get our kids to soccer, or trying to balance our books, or trying to work and juggling so much that we don’t have that much time in our lives to read about pipelines. It’s just not on our consciousness.

That is the challenge going forward. I don’t think, quite frankly, that Bill C-69 in its current form is going to change, negatively or positively, people’s approaches with respect to their thoughts on pipelines. But I think that it opens up an opportunity for industry, industry associations, as well as regulatory bodies to get information out to the public about, in particular, new pipelines and state-of-the-art pipelines and the new sensory equipment and technology that are available for their operation.

It’s not that there isn’t a risk, of course. There was a risk in me getting here today. It’s that the risk is manageable, that the risk is mitigable, and that the risks are far, far less than most people are thinking.

With respect to getting information out, it’s a challenge, but it’s this communication level that is a new challenge for us. Hopefully we will be able to come up with ways to communicate with the people.

Ms. Astephen: It is great that you have the example. I know, with Energy East, for example, it’s a diluted bitumen pipeline. It’s a product that can’t be cleaned up. I know there were scientific studies that say that; if anybody needs references, I can email that.

In Quebec, I know some of those people quite well myself, and I know it’s not just environmentalist issue. They are ordinary Canadians like myself, and they have educated themselves. They’re on social media, they share information together, whether it’s articles or scientific reports. I do, actually, read scientific reports and charts. I’ve done my homework; I hope it comes across as that.

I don’t think it’s just those concerns. I don’t think just putting a pipeline in the ground is the problem. I think that people are aware of the science around climate change. That is part of my concern, their safety. There was never an emergency plan for my community, ever. It didn’t exist. When the neighbour who did not get approved who lived across the street from me wanted to go to a community liaison meeting that was put on by TransCanada, she was not allowed in the building. She was escorted off the property by security.

So I think that the concerns that people have are real.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Our time is up. We are 15 minutes late. I’m really sorry, but we need to move.

Senator Mockler: Point of order. I think I have a reasonable point of order to inform the public and the witnesses.

The Chair: Okay, yes.

Senator Mockler: When we did the Western tour, TransCanada was present, Patrick Keys, Senior Vice-President, Legal, TransCanada. Senators did ask questions, and I was one of them, about why they had cancelled Energy East. It was said earlier, on that point of order —

The Chair: Is this a point of order or a point of information? What is the point of order?

Senator Mockler: It would be a point of clarification and —

The Chair: I’m sorry.

Senator Mockler: — of order also.

Senator Patterson: You didn’t stop Senator Carignan.

The Chair: What is the point of order?

Senator Mockler: Madam Chair, it’s a point of order. We have said that TransCanada cancelled Energy East, and it was said, I heard earlier, that it was for two reasons: the decline in the price of oil and other pipelines like Trans Mountain that were approved.

Mr. Keys said precisely, and I will quote him — and that’s a point of order for clarification and consistency.

The Chair: Point of order for clarification, okay. So what did he say?

Senator Mockler: Our committee was told about the decline in the price of oil and in pipelines. I asked Mr. Keys, Senior Vice-President, Legal, TransCanada, “Is that accurate?” He said:

Senator, I don’t believe, with due respect to the minister, that explains the entire story. I think TransCanada, when it took that very difficult decision in late 2017 to cancel the project, was fairly explicit when it sent a letter to the National Energy Board. And I’ll read perhaps a passage from that to assist . . . .

After recognizing some of the changes to the assessment project assessment that occurred TransCanada stated, and I quote: “There remains substantial uncertainty around the scope, timing, and costs associated with the regulatory review of the projects. There’s also a question of jurisdiction that arises from the NEB’s decision. After completing its careful review of these factors, the existing and the likely future delays resulting from the regulatory process, the associated cost implications, and the increasingly challenging issues and obstacles facing the projects, the applicants will not be proceeding further.”

Those were the reasons, Madam Chair, and thank you for accepting the clarification and the point of order.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do you want to raise a point of order or information?

Senator Mercer: What I want to do is to compliment Senator Mockler for giving the debate that he should be saving for the time when the committee is debating what the report will say. That’s information that’s before all members of the committee. All members of the senate have access to that. If he wants to educate the audience, that’s fine, but there are other forms in which to do that.

The evidence is already there. We don’t need him to re-read it to us. I don’t think there is a point of order.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now welcome our second panel. We have with us, from Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., Marcy Could, Offshore and Mining coordinator, together with Roy T.J. Stewart, Legal Counsel; and from the Saint John Citizen’s Coalition for Clean Air, Gordon Dalzell, Chairperson.

Each of you has five minutes. Please go ahead, and then we will proceed with questions.

Mary Cloud, Offshore and Mining Coordinator, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc.: My name is Marcy Cloud. I am the Offshore and Mining Coordinator for Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., which is representing eight of the nine Mi’kmaq communities in New Brunswick in this process.

The Mi’kmaq are Indigenous people whose territory includes large portions of the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, and northeastern United States, and have occupied our traditional lands since time immemorial. For thousands of years prior to European contact, the Mi’kmaq people recognized the significance of the environment to our very survival.

The Mi’kmaq have established and proven Aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, fish, harvest, and gather in our territory for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, as well as for the purposes of trade and earning a livelihood. Through processes such as this, we seek to ensure a healthy environment for our future generations.

Environmental legislation and decision-making can have huge impacts on our proven rights. MTI has been involved in numerous environmental assessments, regulatory and permitting processes.

We note that previous environmental legislation, such as CEAA 2012, was adopted with little to no input from the Mi’kmaq. While we still have concerns about Bill C-69, the engagement on this legislation has been far more extensive than was previously the case.

In April 2018, MTI made written submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. On page 1 of that document we outlined the principles our submissions have been based on.

In that submission we commended the government’s intentions for Bill C-69, especially the bill’s clearly stated intention of the government to pursue a renewed relationship with Indigenous peoples, on a nation-to-nation basis.

There are a number of other aspects of the bill we welcome. For example, the direct reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the mandatory consideration of Indigenous knowledge; the addition of Indigenous representation on advisory bodies; and the commitment to provide expanded and streamlined participant funding for the assessment process.

While MTI views Bill C-69 as a step in the right direction, there are continuing concerns that need to be addressed.

The proposed impact assessment act contains a number of improvements over the existing CEAA 2012. One concern raised by many Indigenous groups is that a project-by-project funding approach is inadequate for participation in the consultation processes. While the new act describes a participant funding program, unfortunately, it does not mandate adequate funding levels, nor does it address the need for ongoing funding for Indigenous groups.

We recommend this be addressed through a clear set of rules or regulations that identify appropriate funding levels, in order to permit ongoing Indigenous participation in assessment processes.

At a recent CEAA Capacity Program workshop, we were informed of a new Indigenous Capacity Support Program that was developed in response to these concerns raised by Indigenous groups. Under this program, Indigenous organizations will be applying for ongoing capacity support funding.

The program funding is not project-specific, which is a positive. However, the dollar amounts are very low. We have been advised that the total funding available over five years is $15 million for all Indigenous groups across the country. That funding is spread out over a five-year period, with only small increments available each year.

This will be inadequate for Indigenous groups. We need long-term capacity funding to ensure that our staff and in-house technical employees can be adequately trained and retained in order to appropriately respond and participate in consultation processes. Otherwise, Indigenous groups are faced with having to contract with external parties to carryout consultation work.

Also, under the new act, Indigenous governing bodies will continue to be prohibited from making a decision as to whether an impact assessment is required.

Having a designated project schedule continues to remain a concern for Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn. Our experience has been that, where triggers are not set appropriately, proponents will structure projects to avoid triggering an environmental assessment, which undermines the integrity of the whole assessment regime. We recommend that, for certain types of projects, triggers should be automatic and not based on arbitrary determinations regarding project size.

Similar to the impact assessment act, the renamed Canadian navigable waters act contains a number of welcome changes, including the requirement for a decision maker to consider any adverse effects that a decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

Also, the more expansive definition of “navigable water” found in section 2 of the Canadian navigable waters act is a step in the right direction. However, we are concerned with the portion of the definition that appears to limit navigable waters to those used by Indigenous peoples while “exercising rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act.”

In our view, this will simply put a burden on Indigenous peoples to prove that a waterway was used in the exercise of rights, as opposed to other valid uses. This may result in more contentious and expensive court processes, simply to establish whether the waterway is a navigable water.

The definition of “navigable water” should cover all waters used by Indigenous peoples for travel and transport, regardless of whether it is in the course of the exercise of section 35 rights.

We recommend the reference to “exercising rights” be deleted from the definition.

Lastly, along with many other Indigenous groups, we continue to disagree with the decision to maintain a schedule of navigable waters. No explanation has ever been provided for why those recommendations of Indigenous groups were ignored.

The process for adding a waterway to the schedule, while somewhat clearer under the CNWA, remains entirely discretionary and puts the onus on the organization seeking to protect the waterway to justify its inclusion, rather than requiring proponents, or the minister, to justify why a waterway should not be included in the schedule.

In our view, all navigable waters are deserving of protection. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dalzell.

Gordon W. Dalzell, Chairperson, Saint John Citizens’ Coalition: Honourable senators, thank you very much for this opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-69 during your public hearing session here in Saint John today.

My name is Gordon Dalzell. I am the chairperson of the Saint John Citizens’ Coalition for Clean Air, an environmental public interest group concerned about air pollution, including the climate change impacts from the increase in CO₂ emissions that we believe threaten our planet. Our group is registered with the New Brunswick Environmental Network.

First of all, I’d like to say that I am concerned that organized campaigns from the oil and gas industry will be effective in misleading you as our senators by spreading inaccurate claims of the effects of Bill C-69. It is my view that the oil and gas industry want to kill the fixes to these environmental laws and continue to avoid federal oversight on climate action.

In my view, this goes against the public expectations for strong environmental actions that deal with environmental impacts and climate change impacts.

Now, why do I support Bill C-69 and why is this bill urgently needed? Many projects that should be subject to federal assessment are currently not being assessed. Bill C-69 may, with the development of robust regulations, facilitate assessments of major projects.

Canadians expect project reviews to be independent, transparent, science-based, and give people meaningful opportunities to have their say. Canadians like me should feel confident that governments have taken important environmental and health considerations into account in making decisions about major projects and proposals. This bill, I believe, provides that confidence.

Rather than facilitating informed decisions on energy and other types of projects, the existing laws and processes have led to deeper political, social, and legal conflicts.

The current laws do not require authorities to consider the broader implications of industrial projects, such as how they might impact on health and safety of local communities and vulnerable populations.

As a Canadian, I want to know that government authorities are looking out for our health and well-being when making important decisions about developments.

There are many reasons why I support this bill and why strong environmental laws matter. This bill makes specific improvements over the current laws and processes for reviewing energy and industrial projects, and they have reviewed the three areas. In addition, this bill will help ensure robust and fair project reviews; give Canadians a more transparent view of how project decisions are made; increase accountability for delays; ensure that Canadian voices will be heard on major projects; expands the scope of project reviews to include sustainability, the project’s impact on social and health outcomes, its impact on Indigenous rights; and expands the extent to which it helps Canada achieve environmental obligations and also considers lower-impact alternatives to projects.

So it does restore my trust in the energy regulation, enhancing the independence of Canada’s energy regulators and assessment processes.

It removes barriers to public participation in project hearings; that is, the idea of being “directly affected” that was brought up earlier by others.

It ensure climate change is considered in every project review and, of course, even today the mayor of Saint John declared a climate emergency in the morning paper, as well as other Canadian communities.

We know that this whole question of climate change is front and centre to the Canadian attention, and it’s only going to become even more significant and have more of an impact. We believe this legislation will address that part of the Canadian concern, and we hope that it will pass.

There are some areas for improvement in this bill. Under the bill, a single agency, the impact assessment agency, will be responsible for industrial assessment.

I have the following concern. Will the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, an independent federal regulator, be weakened? We’re going to have one big assessment agency, the expertise and the skill set, which I have a lot of confidence in, having looked at their programs over the years. I am just a little worried that this could somehow impact the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s expertise and strength. I hope it doesn’t, and I’d be very concerned if it did.

