THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
QUEBEC CITY, Friday, April 26, 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 7:58 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
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 an independent senator representing Quebec and I’m the chair of this committee.
Before starting the meeting, I would ask the senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from the Gulf region in Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, and I live in Alberta
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Mille-Isles, Quebec.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Montreal.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
[Translation]
The Chair: Dear colleagues, this morning 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 in our first panel, we welcome, from the Government of Quebec, Benoit Charette, Minister of the Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change; Marie-Josée Lizotte, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Assessments and Authorizations, Ministry of the Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change; Éric Théroux, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fight Against Climate Change, Ministry of the Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change; and Yves Rochon, Director General, Environmental and Strategic Assessment, Ministry of the Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change.
You have a certain amount of time to deliver your remarks and then we will go to a question and answer session.
Benoit Charette, Minister of the Environment and the Fight Against Climate Change, Government of Quebec: First of all, thank you. Welcome to Quebec City, Quebec’s national capital. We very much appreciate the opportunity you’ve created to meet Canadian citizens across the country. So thank you very much for that courtesy. It’s very much appreciated.
Since you’ve named the individuals here with me, I’m spared the task of doing it myself, but I thank them sincerely for being here and especially for their support in recent weeks.
It’s naturally a pleasure for us to appear before you this morning. We appreciate the fact that you are here, and this is an opportunity for us to comment on the bill here before you.
Quebec is in favour of government-to-government discussions on important public issues of concern to our two orders of government. We have asked to meet with you precisely because we have had no real discussion with the Government of Canada on the concerns and comments we’ve submitted to it in recent months and in the past two years. What’s more, the bill as passed by the House of Commons takes no account of our most significant comments.
I must note, however, that, two weeks ago, my federal counterpart, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, finally answered the letter I had sent her in early February. We received her answer late in the process, but, in it, I thought I detected some openness to the substantive claims I had expressed on Quebec’s behalf.
I would therefore invite the members of the Senate committee to be bold in their recommendations. Who knows, we might all be surprised at the results of our efforts today.
Basically, we are here to defend the powers granted to Quebec and the other provinces under the Constitution of Canada for the purpose of managing their resources, developing their land and protecting the environment.
We believe that what is at stake here are the continued existence and vitality of Quebec’s identity and sustainable development, which are intimately related to the exercise of our legislative authorities.
We know you are concerned that all the regions of Canada be represented and that that is your primary mission. The fact that you are here suggests that we can expect a second objective review of the bill. We’re counting on you to hear and defend Quebec’s interests with respect to this bill, which you began studying this past February.
I would note from the outset, and it’s important to do so, that we welcome the federal government’s intention to modernize its environmental assessment regime.
It’s also clear that the Quebec government’s aim in attending this meeting and submitting new documents to the Senate committee today is not to make environmental assessments less rigorous or to limit the scope of environmental protection in Canada, but rather to optimize their implementation in a manner consistent with our respective jurisdictions.
Quebec would like to suggest solutions to problems that have persisted despite successive amendments to federal environmental assessment statutes. In particular, we want to eliminate the inefficient duplication of federal and provincial procedures and truly establish the principle, strongly supported in Quebec, of “one project, one assessment” for projects where it is logical and possible to do so.
Following our appearance here, I will be submitting a brief to you containing details of the Quebec government’s proposals. That brief will also include guidelines for legislative amendments suggesting several alternative solutions to the issues raised.
Since 1995, when the first federal environmental assessment statute came into force, experience has shown that the federal process needlessly duplicates the Quebec regime, which was implemented in 1978. Quebec had expressed its concerns in this area at that time, but, as history has unfortunately shown, all our fears have materialized.
This duplication of the procedures for all projects under Quebec’s jurisdiction, such as energy and mining projects, for example, causes numerous problems that are simply unnecessary. Duplication is serious and complicates matters for project proponents. It increases delays in obtaining authorizations and results in significant additional costs.
It also impedes Quebec’s development and undermines its ability to develop and manage its land in an independent and sustainable manner, even for projects under provincial jurisdiction on Quebec land.
In practice, the federal government’s involvement in the review of these projects subordinates Quebec’s environmental assessment regime, undermines its credibility and challenges its environmental concerns.
Mining projects, for example, clearly fall under provincial jurisdiction over the management of natural resources. However, where any aspect of a project has a negative effect in an area of federal jurisdiction, such as fish habitat, for example, the federal government requires a second exhaustive assessment of the project’s impact. This situation causes delays and significant additional costs to project proponents, without substantially increasing—and this is important to bear in mind—the rigour of the environmental assessment and protection. Furthermore, the federal process has resulted in additional delays of 3 to 11 months after provincial approval and duplicated the public and aboriginal consultation process.
The fact that projects under federal jurisdiction are subject to federal environmental assessment statutes has caused project proponents to contend, even in court, that their projects, even those located entirely in Quebec, need not be subject to a provincial assessment. However, the environmental impacts of projects are felt, first and foremost, at the local level and primarily concern the provinces.
Port projects undoubtedly illustrate this problem and the issues it causes more clearly than anything else. Recent attempts to press Quebec’s concerns through a cooperative approach have demonstrated their limits. As the federal government assesses and regulates only the negative effects in areas of federal jurisdiction, many issues that exceed that framework are not taken into consideration.
That’s the case, in particular, of environmental impacts, land use and infrastructure surrounding port sites. These projects thus raise issues concerning the public and the various players in the industry that require public hearings by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement, commonly called the BAPE in Quebec, hence the importance of fully enforcing Quebec’s environmental protection laws.
Note, in this regard, that Quebec is currently in court because the federal government doesn’t support project proponents who refuse to comply with provincial environmental legislation. This is a situation in which cooperation is simply non-existent. However, Bill C-69 does nothing to avoid similar situations in future.
Yet Quebec has a modern environmental assessment regime in what we call southern Quebec, where most projects are concentrated. On March 23, 2017, the National Assembly passed an act amending the Environment Quality Act to modernize the environmental approvals regime, which dated back to 1972.
The new Environment Quality Act has provided Quebec with a clear, predictable and optimized approvals regime consistent with the highest environmental protection standards.
The key points of Quebec’s new environmental approvals regime are an adjustment of that regime based on environmental risk, from negligible to high, that maintains the highest environmental requirements; simple approvals and predictable processes; major access to information and numerous public participation opportunities; and consideration in the approvals process of the fight against climate change.
Projects in the high environmental risk category are subject to the environmental impact assessment and review procedure.
BAPE is a recognized organization in Quebec. Groups, municipalities and citizens concerned by projects consider it credible. It guarantees them full participation.
It is essential to note that, where necessary, Quebec discharges its constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate indigenous communities as part of this procedure. And it does so by means of practices that meet and, in some instances, even exceed applicable standards established by the Supreme Court of Canada. Quebec has developed effective tools with which to meet this obligation, including a consultation guide and aboriginal consultation expertise.
The environmental assessment procedures regarding the James Bay and northern Quebec region have been established based on agreements involving the Government of Quebec, of course, the Government of Canada and the aboriginal nations concerned: the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi. They ensure that those indigenous nations participate in the decision-making process concerning projects carried out in that region. These environmental impact assessment and review procedures also afford opportunities for public participation.
Despite this situation, Bill C-69, at least in its present form, perpetuates the duplication of environmental procedures and discredits Quebec’s environmental legislative and regulatory framework within Quebec. Even worse, it expands federal government control over the environmental assessment of projects, thus exacerbating existing problems.
As it stands, Bill C-69 does not achieve its “one project, one assessment” objective. This is due, in particular, to the fact that it essentially provides for the same cooperation mechanisms as the previous statutes, which, to date, have not helped eliminate duplication.
Cooperation mechanisms currently place the burden of reducing duplication on the provinces because they imply that the provincial procedure is eclipsed by the federal procedure or that the provincial regimes should be transformed in order to harmonize with the federal regime.
Even the substitution mechanism provided seems more a form of supervised delegation. It has very limited application and, where that’s the case, it demands considerable concessions from the provinces.
Quebec’s new government believes it is high time to rebalance the environmental assessment exercise in a manner more consistent with the principle of federalism. That’s the aim of the principal demands Quebec has made respecting the new federal Impact Assessment Act, which, I would note, in no way addresses the problem.
First, the Government of Quebec wants the Impact Assessment Act to provide for the possibility that the Quebec assessment procedure alone may apply to projects mainly under provincial jurisdiction, such as, local and natural resource extraction projects.
The federal government sometimes subjects provincial projects to its environmental assessment regime because they may have tangential impact in an area of federal jurisdiction, such as fish habitat or migratory birds. We believe that this is a source of duplication of the provincial procedure and that it increases the administrative burden and extends delays for project proponents.
My colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has also concluded that this duplication undermines the predictability of approvals and affects Quebec’s competitiveness in its efforts to seek investors. However, this duplication is entirely avoidable and won’t impede environmental protection or public and aboriginal consultation.
This kind of solution, under which only the Quebec assessment procedure applies to projects mainly falling within provincial jurisdiction, would not preclude consideration of aspects under federal jurisdiction, on the contrary.
Note that project proponents are required to obtain necessary permits and approvals from federal authorities under, for example, the Fisheries Act.
Quebec has all the necessary authorities and expertise to conduct full environmental assessments on provincial projects and to determine whether they should be approved. The provinces own the natural resources that are found on their land and that do not belong to the private sector. They intervene to protect the provincial public domain, including the soil, underground, waterways, forests, energy, minerals, flora, wildlife habitat and all other elements found there.
Furthermore, although fisheries are a federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly confirmed in 1988 that the provinces have jurisdiction to protect the fisheries that belong to them.
Similarly, Quebec consults the federal government as part of its environmental assessment procedure. In that instance, it may consider and gather any relevant information on elements that may concern the impact of a project in an area of federal jurisdiction.
Second, the Quebec government requests that the Impact Assessment Act be clear about the fact that no project under federal jurisdiction located in whole or in part on the land of a province may escape provincial environmental statutes. The fact that a federal project is subject to IAA may not constitute a valid reason to disregard provincial environmental statutes.
We ask that provincial projects be subject solely to the provincial environmental process because the provinces have the authority and ability to conduct, on their own, rigorous environmental assessments on most projects carried out on their land and to make decisions concerning them.
However, the reverse is not true for the federal government, which has limited jurisdiction over provincial projects.
According to the expert panel that the Canadian government directed to conduct a review of its environmental assessment process, the government’s authority to set conditions for a project is limited to subject matters over which it has constitutional authority. Consequently, the federal assessment requires cooperation with the provinces to be rigorous and complete. However, that cooperation must be consistent with the constitutional role of each party, which is not currently the case.
In short, the cooperation mechanisms provided for under the act must enable the provinces to play a decisive role in all projects that concern them, without exception. Furthermore, we in Quebec believe that the public information and consultation mechanisms employed by BAPE should be used in all cases.
Third, the Quebec government demands that the Impact Assessment Act be consistent with the land claims agreements currently in force. We consider it important that it provide expressly that it will not apply to provincial projects to be carried out on the land of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975, in particular with the Cree, the Inuit of northern Quebec and the federal government.
The same should be true of provincial projects on the land of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1978, in particular with the Naskapi of Schefferville and the federal government.
In short, we ask that Bill C-69 allow the environmental protection regimes provided for under those agreements to apply. Although they were signed more than 40 years ago, they have demonstrated their effectiveness and have proven to be ahead of their time with regard to the participation of aboriginal communities in the environmental assessment process.
As regards projects in which the federal government has primary jurisdiction over the work, I would remind you that these agreements already provide for an assessment process that calls for a committee involving the federal government.
In conclusion, as you can see from my remarks, Quebec does not oppose the federal government’s intention to modernize its regime, far from it, but is proposing amendments to improve the overall performance of environmental assessment practice in Canada by resolving actual implementation issues.
Starting with the first federal environmental assessment act passed in 1992, the Canadian government has constantly stepped up its intervention in the field to the detriment of provincial regimes, including that of Quebec. The results have been federal-provincial disagreements, costly duplications for citizens and an accountability issue.
However, the Canadian government has not only persisted in maintaining this unacceptable situation since 1992, it has also created new bones of contention with Bill C-69 that will merely exacerbate the situation.
Furthermore, contrary to the message that has been conveyed, the Impact Assessment Act will not allow the “one project, one assessment” principle so dear to Quebec to be implemented. In the circumstances, the increase in federal environmental powers proposed under Bill C-69 will have a major impact in Quebec. A twofold review is not always necessary. It becomes necessary when a project is primarily under federal jurisdiction, which constitutes an exception to the rule that, in principle, works carried out in a province fall within provincial jurisdiction. In this case, the federal bill must be subject to federal and provincial environmental statutes, and effective cooperation measures must be put in place. That is the case because the provinces are the main parties concerned by the environmental impacts of projects carried out on their land.
The Parliament of Canada has an opportunity here to show that it wants to guarantee environmental protection by exercising a federalism that accommodates provincial jurisdictions, while pursuing objectives of efficiency and the effective use of resources. We would like you to do so by substantially revising Bill C-69.
I repeat: the Government of Quebec has the legal and regulatory instruments, the experience and expertise, and the constitutional authority necessary to assess the impact of any project carried out on its land. We are satisfied that the solutions it is proposing would resolve the major shortcomings of Bill C-69.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here in Quebec City today, for your patience and for your attention. I hope I have convinced you that it is important to make substantial amendments to Bill C-69. We will be submitting a brief to you containing details of the Quebec government proposals respecting the Impact Assessment Act and the other two acts amended under Bill C-69. To demonstrate our constructive intent, we have included in it some legislative amendment guidelines.
I wish you good luck in your work and am now available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Minister, thank you for that quite exhaustive presentation. We will now go to a period of questions. I would ask my colleagues to keep their preambles as short as possible so everyone has a chance to ask questions.
Senator Carignan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to see my MNA here making a presentation on Bill C-69.
I was skimming the act while listening to you, and I was looking for the words “government of a province”. I think I saw it once in the definition of “jurisdiction”, in which a provincial government is put on the same footing as an indigenous governing body or some sort of organization.
It seems to me that a province has no special status under the act when it comes to cooperation or mechanisms. I think the bill is very paternalistic and views the provinces as it does any other agency or organization.
Is that your impression, and, second, will any of the amendments you propose raise the status of the provinces under the bill?
Mr. Charette: As regards the second part of your question, yes, the report we’ll be publishing soon proposes specific amendments of that kind. Your question is an opportunity for me to reiterate the importance we in the Quebec government attach to the environment.
The amendments we would like to see aren’t designed to lower environmental requirements but rather to acknowledge Quebec’s expertise in the matter. As I said earlier, the Government of Quebec passed an act, or a group of acts, on the subject in recent years, long before the federal government, and those acts have proven to be useful. They have demonstrated their relevance, but that expertise is unfortunately not recognized.
As you correctly noted, the areas for cooperation and discussion that have been tested in recent years, if not decades, demonstrate one thing: on many issues, the Quebec government is viewed in the same way as a citizens’ organization, an advocacy group or an expert panel. As a result, the Government of Quebec itself isn’t recognized.
What’s unfortunate is that Bill C-69 could have been a good opportunity to correct that state of affairs, but that hasn’t been the case, despite the many attempts we’ve made in recent months.
It’s important to note that, yes, the present Quebec government is new, barely a few months old, but the position I’m outlining to you today isn’t that of a political party in government. My predecessors in the previous government had unfortunately experienced the same frustrations since 2017. They expressed them in letters, discussions and demands in recent years without receiving a satisfactory response.
So, this morning, you aren’t being presented with the position of a political party that’s now in power, but rather that of the actual Government of Quebec, a historic position that’s unfortunately based on frustrating experiences in recent years.
Senator Carignan: Lastly, one final question. We’ve spoken, and I’ve asked this question in several provinces, because, as you know, we’ve toured Canada and I’ve asked this question in several places. I’m putting it to you as well.
At any rate, we feel there’s a chance we can reduce the environmental footprint of certain oil pipeline, gas pipeline and hydroelectric line projects and develop an energy corridor where we can concentrate all, or at least most, energy transport infrastructure for gas, hydroelectric and other energy. That seemed to be music to the ears of people in the west and east.
The bill doesn’t provide for a simplified process for conducting an assessment in that corridor and then concentrating our infrastructure in it. To install that infrastructure, we’re going about it in a faster, more predictable manner with certain elements.
