Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 56 - Evidence - February 26, 2019
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 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 6:27 p.m. to give consideration to the bill ; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
[Translation]
My name is Rosa Galvez. I am an independent senator representing Quebec, and the chair of this committee.
[English]
I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Quebec.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Tkachuk: David Tkachuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell, Alberta.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
The Chair: I will also take the advantage to introduce the clerk of the committee, Maxime Fortin; and the analysts from the library, Jesse Good and Sam Banks.
Colleagues, tonight 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, we welcome from the Government of Ontario, the Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. Thank you very much for being with us.
I invite to you proceed with your opening remarks, your statement, after which we will go to a question and answer period.
Hon. Greg Rickford, M.P.P., Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Government of Ontario: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s great to be here, a special shout out to some alma mater here. I was reading the bios of several senators who hail from McGill University and yourself from Université Laval.
Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair, and committee members. It’s a pleasure to be here to discuss how Bill C-69 and, in particular, the proposed impact assessment would affect the critically important role energy infrastructure and mining plays in the lives of Canadians, in the country’s economy and for my purposes in our beautiful province of Ontario.
I’m here to ensure the committee is aware of the very serious concerns the province of Ontario has, to give a voice to the people, communities and industries that will be potentially negatively affected by this bill.
The Government of Ontario has embarked upon an ambitious plan to create and protect jobs for families in our province, keep more money in their pockets, and to open Ontario for business. Economic growth and opportunity is at the heart of this plan. I believe it will provide good jobs for hard-working families, our Indigenous communities, northern Ontarians and across, of course, our vast and beautiful province. Resource development will play a major part of this growth agenda.
However, Ontario strongly believes that Bill C-69, as it is currently written, falls woefully short of the necessary balance between environmental protection and economic competitiveness in developing Canada’s and Ontario’s natural resources.
This bill, colleagues, carries the real potential to jeopardize the forward momentum our government in Ontario is building on behalf of families and businesses across the province.
Ontario’s concerns about Bill C-69 are similar to those raised by other provinces as well as key energy and mining industry associations. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, the Ontario Mining Association and others have consistently raised concerns about regulatory uncertainty, unclear timelines and processes and the additional regulatory and cost burden Bill C-69 could and would impose on industry.
We believe that Bill C-69, in its current form, contradicts several of Canada’s economic goals, and could potentially grind to a halt natural resource and economic development in Ontario.
Madam Chair, I’d like to take a few moments to talk specifically about how the pipeline, nuclear and mining industries will be affected by this bill.
Let me begin with the pipeline industry. The Canadian economy is reliant on inter-provincial energy infrastructure such as pipelines to deliver energy to Canadians and facilitate Canada’s ability to compete in a global marketplace.
Pipelines create good jobs in Ontario and across the country. They are important sources of revenue for many of our isolated and remote sections of northern Ontario. They facilitate the greater use of Canadian oil versus foreign imports. They are important base infrastructure for our intentions to expand pipeline infrastructure throughout the province.
In our 2018 fall economic statement, Ontario committed to supporting economic development in other provinces and supporting our partners looking to expand oil pipeline distribution. We have abandoned our powers to veto pipelines of national interest. We support our friends in Alberta. We believe that this is an important part of Canada’s economic development. It’s good for Ontario, it’s good for Canada.
Ontario is concerned that, if passed as currently drafted, Bill C-69 would make it impossible to build new or replace existing pipelines. Such a result would hamper resource development and delivery and would present dire consequences for Canada’s economy and Ontario’s economic growth.
Let’s examine the considerable challenges this legislation would present for our very important nuclear power industry and Ontario’s world-class nuclear assets.
Nuclear power is a critical part of Ontario’s electricity system. It accounts for the majority of energy produced in the province. It heats our homes. It heats our industries. It generates power for our industries. Ontario believes that nuclear energy projects should continue to be regulated on the basis of their safety and environmental impact by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which has the required and important specialized expertise and is a world-renowned regulator.
The CNSC has a successful track record of ensuring the safety of the public and the environment and widely consults with the public as well as Indigenous communities when conducting its assessments.
Ontario is deeply concerned that Bill C-69 will serve as a forum to debate Ontario’s nuclear energy policy, an area of sole provincial jurisdiction, while diminishing the effectiveness of the CNSC’s regulatory authority over nuclear projects and their safety.
Furthermore, the significant regulatory burdens imposed by Bill C-69 through additional process requirements and uncertain timelines could stall the development of new and innovative nuclear technologies such as the next generation small modular reactors or SMRs that Ontario is hopeful we can showcase as this new strategic business unit in our nuclear portfolio.
Ontario believes nuclear energy projects should be outside the purview of Bill C-69 and remain solely subject to environmental assessment and regulation by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
With respect to the mining sector, similar concerns with Bill C-69 exist. The province is a leader in mineral exploration and production, with exploration spending totalling about $593 million in 2018, a year-over-year increase of 13 per cent.
As Canada’s number one mineral producer, Ontario generated $9.9 billion worth of minerals in 2017.
The province’s mineral wealth is generated by its 39 underground and surface operations which include 29 metal mines and 10 non-metal mines. Ontario’s mining industry creates more than 26,000 direct and 50,000 indirect jobs.
Mining is the second largest private sector employer of Indigenous people in Canada and the third largest in Ontario.
Mining, as you have heard no doubt from other participants in this process, plays a major role in Ontario’s economy and holds great importance for families and businesses across the province, most notably in northern Ontario, and most importantly, from where I hail in Kenora, northwestern Ontario.
Uncertainty is a deterrent and a barrier to investment. Ontario’s mineral sector, including mining, mineral processing and Toronto’s mining and financial sector, is indeed the capital of the world and will celebrate that very soon at PDAC. It relies on confidence and regulatory certainty. Regulatory uncertainty and delays disrupt the mining cycle which may result in compromised opportunities for years to come.
Mining activities in Ontario are already subject to the federal environmental process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012. In Ontario, there are no environmental assessment requirements specifically for a mine itself. However, many of the permits needed for the various components of mineral development projects, such as Crown land dispositions, new transmission lines, new or upgraded road access, are subject to what we call class environmental assessment requirements from different ministries within the Ontario government.
Many project proponents choose to voluntarily submit their proposed projects to the requirements of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act to streamline the class environmental assessment requirements.
This also allows the federal and provincial environmental assessment processes to be better coordinated and aligned, where possible. The importance of alignment between the federal and provincial requirements, including timelines, factors for consideration, assessing and addressing cumulative effects, is critical to providing more certainty and timely decision-making.
The Ontario Mining Association, the Mining Association of Canada, and the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada are also seeking assurances that a transition mechanism will be in place to ensure projects currently undergoing a federal environmental assessment be allowed to continue under the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012. We support them.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, I’d like to thank the committee for the invitation to appear today and for the opportunity to highlight Ontario’s serious concerns with this proposed legislation. I have outlined our government’s recommendations specific to the pipeline, nuclear and mining industries, and have submitted them as a supplemental document for the committee’s consideration.
In closing, I’d like to reiterate that Ontario believes the shortcomings contained within Bill C-69 are potentially significant and systemic.
We believe that if passed in its current form, Bill C-69 would, potentially, stymie economic growth and competitiveness, kill jobs and rob hard-working Ontario families of the opportunities they have a right to access.
It lacks the necessary regulatory certainty and disciplined timelines to foster confidence in the approval process for federally regulated energy infrastructure and mining projects.
Our government clearly recognizes the importance of protecting the environment. We must do so in a way that supports both Ontario’s and Canada’s competitiveness and does not sacrifice the important priorities of job creation, economic development and growth in the North for our Indigenous communities.
Thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair and committee members. As M.P.P. for the great Kenora—Rainy River, it is a privilege and honour to serve my constituents. In my capacity as Minister of Energy, Mines, Northern Development and Indigenous Affairs in Ontario, it is also an honour to serve you. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Rickford.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you, Minister Rickford, for being here today.
It is interesting you touched upon three areas, pipelines, nuclear and mining. We had had Frank Saunders the vice-president of nuclear oversight and regulatory affairs of Bruce Power. He spoke to our committee. To quote him:
To put it simply, there is no doubt in our minds that the process under Bill C-69 will significantly extend the approval process.
I wonder if you could elaborate on the consequences for Ontario if the approval process for nuclear projects is significantly extended.
Mr. Rickford: Our main focus with respect to nuclear assets is, of course, safety. We believe there are a couple of striking features about our nuclear assets and our nuclear sector. They are world class. They are the benchmark and standard bearer for many of the safety accomplishments that they’ve had. We have significant refurbishment programs under way. There may be more in the future. As I said in my prepared remarks, we have an opportunity to develop small modular reactors. These have applications, potentially in remote parts of Canada and around the world. We believe that Ontario’s advances in the nuclear sector are a great proxy for our success in introducing an SMR that we could put out to market.
These would be subject to this bill. We believe that in addition to providing timeline uncertainty that the shift, if you will, of some of the expertise presiding over these decisions falls outside of the traditional safety and security that the CNSC and — to the full credit of the Canadian nuclear association and its members — are fixated upon every single day for the safety of Ontarians.
This is a major source of energy for Ontario. We believe those assets are ours. We respect the federal jurisdiction related to security matters and the like. Obviously I’ve been involved in nuclear in my previous capacity as a federal minister, but it’s important to understand that we want the right to be able to develop these projects safely, refurbish them with the commissions that we have relied on over a great period of time and have delivered for us consistently.
Senator MacDonald: You’ve highlighted this encroachment on provincial jurisdiction, provincial authority, when it comes to the authority of the CNSC. What the federal government is proposing, I believe, is to take the authority away from the provincial government to conduct assessments of the designated projects.
What is the Government of Ontario’s opinion of that?
Mr. Rickford: We have an advanced and sophisticated commission in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. These people are experts that provide, uniquely, over assets that are largely confined to Ontario. We have nuclear capacity specifically cyclotron and medical isotope production in different parts of Canada. There have been some great accomplishments over the years in nuclear technology, particularly with respect to medicine in other parts of the country.
Unlike other provinces, Ontario’s majority of electricity supply derives from nuclear assets. We believe the safety and security of those assets is well in hand taken care of by the CNSC. We don’t see a benefit, from a safety perspective, by moving this and shifting this out into an impact assessment agency that would not have the historical frame of reference, even if it was a shared agency in terms of the board’s composition for a given project.
These are operated successfully. As I said, they are world-class safety standards. We would like to keep it that way.
Senator MacDonald: One quick question or second round?
The Chair: Second round.
Mr. Rickford: How do you get to second round with this many committee members? My goodness. I’ve never seen so many committee members in my life.
Senator Cordy: Welcome back to Ottawa, Mr. Rickford. It’s nice to have you here. Although I’m sure Senator Mockler would disagree with your opinion on where the best nuclear power plant would be. I’m sure he will say it’s New Brunswick.
Mr. Rickford: We like that asset as well. We’re pretty proud of our friends in New Brunswick.
Senator Cordy: I was quite surprised by your concerns about provincial federal jurisdiction. In fact, I asked that question a couple of meetings ago to officials who were there. I was assured that the assessment act is going to be focused on removing duplication and working with other provinces toward the shared objective of one project, one review, which is what they’re saying.
Further, under section 64.1 of the impact assessment act, the minister can only, the federal minister, establish conditions on effects within federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the federal government will make a decision based on its own authority, its own jurisdiction, and the provincial government will do likewise, based on their jurisdiction and authority.
When I asked the question, I got an answer in addition to that. I asked for further information. I feel very comfortable the federal/provincial jurisdictional aspect is taken care of within this bill, but you seem to feel otherwise. I wonder if you would speak about where you think that it will be — that you’re afraid that the federal government jurisdiction will take over, because it’s specific under section 64.1 of the impact assessment act.
Mr. Rickford: Let me make a couple of comments as brief as I can be on this subject.
Obviously, I’ve already spoken to our profile of assets that we believe are ours and how they are already dealt with in a very responsible, safe manner through the existing commissions and the regulatory frameworks that are well established and have elevated Ontario’s nuclear sector to a world class that is the reference point for how other countries develop their nuclear assets.
Second, and I understand there have been some modifications to the act, amendments if you will, there are what I would refer to as too many insertion points for ministerial and cabinet discretion in Bill C-69 overall. Outside of the impact assessment act itself, we’re concerned that Bill C-69 in its totality provides too many opportunities for the federal minister and/or the cabinet to, ultimately delay, but to preside over certain decisions, including whether the project should even advance from the outset that Ontario would want to have a say in.
Those are our two primary concerns.
Senator Cordy: You’re concerned that the federal government will make decisions that the Ontario government wouldn’t agree with?
Mr. Rickford: We’re concerned, yes. We’re also concerned there are too many places in Bill C-69 that would give federal ministerial discretion to halt or delay, for one reason or another, the review in its aggregate, if you will.
There are various processes, tables and committees that this Bill C-69 contemplates.
Senator Cordy: But you do understand that under section 64, the minister can only establish it related to federal jurisdiction?
My second question is around the unclear timelines —
Mr. Rickford: What would be the basis, then, of that federal minister’s decision to delay a project? How could that be unilateral, when the project is confined within the borders of the Province of Ontario? We would have a concern about that, since you pointed it out.
Senator Cordy: But when we’re looking at unclear timelines — is what I’d like an answer to — it sort of ties in with it.
Mr. Rickford: Sure.
Senator Cordy: This bill provides more certainty than the changes that were made in the budget bill of 2012, when there were initial changes. That was in a budget bill, so there was no consultation. This bill actually had two years of consultation.
The early planning and engagement stage, which didn’t happen — I don’t want to say it didn’t happen before — many of the advocates or the companies actually did provide early planning and engagement. Now it’s just been formalized. Do you think this early planning and engagement will be helpful?
Mr. Rickford: I appreciate that you’re a defender. I was obviously, historically, involved with the Canadian environmental assessment process and the efforts in 2012. I don’t share your view, respectfully, around the consultation. Frankly, if this bill has had two years of consultation, where, at a critical point and juncture, I’ve never seen such a big committee, and I’ve never seen the Senate, frankly, involved in such a high profile bill that has commanded the attention of so many stakeholders across the country, from so many different sectors.
It’s one thing to do consultation; it’s another for it to pass through the Parliament and arrive at the Senate in this committee, with the greatest of respect, and still be highly controversial.
I would submit that, on balance, you’ve heard some very, very serious concerns that range from the couching of broad policy pieces that are in Bill C-69 to very serious, substantive safety issues around particular assets like nuclear. I’m here to make that message clear; that they’re in the Province of Ontario, they are world class and we would like to see the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, by way of example, preside over those assets on an ongoing basis. We simply don’t see the case for what’s, in effect, an omnibus environmental piece of legislation that pulls out some of the traditional, technical expertise that has seen these projects get built and be very successful.
