Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 66 - Evidence - April 25, 2019 (afternoon meeting)
SAINT JOHN, Thursday, April 25, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 1:06 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Rosa Galvez. I’m a senator from Quebec, and I’m the chair of this committee.
I will ask the senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Quebec.
I notice many are missing, but you’ve got the best here.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons from Alberta.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
The Chair: Colleagues, today we are continuing our study of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
For this afternoon’s panel, we welcome, from the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce, Sheri Somerville; from the Saint John Region Chamber of Commerce, David Duplisea, Chief Executive Officer; from the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, John Gamble, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada, and Christy Cunningham, Executive Director, New Brunswick; and from Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick, Thomas Raffy, Chief Executive Officer.
Each one of you has approximately five minutes for your opening statement, after which we will proceed with a question and answer period. You can follow the order in which you were introduced.
Sheri Somerville, Chief Executive Officer, Atlantic Chamber of Commerce: On behalf of our network of 93 chambers and boards and 25 corporate partners, the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce wishes to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources for the opportunity to submit our observations and recommendations to assess legislators to fully assess whether Bill C-69 will accomplish what is intended.
Here with me today is my colleague David Duplisea, President of the Saint John Region Chamber of Commerce, representing its more than 600 member businesses in the region.
I will be presenting remarks on behalf of the chamber network, but we will both be available for questions.
ACC and the Saint John Chamber of Commerce are among the oldest and largest accredited business organizations in Atlantic Canada. Our network strives to influence the regional and local community environments to create economic growth and prosperity for citizens and the more than 16,000-member businesses we represent. Our mission, experiences, and extended network make Atlantic Chamber of Commerce and our member chambers uniquely qualified to provide commentary on Bill C-69.
To this end, we submit that Atlantic Canada cannot afford to lose any future potential resource development opportunities by imposing higher levels of uncertainty in terms of clarity, predictability, and transparency. It is imperative that Bill C-69 be amended, and that these amendments work for all Canadians in every province; that they sustain our world-class environmental protection record, positively contribute to the Canadian economy and investment infrastructure, and that they continue to provide much-needed jobs for Canadians.
The oil and gas industry is a critical driver of our nation’s economy, directly employing more than 425,000 individuals and millions more indirectly. Further, the fact that project proposals are currently subjected to extended and uncertain assessment processes in Canada has contributed to a 42 per cent drop in the TSX Oil and Gas Index since January 2017.
At issue in these hearings is whether or not the changes proposed in Bill C-69, as it is currently drafted, will alleviate the barriers and lack of reliability associated with project approvals under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.
It is our position that Bill C-69 does not provide an appropriate balance between environmental and economic concerns, and in fact only serves to add complexity where efficiency and reliability are critically needed.
We submit that Bill C-69 is a flawed piece of legislation that, in its current form threatens national prosperity by building barriers to resource experts, and that will curtail investment and cost jobs across the country. It must be amended to address the lack of reliable timelines, an expanded scope of assessment, and an availability of discretionary delays that create uncertainty and open new avenues for court challenges.
These potential barriers will increase Canada’s reputation as a country that not only can’t get to “yes,” but the perception of a country that is closed for business.
It is worth nothing that, in the 2018 World Economic Forum rankings, Canada ranked twelfth out of 140 countries in terms of competitiveness, but a dismal fifty-third in terms of regulatory burden. And such burdens can significantly impede potential investment.
Of primary concern is the inclusion of discretionary powers for the Minister of Environment to stay, extend, or deny projects without the need for justification. Project proponents will interpret these powers as reducing the predictability and reliability of the assessment process. At the very least, the legislation should require that government intervention be a joint public recommendation of the ministers of Environment, Natural Resources, and Industry to ensure balanced consideration, approach, and transparency.
Building on this point, it is essential that Bill C-69 provide a higher level of certainty for timelines. At present, there are numerous opportunities for potential delays. This includes the unclear parameters around the planning phase, the lack of definition of standing in relation to defensible public consultations, and the availability of ministerial discretion.
As businesses perceive greater uncertainty, they will become less willing to risk the millions of dollars involved in the assessment agency process. A very disconcerting aspect of Bill C-69 is the failure to provide an adequate understanding of the criteria for determining a designated project. It is essential that the review agency be provided with, in legislation, clearly defined guidelines for exempting routine projects from review.
Through omission, we cannot allow the additional red tape implied by the expanded list of assessment issues to be imposed on projects that are routine extensions of previously completed assessments, or equivalent to a similar project assessment conducted in another jurisdiction.
For example, Norway and the U.K. provide rational approaches that greatly reduce regulatory processes for projects with well-established mitigation and routine process standards.
In our opinion, a glaring oversight among the increased numbers of impact factors being used to assess the project proposals is the lack of the specific evaluation of economic impacts. Among the many social and public policy issues reviewed, the evaluation of the impact on workers, on communities, on economies, and on Aboriginal communities will not likely be adequately considered.
The benefits of major resources projects are extensive, and all should be given meaningful and dedicated consideration. An example of that close to home is the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline. If this pipeline had been built, New Brunswick would have benefited from hundreds of construction and permanent jobs, millions in economic growth and associated provincial tax revenues, cost competitive supply substitution, avoidance of massive foreign payments, and a reduction in GHG emissions from the reduction in rail transportation.
Our region and our country cannot afford to forego such opportunities and rely on energy resources from less environmentally stringent countries.
With the creation of a new review agency, it is not clear whether the extensive expertise of the life cycle analysis of the National Energy Board will be relied upon. Equally important is the recognition of provincial jurisdiction. If it is deemed necessary to add an additional level of bureaucracy with a broad and varied scope of review, we strongly recommend that it include appropriate representation from non-partisan and experienced panel members of the NEB and incorporate that knowledge and expertise of provincial regulators.