So my question is this: would the government be in favour of that kind of energy corridor, where we would concentrate energy transport infrastructure, and do you think the act should include certain elements to expedite that kind of assessment?
Mr. Charette: That’s an option the Government of Quebec should very definitely assess. Your proposal raises two challenges: the challenge of Quebec’s land, which would naturally be involved in a project of that kind, but also the challenge of a project that would extend beyond Quebec.
In Quebec, we would naturally have resources to assess the project’s impact, but that’s where duplication would come in. As I mentioned earlier, this is highly revealing for me. For all types of projects, this would concern a project of the kind you suggest. We’d be adding very long delays for the proponents.
In this case, you can talk about private proponents, but, in others, proponents may also be municipalities. That may take various forms. So you’ve just added as many as 12 additional months beyond the approval granted by the Quebec government. Yes, that represents costs, but especially needless efforts because, in many cases, the requirements established by the federal government will have been met in the assessment conducted by the Quebec government.
That’s a plan that should be listened to and fairly assessed on the Quebec side, but, in every case, let’s simplify the procedures so we can guarantee effective environmental protection and an efficient process on all sides.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, Mr. Charette.
I listened to you very closely, and I would like you to explain to me how Bill C-69 will exacerbate the shared jurisdiction problem relative to the present situation. Because it seems to me that, under this burden, this burden of federalism, jurisdictions are shared. Fisheries are more federal; natural resources, that’s obviously Quebec.
It seems to me this has persisted. So how is the situation specifically regarding this matter being exacerbated, and precisely how does the fact... I understand there’s an administrative burden and duplication, but you’re flatly saying your powers are being encroached upon. So how does Bill C-69 encroach on your powers, beyond the fact that it prolongs assessments and that it’s complex?
First, why do you think Bill C-69 exacerbates the situation regarding your jurisdiction?
Mr. Charette: In fact, I would say that Bill C-69 was especially an opportunity to correct a situation that isn’t new. I mentioned this earlier. Since the late 1970s, Quebec has had a relatively efficient environmental assessment and protection regime that has been modernized over time.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But you’re talking about exacerbating the situation.
Mr. Charette: Yes. What the federal government is currently planning both sidesteps opportunities to correct the situation and, in certain cases, also adds procedures.
I mentioned this earlier. There are often very long additional delays. I can give you an example that unfortunately isn’t corrected by the present bill and that, on the contrary, may exacerbate it, where it refers, for example, to infrastructure that, yes, falls under federal jurisdiction.
Let’s say, for example, that we’re talking about building a new port. The assessment will naturally focus on the marine aspect without, however, considering all the impacts the project may have on surrounding infrastructure, which are within the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec, and on the flora and fauna in the area surrounding the future port, and that’s really a problem.
So the federal government might grant approval without taking into consideration aspects that are affected and that affect Quebec’s jurisdiction to a greater degree. In a way, that means subordinating Quebec regulation to federal regulation, and that’s a problem.
This not only aggravates the problem, but what troubles me most in this bill is that we had an opportunity to correct a situation the Quebec government has long complained about. Those opportunities are quite rare.
I told you earlier that Quebec reviewed its air quality legislation last year. These revisions are often conducted after several years. That’s the case with Bill C-69. This is an opportunity that hadn’t arisen for some time, and it unfortunately fails to correct the situation and, in some instances, exacerbates it. The present government has naturally condemned the situation, but the previous government did so as well following the introduction of Bill C-69.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a brief final question. At the start of these hearings, I put it to senior officials, who told us, case by case, that they would try to simplify the process and therefore delegate. You want an amendment that would provide for systematic delegation where projects mainly fall within your jurisdiction.
At the same time, how do you provide for all specific cases and come up with an act that systematically provides it will be Quebec in all cases where the preponderant jurisdiction is provincial? Isn’t that difficult, given that we don’t know what kinds of projects will arise in future and how they’ll be assessed?
Mr. Charette: The brief I’m going to submit in a moment specifically addresses that question and suggests specific and detailed amendments. You also mention future projects. I can tell you about measures and what we call designated projects.
Today, unfortunately, despite the fact the bill was introduced more than two years ago, essentially two years ago, Quebec doesn’t even have any knowledge of the designated projects that will be impacted or affected by the bill.
Barely a few weeks ago, a meeting was held with Environment Department officials in Toronto, if I’m not mistaken. We outlined a possible scenario to them but didn’t allow them to bring in any documents. We asked them to sign a notice of confidentiality, and so we’re still privy to so-called measures and designated projects. That’s really unfortunate since there’ll be no significant impact for the Quebec government.
So it’s that degree of cooperation. In the letter I received from Minister McKenna just a few days ago, she shows some openness to the principle of a project, an assessment. I welcome that openness, but we’ve seen no concrete action on it.
We’re told that future regulation should provide clarification in that regard, but we know how regulation works from the moment protection isn’t guaranteed in the act itself through specific amendments. We would subsequently have very little control and very few opportunities to amend it.
Oral commitments aren’t enough, regardless of their good faith, but we’d like the amendments to be made directly to the bill, and we’d like to make some major clarifications respecting designated projects.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, minister.
Senator Pratte: Thank you. I hear what you say, minister, and, personally, I would definitely be in favour of amending the bill to provide better protection for Quebec’s authorities.
At the same time, I think you have to be aware that the federal government has jurisdictions and that Canadians, including Quebecers, expect the federal government to protect and exercise those jurisdictions. So I think the solution is still a kind of long-term agreement between the two governments.
I would note that we’ll be hearing from the Association québécoise pour l’évaluation d’impacts this afternoon, and I’m going to cite their brief, which has been submitted to the committee. They are in favour of substitution processes, and they say:
It is important for the federal and Quebec governments to quickly reach an agreement to establish a framework within a substitution framework applicable to all matters subject to the dual approvals procedure.
So I’d like to get a clear understanding since these impact assessment experts from Quebec seem to think substitution is a good mechanism. You seem to feel that substitution isn’t a good mechanism for achieving “one project, one assessment” objectives.
So what are your reservations regarding the substitution mechanism?
Mr. Charette: Very good question indeed. That’s a principle that has been used in the past, notably in British Columbia, but our conclusion is that substitution is more a form of supervised delegation where there’s a mechanism for recognizing the provinces’ environmental protection authority and expertise.
We agree on one thing: the federal government has its responsibilities and authorities, and we in no way question them. I understand the action proposed in the brief you cited. However, based on previous applications, we very soon realized this is a delegation that is extensively supervised and precludes implementation of the “one project, one assessment” principle that is strongly supported in Quebec.
I say to Quebec, “What we’re seeking today isn’t specific to Quebec.” I briefly looked at the provinces’ positions on the bill, and all of them seem very concerned about this principle, not merely about simplifying the procedure, but about acknowledging work that’s been done.
I think what Canadians would like are effective measures that ensure the broadest possible environmental protection, and the Quebec framework, not to praise it to excess, has largely proven it can do that.
Consequently, you shouldn’t view the demand we’re making today as us seeking an opportunity to relax requirements. On the contrary, Quebec has had those requirements for years. They’re very effective and comprehensive, and we don’t mean to suggest, in the remarks I read to you earlier, the contrary, that there isn’t just a subordination to the federal act, but ultimately also an environmental protection and it may even be undermined.
Senator Pratte: Briefly, Madam Chair. We’ll see how the bill turns out, but are you prepared to discuss a long-term agreement with the Government of Canada to implement this idea of “one project, one assessment”?
Mr. Charette: Absolutely. In fact, that’s what we’ve tried to do in the Government of Quebec in recent years. There has been an exchange of letters, but I myself met with Minister McKenna on these issues specifically in Ottawa.
So no one should question Quebec’s willingness to cooperate. However, each of those meetings was very cordial. I wouldn’t say the contrary, but now we’re awaiting tangible action that will convince us there’s a willingness to cooperate on both sides.
All the correspondence and all the discussions that have taken place call for cooperation, but there must naturally be cooperation in the assessment process currently in place in Quebec.
The Chair: Just in the same vein, and to add to that, it’s true what you say that it isn’t just Quebec that’s trying to retain provincial powers. However, I believe you understand that the various environmental assessments of the provinces aren’t all the same. They’re comparable. Some are much more rigorous, such as those of Quebec — I’m very proud of that and proud to say it because you have years of experience that have helped you modernize and improve them; so that’s perfect — but we’ve heard about applications from hundreds of projects in other provinces that are assessed and for which permits are granted in 48 hours. We can’t accept that.
There used to be two possibilities for “one project, one assessment”. There was assessment substitution or equivalence. In Bill C-69, equivalence has been removed and substitution left available. I think British Columbia is the only province that relies on a federal-provincial agreement, and I think they’re quite content to proceed in that manner.
Once again I’d like to ask you, because you talk about cooperation, but there’s still the possibility of both cooperation and substitution. I’m going back to the question from my colleague Senator Pratte as to whether you’re open to something more than cooperation, to substitution?
Mr. Charette: In fact, as I mentioned, and we can never repeat it enough, we want cooperation. However, when it comes to substitution, we ask that provincial statutes be adapted to the federal act. That’s already a basic principle of substitution.
I entirely respect the choices that have been made in the other provinces, but, in British Columbia, for example, that province’s own act is based on the federal act. So it’s much easier to imagine an alignment of regimes in that context.
I can’t judge the other provinces’ choices or reasons, but this procedure has proven itself in Quebec. Let me give you a brief example of the risks there’ll be of an increased administrative burden. In the past few weeks, my Natural Resources colleague and I have assessed the procedure imposed on a project seeking the necessary approvals. We’re talking about nothing more or less than nearly 700 steps, including all the steps that must be taken with regard to the environment and the other departments.
This is already a highly burdensome procedure, one that’s very demanding of proponents. If, in addition to that, they have to deal with new requirements established by the federal government, you’ll understand that you’re really setting up an obstacle course for them.
So for provinces that don’t have regulations incompatible with those of the federal government or that adopt its regulations, such as British Columbia, and, once again, I entirely respect its choices, substitution or any equivalent mechanism is clearly easier.
Quebec’s regulations are already in place. They’ve already been modernized and they allow room for a broad range of consultation procedures. That’s where we don’t want to lower our requirements. We’d simply like the federal government to adjust and adapt to ours in this area.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you. I had some questions about substitution, but there’ve been several questions. I think the subject was addressed, although we didn’t go into all the details.
I know you say you’re going to submit a brief containing comments on the entire bill as such. We’ve heard a lot of comments, particularly from the oil industry, which discourage, or are negative about, the concept of preliminary assessment. Bill C-69 completely changes the procedures that should be followed. Now what’s being proposed is that a proponent give us notice of its project, and then there’s an informal discussion with the public and with the departments, which react to those comments and specifically identify the needs and approval criteria.
That’s a new step. Do you agree with that procedure, or do you consider it an advantage to maintain the trend of immediately going into details and approvals?
Mr. Charette: What’s amusing is that I’m comforted by my colleague’s remarks. In the past two years, when we started and completed the process of modernizing the EQA, the Environment Quality Act, that’s exactly how we were thinking in Quebec.
So, with the modernization that’s now in force since last year, that thinking, that principle, has been applied, that is to say that it has added greater visibility for a project proponent. As a result, this process that’s being conducted through Bill C-69 is already in place across Quebec.
Last year, with the same will, the same desire, yes, it was environmental protection, but let proponents be more aware of the process ahead of them before they can obtain a response to their application.
I can cite several cases of municipalities because proponents are often referred to as private promoters, but municipalities are also subject to this procedure, and the comment we’ve heard many times is that the process that awaits them is unpredictable.
In Quebec in the past year, there’ve been regulations resulting from the modernization that must also be put into force. We’re aiming for predictability so we can help promoters, whoever they may be, and that’s essential.
So bravo if Bill C-69 provides for that, but it mustn’t frustrate the exercise that has already been completed in this area in Quebec.
Senator Massicotte: The other comment that often comes up concerns delays. That’s one of the main reasons for the amendments we’re considering. Some people have told us this takes five years. Then there are studies conducted in the private sector that show we have much longer delays in Canada, including all provinces, than in other countries around the world, as a result of which we aren’t competitive.
Some measures have been taken. We’ll try to increase certainty and clearly identify needs, what the public can expect.
In Quebec, based on those studies, we honestly get favourable comments regarding delays and certainty, but does Bill C-69 go far enough to ensure that we, as a country, as a province, will remain competitive with other countries around the world?
Mr. Charette: As regards delays associated with Bill C-69, I don’t see any measures that might reassure us. I mentioned that earlier. When I was appointed Minister of the Environment just a few months ago, one of the main mandates assigned to me was to analyze and review the delays imposed on proponents, and I emphasize this and can never say it enough, without revising environmental requirements downward.
So this is already a major concern for Quebec, but, unfortunately, where there is duplication — since Bill C-69 maintains the duplications — it has been shown that, following the Quebec assessment, which, we agree, takes time, it can take up to 11 more months to complete the federal assessment. We’re talking about an extra year in some cases, and that completely undermines the predictability of the project for some proponents.
I can never say it enough, that a proponent isn’t merely a private promoter. Public interest projects can also be affected in some cases.
Consequently, the Government of Quebec already wants to reduce delays. The EQA contains ambitious objectives in that regard. However, if you introduce a federal bill that doesn’t solve the problem and adds 11 months, pretty much a year, to the process, you’re conceding nothing.
The brief will provide some even more specific examples. If those 11 additional months were an opportunity to considerably improve the project or to guarantee greater environmental protection, you could ultimately conclude that’s a worthwhile delay.
However, it’s been shown that the 11 additional months required don’t have any real impact on the level of environmental protection, and that’s unfortunately where you lose precious time.
Earlier I said that Bill C-69 was a good opportunity to promote a better alignment, and it still is, but it will definitely take major amendments to achieve that objective.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you for your presentation. We in Alberta retain our power and jurisdiction over our own natural resources with as much passion as you do.
I’m unfortunately not really bilingual, but I like to try to ask a question in French, even though my French is a bit weak.
Part 3 of Bill C-69, which concerns rivers, provides that no one may change the depth or flow of water.
In Quebec, you have many hydroelectric resources and dams both big and small. Do you have anything to say about that third part of the bill concerning rivers and the flow of water?
Senator Carignan: Bravo!
Mr. Charette: First, let me congratulate you and thank you. Your French is very good. I aspire one day to speak English as well as you speak French. So congratulations and thank you for that thoughtful effort.
This is an even more technical question. I’m going to ask you to wait a few minutes. When the brief is submitted in the next few minutes, I’ll refer you to section 7, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. That’s on page 13, where you’ll see more detailed comments on those matters.
Water naturally remains an issue of concern for everyone, including the Government of Quebec; that’s for sure. You’ll get a more detailed answer from the brief in a few moments.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation, and I’m very happy to be in your province. It’s a beautiful province.
I can’t speak French, so I’m going to ask and make all my comments in Cree. I’m just kidding.
I wanted to speak about the Indigenous provincial and federal relationship and jurisdictional problems that come from it, because First Nations are in a very unique situation. They fall in and out of provincial jurisdiction, and it’s only lately that our issues have come to the forefront.
So I wanted to take mining, which is primarily a provincial jurisdiction, and specifically diamond mining, and it’s about environment.
When you look at diamond mining and the way it’s mined, it’s underneath a lake, so you have to drain the lake. When I asked, “What do you do with the water and the fish in that lake?” They said, “Well, we’ll make another lake.”
I then said, “But what about the biodiversity in that lake? You can’t duplicate it.”
I said, “And you’re not only dealing with the fish. You’re dealing with the migration of the moose.” I’m talking about jurisdiction. “You’re looking at harvesting rights of Indigenous people, and the birds migrating through.”
I said, “And it’s not only that. You’re looking at infrastructure that you have to build to bring in the equipment for mining, so you’re disrupting a lot of the land.”
Like Quebec, Indigenous people are really pro-environment, and it’s also an issue of consent and of water usage for the mining.
So fish, birds, and animals are also very valuable natural resources that now, with all the resource extraction, are capable of being made extinct. Rights like self-determination with concepts of collectivity, community, social capital, will be impacted by Bill C-69.
Will this bill improve or worsen the situation for Indigenous people and their relationships with the provincial and federal governments, since they have been the more silent partner in all this?