Senator Woo: Thank you, minister, for visiting our committee. Thank you especially for the very detailed recommendations you provided to us in the written submission. I want to pick up on the specific recommendations, one of each is replicated both on the pipelines and the nuclear. It refers to your view that the bill must be redrafted so that it would more firmly establish scope of application, and provide guidelines and the weight given to different factors.
I’m trying to understand, minister, why you feel this already isn’t provided for in the bill, particularly in section 18(1), which is when the agency provides the notice of commencement at the start of a project, after the planning phase. The agency is required to provide information on the studies that are necessary for the impact assessment. It’s required to provide tailored guidelines, including information of studies that are required for the assessment, which would include plans for co-operation with other jurisdictions and with Indigenous peoples. It also calls for the agency to specify the factors in section 22 that are necessary for the proponent to investigate in doing its impact assessment.
How would you propose to improve on what seems to me to be already a fairly thorough statement of establishing scope of application and providing guidelines on the weighting given to different factors?
Mr. Rickford: In making that point, we would dispute a couple of things. First of all, as a general statement, we’re not entirely convinced that values or broader public policy elements belong in some of the kinds of activities over which this bill would preside. Many of these are highly sophisticated, very technical and very potentially large-scale energy projects — important, the legacy infrastructure projects that go to be able to create these resource projects.
In terms of weighting and those factors, we believe that a stronger emphasis should perhaps be placed on the economic opportunity they present and ensure there’s as much consideration for the technical elements of the safety and security of these kinds of projects, as well as some of the other broader policy discussions implicated in this bill that are a potential for discussion.
Notwithstanding, of course, that there are important elements with respect to Indigenous engagement. In Ontario, we’re taking a more refreshed approach to this. We’re quickly seeing Indigenous communities mobilized to take leadership under the existing environmental assessments for major legacy projects that give way, for example, to a mine being built or to another resource project being created.
That would be my response.
Senator Woo: Thank you, minister. My second question also pertains to a specific recommendation you have; namely, that the bill be amended to reduce the maximum timeline for overall reviews. I wonder if you could spell out for us which part of the timeline you would like to see reduced; for example, are you referring to the so-called early planning phase? Are you referring to the 300 days the agency is supposed to have to look at projects? Are you referring to the minister’s 30 days for a decision, or the GIC’s 90 days?
Mr. Rickford: Senator, how about all of them, since you listed them off.
Senator Woo: All of them?
Mr. Rickford: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Minister, thank you. There are two areas I want to get into: One is your concern about federal jurisdiction encroachment on provincial resources. The executive director of resources in development in Alberta’s department of energy said that it was an unprecedented federal encroachment into a number of areas of provincial jurisdiction. I know that in my province, the minister is very concerned about potash and uranium.
Can this bill actually be amended to allay those fears? Is there an amendment process that would satisfy you? We are going to have other ministers who feel the same way you do, and I don’t know if it is or it isn’t, but I’d like your opinion on it.
Mr. Rickford: Senator, first of all, you come from a beautiful province. My mom and grandpa were born there. We have a great relationship with Saskatchewan. We share the overall view that this piece of legislation is highly problematic for us for a number of reasons that I’ve outlined.
In terms of encroachment, obviously potash and uranium are important to Saskatchewan — we’ve mentioned our nuclear assets — and the largest scale of mining activity in the country. We believe an important part we can play in maximizing the opportunities within the energy transmission sector, more commonly known as pipelines.
We’re willing to participate in a process for major projects of truly national significance with the amendments and recommendations that we and others have made. To the extent that this bill is passed, gets Royal Assent here in the Senate and becomes the law of the land, then, obviously, we would hope, first, that these recommendations would be taken seriously and written in as amendments. You’ve heard from several provinces and will likely hear from more on how strongly we feel about matters of encroachment.
Senator, as I mentioned earlier, we have environmental assessment processes here, and they are, in many instances, particularly in mining, the existing federal framework. In the province itself, the class environmental assessment pieces are dealt with in different ministries in the Province of Ontario.
We think that while there is some modernization that could occur with respect to acts like the Mining Act in Ontario to make our own province a bit more nimble to getting these projects across the starting line — I won’t even talk about the finishing line — to protect and preserve our jurisdiction and not have it exposed to the extent we believe it is under Bill C-69 in its totality.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you, minister. I also have a question with what you alluded to earlier on the consultation process. And the Alberta energy regulator also said that meetings with the federal government have been infrequent, there was no opportunity for government to government conversation that would happen offline or in advance of public releases.
Has the federal government consulted with you frequently since you took office on this issue?
Mr. Rickford: No.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to jump on this because you made a statement on the consultation process. I was there in 2012 when we were discussing the bill that is now in power. I remember that the consultation lasted four days. The committee received 20 witnesses and it was passed through a budget bill. This is the one that has been questioned and argued many times in court.
Now we have two years of consultation, more than 30 visits in cities and we have a list of 160 people to hear, among which I appreciate having you. Which one do you prefer?
Mr. Rickford: I’m not here to comment and/or pit one against the other, Madam Chair, respectfully.
The Chair: I just wanted to know which type of consultation?
Mr. Rickford: We’re here to talk about Bill C-69. It is the prerogative of the current government, obviously, to develop legislation. In my capacity as a provincial Minister of Energy, Northern Development, Mines and Indigenous Affairs, in the prepared remarks and in the submissions we’ve made to you, we are concerned here now, today. If you would like to chart a course back to the national energy plan, I’m sure our friends in Alberta would have something to say about another government at another time that folks had a problem with. That’s fair enough.
We could do that decade in and decade out. If you want to shift the narrative to what has passed, it would take away from the opportunity we have today to take the largest province in this country, in terms of its contribution to Canada’s economy, out of an important conversation on how this bill would affect resource projects and in my respectful view massive legacy projects just to access many of the resource projects that we would like to develop. Is that fair?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you for coming. I’m curious about the weighting of factors that you mentioned in your written submission.
Which factors do you think should be weighted the most? Could you explain how that would go? You’ve said we need to provide guidelines on weighting given to different factors. How would you do that?
Mr. Rickford: First of all, under the proposition that we take a view, particularly with respect to nuclear, and I would say for large-scale pipelines, the National Energy Board, as it exists and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission presides quite well over these projects and the regulations that they are subject to from cradle to grave, if you will.
We are concerned, as you’ve heard from many other people presenting here, that there are broader public policy discussions embedded in here that are not necessarily pertinent to some of the highly sophisticated, technical, major projects that we’re talking about.
When it comes to Ontario, we would like to ensure that the economic opportunity for a given community, a given region is as much a part, if not more, of the equation than some of the other factors that are considered in this bill. Notably, not necessarily in the current environmental assessments and regulatory frameworks for the projects. Quite simply, some of them may not belong in that discussion around those projects.
We’ll make sure, I’ll make sure, as the member of provincial Parliament for Kenora—Rainy River, that when we’re talking about new gold out in Rainy River, when we’re talking about a major mine being developed in and around Webequie First Nation, that we have important considerations not just about the engagement and leadership of Indigenous communities but how important this project would ultimately be to communities that are often completely remote or isolated.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Based on what you’ve said, in all of the things that you’ve said, would you say that the economy, the environment and the Indigenous duty to consult would be weighted the highest? Am I getting that from what you’re saying?
Mr. Rickford: I think those probably comprise the top three. I’d have to put my mind to it a little bit more. But beyond the legal duty to consult, this is really about creating opportunities for Indigenous communities.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Engagement.
Mr. Rickford: And those resource projects, for them to take leadership in them. If you take a look at some of the elements of Bill C-69, I think there was a reference at a previous line of questioning from one of the senators here, respectfully, that it was tokenism or symbolism. In Ontario, we actually now have Indigenous communities as the lead proponent on environmental assessment processes, from major infrastructure projects. That’s exciting. It’s about time. And we’re going to support that.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I’m clear on that.
Mr. Rickford: Thank you.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, minister, for being with us this afternoon.
My concern is that if you look back at a bit of history, major projects in the federal government have not gone anywhere for the last many years. In fact, a study was undertaken by Jonathan Drance, Glenn Cameron and Rachel Hutton, and it appears in issue 3, 2018, of the Energy Regulation Quarterly. They’ve studied every major project over a billion dollars in Canada since many years. And it has clearly shown that even in 2012 guidelines, there was cabinet direction by the Liberal government for that; they established guidelines, none of it worked.
In spite of the efforts the last 22 years, it just takes forever to get a federal project done. If you look at OECD studies, it shows clearly that we are number 34 out of 35 countries. We have a major problem in Canada. The good news in this report is that for some reason that deficiency, inability to get things done, does not apply to the provinces. In fact, the provinces are much quicker in getting the impact studies studied than the federal government.
Is there any reason why in your mind? Why is Ontario getting these things done so much faster, B.C. and Quebec, than the federal government? What’s different?
Mr. Rickford: Probably because we’re left alone to do our business and we do it generally well. On projects of national importance and to the extent that they cross provincial boundaries or are implicated by 2012 or, in this instance, Bill C-69, I would say that on 2012 and a prior version of that, the federal government was able to boost pipeline capacity significantly, under the existing network of pipelines.
The more recent phenomenon, from roughly 2010 to the present day, of new major pipeline developments or expansions of existing ones, has proved problematic. I’m not sure much has changed. I obviously presided over the decisions with respect to Northern Gateway.
That was largely shut down by way of a political decision, as opposed to any scientific merits that were contained in the very elaborate decision by the National Energy Board. The decision to pursue other projects is, again, the prerogative of the current government, but companies have invested billions of dollars and not been able to advance them and have made a full retreat.
I don’t see anything in Bill C-69 that moves the chains on this to satisfy the province of Ontario that major projects could be completed.
We’re more concerned, Madam Chair, with the projects that are confined in our province where this bill would weigh heavily on our ability, which you’ve already said today is across the country relatively nimble. And in Ontario’s case, we’ve been able to do that using the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 and moving forward.
Senator Massicotte: Let me ask you about a specific issue that bothers some of us; the proposed Bill C-69 allows the standing of anyone who wants to participate in the discussion. Some people feel to open that gate as such, it’s going to take forever and how do you control that, and so on.
In Ontario you permit the same; anyone who wants to develop an opinion can participate and offer that opinion. How do you manage that so we could copy you and make sure we don’t have a problem at the federal level?
Mr. Rickford: Well, I appreciate that senator. If the Senate would entertain itself with any processes from any province, quite frankly, but particularly Ontario, that would be a benefit to highlight, as we already have, some of the concerns that we have. To do community engagement in an efficient but effective manner that continues to promote and facilitate a project actually being built — so the idea of having a project in the line of sight — we think that under this bill it’s a bit far out. We’d like to ensure and maintain that the province of Ontario, particularly with some specific assets, for example nuclear, has the right commissions presiding over their development from the very beginning until those assets are retired and the waste is dealt with.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks, Minister Rickford. It’s true that mining is extremely important to Ontario. It’s ironic that the Mining Association of Canada and the Ontario Mining Association actually disagree with how you characterize their position. They support this bill. They think it’s better than CEAA 2012.
In coming to your conclusion, which is contrary to what the Mining Association of Canada is saying, did you consult with the Mining Association of Canada to compare your position with theirs?
Mr. Rickford: We acknowledge the Canadian Mining Association from the outset had some concern with this and have the kind of relationship with the current government that has created an opportunity to get some amendments. I’m not sure that the Ontario Mining Association and its member companies necessarily are as squarely and solidly aligned as you might characterize. I’m not here to debate that.
I’ve attended a number of round table meetings across the province. I come from a district that has significant mining activity. I’ve heard from large scale, active mining and prospector companies. Frankly, with respect to this bill, I have not heard the kind of message that is entirely consistent with some of the comments made by their associations. But that’s fair enough.
Senator Mitchell: I think we will be able to hear it from them. They’re the next witness.
You make a point that somehow there is no provision for transition, that is to say that projects that are now under way will not be brought under the new bill, but they’ll stay in the old CEAA 2012. However, section 181 has already been amended so that, in fact, that is exactly the case. How is it that you just missed that?
Mr. Rickford: Well, good, senator.
Senator Mitchell: Absolutely, there are tremendous opportunities in resource development for Indigenous communities, and you spoke in glowing terms about that. I couldn’t agree more. There are all kinds of things in this bill that acknowledge and support Indigenous involvement in this process from money for participants in public hearings, to capacity building, to positions on panels, to three positions on the transition process, and to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Would you therefore agree and support the fact that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is included in this bill clearly extending respect for Indigenous rights that would support exactly the kind of end that you’re looking for?
Mr. Rickford: Well, senator, first of all, we’re having a renewed and important level of engagement, participation and leadership from Indigenous communities in our province on major legacy projects.
Senator Mitchell: But are you supporting —
Mr. Rickford: And resource projects. They’re entirely consistent with the spirit and the intent with the type of legislation that you’re talking about.
Senator Mitchell: Can I have a little more?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is more about the discussions you have had with the government. We have heard the chair say that a number of consultations on this bill were conducted. However, there is a difference between consulting and listening. Can you tell us about the discussions that provincial ministers and premiers had with the government? I saw that one event took place with the Minister of Natural Resources in Nunavut last August. There was a lot of discussion at the premiers’ conference in December. It seems to me that most provinces agree that amendments are needed or that this is a bad bill, that the government is not listening and is just doing what it wants.
Can you tell us about the discussions you have had?
[English]
Mr. Rickford: It’s not my place, intention or desire to comment on or criticize consultation, but it can be a process if it winds up not listening to significant proponents, for example, a majority of your provinces and a significant representation of industry who have serious concerns with this. Here we are. This is probably a much bigger standing committee in terms of the impact and sense of urgency that we come with here today because we don’t feel that, being the prerogative of the government, if it’s their decision to move ahead with this and if the Senate passes it, it still lacks the kinds of amendments we don’t just want to see, we feel like we need to see. I think you’ve heard that loud and clear.
Senator, there’s another important point that has not been fleshed out in today’s discussion. It goes to Ontario’s commitment to being open for business and our competitiveness. We have the potential for a trifecta here that Ontario is going to fight tooth and nail. We have the threat of a carbon tax, the implementation of clean fuel standards that will see an unprecedented, immediate spike in the price per litre of gasoline, our existing sources that our mining companies in particular use to develop and sustain their operations, and, of course, then Bill C-69. I would characterize this as a triple-layer cake, if you will, on our ability to advance projects that are important to the province and potentially of national significance.
Senator Seidman: Most of my questions have been asked. I would like to ask you about the first recommendation you made on pipelines. I know you have talked about the concern that policy is embedded. Specifically, we’ve heard from stakeholders and proponents about a concern in subsection 22 around the factors.