The bill adds climate change to the regulator’s mandate to ensure climate considerations are integrated through all these activities, ensure there are meaningful opportunities for public and Indigenous engagement, et cetera.

Our environmental public interest group supports transparency, accountability, meaningful public participation, and climate action in environmental decision-making.

Respectfully, I am requesting that you add a mandatory bottom line against approving unsustainable and climate impact-intensive projects. Don’t give the pipelines an easier ride; give them the same timelines and the same process as other projects and processes.

Keep the industry short-term environmental interests from trumping environmental and community needs. This is what we believe this bill is trying to do. Let the energy regulator actually say no to a project if that is the case, based on the evidence and based on the public participation. If they say no, fine.

The public, whenever there’s a decision made and they have ample opportunity to participate, and they have the means to do so, let’s say through participant funding, for example, and bringing in their own experts, if they have a good open process, they’re more likely to accept it. They may not like it, but they probably will feel more comfortable that they had their due process.

Even though this may be perceived as cumbersome and long and complicated, it’s going to pay off at the end in terms of the way it is outlined here and the way that the bill is actually designed. Yes, it may be a little cumbersome and the process may be challenging for some, but at the end of the day governments will make decisions, or federal regulators will make decisions. We have to, and the public accepts decisions will be made. That’s why they elected a government to make those decisions.

So we know that this bill reflected the public will at the time. Who knows what it will be in October? But we do know, at the time, the people of Canada elected this government who, in its wisdom designed this bill, brought it forward, and now it is the will of the people, a spoken bill with the first two readings, reading one and two.

We have to accept that has happened, and it does reflect, in my view, the will of the Canadian population at that time. I think we have to respect that, and we hope that the Senate, through your deliberations, after you complete your review, will bring it back to the House of Commons in a timely fashion, and allow the rest of the Canadian system to make a final decision on the bill.

We just hope that it won’t be delayed and that the whole thing dies off before October 17. That is a big concern, because then we’re going to go right back to square one and we’re all going to have more problems.

I’ll conclude my comments. I had a few more to make, but we have five minutes, and I want to respect that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senators, please keep your preambles short. We are going to start with Senator Mockler.

Senator Mockler: Thank you.

The Council of Atlantic Premiers, the four premiers, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on February 14, wherein they highlighted some of their concerns. I would like to know your comments on it. That will help us draft amendments to the bill before we send it back to the House of Commons. The letter states:

Our assessment of Bill C-69 as it is currently drafted is that the significant changes being proposed to the scope and scale of federal environmental assessments in Canada will not meet the dual objectives of environmental protection and economic growth.

And the letter goes on with many other concerns that they have.

To the witnesses, what are your comments on that, that environmental assessment in Canada will not meet the dual objectives of environmental protection and economic growth?

Mr. Dalzell: Respectfully, the premiers put together their understanding and conclusion in the letter. But when you look and drill down into this legislation — I have read all of the bill’s 350 pages, and it has multiple sections in it — there are provisions where the health of the public and environmental protection are very strongly entrenched.

When you review this bill, those elements, particularly the environmental protection element and the public’s need for safety and protection, are certainly there. They are actually more enhanced than what we had before.

Now, from the economic, even the bill talks about a balance or an economic consideration. Remember, I talked about social, economic, and environmental. It doesn’t just say all environmental. In fact, when you look at the environment in terms of its definition in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, it includes the socioeconomic as one of the considerations.

So this bill does take into consideration those elements. In fact, we saw this during the presentations to the National Energy Board, where the proponent and others who supported the Energy East pipeline had very elaborate and very comprehensive documentation evidence to support the economics of the project.

It’s not as if this is all just for the environmentalists, and all the greens in the world. This does respect that there are many elements of our society, including the economic, the social, and the environmental, and it does attempt, I believe, to put those into perspective and to respect those.

It doesn’t disrespect what the premiers are saying. All it does is recognize that, if you want to get projects approved, you have to present the type of evidence, allow the public and others — not just the public living down the street, but all elements of society — to participate and to present to the regulatory and government authorities that these are the pros and cons of the project.

At the end of the day we all have to accept the final decision-making of those who are duly elected or duly appointed to make proper decisions, whether it’s the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board, or the new impact assessment agency. They will be appointed, so they will have to weigh that in.

The premiers, respectfully, have their view, but I believe, at the end of the day, their concerns will be taken into consideration, along with the environmental and social concerns.

The Chair: Do you have something to add, Ms. Cloud?

Ms. Cloud: No.

The Chair: Senator McCallum.

Senator McCallum: My first question is to Ms. Cloud. There was some concern about Indigenous representation on the board, and I wondered if you could comment on that, why you feel it’s important and who you think will be on the board.

Ms. Cloud: I would have Roy respond to that.

Roy T.J. Stewart, Legal Counsel, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc.: I think, in the Mi’kmaq’s view, it’s definitely important to have an Indigenous person on these committees, whether it’s — I believe there are two, at least, referenced in the bill, one for the minister and then another advisory committee — simply because we don’t want the Indigenous voice left out.

That’s definitely a step in the right direction, having Indigenous representation on the board. But it needs to be taken a step further, because the mandate and the roles around that Indigenous representation are still unclear. That was the case up until a few weeks ago, when at a CEAA consultation workshop in Quebec, I heard that, the parameters and the details of who is going to be on the committee were still being fleshed out.

We don’t know with certainty what the role of the Indigenous is going to be. In summing up, I would say, yes, it’s important to have that representation, but it can’t be meaningless. That advisory committee, the advice they give must be fully and meaningfully considered.

Senator McCallum: The other question I had was for Mr. Dalzell, and you can comment, too. Can the negative impacts of industry make resource extraction unsustainable for a time?

Mr. Dalzell: I’m sorry, could you just reframe that again, so I can process that question? Thank you.

Senator McCallum: Can the negative impacts of industry, the adverse effects, can those adverse effects make resource extraction unsustainable for a time?

Mr. Dalzell: Well, it’s possible. Normally you don’t get the negative impact from industry in terms of their projects. We get the negative aspects from other elements of society.

My experience has been that industries always present their projects in ways that they perceive to be responsible, appropriate and safe. The question is, are they? And to what degree are their assumptions correct and their sustainability approaches correct?

Intervenors, for example, often present very compelling evidence that makes it apparent that some of the assumptions, facts and conclusions presented by industry are not based in reality, and therefore are not sustainable.

In this bill there is a section for participant funding, where ordinary citizens, environmental groups or other intervenors, can apply for funding to bring forward their experts. We did this, for example, with Energy East hearings. We applied for participant funding and received $38,000 to present a range of experts to counter or question many of the assumptions and facts presented.

The question that you raised is extremely important. Who is right? Well, who is wrong, or who is accurate and who isn’t? The regulators, upon listening to all of the evidence, will assess it and then make the decision based on the principles of the act and the intentions.

I remember as a social worker going to court, with different situations. Once a judge told me, “We’re going to make this decision not on a little section down the road. We’re going to make it on what the intention of the act is.” It was the Family Services Act of New Brunswick; Senator Mockler probably remembers that act. The judge told me it’s the intention. Four lines; that’s going to make the decision, not all the other evidence.

The principles and intentions of this act are key; the driving force behind it. We know those principles and intentions reflect the will of the people who elected the government who then prepared the act and passed it through its first and second readings.

So that’s what I would say on that question.

Senator Patterson: Madam Chair, may I have a supplementary to Senator McCallum’s question?

The Chair: Yes.

Senator Patterson: Senator McCallum asked about Indigenous representation. Ms. Cloud or Mr. Stewart, as I understand it, there are three different advisory panels to be set up under Bill C-69. There is the impact assessment act ministerial advisory council. There is the Canadian energy regulator act, which establishes another advisory committee for the purpose of enhancing involvement of Indigenous peoples in respect of pipelines, power lines, and offshore renewable energy projects, as well as abandoned pipelines; that’s subclause 57(1). Then there is a further advisory committee under subclause 158(1) of the impact assessment act that will be established to advise the agency with respect to Indigenous peoples.

My question is this. Each one of these three advisory committees, each of the provisions of these three advisory committees in the act, says the membership must include at least one person recommended by an Indigenous governing body or other entity that represents the interests of First Nations, one; Inuit, two; and Metis, three.

What you think about this? First of all, these are advisory committees. They have no power, other than to advise.

Secondly, they represent people who may not have knowledge of the environment in a particular region. I’m thinking of the Inuit. I represent Nunavut in the Senate. There are no trees there at all. It’s quite a unique environment, a different environment, and yet Inuit will presumably be required to sit on panels, or these advisory committees, respecting projects say on the Prairies or in other areas.

I’ll be candid with you. I think it’s tokenism. Being on an advisory committee doesn’t mean much. Where I live, in Nunavut, Inuit are the majority and chair all of the regulatory bodies in Nunavut. Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about Bill C-69 in Nunavut; we have a way better representation of Indigenous people in our regulatory system than this tokenism.

The Chair: What is —

Senator Patterson: I’m asking you, is it not tokenism to have an advisory role and, as I say, people who may not know the region?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I agree with you, especially if those boards are simply going to be advisory, and that advice, that Indigenous knowledge and advice, not really have any weight or actual consideration. I do agree with you.

On your point of having the three different heads of representation, I do think that’s a step in the right direction. As you rightly pointed out, there are different needs or different histories among the Inuit, Metis, and First Nations. Going a step further, like you also said, there are differences among the Inuit population.

Another concern of the Mi’kmaq is that whomever the Indigenous representation is on the First Nations side is, will that person have knowledge of or understanding of the Mi’kmaq values, and our Peace and Friendship Treaties?

Again, I think it does circle back to your main point in making sure that there is a mandate, or rules, or process in place to ensure that it’s not a tokenism form of board.

The Chair: Senator Simons.

Senator Simons: I want to address my questions to Marcy Cloud and the TMI delegation. I took an opportunity to Google your group, and I read your job descriptions, which are posted on Facebook.

I wanted to know more about how you and your organization have been liaising with the mining and the oil industries. Are there examples that you’ve had of times when consultation has actually worked out? It appears that your group is interested in responsible development that has community input, so I’m just wondering if you can tell us what that looks like for your organization.

Ms. Cloud: I’m just coming into mining now. I haven’t been dealing with mining, but I’ve been working on the offshore oil and gas files for the past year and a half for MTI. Most of the oil and gas companies have an Indigenous advisor, whom I work closely with. Their Indigenous advisors have helped us through the environmental assessment process. From there, I go back to the communities, get the information that we are requesting, and bring it back to the proponents.

For the most part, being able to consult with them has benefited us quite a bit. A lot of the proponents are quite receptive but some, not so much.

One of the things that is important to us is that CEAA doesn’t require any of the proponents to consult with the First Nations communities. So they can recommend it, but it’s not a necessity. Some of the proponents, we have a decent working relationship with, but some, we have no communication at all with; it’s cut off completely. It would make a difference, I think, if CEAA required the proponents to consult with Indigenous communities.

Senator Simons: In the end, could we get to project approval faster if Indigenous communities felt that they had been consulted upfront and that they had been partners in the process?

Ms. Cloud: Absolutely, yes. Also, what would help get the approval faster, is adequate funding to participate. There is no continuous funding for us to build in-house capacity, so that really is a discord. We have to outsource everything. We go back and forth with consulting firms, and it just takes so much time for us to go through that. It would take a lot less time if we had the capacity to do it in-house.

Senator Simons: I think that’s the first time we’ve heard that recommendation. It’s a thoughtful one, so thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: My question is mainly for Mr. Dalzell. Of course, other witnesses will be able to add comments.

In the impact assessment criteria provided for in subclause 22(1), a series of criteria must be considered, specifically in paragraph (i), which states:

(i) the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change;

So this is about achieving Canada’s objectives and targets to reduce greenhouse gases, in particular.

Do you think we should look at achieving our greenhouse gas reduction targets from a global perspective? Let me share an idea with you: a project launched here in Canada that would increase our greenhouse gases and undermine our local targets might have an extremely positive impact on reducing greenhouse gases globally. A project like that would therefore have net positive benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reduction.