Our presentation to you today has focused on the need for creating balance in our regulatory process and attracting investment in safe, sustainable resource projects. Our key concerns for the business community are that businesses considering investment in Canada will trust in our legislation and our regulations to provide a consistent, reliable, and fair process that warrants the investment of millions of dollars and commitment of their resources.
It is critical to remember that, in a global market, the windows of opportunity are finite. Potential investors do not have infinite bank accounts or limitless patience to pursue approval processes which include the potential for political discretion, lack of reliable timelines, or to create new opportunities for legal challenges.
In closing, I will reiterate one primary takeaway from the business community today. It is imperative that Bill C-69 be amended, and that these amendments work for all Canadians in every province, that they sustain our world-class environmental protection record, positively contribute to our Canadian economy and provincial economies and investment infrastructures, and that they continue to provide much-needed jobs for Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Duplisea.
David Duplisea, Chief Executive Officer, Saint John Region Chamber of Commerce: I am part of the joint presentation with the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.
Christy Cunningham, Executive Director, New Brunswick, Association of Consulting Engineering Companies: I am going to start, but I’ll just mention that John and I are splitting the five minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for allowing us to offer our perspective and input on Bill C-69. My name is Christy Cunningham, and I am Executive Director of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, here in New Brunswick. I am also an environmental geoscientist with many years of experience completing environmental impact assessments. With me is John Gamble, who is the President and CEO of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of Canada.
Our associations represent the voice of consulting engineering here in New Brunswick and across Canada. Nationally, we represent over 400 companies that provide engineering and other professional services across the country and internationally. Our members offer independent, unbiased advice to both private and public sector clients. They frequently work with proponents to help them make informed decisions on projects, from conceptualization all the way through to delivery.
We applaud the government’s review of the regulatory system because we agree status quo is not a solution for the government, proponents, or stakeholders. Improved transparency and clarity in the environmental impact assessment process is needed. However, we also need to express our industry’s concerns regarding the lack of clarity with Bill C-69 in its current iteration and its potential contribution to the cumulative impact of regulation on investment in projects in Canada.
As you know, large resource projects, and even some public ones, require significant capital investment. Proponents need to make informed decisions when projects have lifespans of years and decades.
While a firm “no” is preferable to an indefinite “maybe,” the best outcome is when environmental assessments allow projects with economic, social, and environmental merit to proceed in a timely but responsible and sustainable manner.
To help improve clarity for proponents and stakeholders alike, we believe the environmental assessment of projects needs a more rigid scoping process; clearly defined criteria for subject projects; limited opportunities for discretionary suspension of timelines; and clarification on the meaning and intent of impact factors.
In particular, legislation that would compel the review panel to lead and commit to a single, consolidated scoping procedure early in the process and one that is agreed to by all jurisdictions and authorities would be a significant improvement to the current situation.
Now I’ll pass it over to John.
John Gamble, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada, Association of Consulting Engineering Companies: Thank you, Christy.
Bill C-69 should be implemented in a way that ensures that impact assessments are used to determine compliance with public policy rather than be used as a platform in which to debate a specific public policy or the absence of public policy. While the assessment process should consider and align with the government’s broader policy objectives, such as climate change and Indigenous reconciliation, project assessment should not become a forum where those policies are debated.
To this point, the nature and scope of public participation in the assessment process also need to be clearly defined. Notwithstanding the efforts to be open and transparent, participation should be prioritized to parties directly impacted and those with specific and relevant expertise. This will help proponents that are fully compliant with the regulatory regime better understand the consultation process.
We do, however, wish to commend the government’s focus on First Nations participation in this process. When proponents respect First Nations’ culture and knowledge and make them true partners, everyone benefits. For instance, there are organizations such as the First Nations Major Projects Coalition that could play a central role in consultation and planning on major projects and, in fact, provide value to the proponents.
Now, while we expect that some of the concerns we raise today are expected to be addressed in regulation, we recommend instead they be directly addressed in the act to create more clarity. Most projects that will be subject to Bill C-69 will require long-term investments and commitment of resources. Therefore, the more that is enshrined in legislation, the more certainty there is for making informed business decisions in regard to these projects.
We wish to reiterate that we share the government’s intention to modernize and improve out regulatory system in a way to make way for a robust, efficient, effective, and transparent process.
We want to see the right projects proceed and we want them to be done right. We want to see both the economic and societal benefits that arise from these major projects done in an environmentally responsible and sustainable way.
Nevertheless, we believe that in, its current form and in the absence of the intended or envisioned regulations, Bill C-69 leaves many more questions than answers and has the potential to adversely impact investments, Canada’s economic growth, and the timely completion of projects.
We do want to acknowledge that some of the work done on this bill by the House of Commons standing committee and others has been moving in the right direction, and we want to acknowledge that. We also wish to commend the Senate for leaning in on this and recognizing the importance of getting this bill right.
We look forward to a version of Bill C-69 that will rise to, meet, and reward the aspirations of its own preamble.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Raffy.
[Translation]
Thomas Raffy, President and CEO, Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick inc.: Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon. My name is Thomas Raffy. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick inc. The advantage or disadvantage of speaking last is that most of the points have already been raised. Consequently, you may well have already heard some of the points we are going to make. I can confirm that some of the points that we will put forward today apply throughout Canada.
The Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick inc. is a network of New Brunswick francophone entrepreneurs. This year we are celebrating our fortieth anniversary as the organization that speaks for enterprises, which, as we say, are the creators of wealth. They create wealth in their communities, in our provinces, and in our country. At various levels they create wealth in the provinces.
I am appearing before you today as the spokesperson for those New Brunswick francophone enterprises. We know that the bill being discussed today has caused some concern among SMEs and you are surely wondering why. In general, big natural resource projects are major, large-scope projects, and SMEs are not necessarily the ones that bid, but they are nevertheless concerned because they are the suppliers to the large businesses. They are involved in the process, directly or indirectly.
So when it comes to bills like this one, we automatically think of large businesses, but we are all concerned at some level, and you really must be aware of the repercussions and the snowball effect.