When you say Bill C-69 should be implemented in a way that ensures it focuses on the safety and environmental risks of a project rather than debating broader matters of policy, particularly those that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Could you explain a little bit more of that? It talks about implementation.
Mr. Rickford: Sure. Thank you for that question. There are probably a couple of different categories that I would refer to. Obviously one that I’ve emphasized the most is safety, and that goes to the technical expertise. The standards are not lower from energy transmission — pipeline — to nuclear and mining, but they are different. Particularly with respect to our nuclear assets, safety, obviously in terms of public policy, public perception and all of those, is something we can’t afford to be exposed to any risk.
We’re saying to you today these are our assets. They are world class. We are a reference point, a benchmark and a standard-bearer for how nuclear assets should be operated, how they should be wound down and how they should be refurbished. I’ve had discussions with our leading CEOs of these nuclear assets who are actually talking about the Province of Ontario and these businesses, Bruce Nuclear and the like, taking refurbishment out into the nuclear marketplace, globally, and celebrating how we do it. We do it very well right now, senator.
So pulling an aspect or an element out of this into an environmental framework when this is already working very well, some of the factors that are weighted in here may not necessarily have the kind of application they would for some of these kinds of projects. I think I’ve made that point. I won’t push it any further.
When it comes to provincial jurisdiction, the categories are: What are we doing very well? Your colleague pointed out, provinces, in general, are more nimble, if you will, at advancing through environmental assessment processes, whether it’s the 2012 or their own provincial framework, and actually getting a project built.
There’s still more work to be done. I’ve got my Snickers bars on my desk at work on a couple of key projects we’d like to see move forward that haven’t moved as quickly as we’d like. We’d love to have the ability, not just in the context of provincial jurisdiction.
If there are broader policy matters and if there are more specific, contemporaneous ones of importance, like Indigenous engagement, respecting the spirit and intent of various pieces of legislation, global or otherwise, we think that’s achieved best when the province is able to develop its projects with those constituents and communities as full partners — in fact, taking leadership roles.
To the extent that this bill would move into that space, we’re uncomfortable with that.
Senator Richards: Like Senator Seidman, my question has been asked and answered.
Mr. Rickford: It’s always a drag to be at the end, senator.
Senator Richards: Yes. Alberta is losing hundreds of millions of dollars a day. I was wondering about the impact on the economy of Ontario.
I think this is dictatorial federal oversight and regulation. Do you see how any amendments would really cure this legislation?
Mr. Rickford: It’s pretty safe to say we would prefer not to be sitting here talking about a Bill C-69. There’s obviously expertise here, celebrated explicitly by Madam Chair, that could enhance existing processes and make them better. There’s always room for improvement.
But the significance and the reach of this, what I would frame as an omnibus kind of piece of legislation, has the potential to significantly interfere with provincial jurisdiction, something you’ve heard provinces more recently pivot. With the urgency that is attached to what this committee is listening to, you’ve seen Alberta, over the last couple of years, pay careful attention and cancel major policies. A carbon tax is now, potentially, on the chopping block, because they’re seeing the aggregate effect of some policy options the federal government is exercising that will not allow our energy sector to expand in the time it needs — the speed of business, what have you — but certainly some reasonable kind of timeline that would allow projects within provinces, as between provinces and those of national significance, to actually be developed.
Those are our concerns.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. I’m glad we are having this conversation. It sometimes makes me uncomfortable, but for Canada to understand Indigenous issues, we have to have this conversation. When I look at your statement on Indigenous participation and how you work with Indigenous peoples, I commend you. I think you’re the only provincial representative I’ve heard say that.
You said you balance environmental protection and economic development. Have you ever had to decline a project due to concerns that the environmental protection posed a greater risk than economic development?
Mr. Rickford: We have only been in government for almost eight months now, so I have not had to preside over that kind of decision, no.
Senator McCallum: I’m asking because when we met with another province, they said they had stringent guidelines looking at environmental issues. Then we met with a group of Indigenous leaders. They said, first, there was the deforestation, and now they’re starting to go underground. In their community, there are 200 orphan wells that are open, and they’re the ones that do fracking with sulfur. They’re in a dangerous position, and they can’t trace the owner that abandoned the wells.
That’s where I’m coming from. I’m glad to hear you work really well with Indigenous peoples.
You said this bill would create jurisdictional problems. How would it do that when you have such a good working mechanism with the province, the feds and the Indigenous groups?
Mr. Rickford: The point I hope was made in my prepared remarks and through answers to questions I’ve answered is that we feel very comfortable with the idea that, not only is this functioning very well — subject, of course, to ongoing improvements; there are modifications or modernization in acts like the Mining Act that can increase, if you will, the level of participation and engagement, and create a platform for leadership by Indigenous communities when it comes, particularly, to mining projects.
I won’t speak to the legacy of orphan mines of previous governments. It’s more important for me to understand, moving forward, that to the extent those mines are going to be developed, and to the extent they are situated in and around a or several Indigenous communities, there’s an opportunity in the decision-making process. In our experience so far — we’re a very young government at just eight months — that the early signals are a desire to show leadership.
I spoke with one of the chiefs on a particular project that we’re moving forward, a major legacy project to open up the area. We call it the corridor to prosperity. That is what we’re striving for, but that will see one or potentially several more mines open over the course of time.
We think it’s important that an Indigenous community, as the proponent of record in the environmental assessment, as the leader, has the capacity to represent their community’s interests and, for that matter, with the province in full support of them, the best interests of the province.
That’s a different approach and it’s one that we think — it’s very early on — but we hold great hope. We’re getting very early signals that this is the kind of leadership that Indigenous communities would want to take. The capacity benefits, of course, are remarkable. To see young Indigenous people trained in land-use planning, working with elders to understand how the land was used historically, the contours of the land, waterways, et cetera, as part of an environmental assessment process. It’s probably one of the most moving things that I’ve ever seen.
My own professional career has been spent almost entirely living and working in Indigenous communities across the country, but mostly in Northern Ontario. We’re seeing some exciting changes and want to build on the promise and the prospect that in the future there won’t be the kinds of Indigenous communities you’re talking about with orphan mines around them. They will have taken leadership roles in the decision-making as to how and why these kinds of projects should proceed.
Senator Mockler: I know that first ministers in Atlantic Canada, have a lot of concerns. This morning at the Finance Committee — and I’ll talk about the National Energy Board which was established in Parliament for the record in 1959 as an administrative tribunal to make regulatory decisions and recommendations to the Government of Canada. I quote:
We are the expert on life cycle regulatory for approximately 73,000 kilometres of international and interprovincial pipelines and 1,400 kilometres of international power lines. They also regulate imports and exports of energy products and oil and gas exploration and drilling in certain northern and offshore areas of Canada. The NEB oversees the safety and environmental protection of projects throughout their life cycle, from the application phase to construction, operation and eventual abandonment.
I know that the premiers in Atlantic Canada are quite concerned. I’d like to ask this question: What are your comments when we have leaders saying that the decision-making power in the hands of a minister or governor-in-council and provides the opportunity to veto the results throughout scientific assessment and even a review of evidence? They feel this bill is inconsistent with the joint management principle of the Atlantic accord act. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Rickford: We support our Atlantic provinces. I think their views are entirely consistent with many of the concerns we’ve put forward.
I think it’s a very serious matter when provincial governments have come before this committee, at the Senate, with substantive, substantial and myriad concerns and have made real recommendations on how this bill, if it is to be given effect-in-law for the country, should be amended. This committee has an extraordinary opportunity, but is saddled with an extraordinary responsibility to make sure if this is going to become the law of the land that it’s done right. You’ve got a lot of political and industry leaders who have serious concerns. There are moving targets, there are associations and organizations in various sectors that have made some progress with this government on amendments that they absolutely needed to see. I suggest and submit you’ll probably hear from some what they want to see.
However, as no small residual matter, there are major concerns with this bill. I’m here to say, as a government that has not been consulted in any way on this bill by the federal government and one that has observed several of our provincial partners express serious concerns, both here and in provincial meetings as between premiers and in the context of your accord, that there’s a lot of work left to do. It may rest with this committee. It’s a substantial undertaking.
Senator Simons: I’m going to close with new material. You didn’t make any mention in your opening remarks about hydro, which is also an important part of Ontario’s electricity portfolio. What percentage of your electricity approximately comes from hydro, and are there concerns in your government or in Hydro One about the impact of the third part of the bill, the Navigation Protection Act and its potential impact on new hydro projects or even major renovations of your current ones in terms of regulating flow and level?
Mr. Rickford: A great question, senator. Definitely a new product, if you will.
This was a part that I think we had put in our submissions to you — supplementary submissions — but we are very concerned with hydro. Obviously, nuclear plays a prominent role in our energy or electricity production, but hydro, and the projects we endeavour to develop, are significant in two regards, not just with the navigable waters but projects likely on the scale of 200 megawatts would be subject or exposed to this bill.
Senator Simons: Since we don’t see the project list, we don’t know.
Mr. Rickford: It’s our hydro. It’s in our province. We have handled it very well. We know how to develop these projects, to supply our families, communities and industries with the hydro that comes from us. We don’t see a need for the heaviness of aspects of Bill C-69, particularly the portions that you’re referring to, as adding anything beneficial to how and why we get our hydro projects completed in Ontario.
Senator Simons: I will leave it there.
Mr. Rickford: Thank you for that question. It was a good one.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony, minister.
Mr. Rickford: I was nervous, Madam Chair. I drank four glasses of water. I tell you what. I’ve been to a lot of committees.
The Chair: It’s good to hydrate.
Senators, we are going to suspend for a few minutes. Don’t go away because we have the next one. We are mindful of the time.
For the second portion of this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
For the second portion of our meeting, we are continuing our study of Bill C-69. We now welcome from the Mining Association of Canada, Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Justyna Laurie-Lean, Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs.
We have Lisa McDonald, Executive Director; and Lesley Williams, Director of Policy from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. From Canadian Hydropower Association, we have Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin, President and Pierre Lundahl, Chief Consultant.
[Translation]
Thank you for joining us. I invite you to make your opening statement, after which we will move to a question and answer period.
[English]
Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada: Good evening, senators.
I want to begin by explaining why it’s warm in here. Our invitation has coincided with the meeting of the Mining Association of Canada’s environment committee, the team of people around this room who have been working on this bill for over three years. They are here waiting to make sure I say what I’m supposed to say, but also to witness Parliament in action.
By way of reference, we have members from coast to coast to coast active in the mining industry, working for some of Canada’s largest mining companies as well as some smaller junior mining companies here in the room, including a number from Ontario, just by way of reference to the previous speaker. There’s a number of the major mining companies from Ontario here in this room today.
Thank you for this opportunity. We’ve submitted a detailed submission on the impact assessment act, a portion of Bill C-69, and have had the honour to meet with many of you over the past several months to discuss our circumstances in detail.
Rather than going over the same points, I want to give you the gist and then focus my comments on what our thinking is today as discussion of Bill C-69 evolves.
When the first CEAA was created in 1992, we were told that it would never apply to a provincially regulated sector like mining. It did, and it has ever since. And ever since, the primary concern has been the overlap, duplication and lack of coordination between federal and provincial reviews of the same mining projects.
In 2010, the federal government made some important reforms to CEAA that ushered in a two-year period of relatively efficient federally and provincially harmonized reviews.
Under CEAA 2012, however, despite great promise of further improvements, federal and provincial coordination broke down. As well, mining became nearly the only sector subject to the act. You will have a chart that shows you that in your materials.
As a consequence, we are today the only industry you will see who is truly able to compare Bill C-69 against the current legislation. The chart you see has mining below 40 per cent but when CEAA 2012 first came into force, it was over 60 per cent. The change is not because other sectors have new projects, however, it’s because mining investment and new project applications have massively declined. You have another chart that shows you that.
Mining investment in Canada is in crisis and while CEAA 2012 is not the only reason for this, it is a factor.
I would put to you as well that the application of federal assessment to mining is disproportional to our impacts on the environment, the economy or federal interests.
When the review began, we looked at Bill C-69 through the lens of whether it addressed the inadvertent problems of CEAA 2012 that became apparent with a few years of experience.
Our assessment of the impact assessment act, after third reading in the House of Commons, was that overall it would be better for most members if operationalized as envisioned. A clear exception which we have communicated consistently is for the uranium mining sector, which unlike the rest of mining, has a federal life-cycle regulator, the CNSC, as well as a provincial regulator.
Bill C-69 has made the assessment of uranium mines and mills more complicated. We continue to pursue a legislative amendment to address this, as well as appropriate thresholds for mining projects on the project list.
That was our view in May. Then TMX happened — a decision that provoked a closer look at CEAA 2012 and Bill C-69, particularly by our oil sands members. Why? Because the impact assessment act is fundamentally built on CEAA 2012, using the same architecture. CEAA 2012 itself was a very significant departure from previous environmental assessment legislation but Bill C-69 is not.
What the TMX decision showed is that CEAA 2012 failed the very sector it was designed to help.
We are, therefore, now proposing four amendments to the Impact Assessment Act. One of them is the one shared with you by Cameco and the uranium sector when they met with you — the Canadian Nuclear Association — last week, I think. It’s to get at the fact that Bill C-69 proposes that all uranium mines and mills must go before a full review panel, no matter how small those projects might be.
We have some of the highest grade, best-quality uranium mines in the world in Saskatchewan, but they’re actually quite small, because they’re so high grade. You mine very little rock to get a lot of material. It has never been the case that those mines must be subject to a full panel review. There’s always been the discretion. If it’s a particularly complex or large project, then the minister can decide it’s a panel review; otherwise, it’s an agency level assessment. We believe that should continue.
I would note that the same issue also has bearing on how offshore oil and gas is treated, where the same thinking has been proposed. There’s a parallel that could be addressed by this committee.
Another important amendment is on the scoping of factors. You have heard this, I think, from the minister before, and you’ve heard it from many other groups. It’s really to ensure the agency does what this act intends and scopes the factors appropriately. Every project is different. What matters to each and every community where a mine is found may vary. Indigenous rights and traditional use of the land will vary from different parts of the country, and you need to weigh those factors appropriately.
That’s what this act gives life to, but it’s not as clear as it could be. We think there are ways of addressing that. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has proposed an amendment to subsection 18. We don’t, in our brief, specifically call that one out. We think there are a few different ways to get at that issue, but we think it needs to be addressed.
Also, the act should recognize in the purpose statement in subsection 6 that this is also about investment climate and competitiveness.
There’s a need to fix subsection 7(1) as drafted. It’s a technical issue, but under the current act, CEAA 2012, you are prohibited from causing any harm to the environment prior to your project being approved. That makes sense. But the wording in this proposed bill is larger than that; it makes it read as though you can’t do anything, including engaging with your Indigenous communities. It’s a technical fix, but we think it can be done.