Do you think it should be reflected in the criteria of the legislation for achieving our global targets?

[English]

Mr. Dalzell: Yes, I do. I think it will be important, considering that Canada is a signatory to the Paris Agreement with many countries, that we look at the issue of climate change in terms of the international contribution.

Consistent with Canada’s legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, it is important that Canada apply the goals and objectives of that agreement to major projects. Canada is not, obviously, the biggest contributor, for sure, of greenhouse gases in the world. However, it is part of a global network, a global community, where Canada has signed on to the international agreement, and therefore its policies, processes and legislative projects have to factor that in. You can’t just look at it from the narrow, local perspective.

Locally, for example, out of the ten biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in New Brunswick, three are right in Saint John. The list of the top 20 came out last week.

Let’s say, for example, there is an application for the Energy East or the Eider Rock refinery. Remember, refinery was proposed back in 2010 or 2011, and was withdrawn for economic reasons. But let’s say it did come forward, and an application was made under this legislation. Considering the impact such a facility could have on greenhouse gas emissions — about 3 million tonnes a year using Environment Canada statistics — that would have to be factored in, and this legislation would have to take that into consideration in terms of its climate change contribution and impact.

The question is, would it pass, based on that kind of criteria? Even though it may not be the only; there are 300 petroleum refineries in the world. This would be a second one if it ever happened; it will never happen, as far as my assessment is, but it was proposed.

Therefore this legislation would have to weigh that in, and rightly so, because it’s not just a local impact. It would also have an impact on the global community.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Let me clarify something. You understand my question. It’s not a trick question. For example, a liquefied gas pipeline project developed here in Canada would increase greenhouse gases in Canada, but would replace coal-fired power plants in China. From a global perspective, it would help reduce greenhouse gases globally even if there is a local increase here in Canada.

(anglais suit – Mr. Dalzell : When you look at the infrastructure that you’ve mentioned, …)

[English]

Mr. Dalzell: When you look at the infrastructure that you’ve mentioned, pipelines, as Mr. Scott Kidd mentioned, you have to look them in the longer term. These are infrastructure that goes for several generations. We’re looking at a transition away from the fossil fuel industries, and building pipelines and big infrastructure would perpetuate continuing CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels. It raises the question as to whether or not this will have a really detrimental effect, in the long term, for Canada’s commitment and for the world itself.

As painful as it is — and it is extremely painful in Canada right now — I believe we are going through this transition. It’s regretful that we didn’t get a start on it 15 years ago. Making the transition to the new economy, the low-carbon economy, is going to be very painful, as we have seen.

My daughter used to live in Drumheller, Alberta. I went out to Alberta for 10 years and saw the developments out there.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have time for two final questions. Senator Cormier and Senator Massicotte.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: My question is for you both, Ms. Cloud and Mr. Dalzell, and it’s about the entire consultation process for impact assessment.

An extensive consultation process seems to be put in place as part of the bill. The industry seems very concerned that it might slow down projects, since there would be a long consultation process. Clearly, we must ensure that the information gathered in this consultation process is taken into account in decisions.

So my question has two different angles. In First Nations communities, there is a balance between scientific information and what we call “indigenous” knowledge. As part of this consultation process, how do we ensure that those two aspects are factored in?

Mr. Dalzell, an amendment was added concerning the use of the term “meaningful” to say that consultations must be meaningful. Since you are familiar with the bill, do you think it strives for balance in the consultation to ensure that scientific information and indigenous knowledge are taken into account in a balanced way in the bill to protect the industry?

[English]

Ms. Cloud: There is a two-eyed seeing approach that puts together western science and Indigenous knowledge, We use that in our organization a fair amount. For all of our projects when we’re consulted, we take that approach, the two-eyed seeing approach.

A quick example is, in the Northumberland Strait a few years ago, the power expansion to P.E.I. As they were doing their consultation they hired a company to see what the geography through the Northumberland Strait was. They told us, “Oh, we discovered that there was a river that passed through here.” Like, an ancient river.

Our organization said, “No, you didn’t discover that; we have always known that through our oral history.”

So if they had come to the Indigenous people first, they would have realized that. They spent tens of thousands of dollars to get information that we already knew.

Mr. Dalzell: Yes, you’re right: Significant consultation will probably mean some delay. What industries want to know — having observed them for years — is what the rules are. They want the certainty, and they will go through the process, just like they always do in following regulations. They follow them because they’re legally binding.

At the end of the day, yes, there would be some delays. The knowledge base that this act includes gives perfect respect for both scientific knowledge and, of course, the Indigenous knowledge that is so powerful.

In that sense, it does respect both levels of knowledge. There will be delays and this will be cumbersome for some of these applications. But at the end of the day, after people have their say and the process is completed, I believe there will be better social acceptance, and greater trust in the process. It’s more likely that people will accept the decision made, even though they may not agree with it.

Remember, this act is really important in terms of the monitoring. It’s not as if this thing is approved tomorrow and we all go away. The element of monitoring the process is a very important part of it, as well.

So I think it’s a trade-off, but at the end of the day, it’s the best we can do.

Senator Massicotte: My question is for Mr. Dalzell. Further to Senator Carignan’s question, would you agree that, whether or not we build the Trans Mountain pipeline, that the amount of oil and gas or the amount of CO₂ we will produce in Canada, will not change by one teaspoon? Would you agree with that?

Mr. Dalzell: No, I wouldn’t agree with that.

Senator Massicotte: Could you explain why not?

Mr. Dalzell: With a pipeline, you’re looking at infrastructure that is designed for the long term; 20, 30, 40 years. Whenever you have that type of product going out — in this case, it would be exported outside of Canada — you’re going to be encouraging, promoting, and facilitating industry users who will use the product.

It’s a fossil fuel product and, globally and internationally, it will make a contribution to CO₂ emissions.

Senator Massicotte: Are you presuming that there is going to be a lack of oil and gas in the world, on the supply side? Because you say we will increase consumption. Why?

Mr. Dalzell: I think what we’re going to see is a decrease in the market need and usage of oil and gas. Already, in the oil sands we are starting to see a decline in demand. Production in the oil sands is not what it was, I believe, because society is moving away from fossil fuels. This is going to accelerate. The impact that Canadians are feeling right now will feel even worse in the next 10, 15 years. It’s going to drive the agenda towards renewables, alternatives, and a low-carbon economy.

As painful as it is, it is coming. People might ask, how is this act going to facilitate that, or how is it going to add to that? It is a good question, but I do believe we are making that transition. It’s very painful and very difficult for millions of people, but the impact of climate change is going to be even more challenging, more difficult for them, as we’re seeing in parts of Canada right now.

Senator Massicotte: Just for the debate, I have, I think, a pretty complete understanding of climate change, and it is very significant. It is very, very serious, and it’s the most serious challenge of our generation. I still don’t see how building a pipeline will increase our consumption. It’s the world supply, so we may see more Canadian consumption of oil and gas, and obviously in Quebec or Ontario we’re not going to reduce consumption, we’ll just simply import less.

I think it’s a false debate to talk about pipelines and saying they’re going to increase the amount we consume. It’s not the case. What we should work on is finding incentives to get people off oil and gas, or CO₂, but you’ll get there not by influencing supply, but influencing demand.

Mr. Dalzell: I suppose you could always argue that, when you put your infrastructure into these types of systems, it will take resources away from getting Canadians off fossil fuels, or not seeing renewable projects take hold like they could be, because they’re going to have that easy way out. They’re still going to have the use of fossil fuels through cars, although that’s probably going to end in about six years from now, when the combustion engine will be banned. Probably about 2030.

We’re starting to see this. I think a pipeline will make it so tempting and so easy for people to keep the status quo and to continue; and actually perhaps some might even increase. I don’t see people trading in their F100 trucks. In some countries in Europe, they’re not allowed. You can have them, but you pay an immense tax for them.

So I think you’re right. We need to get people away. We need to have a shift of the individual person and the consumer. Building a pipeline is probably not the signal, the sign, that we are in a new age and have to get away, over time, from fossil fuels.

Senator Massicotte: I hope you’re right, but I don’t think so.

Mr. Dalzell: I think that climate change impact is becoming so great. There was an scientist from Environment Canada, who spoke about 12 years ago in one of these rooms. He predicted that, by the year 2050-2060, if things stayed the way they were, the waterline will be halfway up the counter at the Tim Hortons coffee shop in Market Square, because of the sea-level rise, the melting, et cetera.

He really did throw quite a scare into us. That was 15 years ago, and I think we’ve been weak in some of our efforts to address some of the issues that we’re tackling now, and that you are trying to tackle with this bill, and the other work you do in the Energy Committee.

Senator Massicotte: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

For our third panel, we welcome, from the Wolastoq Grand Council, Alma Brooks, Elder. She will start with her opening remarks, and then we will have a period of questions and answers. Ms. Brooks.

Alma Brooks, Elder, Wolastoq Grand Council: Thank you very much for inviting the Wolastoq Grand Council. Grand Chief Ron Tremblay is currently at the United Nations Permanent Forum with a group of our youth, so he sent me to appear.

The impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act and to amend the Navigation Protection Act and consequently amend other acts; it sounds like Canada is going to change some of its laws.

[Indigenous language spoken]. My name is Alma Brooks. I have come from the Wolastoq. I am a grandmother, and I am a citizen of the Wolastoq Grand Council. I can trace every generation of my lineage back to 1700, before the signing of the Peace and Friendship Treaties.

My people hold a special relationship with the land and water, in our unceded and unsurrendered territory. Our relationship is physical, geographical, biological, spiritual, cultural, and linguistic.

We do not look at the environment comparable to your understanding, such as the price of a piece of fee simple land. Our lands are central to defining and maintaining our Indigenous identity. Wolastoq, the Beautiful and Bountiful River. Wolastoqiyik, the People of the Beautiful and Bountiful River. That’s who we are.

You want to change the acts that regulate and protect, as well as other acts. I remind you that the intent of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that Canada has signed, along with other countries in the world, and promised to implement without qualifications, is to change Canada’s laws to accommodate the rights of the Indigenous peoples in this country. Any changes made to Canadian laws should be negotiated with Indigenous people, and not arbitrarily changed without our full participation.

Do people understand what it means when they make statements of acknowledgement? We are on Wolastoqiyik, unceded, unsurrendered territory.

The requirement for a gross violation of international human rights is the violation of a very important right. Given the special connection and importance of Wolastoq lands and waters, Aboriginal Title is one of the most important rights of our people. Any interference is significant enough that it would qualify to satisfaction and reparation, both of which are promises in our 1725-1726 Treaty of Peace and Friendship.

The United Nations expert on Indigenous people concluded that: “Indigenous people’s land rights encompass cultural, spiritual, political, economic, environmental, and social elements, which are essential to the existence and survival of the people.”

I am here to tell you that the Wolastoq Grand Council does not agree with pipelines, dams, fracking, open pit mines, or dumping salt brine into the Shubenacadie River, where fish have to live. We are adamantly opposed to the further damaging of the two brooks at Sisson by making a tailings pond right on top of them, unscrupulously left out of the environmental impact assessment in the beginning. Only after they got the green light from the provincial and federal governments did they consider these two brooks, the only place left in New Brunswick for the Atlantic salmon to spawn, because of pollution. The survival of the Atlantic salmon depends on a healthy habitat, just the same as we do.

If you are about to amend environmental acts, you need to make sure that they are not in violation of the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights of my people, the Wolastoqiyik. Canada’s laws must be amended to accommodate these rights. These rights are outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people and Bill C-262, which appears to be held up for some reason in the Senate.

These rights are inherent and collective rights. They are attached to international human rights laws, and they are inalienable. These rights cannot be terminated without the prior, free, and informed consent of our people.

When you damage and/or destroy any part of the environment, or if you bring harm to any of our relatives who live in the natural world, you are in gross violation of the Wolastoqiyik Indigenous rights.

The Grand Council does not support this behaviour. We see this as delinquent behaviour. This is the message I bring from the Grand Council today.

The Chair: Senator Mockler.