The cohesion of our country should be the priority in our discussions today. We are facing several challenges, be it the fluctuations in oil prices, the difficulty getting natural or energetic resources to world markets, or the growing feeling of alienation Canadians who live on and depend on the resource sectors are experiencing.
Our natural resources should be our pride as a nation, and we must support this sector which contributes abundantly to the development of our communities and the prosperity of our nation.
A large number of Canadians live in areas that depend on natural resources and we must avoid having bills like this one create divisions among our citizens.
The government’s intention is to re-establish public trust with regard to the decision-making processes with respect to the assessment of energy projects. However, it is also very important to inform that same public that our small, medium or large enterprises create wealth in our country and our communities, and need legislation that regulates their activities and allows them to make decisions and contribute to the development of our country. Our enterprises need to trust a government that listens to them, understands their reality and acts accordingly.
The bill gives an important, and perhaps too important, role to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The social, cultural and environmental considerations of the bill are commendable and could guide the department in its decisions. However, they are incomplete.
Other factors need to be considered when the time comes to assess the public interest, including the economic potential of the projects. Natural resource projects generate important economic benefits such as job creation, investments in communities, and training. That economic potential has to be taken into consideration.
We recommend that the bill be amended in order to add other departments to it such as Natural Resources, Finance or Trade Diversification, so that they may share the decision-making authority and ensure that economic spinoffs and benefits are taken into consideration when projects are presented.
We have another recommendation, which is to amend the bill so as to add economic impact to the mandate of the Minister of Environment when the time comes to assess the public interest of projects. This would include the costs and benefits of the projects, but also the job creation potential or the number of jobs that would really be created, and the economic activity generated by the projects.
In the absence of clarity on the economic advantages, the interpretation of this bill would only rest on environmental or social factors.
There are new impact factors in the bill that will be used to assess or exempt projects, and there are more than 20 criteria for assessment. Although these are social and cultural factors, it’s important to clarify them in order to provide proper information to those who will bid on projects. These factors should not be administrative obstacles that will prevent projects from moving forward.
All of this uncertainty could discourage investors, and certain major, large-scope projects might never see the light of day because of administrative red tape, the lack of clarity and various other factors. Predictability and transparency are also critical to develop or amend the process. Enterprises must be informed about the factors and steps involving their projects, and at this stage, the factors presented are not clear and the bill should not be passed as it stands. Any uncertainty will undermine investment, economic growth and job creation.
This bill is proposing the application of a one-size-fits-all legislative solution to a range of diverse projects, and that is bound to fail. To reach its objective, the bill must include enough flexibility to take into account the particular circumstances of all projects, whether they involve ports, mines, or oil and gas exploration.
This modernization of the law by the government is very commendable, but the Conseil économique advocates that the bill be revised to take into account the economic potential and the spinoffs in the project approval process.
Today we are in Saint John, New Brunswick. I would, however, like to remind you of some of the realities of the province of New Brunswick and the Atlantic region. We are facing a lot of challenges, such as the aging population, the demographic decline, the labour shortage, and other factors that are outside of the control of our businesses, such as operational costs that increase on a yearly basis.
Our businesses are already dealing with several challenges. The word that always comes up in discussions is “competitiveness”, and it is very important for our businesses, provincially and at the regional Atlantic level, as well as nationally and internationally.
We have to make sure that no bill undermines the competitiveness of our businesses. To the contrary, any bill should encourage their growth. It is possible to find a proper balance between the reasonable development of our natural resources and energy, and the increased protection of our environment.
I want to thank you on behalf of the members of the Conseil économique for having invited us to speak to you and share our thoughts. I also want to thank you for taking the time to meet with various entities in the context of your study of Bill C-69. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will now have our question period. May I remind you, dear colleagues, to please keep your preambles as short as possible, and to address your questions to one or two people specifically.
Senator Mockler: I have a question for Mr. Raffy of the Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick. First, I want to congratulate you, as well as the chair, for your leadership around Bill C-69. The Council of Atlantic Premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada in which it expresses its great concerns about Bill C-69. This is the first time the four Atlantic provinces have taken such an initiative. I’d like to hear your comments about that.
According to the Council of Atlantic Premiers, Bill C-69 will give the minister a right of veto. We know what that means. I am going to read this in English:
[English]
Our assessment of Bill C-69 as it is currently drafted is that the significant changes being proposed to the scope and scale of federal environmental assessments in Canada will not meet the dual objectives of environmental protection and economic growth.
[Translation]
Could you share your comments?
Mr. Raffy: Thank you very much for the question, Senator Mockler. Indeed as we pointed out in our opening remarks, we feel that the powers being placed in the hands of the Department of the Environment and the minister are, in our opinion, far too great and too important. Subclause 17(1) and clauses 36, 63 and 68 refer to the many powers being granted.
Why is that important? Why are we sounding the alarm about that?
First, as the name indicates, the Department of Environment and Climate Change involves natural resources and energy.
In New Brunswick, we often hear that our enterprises want to see the different departments work together. We frequently get the impression that the departments very often work in silos, in isolation. They each do their work in their own corner, but they do not speak to each other.
In a file such as this one, the Department of the Environment, which plays its role of protector of the environment, does not necessarily have the required expertise in the area of economic development. Those powers would present too great a risk to economic development, natural resources and energy projects. I even emphasized the importance of trade diversification for the Atlantic region and for Canada. There has to be cooperation between these departments when it comes to assessing those projects, or the related bids.
Giving all of these rights or all of these responsibilities to one single department, one single person, is very risky with respect to economic development.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Somerville?
Ms. Somerville: If I may add to that, if companies come and sit down on the ground and invest millions of dollars and expect to move through the process, only to have it turned around at the end of the game and have it denied by one unilateral body, that becomes problematic, and it again sets the country up for putting a sign of “closed for business” on us.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m going to continue in that vein because I find that you are providing very good explanations regarding the bill’s issues. It’s as though we were to ask the Minister of Finance to make decisions alone on environmental impacts. We are asking the Minister of Environment to make economic decisions. No matter how much I search through the bill, I find no economic elements. Even if there were some, they are — as you said earlier — considered from the perspective of the Minister of Environment.