[Translation]
Mr. Charette: First of all, my Cree is still very limited, but let me tell you, “Kwe kwe.” It’s limited to that, but I’m very pleased to welcome you to Quebec City as well. Thank you for your comment.
If you’ll allow me a brief aside, you touched on a very important theme, that of biodiversity. We see it, and it’s an increasingly important concern, and not solely in Quebec, but around the world as well. We’re very proud to set an objective, and, in a few moments, I’ll get back to your more specific question about protecting biodiversity, particularly in protected areas.
As you’ll see, over the next few months, the Government of Quebec will definitely be making announcements about this because I entirely agree with you. By protecting biodiversity, we also secure major benefits for the human population; that’s for sure.
As for your more specific concern, I think the Government of Quebec and the Grand Council of the Crees have the same goal: compliance with agreements that, in some instances, were signed many years ago but are still as relevant today as they were then, whether it be the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement or the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. We must ensure those agreements are complied with. They are examples of a beautiful spirit of information sharing and cooperation.
As you said, and no one doubts it, we must especially respect Indigenous peoples, who have an environmental awareness that cannot be questioned, and we must also rely to a large degree on the consultation process of the Indigenous peoples.
I referred to the EQA and to the environmental assessment procedures in Quebec. We’ve focused to a large degree — and this is even stated in the regulations and in the act — on this communication and consultation space with the Aboriginal peoples. We must maintain those spaces to ensure that Aboriginal peoples’ expertise in and profound knowledge of ways to protect their lands and environment are respected. Let’s make sure Bill C-69 provides for that protection.
First and foremost, that will require compliance with agreements that were signed a long time ago, decades ago in some instances, but that have especially demonstrated their scope and effectiveness.
Senator Patterson: I can’t speak as fluently as Senator Simons.
[English]
I’m going to ask my question in English.
Mr. Minister, thank you for your presentation. I want to say that your intervention has been reiterated by other provincial leaders, and also by other existing provincially based regulators like the Newfoundland offshore board, the Alberta Energy Regulator. My colleague called the federal invasion into provincial jurisdiction “paternalistic”; I think it’s colonialism. It’s Ottawa knows best, and we will decide for you. The substitution power in clause 31 is a “may” power, totally at the discretion of the federal minister. I look forward to seeing your amendments, and they should be respected, just as we need to respect the balance of powers that come with Confederation.
My question is about “one project, one review.” You have had a process in place for 45 years, as I understand it, which was modernized in 2017. You called your process a simple process that respects “one project, one review.”
Bill C-69 does not respect “one project, one review.” It sets up a fragmented process where impact assessment, licensing and life-cycle monitoring are all split; they are all separated, and all staged. It departs far from the goal of “one project, one review.”
How does your provincial legislation have a simpler, unified, superior process?
[Translation]
Mr. Charette: Just to tell you a story, two days ago I was at an event in Montreal, the Nature Champions Summit, which Minister McKenna attended as its organizer. I couldn’t agree more when she said in her address that all of us, the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government, must cooperate.
I say yes to that statement. However, when I see the status the provinces are assigned under Bill C-69, I get the feeling we’re straying from any desire for all of us to cooperate.
As I mentioned earlier in connection with certain assessment measures, the Government of Quebec has mere observer status or, at best, expert status in the same way as any other organization. I’m talking about Quebec, but that’s in fact the case of the other provinces as well.
So I’d like the speech that Ms. McKenna delivered in Montreal yesterday to include a reading of Bill C-69 as well. We’re all partners, and that’s why there should be no such wish to oppose a measure that, in Quebec’s case, has been in force for many years.
Consequently, this partnership can truly be established, because I believe the environmental challenges ahead of us are indeed significant, but let’s not oppose measures that work well, and let’s simplify the proponent’s notice where possible — and it’s possible to do that. Once again, I can’t say that without saying the other part of my sentence: without lowering environmental requirements.
This cooperation must be provided for in the very wording of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, we received an initial response from Minister McKenna barely a few days ago, and I welcome her effort. It’s the most concrete response we’ve received in years of attempts to communicate with the government. However, it suggests the government will comply with the principle but won’t support it with amendments — at least we were shown none — and mentions forthcoming regulations.
Experience has shown that, to have any real meaning, issues must be clarified in the wording of the bill itself, not in the regulations that follow therefrom.
So, yes to cooperation, but naturally respect for work already done.
Senator Forest: Thank you and welcome here this morning. I’m concerned about the substitution issue, but earlier you opened the door by mentioning the word “municipalities”. Let’s say I was profoundly affected by that reality in my former life.
The bill makes no mention of the municipalities. This is one of the things that concern me because, when you think of environmental challenges, you clearly have to think globally but act locally.
The municipalities are one level of government, an essential one in this context. Municipalities are responsible for land development. We can see that these days, unfortunately; they are the “first responders” when disasters or uncontrollable events occur.
Of course, municipalities aren’t referred to in the Constitutional Charter. They are creatures governed by provincial statutes. Shouldn’t a bill at least state that the municipalities must receive advance information on private projects so they can share their concerns? That would be a very significant factor for hearings and BAPE. They would be in a position to consider and share their concerns as part of that impact analysis.
Mr. Charette: That’s a very good comment. I remember you’re not so distant past, in which you rightly raised those concerns. In the context of the study of this bill, I noted that the Union des municipalités du Québec had also submitted a brief to restate that concern.
The Government of Quebec acknowledges the essential role of the municipalities in developing their land but also in protecting it. We therefore consider them genuine partners. I wouldn’t say the current BAPE procedure shouldn’t be improved. BAPE celebrated its 40th anniversary not so long ago, barely a few weeks, and there was unanimous approval of its cooperation in the assessment and public consultation process.
The municipalities are an admirable part of that procedure. The question whether they can play a greater role through BAPE is the topic of discussions that we will undertake, but the municipalities clearly have a role to play, as you say.
Unfortunately, I’m in a sector where floods are troubling many people these days, and, without the two municipalities in my region as partners, I can tell you today I’d be at a very great disadvantage. They are essential partners and their expertise must be acknowledged.
Senator Forest: Would you be upset if we made an amendment under Bill C-69 requiring the municipalities to be informed in advance of private sector projects so they can consider them?
Mr. Charette: We’ll always be in favour of circulating information, both on the project itself and on the steps that must be taken for a project to be approved.
Since we’re trying to improve our own communication processes, I could hardly object to the municipalities also being informed under such an important act as that proposed under Bill C-69.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
The Chair: That concludes this part of our meeting. Thank you very much for being here, minister, and your colleagues as well.
For this second panel, we now welcome, from the Secrétariat international francophone pour l’évaluation environnementale, Gilles Côté, Director General, and from the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, Karine Péloffy, Legal Counsel.
Gilles Côté, Director General, Secrétariat international francophone pour l’évaluation environnementale: Madam Chair, senators, first of all, on behalf of SIFEE’s board of directors, I want to thank the committee for its invitation to this consultation session on Bill C-69.
The Secrétariat international francophone pour l’évaluation environnementale is a non-profit organization that was established more than 20 years ago with the support of the governments of France and Quebec to promote the practice of environmental assessment in the member countries of the Francophonie. I would note, however, that the thoughts and opinions expressed in the context of my appearance before this committee are my own.
Before proceeding, I would draw your attention to the file that has been distributed to you and that contains three documents. I will refer to the first two during my brief remarks, and the third is an article that I published together with two researchers, on which I have drawn for the purpose of my comments today and in which you will find additional information as needed.
My remarks today will focus on what I at least consider an important issue in the reform of the CEAA but that has received little attention to date. That issue concerns the provisions regarding decision-making, sections 52(2) and following of the present act, which would be replaced by sections 60 and following of the bill.
It should not be forgotten that, at the end of the process, it falls to the decision maker to decide, to arbitrate the interests of the parties involved or affected by the decision and to decide compromises among environmental, social and economic considerations raised by a project.
However, the logic applied in order to arbitrate these matters or to decide those compromises influences the decision. Logic refers to systems of thought that, most of the time, are not made explicit but are nevertheless identifiable.
For example, I am thinking of an interview of former Montreal mayor Denis Coderre that journalist Alain Gravel conducted as controversy raged over the Energy East oil pipeline project. That day, the promoter was to announce the project’s economic impact for Quebec. Mr. Gravel asked Mr. Coderre a very simple question:
Mr. Coderre, doesn’t the economic impact of the project for Quebec and Montreal in particular make the project more acceptable in your opinion?
Mr. Coderre then answered:
Until someone demonstrates that the project entails no risk for the population of Montreal, no, the project isn’t acceptable.
Apart from its purely political aspect, that answer was based on logic that is completely different from that of the journalist. The journalist’s question was based on the utilitarian logic commonly used in economics — you’re all familiar with that. It consists in assessing the consequences of an action and applying a logic of reward by applying a proportionality test to the project’s benefits, economic impacts, disadvantages and environmental impacts.
Former mayor Coderre’s answer was based instead on rationalist logic, according to which he developed universal standards and stated them as principles that must be accepted per se. Based on that logic, to be acceptable, the project therefore had to succeed simultaneously in all respects: environmental, social and economic.
In addition, the project’s economic success could not compensate for less environmental success, as is the case under a utilitarian approach, and as Mr. Gravel’s question had suggested.
As proposed in the short document I submitted to you, it seems to me that rationalist logic is more consistent with an approach based on sustainability than the utilitarian approach. However, the wording of section 52 of the present act is based on utilitarian logic that I consider inadequate for the purposes of addressing complex problems involving various environmental, social and economic considerations. I explain this in the document. We could refer back to it if you wish.
The question that then arises is to what extent rewording the provisions on decision-making in the bill’s clauses 60 and following, referring to the ideas of public interest and sustainability, implies a change.
Although that may be possible with the current wording, I am proposing an amendment to clause 63(a) to guarantee the change in logic needed to include the idea of sustainability, and, operationally, to provide it with specific decision aid methods.
That is interesting. In environmental assessment, there are methods based on those two logics that I have just illustrated in the example I gave you.
Introducing the notion of sustainability, in my opinion, also actually implies looking again at the methodological approach to conducting impact studies. This has not been discussed a lot up until now. The method most often used, which has been unchanged for more than 40 years, is to assess the significance of the impact by environmental component. In my opinion, this leaves decision-makers on their own to make the judgments that I was talking about earlier.
Let me now refer you to one of the tables in the document; it is taken from a typical impact study and shows the impacts of a project using that method.
So, in the left-hand columns, you have the activities producing the impacts, the components of the environment affected, and then the variables used to evaluate each impact, the value of the environmental component in terms of intensity, duration, and extent, and the qualitative evaluation using notations of high, medium and low. Then you have the mitigation measures and a re-assessment of the impact in the light of those measures.
The table you are looking at is one page of a table that uses this method. If you add the pages together, you see that the table has a number of pages and a number of considerations. I challenge you to make sense of the information in the table so that you can make compromises and form judgments. If you then add a comparison of a number of variations of the same project, it becomes absolutely impossible.
These methods have no tools to aggregate the results. It is quite impossible to identify what is at stake in a project and then decide on the compromises that eventually will have to be made.
It is actually quite extraordinary, because considerable resources are spent on conducting these impact studies. How can we ensure that these documents perform better in helping us, in helping decision-makers, to make those compromises?
In my opinion, it is high time to take another look at the way we do things. The decision aid methods used in environmental assessment can play a role in implementing the legislation and should be part of the discussion, in my opinion. Otherwise, they may well simply stay as decoration, and perpetuate the use of a simplistic economic logic to solve complex environmental and social problems.
So as to end on a positive note, let me draw your attention to the second page in the document you have. It is the introductory page of an impact study that I find interesting and will refer to, as it applies sustainability principles. It was for a project to build a silicon plant in Port Cartier, Quebec, and was therefore subject to the Quebec process of environmental assessment. I consider the approach used to be innovative in a number of respects.
For example, the analysis was done in two stages. For those concerned about the cumbersome process, the time it takes and how effective it is, this seems to be an interesting example.
The first stage was to identify the decisions that had to be made about the project. Because, I feel, it is necessary to separate the decisions that are central to the decision to approve or not approve a project, from those needed to implement it.
So the first question was: which decisions do I have to make? Maybe the choice of the site, the choice of the way the facilities are arranged on the site, and the technological choices.
To make those choices, the 18 principles in Quebec’s Sustainable Development Act were used as the basis. From those principles, those that applied to the decisions to be made were identified. An analysis grid was developed, because it is all very well to refer to principles, but they have to be applied. So a grid analyzing the many criteria based on the principles was made in order to compare the different options for each decision. Once the project was optimized, consideration was given to the measures needed to mitigate, and compensate for, its impacts.
That exercise resulted in a project that was much more economically beneficial for the developer and that answered the questions from all the stakeholders, including the environmental groups.
Unfortunately, the project never saw the light of day because the silicon market had changed. But it was a success story in that, after the BAPE information period, there were no requests for public hearings. Everyone was satisfied with the approach. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Karine Péloffy, Legal Counsel, Quebec Environmental Law Centre: Honourable senators, thank you very much for the honour of testifying before you this morning.
I represent the Quebec Environmental Law Centre (QELC). Since 1999, we have been the only independent organization providing expertise in environmental law to the public, participating in public hearings on the reform of environmental legislation, and taking public interest cases before all courts, when deemed necessary.
I have also been a member of the federal minister’s Multi-Interest Advisory Committee on environmental assessment since 2016 and am the co-author of a major, collaborative research report on including climate in project assessments.
QELC’s main message is how important it is for Bill C-69 to be passed before the end of the parliamentary session, without amendments that could affect the fragile balance achieved between various interests as a result of the extensive prior consultations. It is essential to preserve the environmental protections, the public participation, and the rights of indigenous peoples.
The amendments that we will be proposing do not disturb this balance; they help to restore public confidence in federal decisions by ensuring the independence and credibility of the process that will lead to the reports on which decisions are based. This is a crucial issue that has gone under the radar since the expert report was published in 2017. It will also be the subject of my presentation, although I will be happy to take questions on other aspects.
To restore public confidence, the assessment process must be, and must be seen to be, independent from the influence of both the industry and the government. Bill C-69 brings a measure of independence with regard to the industry, but makes no improvements in terms of the influence of the government, in terms of the new agency, although some measures for the new energy board are in place.
The Canadian Bar Association has been criticizing the lack of independence of federal administrative organizations for more than a quarter of a century; their major report on the issue in 1990 is the basis for most of our recommendations, which also draw inspiration from the framework around the BAPE, Quebec’s Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement.
In fact, in Quebec’s assessment process, which bears a great resemblance to the structure foreseen in Bill C-69, the independence of the recommending organization, the BAPE, seems to be a key element. It ensures that the reports produced are credible and lead to final decisions made by elected representatives who are better informed and better accepted by the public.
In the current impact assessment act, it is possible for the agency and the review panels to operate independently. After all, it is often a matter of institutional culture as much as, or actually more than, the text of the legislation. However, independence tends not to survive when the government of the day stops supporting it, if the legislation does not require it. Only statutory measures can guarantee that independence will exist in the future and will be protected by the courts, which often defer to Parliament’s intention.
Governments openly and legitimately encourage projects while the hearings have not been completed. The balance to that freedom is that the neutrality, the independence and the rigour of the process of environmental assessment must be beyond all suspicion for the entire system to function.
Our amendments deal with three components of independence. These are the method of appointing, and the lack of tenure of, the head of the agency, the selection and the appointment of members for the review panels, and the nature and the powers of the review panels, which should be those of a commission of inquiry.
First, in Bill C-69, the president of the agency is appointed during pleasure by the governor in council. Heads of organizations often run the risk of losing their jobs as soon as the legislation permits when they make decisions or publish reports that the government does not like. Experts everywhere agree that appointments during pleasure are completely incompatible with the principles of independence.
The president of the agency must be appointed by the most rigorous federal process possible, that is by Parliament, and on an indeterminate basis.
Second, in Bill C-69, the environment minister most essentially prepare two rosters of eligible people who could make up the review panels. There is a general roster, that I call the “environment roster” and a roster for regulatory organizations and offshore boards that is prepared in consultation with those organizations and with the minister of natural resources.
The act should also create permanent positions for members of the panels that come from the general list, similar to those that come from the regulatory bodies. This would allow an approach with the more generalist expertise needed to assess sustainability that involves a number of issues.
In addition, the lists of people potentially eligible to sit on the panels should be made by an independent committee, the expert committee established by the agency under the act.