Senator Mockler: Thank you very much for bringing your comments to us. We are on record as saying that what we want to do is to improve it, and you must be at the table so that you can be consulted. Too many of our First Nations have not been consulted. So Bill C-69 is certainly a vehicle, but in order to have clarification, in order to have exactly the concerns of our people, it’s certain that we want your comments.

One question that I’ve asked to communities like yours, Ms. Brooks, First Nations, is: Can you define for us, with your experience — and the government likes to talk about social acceptance — the definition of supervised access for you regarding projects such as those that Bill C-69 will be looking at?

Ms. Brooks: Social acceptance, from what I understand, is that it would be accepted by people. If you want acceptance, you have to talk to the people. The people have to participate in some way. Too many of my people are being left out of the decision-making process at the federal level; well, at all levels, really.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada, for example, is not at the table, and they should be. They’re an organization that have elected members in every province and territory; they were organized and up and running since the early 1970s. They have a history. They have done a lot of work. That organization is being left out of all the decision-making.

The off-reserve population is left out. The traditional people, they have a certain perspective that is not being included in any of the forums that they have that are making decisions that are going to impact on their lives and the lives of our children for generations to come.

That’s really unacceptable. That’s a large population that is being left out. I can tell you, because we come from our communities, and the people at the community level are in the dark about a lot of these things that are going on.

Senator Mockler: The Council of Atlantic Premiers, in a letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada on February 14, 2019, identify many of their concerns. The letter is on their website. They say that Bill C-69, as drafted,

“. . . places final decision-making power in the hands of the minister or Governor-in-Council, and provides the opportunity for the Minister to veto the results of thorough scientific assessment and review of evidence.”

What are your opinions on the concerns that they rose with the Government of Canada?

Ms. Brooks: I’m not absolutely clear what you’re talking about, but if it means what I think it means, there has to be participation from our people. There has to be full participation. If any kind of laws are being changed, they must make sure that those laws are not in violation of the rights of the Indigenous people.

When you get up and say and you acknowledge that we are on unceded and unsurrendered territory, that means something. It seems to me that means something.

Whether we’re all on the same page about what that actually means, I’m not sure. I don’t think so, because sometimes I hear people saying things that are contradictory.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Elder Brooks. I come from Treaty 6 territory in Alberta, and I think it’s true that the treaties do give First Nations there a bit more leverage sometimes.

I want to thank you also for pointing out that so many Indigenous people live off reserve, and there really isn’t a mechanism to hear their voices in Canada.

I wanted to ask you, though, about the environmental assessment process that you described. You said two waterways in your traditional territories, spawning grounds, were not taken into consideration.

Ms. Brooks: That’s right. Two brooks. This was at the Sisson open pit mine that they’re proposing to have at Sisson Brook. That’s at the heart of Wolastoqiyik territory, and right where they want to put the tailings pond, there are two brooks. And these brooks, at the headwaters of the Nashwaak, one of the tributaries of the Wolastoq, that’s where the Atlantic salmon go up into those little brooks and spawn. Because of such pollution and dams, and all of that, there are very few places where the Atlantic salmon can actually go and spawn, because of so much pollution everywhere. They can’t go up the river anymore. There’s the Mactaquac dam, there are three or four dams on the river.

So there are these areas where, up at the headwaters of the Nashwaak, a place where the salmon would go. And now, when they did the environmental assessment, at the beginning, they didn’t mention these two brooks in the impact assessment. But after the federal and provincial governments gave them the green light, they’re now trying to get acceptance that the brooks don’t matter, that they’re in the way. They want people to agree to that. We’ll never agree to that.

We have to think about our relatives that live in the natural world. In our culture, our family, our extended family is not just the human family. We have totems. We have relatives in the natural world. We have a responsibility as Indigenous people to speak for them. They don’t have a voice. They have a right to exist. All things have a right to exist, that were put here by the Creator. There’s a purpose for everything.

We’re taking our responsibility very seriously, that salmon are an endangered species now. No human being is going to use DNA manipulation to help these relatives survive, because that will only change who they are.

Senator Richards: Senator Simons asked part of my question. I was wondering about the salmon spawning, because I started an inquiry along with Senator Mockler about salmon stocks being depleted on the Miramichi and the Restigouche rivers. A lot of it comes from, well, there is a variety of factors. One is an increase of the striped bass population, and the seals out in the gulf, out in the Northumberland Strait.

I’m wondering if you could send a letter to me about the spawning grounds you’re talking about, so I can introduce it into the inquiry that I have in the Senate.

Ms. Brooks: Okay. I would like to have your contact information.

Senator Richards: Yes, I will give it to you.

Ms. Brooks: Thank you very much. I will definitely do that.

Senator Richards: Thank you very much.

The Chair: That’s very good.

Senator Patterson: Elder Brooks, I want to thank you for making a strong case for respect for inalienable rights of Indigenous peoples as set out in our constitution and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people, which unfortunately is only mentioned in the preamble of Bill C-69, and your reference to free, prior, and informed consent.

I’m going to put this to you. Here’s what Bill C-69 says about your concern that there has to be full participation of your people in the regulatory process. Here’s what Bill C-69 gives you. There are three councils; they’re called advisory councils, or committees. There are three of them set up in this act. The impact assessment agency, the minister under that, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada has to establish an advisory council to assist on issues relating to the implementation of the act and the regional and strategic assessment regime. That’s the first advisory council, and that was subclause 117(1).

The second advisory committee is set up under 158(1). This one is to advise the impact assessment agency in relation to assessments.

And the third advisory committee is set up under subclause 57(1), and it’s to advise the Canadian Energy Regulator on its work, including pipelines, power projects, and offshore renewable energy projects.

Elder Brooks, this ain’t full participation.

Ms. Brooks: No.

Senator Patterson: These advisory committees or councils, they’re being appointed by the minister or by the regulators, and they have no authority to do anything other than give advice.

By the way, there has to be an Inuit person, a Metis person, and a First Nations person chosen by organizations that represent the interests of those First Nations. A whole other story is how those people will get picked and how representative they will be.

I say to you this is not the full participation you’ve called for. This is paternalistic colonial tokenism. Would you agree with me?

Ms. Brooks: Absolutely. I agree with you absolutely.

Senator Patterson: That was a leading question, I admit.

Ms. Brooks: Yes. I’d like to have your card with your name on it and your contact information.

Senator Patterson: I represent a region where the Inuit actually are controlling; they have a very strong voice. I would say they have what you call for, the full participation in the regulatory process. We don’t have to worry about Bill C-69 in Nunavut, and I’m happy, because Bill C-69 gives nothing but an advisory, a token advisory role for Indigenous people.

Ms. Brooks: Nunavut has just formed a PTMA that joined the National Native Women’s Association of Canada, recently.

Senator Patterson: Yes, I’m aware of that.

Senator Massicotte: Thanks for being with us. I have a question about social acceptability. That’s a term that’s been used and defined, social acceptability. You talked about it earlier, being acceptable to the broader population.

Everybody supports that. We all think it’s important. The act does not use those words. The act puts more emphasis on scientific evidence, Indigenous knowledge, and therefore it avoids those words.

I agree with avoiding those words, because those words tell me, the way most people define it, that it’s about acceptance by the population or the people affected by a certain project. It’s popular opinion, in other words.

What bothers me a little bit about those words, they mean to suggest that, if people agree that they want to stampede or make use of your rights, territorial rights or whatever, that, if the population deems to do so, they should do so.

I would say no, there are laws, there’s respect, there are customs, there are rules. We should avoid using those words, because they are so vague, and this could stampede other rights. We’re based upon a system of laws and procedures that basically put us in place.

Do you agree with that? I know you used the words earlier, but I would say I caution you, those words are vague and those words could easily be used to counter some of your own rights.

Ms. Brooks: That’s right. What was that again?

Senator Massicotte: In other words, the use of “social acceptability.” I would stay away from those words, because it means public acceptance, but public acceptance should be subject to laws and customs and obligations of society.

If I own a home and social acceptability says people think that home should become a tourist attraction, no, it’s my home. Social acceptability, you can’t just use that thing to get anything done. It should be within a context.

I presume you agree with that?

Ms. Brooks: So what is your question?

Senator Massicotte: Well, my question was rather if you support it. You supported those words strongly to say it’s very important, but I caution you that it should be subject to the rules and laws of our society. That’s my point.

Let me jump to the other issue, re the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As you know, Canada has a law, and it’s referred to in this bill as saying the government commits that they’re in support of that declaration, and there is a certain legislation that is being considered to allow that.

But that declaration refers basically to prior and informed consent.

Ms. Brooks: Yes.

Senator Massicotte: In effect, any of your rights and properties, and so on.

But having said that, how do you interpret that? Let’s say there’s a major project going on in Canada, and it may affect your rights. If you use those words, it would seem to suggest that, unless you agree with that, the project cannot proceed.

Is that how you interpret the —

Ms. Brooks: Well, that’s a possibility. It all depends on what the project is. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is international law. It’s attached to international human rights articles.

The intent of it was to be a framework that would be brought here, and that the state would sit down with each of the nations, the Indigenous Nations. And I’m not talking about bands. When I say a nation, I’m talking about the Mi’kmaq Nation, Wolastoqiyik, Passamaquoddy. Here in this territory, you have three, not 18 or 20.

So to sit down and negotiate, what that means in that particular territory. We still have knowledge of what our traditional territories are. I don’t speak for the Mi’kmaq; they can speak for themselves, in accordance to their own territory.

That’s the way with us. We’re different. You’re not going to get the same interpretation right across the country, like a blanket, and force it down everybody’s throat. That’s not the way to go with this declaration. It has to be nation-to-nation, which Canada said they would do, that they wanted a nation-to-nation relationship. Well, they haven’t done it yet. They seem to be hesitant to move in that direction, or they misinterpret what a nation is. They are treating the Indian Act bands as nations right now, and they’re not.

Senator Massicotte: Yet the Supreme Court has been very clear in defending your rights, historical rights, and has made it very clear —

Ms. Brooks: That’s right, it has.

Senator Massicotte: And punished, if you wish, the White population strongly for being disrespectful of your historical rights.

Ms. Brooks: The intent of the declaration was to use it as a framework to negotiate those rights with each of the nations. Instead of that, they’ve got it stuck in the Senate right now. They got it into a bill, but it’s stuck in the Senate. I’m hearing that there are certain people who are deliberately making sure it doesn’t go through, but I don’t know if that’s true or not. Instead of that, they create this framework. I don’t know who they were negotiating with when we created a different framework. They left out two very fundamental rights.

First of all, the right to free, prior, and informed consent. I don’t know what they’re scared of, but that’s one of our rights. The convoluted process they have for consultation now is a violation of that right, because they’re doing this big study on what traditional knowledge around this particular area is, and how much do we owe you so you can sign and agree with us. They are only talking to the Indian Act chiefs, nobody else.

That’s not what this was intended for. The intention was to use that as the framework.

The other fundamental right that was left out of this so-called convoluted framework that somebody created, behind our backs, is the right to self-determination. That’s a fundamental right. That means that you have to involve the people, not just the Indian Act chiefs.

Actually, the Indian Act chiefs don’t even have the authority to make a decision in their own respective reserves, because it’s the majority of the council, of their council, that make the decisions. What are they doing going to Ottawa and making decisions that are going to impact our lives and the lives of our children and our grandchildren, without our consent or without our knowledge, in some cases?

The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re going to move on.

Senator McCallum.

Senator McCallum: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Indigenous language spoken]. Thank you for coming here to sit with us and to guide us in our thinking.

My question was concerning the tailings pond. With all the rights that you have, how have your lands and environment come to be violated without your consent and that others have given themselves unrestrained title to your own land and lives?

You know, we know we have the right to our lands, and yet people still walk in and do whatever they want. I don’t know why it happens and how it can be stopped.

Ms. Brooks: Our treaties here are pre-Confederation treaties. Our treaties were signed before Canada and New Brunswick even existed, and we have very strong — they’re still valid. They’re very strong treaties. Not anywhere did we ever sign away or surrender any inch of our land or waters, our title. Never.