I’m looking at the definition of public interest in clause 63. It includes no mention of economic aspects. A report is submitted to cabinet, and the Governor-in-Council will make decisions on a project; whole cases of papers bearing on the environment and all of that will be submitted, but there is nothing about the economic aspect, to enable balanced decisions.
Do you think we should amend the bill to include the economic aspect in the notion of public interest, and find a mechanism that will allow cabinet, the Governor-in-Council, to take the economic aspect into account when decisions are made?
We can add criteria, but there has to be economic evidence to allow the cabinet to reconcile economic interests with environmental interests.
So, do you think we should add a mechanism, in addition to economic criteria to allow other departments to prepare reports on the economic impact of a project, so that cabinet may make an enlightened decision?
Mr. Raffy: The short answer is yes. I think you are right. Other departments really need to be involved. However, with regard to procedures, you must ensure that those departments are not involved near the end of the process where it’s just a matter of ticking boxes to ensure that a message is transmitted and the project is given the green light.
I think the involvement of those departments in economic development aspects should happen early, so as to foster cooperation among the various departments, as well as a dialogue to move projects forward.
I think that is important also.
Senator Carignan: It has to be transparent as well. Because if we say that it comes from the department, there will be a big lobby behind closed doors in the economic mandate departments that will turn things in the other direction. We will then wait for a year or a year and a half, there will be hearings and all kinds of reports on the environment. We will hear virtually nothing about the economy, and the population will not understand the decision because it will have the impression that we have only heard environmental concerns and nothing about the economy.
So all of this has to be done in the open. It has to be transparent. Do you have some ideas about the mechanisms we could put in place to strengthen the participation of the economic departments, and on amendments we could introduce to make that participation transparent?
Mr. Raffy: That is a very good question. I don’t have any concrete ideas to suggest to you at this time, aside from the fact that you should hold consultations and encourage dialogue.
I’d like to go back to a point you raised. On the one side, a private sector lobby would examine economic matters; on the other side, others would examine the environmental aspect.
In fact, I think there is an underlying issue here. Some people oppose economic development, or environmental development, whereas both should work together.
I think that is the key element here: One should not be the enemy of the other. Both have to get together. It’s a matter of information, education and communication, in order to inform the public, generally. We have to ensure that there is no lobby trying to pull strings. It’s a matter of cooperation.
Aside from the concrete ideas I cannot propose yet, I think one of the keys would be communication and leadership. You have to show that both can go together if you really want to modernize the bill under consideration today.
[English]
The Chair: On the same point, we have had this question before, and the people from the government have said that when you use the word “sustainable,” the environment, the economy are there already. So when you talk about being sustainable, it is understood that it is there.
But the people who do the environmental assessments are here with us, and I have been in many places with respect to environmental assessments. I have, myself, done environmental assessments. I have been requested to be critical of environmental assessments. I have defended environmental assessments for proponents.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the proponent has the opportunity, when he does his environmental impact assessment, to talk about all the benefits of economy, and not only in terms of numbers of jobs. Because the question is, you know, what does “economy” mean? It just means the job, or does it mean all the leverage that is there for industries to grow?
Can you please elaborate on that?
Mr. Gamble: Well, and I think this ties in very nicely with the previous exchange, yes, it is implied in “sustainability” to a large degree. However, this bill goes to great effort to be very explicit about other considerations, and to simply look at the bill at face value, which is the only choice we have right now in the absence of jurisprudence, it yells at proponents that your economic concerns are secondary to all these other concerns.
I think conserving one without the other is problematic. I think a big step forward would simply be some clear direction to the review panels, that it’s not just about the 20 impact factors you looked at. I think the review panels can be empowered to a certain degree, and assigned with the expertise appropriately to consider these economic interests, as well.
I think the issue about the other government ministries, industry review is already part of most environmental assessments. I think we have to give a more clear opportunity for, shall we say, more economically focused agencies to weigh in on these projects, and validate, I guess, the business case put forward by the proponents.
If I would add one other broader concept, one of the challenges in dealing with government and the silos that were alluded to is that we have very conscientious civil servants who look at labour legislation, who look at environmental legislation, who look at a whole host of things, and they are looking at it through their lens, but they will tell you that the economic mandate is not what we’re supposed to look at. And you can’t look at one without the other.
And this is a symptomatic issue across government; no fault of any particular government or any level of government. But I think there is opportunity to really make this is a balancing act.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for being here. I want to get back to Ms. Somerville’s comments and those about Energy East in particular.
Senator Mockler and I have had long discussions about this in the past, is that we’ve missed a tremendous opportunity. We missed a tremendous opportunity for nation-building as opposed to just building a pipeline. Also I think the chamber has missed an opportunity to talk about not just the development in New Brunswick, but the opportunities for development in Nova Scotia.
Because, as we know, there is already a pipeline that goes through New Brunswick from Goldboro, Nova Scotia, down to Massachusetts delivering natural gas from the Sable, which is going to run out fairly soon.
However, there’s a pipeline. All of those approvals that were needed for a pipeline have already been done in New Brunswick and most of Nova Scotia, and just a little further up the road from Goldboro is the Strait of Canso, where there was a Gulf refinery many years ago, but there is still maintained from the Gulf refinery those large storage tanks. And they’re used, because they’re used for petroleum or products that we bring in from other countries.
We need to start thinking in a global way, too, because I think, as we went through the Energy East debate, the people of New Brunswick were on side, and it was wonderful. But we didn’t engage the people of Nova Scotia well enough, and I think there was a political opportunity, there was an economic opportunity, to engage Nova Scotians and say, “Here’s an opportunity.”