Finally, to use a court analogy, the government could be considered to be a party to the case as well as being the final decision-maker. If the government also decides who will conduct the review, it allows the entire process to be orchestrated in order to produce the desired result. The framework proposed currently creates an inherent institutional bias. The judge, in other words the government, should not under any circumstances be the one choosing the prosecutor, in other words the review panel.
We suggest that the president of the agency, once independently appointed, should select the members from the rosters and appoint them to the various panels. In Quebec, that responsibility belongs to the president of the BAPE, not to the ministers.
Our third suggestion is that the nature and the powers of the review panels in Bill C-69 be the same as those of commissions of public inquiry, as is the case for the BAPE panels in Quebec. Major coercive powers are needed; they generally mean that governmental organizations and third parties are inclined to respect them voluntarily.
The current wording of clause 53 of the Impact Assessment Act is completely inadequate. We have some detailed amendments on that subject.
Basically, Bill C-69 is not perfect, but many public interest organizations that have been part of the process from the beginning, including the QELC, feel that it is an excellent compromise. The bill must be passed before the end of the parliamentary session. It is an excellent first step for the country in responding to the challenges we have to face. We can finally move forward together. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We now move to the time for questions.
Senator Carignan: Welcome to our session. I want to point out that the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, a not-for-profit organization, has provided us with its brief in both official languages. I just want to emphasize that we really appreciate that courtesy.
I have two questions, first to Ms. Péloffy. In clause 63, the notion of public interest deals with different issues, including an expectation—here we go, clause 63(e):
(e) 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, it seems that the emphasis is being placed on achieving Canada’s objectives, not necessarily on achieving a global reduction in greenhouse gases. We know, for example, that some projects in Canada could increase our greenhouse gases, but could also decrease greenhouse gases worldwide.
Let me use liquefied gas as an example. It could replace coal in Asia. That would mean an increase in greenhouse gases in Canada but a reduction in greenhouse gases in China. That would mean a net reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide.
Do you believe that clause 63 should be more specific in also achieving an objective to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide, and that it should reflect that?
That is my first question.
Ms. Péloffy: Thank you very much. Just as a small point, environmental groups would prefer that provision to require compliance with our climate commitments, whereas, in its present form, if you look at what the impact will be… A project could mean that we do not comply with our commitments and still be approved anyway.
It is therefore a more watered-down version of what we would have liked, but we in the environmental groups interpret the current proposal to include Canada’s international commitments. It could be good to specify that. In all honesty, we are not suggesting more amendments to that provision, because we know that powerful industries want to just take it out completely. So opening it up seemed to us to be a risk.
Basically, in everything to do with considering the climate impacts of a project, having a global vision seems to me to be more in tune with the Paris Agreement we signed. That is really a commitment to work together with all countries; it allows greenhouse gas reductions to be transferred everywhere in the country through agreements reached with governments.
On the one hand, I agree that framing it globally would be better. It would allow some industries that claim to be moving more polluting forms of energy elsewhere to make those arguments, ideally extremely rigorously, and not simply: “I state that I will replace some fuel oil.” It must be a contract that demonstrates it exactly.
On the other hand, it would force us to recognize that, if we take our petroleum projects alone, and calculate the greenhouse gas emissions that they cause outside the country once they are exported, current studies show that Canada’s total carbon output is doubled.
So we are already a blight. If we consider the effect of all the energy products we export, we are double the blight.
Senator Carignan: My second question is for Mr. Côté. I understand the analysis framework that you explained, but you seem to be saying that the economic notion is included in clause 63. Other participants have told us that they do not see that as an economic factor.
I understand that, if I look at the definition of “sustainability”, I will see an economic aspect, but it is buried in the social aspect, in all the aspects. So the economic aspect in it is quite timid.
Some people have specifically proposed adding “f”, a subparagraph (f), to account for the economic interest of a project, its economic impact. You say that it is not necessary to add that. Do I understand that you personally see an economic factor in clause 63, that the government must consider it its decision?
Mr. Côté: That’s exactly it. I feel that we have to distinguish between the economic interest of a project and economic interest period. Unfortunately, in impact study reports, the ones we are talking about, often the only focus is on the economic effects, the jobs created, the local spinoffs. Rarely are the consequences of those spinoffs analyzed in a larger economic perspective.
For example, does a project change the employment situation in a specific area? Does a project change or improve the competitiveness of local companies that participate in the project? Does it change the workers’ skills?
I remember participating in environmental monitoring. I met with companies that had participated in a major project and that had obtained substantial amounts in contracts, but who found themselves less competitive than before.
I specifically remember one guy, because it was quite striking. He was as big guy, six feet tall, and he was in tears, because he had a million dollars in contracts, but the million dollars did not really allow him to improve the competitiveness of his business. On the contrary, the other companies that had participated in the project had raided his key employees to such an extent that, basically, not only had he not been able to invest in his facilities and improve the skills of his employees, his processes, and so on, the opposite happened.
Often, the analyses that are done in impact studies do not really extend to considering the real economic issue, but they are done in the broader sense of simply looking a direct spinoffs in terms of job creation.
But I feel it is important to consider the economic interest of the project, because a project that is not viable, a project that does not get done, gets us nowhere. I feel that attention must also be paid to the economic interest that the project represents for the territory in which it is located, by considering all the aspects that have to be considered.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Senator Simons: As I said before, I am not really bilingual, but I would like to try once again to ask Mr. Côté another question in French.
You presented a table, a formula, an opportunity, if you will, in order to do an assessment, but people are not numbers in an equation. We are not numbers. Your document says this, and I have to read it in English.
[English]
. . . there is no rupture between rationality and irrationality, between knowledge and ignorance, but rather different, and even divergent, interpretations of what rational behaviour calls for in uncertain situations. There is no single cleavage that puts decision makers and experts on one side and the public on the other, but multiple cleavages, also fragmenting the decision-maker and expert groups
[Translation]
It is on the third page. Even if the decision is always made with a lot of emotion and not only with logic, is it really that simple to do it as one heading, as you have submitted it?
Mr. Côté: In the field of operational research into environmental assessment, we think in terms of a number of rationalities, a number of ways of addressing a problem. Even among experts, opinions may diverge, there may be different approaches to a scientific problem.
It is important not to take a firm position and say that one approach is rational and another is not; it is more about managing the differences. Decision aid methods, applied more generally to environmental assessment, allow those different approaches to be brought together. It starts from the proposition that has been made for decades, that of structuring the approach to environmental assessment by what is at stake. The term “at stake” implies, literally, that there can be winners and losers.
It is exactly that. The questions we have to answer in conducting environmental assessments are intended to determine the winners and losers.
Now, in determining the winners and losers, there can be a host of points of view. You see it clearly when people’s public remarks begin with the comment: “What is at stake in this project is…”
The approach to environmental assessment demands a strict approach, rather than an approach solely based on the relationships between the social players. It favours those who are able to make their voices and their interests most easily heard.
Once the issues at stake in a project have been identified and everything is on the table, there is a need to deal with those issues, to analyze them, and to bring together the differences of opinion that may occur, not only in the scientific community, but also between the public and the scientists.
Senator Simons: Is traditional indigenous knowledge like that?
Mr. Côté: Exactly. Actually, in 2005, I took part in a strategic environmental assessment that was intended to blend indigenous values into the development of a land management plan using decision aid methods. First, there was a consultation. From the consultation, the issues were identified. After that, management scenarios were developed and an analysis grid with multiple criteria was constructed. This produced results and got the communities involved.
Those communities had no prior skill. Clearly, as the experts, we were doing our job. We did not give them all the details of the approach that resulted in such and such a problem being analyzed, but they moved forward. They took part in each of the stages.
It worked. It worked so well that, in the end, they chose none of the four scenarios we started with; they built a fifth, using the knowledge that the process had given them. In the end, they were convinced that that was what had to be done.
Senator Pratte: Good morning to you both.
My question is for Ms. Péloffy. I assume that you were here just now, when we heard Quebec’s environment minister say that the bill, if it is passed without amendment, will result in—I am not quoting him exactly, but this is what he meant—even greater intervention by the Government of Canada into provincial jurisdiction over environmental assessment. He also said that the substitution mechanism that presently exists, and that the bill reinstates, is not really valid because the substitution would be supervised by the Government of Canada, so it is not really acceptable.
Is that an aspect of the bill that you have looked at, as a lawyer and an environmental expert? Does the bill actually allow the idea to be achieved as much as possible, meaning the principle of “a project, an assessment”? Or are you rather of the same opinion as Quebec’s minister and other provincial ministers?
Ms. Péloffy: The legal perspective we presented is informed by the desire to protect the environment. So, as I listened to the minister, I was thinking of legal cases that have been heard recently.
On the one hand, in the Energy East project, given that federal law had come apart a little, we had to rely on provincial law to protect the belugas in the St. Lawrence.
On the other hand, with the striped chorus frog, the project was completely assessed and approved by the provincial government, even though it was going to be really detrimental to the reintroduction of a species at risk. The frog was saved because of federal jurisdiction.
The environment benefits from the fact that there are two levels of government with jurisdiction because, depending on the government of the day, using both of those tools means that the environment is better protected.
From that perspective, once again, we assess things collaboratively. Actually, the bill proposes a number of collaborative tools. In the House of Commons, an amendment along those lines was introduced. Beforehand, clause 39.2 prevented collaboration on projects in the nuclear or petroleum sectors.
Now that has been withdrawn. There can be collaboration on all projects. We feel that allowing collaboration is at the core of the legislation. If I remember correctly, better collaboration is one of the most favourable aspects that the Canadian Mining Association highlighted.
One problem remains, to which the QELC is extremely sensitive in Quebec. In recent years, companies that say they come under federal law, especially ports, airports and pipelines, refuse to be subject to provincial legislation. In the past, we were considering an amendment, but we did not need to because the QELC went to the Court of Appeal with the Government of Quebec so that provincial legislation would apply to the Port of Quebec. But we feel that courts will be totally ready to denounce a situation like that.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to add something to the bill saying that developers claiming to be under federal jurisdiction cannot be exempt from provincial legislation. That does not extend to saying that, if a project is more under provincial jurisdiction, we want nothing to do with the federal government. It is all very nice for Quebec to behave like a state and exercise its entire jurisdiction, but we are not a country, so we are bound by the Constitution.
Senator Pratte: On the point that you just raised, would it be appropriate to clearly indicate in the bill that nothing prevents, or has the effect of preventing, provincial jurisdiction from being applied? We don’t want a developer, the Port of Quebec, for example, to be able to say. “Great, I have the federal government’s approval; to heck with the laws of the Province of Quebec”.
Ms. Péloffy: That seems like a good idea. But let’s not make it into a huge battle that could put the bill at risk.
Senator Pratte: Okay. Thank you.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Ms. Péloffy, the last time you appeared before this committee, you said that the oil produced in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is less greenhouse gas-intensive than Alberta oil. The oil that comes by tanker to Quebec, all of which goes through Nova Scotia’s water, comes from places like Algeria, Kazakhstan, Nigeria; there is very little Saudi or Venezuelan oil coming through here.
Is it your position that Canada should buy oil from foreign countries, then, rather than developing our own oil, particularly when almost half the oil now that comes to Quebec from Western Canada is usually at a discounted price and benefits Quebec consumers, keeps prices low? Most refined product in Quebec is consumed in Quebec.
Is it your position we should depend mostly on foreign oil as opposed to Canadian oil?
Ms. Péloffy: You may have read the transcript more recently than I did, but I doubt I said that Venezuela crude was less GHG-intensive. I think I said Canadian crude is one of the most GHG-intensive in the world; maybe not in absolute terms on all fronts, but definitely among the most GHG-intensive.
It is my position that, in a world which is hopefully actively fighting climate change, we need to shift off oil as fast as we can whilst being fair to the workers who work in that industry. Scientists internationally are quite clear that the first resources that we should abandon and leave in the ground are those that are most polluting per barrel of oil, and that happens to be our Canadian resources.
I hope that we will wean ourselves off oil as quickly as we can, and Quebec has undertaken policies to try to do that. In the meantime, I would favour using the least GHG-intensive variations of oil that we can find.
Senator MacDonald: There is more than GHG involved. I mean, that’s one aspect. You say that we want to get off oil; of course, we eventually want to get off, I suppose, all sorts of products that we use today. However, that’s not the case for the next 20 or 30 years. All the projections say, not that we’re not going to get off oil, but that the consumption of oil around the world will increase to at least 2040. In other words, consumption will increase to 2040, at a minimum.
Again, do you really think that places like Nigeria, Algeria and Kazakhstan have overall better environmental standards than Canada?
Ms. Péloffy: First, the forecasts that you referred to are often made by organizations that are linked to current forms of energy, and their reports are influenced by the fact that they want continued reliance on oil.
Senator MacDonald: They’re made by international agencies.
Ms. Péloffy: Yes, the IEA. To my knowledge, there are only two models that have been made by that agency that are compliant with the Paris Agreement. All other forecasts are not compliant.
You have two visions of the future; those that say we will continue to burn oil for the next 30 to 40 years. If that happens, life on Earth and advanced human civilizations are goodbye. Or you have the IPCC, which is the greatest scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, that says that we need to have zero carbon emissions by 2050.
So it’s a question of whether we want to make money in the short term or survive in the long term.
In terms of the environmental standards, to be fair, I’m not sure. I know we have heard a lot of people say we have world-class standards, environmental protection, and things like that, but the last time I checked on the front of protection of biodiversity, Canada ranked behind Ethiopia, which is a country that deals with famine. I don’t think we have anything to boast about on that front.
Senator MacDonald: In the past number of years, since they reversed Line 9, Quebec has taken about half of its oil for its refineries from Western Canada, which I think is great, but you’re saying we shouldn’t take any oil from Western Canada, we should be bringing it in from these other countries?
You need this oil for your refineries. These refineries produce all the refined product for Quebec. Do you think the Quebec government, and those in Quebec over the past decade who have ensured that oil from Western Canada has started to flow east to Quebec refineries, would agree with you to put an end to that and bring in oil from Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Algeria and Venezuela, and other places?
Ms. Péloffy: To be fair, I really do not think this is the topic we’re looking at today. That project was approved; it is going forward and, to my knowledge, there is no proposal to cancel it at this point. It’s a hypothetical that we’ll probably never see.
As to my personal opinion, yes, I would rather have oil from Algeria, which I think is where we import it from otherwise.
Senator MacDonald: That’s good to hear. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you all for coming to our committee.
You made a very specific recommendation in terms of amendments that should be introduced. In your brief, you point out that you were very involved in all the studies, all the federal government’s review of this bill. This is not the first time that you have made those recommendations to us. How has the federal government or the study committee, reacted to your recommendations?
Ms. Péloffy: Actually, when I say that the issue has flown under the radar, it is partly also our fault. I started to work full-time on this quite late in the House of Commons process. It has been said that it should be independent, but no particularly precise suggestions have been made in the current bill. We were able to do it more recently.
To date, I have heard nothing to indicate that it must absolutely not be done. A number of bureaucrats are already telling us that the agency is independent. That is great, but why not write it down so that it is truly a guarantee?
In the expert report, people have focused on the main point, the quasi-judicial decision-making organization. However, if you read the text carefully, you see that the experts’ main concern was to have an organization that really had all the powers it needed to encourage different kinds of participation, and all the independence it needed to do so.
The government decided to not go with the quasi-judicial method. That is in its discretion and it’s fine. In Québec, we do not have that model either. By rejecting the quasi-judicial model, it is as if the matter of independence disappeared along with it. But it remains just as relevant.
This is just an issue that has not been discussed, but it remains extremely important.
Senator Massicotte: When we compare Canada’s timelines with other countries around the world, we see that ours are extremely long, compared to all our other competitors, including countries like Norway, which is a great example for the environment.
You are proposing amendments that would remove references to timelines of 300 days, etc. The fear is that, if we do not set limits for the timelines, we will never reach a solution. It will take us a lot of time and there will be no incentives.
What do you think about that?
Ms. Péloffy: Basically, I think you are referring to the collective recommendations for amendments. In the interests of being collective, I personally would agree to signing off on those amendments also; that would be good. From Quebec’s perspective, that would not give us a lot, because, as the minister has already explained, our timelines are already tighter.
It is not really an issue in Quebec. Personally, that is not the amendment that would take a lot of my energy.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: Do you want to add anything?