I believe that the governments understand what our rights are, but they’re afraid to sit down with us; they’re afraid, or they just don’t give a damn about reconciliation. They just ignore it. They think it’s going to go away. They think our people are going to forget. There are a whole lot of reasons. I think fear is a big one.

I have to say, though, we have a lot of allies in this province. The grandmothers who went up and spent an entire year at Sisson Brook to protect the land and water against that open-pit mine, they would not have survived if it wasn’t for the allies who went there to bring them food and bring them fuel for warmth, and to help them to get through a very severe winter. But they stayed; they stayed the entire year, and saw few signs of life in the woods.

We could not go into our lands now and survive, because that’s how much damage has been done. The deerm moose and the salmon, they cannot live in their homes anymore because of the clear-cutting, because of the total spraying. New Brunswick is saturated with glyphosate and chemicals, cancer-causing chemicals, and they know it, but it still goes on.

Why do people do something like that? We know, too, that the rate of cancer in the communities is really on the rise. It’s visible. I mean, I am 75 years old, and I have seen it. That’s not normal. It wasn’t like that when I was a young person. I believe that it’s not just my people who are suffering. Why is it they don’t listen to their own people? The allies have been speaking loud and clear. The Council of Canadians and some of the environmental groups have been speaking very loud and clear, but they’re not being heard, either.

I think it’s really time that we sit down and actually have some respect for the law. Somebody mentioned scientific, it’s going to be based on science; well, I’ve seen it, that science can be bought.

The process of consultation is just not what the intent of our rights are, this consultation process. Just shut-up money, that’s what it is. Shut-up money. You agree with us, we’ll give you money. That’s not what we’re about, and that’s not going to help the future generations.

Climate change, somebody mentioned it earlier, climate change is here. And climate change is not going to go away; it’s going to get worse. I’ve talked to a lot of people. They said, you look under the forests and you’ll see the next generation of forest is not going to be the same. Everything is moving north because of the heat. We already have things here, like ticks, that we never had here before. Things are moving north. They’re going to move to Nunavut.

I don’t know if it’s reversible anymore. I’m almost to the point where I’m thinking irreversible damage has already been done. I hope not, for the sake of our future generations. I hope not, but it’s becoming very late. We need to do things now.

I’m encouraged to see people sitting, like this man and this man here, who listen to the things that people are saying.

They have wonderful technology right now to generate electricity. It’s innovative. It was established in Germany, but they have a company in Ontario right now. Wonderful technology. So they could move in that direction now, but they’re still digging up oil and gas.

Senator Cormier: Elder Brooks, I’m going to ask my question in French.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, I cannot greet you in your language, and that makes me sad, because I wish I could have greeted you in your language. I really like that you used your mother tongue to talk to us. So I will ask you my question in my language.

My colleague, Senator Patterson, referred to advisory committees, which you may have actually found inadequate as a process. Could you comment on that issue?

Section 27 of the existing act authorizes the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements and arrangements with persons or organizations to exercise certain powers or perform certain duties under the proposed act.

The bill states that the Government of Canada, through Transport Canada, may enter into partnership agreements with indigenous groups to monitor navigable waters, enforce rules and make decisions. Clearly, the Government of Canada can enter into agreements with First Nations to ensure that they are involved throughout the navigable water monitoring process. You mentioned your nation’s concerns about navigable waters. Ms. Brooks, do you think including this in the bill will address your concerns? Would this initiative help to improve the nation-to-nation relationship?

[English]

Ms. Brooks: No, I don’t think so. I think there’s a lot that needs to be done before they start taking about partnerships. There’s a lot of groundwork that needs to be done first.

Senator Cormier: What is it?

Ms. Brooks: Well, we have to establish a nation-to-nation relationship first, and we have to talk about what all of that means. We have to look at the rights within the United Nations declaration, and those negotiations need to take place. Then we can talk about partnerships, but right now I don’t think it would work.

It would be just similar to the child welfare situation. I mean, 59 percent of all the children in foster care right now are Indigenous children, in Canada; 59 percent. And that was done through a partnership between bands and the provinces, and our kids became fodder. It didn’t work.

We need to put some structures in place. We need to have a nation-to-nation relationship, and we need to understand.

The Chair: Can I ask you a last question? I understand that you are frustrated that when Canada talks to the First Nations, it talks exclusively or mainly to the chiefs of bands, which you think is a very narrow way of establishing a conversation, a dialogue.

Ms. Brooks: Oh, absolutely, yes, it is.

The Chair: So in your opinion, who should be the people sitting at the table in order to have a meaningful discussion on a nation-to-nation framework, where we can really progress in this reconciliation?

Ms. Brooks: The only people I can speak for are the people on the river. We are the River People, Wolastoqiyik, and for us, we need to re-establish our traditional decision-making structures and put them in place, so that we can put the decision makers in place, and then the people will decide who will speak for them, and there will be spokespersons.

As it exists right now, I get to vote for one chief in this entire country. I make one X every two years, and that is the total extent of my participation in the current structure, with all the decisions that are being made. I make one X every two years, that’s it.

But my band is not a nation. It’s an Indian Act, it’s a federal institution where I happen to live, and we are governed by a federal legislation that we had nothing to say when they created it. If you look at the Penitentiary Act and the Indian Act, they’re very parallel. It seems like it, if you check it out.

We need to establish that nation-to-nation relationship, and then we’ll know who the best people are to represent us at these different levels, and they will be speaking from the voice. Because, you know, they didn’t bring democracy across the water when they came. They found it over here. Our structures were very democratic. The people were involved. The grandmothers and the mothers were the heart, because we are the heart of the community. We are the community, and we’re the only doorway into this world for the human family.

That’s why women are so important, because we have that different perspective, and it should be recognized. If we had our traditional structures in place, then we would have that. To me, that’s what is necessary for all people, I think.

We would never exclude our allies, ever.

Senator Massicotte: I have a supplementary question, if I could; very short. You often refer to the framework in place. What is that? What are you referring to? Other than the original one.

Ms. Brooks: There is a framework. Well, I don’t know what you mean, but the framework that’s in place that they created in Ottawa. I think they probably only talked to the three male-dominated organizations, AFN, MNC, and the Inuit.

Senator Massicotte: So it’s not a written agreement. Is there something in writing?

Ms. Brooks: It is a written framework.

Senator Massicotte: Could we get a copy of that?

Ms. Brooks: Ask Minister Bennett. She’s got a copy.

Senator Massicotte: I’m not aware of it.

Ms. Brooks: You’re not aware of it?

Senator Massicotte: No.

The Chair: I think that it is a very good idea that we acknowledge and we know what is the content of that framework. Thank you very much.

With that, I thank our witness very much.

For panel number four, we now welcome, from the Council of Canadians, Ann Pohl, Member, Kent County New Brunswick Chapter, and Denise Melanson, Secretary, Kent County New Brunswick Chapter; from Canada’s Building Trades Union, Arlene Dunn, Director; from New Brunswick Power, Brett Plummer, Vice President Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer; and from Irving, Andy Carson, Director, Growth and Strategy, together with Jeff Mathews, Chief Financial Officer.

You can start with your opening statements in the order you were introduced, so Ms. Pohl or Ms. Melanson.

Ann Pohl, Member, Kent County New Brunswick Chapter, The Council of Canadians: Good day, honourable members of the Senate committee and honourable members of the public. Denise and I appreciate this opportunity to address you in person.

I’m sure you have all heard of Greta Thunberg, the inspiring Swedish student who demands the world’s corporations and governments wake up and do climate action. Nine months ago she started with a School Strike for Climate, saying what good would a diploma do her, because she wouldn’t have a future anyway. Now Greta has spoken to public leaders, major governmental bodies, countless hundreds of rallies. She dominates social media and is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

At the 2019 Economic Forum in Davos, Greta told the world’s wealthiest people: “Our house is on fire, and I want you to panic.” And that’s my message here today. Even as she rebukes adults for avoiding our responsibility to deal with the climate catastrophe, her energy is infectious. She helps us get past eco-despair and rise above cynicism.

We are in a catastrophe. Human society has disastrously altered this planet, especially in the last hundred years. Extreme industrial resource extraction; global reliance on fossil fuels; clear-cutting of forests; dumping wastes into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans; all of this was possible through the huge rise of corporate power, and the damage continues to escalate as we meet right now. We can see the flooding.

Canada’s proposed impact assessment act — et al, the whole name — can be part of the solution. Some of our detailed concerns are in this brief from our national organization, which is being submitted; I brought you one copy. Denise and I are here to bring your attention to two huge issues.

At the end of this document — you’ve all been given copies, I gather — you will find a list of the only six places in Bill C-69 where climate change is mentioned. And “climate change” is a deceptively mild tem for what is coming at us.

It ranks in the act, or in the bill, at or near the bottom of the preamble, and also in the major factors to be considered. At the end of the brief you have, you can see where it ranks.

The climate crisis must be at the top of the preamble’s “whereas” statements and at the top of each of the “factors to consider” lists in the bill. All proposals considered under these new laws must be guided by an immediate comprehensive guiding strategic assessment on the climate crisis. The world’s top scientists have given us until 2030 to change things around completely, and that means putting climate crisis at the top.

There will be no industrial development or jobs, of the sort we now know, on a dead planet. We must massively change our energy creation and industrial practices. Environmental collapse is evident everywhere; our oceans, homeless polar bears, crop failures, wildfires, the new normal of floods, hurricanes, winds, ice storms. Dozens of species are going extinct every day right now, at thousands of times the “normal” rate.

Worst of all, global climate scientists agree Canada is one of the top five nations pushing our whole global planet over the edge.

If our society finds its backbone and acts on behalf of future generations, we can save some life on our planet. Our efforts can start with passing this bill. It is much better than what we have right now. Please improve it as much as you can, but make sure it gets through this government, while this government is still in power during this session.

Humans are perpetrators of the ongoing crime of killing life on Earth. Our governments must take responsibility for cleaning up this mess. And not only are we the perpetrators, but we are also the victims. Denise is going to speak to that.

Denise Melanson, Secretary, Kent County New Brunswick Chapter, The Council of Canadians: Thank you very much for letting me come and talk to you today.

[Translation]

My question is: “Where is the human dimension in all this?”

[English]

Where are the people in the proposed environmental impact assessment regime? They’re not there. You think they’re there, but they actually are not there.

What is never done, and at any level, federally, provincially, in any way are baseline health surveys, evaluations and understanding of the social, psychological, and economic context. These are essential things if you want to understand the kinds of impact something is going to have. You need to look at these things before you go ahead and do it, because otherwise it’s going to be too late.

Without those types of research practises, the industrial activities’ ill effects are invisible. You don’t see them.

I’m skipping over a lot, because we don’t have a lot of time.

When people complain or express concern about industrial odours, physical discomfort, and so on, the usual response is to quote air quality numbers, or water testing results. Once the standards for human exposure to various activities and toxins are enshrined in a regulation, there appears to be little room to question whether those standards are in fact protective of human health.

So there is absolutely nothing, really, that looks directly at what’s going on in a community from the point of view of the people living there.

One of the things that I brought today, and which I really think you need to look at, is this report published in 2012 by the Chief Medical Officer of Health for New Brunswick. This document puts people back in the environment, because we are absent from the environment in the way that they’re set up. I really urge you to look at this in a very serious way. I’ve got the reference for this in the document that we are presenting today.

There’s another document like that, similar to that, by the American Public Health Association, who also published in 2012 the Environmental and Occupational Health Impacts of High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing of Unconventional Gas Reserves.

Why am I talking about this? That’s a provincial mandate, isn’t it? Only, if you build a pipeline that transports more and more and more fracked oil and gas all over the place, and you don’t look at what the human impacts of that transportation are, you’re going to go on harming people in ways that you don’t understand.

Clearly at this point we know that people are being harmed, because it’s been 10, 15 years since they started using this technology and the science coming out of the U.S. is identifying significant health problems.

For example, particularly in newborns. I mean, Alma was talking about our children and our children’s children. Well, we’re not paying attention to our children’s children, obviously.