Yes, we all wanted it to come to Saint John because of the refinery being here, but there’s no reason for it to stop here, especially when you already have pipeline approval through New Brunswick and through most of Nova Scotia to put a parallel pipeline along the same way.
So I really think that government needs to think globally, but I also think the chamber needs to think globally. Because, as we know as Atlantic Canadians, we are much stronger together. When we speak as the Council of Atlantic Premiers, that’s a lot better than Premier Scott talking on his own to Nova Scotia. When all four premiers are together talking that way, it gives us some muscle.
So I would encourage you to think about that a little more, because I really think that an opportunity in New Brunswick could have really been enhanced with another opportunity in Nova Scotia to get the jobs for Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, et cetera. I think that opportunity has been missed.
The Chair: Do you want to comment?
Ms. Somerville: Absolutely, and thank you. If it was an oversight on my part by name-dropping New Brunswick in my speech, I do apologize. As the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce, we recognize greatly how cooperation can come together for Atlantic Canada and serve us well, and try to do the best that we can to promote the economic growth opportunities that can affect us all and remove, you know, red tape and barriers for doing business interprovincially and coming together and collaborating.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Duplisea: I would like to respond, as well, from the chamber’s perspective. And thank you, Mr. Mercer, for your comments. We most certainly agree with you that we need to think a little more globally, as well as a little bit more pan-Atlantic.
I think the fact that Sheri and I are both here today shows that we are moving in that direction. We are taking not only a Saint John-centric position here with respect to natural gas development and natural resource development, but working with the Atlantic provinces we are broadening that perspective only.
So I agree that we’re not there yet, and we most certainly respect your comments and thank you for them, but we’re moving in that direction to try to bring chambers together with the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce to spearhead and help us to galvanize those, so we’re not so siloed.
I would like to also comment on some of the remarks of everyone so far. What we’re really pushing for is the need for a balance. As we’ve heard, it’s not one against the other. It’s not the environment versus the economy, or the economy versus the environment. Nobody wants to destroy our climate and to destroy our environment in moving forward with this, but we’ve seen what happens when the government moves the goalposts, particularly with respect to Energy East. And when all is said and done, at the end of the day, the narrative and the rhetoric, they moved the goalposts. And one has to look at intent, as well.
So this legislation, as we’re able to view it sort of from a broad brushstroke approach, I do wonder, A, does it really strike the right balance between those two? It’s not one or the other. And the second one is the intent behind this legislation. Is the intent to clarify, to make Canada more open for business, to clarify our environmental impact assessments, or is it in fact designed to muddy the water again, quite like was done with the NEB in moving the goalposts?
So we really caution that it really needs to be a balance, and it’s not one or the other. We need to add in those environmental impact assessments wherever they fit, whether it’s in the section — what section it’s in is irrelevant, but it needs to be equal standing at the table. It’s not one or the other. We need to find the balance. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here and for your delivery.
I’m pretty sad about this bill. Senator Carignan mentioned most of what I was going to mention, about the idea of clarity, because there is none. It is so murky, and I don’t know how we gain clarity by a few amendments.
If you could tell me how we could gain clarity in this bill with a few good amendments, I mean, where do we start with it? Reading the bill, I just don’t see where the amendments are going to go that are really going to help, and will they be taken in the other place in the House, if we do them?
I know that’s a broad question, but I’ll give it to anyone who wants to answer.
Ms. Somerville: Let me start by saying I think what you’re seeing here today, and in the last couple of days as you travel throughout Atlantic Canada, is that there are a number of organizations, some of which we don’t have technical expertise in reading these bills or reading the technical requirements involved in the environmental impact assessment process, but I think there has been enough commentary put forward and we can rely on technical expertise provided by industry and associations like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or the Canadian Energy Pipelines Association who have staff on hand to evaluate the technical merit and gaps and opportunities with this.
I always like to say, as a leader, that input equals output. The information that you’ve got coming in informs the decisions that you make. And if we were to look at this legislation with everybody at the table who needs to be involved and provide an informed opinion, then that might be a good start to making amendments.
I don’t believe that we have to throw the whole thing out. I think we have to navigate a way forward from where we stand today. To me, that means getting key stakeholders at the table to review the legislation in its current form to provide commentary and suggestions on how it can be improved.
If you get industry, government, First Nations, environmentalists, businesses, everybody at the table, that’s going to produce a much, much better, fuller, more complete set of legislation that will serve everyone well and probably identify the gaps that need to be identified.
Mr. Gamble: If I may add to that, I look at the 20 impact factors. I think I agree with them, but I’m not sure, because they’re hard to get my head around. First of all, the proponent is going to have one interpretation. Their consulting engineer who will be preparing their environmental assessment and the other specialists will maybe have another interpretation. The stakeholder community most definitely have all sorts of interpretations. The review panel will have one, and cabinet may have another one yet.
So your point is well taken. If I were to chart a path forward, and if I were advising the minister, what I would be doing, because it’s very hard in a forum at this level, without the technical expertise, is that you really almost have to workshop each of these factors one by one and get the right people in the room.
The problems happen when there’s a mismatch of expectation. If there’s a mismatch of what people — people can actually pursue these things in good faith and find out they’re at odds with other stakeholders, or at odds with the review panel.
So I think maybe what might be helpful is to actually workshop each of these, one by one, get the right stakeholders in the room, and build some definition around each of these so that we can actually understand what is meant by these.
Because, as I say, on a very high level, how can you argue with these? It’s very difficult to argue with them, but we need, and our investors need, and proponents need, and the review panels and the stakeholders need to understand what is the intent of these, and make sure it’s not a moving target.
Senator Simons: I want to thank you, Mr. Gamble. That was a really excellent, cogent, practical suggestion, and I think we should add it to our list of recommendations. Because that would get worked out in regulation, but I think that’s a really intelligent way of working towards getting good regulations.