Others have and will propose amendments that do not concern us, the mining sector, but any amendment that would weaken the impact assessment act on enabling co-operation, coordination, better timeline management and other positive improvements we see in the act as described in our submission would deteriorate an already difficult situation for our sector.
I note that operationalizing the early planning phase of the act is fundamental to realizing the promised improvements in co-operation, coordination, timeline management and, I would add, public confidence, because it’s in that early planning phase that many of our Indigenous partners see much hope.
I therefore urge particular caution in any amendments that would undermine its functionality. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Do we have another statement?
Lisa McDonald, Executive Director, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada: Good afternoon, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on behalf of the mineral exploration industry on Bill C-69, as well as the submission we have put forward that all received.
PDAC is the national voice of Canada’s mineral exploration and development sector, representing over 8,000 members. Our work centres on supporting a responsible and competitive industry.
I’d like to preface these remarks with a little bit of context. We can all appreciate that other sectors are impacted differently, and therefore have different views on this bill. That said, we represent the mineral exploration sector and mining, along with our colleagues here at MAC. Our perspectives on the bill are specifically with the interests of our industry in mind.
I’d like to provide a brief overview of mineral exploration in Canada.
Mineral exploration is a staged process of information-gathering with the hopes of discovering an economically viable mineral deposit. Junior exploration companies, whom we represent, do the bulk of this work in Canada. They find the mines of the future. These companies are small, have limited budgets and timelines, and most do not generate revenue and fund their activities by issuing shares. Some exploration companies may sell promising, economically viable projects to mid-tier or major mining companies in order to take them through the assessment process and to be mined, while other junior companies initiate the assessment process themselves.
The Canadian mineral industry faces strong global competition for investment. Different factors affect the decisions made by investors about where to invest in projects and by companies about where to explore and mine among competing jurisdictions. Regulatory processes play a significant role in determining investment decisions and, thus, influence how often new, economically viable mineral deposits are found and whether they will be mined.
Processes that are effective, clear, efficient, predictable and balanced are critical, especially for smaller companies.
Mining projects currently make up more than 60 per cent of all projects assessed, due to the project list. This is disproportionate to our sector’s impact on areas of federal interest.
Furthermore, under CEAA 2012, there has been a lack of options for co-operation between jurisdictions, ineffective coordination between federal departments and no clear, consistent process outlined for engagement and Crown consultation. Thus, PDAC is encouraged by the direction in Bill C-69 as it relates to the mineral sector. Given the ongoing challenges resulting from the implementation of CEAA 2012, our industry is optimistic that if it is well implemented, there is the potential for Bill C-69, as it is currently drafted, to improve the assessment process for our sector.
While we are optimistic about the potential for improvements of the assessment process for mining projects, we also stress the importance of careful consideration with regard to the implementation of a number of the bill’s key provisions.
In our previous engagement with Bill C-69, we provided commentary on two key provisions of the bill and proposed two amendments related to transitional provisions, and on uranium mines and mills. Our recommended amendment on transitional provisions was adequately addressed in the House of Commons. With respect to our proposed amendment on uranium mines and mills, we, along with the Mining Association of Canada, continue to request amendments so that uranium mines and mills are subject to agency assessments, similar to other mining projects, and are not automatically referred to a review panel.
Additional significant amendments at this juncture could alter the improvements over CEAA 2012 and could impact PDAC’s support for the bill.
Furthermore, important regulatory and policy decisions remain to be developed with regard to the implementation of this bill. We will continue to be engaged, particularly in relation to the implementation of key provisions, such as cost recovery, the project list, co-operation among jurisdictions and legislated timelines.
We cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that the impact assessment act is well implemented so that the process is timely, clear, predictable, and supports Canada’s mineral industry competitiveness.
To reiterate, for the mineral sector specifically, Bill C-69 has the potential to be an improvement over current processes, if it is well implemented. A strong and globally competitive Canadian exploration and mining sector will be well positioned to continue to deliver significant economic and social benefits in remote regions, Indigenous communities and large cities across Canada. This, in turn, requires an assessment process that is clear, predictable, timely and balanced.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.
[Translation]
Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin, President, Canadian Hydropower Association (WaterPower Canada): Good evening, and thank you for inviting us to submit our recommendations to you today.
[English]
I am the President of the Canadian Hydropower Association, CHA. With me is my colleague Pierre Lundahl.
The CHA is the national voice of the hydropower industry.
I would like to highlight our country’s remarkable electricity profile. In fact, hydropower is Canada’s largest electricity source. It accounts for over 60 per cent of the total generation. As a result, Canada’s electricity system is one of the cleanest, most renewable and most reliable in the world.
If Canada is to meet its emission reduction targets hydro power must play a key role. This means doubling or even tripling electricity supply by 2050. This will call for a major expansion of hydropower.
Our industry is up to the challenge. Canada still has vast amounts of hydropower resources to be developed. For this to happen, though, we need workable regulations and a predictable and timely impact assessment process.
CHA members generally support the principles of the impact assessment act and the Canadian navigable waters act, but some important and crucial amendments to Bill C-69 are still needed.
Today I will highlight our six main recommendations on the bill, three apply to the Impact Assessment Act and three apply to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act.
Our first recommendation is to focus the Canadian Navigable Waters Act on large projects. You’ve heard this before from other presentations.
When Minister McKenna spoke to the House last year she said that Bill C-69 aimed to restore public trust in the way the government assessed major projects. That goal needs to be stated explicitly in the act’s purpose statement. It should not be left to regulations.
The new assessment process will be more challenging to manage and more complex than what we have today. It will call on many more subject matter specialists. Numerous departments and agencies will need to be involved and intervene. It will have two main phases instead of one.
We are not optimistic that sponsors of small- and medium-sized proposals in our industry would proceed with projects under these conditions. The time, resources and uncertainty for small projects involved may prove to be too much.
Our second recommendation is to clarify in the preamble that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be implemented in accordance with the Constitution Act. CHA supports the government’s efforts to protect Indigenous rights and promote reconciliation. Without this clarification the reference in the preamble to UNDRIP could be incorrectly interpreted.
In keeping with the “one project, one assessment” objective, our third recommendation is that where another jurisdiction’s assessment process applies, the minister be required to consider delegating the assessment to the other jurisdiction or substituting its process.
[Translation]
I would now like to move on to our main recommendations on the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. The hydropower industry owns, operates, and maintains thousands of structures in navigable waters. In our opinion, if the new navigation provisions are adopted without change, they will result in serious problems in our sector. Our recommendations address these problems.
First, the definition of the term “navigable waters” should exclude artificial water bodies built for a purpose other than navigation. Hydropower companies, as you might expect, build water intake canals and other hydraulic works to exclusively serve their generation facilities. We can see no benefit in having them potentially declared navigable.
Second, we recommend that the definition of the term “major works” be restricted to only those works that completely block navigation in the main channel. The legislation should make a distinction between works located in the main channel versus the ones located in secondary channels, thus between complete obstructions to navigation and those that are easily bypassed.
Third, we recommend that Bill C-69 provide a streamlined process to deal with all work at existing facilities. Under the proposed regime, some repairs and all modifications will trigger a requirement for approval. We are extremely concerned that urgent maintenance, alteration, and rebuilding work on hydroelectric structures could be held up by the new process.
The hydropower industry has much to contribute to Canada’s sustainable and economic development. However, this will only be possible if we can bring forward good projects in a timely way and have workable legislation.
Thank you once more for allowing me to address the committee.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your opening statements.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Gratton, I think I’ll start with you. Last September 18 in an op-ed piece you wrote that the passing of Bill C-69 will end the politicalization of pipelines in Canada. I’ll quote you:
The politicization of pipelines and a decade of legislative uncertainty regarding the review of natural resource projects lie at the heart of it. This politicization needs to end. One way to end it is by encouraging Parliament to pass Bill C-69. . .
I want to clarify this point because actual pipeline companies like Enbridge, ATCO, Pembina and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association has said that Bill C-69 will increase uncertainty and politicalization in pipeline reviews.
I am curious, which pipeline companies told you that Bill C-69 will end the politicalization of pipelines in Canada? And if you can’t identify one are you prepared to retract that statement?
Mr. Gratton: You’re misrepresenting what I was saying. What I was saying, and which I’ve said many times is that —
Senator MacDonald: It is a direct quote.
Mr. Gratton: The politicalization of pipelines is hurting the entire natural resource economy. The fact that we can’t get a pipeline to tidewater is a crisis, in my opinion. It is casting a pall over the investment climate, affecting everybody. The mining industry continues to get projects approved in this country, there were three approved by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in the last month and a half, but you probably didn’t hear about them. Nobody hears about the success stories. What we do hear about time and time again is that we have these major infrastructure failures.
There’s no question in my mind that we have to get that right because it is costing the entire economy tremendously. Right now the only major projects underway in the mining industry in Canada are led by Canadian companies because foreign investment is drying up. Why? Because we’re telling the world that Canada is broken.
When I say the politicalization of pipelines — and with all due respect I’m talking to all of you here — pitting sectors against one another, playing politics with natural resources developments, which is the livelihood of communities across the country, is doing Canada a disservice. That was the point of my message. We need an era of some stability. We need our governments to stop using natural resources as a wedge. That was my message. I stick to it and I won’t retract that.
Senator MacDonald: All right. Well, if that’s your message I would certainly agree with that message.
In regards to assessments, I must make this note. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, projects by filing actually went up in 2013-14 and have now been reduced basically to gold and diamond projects. They were much more diversified back in 2013-14. It was heartening to hear you speak on behalf of the uranium industry because initially we were on the assumption that you weren’t speaking for them. It’s good to hear that. I also note that Suncor has currently proposed that the new IAA process is unclear and does not address concerns about lengthy and costly processes.
Now, Suncor, like Cameco, are members of the mining association. Can you clarify why Suncor’s position doesn’t align with the mining associations?
Mr. Gratton: Well, actually, Suncor’s rep is in the room. I do believe I have the support of Suncor for the presentation that I’m making to you today. The brief has been approved by our project reviews task force, which are all the members in this room, including the representative from Suncor and Cameco, just behind me to my right, and it was signed off by our executive committee which includes my chair who is from Suncor. If you’re suggesting I don’t have the support of my membership, I’m telling you I do and they’re here in this room.
The Chair: Before we continue, I just want to, for the senator’s information, that there is a vote in one hour.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today. It’s been helpful. We’ve heard a lot from oil and gas. It’s nice to hear from hydroelectric, prospectors and mining industry which is a little bit of a twist.
Bill C-69 brings forward an early planning and engagement which wasn’t in law previous to this, although many companies actually did engage in the early planning and engagement. But this bill will now make it mandatory. I know, Mr. Gratton, you spoke about it in your opening remarks and said you believe this phase will instill public confidence in the process, which is a positive thing because we’ve heard a lot about public confidence.
Will it also help proponents who are bringing forward something to see whether or not there are going to be any bumps along the road, for you? And perhaps others can talk about whether the early planning phase or process is a good addition to what wasn’t formally happening before.
Mr. Gratton: One of the reasons why CEAA 2012 — why federal-provincial co-operation has broken down and why federal permitting has become longer so the total process is actually extended under CEAA 2012 is because the commencement of the review is so tight and so rigid that co-operation with other jurisdictions has been made impossible. The early planning phase is critical to all of the other benefits that flow from this act that are of value to the mining industry. It will provide the opportunity for the agency to engage with provincial governments to align their processes as best as possible.
CEAA 2012 offered the promise of substitution, but only British Columbia has taken it up. We have no substitution anywhere else. What we used to have prior to CEAA 2012 was a bunch of agreements across the country between the federal and provincial governments on how they would work together. They weren’t perfect, but they were better than what we have now. Early planning will allow that to come back and be an improvement.
There is also going to be an opportunity to bring the federal departments, the permitting agencies like DFO into the process earlier, identify what the requirements are so that when companies get through the environmental assessment, the time for final permits to be delivered will be shortened.
All of that happens because what early planning does is enables the proponent working with the agency, provincial governments, Indigenous communities and others to identify what really matters in this particular case. It provides value to the proponents because it will allow them to tailor their assessment. If, in a particular region, there’s a plant species that is extremely important to local Indigenous communities, there should be a focus on preserving those plant species and making sure anything you do takes that into account. But there are other factors that in another assessment you might have spent a lot of time on but don’t matter in this region, so you would not have to focus on that. That leads to ideally a review that focuses on what matters to communities and reduces the volume of material that proponents have to generate by just looking at what really counts.
That’s the promise and it’s the promise of more efficient process for proponents but also the promise of greater opportunity for Indigenous groups to identify early on what’s important to them.
I don’t know if there’s more that you would want to —
Justyna Laurie-Lean, Vice-President, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Mining Association of Canada: No. You’ve got it.
Ms. McDonald: I’ll just make one small comment in addition to what Pierre had to say. For our members who are typically smaller companies and who may not necessarily have gone through the process before and have the experience of our larger members, the early planning phase also has the potential to help those smaller companies that have not necessarily moved through the assessment phase, have that better understanding of what will be required for them throughout the process, which ideally could lead to a smoother process and it being more successful, particularly for those who are not experienced with the process.
Ms. Audouin: It takes right now about 8 to 12 years to permit a hydro project in this country. It’s a long time. We’re not very interested in a process that would add more time and more potential delays. We believe and right now hydro power producers feel they are already fulfilling many of the requirements that are set within Bill C-69 and the new early planning engagement requirements. It could be an improvement if it’s well managed and reasonably implemented.
Senator Cordy: So 8 to 10 years.
Ms. Audouin: Eight to 12.
Senator Cordy: You could start a project and then be retired —
Ms. Audouin: That has happened.
Senator Cordy: Do you think Bill C-69 will help expedite that process?
Ms. Audouin: If I had a crystal ball, I wish I could tell you. I think we’re all here on the same page in the sense that it’s a wait and see. There’s a lot of hope placed in that bill. At the same time, it is creating a bit of a big beast that we’ll have to manage. It’s going to put a big burden on agencies and departments. I think this is something that people need to recognize.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. Mr. Gratton, I wonder if you would send the amendments you spoke about in your presentation.
Mr. Gratton: Can my colleague elaborate?
Senator Cordy: If you could just send them to us.
Ms. Laurie-Lean: Could I just talk about the time question because a lot depends on how well it’s managed. What Bill C-69 does, or the Impact Assessment Act builds in a few more mechanisms and authorities for the agency or the minister to manage the time process. Any delays have to be deliberate as opposed to unplanned or unpredictable. But in order for that to result in a shorter or at least not a longer process requires that they be exercised appropriately. You can’t say it’s guaranteed to be shorter, but at the same time it offers hope.