Mr. Côté: Yes, I would like to comment. I would like to draw your attention to something that can easily be seen in the controversies that arise around specific projects. When you look at the briefs submitted by various participants in the consultations, you see that the issues raised often have absolutely nothing to do with the projects, but a lot to do with the public policies around the management of natural resources.
The problem you raise, senator, is a problem about strategic planning in the energy field. Unfortunately, debates on matters like that often take place as specific projects are being put into place. More than any time frames imposed by the procedures, these delays are often political in nature and caused by blockages.
I am thinking specifically about the establishment of the shale gas system in Quebec. The wind energy system too. I participated in a study on social acceptance; the case in point was wind energy. It was fascinating to see that most of the comments in the public hearings had nothing to do with the specific projects. They had a lot to do with Quebec’s strategy in developing the system.
At that point, why do we take so long to establish a strategic practice for environmental assessment? From that perspective, the federal project is very timid. Proponents of projects are held hostage by that, because they find themselves in the middle of a public debate that is not finished or that has not taken place. Project-specific discussions are not the place to debate those matters.
That request has been made for decades. However, if we apply strategic assessments to developing policies, plans and governmental programs, in energy specifically, it also implies constraints.
To go back to your concerns, I wonder what control we have on the petroleum market, for example.
[English]
It’s a free market.
[Translation]
Often, products move around the four corners of the world following an economic logic that completely escapes the control of any state.
So I have to remind you about those points because a lot of decisions that apply to specific projects, operate on a logic that escapes any state control and is more and more about open markets.
Senator Forest: Thank you for your very enlightening remarks.
We’re talking a lot about issues. We’re talking about social acceptability. I think, with good reason, that there are a multitude of examples, including energy east in Quebec, shale gas, and so on, where by not really putting the issues on the table, we end up serving both the environmental cause and the development cause.
What do you think is at stake? Because the deadlines are very tight. We are all well aware of the end of the session, which is fast approaching. If we can’t find a compromise despite all the imperfections of the bill, of the legislation we have on the table, what is the issue of not ratifying this legislation?
Mr. Côté: I didn’t come prepared to make a judgment on that.
Senator Forest: We’re not always prepared in life.
Mr. Côté: No, I understand that, but normally when I express an opinion on something, I like to have thought about it. Although I have read the bill more than once, I wouldn’t risk making a judgment like that.
However, having studied it and having consulted several people who participated in this reflection—if you ask me to make an overall judgment—I believe that it is a step forward compared to what currently exists, despite the imperfections we have identified. Although the 2012 act made worthwhile amendments to address certain issues, it had significant shortcomings. Given all the thought that has gone into Bill C-69, I think we need to do our best with everything that has been said and all the thought that has gone into it.
Senator Forest: So there is a certain tendency that emerges from the comments.
Mr. Côté: Exactly.
The Chair: Ms. Péloffy, would you like to add anything?
Ms. Péloffy: We believe that we can’t continue with the current system. This is one of the few points where we agree with the former premier of Alberta, who said that the current system is broken and doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for project opponents or project promoters. No one wins.
I really believe that this bill has a lot of potential. We would like guarantees in this regard. The best scenario—and I think environmental colleagues have proposed the same thing—would be to have a mechanism to review the bill every five years. That way, if there are failures, errors, we can make adjustments as we go.
So, perhaps we should pass the bill and meet again in five years to see what has worked and what hasn’t worked as well, and determine what needs to be improved. Because it’s very difficult to be perfect the first time around. Life is often an iterative process.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
The Chair: On that note, we will conclude this part of the meeting.
[English]
For our third panel we host, from Enbridge Inc., Mr. Al Monaco, president and chief cxecutive officer. He is appearing with Ramona Salamucha, senior legal counsel. Thank you very much for joining us.
[Translation]
We are welcoming Pierre-Olivier Roy, Senior Analyst and Analyst at the Centre international de référence sur le cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services at the Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en opérationnalisation du développement durable.
Thank you very much for being here this morning. I’ll give the floor to the representative from Enbridge.
[English]
Al Monaco, President and Chief Executive Office, Embridge Inc.: Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for allowing me to speak to an issue of critical national importance, Bill C-69.
I am speaking to you today as part of an industry, but equally as a deeply devoted and proud Canadian concerned with what this bill means to our communities, regions and Canada’s future.
We believe that Bill C-69, in its current form, will not achieve its objective of improving environmental and regulatory processes, and it will further reduce confidence and investment in Canada.
What this could mean to Canadians is loss of tax revenues to fund education, health, and community; disappearance of meaningful, well-paying, highly skilled jobs; an exodus of our youth and talent and innovation that our sector creates; lost opportunity for economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities; and the erosion of Canada’s competitiveness.
This is not just an energy industry problem; it’s a critical issue for Canada, so it’s essential we get this bill right.
Enbridge is the largest energy infrastructure company in North America. We move about a quarter of North American crude oil and 18 per cent of the natural gas. Our utility serves 12 million Canadians, and we have interests in 1,700 megawatts of renewable energy. In Quebec, we deliver more than half of the oil consumed here, we’re partnered with Énergir and Gazifère, and we have interests in three wind farms in the province. We have 70 years of history in building and operating infrastructure, with regulatory constructs in five countries, nine Canadian provinces and territories, and 41 states.
Energy transportation is part of the very fabric of Canadian social and economic prosperity and security, on equal footing with our cross-country highways, railway lines, shipping, and air transport. Without effective energy transportation, our world-class resources will be stranded, while our competitor and largest trading partner to the south gains the upper hand. Without change, we are destined to squander Canada’s competitive advantage and an opportunity to gain global market share in energy.
Why is this happening? After decades of progressing and connecting Canada’s vastness, it’s clear that we are now failing. As transportation capacity for energy has been constrained over the last several years, Canadians are forfeiting an estimated $14 billion in value per year because of severe price discounting of our energy exports. From 2017 to 2018, planned investments in major resource projects dropped by $100 billion, and many companies have exited Canada. Unfortunately, global investors have now come to see Canada as having an environmental and regulatory process that is risky.
The question we must ask is this: Will the bill achieve the government’s objective and provide business with the confidence to put capital to work in Canada? We believe that the answer to that question is no. I am going to focus on three reasons why we have this view.
First, over the last decade, pipeline project reviews, as you know, have become the vehicle for vigorous debate on broad, national issues like climate change, Indigenous reconciliation, and the future energy mix. These issues, while critical to Canada and must be addressed, cannot and should not be resolved within individual project reviews and by project proponents.
Bill C-69 severely exacerbates an already unmanageable problem by incorporating non-project-specific policy matters into the regulatory process when a national consensus has not been achieved, nor policies and legislation implemented to address them.
For example, one of the mandatory factors to be considered in the impact assessment is the extent to which the effects of the project hinder or contribute to climate change commitments. However, the legislation is silent on how that would be determined, opening up the review process to a wide-ranging and complex policy debate. Climate change should be addressed, there’s not much doubt about that, but through federal and provincial policy, not individual project reviews.
Project proponents must know the rules of the game before it begins, otherwise they won’t have the confidence to bring projects forward.
Second, the bill departs from the long-held and proven independent quasi-judicial process by expanding the discretionary power and final decision-making authority of federal ministers and cabinet. This erodes the sanctity and independence of our regulatory process, risks continued and even greater politicization of specific projects, and encourages even more litigation.
The principle of regulatory independence and excellence has been the very bedrock that Canada and the rest of the world have come to count on, just like the pillar of strength that is our globally renowned banking sector. The expansion of government authority into the regulatory process presents untenable risks to proponents and investors.
Case in point, the Northern Gateway project. Gateway followed, to the letter, an extensive, science-based and rigorous consultation and regulatory project review. The joint review panel concluded that Gateway was in Canada’s public interest, specifically that “Canadians will be better off with this project than without it.” We were the first company to welcome and offer one-third ownership in Gateway to 31 Indigenous partners and communities and help them finance it.
The approval was subject to 209 conditions, and the government of the day gave their consent. To that point, we had spent $650 million to gain regulatory approval, and were preparing to proceed when a new government came to power and effectively cancelled the project.
I ask the committee to consider a question. Given our loss of $650 million and a Bill C-69 that extends more discretion to government, and with critical national policy issues unresolved, why would a proponent consider investing in a new large-scale infrastructure project? In my view, any company that prudently assesses risk will not invest capital under that framework.
Let me be clear. We have always supported the highest standards of regulatory scrutiny and environmental protection; we and the public expect nothing less than that. But for Bill C-69 to achieve the government’s stated objectives, we need to retain the strength of the independent, quasi-judicial process.
We believe that the review panel in these projects must provide a clear yes or no recommendation to cabinet, including conditions. In turn, cabinet’s decision must be based on and tied to the review panel’s recommendation to ensure decisions are based on science and evidence gathered during the regulatory review.
In light of the final decision-making authority remaining with the cabinet at the very end of the process, Bill C-69 must provide an early opportunity for the proponent to request a notice that clearly indicates whether the project does, or does not, meet the key national policy objectives at a very high level, subject, of course, to a full regulatory review.
Finally, on this point, if Bill C-69 passes, we as a company would be faced with competing with our own government, as owners of Trans Mountain, when the government has expanded powers on projects that we would potentially have in front of the regulator. Our experience clearly underscores, through our history, why we need to maintain a strong, quasi-judicial regulatory process.
Third, the NEB has fulfilled the role of a single life-cycle regulator for the last six decades. The institutional knowledge gained through combining project assessment and ongoing oversight has been critical to Canada’s regulatory construct and is too important to risk fragmentation. Yet, Bill C-69 would do just that by separating the project assessment from ongoing regulatory oversight. We believe this compromises the effectiveness of the CER and would be inconsistent with the stated goal of “one project, one assessment.” We must ensure that the CER is responsible to oversee the full life cycle of a pipeline project.
There are other areas of concern with Bill C-69 that are covered in our written submission. For example, it’s been stated that the timelines under the bill will be shorter, but that is not the case for federally regulated pipelines. The current legislated timeline for pipeline projects is 540 days and, under the proposed IA, timelines would range from 615 days to 915 days, excluding the opportunities for ministers and cabinet to extend, suspend, or set longer timelines. Clearly, even-longer time frames are unacceptable.
In conclusion, the question before us is whether Bill C-69 will increase confidence in the regulatory process for all stakeholders, while protecting the environment and allowing sustainable, world-class projects to move forward in Canada’s national interest, where they have withstood scrutiny of an independent regulatory review. We believe the answer to that question is no, and that the proposed bill, in its current form, will further erode confidence. We have consulted with numerous stakeholders over the last months, and we believe that there is very strong alignment on that point.
If the government is intent on passing this bill, several changes, in our view, are required, the most important of which are: to remove broad policy matters from pipeline project reviews; these important issues, but are more appropriately addressed through federal and provincial policy; retain a strong, independent quasi-judicial regulatory process by eliminating government intervention in the independent review. Limit designated projects under the IA to only the very largest projects, and in those cases allow the CER to lead the IA process, given their experience. For all other projects, maintain the CER as the single life-cycle regulator in order to ensure one project, one assessment. Finally, include maximum timelines to project reviews and place specific and appropriate limits on the number and length of extensions that could be granted.
We encourage the committee to incorporate our amendments so that Canada can move forward and all Canadians can benefit from its vast natural resources in a sustainable way.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our view of Bill C-69. We look forward to the questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Roy.
[Translation]
Pierre-Olivier Roy, Energy Lead, Senior Analyst and Analyst, Centre international de référence sur le cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services, Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en opérationnalisation du développement durable, Enbridge Inc.: Dear members of the Senate committee, my name is Pierre-Olivier Roy, Energy Lead at CIRAIG, the Centre international de référence sur le cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services.
Founded in 2001, CIRAIG is a centre of expertise internationally recognized for its work and initiatives built on a solid scientific foundation, and it is affiliated with the Polytechnique Montréal.
CIRAIG has supported more than 200 companies and organizations, as well as governments and consumers, in their quest for sustainable development supported by “life cycle” thinking to improve eco-design, business model sustainability and strategic decision support tools.
I also represent CIRODD, a strategic group of the FRQNT and FRQSC. Its mission is to contribute to accelerating a sustainable and intelligent transformation of Quebec society through the implementation of sustainable innovation mechanisms in a transdisciplinary mode.
Dear committee members, the United Nations sustainable development objectives, to which Canada has subscribed, target the sustainability of economic, social and environmental systems. To achieve this, however, profound changes are expected.
To understand and grasp the increasing complexity of our projects, we will have to move forward as a good manager.
Coming from the academic community, which is neither for nor against the projects that will be subject to Bill C-69, the CIRAIG and the CIRODD can only applaud the efforts that led to the improvements proposed under Bill C-69.
Among other things, these measures will ensure more rigorous and equitable project assessments; provide additional protection measures for waterways; provide better accountability; and ensure that climate change is taken into consideration in all project assessments.
We think the ultimate objective is not to stop economic growth, but to provide a more transparent assessment framework that will collect more information and, therefore, facilitate informed decision-making, while minimizing political, social and legal conflicts.
However, to our understanding, this project presents a significant gap. Indeed, it does not propose to adopt a systemic vision based on life-cycle thinking that takes into account the impacts of the life of a product or process, from the extraction of raw materials to its end-of-life.
Without a systems vision based on life-cycle thinking, there is a high risk of developing projects or adopting technologies that could be so-called good ideas that would cause more harm than good.
Canada and the rest of the world will face unique challenges in achieving economic growth while addressing greenhouse gas emissions and other sources of pollution.
These GHGs do not recognize Canada’s sovereignty or any other borders. To respond to a global problem, the answer must be global. However, no such reference was found in Bill C-69. Faced with tomorrow’s challenges, we no longer have time for so-called good ideas and bad decisions.
When simple solutions are needed, so-called good ideas multiply: the use of biofuels to reduce the GHGs of our vehicles—but when they are produced from agricultural crops, it could jeopardize our food supply; an electrification of transport, limiting the GHG emissions of our vehicles, but in geographical contexts where the means of generating electricity are still highly carbonised; the promotion of emerging technologies that have not yet been technically proven and at astronomical costs; the installation of solar panels in geographical contexts where periods of sunlight are low and snowstorms abound.
All are so-called good ideas, yet the tools to support strategic decisions with a systemic life cycle perspective exist and avoid falling into the trap of so-called good ideas.
Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, the day when projects are evaluated in isolation must be over. We are not alone. Local action has global consequences, from an economic, social, environmental and technical point of view and for the security of our energy supply.
The use of modern decision-making tools, such as environmental, social and economic life-cycle analysis or underconstrained optimization models would allow us to analyze the consequences of our actions.
This is what we must do for future generations of Canadians. Bill C-69? Yes, but not in this condition. Yes, this bill is a step in the right direction, an important step towards more transparent and science-based decision-making, but it does not allow for optimal decision-making.
We no longer have time to rest on our laurels. GHGs don’t recognize Canadian sovereignty, and local actions have global consequences.
The first step in the right direction is Bill C-69. The second is to continue and increase research funding to enable the development, integration and democratization of systemic and transdisciplinary decision-making tools to evaluate projects.
Committee members, do not rest on your laurels, and the leading research community will not rest on its own. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now move on to questions.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you both for two very good presentations.
II’ll direct my questions to Mr. Monaco. Your presence here today is a good indication of how integrated and interdependent our energy sectors is. Most people who think of Enbridge think of Western Canada, but, of course, you’re a big player in Quebec, a very big player in both oil and natural gas.
There are so many questions I could ask Mr. Monaco, but I’ll try to keep it to a couple of quick ones. We have a 75-cent dollar in this country. It should be an encouragement for Canadian investment in this sector, particularly in North America, but we see American oil production going through the roof, really, and Canadian money flooding out of Canada to the U.S.
What will happen if this bill passes, in terms of the present situation and its influence on future development in Canada?
Mr. Monaco: Thank you for the question, and also for acknowledging our presence here in the province, and the province next door. As I said, we have a gas utility that services 12 million Canadians, and we’re very proud of what we do in all parts of the country.
You’re quite right about the expectation that, in our country today, given where the dollar is and given the immense capability we have to invest sustainably in resources, we should be expecting more. That shouldn’t be underestimated because the fact of the matter is, if you look at the independent studies, our regulatory processes and the capability of this country’s resource sector to do things properly in an environmentally responsible way is second to none in the world.