Having said that, I think my question is now for Ms. Somerville. I very much agree with what you said about scoping and about the ministerial power to stop the assessment all along the way. Do you think it would make more sense if, instead of giving one elected official the power to micromanage the project all the way through the assessment period, if we instead gave that power to the agency, to the impact assessment agency? So that, if they did need to stop for some reason, it would be not for political reasons, but because of technical reasons, or because of a slowdown in information coming in. So that would take it out of the hands of politics and put it where it might more logically be, in the hands of the people who are actually conducting the assessment.
Ms. Somerville: As I’m reading and understand the agency setup under this current bill, the short answer would be no. No, we shouldn’t have it under one minister. Of course, we need to depoliticize it.
However, I think a big thing is determining what standing is. Who gets to consult? Who is involved? For me, a big thing is managing expectations. So if we all understand coming into the game whose role is what throughout this process, and it’s a very clearly defined process with clear timelines, clear benchmarks, every step along the way, we all understand when we step onto the field how we’re going to play by the rules, then, yes, a department that is set up such that we have the appropriate checks and balances in place for multi-departmental, environmental, or economic impacts or a business impact assessment, whatever that may be, then yes, maybe one agency could possibly do it, if the system was set up to manage that correctly.
Again, it really does go back to managing expectations so that we all understand where we’re coming from.
Senator Simons: Yes, I agree. I think that was Mr. Gamble’s other really good point, because if you have people talking past each other, they’re going to do their best and end up in two different places, and then everybody is disappointed.
Ms. Somerville: And, I’ll be honest, my background before I came to the chamber was working for industry, so I am coming from a little bit of a place of knowledge, and I’ve seen projects stopped dead in their tracks because of misaligned expectations.
When people don’t understand what is expected of them, or what a definition of a concept that helps them get or not get compliance, then you run into problems and projects stop, and you lose economic growth and prosperity in businesses.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Massicotte.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you. Ever since we arrived in New Brunswick, everyone has been talking to us about Energy East. Of course, that is a very important project for you. I can assure you that Senator Mockler talks to us about it on a daily basis. He sent us emails about it to remind us. So, I don’t think we need a reminder.
[English]
Let me ask a question of Mr. Gamble. Everybody talks about certainty, and in a normal business transaction, one would say, “Here’s what I propose to do,” which is what the act basically says, and the other person responds, “Here’s what I need you to prove to me before I give you approval.”
That’s what the act says. But everybody raises the issue, and you did also, that you need certainty, which would suggest that, if you meet exactly what they wanted, the minister or the agency would have no right to add another question or add another criteria, because in normal business, that’s not fair. When you say, “Here’s what I need to you to do,” and I do it, I should get it automatically.
But the problem is, in today’s world, including science, it evolves. Every week, you read something about what you should not be eating, and it contradicts what you heard the month before. So I’m not sure politically that it would ever be acceptable to the Canadian population that the minister or the agency is so tied up that, if you met exactly the criteria they outline, you get automatic approval, but on him or her having some right to say, “Things have changed. I now need information on this and this, because this is very important to the Canadian population.”
How do you deal with that? In other words, pure certainty, I’m not sure we can ever get there. But reasonable certainty? Yes.
Mr. Gamble: Well, and I think I caught it all in my spoken remarks, we actually very carefully watched our words. Certainly, risk-free investment is an oxymoron, but there has to be, first of all, clarity that creates that high level of relative certainty.
I think, in fairness, if someone follows the process, unless something truly remarkable happens, unless there is something truly extraordinary, there should be a high reliance. It’s true that some things don’t work out, but it should really be the exception rather than the rule.
And that has to ring loud and clear, because, again, almost like the implication of business interest and sustainability, a lot of people who are going to be investing in projects have to take those decisions based on what is and is not in this act. So it’s really about the clarity to make informed business decisions to allow proponents to manage their risk to do the right things. And that’s the key point.
The other thing, the other word — now we’re getting into semantics — but the word “consensus” that gets bandied around. No matter the best efforts of everyone, you’re never going to have everyone in agreement. Wherever you draw a line — this is true of any legislative initiative — wherever you draw a line, there is always going to be somebody on the wrong side of it.
So, again, it’s about creating clarity that we know where that line is. We know what the steps were, we know what is meant by each of the impact factors, and then business is going to do its risk assessment. And we’re going to expect the government and the review panel and cabinet to act in good faith.
Senator Massicotte: I totally agree what you said. But, as you said, in English it’s easy to say “largely satisfactory.” But you can appreciate in law, where words are important, it’s very difficult to get that wording right, because you can’t request total certainty, but you can make it relatively certain. It’s a tough one.
Mr. Gamble: I agree. Apologies in advance to the lawyers in the room, but there’s an old saying, “If you want three opinions, ask two lawyers.” I think you’ll never escape ministerial discretion of some degree, but it has to be very carefully scoped. And we actually need to know under what circumstances it may or may not be invoked.
The closer you can narrow that gap, the more investor confidence you’re going to have.
Senator Massicotte: I agree. Thank you.
Senator Neufeld: Thank all of you for being here.
The sponsor of the bill, Senator Mitchell from Alberta, tells us that the timelines are shorter and everything will be done quicker. After listening to you folks and many others, I can say that’s not quite the fact. At least, that’s not what people feel with what they’ve read so far in the bill.
There is one other thing that we’ve been asking for, and most people have been asking for, which is a project list. What is reviewable and what is not. Similar to CEAA 2012. At least people knew, if they were going to fit that one box, they were going to have to go through that process.
What happens is that the minister has the authority to intrude on provincial responsibilities and say, “I think that has to go through an approval process.” So maybe you can just comment a bit on, if we had a project list — government says trust them, they’ll give us a project list at some point in time — would it have reduced a lot of the concern, maybe, that people had? Not everything, but a whole lot of it?
I’d like you to speak to that. And thank you for the things you’ve said. We’ve heard that pretty consistently, what you folks are saying about how this is problematic, but that we need a good bill to actually move forward with.
I leave that with you.