Mr. Gratton: Could I continue because these are important points that you probably all want to ask. To build on what she just said, right now under CEAA 2012, the clock stops whenever an official asks a question. There are timelines in the act, but they’re pretty well meaningless because the clock stops all the time.
To Justyna’s point, this is approaching timelines differently. It’s more of a deliberate decision each time that you have to justify a delay. The fact that it’s deliberate gives us some optimism that it may be a better time management system than the current one. But it will require a strong agency.
The last point I would want to make is our experience with the agency as a mining sector is they do a pretty good job. The delays that we experience are typically because of other departments or provincial governments and the interplay between both. It’s not the agency that’s the cause of delays. Whenever they have got more authority to manage the process, it has gotten better. That’s why we have some hope that these new mechanisms will be implemented well, but we won’t know until it happens.
The Chair: Can I just jump in that and say I have compared Bill C-69 with other similar legislation in Europe but also in Latin America. It’s becoming very, very important, this type of legislation. Would you agree that Bill C-69 is like sort of a highway where there are a lot of traffic lights and that it is ambitious in its soul and if it works it will improve competitiveness for industry? Would you agree? Would you disagree?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: International comparisons have been attempted ever since CEAA was passed. I was unfortunately here when this happened. As far as I know — and I could be wrong; there may be an exception. As far as I know, Canada is the only jurisdiction in the world that thinks it reasonable to have two different jurisdictions do an environmental assessment of the same project. People point to the U.S. People point to other countries that are also federations. Yes, they have two different systems, but a project is subject to one or the other, depending in the case of the U.S. whether it is state or federal land.
That comparison is really difficult to make. And not all other countries have the same Indigenous challenges as we do in terms of Indigenous relations.
They’re in a different step of the process. It is very difficult to make international comparisons. But this is definitely a Cadillac.
The Chair: That’s good. Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Very interesting. Just to clarify the last point, you’re saying that Canada has been the only jurisdiction and it has two processes that go on at the same time, and one of the things you like about this bill is that it’s going to do away with that and consolidate it in a way that’s effective unlike what you’ve got in CEAA.
Mr. Gratton: We hope it will. It won’t do away with it but should improve it.
CEAA 2012 created something that we lobbied for, substitution and equivalency. Substitution is where the federal government decides that the province can do the assessment for them but the federal government retains a decision at the end. Equivalency is about where they let the province do the whole thing, including making the decision. Equivalency has never been done. Even though it’s in the act, it has never been used.
Substitution has only been used by British Columbia. The other provinces have either decided if the federal government is going to insist on doing a federal assessment of a project that is provincial jurisdiction, then they should do it. They’re not going to do the federal government’s work. They have resisted. Or because federal and provincial jurisdiction is too unlike one another. We have 10 jurisdictions south of 60. They all have different environmental assessment acts. In Ontario, you don’t have one. Trying to have an act that works in every jurisdiction is extremely difficult.
This bill will enable other mechanisms besides substitution and equivalency to be brought to bear, but it’s not one project, one review, per se; it’s better harmonization. It’s a bit of a back to the future, to what we had pre-2012. It wasn’t great, but it was better than what we have now where those two options, which are the only two, aren’t being used.
Is that clear?
Senator Mitchell: That’s clear.
Ms. Laurie-Lean, do you have something to add?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: It will allow alignment and co-operation in an ideal world and through our provincial association colleagues, we’re encouraging them to encourage provincial governments to enter into those agreements. And there is a provision for those agreements to be signed with Indigenous governments. That would help our industry because then you would know when you’re going into a province or an Indigenous territory what the process will be.
It will require a little bit of adjustment and that’s why the flexibility that some people see as uncertainty in Bill C-69 is necessary if you have to adjust the process to align with the province and then allow a process that is, from a legal and technical standpoint, two processes. But from the proponent and community and Indigenous government perspective, it is one process. That’s the difference.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you.
One of the major criticisms of the bill is really founded on misinformation, and it is that somehow the timelines are longer. But, in fact, every single timeline is shorter. I think the ones that will affect the mining industry will go from 720 days, if it comes down to an agency review, to 300 days.
You talked very powerfully about further advantage to reducing time — that is the pre-planning or the early planning process. You’ve alluded to, in earlier testimony, all these different ways things could be delayed. Are you aware of, and perhaps you could comment on the specification of the government in one of their documents that there will be, at this point, four reasons why they would suspend or delay a project. Each of those reasons is essentially driven by the proponent or within the control of the proponent. I can list the proponent requesting that the timeline be suspended, that’s not the government or the process; that there is a design change directed by the proponent that’s of significant consequence; that critical information is missing which should have and can now be provided by the proponent; and the proponent hasn’t paid their costs recoverable bill.
Is that reasonable, do you think? Would you add anything to it or do you think it’s okay?
Senator Woo: Thank you, witnesses and also industry colleagues who are in the room with us.
You know in the two weeks of testimony we’ve heard, we have seen common themes coming up already. One common theme is the nexus between sections 18, 22, and 63. I can predict this is something the committee is going to land on in terms of how we try to fix it. But I want to understand the nuance you are presenting between 18 and 22, with 18 being the notification of commencement and 22 being the factors.
You have said there needs to be clearer scoping and definition of the tailored guidelines for the impact assessment, but I don’t think you are saying that the factors in 22 should be modified. Can you clarify that, first of all?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: We’re not asking for an amendment to the factors.
Senator Woo: Okay.
Ms. Laurie-Lean: Currently 22(2) —
Senator Woo: Already says —
Ms. Laurie-Lean: — says the agency has the power to scope. It’s a bit fuzzy.
Senator Woo: Okay.
Ms. Laurie-Lean: I think what we’re driving at and what is articulated quite well in the big CAPP table is an explicit mention that says, yes, the agency has the authority to scope those factors.
Senator Woo: Okay.
Ms. Laurie-Lean: I think they go a little bit further, which is quite beneficial, and that should be communicated explicitly, beyond just having the tailored guidelines, which could be just what information the proponent is to gather or someone is to gather, but more to articulate and say we looked at, for example, “alternatives to,” and we’ve decided that in the case of a mine the “alternative to” is no mine. We’re not going to ask the mining company to examine the building of a shoe factory as an option. Making that clear. Some of them are much more nuanced. Some of those factors can be done this broad or that narrow. By listening to the community, by listening to the Indigenous government, relevant, the province, you can say in this case this is how we want to study it.
Senator Woo: Thank you. That’s very helpful because other commentators on this nexus are not only asking for better scoping but the elimination of some of the factors in 22, but what you’re asking for is clarity is for the clarity to be spelled out in the legislation.
Let me ask you then about the nexus between 18, 22 and 63. You haven’t talked about 63 which is the public interest test. A number of witnesses have expressed reservations about having that additional step even after the impact assessment is done and a recommendation is made that there should be a public interest test.
Can you comment, first of all, on the role of a public interest test-like mechanism in the current legislation, CEAA 2012, which has a political decision-making mechanism, and the suitability of a public interest test that provides the final say on the decision over the project?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: The current CEAA 2012 decision is based on the significant adverse cumulative effects, which, a lot of people forget, doesn’t work well.
Senator Woo: It is a political assessment —
Ms. Laurie-Lean: In the case of mining projects, it is the minister’s decision.
Senator Woo: Okay.
Ms. Laurie-Lean: The problem is it does not allow the differentiation between the merits of the project itself and the state of the surrounding environment which may have been degraded by a whole bunch of other activities that may be growing.
Minister Wilkinson gave an excellent interview to CBC Radio on Saturday where he talked about this circumstance where the project itself is not causing that much addition.
In the case of mines, which are on land and therefore more can be done, we have had members projects that had a tiny impact, offered quadruple offset for that impact, and yet were found to have adverse cumulative effects because of things that have nothing to do with the project. That would continue whether the project went ahead or not. Where section 63 allows taking everything into consideration — what are the merits of the project and whether it’s called a public interest test or exactly how it’s formulated. I don’t think we have a brilliant opinion. It is better than this strange construct that is in CEAA 2012 that doesn’t always work.
Senator Woo: Thank you very much.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you very much for being with us.
Everybody talks about the timing and the deadlines. As you mentioned 2012 — in the early decision we opposed it but it didn’t change anything. In the proposed act of Bill C-69 what you have is a process and, yes, the minister can put it on pause but they have to give public notice and it has to satisfy three criteria. That seems to pass my smell test. You may be right when you review the act that there are special circumstances, but very special, where he or she would have a right to again pass, but not very much.
I’m not very concerned about the minister having to pause because it’s pretty much — the problem, and you could argue that’s why you live in a democracy, the order-in-council, the Prime Minister has significant discretion to put on a pause for whatever reason on whatever he wants without much explanation.
Do you agree with what I just said? Is that a good summary of the issue?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: Without explanation, that is a legitimate concern, although it takes so much effort to go to cabinet and get a Governor-in-Council decision that I cannot imagine anyone doing that for trivial reasons.
On the other hand, there may be circumstances where there are reasons that you need to add an extension. The idea of saying the Governor-in-Council can’t make that decision is really tying the hands of the government. We were not worried about that infinite extension just because we know how awfully difficult it is to get the government to go to cabinet and get a decision. Cabinet is busy. They do not want to do this.
Senator Massicotte: When you look at the other provinces, nearly every other province has that large discretion clause whereby the government can decide, for whatever reason, not to proceed or wait, pause or take the time it wants.
Maybe you can argue it’s a weakness. We live in a democracy and it looks like every government is doing the same. Would you agree with what I just said?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: We don’t work in provinces. Our provincial association — we’re not a provincial association, so I’d hate to comment on it. But maybe —
Ms. Audouin: I think we would be in the same boat in our response. The clarity is going to be key in implementing this act, and even though right now what is proposed seems to be a good working framework, we can’t leave it to regulations. Some decisions will need to be made.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Your presentation makes note of three particular factors related to navigable waters. Have you submitted your comments to the minister’s office, the deputy minister’s office or to any officials? What was their response to your three requirements regarding the amendments?
Ms. Audouin: I will let Pierre give you a detailed answer, but we have had discussions and communications with the offices of the minister and deputy minister since the process began. Our most recent submission, which you have in your hands, will be submitted in a few days. This is a very complex subject and only a few people really understand the operational side. It will take a lot of effort on our part and on the part of other industries to explain the potential impacts, especially on existing sites and current operations.
Pierre Lundahl, Chief Consultant, Canadian Hydropower Association (WaterPower Canada): I would like to add one point. We have been left with the impression, without it being explicitly stated, that the department is essentially relying on regulations to solve the problems that concern us and that we have drawn the committee’s attention to today. To stress once more what our president said a moment ago, we believe that certain issues related to the Navigable Waters Act could be easily corrected and would make the text of the act much clearer. This would then make it easier to draft good regulations. Basically, the amendments are quite minor. We are not talking about reworking the act.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Carignan: I am going to continue with the Canadian Hydropower Association. Your website indicates that $125 billion will be invested in the next 20 years. In your brief, you say that small projects and small structures may well not see the light of day because the regulations are too onerous or because the initial obstacles would make it too risky or too burdensome to develop those projects.
Have you assessed the number of projects that would not see the light of day if Bill C-69 is adopted as is?
Ms. Audouin: That is a very good question. However, it is difficult to answer because projects are assessed when the economic, social, and environmental realities become known and a project can proceed. At the moment, it would be very difficult to assess the exact impact that Bill C-69 could have on not proceeding with the small projects we are talking about, those under the threshold of 200 megawatts. If Bill C-69 has to be implemented in the months and years to come, our very strong recommendation is that the 200-megawatt threshold be established as the real threshold that distinguishes small projects from large ones. All hydroelectric projects below the threshold of 200 megawatts would be completely swamped by the requirements of the process as currently proposed.
Senator Carignan: So your proposal for hydroelectricity is to define what constitutes a major project and a minor project in order to respect the spirit of Minister McKenna’s plan for major projects, as she presented it. For you, the number of megawatts is the determining factor in hydroelectricity.
Ms. Audouin: The 200-megawatt threshold is the one in current use and our proposal is to keep it.
Senator Carignan: In Quebec, it seems, particularly in the north, the James Bay Agreement is already providing a good balance in terms of consultations on environmental protection with the indigenous communities. Would you be in favour of going back to the very start of the consultation process provided for in that agreement? Is that a matter your members have raised?
Mr. Lundahl: Unfortunately, we are not able to speak for our members on a matter that affects one province specifically. The question should be asked to Hydro-Quebec or the Government of Québec. The James Bay Agreement led to significant progress when it was signed. However, I will not express an opinion on the role that it should play today.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: I want to get to the politicization issue we were talking about at the beginning.
Before I do that, as far as the hydro people are concerned, you want some amendments on the navigable waters part of Bill C-69. On Bill C-68, you commented and said there will be no major hydro project developed if that bill is passed.
Ms. Audouin: Bill C-68.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, Bill C-68.
I know the resource industry is opposed to Bill C-69. The pipeline association is opposed to Bill C-69. The mining association, initially, I thought you gave an editorial where you talked about supporting Bill C-69.
At the same time there were a number of — I know that Cameco and Suncor — Suncor said it’s currently proposed a new IA process is unclear and does not address concerns about lengthy costly processes. Cameco has said the assessment process is wholly impractical and illogical, and “in our view, will never result in a major project approval.”
We’re getting mixed messages.
Then throw into that picture Bill C-48, which the resource companies are vehemently opposed to and which First Nations in British Columbia are opposed to, it’s no wonder the amount of investment dollars have been cut in half over the last number of years.
We’re supposed to try and make sense of all of this, in this and other committees. I can’t make sense of it. I don’t know whether the Mining Association of Canada had some “come to Jesus moment” and, all of sudden, those other concerns disappeared. But this is what they said.
Did Cameco and Suncor actually say that and believe it, or did something else happen that would have changed their mind?
Mr. Gratton: I don’t know exactly what you’re referencing. I saw at one point that, I think before the Senate, someone was referencing a letter from Cameco from the spring. They have sent a brief since then that is a bit different. You don’t see them saying, I think, what you outlined there, in part because — I don’t want to overstate this — some of their concerns were partially addressed in the house but by no means satisfied.
We were clear in that op-ed that this is not better for the uranium sector. We still say it’s not better for the uranium sector. They have a national federal regulator. This is adding complexity to how their projects will be assessed. We think there are ways of addressing it. One is the amendment we’re proposing, which is where you allow uranium mines to continue to be subject to agency assessments instead of full panel reviews. Panel reviews are, by their nature, longer, more complex and more politicized — more politicized because they’re more controversial. Some of the uranium mines in Saskatchewan, in your province —
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I worry about it.
Mr. Gratton: We’re worried about them, too. We are encouraging this committee to propose that amendment to make it better for the uranium sector.