I suspect what is going to happen, given the approach across the border, which focuses on certainly economic development, but speed of resources and gaining market share for energy exports, is going to put us at a further disadvantage for sure. Their approach is to capitalize on the competitive advantages that they have; low-cost energy, good regulatory construct, high skills, and great capital markets.
We have the same things in Canada, perhaps better. The purpose for me being here today is to try to illuminate that and give people confidence that we can do things well. What we need is a regulatory construct that provides certainty, that will attract that investment.
As I said in my commentary, that has been declining. In my view, certainly as an experienced person in this area — our company has invested roughly $80 billion in the infrastructure business over the last decade — you will continue to see a loss of confidence if the bill is passed in its current form. We’ve worked constructively, I believe, to put some ideas forward that could vastly improve the bill and take it to the point where we need to get it to.
Senator MacDonald: My next question is about something I’ve always been curious about, and you’re a great guy to ask here in Quebec. Most of the Quebec refinery oil that comes in, not from Western Canada but through the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, is purchased at world pricing. I’ve been looking at some figures where the oil from Western Canada is usually discounted, less expensive, so it’s cheaper for the Quebec consumer and the Quebec refineries to manage its resource.
Line 9 was reversed, and it’s been beneficial to Quebec and the company, and the country. Will we be able to achieve a made-in-Canada price for petroleum, which I would think should be cheaper than the brand price and more stable? Would we be able to achieve a made-in-Canada price for the refineries in Quebec if we were bringing all-Canadian oil into the refineries here?
Mr. Monaco: Again, thank you for that very good question.
First, let me just make a quick comment about the process we went through for Line 9, which was extremely rigorous under the current regulatory process. and we’re most proud actually in that situation of the very extensive discussions with communities, local leadership, and so forth to give them comfort that what we were doing was going to ensure that the environment was protected. We spent an inordinate amount of time, well-spent time, ensuring people were comfortable. We took their advice. We made the project better. It has benefitted, certainly, this local economy.
In theory, for a short period of time, I think you could probably see a made-in-Canada price for energy here, because of volumes on Line 9. Ultimately the goal, though, as we get fully connected with our transportation pipelines to the United States and globally, then the price should actually equalize. The price differences between Canada and the United States and Canada and elsewhere in the world should really reflect the cost of transportation.
The problem at the moment, and why we’ve given up so much value, is that, if you don’t have an effective transportation conduit, all of a sudden you’re giving away your resources. That $14 billion a year that’s been lost has not been to energy companies but to citizens, through lower royalties and lower tax revenue.
Sorry for the long-winded answer.
Senator MacDonald: No, that’s good. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Monaco, you said that you believe that climate change is a very important issue and it should be considered, and you said that your company is moving forward, and you mentioned that it’s going into renewable sources.
Can you expand on that? How do you see your transition in terms of time, for example?
Mr. Monaco: Excellent question. You probably are not aware of this, but we began investing in renewables probably 15 years ago; I think I have that number right. At that time, it wasn’t fashionable, but we did believe that, in the long term, there would be a transition, and we’re in it right now, to a lower-carbon-intensive economy. Those projects, by the way, are also economic for us.
The way we look at the transition and how we position ourselves is that the mix of the asset base should reflect the global fundamentals. We have a small component now of our total earnings that are driven by renewables, but it matches what we think the current, overall proportion of renewables is in the economy, which is something like just less than 4 per cent or 5 per cent. Certainly, as we transition, there is good opportunity to invest in more renewables. We have offshore renewables, for example, in the United Kingdom, and we’re just putting in a project in Germany offshore. We’re quite excited about that.
I want to make a point here. If people are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, and we are in that camp, the best way to make that impact, at least in the near term, is with greater use of natural gas. Let me give you one quick statistic on that. In the United States, the amount of GHG emissions has been reduced to below 1992 levels, while their economy has grown by 80 per cent. How does that happen? It happens because the use of natural gas is replacing the use of coal.
If we’re focused as a country on reducing emissions, we should look to how we can impact global emissions. We talk about our new LNG plants, for example, that would increase emissions in Canada. That’s true, but a new LNG plant will offset entire coal plants that are used globally if we can export our natural gas. It’s a huge opportunity for Canada to have a real impact on global emissions by greater use of natural gas.
The Chair: Mr. Roy, do you want to comment on what was said by Mr. Monaco?
Mr. Roy: Thank you. I do agree with Mr. Monaco’s last point, which is to look at GHG emissions on a global level. That is basically the point of my presentation. Indeed, if we look into some of the issues here that could increase GHG emissions but would lower significantly GHG emissions elsewhere in the world, then it would be beneficial to everyone else.
That’s why I think that Bill C-69 should include a provision by which we evaluate GHG emissions, at the local level, provincially, and also at a global level, to get all the information that is needed to say, “Okay, we’re maybe increasing here locally, but the big picture is that we’re really doing something great.”
That’s something that is often missing from impact assessments and it should be included.
Senator Simons: I have two questions for you, Mr. Monaco, that are not exactly related, but I’m going to try to sneak them in here.
I share your concerns about the degree of ministerial discretion, not just in the final decision but all along the decision-making process, and I wondered what you would think of a possible amendment. Instead of giving the minister the capacity to stop the clock all the way through the early phases, it would put that responsibility in the hands of the assessors or the regulators, so that it’s de-politicized. If the people who are actually dealing with the application say they need an extension for a particular reason, it wouldn’t cycle through the minister’s office. Might that be one way to try to streamline timelines?
My other somewhat unrelated question is, we’ve just heard from a witness, a lawyer for the Quebec Centre for Environmental Law, who testified that she would prefer that Quebec import its oil, tanking it from North Africa or Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa, rather than have Alberta oil. I’m wondering how you would respond to somebody who says that it’s better to tank oil from a great distance rather than buy it from within Canada, in terms of GHG emissions.
Mr. Monaco: On the first question on moving discretion from the ministerial level to the regulatory level, I’ll call it to simplify, I think that would certainly be a big improvement, simply because the moment you open up the avenues for discretion to be applied, especially at the political level, it’s a huge angle of attack for litigation. The minute you say “discretion,” that’s going to be challenged.
I would agree with you that moving the clock-stopping capability to the regulatory level is good, although I think the broader issue there is to have certainty, period. In other words, let’s set timelines that are reasonable, give people the full length and opportunity to scrutinize projects like they have been for many decades, and we as proponents, as investors, will be happy if we know what that timeline is.
Although it’s better, I would say that the focus should still be on finite timelines that companies can count on in order to develop a project. As you develop a project, there is, as I mentioned earlier, hundreds of millions of dollars that are required to move through the process. If we have finite timelines, that certainly mitigates risk.
On your second question, I wish I had listened to that previous presentation. I don’t often hear, I must admit, that it would be preferable for our country to import product from North Africa. There are probably a bunch of reasons I could go through, but let me just give you the ones off the top.
Our emission standards are certainly much better than the rest of the world — the way we develop projects, the way we engage our Indigenous people. Reducing oil on the water is another thing. I’m sure if everybody had their preference in this province, we wouldn’t have crude oil moving by tanker on the Saint Lawrence.
Those are just a few things in response to that point.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Monaco.
I heard you talk about quasi-judicial processes at the agency level, and I reviewed your brief to make sure I understood correctly, because the witness before you, Karine Péloffy, who represents the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, also mentioned the same idea, that they would have preferred a quasi-judicial process. She also talked about a more impartial and independent method of appointment in relation to the members or composition of the agency. I was surprised to see a point of convergence between Enbridge and the Quebec Environmental Law Centre on a point like that.
Can you specify—perhaps you or your counsel—the scope of the proposed changes in this independence process? Does this also involve the composition of the committee members, such as the appointment of longer-term members whose appointment would be project-specific?
How do you see the creation of a more independent body that will respect the quasi-judicial framework?
[English]
Mr. Monaco: Thank you. I’ll respond in English.
First of all, to your comment about being surprised that we agree with the previous submission, I should be clear about this. We, as a company, as an investor, a large investor in infrastructure, we will live with an independent process, whatever the decisions. I will say that, over the years, the current regulatory construct, perhaps a little bit different than the popular view, has been very thorough and tough on its companies.
So we would live with independent process and decision-making and, if that results in projects being turned down, so be it. I’d much rather live with that than the uncertainty of projects becoming politicized, because that’s simply not an environment that we can invest in.
I’ll ask Ramona to also comment on this if she wishes.
As to the membership and how we govern regulators, in my view, the key to that is the new national regulator, the CER, let’s call it for now, must have an important role to play in independence. The bill currently has the impact assessment process being led by people other than the CER, and this goes to my point around ensuring a single life-cycle regulator. A regulator who has multiple decades of experience with not just approving pipelines, but monitoring them on a day-to-day basis, ensuring safety, holding us to account, we think that’s the natural place for the independence to occur.
I would advocate for a much stronger role in the IA process, and be led, actually, by the Canadian energy regulator, given their expertise and history.
Do you have anything to add on that?
Ramona Salamucha, Senior Legal Counsel, Enbridge Inc.: The other thing to add is that we have proposed some amendments in order to support more independent and less political decision-making, and that includes the review panel’s duties in clause 51 of the IA act. In our view, it should be the agency who actually heard the evidence and listened to the witnesses, and not the government, who makes a recommendation about whether the project is ultimately in the public interest, as well as the conditions.
There is an analogous provision in the proposed CER act that does that in a much more effective way, and we’re saying that should be imported into the IA act, as well.
On the point of independent decision-making, I again would highlight the Northern Gateway experience. That is a very good example of why we need to retain an independent, quasi-judicial expert regulatory process. In that case, we had exactly the same facts, we had two different governments and two different decisions.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have an important supplementary question. You noted that the government now owns a pipeline. Do you think its really a fundamental element in terms of claiming this notion of independence? Even if the government didn’t own a pipeline, I understand that you would still have that claim.
[English]
Mr. Monaco: Thank you for the question. Just to clarify, we have no issues with the government owning a pipeline. Well, that’s probably not the long-term preference for the government either, but I think the issue was raised because, as you extend more powers to ministerial or cabinet decision-making authority, we could find ourselves in a position where we have a project that is being evaluated by the agencies and the ministers and the cabinet, when they are given discretion over that project. Obviously there could be a conflict between that position on our project and their own pipeline, which they currently own today.
That’s something we’re concerned about only in the context of Bill C-69 and the discretion that is being expanded in the bill.
Senator Pratte: Mr. Monaco, you mentioned the importance for you to have finite timelines, and in the amendments that you have proposed, there is a finite timeline, 730 days after the date on which the notice was published. You do allow one exception, and that is at the proponent’s request. The timeline could be extended on the proponent’s request.
I’m just wondering whether, in a way, it’s not unfair that you allow the proponent to have more time, if they wish to, but the government, for whatever reason they believe, could not ask for an extension.
That’s question one.
Question two is about what you mentioned earlier. I’d like you to elaborate, because in your brief you mention that the fact that the life-cycle regulator would not have a majority and would not be able to chair a review panel in that it could pose — I don’t have the exact terms — some security risks, I think you say in your brief. I’d like you to elaborate on that.
Mr. Monaco: As to the first question on timelines and the unfairness of the proponent asking for that extension, that’s purely with respect to our desire to ensure that, if there is more work that we feel we need to do — for example, additional environmental work that requires further investigation — we get some time to do that. That would be to the benefit of ensuring that we are making a full, qualified decision, and making sure the project is as safe as it can be.
In that particular case, asking for additional time to do additional work to ensure safety, to me, makes a lot of sense.
As to the life-cycle regulator and security, do you want to address that? Maybe you could just restate that question, please.
Senator Pratte: You mentioned the fact that life-cycle regulators will not be a majority on these review panels. The bill says that. Then you mention, and I quote from your brief: “This is not a trivial matter. This change has the potential to put public safety at risk, because the NEB or CER is the only administrative body with expertise,” and so on. Would you care to elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Monaco: I think everybody gets focused on major projects like Energy East and Gateway when they’re talking about the role of the IA versus the CER. What I’m concerned about is making sure that all the projects continue to have a very rigorous review, from an environmental and safety perspective.
The CER — previously the NEB, let’s call it — has so much experience in day-to-day operations, and holding us to account, and evaluating what we’re doing on a day-to-day basis. My personal view, if I was in the general public, is that I would want the most experienced regulator to be leading that process.
That’s our point of view, and that’s why we made that submission.
Senator McCallum: I have a question for each of you.
For Mr. Monaco, to keep global warming advances below the 2 per cent threshold, it has been estimated that no more than about 1 trillion metric tonnes of carbon can be added to the atmosphere. We’re now past the halfway mark, and we will pass that trillion metric tonnes mark in the 2040s.
It is important to understand that, if the total resource base of fossil fuel were burned, we would greatly exceed the 2 per cent threshold, which leads to suggestions that about 80 per cent of the known fossil fuel reserves should never be burned.
A recent report suggests that, in Canada, even with carbon capture and storage technologies in place, 74 per cent of oil reserves, 99 per cent of unconventional oil, that is, the Alberta oil sands, 71 per cent of unconventional gas reserve with hydraulic fracking, and 75 per cent of coal is unburnable.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. Monaco: Yes, I will. Let me just first say that we, as a company in particular, and I know the industry has the same view, climate change is something that we keep very close to the heart. Our strategies are designed to ensure that we’re doing what we need to do to transition. I mentioned the focus on natural gas, which can have a very significant impact on global emissions, and our efforts on investing in renewables is another very good example. My point is we’re there, we’re with you on the importance of this.
There is another side of this, though, in that it’s very clear that we are going to need more and more energy in the next 30 to 40 years. Unless you disagree that the population is going to grow by 2 billion people — that’s very clear, in the next three decades — you’re going to have more growth in the number of cities, which includes the need for more energy. As well, people are going to want to raise their standard of living in developing countries.
Energy is going to be required. The key is, how do we provide that energy in the most sustainable way? Frankly, as a Canadian I’m very proud of the fact that we develop our resources in the most sustainable way globally. In my view, what we bring to the table is an ability to help the planet reduce its emissions and reduce its intensity. That’s the role Canada can play.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Mr. Roy, you talked about resource depletion. The Public Health Agency said that renewable resources are unlikely to peak and decline, but they could peak in functional availability or because competing interests limit access to them. If this peak occurs, the cost of these resources will be driven up, making them unaffordable to the majority of people on Earth. They also said that other resources, particularly metals and fossil fuels, are non-renewable on any scale relevant to humans, and there is a finite supply of retrievable/extractable resources. They went on to say that our society may be reaching limits in the global production of many non-renewable resources and that when we have peaked in oil, gas, coal, phosphorus, uranium, minerals we will have peaked in everything.
Will you be submitting an amendment regarding this issue, the life-cycle of products?
Mr. Roy: I am unclear about which document you have been citing.
Senator McCallum: It’s from the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Mr. Roy: In terms of resource depletion, yes, resources are being depleted. We need to manage our resources to make sure that we basically have a sustainable answer to the issues and challenges that are at hand in the future.
As Mr. Monaco said, we will need more and more energy, not just us, but everywhere in the world. Energy will probably become the next battlefield in terms of everybody wanting more and more.
How we provide that energy is, in fact, the entire challenge of what we call the energy transition. How can we provide the necessary energy in the most sustainable way? Sometimes hydroelectricity will be the answer, somewhere around the world. Otherwise, it might be natural gas, or in other places it might be the sun.
We need to, in fact, look both locally and globally for answers that make sense for the energy transition itself. Resource depletion should, in fact, come into that global assessment that we’ve been talking about.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Monaco, we’ve received lots and lots of emails, and in fact one of them made me think. It starts off saying, “We need to have an adult discussion.” I say that because, when I hear you, I’m kind of worried that your expectations will not be met. We’re not the decider. We’re only going to propose amendments. However, we hear you loud and clear, we hear Canadians loud and clear, and we will try to reach the best balancing act we can.
You say, for instance, that the regulator should be the major body to do the impact study. We have heard a lot of witnesses, in fact the government also had it in its presentation, who doubt the independence of the regulator. Because they live and work with the industry players, there is a lack of trust that these people or these boards, if you wish, could be the best decision-making source to do the impact study.
I’m not the one to decide, but I don’t think we’re going to have any chance of getting that.
I make the same comment relative to your wish that the board be a highly technical, scientific-based body, and that we remove the decision-making by the politicians. That’s with changes from the previous government, 10 or 15 years ago.