Ms. Cunningham: Yes. Again, this comes back to clarity. A clearly defined project list would be helpful for proponents. It’s very difficult, you know, as an engineer, as an engineering firm, with a client, you know, they have a project and you can’t tell them either way what path you have to go down.
So, again, clarity on the bill, and a project list would be, yes, beneficial.
Ms. Somerville: I think I would add to that. When it comes to the federal and provincial jurisdictions, we have to do what we can to improve efficacy around that. Whose roles are where? They have to be clearly defined and set out in advance.
The provinces do have to have some latitude to manage projects in their backyard, as well. But whatever we do, it’s finding an efficacious way to move forward so that things can, and that they don’t get stalled, whether it’s within the different levels.
Senator Neufeld: Did you folks submit, any one of you, a list of amendments that you thought should take place to actually give some clarity to something where they’re saying, “Just trust me”? Or maybe you’ve already sent it in and I just haven’t seen it; I’m not sure.
Ms. Somerville: We are providing a written submission, but we are also citing within that the documents from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who have done a very detailed and thorough analysis, line by line, of the bill.
Senator Neufeld: Yes, thank you. I’m aware of that.
Ms. Somerville: We do support that, yes.
Senator Neufeld: You do support that? Okay, thank you.
Senator Cormier: I’m going to ask my question in French. My question is more for Mr. Raffy, but if you want, you can answer as well.
[Translation]
You got my attention when you talked about small and medium businesses. When we look at Bill C-69, we often think about its impact on large oil companies like Irving. I will quote someone who was somewhat critical with regard to that company:
This refinery based in Saint John, this family business, provides fuel to its immense fleet of trucks, delivers food harvested on its farms, the newspapers it prints, parcels processed by its delivery service, when its goods are not distributed by its railway network or its fleet of ships.
That means that the Irving company has a vast presence on the territory, but I would rather understand the impact of Bill C-69 on small and medium businesses, particularly those I know better, the francophone enterprises, and also the others in New Brunswick. What is the impact of this bill on small and medium businesses, and how, in the context of the consultations, the development or amendment of this bill, should we take those enterprises into account?
Is there something that should be clarified in the bill?
Mr. Raffy: Thank you very much for your questions.
The first concerns the impact of projects on SMEs. I am tempted to go back to the Energy East example, which is very important to Senator Mockler, to show how important that project was for our province, especially for our SMEs.
The objective of that project, at least for us at the conseil économique, was to involve our SMEs as suppliers of services or products.
I will also give the floor to my colleagues who represent some of those businesses. Whether in Saint John or the Atlantic region, these large projects provide our SMEs with opportunities to develop business.
Such projects allow SMEs to develop their expertise, keep their employees, find new employees, build a reputation in their province, their region of the Atlantic, and at the national level. They do not all necessarily bid on projects, but they will be involved in transportation, for instance, and in construction or in providing equipment.
A lot of businesses in the north of the province were very anxious to see Energy East become reality so that they could be involved. So the impact is quite important, but they are not the first concerned in that project in one way or another. The impact is really about the survival of businesses, economic activity, and retaining workers.
As for the consultation process, I think SME representatives must be at the table. All SMEs do not, of course, have a communications or public relations team to take part in consultations like this one. However, those consultations allow them to participate and share their concerns and comments with you.
As an organization, we also play the role of parents, if you will. We anticipate dangers. Some of my members are not aware of the bill we are discussing today, others are, through the media and newspapers. So they have a certain perspective, but they are so busy. We’re taking about small and medium businesses that do not necessarily have the time to examine a bill like this one.
This consultation we are having today is very important. To speak to and agree with the comment made earlier on discussion meetings, I am going to yield the floor to my colleague.
[English]
Mr. Duplisea: Further to Thomas’s remarks, we are about 85 to 90 per cent small-to-medium-sized businesses, so we are here representing small business primarily, although we do have larger businesses, as well. And the family to which you are referring in your comments is large, so I think that a lot of the opponents go after that family.
But what they don’t realize is that the supply chain of all of those projects has significantly impacted, of my over 650 companies that I represent, 600 of them really are severely affected by any changes that you make to these, because that’s their supply chain.
When these major projects are affected, or these major employers are affected, then that affects the whole environment that these businesses operate in. If there is less certainty, then there are fewer jobs, there is less disposable income, people aren’t buying trucks, so it’s not just a matter of the large companies and having the opponents come after and attacking these family — the one family that we know everyone is talking about here.
But let’s not lose sight of the fact that representatives like Sheri, Thomas, and myself, and my other colleagues here, we all represent small- and medium-sized enterprises as well. We can’t ever lose sight of that. Thank you.
Mr. Gamble: Yes, and thank you for reminding all of us that small firms can do big projects, and big projects can have small impacts, and small projects can have big impacts.
I think it really comes down to how you manage it, and this is the issue we’re all wrestling with. What are the solutions? I think the opportunity here is the upfront scoping, and understanding the scale and magnitude of the project and what is realistic.
For example, a small project may have relatively benign environmental impacts, but nevertheless it interfaces with an interprovincial boundary or a navigable water or a First Nation, so the idea is you need to scope the projects and the expectation of the proponent scalable to the actual project. I think that’s where the opportunity to address this is.
I think every business, small, large, medium, should be cognizant of these impacts. Everybody should be doing their best to mitigate and get to the best outcome, but there has to be some opportunity for making the solution scalable to the size of the problem, and I think the opportunity to do that would be in the upfront scoping and getting everybody to agree on what is on and off the table.
Because, of the 20, maybe seven are particularly relevant, and that would take the burden off a small-or medium-sized enterprise to proceed with their project.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are running out of time. We have one last question. Senator McCallum.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
I wanted to speak about the nation-building that Senator Mercer had brought up, because this is a chance to nation-build. I know I continue to speak for First Nations — that’s why I’m at the Senate — and we have been left behind for many, many years. So I will continue to voice what is critical for our advancement, so we can become — we are already valuable citizens, but Canada doesn’t realize it yet.