We’ve all talked about the project list. Every mining project gets subject to an environmental assessment at the federal level, yet some of these projects are underground mines and are very small. There are other activities across Canada that are not assessed under this act that are much bigger.
We are also proposing that thresholds for mines on the project list be raised — not astronomically. We’re not asking to get out from under federal environmental assessment. But some projects, including some uranium projects, should probably just fall to the CNSC alone, because they’re not big enough.
There are ways of addressing this. We’re continuing to press the case for amendments for uranium and project list improvements for mining in general.
As for Suncor, I don’t know when that comment was made. I would just go back to my opening remarks: The position we outlined in that op-ed was the position that was shared by the membership in this room. That op-ed was circulated broadly across this entire group before it was submitted, and —
Senator Tkachuk: Please don’t get me wrong. I want you to explain it, but the point is that I wasn’t making a point —
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk —
Senator Tkachuk: — critical to you —
Mr. Gratton: No, I understand.
Senator Tkachuk: — you don’t have to defend yourself.
Mr. Gratton: What I was going to say, though, is that what then happened was TMX. When TMX happened, it’s like the Earth moved. Many in the energy sector, including our members within the energy sector, thought, “Well, Bill C-69 — you know, it could work. There are problems with CEAA 2012. We’ve heard what the others have said. This seems to be addressing it.” Then TMX happened. It was such a critical project for the country and critical for their sector. It caused them to have a closer look, knowing that so much of CEAA 2012 is in Bill C-69. There’s a lot that is still there.
It took a while. Suncor, CNLR, Syncrude and Teck Resources — the four in the oil sands — didn’t just wake up after the TMX decision and go, “Oh, we know what we need.” It took months. It involved this entire group in this room. We’ve come forward with the amendments we have because we’ve identified areas we think are more important now in light of recent decisions.
I’d also make the point, which I didn’t make early, that some of the other groups, like CAPP, are presenting other amendments that we don’t oppose. We may not be making them because they are not particularly relevant to us; they may involve offshore oil and gas that don’t concern the mining industry.
I would make this point here, too: Most mines are not — I mentioned three mining projects approved in the last month and a half. You hadn’t heard of them; probably none of you have heard of them. Most mines don’t generate an awful lot of controversy. Occasionally, one comes along that’s really big and does, but it’s rare. Very occasionally, those projects are subject to a panel review, but usually, it’s just an agency assessment.
A large energy infrastructure project or a large oil sands mine today galvanizes public interest, including foreign interest. It’s a more complex process.
Although we’re not, as MAC, proposing necessarily some of the amendments that CAPP is proposing, we acknowledge that, for that sector, they need a greater degree of confidence that this process will work for them. It’s a more complex environment today than it used to be.
There are issues like who gets to participate and when. In a mining project, the public consultation may be an open house, and five people show up. For an oil sands mine, it’s going to be a lot more than five people. Having the authority to manage that process appropriately is a very important issue for the energy sector. We get that. We think this committee should be thinking through those issues so that we move away from the kind of politicization of some of our bigger energy and infrastructure projects that have been the case for the last number of years.
I’m on a soapbox, but you asked the question, so there you go.
The Chair: Listen, senators. Listen, please.
Senator Tkachuk: I’m going to ask another question.
The Chair: No. No, senator. Sorry, we have to go for a vote.
Senator Tkachuk: We have time to before a vote. It’s not until nine o’clock.
The Chair: Could you please let me talk, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Okay.
The Chair: We agree that after this meeting, we are going to talk about travel. I need to know who is coming back after the vote. We need to know if there will be senators who will be continuing questioning the witness.
Senator Massicotte: Is this our last panel?
The Chair: Yes.
The first question: Who is coming back after the vote? Good. Okay.
We will talk about the trip. Do you want to talk about travel after the witnesses?
Some Hon. Senators: After the witnesses.
The Chair: After the witnesses. Fine.
Senator Tkachuk, you may have a very short question.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, thank you.
I thank you for that answer. What I was trying to get at is this is not simple. The mining association has some supporters, and there are some minor amendments. But this is a bigger problem than that. The problem is part of Bill C-68 and the problem is part of Bill C-48. To me, they are all tied together. If we don’t get all of them right, we’re back in the same place we were before.
You mentioned earlier on in your panel about the provinces, natural resources — we heard the minister today; I’m sure you did as well. I know our minister in Saskatchewan has some concerns.
We know all about the consultation process. What provincial governments support Bill C-69? Can you think of one?
Mr. Gratton: We haven’t asked them. I don’t know. I know where our provincial associations are.
Senator Tkachuk: What provincial governments support Bill C-69?
The Chair: We will —
Senator Tkachuk: I’m just asking if any of them know.
The Chair: They have to speak for themselves.
Senator Tkachuk: Maybe Uruguay. Brazil. We could do the process in South America.
The Chair: The meeting is suspended. We will resume after the vote.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Senators, we are resuming our discussion with our guests. We will continue with the question and the answers for 20 minutes. Then we will end this part and we will go into our discussion on travel and other issues.
Senator Richards, you have three minutes.
Senator Richards: I have one question. This is such a big complicated omnibus bill. I’m wondering if any one of you ever thought it should be two or three bills — hydro, mining and petroleum? Would it work better? This is hypothetical. If that was the case, wouldn’t it work much better if it wasn’t all put together and there were two or three bills, if mining was separated from petroleum?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: Yes.
Mr. Gratton: For the record, we were the only group when this started three years ago saying don’t try to have one bill fit all. At that time, nobody agreed with us. We were the lone voice and we have what we have. That is part of the challenge.
Senator Richards: That is part of the problem.
Mr. Gratton: Part of the problem is that there are different issues that different sectors face and arguably, there are different solutions. It is challenging, but CEAA 2012 is the same to a degree.
Senator Richards: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentations. I’d like to address myself to you, Ms. Audouin, if I might, specifically about the Canadian navigable waters act for which you presented several recommendations. Being from Quebec, of course I am concerned knowing that hydropower is pretty important in Quebec, to say the least.
We have heard from others that there are problems with the definition of the navigable waters, and you expressed that in your presentation. Could you elaborate on that and tell us what would be an improvement to the definition.
Ms. Audouin: On navigable waters, we see a fundamental risk to existing facilities. And, Pierre, you can add to other parts of our concerns.
On existing facilities, you’ve raised that point. It’s true in Quebec. It’s true in many provinces in Canada because Canada is just blessed with hydro and it exists in almost every province and territory. The way the act is worded right now it means every time you undertake any renovation or any sort of alteration or any simple maintenance on your existing facility, this could trigger requirements for approval. This would be completely unworkable and in reality, it will stall operations.
Senator Seidman: You have said a streamlined process to deal with work at all existing facilities. Is that what you’re proposing?
Mr. Lundahl: If I may, in our written submission, we will have a few more recommendations in the Navigation Protection Act, but they all basically try to fix one problem. By expanding the definition of what is navigable, by having too many works designated, major works that are subject to a more complex approval process before they can proceed, by having a definition of works that is very broad, the act might result in an enormous workload for both the department and the electricity producers, the hydro producers, and also other institutions that run a number of hydraulic facilities. We don’t think there is any fundamental issue with the principles of the bill regarding navigation.
Some of the definitions have to be narrowed down. The process for adding waters to the schedule have to be a little more rigorous in the way it approaches the changes to the schedule. The definition of “major works” has to be narrowed. By accident, I would say, dams located on a lateral channel and are not really a major obstruction to navigation — you can still go to the dam in a boat and say it stops you, but it is not really a navigation obstruction because you can still follow the main channel of the river. That should be excluded.
We have a number of fixes or amendments that I think are quite feasible to some of the subsections of the act.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: You heard the last speaker. You were here for the presentation. When I listened to his presentation and yours, you have such different stories. I’m wondering why one group is more adversely impacted by the bill and the other is not.
Mr. Gratton: It’s hard to speak on behalf of other sectors. I don’t really want to do that.
Senator McCallum: In your presentation, you said the mining industry is disproportionately —
Mr. Gratton: — disproportionately affected.
Senator McCallum: — affected but his mining wasn’t. I’m trying to get an idea why one group is more impacted negatively.
Mr. Gratton: Are you talking about Minister Rickford, when he was here earlier? We had trouble understanding his point. All mines in his province are pretty well subject to the federal environmental assessment act.
The province doesn’t have — it has an environmental assessment act, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to mining. It’s voluntary. It’s a rather complicated permitting system, which makes alignment with the federal act harder than in some other jurisdictions.
Ontario is the largest mining jurisdiction in Canada. If you look at the recent recovery in commodity prices, Ontario would typically be leading the pack in new mining investment and mineral exploration. Right now it’s fallen behind Quebec and British Columbia. At the moment it’s not as rosy in Ontario as it should be.
In terms of what he was saying, I don’t quite know what he means. Under the current project list, pretty well every mining project will be subject to a federal environmental assessment. I’m aware of one project in Ontario that was screened out: the all-electric mine by Goldcorp, because it’s a small underground mine with no tailings. The footprint was very small; it’s fully electric, so there are no greenhouse gases or diesel emissions. It was screened out, but that’s the only one I can think of.
Ms. Laurie-Lean: I’m not trying to be facetious, but I wasn’t sure whether Minister Rickford was saying it was a good thing or a bad thing. He kept talking about mining. He didn’t point out that mining, like forestry, hydro and a whole bunch of provincial jurisdiction things — some of them are subject to CEAA 2012 and some are not. It isn’t clear to us why.
I’m not sure what his point about mining was and how that related to the impact assessment act. I honestly am not sure what the point he was making and in what way it differs from our points.
Senator Simons: Senator Seidman asked my original question. You answered it very well. I’m going to ask a completely different one.
There are some people in this universe who think that the best strategy for Bill C-69 is to delay things as long as possible so that the bill dies on the Order Paper. I see that in my Twitter feed; I hear that in other places than Twitter.
I would like to ask each of you from your various industry perspectives: What do you think the consequences would be to your industry and to investor confidence if we were to let this bill die on the Order Paper rather than expeditiously dealing with it?
Mr. Gratton: We would be stuck with CEAA 2012, which we don’t want to be stuck with, and it would mean that, in the next Parliament, we would press for at least amendments to CEAA 2012. I can’t predict who will be in government at that time. We would want CEAA 2012 issues addressed somehow.
It would prolong the debate on an issue that we have been debating now since the beginning of the decade.
Senator Simons: Would that be good for investor confidence?
Mr. Gratton: No, that would not be good for investor confidence.
I would like to add one point. I think this committee has heard from a number of witnesses. I would say there is a pretty broad convergence emerging. We aren’t agreeing on all issues, but there are a number of amendments that we’re all agreeing on that would improve this bill and would, perhaps, bring some of the other affected sectors to the point of accepting this legislation.
Senator Simons: I’d love to hear from Ms. McDonald and Ms. Williams, who haven’t had a chance to answer.
Would it be good for investment in your industry if this bill were to die on the Order Paper?
Lesley Williams, Director of Policy, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada: Given the challenges our industry has faced with CEAA 2012 and our position on this bill, I don’t think it would be good for investment confidence. We would agree with MAC.
Ms. Audouin: We’re between a rock and a hard place in the sense that we learned to work with CEAA 2012 — and maybe there is a bit of a difference between MAC and our position on this — but we are working with CEAA 2012. We spoke in support of CEAA 2012 when it was passed a few years ago.
We all need to remember that this legislation, CEAA 2012, is only seven or eight years old. It’s very new. Now we’re entering into another process of understanding a new impact assessment process, which, in many ways, is bringing up a more complex system just to wrap your head around. That’s a reality.
We also feel this piece of legislation brings new and interesting points forward with regard to the consideration of climate change and socioeconomic considerations, which, right now under CEAA 2012, are not things that are weighed in or considered.
Senator Simons: Adding the climate change as one of the list of factors could actually be helpful to the green-lighting of more hydro, you’re suggesting?
Ms. Audouin: Yes. Hydro power being non-emitting, clean and renewable, we appreciate that being part of the consideration process.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: I would also like to congratulate Ms. Audouin for her new responsibilities.
[English]
Coming from New Brunswick, we are concerned in Atlantic Canada — but I will talk about New Brunswick. We are concerned by the fact that — even this past weekend, I’ve had First Nation people saying they have not been consulted. When I hear Mr. Gratton say that things changed when the TMX decision was made. I agree with you. It would have changed, also, if it would have been Energy East, but that’s another subject matter.
My question is more Ms. Audouin. In New Brunswick, we’re in dire need of modernizing our economy, to do more value-added and, in the energy mix, hydro is very, very important. Mactaquac Dam, which the government is considering — and I had been in the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly for a few years, six elections.
[Translation]
The fact is that we are concerned because of the prevailing uncertainty, but we are also concerned for the investments. Who is going to invest in a project that will be in the order of $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion?
Another factor that concerns us is knowing whether there are mechanisms to ensure New Brunswick’s economic activity with huge projects like that. We are also concerned about fish habitat when we look at the Saint John protocol, for example.
[English]
If I look at Bill C-69 the way it is — and I welcome the fact that you’re making recommendations. I don’t think it’s a matter of killing Bill C-69 but certainly to modernize it.
[Translation]
It is also to encourage the competitiveness of New Brunswick in Confederation. What is your opinion about that?
Ms. Audouin: By way of clarification, are you referring to the refurbishment of the Mactaquac Dam?
Senator Mockler: I am talking about modernization.
[English]
The Chair: We are hearing the witness speak. Senator Tkachuk, please, we are hearing the witness.
Senator Tkachuk: I understand, but he started it. It’s like Grade 8, right? Well, I was a schoolteacher too, you know.
The Chair: Can we allow the witness to give her answer?
Ms. Audouin: It’s hard to follow after that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks again for the question on the refurbishment of Mactaquac.
[Translation]
Specifically, in terms of rebuilding projects, our proposal for Bill C-69 is that rebuilding small projects should not come under the bill. They should be large projects, as the text of the bill proposes. It would make things complicated and onerous; it would also eliminate a number of very fine hydroelectric projects in the country.
The second part of your question dealt with fish habitat and the consequences of the legislation. Our comments are really focused on the assessment of Bill C-68. So, in terms of Bill C-69, there are no automatic points of convergence that we could analyze today.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCoy: I want to go back to the question of designated projects, which is one of the common concerns we’ve heard from several witnesses. In fact, one of our senators at the committee said we’re being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Everybody says, “Don’t worry, it will be fixed in the regulations.”
I’m reminded of Ralph Klein, who joined our government in 1989 when he became Minister of Environment. At that time, the province was diversifying into pulp and paper. There were great public outcries over pulp and paper mills. Ralph simply said, “Leave it to me.” He inherited this as a new minister, immediately went out and talked to them all directly and secondly said, “Would it help if I shared with you a copy of the draft regulations before the act is finalized?” Those two things completely defused the situation.