Other health issues include levels of hospitalization for urinary or cardiac events, neurological, oncology, leukemia in young children, increasing asthma exacerbations, migraines, sinus issues, fatigue, dramatically increased emergency room use, traffic accidents, violent crimes, drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and workplace accidents. All of these things are happening because we just allowed these industries, industries like oil and gas or any kind of industry, to invade human spaces with no consideration whatever of what those impacts would be.

As my colleague has mentioned, in this era of environmental collapse due to anthropogenic climate changes, humans are deeply at risk, like all life forms on this planet. We have already entered into a future of great uncertainty, when none of the usual norms and expectations apply regarding the science of maintaining the health of living beings on our planet.

At the same time, in a democracy, all levels of government are duty-bound to maintain practices that ensure human health protection based on legitimate, valid science data.

Our Council of Canadians organization is calling for your committee’s action to ensure that this bill becomes law under the current government, because that will be much better that what we have that’s already there.

Personally, I ask that this legislation be strengthened, either prior to the passage or in subsequent amendments, to mandate the protection of human health as a very relevant factor to be considered at all stages of impact assessment.

I thank you very much for listening to my talk.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Dunn.

Arlene Dunn, Director, Canada’s Building Trades Unions: Thank you for taking the time today. I also appreciate the fact that you are making the time and effort to come across Canada and speak to our citizens and those folks who have a distinct interest in this bill.

I am the Director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions. I’m from New Brunswick, from Carleton County. I spent 25 years of my career working here in this province, and also about four years in the province of Newfoundland working with the building trades there, as well as the Innu in Labrador. So this bill means a lot to me.

I have with me today one of my colleagues. He’s actually retired. His name is Patrick Darrah. He is the former executive director of the Saint John Construction Association.

I’m making this presentation on behalf of Canada’s Building Trades Unions; we are otherwise known as the CBTU. We are the 14 international unions that have jurisdiction in the construction, maintenance, and fabrication portions of Canada’s construction industry. I represent more than 500,000 men and women who are employed at virtually every refinery, pulp and paper mill, potash facility, generating station, nuclear plant, and in commercial and institutional construction. That includes roads, schools, bridges, overpasses, hospitals, and all forms of civic infrastructure in every single province in Canada.

Our work is done on job sites and in a number of facilities and fabrication shops that are incorporated into the structures that we work on. Once the structures are built, we are employed in their operation, their renovation, their maintenance, and their repurposing. Each year, we invest over $300 million across our 175 training centres to ensure our members are the safest, most skilled, and most highly qualified in the industry.

Bill C-69 is an important piece of federal legislation for us; probably more so than any other piece of federal legislation. On any given day, easily 40 percent of our members are employed in some sort of energy production project, maintenance on those projects, or fabricating components for those projects.

A project just doesn’t get built without skilled labour. The voice of labour is imperative to a project’s success. The inclusion of labour also helps mitigate potential protests and gains buy-in from the local communities, who are considered, consulted, and trained for employment opportunities as the labour force is developed for the project.

In my experience, this has been best achieved through community benefits agreements, otherwise known as CBAs, which serve to ensure that underrepresented groups are afforded equal opportunity through guaranteed and priority access to training, apprenticeships, and good jobs; opportunities most likely not afforded to them otherwise. And that’s very unfortunate.

CBAs deliver long-term value for local communities and elevates our national reputation because they build up our supply, our service, our labour, our education, our training, and our expertise. They make us globally competitive in terms of safety performance, price, quality, and delivery.

We often participate in project reviews that determine the viability of a proposed project. Having seen the process take nearly two decades, in the case of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, the disruption on projects like Keystone XL, and the cancellation of Energy East, we are, at least, disheartened by what has happened to date.

When the various LNG projects were being pushed in British Columbia, similar projects were already proceeding through the environmental and feasibility approval processes in the United States. Projects in Louisiana, Oregon, and Mississippi, proposed roughly at the same time as those in B.C., have been shipping products for the last several years.

Proponents of the LNG projects have pointed out the difficulty in project approvals, from the time that it takes, to the complexity of the review, the court intervention and overall costs of the process, all of which hinder investment in Canada.

In a general way, we support the concepts and the ideas that Bill C-69 sets out to put in play. However, Bill C-69, in its current form, leaves much of the substance of the bill up to a regulatory framework that currently does not exist. Where you cannot see the regulatory framework that is supposed to make the system work, you are essentially asking Canadians to buy something sight unseen. It is imperative to provide proponents with the certainty necessary to invest, and Canadians with the confidence to know that the most appropriate scientific and regulatory standards are being applied in what is their backyard.

We put great stock in what the Atlantic Council of Premiers and the Government of Alberta, through its former and new premier, have to say about Bill C-69; these provincial leaders are concerned about economic growth, and they have made a strategic commitment to environmental safeguards. That is important.

Bill C-69 would benefit by giving economic growth equal status in the preamble. Economic growth should be a priority within the assessment of any project. It is, after all, the government’s job to create sustainable growth through balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship.

Growth requires predictable outcomes. Bill C-69 needs to create certainty in terms of process and timelines. The timelines need to be reasonable and predictable, with deadlines in place to ensure no opportunities for filibusters to unreasonably stall a project are available.

The participation of the public is important to success, as well, but the nature and scope of public participation needs to be established early and clearly to ensure further challenges or delays are not created through lack of clarity or ambiguity in the legislation.

Removing the number and extent of legal challenges ought to be a goal of any such legislation. There needs to be a final and binding process that is tightly written and the areas in which the court may intervene need be clearly defined, to avoid any sort of litigation trap.

Bill C-69, in its current form, seems to have a built-in prohibition that stops a proponent from doing anything in support of the designated project until it’s actually approved. This seems very non-productive. We should allow for routine planning and preparation because this is work that could generate positive opportunities for local and Indigenous communities.

In closing, and with the greatest respect, we ask that you give due consideration to our submission. This piece of legislation has an enormous impact on our 500,000 members, as well as an enormous spectrum of Canadians who are engaged in natural resource extraction, processing, distribution, and consumptive industries. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Carson.

Andy Carson, Director, Growth and Strategy, Irving: Thank you, senators, for taking the time to visit us here in New Brunswick. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to talk our company and our company’s views on Bill C-69.

We would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered is the traditional unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik and Mi’kmaq peoples. And we would also like to acknowledge and thank our co-presenters who are here now and through the rest of the day. We think we’ve met almost everyone here today through different projects that we’ve worked on.

Finally, we would like to commend and offer our best wishes to all those who are responding to or who are impacted by the flooding taking place in our region.

My name is Andy Carson, and I work for Irving Oil, based here at our home office in Saint John, New Brunswick. I’ve worked for the company for over 11 years, and over my career with the company I’ve been involved in business development and external relations. It’s an honour to be co-representing the company my colleague Jeff Matthews, our company’s chief financial officer.

We welcome you here to Saint John, and sincerely invite you to follow up with us if you have any questions about our business or our company. I’ve provided a copy of my business card with the printed remarks that I’m going through right now.

Irving Oil is a unique company in the Canadian energy industry. We are a family-owned company that started out in 1924 as a single service station in the small community of Bouctouche, New Brunswick, and we’ve grown a lot since then. We now own and operate Canada’s largest oil refinery, which is located just a few kilometres from where we’re meeting right now, and you will find over 800 Irving-branded retail sites throughout eastern Canada, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, and the U.S. northeast.

Importantly, we also now own and operate Ireland’s only oil refinery, located near Cork in the southern part of Ireland, and have recently completed the acquisition of a company called TOP Oil, an Irish energy company with 200 retail sites located throughout the republic. Growth into new and different markets has been an important priority for our company, and Ireland has been an incredibly welcoming home away from home for all of us.

As a company, we believe it is vitally important that regulatory review processes provide clarity and certainty to project proponents and partners. Large economic development and growth opportunities only make sense for so long; doors open for companies to develop, permit, and build new projects that create value for all stakeholders, but these same doors also close. In the highly competitive international energy space that we participate in every day, these doors can close quickly, as other companies in other regions of the world move very quickly to satisfy the demand that Canadian firms had hoped to meet.

We have experience with projects that have gone through regulatory review processes that have been thorough and rigorous, yet have yielded outcomes that have allowed us to make investments. Also, we have experience with projects that have gone through processes that have been rigorous but also very open-ended and unpredictable, and which has only resulted in investments not taking place in Canada.

For example, in the early 2000s, we identified that some markets in North America were likely to experience natural gas supply challenges, and we started a process of developing a liquefied natural gas import project that would bring new sources of gas into our regional market. In 2004, we filed the environmental impact statement for what would later become Canaport LNG, a joint venture partnership between Irving Oil and Repsol, of Spain, and constructed the first LNG facility to be built and operated anywhere in Canada, located again just a few kilometres from where we’re meeting right now.

Canaport LNG went through a comprehensive regulatory process both provincially and federally that took less than two years, but which required significant public and stakeholder consultation, which, rightfully so, put our project team through its paces. But at the end of the day, we had confidence that the process would conclude and result in a clear decision, and as a result our region has benefited from the significant direct and indirect investments that have resulted, job creation, and community involvement all flowing from that important project.

Senators, we know that you will have heard a lot about the Energy East project during your cross-country hearings. This was an important project to us, so much so that we were not only planning to be long-term, committed customers, buying Canadian crude oil off that proposed pipeline every day for 20 years, we were also a committed partner with TransCanada, having come to an agreement to jointly develop the marine terminal that would have been located close to our facilities here in Saint John, and which would have enabled Canadian oil to reach into the broader, global energy marketplace that we participate in each day.

As you know, the Energy East project description was filed in October 2014. Yet fully three years later the project can be said to have barely started the regulatory process. Throughout this period, the review process changed; new requirements were imposed, which added risk and uncertainty and contributed to the cancellation of the project. That was a tough call by our friends at TransCanada, and it was a sad day for the project team and the many stakeholders who had hoped this project would have created new value, economically and socially and otherwise, across our entire country.

As a final comment before wrapping up, we would like to be clear that, like many other organizations that I’m sure you have met with during the course of your journeys, we favour predictable and defined review processes, and we also favour deep and meaningful stakeholder consultations. As we work on new developments and even go about just our day-to-day business, we believe in the long-term value that is created by building relationships with our neighbours and communities. We always try to go above and beyond in our consultation efforts, and we believe that a strong commitment to consultation and defined, predictable review processes do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Senators, we believe in the energy of Canadians, and we hope that, as you continue to consider this bill, you will strive to find a balance that, yes, ensures appropriate and meaningful consultation takes place during the review of projects, but that also ensures that Canadians can work together to grow the economy and create the kinds of new value that strengthen our entire country. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Plummer.

Brett Plummer, Vice President Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer, New Brunswick Power: Good morning, members of the committee and members of the public. It’s an honour to appear before you today.

My name is Brett Plummer. I’m the Vice President Nuclear and the Chief Nuclear Officer for New Brunswick Power. Presently my office is at the Point Lepreau nuclear generation station.

I want to take this opportunity to thank this committee for engaging us in this process. I’ll start by providing an overview and sharing some information with this committee.

New Brunswick Power is a Crown corporation. It’s been given a mandate from the Province of New Brunswick to operate as a commercial enterprise to provide safe, reliable energy services at a competitive rate for its customers. Our strategic plan is the foundation of our business plans, investment decisions, and economic initiatives.

NB Power has developed one of the most diverse generation fleets in North America. Currently, New Brunswick customers are supplied by 75 percent — that’s 75 percent — renewable, non-emitting generation today. We are committed to finding new projects to provide energy sources to further decarbonize our generation supply.

With global leaders recognizing the need for action on climate change, and limiting the generation of greenhouse gases in particular, nuclear, renewables, smart grid, and possible hydrogen generation will continue to play an essential role in meeting New Brunswick’s commitment and future energy needs.

We have a mandate from our stakeholders to foster economic development while protecting the environment.

We support the intent of Bill C-69 to eliminate regulatory uncertainty; provide clarity; and strengthen the positive engagement of Indigenous communities, other public entities, and stakeholders. These are NB Power’s goals, as well.

However, in the current form, the bill lacks clarity regarding regulatory timeliness, and enhances the ministerial powers which could potentially result in uncertainty and duplication of regulatory oversight at the provincial and federal levels.