To do that would require a major restructuring of the current proposal, Bill C-69. I suspect that’s also off the table, given what Canadians want. Canadians are very suspicious, and extremely sensitive about environmental issues. They need reassurance that the process will get done in a manner that is representative of our long-term interests.
The same thing applies to the judicial process. Quite a few empirical studies have shown that, where the approach is not judicial, where it is more sitting down with the public and saying, “Tell me what your plans are.” and let’s sit down and ask, “How do we get there?” Quebec does that, B.C. does that, and they produce a much faster process to get the right decision than a judicial process. That is the argument of some empirical studies.
How would you respond to my comment? I hear you, I hear your shopping list, but I’m not sure your expectations are reasonable relative to what anybody can deliver.
Mr. Monaco: Thanks for the question; I think there’s a question in there.
Let me just say generally, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our point of view. We are here to be constructive and give you our honest judgment, based upon decades of work in regulatory environments not only in Canada but everywhere. So I think we have some experience in the area.
It’s also important to realize that the current regulatory environment has had a history of success. I’ll acknowledge that there is the notion of trust being eroded in that process, but where there has been a positive impact is the governance that has been suggested for the CER. Having an independent board and ensuring that decision-making on files is kept separate. I think that’s good.
It really comes down to this: You cannot go through a regulatory process for — let me see, Gateway was a total of 10 years, and the regulatory process was four — have that regulatory process, which was independent, science-based evidence, the most extensive consultation ever, in any project. The National Energy Board concluded that we had done a great job on design. They concluded that our project was world class. They concluded that we could mitigate the effects, and it was in the public interest of Canada. That was the most rigorous independent review ever.
You can’t have $650 million spent to achieve that outcome, and then have the project cancelled.
I appreciate what you’re saying. Maybe there is too big a list. I don’t know; that’s for you to decide. We’re here to provide our point of view on the risk that we see, continuing down a road where there is public intervention or political intervention in a process where it’s been proven for decades that the independent, quasi-judicial process works quite well.
Senator Massicotte: I appreciate that and I buy that. I buy into the fact that, if you look at these studies for the last 20, 25 years, the system is broken. It’s not working well for anybody’s interest, and I think we need to get there.
Let me give you one example. Everybody says we want certainty, and we want it in efficient timelines. So the process now is that the proponent would say: “Here’s what I intend to do.” The public gets involved. The board gets involved and says, “Here’s what you have to do to get there. Here’s the evidence or the proof you have to give me to reassure me that these negative consequences are not going to occur relative to the positive consequences.”
I buy that, but then people would say, “That has to be certain. If I provide exactly that, the government or the board should be legally bound to give me the permit if I can satisfy those criteria.”
However, things change, and things happen, and technology changes. I’m not sure it can be so airtight that it is a legally binding, with an exclusive list. I suspect that Canadians would expect, if something major happens or some new invention occurs, or something happens, there to be a bit of an out there.
I hear you, but it’s not going to be sealed tight. How do you respond to that?
Mr. Monaco: It’s a good point. The issue, though, is that, when you’re making these determinations and decisions where projects in our space that live for 30, 40, 50 years, the process has to be independent because you have to be able to bridge changes in government. Iif things are going to change every three or four years, then it makes it untenable to invest in long-term infrastructure.
I appreciate the issue. Things change and we acknowledge that. However, the changes need to happen through national policy debate and legislation that sets the parameters on energy strategy. Let’s have a national energy strategy that says, “This is our climate goal, this is our social goal, and this is our economic goal, and this is how Indigenous people are going to be worked into that strategy.”
Once that is set with a very big-picture, high-level view, then we have our marching orders. Then the independent assessment can simply be evaluated relative to that policy. Right now, we’re trying to solve all the policy issues that are national and broad within the project, when I simply can’t solve all of them.
Senator Patterson: I thank you for making this presentation, Mr. Monaco. I want to endorse everything you’ve said. I agree with you that this bill is replete with litigation risks, all these new undefined criteria.
It has contributed to the lack of confidence that has resulted in the flight of investment capital in the energy sector you described. It has undermined “one project, one review” by splitting and fragmenting and staging the processes of impact review licensing and life-cycle regulations. It has politicized the process, like what happened with staggering loss to your company, and thank you for sharing that difficult story with us.
Perhaps the government should have tweaked some remaining concerns about CEAA 2012 rather than introduce a complex, 358-page change at the end of its mandate, trying to rush it through Parliament. We have a very tight time frame even to do this work, as you know.
Having said all that, I’ve got a very short question. We’ve got quite a comprehensive list of amendments produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in collaboration with the Mining Association of Canada and some other related stakeholders. As a member of CAPP, I’m wondering if, in addition to what you’ve recommended today, you would endorse the suite of amendments that have been developed by CAPP and presented to our committee?
Mr. Monaco: Well, we’re actually a member of CEPA, the Pipeline Association.
Senator Patterson: I’m sorry.
Mr. Monaco: That’s okay. They’re very consistent. Generally the associations are lined up, and that goes to my previous comment. We did a lot of consultation and discussion with not just those groups, but many groups, including investors, and so, generally speaking, they all line up.
Unless you have a different point of view on this, we’d be comfortable with, you know, moving forward on those amendments.
Ms. Salamucha: Senator, I believe the suite of amendments that you have in front of you is the set that was co-developed by CAPP and CEPA and their member companies. So we are identical.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I have a question for Mr. Monaco.
We are in a situation where energy needs are increasing. However, we are in a world, a world where people are increasingly aware of the importance of greenhouse gas emissions. The notion of social acceptability is essential when carrying out projects, as we have seen on many occasions in Quebec. I am thinking of shale gas, among other things. I’m thinking of various projects where people have really mobilized.
I asked the question earlier. The process currently in place has almost lost all credibility. It is a process that mobilizes opponents, but does not create an environment conducive to the mutual achievement of objectives in the implementation of projects, but without mortgaging the generations that follow.
When we look at Bill C-69 and the proposed amendments, do you think this new legislative environment is more favourable to industry than passing Bill C-69 with its imperfections—trying to make the most relevant amendments—but does not threaten to kill this bill?
[English]
Mr. Monaco: Thank you for the question. I will just make this comment up front. We agree with the government’s intention to improve the process related to building more trust, let’s call it; generally. I think you’re right about your observation around people’s concern and trust of the process.
We did consider that point of view, but we came to the conclusion that, when you really look at the bill in its entirety and the stated goal, which, we would agree, is to improve the process, it doesn’t get there.
We’re at a point where we’ve put forward some amendments that we think would at least make it workable if I can put it that way. However, let’s also remember one thing. The issues around trust and around the regulatory process have to be acknowledged. If you look at the two major projects that are in contention, Northern Gateway and more recently Trans Mountain, the regulatory process and the environmental review was extremely rigorous. That’s not what hung them up or is hanging them up. It has to do with federal government consultation on Indigenous matters. That’s the legal angle that’s been successful in both of those cases, interestingly enough.
As in investor and a builder of infrastructure, we were comfortable with the current process; however, we acknowledge that there could be some improvements. We have to focus on what are those best improvements? And let’s not go backwards and create more opportunities for even more litigation, more politicization.
I’m with you that, you know, we could improve, but there are serious issues with what’s in here in terms of the goal the government set.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses.
[Translation]
Now, for our fourth group, from the Montreal Economic Institute, we have Daniel Dufort, Director of External Relations. He is accompanied by Germain Belzile, Senior Research Associate. We also have Équiterre, represented by Sidney Ribaux, Co-founder and General Manager, and Caroline Brouillette, Public Policy Researcher.
Mr. Dufort, if you’d like to start.
Daniel Dufort, Director of External Relations, Montreal Economic Institute: Thank you very much for having us here today. Thank you to the committee and its members.
The MEI has been involved in the oil and gas sector for several years. We have had the opportunity to conduct several studies on this subject and to intervene frequently in the media in this regard. For the sake of complete transparency, I would point out that approximately 5.5 per cent of the institute’s funding comes from this economic sector.
In 2017, the oil and gas industry accounted for about 240,000 direct jobs in Canada, 10 per cent of GDP and one-third of capital spending in Canada. However, the complexity and unpredictability of the Canadian regulatory framework, as well as the proposed amendments, have contributed to the leakage of some investments from aborted projects, some of which were approved by the regulator and then rejected by politicians, and all of this leads to a more difficult economic situation in the west of the country.
The approval times we see in Canada are longer than those in countries that are competitors of Canada, such as the United States, except California, which is an exception to the rule, but this is a fairly significant handicap for our industry compared to these most direct competitors.
So, there are pragmatic and practical solutions that can be implemented, put forward to overcome these problems. My colleague, Mr. Belzile, can tell you more about it.
Germain Belzile, Senior Research Associate, Montreal Economic Institute: Thank you, Daniel. And thank you very much to the committee.
So I think it’s appropriate now to talk about the real Canadian disadvantage when we talk about the current regulatory framework. In the case of a project such as Trans Mountain, it would have taken more than eight years from the tabling of the project to the government’s decision on its admissibility. Other projects such as Northern Gateway may receive approval from the regulator and then be denied by the government. In fact, 79 months after the project was tabled, there was a cancellation by the federal government.
These exceptional situations, delays and situations are harmful to the Canadian economy, industry and our workers. We surveyed Quebecers through Léger, and I think many people are already aware of the results of these surveys. The vast majority of Quebecers prefer to use oil from western Canadian over imported oil, and a clear majority of Quebecers prefer that this oil be transported by pipeline rather than by other means. There is really a clear advantage to pipelines, according to Quebecers.
We therefore propose some concrete measures to guide your reflection. First, when the deadlines set out in the act are exceeded by the regulatory body, it would have to face budgetary sanctions. This already exists in other countries. In the United States, in particular, penalties are already provided for by law when maximum time limits given to regulatory agencies are exceeded. Sanctions are imposed on regulatory bodies.
Second, the discretion of politicians to block a project once it has received all necessary approvals should be eliminated. In our opinion, it is inconceivable that we could go through the entire approval process and have it cancelled at the very end, a bit like what happened with Northern Gateway, in fact. This creates an extremely high level of uncertainty that is very, very detrimental to investment. In recent years, we have seen Canadian investment, foreign investment in Canada, decline sharply.
In the United States, the process is becoming less politicized, while the role of the Secretary of State, for example, has been removed in decisions regarding several processes. Here, it potentially becomes more politicized with this bill.
Third, the rules of the game shouldn’t change along the way, as was the case in the Eastern Energy file. So this is really a deal breaker for us. If a bona fide company can spend hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, in a process, and be told along the way that the rules have changed—for example, because greenhouse gas emissions are incorporated not only in the transportation of oil, but over the entire life cycle—then the rules of the game are significantly changed here, and it should not be in legislation.
Fourth, companies should be compensated for damages caused by late delivery, in proportion to the overrun. The logic behind this proposal is quite simple. Just as citizens face consequences when they don’t meet the deadlines set by the government, for example, with respect to their tax returns, the same obligation should be imposed on the government when it doesn’t meet its own deadlines. Compensation should be paid to people who are harmed by this.
So I think that’s a pretty good trick. I would like to conclude by saying that, basically, anything that creates significant and unnecessary uncertainty should be set aside in the project. I think many elements of the bill need to be reviewed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Sidney Ribaux, Co-founder and General Manager, Équiterre: Hello. I would like to point out that I am accompanied by Caroline Brouillette, who is a principal researcher with us at Équiterre and who is following the energy file.
Senators, I hesitate to thank you for the invitation to testify today. The point of view I am about to express is essentially a point of view that the debate on environmental assessment and Bill C-69 have made. Your responsibility as senators is to adopt it at this point in the debate. I will explain myself a little in the comments that follow.
Keep in mind that Bill C-38—which was passed as an omnibus bill in the Harper government’s 2012 budget—had significantly weakened environmental assessment in Canada, not to mention that it had cut into Canada’s environmental assessment laws. These major changes to the legislation were adopted in three months, with no possibility of amendment and no public consultation.
We suffered the negative consequences of these changes over the next eight years, and we are still governed in Canada by these laws.
In relation to Bill C-69 before you today, an exemplary three-year consultation process was conducted. A four-person expert panel on environmental assessment processes that visited 21 municipalities; an expert panel on the modernization of the National Energy Board; a multi-stakeholder advisory committee composed of representatives from industry, environmental groups, indigenous peoples to provide advice to the Minister of the Environment; the House of Commons committee that received over 250 written submissions and heard from several witnesses on the Navigable Waters Act; an online consultation of the government’s discussion paper entitled Review of Environmental and Regulatory Assessment Processes: proposed approach. The House of Commons committee that reviewed the bill in spring 2018 heard from more than 100 witnesses and made several amendments.
You will agree that between the two processes, there is one, it seems to me, where sufficient consultation has taken place. We have therefore all had ample opportunity to express our views as organizations, citizens, researchers, industries, and other experts.
It should also be mentioned that representatives of various industries have been at the table since the beginning, so the bill before you is the result of long negotiations and compromises. It is thus ready to be adopted.
The bill fills, among other things, a major gap in the previous environmental assessment process, again, which was amended in 2012 and gave the National Energy Board responsibility for environmental assessments. This organization has a clear lack of impartiality and expertise in this area. The National Energy Board’s decisions have been the subject of numerous legal appeals and have delayed several projects.
The new Energy Board proposed by Bill C-69 is an improved mechanism that will prevent such conflicts of interest, and will no longer be able to lead environmental review panels.
This is 2019. The science of climate change is no longer contested by anyone. The United Nations Secretary-General recently sent us the message that we have 12 years to reverse the trend on greenhouse gas emissions. On March 15—you’ll also hear about this this afternoon, but I think it is important to say it—1.5 million students in 125 countries, from 2,000 cities around the world, went on strike to protest against governments’ inaction on climate change. Of this 1.5 million students, 150,000 were in Quebec, that’s 150,000 high school and CEGEP students who did not attend their classes to protest the inaction of governments.
The contribution of a project to GHG emissions is therefore essential in the evaluation of a project and in relation to its obligations under the Paris Agreement, in particular. So, the elements in the bill that lead us to what could be called a climate test are not the proposal of Équiterre or environmental groups, but the result of a compromise of the entire consultation process I told you about.
I will conclude by telling you that Canadians expect much more from their government on climate change. The next generation in particular will not forgive us if we don’t act on the issue of climate change and the environment, and Bill C-69 is one of the elements that this government must adopt. Your responsibility as senators is to pass it without further amendments. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now move on to questions.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you for your presentations. I’ll direct my questions to the Montreal Institute.
Social licence is a term that is often thrown around; social licence to build pipelines, social licence to do many things. Of course, North America is honeycombed with pipelines, particularly eastern and central North America. Quebec has lots of pipelines, and a lot of petroleum coming west to east, now, to Quebec. A lot more petroleum has been coming in the last few years. It doesn’t seem to have affected the people in Quebec much; they don’t seem to respond to it very differently.
Many of the media and spokespeople who put their views out front all the time say, “This is what Quebec wants.” Then I see in Quebec a lot of people who are practical, full of common sense, who want a good way of life.
When I look at figures from Quebec in terms of support for pipelines, support for use of Canadian oil, they seem to show a great deal of broad support. I’m just wondering if you can reflect on that opinion and share your views.
Mr. Belzile: Thank you for your question, senator. I believe that there is a big problem with the whole concept of social licence. In fact, I’ve never seen a clear definition of what it means that is accepted by a majority of people.
I further believe that, let’s say, a minority but a very vocal minority of people are heard in Quebec on the subject, and also that a clear majority of Quebeckers are not completely opposed to new pipelines in Quebec. In fact, I think it’s a question of where to build them, how to do the whole process. Perhaps energy corridors would be a good idea; it’s an idea that’s up in the air right now.
Basically I don’t think that there is a big problem with social licence in Quebec, and I don’t believe that social licence should be included in the law.
We’ve attained very high standards of living in the west. I’m not talking about Western Canada, here; I’m talking about “l’occident,” Western civilization. A lot of people maintain that it’s, in large part, because of the rule of law. We’ve included the rule of law in our constitutions, in the laws of different countries. Including social licence in laws breaks the rule of law, in fact, because it creates a lot of discretion and anything can go with this concept. In fact, it can justify any action by governments.