I’m wondering if the same might be said in this situation, especially with the designated projects, if a copy of the draft, which they said they got, would be circulated now so there could be some trust built into the process going forward.
Mr. Gratton: Yes is the short answer. There are a few other things they could do. They could amend the current project list. There is a project list under CEAA 2012. They could signal intent now. There’s nothing stopping them. I know they’re not publishing it now because you can’t get ahead of the act, and every government faces that. It’s not new. You could signal intent or you could release an updated discussion paper.
I think that would take a lot of issues off the table. I may go back to some of the concerns Suncor raised in situ, which doesn’t affect mining so we’re not addressing it in our brief, but being assured in situ remains off the list. Potash mining in Saskatchewan has never been subject to federal environmental assessment. Because of where it is, it doesn’t tend to require federal authorization like under the Fisheries Act. It’s always been exempt. My sense, if I were guessing, I would say it will continue to be that way. It would be nice to see that assurance and then the Saskatchewan industry would feel much better about this proposed bill.
It’s a lot different for a miner that’s already subject to the act to look at this compared to what you’ve already got versus somebody who’s not subject to the act having to be subject to it. That’s a much greater level of concern. Who wants another process that you’re not currently subject to? I think that would help a lot.
Senator McCoy: The experience in 2012 was that the designated project list was passed as a regulation, and within a year a new designated project list was issued, in 2013. In fact, I thought the potash industry had aced the assessment process when I was looking through the registry. I think they started in January and said it was finished in October. I thought, “Nine months, what have those people in Saskatchewan got going for them?” I discovered that potash mines were taken off the designated list in 2013. That’s why that one was so successful. It might be taken to occur again. There are obviously some concerns about projects, as you say, which are provincial —
Mr. Gratton: All mines are provincial. The historic justification for mines that have been subject to CEAA since 1995 when it came into force as opposed to potash mines that have been exempt is most metal mines in this country, for example, will affect water. You’ll need a Fisheries Act authorization. Potash mines are in dry country.
The most important federal government trigger is not triggered in the potash sector. That has been the primary rationale for keeping them off the list. I think that rationale still applies.
Senator McCoy: I won’t go any further. Thank you for your answers and thank you for being here.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: In the summary of the Mining Association brief, you are the second witness to propose changes or amendments to the purposes of the act section almost verbatim, the same kind of change. Why? What is the legal reason for adding “the Canadian economy encouraged prosperity and improved competitiveness” to the purpose statement? What’s the legal reason?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: I’m not a lawyer. Very often when we’re arguing over interpretation in the body of an act, they will often allude to the purposes and say we have to interpret it this way because of the purposes.
In the absence of any mention of the investment climate and competitiveness, it kind of overlooks driving home when they’re considering different implementation measures and different approaches to regulations if they don’t at all take into account what it would cost the proponent. There are different ways of doing things. Some are more expensive than others.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Are you saying this would increase the weighting of the economy? If we’re talking about a three-legged stool where one leg is the environmental impact, one is duty to consult and the third is the economy, this would increase the weighting by changing the purpose statement, do you suppose?
Ms. Laurie-Lean: I don’t think “weighting” is the word I’m comfortable with because it implies a 40 per cent versus 60 per cent type of approach. In practice, at least for mining projects where you’ve got much more localized in communities, there generally isn’t that kind of dichotomy. It’s more in the process costs that would be more important of not imposing, “Well, just in case, we’ll ask you to do 10 more butterflies and 20 years of studies.” Being able to push back at that, that it’s not justified, would be helpful.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for this interesting conversation. My thanks to our witnesses for visiting our committee.
[English]
I am going to suspend the meeting. Don’t go away because we are going in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: We have two subjects. The first subject is travel.
You have received a number of emails requesting your availability. We haven’t received all of the availabilities. I will say it’s almost half that are missing. Please, you have until tomorrow to provide your availability. So far, with the ones who have been provided availability, we are not arriving to a consensus on which day to travel.
Now, I don’t know if Senator MacDonald wants to confirm that his caucus has decided there is just one single break week that is available for travel. Could you please confirm that?
Senator MacDonald: You’ve already made the commitment that if we’re travelling for two weeks, we will give up one of our break weeks to travel. We’ve already made that commitment. Yet that week has to be negotiated by leadership. We can’t negotiate it here. The leadership has to negotiate which week it’s going to be.
The Chair: Can you please tell us when you’re going to negotiate that?
Senator MacDonald: I can’t tell you when I’m going to negotiate it because I’m not negotiating it. The leadership is going to negotiate it.
The Chair: We cannot go further to develop a budget unless we have the week that we are going to travel. We are going a little bit in circles here. We need more details on the week because you represent a large number. You represent half.
Senator MacDonald: I put out a request after I got Maxime’s email and asked people for their feedback on this and when they were available. I let you know I was available for the entire range of the time you sent out but, again, I’m not responsible for negotiating which week it’s going to be. Leadership has to do that.
The Chair: Does anyone want to debate or discuss this?
Senator Mitchell: I’d like to discuss the issue of whether the trip is on break weeks or sitting days.
Let me give you some statistics which are quite startling. With the 21 bills that we have received or will receive, there will a total of 35 second and third reading debates. As of tomorrow, we will have 31 sitting days remaining. We will have fewer sitting days than we have major second or third reading debates.
Second, this year, until June, we will sit, including the week that we’ve just sat, for about — sorry, I want to go a step back. Also, two committees will be travelling. One is ours with 14 members, and I’ll go, so that’s 15. The other one is Transport, with nine members. There will be 23 members who will be travelling, conceivably, during at least one sitting day. That’s 20 per cent of the entire Senate that will be missing about 20 per cent of the opportunity to debate second and third reading debates. It’s very significant.
Second, we will be sitting this year, from February to June, including last week, 36 days. Because of the election, it’s very unlikely that we’ll sit much more than another six to nine days, the way these things go. That would be 45 days.
We’re paid $150,000 a year. Therefore, this year, to work here for 45 days, senators want to take some of that and travel? I think it’s absolutely acceptable that we should determine that we can travel on two break weeks. Most Canadians don’t get that kind of work in 50 days that they have to double up on. Most Canadians would think we’d be in here for those second and third reading debates, we’d be here for those votes and that we would be here at least those 45 days this year, in the Senate, which is a very significant portion of the oath that we all signed when we were sworn in, and that we could travel for two break weeks for the rest of the year.
I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I think Canadians would say, “Yes, that’s exactly reasonable. Would you please do it that way?”
The Chair: Okay. Before I give the floor to Senator MacDonald, I want to say that I’ve been trying to move a motion for travel from the Senate, but because of all of this stopping at the Senate, I can’t. I will try my best again tomorrow, tonight —
Senator Woo: If they don’t adjourn again, we can get to it.
The Chair: Okay, tonight.
Senator Tkachuk: You have to get up on —
Senator Woo: It they agree.
Senator Tkachuk: They’d have to agree.
The Chair: You have to agree.
Senator Tkachuk: We can’t speak for all —
The Chair: I cannot speak, but I can try. I will try.
Senator MacDonald: A couple of things.
First of all, Senator Mitchell, we’re not responsible for the 21 bills that you say are coming towards the house. That’s the government. Excuse me. I have the floor.
Senator Mitchell: I have my hand up.
Senator MacDonald: Excuse me. I have the floor. We’re concerned with Bill C-69. That’s what this committee’s concern is. That’s what we’re here to deal with, not the 21 bills the government has.
Second, if the government was so concerned about using time, why did the government set Parliament for three weeks out of eight in March and November? Perhaps you should take your criticism to the government.
We made an agreement. Our policy is we don’t travel on break weeks, but we agreed to adjust that. We agreed to extend the hours on Tuesday and Thursday. We agreed to sit Mondays, if it’s negotiated, because we have people who sit on other committees and some people have to travel from the West Coast, so we have to make sure that’s properly worked out. And we agreed that, instead of going on sitting weeks, we would go on one sitting week and one break week.
We agreed to all of that. Now you’re saying that because you don’t agree with that we should throw it all out. But we’ve agreed, as a committee, to do this.
Senator Mitchell: We can change our minds.
Senator MacDonald: Well, I’m not changing my mind.
Senator Mitchell: First of all, it’s striking — sorry.
The Chair: No, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: It’s striking to me to hear a senator in this room say that they don’t have a responsibility —
Senator MacDonald: I didn’t say that.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, you did.
Senator MacDonald: Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say that.
Senator Mitchell: — for legislation in that other place, government legislation. We all have a responsibility to deal with that. Whether you vote against it, whether you argue against it, whether you amend it, you have as much a responsibility for every one of those 20 other bills as you have for this one here, particularly when you can do something about it.
If you want to talk about the fall sitting, had you gone to steering committees in December, we could have organized all of this and had more than enough time to do the kind of study we needed to do and we could have travelled for three weeks in January.
Let’s not pull that. The fact of the matter is that Canadians think we have a responsibility to review and legislate their legislation. There are 20 more bills than we’re dealing with here and we can deal with them on two break weeks. It’s absolutely fundamental to do that when you’re earning $150,000 a year.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell, listen. We just have five minutes. What I need from you is to tell me your availabilities and, from you, to tell me which is the break week that you agree on as soon as possible.
I’m going to try to move, so the Senate also debates on the possibility for travel.
Senator MacDonald: I want to respond to something. When I’m being misrepresented, I have the right to respond to it. You said we should do this before Christmas and we had all this time. We got the bill handed to us the day before we left.
Senator Mitchell: And you could have met the day after that with the two members of the steering committee and started organizing this, and you could have had a decision —
Senator MacDonald: Do I have the floor —
The Chair: I’m going to give the floor to Senator Woo.
Senator Woo: Colleagues, we have to vote. We have to put it to an end. We’re not making any progress. I would like to move the adjournment of this meeting. I don’t think it’s productive at this stage. We do have to go up anyway. I’m going to propose that we not come back again after the vote.
I move that we now adjourn this meeting.
Senator Patterson: To the motion.
Madam Chair, I think you’ve let Senator Mitchell speak three times, I believe, in this discussion, which was supposed to be about our travel itinerary. He’s not a member of the committee and he’s —
The Chair: He’s a member. He’s a member.
Senator Patterson: Anyway, he’s been provocative. I’m sorry about that.
I don’t think it’s productive to adjourn the meeting.
Senator MacDonald: Neither do I.
Senator Patterson: The clerk has done work on a proposed itinerary.
Frankly, Madam Chair, I don’t understand why you can’t develop a travel budget without a firm schedule of the time. The cost of travel is going to be the same in whatever week we travel. A flight to St. John’s is going to cost the same in March as it does in April. I think it’s a reasonable proposal that we would travel in one break week and we would travel otherwise in —
Senator Cordy: Chair, a point of order. A motion to adjourn is not debatable.
The Chair: You’re right, yes. You’re right.
Listen, colleagues, we all want to progress so we need this information. Part of the budget can be done, only part of the budget, but we need the itinerary and we need to know the number of people who are coming.
Who is in favour of the motion to adjourn the meeting? Six. Who is against? Six. The motion is defeated.
We are coming back after the vote.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Senators, you have in front of you the travel. In order to start with a preliminary budget, do you agree with these destinations?
Senator Tkachuk: When you have Calgary there —
The Chair: It will be Tsuut’ina First Nation. It’s very close to Calgary.
Senator Tkachuk: It’s not in Calgary; it’s at the First Nation?
The Chair: Yes, it’s very close. We discussed this in steering. It’s Senator MacDonald’s suggestion.
Senator Tkachuk: No, that’s fine. I just asked. I have no problem.
Senator Simons: I am concerned. Fort Chipewyan is very difficult to reach by air, and given the weather that Alberta has been having there’s a significant risk that you could go to Fort Chip and not be able to leave for days. I really want to stress that I think that is a —
The Chair: We are exploring the possibility that people from Fort Chipewyan come to Fort McMurray.
Senator Simons: Let them get stuck in Fort McMurray. I don’t mean that. I wonder about the reasoning. It’s a lot of travel. Is there something particular?
Senator Patterson: It’s a big country.
Senator Simons: It’s a big country. I like Winnipeg. It’s not in any way disrespectful to the people of Manitoba. But is there something we’re going to learn in Winnipeg that we’re not going to learn in Saskatoon? Is there something we’re going to learn in Saskatoon that we’re not going to learn in Winnipeg? I just wonder if, in the interests of being prudent stewards of public dollars, we might want to think about pruning one city off of each list.
Senator Woo: I agree with that suggestion. In that spirit I would propose having one destination in Atlantic Canada — yes, that’s what I would propose — and have witnesses from the other two provinces travel to that destination, say Halifax or St. John, either one of the two could work very well.
The Chair: Just a second, he has the floor.
Senator Tkachuk: We had an agreement.
The Chair: To travel to Atlantic Canada.
Senator Woo: We did not say three destinations in Atlantic Canada. Look at the motion. The motion is very clear. That’s what I would propose. I would propose that we take Winnipeg out of the Western Canada. That would save us at least two, hopefully three days.
Senator Patterson: Do you want to tell the people of Winnipeg their voice is not important or shall I?
Senator Woo: You can do that. Please, by all means; we can also invite them to testify by coming here and by video conference.
Senator Patterson: The object is to go and see people in their home environments. Each province is different.
Senator Woo: I do not believe we will learn something additional to what we would be learning from the visits to the other destinations in Western Canada.
Senator Patterson: Let’s find out.
Senator Simons: I think it is absolutely essential that we give people from different places a fair hearing. But I think it is also incumbent on us to strike a happy medium. We can hear from lots of people, either here in person or by teleconference. We can set up town halls in places and use video conferencing to talk to large numbers of people. As you know, I moved the motion in favour of travel. I am in favour of travel. I think it has to be targeted. I think we have to go to the key communities that are representative.
We’re not going to Toronto, we’re not going to Sudbury, we’re not going to Thunder Bay. People in Sudbury might have things to say about Bill C-69. We’re not going to Whitehorse. We have to choose carefully representative communities that give us a snapshot. We’re not doing a thorough analysis of every person in Canada’s opinion. We need to find communities that are emblematic of the issues we face, because otherwise there’s no end to the places we could justify going. If we’re going to sell this to taxpayers as a useful use of our time and resources, we have to demonstrate that we’ve been prudent in the communities that we’ve chosen.
Senator McCallum: I don’t think we’re going to learn anything going to big cities. When we went to the territories — and I said this before — we went into the smaller communities and that’s where we learned a lot about the lives of people and the problems they were having. To go into the big cities, what new information are we going to get? Would it be possible to get a list of the people we’re going to be interviewing? Because when we went I joined a group in Winnipeg. They could have come here or we could have done it through teleconferencing. I really don’t know what new information we’ll get.