If there is an imbalance between the environmental protection and economic development, this bill could compromise New Brunswick’s ability to meet climate change and clean energy goals, specifically decarbonization through electrification.

The transfer responsibilities for the assessment of nuclear projects and international power line projects from the expertise of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board, the CNSC and the NEB respectfully, to the impact assessment agency is a challenge. We have concerns associated with this because the CNSC and the NEB are experts in their field.

For example, a nuclear project requires expertise in nuclear fuel safeguard standards, radiation protection of the public, and significant scientific expertise.

The CNSC, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is a full-cycle regulator that incorporates monitoring into the licensing process. We have a world-class regulator. They have a great reputation. We believe they must be involved in maintaining the integrity of the nuclear program in Canada.

Ministerial powers are not objective and clearly defined for the project scoping, with multiple opportunities for resulting delays, uncertainty, additional costs, and as a result a lack of investment.

The challenges of getting investors for infrastructure projects, such as small modular reactors, and based on the uncertainty of regulatory timeliness in inter-jurisdictional collaboration, this uncertainty could lead to investors going elsewhere to build their projects.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the committee as part of the study on the future of Canada’s oil and gas, mining, and nuclear sectors.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will start with the question period. Please, no preambles, if possible; direct questions. We will start with Senator Mockler.

Senator Mockler: To the witnesses, well done. You are certainly giving us food for thought. My question could be answered by all of you, and I will start with NB Power.

Madam Chair, this is not a preamble; it’s just factual. NB Power is renowned for being a leader in smart grids. They are renowned also nationally and worldwide with small modular reactors. You are also a leader in clean energy and in reduction of greenhouse gas.

My question to you all is: How will C-69 impact your own initiatives going forward?

Mr. Plummer: These initiatives are very important to NB Power. They’re very important to the Government of New Brunswick, and also the public of New Brunswick. We truly are trying to decarbonize, which helps all of us, the public.

So there are several initiatives that NB Power is working on. There are initiatives associated with small modular reactors. We have initiatives around potential hydrogen generation. There are smart grids, smart energy, which really is a more efficient use of our electric generation, which allows us to integrate with renewables and also to distribute generation, localized generation, more efficiently.

All these initiatives require investors, and they require certainty around them. As we mentioned, the concern is that we support this bill, with certain modifications, to address some of the issues around the ministerial powers and the potential delays that a minister can impose on a project. It’s a concern with investors. You can say that’s their perception, but perception is reality, and we do need the investors here to make these initiatives go.

Then there’s also the aspect of timeliness, uncertainty and ministerial powers. When it comes to nuclear, we already have a very successful regulatory framework. It’s specialized and unique. That regulator has a lot of expertise, and they’re the only ones in the Canadian government that have that expertise. They have a tremendous reputation worldwide. They are recognized globally as a very good regulator, to the point where there are 11 small modular reactor vendors coming to Canada to go through the vendor design review process, phase 1 and phase 2, to get their small modular reactors approved in Canada.

So it’s an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for climate change, and it’s an economic opportunity for Canada and the Province of New Brunswick.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Jeff Matthews, Chief Financial Officer, Irving: At Irving Oil, we spend a great deal of time thinking about how we enhance the prosperity and the livelihoods of the people of the Province of New Brunswick. We spend a great deal of time looking at how we create economic development and how we work within our communities.

Bill C-69, has the potential, as Mr. Plummer mentioned, to create confusion and unpredictability around how projects might be developed going forward.

The lack of clarity around how we create opportunities, attract investors and execute projects, will lead to lost opportunities. For us as an organization that looks at these opportunities every day, to increase the value to the Province of New Brunswick, this has the potential to impact that.

The Chair: Ms. Dunn.

Ms. Dunn: As I said earlier, I represent 500,000 working men and women, skilled tradespeople, throughout Canada, every single province in Canada. This bill, to us, is of particular relevance as it relates to a number of things, but number one is making sure we have responsible development.

Number two, obviously, jobs. Jobs that are good jobs, good-paying jobs, and apprenticeships for our individuals, for Indigenous communities, for underrepresented groups like women in trades. These are things that matter to us. These are the things that are going to grow our country. We have to make sure that we recognize that. We have to make sure that is a priority, as a nation and as a nation builder.

From our perspective, in terms of the actual bill, I think we need to tighten it up. We understand that there is a duty to consult. That’s extremely important. We want meaningful consultation. We want to be at the table when the consultation occurs, because this is what we do for a living. We build these projects. We engage with Indigenous communities. We engage with those communities that will be affected by this bill, and that’s why it’s so important to us.

The Chair: Ms. Pohl.

Ms. Pohl: The first phrase is not much of a difference, if the bill stays exactly the way it is, or if it isn’t amended after passing it, because climate change really needs to be at the top. Without prioritizing climate change, we’re totally missing the boat for all future generations.

In our national brief, which I’m leaving a copy of, there is a line that says, “The climate is the issue of our time and should be seen as such.” Without prioritizing it, it’s not going to make a big difference, because we won’t have jobs, we won’t have a planet, we won’t have any of the things that we all expect as norms.

This is what the UN climate scientists have said, including many who say that Canada is the second-worst contributor on the globe to this crisis that we’re in, the eco-apocalypse that is looking down on us.

So I just want to ask you guys, just for a minute, how many of you have grandchildren? I have grandchildren. How many of you have grandchildren, or grand-nieces, or grand-nephews, and when you close your eyes, what do you see in the future for them, knowing that this is a reality, the situation that we’re in?

They’re not going to have the jobs that we might be training them for. Like Greta says, what’s the point in going to school if I’m not going to have a future? What else matters, really?

I understand that the economic situation in Canada is a priority, and in principle I have no problem with it being in the list of factors, but the main issue — and I notice that two of the three other presenters here didn’t even mention climate — it is the issue of our time, and it should be the highest priority for environmental assessment.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have to move on. Senator Carignan.

[Translation]

Please don’t direct your questions at everyone, otherwise we lose track of time.

Senator Carignan: Are you talking about me?

The Chair: No, this is for everyone.

Senator Carignan: My question is for Ms. Melanson. You talked about people’s health, safety, and so on. Clearly, Lac-Mégantic comes to mind immediately when we talk about health, the 47 fatalities and the lives destroyed as a result of this tragedy. The accident occurred while transporting oil by rail.

As I was saying earlier—perhaps you weren’t here—I grew up next to a pipeline. I bought my first house 20 feet from a pipeline. I taught my children how to ride their bicycles on a pipeline, on a pipeline right-of-way.

I understand the ultimate objective, which is to ensure public health and safety and reduce greenhouse gases. However, I believe that 45 per cent of the world’s energy is produced by coal, the most polluting fuel. Transitional forms of energy must be used to quickly achieve global targets.

In your opinion, should a transitional approach be encouraged? Instead of blocking everything, we could approve certain transmission lines, such as pipelines or gas production, that would reduce greenhouse gases and avoid health and safety problems in order to achieve a long-term target and completely reduce greenhouse gases?

Do you think that by adopting an approach where you basically say “no” to everything, you are shooting yourselves in the foot in the medium term?

Ms. Melanson: I don’t say no to everything. We know we can’t stop this tomorrow. You mentioned Lac-Mégantic and you mentioned that the only solution would be to increase oil production to expand the industry. When that accident happened, I wondered why the rail line has not been changed.

[English]

Why don’t they just change? You know, you don’t have to run trains through cities.

[Translation]

In my opinion, the problem is not just whether or not to build pipelines. You are considering increasing production at a time when it must be reduced.

The other concern I wanted to raise—perhaps you missed it—is the location of the work. Projects are being undertaken on indigenous reserves without understanding their impact on the health of those populations. More and more “fracking” and that sort of thing is being done in communities without really having a clear answer. How far away should such facilities be located without impacting people’s health? It’s never been established scientifically.

I wanted to say that, when such projects are launched without prior consideration of the impacts on the health of populations and the well-being of communities, disasters ensue. People were very upset by this incident and we are continuing on this path because we are not examining the real impacts of such projects.

Did you know that family doctors in the province have asked Irving and other companies not to engage in hydraulic fracturing because its impacts on health will not be known for 10 years?

Basically, projects are being carried out without knowing what their impact will be on people’s health. You may think my comments are far-fetched, but it’s the truth. It is absolutely true that human beings are not being taken into account. We know where the little frogs at risk are and where they reproduce, but we are unable to say what the impact of such projects will be on human beings because we are not at that stage. That is the point I wanted to make.

[English]

The Chair: Senator Simons, could you please identify who you are directing your question to?

Senator Simons: My question is going to be for Mr. Plummer, but I wanted to thank Ms. Dunn first for speaking about community benefit agreements. We have separate legislation before the Senate on community benefit agreements. I don’t think we can add them to the text of the act, but I’d like to make an observation or a suggestion for regulations, because I think they are immensely helpful in getting projects and community buy-in.

Mr. Plummer, you mentioned hydrogen power. I wondered how close are you to making that a viable technology, and what would you need in terms of interprovincial timelines and an integrated Canadian or even North American electricity market? Would you need to have that kind of customer base in order to make hydrogen power a viable source?

Mr. Plummer: Presently we’re really in the research and development phase of making sure that we can get more energy out of the process than goes into the process, but it looks very promising.

In parallel, we are also looking at manufacturing efficiency, and what the potential applications are that we can use this in.

One of the issues we’re having is, we believe in renewables; we need renewables. But the issue is storage with renewables. When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, how do you store that energy? Well, hydrogen may be one of those mechanisms by which we store that energy.

We’re a ways away from getting into selecting applications. We’re looking at the manufacturing, to actually solidify the manufacturing. To that point, even when we talk about climate change and bridging strategies and transitions, they all take time. We’re looking at potentially small modular reactors in 2030, 2032, 2035, if they’re started right now.

That’s why we’re looking at that timeliness, that certainty, that investment and to make sure we’re prepared for the future, whether it’s hydrogen or small modular reactors or smart grid.

Senator Simons: We’ve heard testimony across Canada about the need for electrification. Also, about the lack of a coordinated national electricity strategy to deal with the provincial territoriality. Is that the word I’m looking for? Yes.

I mean, you’re a small market. It’s a small province, not a big population. In order to get the economies of scale necessary to make nuclear or hydrogen workable, do you need to have more of an interprovincial or a North American grid?

Mr. Plummer: Yes, we do. In some of the markets, they’re not all the same. Within the province of New Brunswick, we’re pursuing hydrogen. Smart grid, we’re partnering with Siemens here to develop that technology.

When it comes to nuclear, we are looking at a pan-Canadian approach. We were involved with Natural Resources Canada on the small modular reactor, SMR, road map that was ongoing. We continue to have meetings with all the provinces to try to get some integrated plan around nuclear and how we’re going to roll it out, to Canada and even globally.

Senator Massicotte: Mr. Carson, I’ll address my question to you.

You obviously heard the presentation of the two ladies to the right, and their opinion is very, very clear, and therefore I sense that they would view further growth by your company negatively, which has been very successful. I think you’ve done it responsibly.

Could you help me respond to the two ladies and their argument of how you should approach future development, and their concern about climate change and the mortality of many species, including human beings possibly?

Mr. Carson: Thank you for the question, and I’ll try to address it perhaps in a couple of ways. And if my colleague would like to supplement that’s okay.

I’ll talk about climate change first, and then maybe talk a little bit about the changing nature of demand for energy, because we see that as a potential opportunity for our business, as well.

On the very significant and important issue of climate change, I think it’s a very fair point that we didn’t raise it in our opening remarks. I take that as constructive feedback. Thank you for that.

As a company, we’ve taken an approach that might, in some instances, be surprising when it comes to the broader question of climate change and the more specific issue of carbon pricing. Of course, that is not part of Bill C-69, but I commented on it very briefly.

As we’ve worked with members of the federal government, your colleagues in Ottawa, folks within departments, our position in terms of talking about the issue has always been that there is a role for us to play. There should be a price that we pay in connection with the carbon that we emit as part of our production. Our position has never been that we disagree with this, fundamentally. It’s been a constructive and productive relationship, as we worked through the process of and consultations with ECCC, other stakeholders in Ottawa and other provinces.