I think we should stay very far from the whole concept of social licence. Elections are there to demonstrate what people want. If they don’t like government policy, well, they’ll elect someone else.
I don’t think that processes that should be fair, that should be clear, should include fuzzy terms such as “social licence.”
Senator MacDonald: I have a question for Mr. Ribaux. First, there are probably a couple of things we do agree on. On the East Coast of Canada, we manage about 283 million metric tonnes of petroleum, heavy petroleum, every year. About half of that is around Newfoundland, both exported and imported. About 100 million of that goes up the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the St. Laurence Seaway, the estuary, and all of it goes through Nova Scotia’s water.
You can’t get oil here by ship without going through our water. We get no benefit. We take the risk, but we get no benefit. You get the economic benefit, which is fine with us.
Let’s say we want to take this oil out of the water, which I would like to see happen. Refineries in Quebec need oil. The safest way to get it there would be to bring it by pipeline, as it’s coming now. Would you support getting rid of the oil that flows into Quebec through the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence estuary, and replacing it with pipelined oil from Western Canada?
Mr. Ribaux: I’m not sure I see the link with the bill before us, but I can answer the question with pleasure.
Right now in Quebec we have excess pipeline capacity for our needs. The Quebec needs are about 300 million barrels per day, and we have about three times that capacity coming both from the West and from the East Coast directly to Quebec.
The position of Équiterre, and most environmental groups in Canada, is not to say that we need to stop using oil tomorrow morning. Our position is that we need to stop producing more. We need to plateau the production and eventually go down in terms of production. As you build pipelines, if you’re not building pipelines for existing capacity, for existing production capacity, you’re building pipelines for new capacity.
Senator MacDonald: That wasn’t my question.
Mr. Ribaux: I’m sorry.
Senator MacDonald: We’re sharing risk with Quebeckers for your benefit. We don’t mind sharing the risk for your benefit, but we’d prefer to get the oil out of the water, out of the Gulf.
Mr. Ribaux: I’m sorry; you’re right. I agree with you. Let’s get it out of the water and let’s put it in the existing pipelines.
Senator MacDonald: So you’d rather get the oil coming through —
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re going to pass to the next question. Senator McCallum, please.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. My question is for Mr. Dufort, and it’s the question I asked Al Monaco.
To keep global warming advances below the 2 per cent threshold, it has been estimated that no more than 1 trillion metric tonnes of carbon can be added to the atmosphere, and we are already past that mark. Iif we persist, we will pass a trillion metric tonnes in the 2040s.
It is important to understand that, if the total resource base of fossil fuel were burned, we would greatly exceed the 2 degrees Centigrade threshold, which leads to suggestions that about 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves should never be burned.
A recent report suggests that, in Canada, even with carbon capture and storage technologies in place, 74 per cent of oil reserves, 99 per cent of unconventional oil, that is, Alberta’s oil sands, 71 per cent of unconventional gas reserves, that is, hydraulic fracking, and 75 per cent of coal is unburnable.
This unburnable carbon becomes a stranded asset and represents a major liability for the fossil fuel industry, and those who invest in it, notably pension funds.
Could you comment on that?
[Translation]
Mr. Dufort: Thank you very much for your question, Madam Senator.
I don’t think anyone questions the urgency of taking action on climate change. The question is rather about which means are the most effective. What we see with a bill like this is that we are trying to limit the means of production, and therefore affect energy supply rather than tackle the problem, which is demand, since supply will come from here or it will come from elsewhere. It won’t change and will always meet demand.
Then it is with technological progress that we want to tackle the issue of demand for more polluting energy sources rather than by tackling the issue of energy supply.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Mercer: I want to continue Senator MacDonald’s line of questioning.
I’m a little frustrated about this whole deal. The former mayor of Montreal, Mr. Coderre, publicly opposed Energy East and publicly opposed any pipeline going through Quebec to Atlantic Canada. He didn’t oppose equalization payments that are generated by Alberta’s sale of oil being sent to Quebec City to be distributed across Quebec. He didn’t object to that.
What I fail to understand is why the official stance of Quebeckers is that they are against Energy East, when, if Energy East went ahead, we would be taking Alberta oil and moving it to tidewater. We would be selling Alberta oil to the world. We would be selling Alberta oil at world prices, not at the discounted prices that we sell to the Americans. We would be bringing Alberta oil to the largest refinery in the county, in Saint John, New Brunswick.
By the way, we learned yesterday in talking to people from Irving that one of their big suppliers of oil to them is Hibernia from Newfoundland and Labrador. So they’re willing to do business with Canadian companies, but why the blockade? We can get it there by train, but I think we should poll the people in Lac-Mégantic and ask them how they would vote on a pipeline. I suspect that they’d be the first in line.
I also don’t understand why the mayor of Montreal was against jobs for Quebeckers to build the pipeline, was against jobs for Aboriginal Quebeckers to help maintain pipelines that cross their land. I don’t understand the short-sightedness of, “Yes, bring us the oil to Montreal to our refineries, but the rest of you, we’re not worried about the rest of you.”
I want to ask a very simple question: If we were able to get the Alberta oil to tidewater and to sell it to other customers, who are buying it from somebody else anyway, at world prices, that means that Alberta is making more money. When Alberta makes more money, guess what, there’s more money in equalization payments. Guess who gets the equalization payments? The five Eastern provinces get paid, and that includes the province of Quebec.
I fail to understand the short-term —
The Chair: Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: Can somebody please explain it to me?
The Chair: I don’t know if there was a question, but who wants to address that statement?
Mr. Ribaux: What I would simply say on this is, just for the information of the senator, Équiterre is an environmental group with members who are mostly from Quebec, but obviously we do not represent either the City of Montreal, or the ex-mayor of Montreal, or the government of Quebec, or the Premier, or anybody else. I can’t speak for those people.
What I can say is the bill that’s before you is not a bill to say we don’t want to build new infrastructure, although that would be our position, and I think that’s the position of science right now in terms of fossil fuel infrastructure. That’s not what the bill says. What the bill says is here are some criteria, some rigorous criteria to evaluate future projects and to look at, for example, in my opinion, not a very strong analysis of what the implications are for climate and for our international engagements.
It doesn’t say that we’re not going to build infrastructure for the oil and gas industry. Personally, I would like it to say that, but it doesn’t. But we still feel that it’s a step in the right direction, and it’s an improvement on the previous legislation that we had in terms of federal environmental assessment.
Mr. Belzile: Maybe I can add something. I share the views of the senator. I am surprised, in fact, that there is no major opposition to oil production or oil transport in most developed countries, in fact. Norway, for example, no problem with that. I don’t see many environmentalists opposing that, either.
Alberta is simply a very, let’s say, easy target, because it doesn’t have access to tidewater. I think that we should not, in principle, put ourselves in a difficult situation regarding oil, because, as my colleague Daniel Dufort said, the problem is not production, because what will not be produced in Alberta will be produced somewhere else. That production is increasing very quickly in the United States and in many other areas. It’s demand that is the problem, and the solution also.
The solution will not come from opposition to pipelines and other infrastructure, but it will come from technological progress.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: My question is for both groups of witnesses. This morning we heard testimony from the Quebec Minister of the Environment who proposed several amendments that, if we understand what he told us, are intended to protect Quebec’s constitutional jurisdiction, but above all to provide leadership—almost in all the projects that would be studied—to the Government of Quebec, the Quebec process and the BAPE on the federal process, even when federal jurisdictions are involved.
So, I would like to know from the witnesses if such amendments are necessary and justified. I know, Mr. Ribaux, that you recommended that it be adopted without amendment, but we have some amendment proposals before us, so I would like to know what you think.
Mr. Ribaux: First, I must tell you that we agree on the principle of “one project, one evaluation”, obviously to the extent that it takes into account both the acts and regulations of the two levels of government. Our analysis is that the bill allows this and does not prevent, for example, that there be an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa that, upstream, identifies which projects would be subject to a joint assessment or would even be delegated to Quebec.
In our opinion, this bill does not prevent the ultimate objective expressed by the Government of Quebec, which is to ensure that, for citizens and organizations such as ours, and for companies, we do not go through two, three, four, five environmental assessment and consultation processes for a single project.
Mr. Dufort: On the MEI side, we also agree with the principle of having a single evaluation. That being said, we have no opposition as an institute to the issue of the division of powers. Thank you very much.
Senator Pratte: Mr. Ribaux, quickly, you say that the bill in its current form could meet the wishes of the Government of Quebec. There is an alternative mechanism provided for in the bill, but in Quebec City they seem to believe that this process would lead to a kind of evaluation of a project that is supervised by the federal government, at least we are told that it is past experience that instructs them in this regard.
You believe that the substitution process provided for in Bill C-69 would allow the two governments to agree on “one project, one assessment”?
Mr. Ribaux: Yes.
Senator Simons: I think my questions are almost the same as Senator Pratte’s, but I’ll ask them anyway.
This morning, we heard Minister Benoit Charette tell us that Quebec should have the power to conduct the majority of evaluations. He said that this province must have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate assessment regime for projects that fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction.
Do you have the same confidence in provincial plans or do you prefer the plan proposed by Bill C-69?
Mr. Ribaux: Well, if it’s a question of whether we trust the Quebec environmental assessment process, the answer is yes. It’s not a perfect process—mistakes happen—but it’s a process that generates quite a lot of trust. In Quebec, and for our part, because we have participated in several processes, it is a rigorous process that allows us to hear from citizens, experts, organizations and the industry’s point of view. So it’s a process we have confidence in, just as we would have confidence in the process that would emerge from the bill before us.
We believe that, whether it is one or the other or a combination of the two, as long as all the elements are well evaluated and all federal and provincial laws are considered, it is easier for the company to have a single process.
It is also easier for citizens to participate in a single improved process. The pipeline project with a liquefied natural gas plant that is under way is considered two projects and potentially three projects, since it also involves maritime transport. In that case, this project could be subject to six environmental assessments. This is a huge and extremely complex project for both sides involved in the debate. So we agree with simplifying the process.
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Ribaux.
I just want to understand. Of course, when you testify, when you make remarks, you can add a little more. I understand that. I’ve made remarks. However, it’s time to consider bills, identify and pass amendments and then return them to the House, and that is our primary responsibility as senators.
We’ve heard from hundreds of witnesses. We’ve had hundreds of proposed amendments to improve the bill, including from environmental groups, groups from the Government of Quebec—which are all playing their full role in protecting the environment—witnesses such as Mr. Côté, in order to review the definition of sustainability and how we can improve all this.
However, you tell us today, in about one sentence, that your responsibility is not to amend it, but to adopt it as is. I have the impression that you are telling us that our responsibility is to abdicate our responsibility.
I feel a contradiction in everything we have heard. Can you just tell us more about it and, please, reassure me that this was not what you meant?
Mr. Ribaux: My concern is the democracy in which we live. There was a bill, again in 2012, that was butchered. A government appeared before Canadians and said that it would reinstate this environmental legislation.
There was an extremely democratic and comprehensive process that was led by the government and the House of Commons to come to the bill.
We are a few weeks away from the end of the parliamentary session, and obviously the fear we have is that the bill will die on the Order Paper. The fear we have is this tour you’re doing and the extent of your consultation. I’m not saying that you didn’t have to study it, make amendments or do the work you had to do as senators. That’s not what I’m saying.
What I’m saying is that once the deadlines have passed, and given the role of the Senate in relation to the role of elected members of the House of Commons, you can’t ensure that a bill like this one, which is essential to the government’s mandate, which is fundamental to the commitments made by this majority elected government, will die on the Order Paper.
That’s our point of view. That is our major concern, which is why we do not think the bill is perfect. What we’re telling you is that we’ve had a number of opportunities to make our comments. People have had a number of opportunities to make comments, and the government and the House of Commons have presented you with a draft.
So the concern is about the delays.
Senator Carignan: Your comments are reassuring. What you’re saying is: “Do your job, but please don’t delay since we don’t want the bill to die on the order paper. If there are amendments to be made, make them, but do so quickly so that the House of Commons can vote on them.” Whether this bill receives royal assent in its original or amended form, you want it to be passed before the election.
Mr. Ribaux: Yes.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: I would like to add a few comments, and then I will wrap things up with you, Mr. Ribaux. Mr. Dufort, I agree with you. We are mixing demand and supply, and we are mixing the issue of pipelines, thinking that building one more or one less pipeline will not change consumption because supply is global. There is no shortage of oil.
Mr. Ribaux, you made a comment that politicians are not ambitious enough, not aggressive enough to take the necessary measures. I believe that politicians want to win the next election, and that they must represent public opinion.
That said, the dilemma I have, and that I often think about, is that I believe that we will not achieve our global CO2 targets. We’re already behind. The Auditor General said so. This is serious. This is perhaps the biggest challenge for our generation. I am almost certain that the targets will not be achieved, and there will be very serious consequences.
I am trying to understand why people do not believe it. Perhaps they don’t believe the Auditor General. Who do they not believe? Why aren’t we more ambitious? Do we have a communication problem? How do you explain the fact that we’re heading straight for a wall at 100 miles an hour with a smile on our faces?
Mr. Ribaux: That’s a very big question. How much time do you have? How much time are you giving me, Madam Chair?
Senator Massicotte: One minute.
Mr. Ribaux: Yes, one minute.
First, change is difficult for everyone, individuals and governments, as well as society. The proposed and necessary changes in terms of climate change are significant and affect many people.
Clearly, they affect many people in the west, where they are very dependent on fossil fuel and where science increasingly tells us that we must clearly stop producing more and eventually produce less.
Second, there are vested interests in the status quo. A lot of work is being done at all sorts of levels, including public opinion, to ensure that we maintain the status quo for as long as possible. This is the argument of many people who believe that climate change should be seriously challenged and who say: “What difference will Canada make? We might as well sell our oil for as long as possible, make as much money as possible, before selling oil and gas becomes completely prohibited.”
That’s what many people think. Unfortunately, this viewpoint does not hold up scientifically. If everyone on the planet says that, well, we won’t tackle climate change.
Clearly, the consumption side must be tackled, but so must the production side. That’s what science tells us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is composed of all countries that have a scientific academy. They meet and reach consensus on environmental issues. According to them, to avoid the worst-case scenarios, we must reduce our consumption of natural gas, oil and coal by 2030. Yet in Canada, we are in the process of increasing gas and oil production.
So we’re not going in the right direction. Clearly, if I were a producer of gas, accountable to my shareholders, I would do everything I can to try to sell gas for as long as possible. But that is not in the public interest.
Senator Carignan: I have a supplementary. Can I do that?
The Chair: No. Now I have to give the floor to Senator Miville-Dechêne for the last question.
Senator Carignan: Are you going to make a connection with what the president of Enbridge said earlier?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, I have another question.
I want to hear a little bit about Quebec in relation to Alberta. I visited the port of Montreal yesterday, and it was quite interesting to see that, well, a lot of oil goes through the port of Montreal, but Quebec also refines the oil that goes to Ontario.
So, not only are we taking care of our own oil, because we consume a lot of it—we like our 4x4s—but we are also refining Ontario’s oil. So I want to hear what you have to say about that, because, first of all, I was not aware of it, and second, we are not only participating fully in the consumption, but we are helping our neighbours to consume without them refining their own oil.
Mr. Ribaux: Well, I have a couple of things to say about that. Once again, very few environmental groups are saying that we must immediately dismantle the refining and transportation infrastructure. That’s not the rhetoric. The rhetoric is that we must stop building new ones, because the new infrastructure will last 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, and clearly, we must cut down once again.
In terms of climate, it makes no difference whether oil is refined in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary or Halifax. Greenhouse gas emissions are emitted. So, environmentally speaking, there is no impact. The emissions do have an impact on the climate.
One of the things we did was to work with unions and companies on examining the impact of an energy transition on the workforce in Quebec, a transition that would help us meet our targets.
Clearly, in Quebec, one impact is on refining and shipping oil. So we’ll have to start thinking about that. Even in Quebec, where it is not a huge part, but it’s still a part, of the economy, we have to start thinking about that. People in that industry are starting to think about how, for example, they will retrain the workforce as we shift towards an increasingly carbon-free economy.
Of course, it is easier to think about that in Quebec than in Alberta, that’s for sure. However, they must also talk about it in Alberta, as difficult as it may be as a conversation. I think they’re going to have to have that conversation out west too.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This brings our meeting to a close.
(The committee adjourned.)