The Chair: That was one of my questions when we started this discussion. I asked if you can provide the location and names of targeted groups that you wanted to meet. So far there are only three people who have provided me with that information.
Senator Cordy: One of the reasons I agreed to travel is I believe this will be the first committee ever to travel dealing with legislation. I’ve never heard of it in my years in the Senate. I agreed to it because of Senator McCallum’s intervention that we visit the smaller communities, that we look at Indigenous communities that have been hurt by environmental disasters due to what’s happening in their regions. I don’t want to go to cities and have panels that we can have here in Ottawa. If I go, I want to see the kinds of things that Senator McCallum was describing when she had her interventions at committee. Otherwise, we can just continue to have all our meetings in Ottawa, which would be certainly cheaper for the Canadian taxpayer and easier for everybody else. But if we’re going to go to these areas across the country and see things that we can’t see by sitting here in Ottawa, then I’m all for it. Now if we’re going to start taking out the suggestions that Senator McCallum made, then what’s the point of going to a city and sitting with panels of people appearing before us?
The Chair: Should we go city by city and vote city by city?
Senator Tkachuk: What was his motion? I thought you made a motion? Did you not make a motion, Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: It was just a comment I made.
Senator Tkachuk: I thought you made a motion.
Senator Patterson: Madam Chair, I’m just appalled that we are maybe on the verge of deciding that people from Manitoba are less important than people from Saskatchewan. The thing about this —
The Chair: We are not deciding that, Senator Patterson.
Senator Patterson: Senator Woo said we should strike out Winnipeg and I asked whether he wanted to tell them or shall I, jokingly. Look, people in Ontario have some access to Ottawa. We all recognize that there are time constraints here. We agreed to leave out Ontario because of that factor. People in Saskatchewan, Winnipeg and Alberta can travel from smaller communities, can easily travel to Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary. They do it all the time. I don’t believe that expecting people to give up work, arrange daycare, and all the troubles that it takes to travel to Ottawa — it’s a long journey, as we all know, from some parts of this country — is going to be a representative way of hearing from all Canadians.
We agreed and there was a full day earlier this month where we talked about travel and we agreed that we’d go to the Atlantic and we’d go to the West. There’s more than one province in Atlantic Canada. There’s more than one province in Western Canada. I don’t want to start a process where we’re having a vote about whether we excise cities. As far as the cities that have been presented, the committee, the staff have done a good job. We should encourage people from smaller communities to come. That’s a more reasonable journey in Halifax to come from another part of Nova Scotia.
I find this very unfortunate to say we’re going to cut whole provinces out of this proposed itinerary; completely unacceptable in my view.
The Chair: Other opinions? Yes, you can talk.
Senator Wallin: I’m a guest at this committee. I hope you’ll indulge my intervention. Some of you will remember the remarks I made in the Senate in December about living in a rural part of the country. Yes, people from small towns can drive to Saskatoon or Winnipeg. I think it would be helpful at some point if we looked at this differently and went out into some of the smaller communities. We should look at what their life is like in relationship to the industry that we are describing and the future of the industry: How they use energy, how many jobs are dependent on that sector, what it means when the jobs aren’t there, what it means when it’s 50 below, and how we consume this. I just wanted to throw this into the discussion. Thank you for your indulgence.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I want to point out that we have Tsuut’ina First Nation on the list but we have not been invited by them to go onto their territory. I’m not saying we shouldn’t. I’m saying we’re not invited. That would require some other conversations. I want people to just be mindful that just because we think it’s a good idea, leadership may not. That would be something that would have to happen.
Senator Woo: Well, I’m trying to find a way to move forward. There are a couple of options. The committee has its destiny in its hands. We could vote on each city. I know there’s some resistance to it, but that’s one path forward.
We could also follow the normal practice of committees: Ask the steering committee to come up with a reasonable plan for the cities where we should travel and report back to us. I had thought actually that’s where we were going but, well, clearly the committee as a whole has some disagreement and different views on which city should be included in the list. If we can put it back to steering, they can take into account those views and come to us with a list that reflects the views of all of the committee, that would be appreciated.
If we were to take this decision in the committee as a whole by voting, I think you would find there would be a deadlock on a number of the cities in question. I’m not sure we want to do that. That’s not a nice outcome for the committee and it’s not a good way of making decisions. We could go there if we had no other choice.
Senator MacDonald: Coming here tonight, we had a consensus that we were going East and West. There seems to be a little uncertainty about the exact places we were going to travel to in the West, a couple of places, but we were going to go East and West. I mentioned this when people were speaking before that in terms of the non-sitting week that we might be able to go, it would be good to look at those last two weeks in April, because they’re both four-day weeks with Good Friday and Easter Monday. One of those two weeks would be a good week to bring up to leadership to go East. We could to St. John’s, Halifax, Saint John and to Quebec on Thursday and then go home.
I was under the assumption we were going to fine-tune the Western portion of this because I thought the Eastern portion was set. In terms of cost, if we’re going to four cities in the East, it doesn’t matter which week we are going, the cost is going to be the same. When we go West, it doesn’t matter what week we’re going. Like I say, we’re ready to go. It’s the leadership on all sides that has to negotiate which weeks we’re going to go.
I don’t have the authority to do that. The leadership has to do that. I think we would be so much better off if we stuck to our agreement.
There are also logistic issues. Because it’s a parliamentary committee going, a Senate committee, we’re must have fully bilingual services and recording. There are logistical issues. I’m not competent to deal with that. We have our staff and our technical people to deal with that.
The Chair: You have to add one thing: We will need security. I’ve been talking with the security officers, and it’s been clear that given the situation that is present, there is an intelligence that is going to be gathered and bring that to the committee. We’ll need to work with local security, depending on where we go. That will bring costs, too.
Senator MacDonald: The people in charge of security will bring security and advise us.
Senator Simons: I’m asking this question not to be political but because I honestly don’t know: Is there any way those of you from Atlantic Canada can tell me if this is just simply impossible, that we can go to two places, one place in the morning, like morning and early afternoon and then the next place in the evening? Is that just not possible. I’m just trying to figure out if there’s a way to make this a little less unwieldy. I don’t know. Are we imagining we would be having these events in the daytime, during working hours? Are we having them in the evenings when people might be more available? I mean, these are things we need to consider, too.
The Chair: That is the question; who do you want to meet? What is the group that you want to meet? I know some people, but there are a lot of people that just say let’s go to Winnipeg but I don’t know who they want to meet.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: We have a list of people that should be — that’s a question I asked earlier in another meeting if you know where you’re going but you also have an entire list of people that we put forward, that list of people would be compared against the location, right?
The Chair: We need that information.
Senator Cordy: I think one of the things we also must do — the chair has asked several times at the last meeting that we all put in a list. I thought it was supposed to be in before today — of dates that you would be free to travel, particularly if we’re looking at non-sitting weeks, which I think Internal Economy is favouring that we travel during sitting weeks since somebody said earlier in March, there are three non-sitting weeks and one sitting week. In April there are two and a half sitting weeks and two non-sitting weeks.
I think that’s really important. If steering is going to re-look at this that we get a sense of dates that would be more favourable for the majority of the people on the committee. There’s no point picking a week and two people can go. If you could send that in — did you say tomorrow? The deadline was today but we don’t have it.
The Chair: The deadline is today. I’ve been saying this since February 5.
Senator MacDonald: Half of them came in, you said?
The Chair: Ten, but the ones we have don’t get to a consensus. They are all over the place.
Senator MacDonald: Maxime, can you send us in each group, if there are people from our group around the table who haven’t responded yet, could you let us know who they are, because I haven’t been copied? I already sent an email out on the weekend and I responded. I could go after them this week and get this nailed down.
Senator Cordy: Until we find out what weeks we’re going to travel, it’s very difficult to try to get people to speak. We can ask, is there a time that you can speak in March or April or May, whatever you want to put down? You can’t do that to people. You can say we’re going to be in Halifax on such and such a date; are you free to speak? Until we get this done and until we get people to put in their available dates, then steering is not going to be able to deal with this.
Senator Richards: I’m going to ask if the Western senators can get together — because I don’t really know the West very well — — and decide which places you want to go to and pare it down. You have 24 here. There’s no way we’re going to 24 different cities. Did you pare it down already? Oh, you did.
Senator Cordy: We do things before you even ask.
Senator Richards: You did it really quick. Thank you.
The Chair: We are looking at this.
Senator Richards: No problem. I was reading the back, not the front. The work’s been done. Good.
Senator Tkachuk: I just wanted to say that I hate being lost in the weeds with 14 people, but that’s what we are here. There is policy and then there’s logistics. We’ve made the policy decision. We’re going to travel. We all know that. We have a number of cities here. The reason the cities become cities is because that’s the market area, that’s where everybody comes. I’m just going to talk about my province, and I think it’s probably true of others.
Saskatoon is a good place. Sure I’d love to go to Kindersley too, but Saskatoon is the major mining city in our province. It’s the home of the mining headquarters. The oil industry runs all the way west to Lloydminster. If we’re not going to Edmonton, Saskatoon is a great place. That’s probably where they’re going to come from Lloydminster or maybe some of the oil areas there.
Estevan is far away, but that would mean we’d have to go to Regina or — anyway, there’s nothing that’s perfect. I think this is a pretty good list. I think we should work from it. I kind of agree with Senator Mitchell. I can’t believe it. We have agreement that we’re going to travel during one week that we’re sitting and one week that we’re not. We have two weeks of travel; let’s get on with it and let’s get the deal done. Let’s let the people know we’re coming, let’s have our meetings and let’s deal with the bill. All 14 or 15 or how many, 20 of us, talking about whether we should go to Saskatoon is not going to solve this problem.
Senator MacDonald: That’s right.
Senator Tkachuk: Voting on each city is ridiculous. If Senator Mitchell wants to pass the bill, tell your people, Senator Mitchell, not — let’s just move on. I’m with you guys. Just move on. Let’s get this done.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk, that’s what you did in Transport. You voted region by region, so please don’t tell me that.
Senator Tkachuk: We did vote region by region, yes, we did because you didn’t agree to travel the whole country so we had to.
Senator Woo: In the spirit of Senator Tkachuk’s comments, I reiterate my suggestion that we ask steering to, first of all, take into account the travel availability of all senators. Again, Senator MacDonald has undertaken to make sure that his colleagues will respond, maybe by the end of the day tomorrow. If any of my colleagues haven’t responded, I will undertake to do that.
Let’s say that we can get all the responses by end of day tomorrow or first thing on Thursday. Then I hope steering can meet again, take into account the conversation we had and finalize the plans so that 14 of us don’t have to do this around the table.
Senator Frum: I’m replacing Senator Carignan. Again, I offer my comments with a grain of salt.
It sounds like there are two conversations. One is when and one is where. The when, I understand, is more complicated. In terms of where, I feel there is a consensus around the table. There’s prior agreement. Plus, I actually don’t hear a lot of dissent, except for poor Winnipeg. I think the committee should definitely go to Winnipeg. I want that on the record. If somebody else wants to say they shouldn’t, by all means, let them say so, but I don’t hear a lot of disagreement.
Senator Mitchell: I’d like to put into this another parameter. I noticed tonight, while we were sitting here, that throughout the evening we have had a total of 27 senators observing the proceedings. People who have appeared here had a lot of senators hear what they had to say.
On the other hand, I’m aware of travel, and we talked about travel, the special study, where I think it got down to five or seven, maybe seven. I remember needing to get some voters back in the marijuana vote, and there was a committee in Calgary with four people. And I know people get busy and things come up and the closer you get to the trip, these things pull you different ways, and all of sudden people start dropping out.
I’m wondering if we shouldn’t put a minimum threshold of senators who have to be committed three days or two days before the trip or we don’t go. Because if we get there and we’ve got five people or six people, it’s an insult to the people whom we have asked to drive in from Lloydminster to Regina.
On the other hand, they might be quite happy to fly in here from Saskatoon and sit in front of 25 per cent of the Senate. That would be good. They’d be on TV across the country, which they won’t be on in Saskatoon. I just raise that.
Senator Patterson: Point of order. Madam Chair, we’ve agreed to travel. Senator Mitchell is now proposing that there be a new formula which might say we don’t travel. We have agreed to travel. His comments are out of order. Thank you.
Senator Simons: I’m still learning all my parliamentary procedure. I keep asking people for advice. I was told by somebody this week that we should never be talking unless there is a motion on the table.
I would like to put in the form of the motion what Senator Woo suggested, that we ask our steering committee to build upon its previous excellent work and fine-tune the travel plan, with due consideration to all of the issues discussed around the table tonight. I would append to that, unofficially, my hope that we will eventually allow Senator Galvez to move on the floor of the Senate that we get permission to travel because otherwise, all of this discussion will have been for naught.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Woo: We can do it tonight.
The Chair: On her motion?
Senator Cordy: Yes. As a member of the steering committee, I think it would be extremely important we meet before the Senate rises this week so that staff can begin to work on this. Otherwise, we’re going to lose a significant amount of time. If we can —
Senator Simons: I would accept that as a friendly amendment.
Senator Woo: On the motion to the point that Senator Simons made, there is also the question of the Senate having to approve the motion that is still on the Order Paper. It really would be terrific if that can be done, if not tonight — we’re running out of time — then tomorrow so all of that can be cleared and the staff can get a very definitive green light to do the planning.
Senator Cordy: They can’t start if that’s not —
Senator Woo: That’s right. Can you agree to even do it tonight?
Senator MacDonald: I certainly —
Senator Tkachuk: I doubt they will.
Senator Woo: Tomorrow maybe then.
Senator MacDonald: Let’s see if we can meet. Maybe we can meet tomorrow?
The Chair: Tomorrow?
Senator MacDonald: Tomorrow morning is not good. Tomorrow afternoon sometime?
The Chair: Senators in favour of Senator Simons’ motion, please raise their hand.
Senator MacDonald: Force of habit.
The Chair: You have to put your hands up for Maxime to count.
Senator MacDonald: Am I good with her motion? Come to us, and for to us sit down with steering, and come back with a final —
The Chair: With an amendment.
Senator MacDonald: We can do that. Yes.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator MacDonald: We’re all in favour.
The Chair: Okay, unanimous. Thank you. Very quickly, we are going to pass the list of the 60 next witnesses. We still have 10 minutes.
Senator Cordy: Steering was unanimous on these witnesses. I’m hearing that perhaps this is just for information purposes.
The Chair: It’s for information. For your information, we’re giving you the list of the 60 witnesses that come after the officials, regulators and associations.
Senator Tkachuk: We can still have more.
The Chair: If we want to travel to all the places and have to have more —
Senator Tkachuk: I’m just asking.
The Chair: Okay. With that, I will adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.).