I recognize it’s absolutely a significant issue. As the government thinks about ways to address those issues, we’re trying to be a productive stakeholder in those discussions, because we see it as an important issue.

When it comes to energy more generally, I think a common theme has emerged in the responses so this session’s Q’s and A’s: that a transition is taking place. I think there can be healthy debates and discussions about the pace of a transition.

From the perspective of our business, we’ve done some things. They might be small so far, but we are reacting to demand. At many Irving Oil sites you will now find electric vehicle chargers. Many people would find that surprising, but it’s part of how we think about serving not just the customers that we traditionally serve, but how we position ourselves to serve the customers of the future at some of our retail sites.

We recognize that. Hopefully that’s responsive to your question, senator.

Senator Massicotte: Ms. Melanson, Ms. Pohl, do you agree with that answer? Are you happy with the answer?

Ms. Melanson: Yes and no.

Ms. Pohl: You said a lot of fine words, Mr. Carson. You said you’ve always been constructive. But I recall that there was a lot of opposition to carbon pricing, and not only that, but the system for carbon pricing that we have right now isn’t going to hit the mark anywhere close. So can you tell us exactly what your position was, Irving’s position was, on carbon pricing?

The Chair: That was your question you wanted to ask?

Senator Massicotte: Yes, that’s my question.

The Chair: Senator Massicotte has taken her question.

Senator Massicotte: Ms. Pohl, in other words, regarding carbon pricing, she says it’s inadequate as it is. Let’s presume it’s increased significantly, if that’s your argument, to a level that it could influence behaviour. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Carson: I think an important context in talking about carbon pricing is the competitiveness of industry, of business, of regional, provincial and national economy. An important point that we continue to make in our consultation efforts with regulators has been to ensure that whatever price is put in place allows business — companies like ours, selfishly, but other organizations as well — to continue to compete effectively, not just in the national market, but also in the very important export markets that we serve.

It has been an important point.

Mr. Matthews: If I can supplement, climate change is a global issue that needs to be addressed. Canada has taken a very good approach to working with new technologies, new processes, to deal with climate change. We’re a world leader in that.

When we think about how we interact with that global picture, we need to think about how we do that. We wouldn’t want to find ourselves in a position where we’ve taxed our industry out of business, which would then open up the opportunity for other countries to supply the products that we would normally supply from our own industries that have made efforts to increase their role in reducing climate change.

I think it has to be taken in context.

Senator Massicotte: Can I just respond to that?

The Chair: No, I think we have to pass, because we don’t have —

Senator Massicotte: But I’m a little bit worried about those comments, because it’s elements of fear.

The Chair: Senator Massicotte, we have to pass to Senator Neufeld.

Senator Neufeld: Sorry about that, Paul. I’m going to be fairly quick.

The sponsor of this bill is Senator Mitchell from Alberta. When we’re in Ottawa, at least, he tells us that this bill will speed up approval for projects. I’d like to know whether you agree with that or not and, if you don’t, if you have some amendments that you would like to see, I don’t know if you’ve given them in already or not, but if you would give them to the clerk, please.

My second question is to Mr. Plummer. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, along with the NEB, are world-wide and well-known and well respected. Are you a little bit concerned that they won’t have the same input, the same ability to regulate, to approve nuclear projects under this new act the way the panels are set up?

Mr. Plummer: As far as the timeliness, Bill C-69 has the capability of having an efficient review process, but we can’t be certain. That’s the issue. It goes back to the comment I made earlier around ministerial discretion and the potential for the suspension of timelines. Very transparent to put it on the Internet, but they still have the power to suspend this process along the way, many times.

It’s one individual. That individual has a lot of power. That needs to be addressed, to get that certainty.

Regarding the CNSC, our concern is the dilution of the regulatory authority and the expertise around the monitoring of nuclear power plants, by creating another panel. There are two issues here. One is the potential to get all the right expertise on the panel with the capability of understanding the unique and special aspect of nuclear. That does not say that we do not want to have meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples and the public people, because we already do through the CNSC, the regulator.

The other part is efficiency. We already have a regulator. They are efficient. We already have a process. I’m not sure why we’re layering on more panels to go through additional processes. As I explained earlier, in order to get some of these new innovative technologies out by 2030-2035 for climate change, we need to continue to run through these reviews for different projects. Therefore, we want to be as efficient as we possibly can.

Senator Neufeld: Thank you.

Mr. Carson: On the question of timelines, I largely echo Mr. Plummer’s comments. There is potential within Bill C-69 for timelines to be relatively efficient. I echo the observation that there are significant opportunities imbedded in the legislation as it’s currently drafted for timelines to extend quite quickly. There is ministerial discretion, Governor-in-Council discretion, and the set of regulations that spell out how the pause button can pushed during the review process, have yet to be defined.

So the sum of those three considerations would suggest that there is a potential for significant timeline uncertainty.

The Chair: We have two last questions, Senator MacDonald and Senator Cormier.

Senator MacDonald: Thank you, chair. I’ll direct my questions to Mr. Plummer.

Senator Neufeld touched upon one question I was going to ask you, but I’d like you to elaborate a little further on it. The impact assessment act forbids CNSC-appointed members from making up a majority of the review panel.

I’m just curious, what would be the benefit, if any, of stipulating that the CNSC, the most knowledgeable nuclear regulators in government, are not able to form a majority on the review panel? I’d like to know your views on that.

I’d also like you to explain more the benefits of successful small modular reactors in terms of industry and replacing fuels that are more problematic, such as diesel.

Mr. Plummer: The concern is that it is a very special, unique science with nuclear-generated power. They do have the expertise, and they’re the only ones in the government who have that expertise.

The concern is that, if we don’t have good representation across the panel, we may lose some of that expertise, some of the trust and reputation that we have globally, as a nuclear regulator.

As far as SMRs, the benefit of SMRs, we have managed to attract two small modular reactor vendors to the Province of New Brunswick, which is Moltex and ARC Nuclear. They are both advanced fast reactors. They both have the capability of recycling their own fuel. Also, one of them has the capability of using used fuel from the nuclear reactor that we have presently have in New Brunswick.

They also have very good inherent safety features. Some of the concerns in the past with meltdowns have been engineered away. So there are a lot of benefits with the new small modular reactors.

What I’ll mention is multiple markets. There are multiple-size reactors, there are multiple technologies, but the benefit is that they are non-emitting, they are clean. Studies have been done as far as health to the environment and people, and they are one of the best ways of generating no-carbon/low-carbon electricity in the world.

The Chair: Senator Cormier.

Senator Cormier: I will ask my question in French, and it is for Mr. Plummer and Mr. Carson.

[Translation]

Welcome to the committee. I am a New Brunswicker like you. I live on the Acadian Peninsula and I travel around the province and, like many New Brunswickers, I hear people’s serious concerns about consultation, about the lack of planning to transition to renewable energy. In light of what you have told us so far, why do so many New Brunswickers still feel today that the oil industry or NB Power has not developed a real transition plan?

As part of the consultation process, would Bill C-69 reassure New Brunswickers and Canadians about the various points I have just listed? In your opinion, what are the three main irritants that you want to amend in Bill C-69 to reflect the needs of your industry?

[English]

Mr. Plummer: I appreciate the question. NB Power has a transition plan; it’s an integrated plan, and it is available to the public. I understand what you’re saying as far as people being educated and understanding where we’re going in the future. There is more and more urgency around that, and there are two aspects to it.

One is the general education of the public; we’re trying to do a much better job of educating the public. When it comes to small modular reactors, we generated a booklet, we’re making speeches and we’ve engaged First Nations. We are also having discussions just strictly from an educational standpoint, trying to get people up to speed on what is climate change, and what the potential options and initiatives associated with the generation of electricity are.

As far as C-69, the goal is to engage Indigenous communities and the public. I do believe that will increase the awareness and involvement around specific projects on a microscopic level.

There is benefit to getting people involved right up front with the project, versus having a project and then trying to reconcile it after the fact. There is promise there, but I would advocate that it is more important to educate the broad public about various issues including: what is energy and the possibilities going forward in the future, and what is climate change and how we can come together to resolve this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Carson?

Mr. Carson: Thank you for the question, and it’s great to know you’re from New Brunswick. Just a personal anecdote, my wife is from Bathurst, so I’ve spent a lot of time in the Acadian Peninsula and the north shore.

To address consultation and then the list of three that you requested. From a broad perspective, we believe that consultation is important in the context of a regulatory review. We think it’s equally, if not more important, for it to occur prior to regulatory review starting in earnest, and even after.

Going back to some of our comments, we think that consultation is not necessarily something that should be just linked to a regulatory review process. I think just being a good neighbour and being a productive and effective part of the community requires companies and organizations to make sure that consultation is always there.

We try to achieve that through things like community liaison committees that meet on a monthly or quarterly basis to ensure that representations are made from the community to our business, and vice versa. That’s just one mechanism we would use to ensure that consultation is not something that is confined just to the regulatory review process. When a permit is issued, we don’t want our relationships to stop, in effect.

On the question of three items, that’s a really good question. I think we’ve probably touched on a number of them already. I think in my previous response I spoke to timelines, so timelines are important. Echoing, again, Mr. Plummer’s comments, the question of timelines and the signals that timelines send, or the lack of certainty around timelines and the signal that can send to the investment community is a concern, and something that should be considered.

A more probably technical question is the operation of the proposed planning phase. Which isn’t to say that it’s something that we would be opposed to in principle, but it is a regulatory innovation that hasn’t been used as part of federally reviewed processes before. From a proponent community standpoint, there would be a lot of questions about how is this going to work? What is the fundamental difference between what is required in documents submitted during the planning phase versus the review phase? Are they the same thing? In which case, why have two phases?

I think there is uncertainty about how this would work from a regulatory perspective.

Finally, speaking to clause 22 of the act, emphasizing the importance of competitiveness and economic growth, I think, are valid concerns in the list of all of the items that are proposed as factors for consideration in that part of the bill.

The Chair: Last question, Senator Richards.

Senator Richards: Thank you for being here.

To Mr. Matthews and Mr. Carson, where does most of the unprocessed oil coming to your refinery, come from?

The second part of the question is, opponents of the Energy East pipeline have told me that the pipeline coming into New Brunswick wouldn’t have made much difference to New Brunswickers. I’m sorry that my voice is gone, but could you answer those questions for me, please?

Mr. Carson: We access and purchase crude oil from all over the world. In the past, and certainly going forward, the role of Canadian-sourced crude oil is something that is very important to us.

When there are dialogues about Canadian crude oil, it’s very unfortunate that Newfoundland is often forgotten about. We have a long history of being one of offshore Newfoundland’s largest customers, which has been a really productive relationship for us and for the offshore producers in Newfoundland and Labrador. This relationship is something that we hope can continue to grow as production in offshore Newfoundland also continues to grow.

We were part of the Energy East project in a small but hopefully meaningful way. We had hoped Energy Wast would bring, on a daily basis, large volumes of crude oil almost directly to our refinery gate for processing. This would have had the effect of reducing the number of imports that we would be bringing in from other parts of the world. That would have increased the Canadian content, if you will, of the crude processed at our refinery.

Energy East, we believe, would have been a generational investment in the Province of New Brunswick. The pipeline investment itself would have been significant. We had a belief that a project like Energy East — whether it meant opportunities for Irving Oil or other organizations and companies — would have created a lot of knock-on opportunities in the future that could have had a very significant positive economic impact on the lives of New Brunswickers.

Senator Richards: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I’m being asked for a final question by Senator Mercer.

Senator Mercer: Well, more a comment than a question. I’m a customer of Irving.

Mr. Carson: Thank you.

Senator Mercer: You’re welcome. But I feel better about it because of something you just said, and I’m surprised that Irving has missed this opportunity to tell Canadians that a lot of the gas that you’re processing is coming from Newfoundland and Labrador. That’s an important message, and that would do Irving more good than most of the other advertising they do. Just to comment as a customer.

The Chair: That concludes our meeting.

(The committee adjourned.)