Before we think globally, we need to change local relationships amongst each other. Many people have been left out.
When you speak about this bill and the value to proponents, I think the more important question is this: Are proponents valuable to Indigenous and other marginalized peoples. When you talk about balance, I haven’t seen it, but I hope to.
How does one guarantee that toxic waste and disease won’t continue to be left in our backyards? And I agree with you when you say that we all have different interpretations. I speak Cree, so when you say something, I take it in a different way because of the holistic way that I was brought up.
And how can we have certainty? Because not only the proponents need certainty. It’s the people of Canada, as well. How can we have certainty if we all have our own interpretation?
So when you look at all this, resource extraction has been like a runaway train that we have been unable to stop, and it has done a lot of damage. I’m not proposing that we stop resource extraction. It just needs to be done respectfully, and it needs to involve that more people share in the resources, and not just the negative aspects.
Can you comment on that?
Mr. Gamble: Yes. I referred in my opening comments to the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. Right now, they have started in Western Canada and are trying to build their 55 First Nations.
I first came across them in a discussion around the National Corridor — which, by the way, Senate, is a great idea, and we’re behind you — and we actually had someone from the First Nations Major Projects Coalition come and participate on a panel to socialize it to our membership. It was a real eye-opener for not just myself but also for our board of directors and our association.
The lack of previous engagement with First Nations is an enormous missed opportunity, and I think we’re going to be ruing it for the next century.
Having said that, I agree, it’s all about clarity. It’s two sides of a mirror. That’s why we need to get the stakeholders in the room, and thinking that you can do this kind of legislation without the input from the First Nations, to me, is a non-starter.
But my message to proponents, though, is what an invaluable resource to you. You have people who know the land. You have people who understand the balance. You have people who are looking for economic opportunity.
And it’s not just about clearing the brush. It’s about having meaningful, long-term jobs created. It’s about having, in some cases, and ownership stake in some of these things.
I think that is one thing that has been absent in previous iterations of the environmental assessment regime across Canada, and I would certainly echo that not only is it good for the First Nations, but engaging the First Nations is good for business, and it’s only going to strengthen us in terms of our international opportunities.
Ms. Somerville: I would second that. You know, as we move along in Atlantic Canada and see, we’ve had pockets of engagement and working together collaboratively. For example, in Nova Scotia, projects move forward and First Nations, we’ve worked with them, and they provide valuable insight. And when you see that happen, you know it can only add value moving forward.
As I mentioned earlier, to make sure that we have everybody at the table involved in coming up with a solution and providing input, the decisions you make are only as good as the information you’ve got coming into the process.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: And so, colleagues, distinguished guests, this concludes today’s meeting.
[English]
Thank you very much for coming.
Senator MacDonald: After the witnesses have gone, I’d like to speak to something in regard to the committee’s work going forward.
The Chair: Do you want to ask a question?
Senator MacDonald: No, I’m asking you to keep the meeting in order so that we can discuss the matter going forward, before we meet tomorrow.
The Chair: With the witnesses?
Senator MacDonald: No, but since we have some time.
The Chair: In camera?
Senator MacDonald: Well, it doesn’t have to be in camera.
You will recall, senators, that we agreed in committee to set a date of May 9 to report the bill back to the Senate. Now, the Clerk of the Senate has informed us that we’ve contacted them to being clause-by-clause on May 6. Correct?
Maxime Fortin, Clerk of the Committee: That was the agreement.
Senator MacDonald: Yes. When we discussed this, we wanted to make sure there was nothing that was hanging around that we had to clear off the table, and we have a couple of issues.
One is that we don’t have the transcripts back yet from Winnipeg. We’re not going to have the transcripts from the eastern tour until next week, until the end of next week, at the earliest. We have two new provincial premiers to hear from, also Premier Higgs, who wasn’t available this week, and 12 additional witnesses.
Premier-elect Kenney has made it very clear he wants to speak to the committee about Bill C-69. I don’t think we can be seen denying him or the new Premier of Prince Edward Island the opportunity to speak to it.
As well, one thing we have on the table now that we never had on the table then is travel with Bill C-48. I’m going out West next week; Senator Simons, are you going out West? And so is Senator Neufeld.
Finally, there’s a well-established principle that no minister, no bill. We haven’t confirmed yet that the minister is going to be there next week. Well, it hasn’t been officially confirmed with us.
When we discussed this at the time, we thought it was tight. The time is really tight. I’m going to make a motion, and it’s only a week, but we can handle all of this if we just extend it by a week. So I want to move that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources report back to the chamber on its deliberations regarding 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, no later than May 16, 2019. That way, we can travel next week. That way, we get the reports back in from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and New Brunswick and Quebec. And that way, we have all of the information in front of us before we go to clause-by-clause consideration.
I think it’s essential that we do that. I don’t think we can go back there and basically ignore all the evidence we’ve heard on the East Coast.
The Chair: I understand the point. I understand that we need to have all this information in front of us. However, I think that the agreement was signed by all the leaders. We received a paper with the signature of all the three leaders, so I don’t know if we can take a decision against what was decided with the leaders.
Senator MacDonald: Of course, we can. We’re the committee.
The Chair: Just a second. One by one. Senator Patterson, Senator Mercer, Senator Carignan, Senator Simons.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, when we made the hasty motion to report, you will recall it was done in a hurry, and I said at the time that it would be subject to the circumstances.
The circumstances now are, in addition to what Senator MacDonald was saying about not having the full record of witnesses from the Atlantic or even yet from the West, we all know that there are extensive amendments that have been recommended. I think the committee needs some time to actually work on those amendments.
If we all present different versions of amendments, we’re going to end up with a bill without any amendments, because we will run out of time. I really do believe that, perhaps led by the steering committee or otherwise, we need to take some time to work on amendments, for the reputation of the Senate and for the good of the country.
The Chair: We have very few minutes.
Senator Patterson: That’s my argument for taking a modest increase in the time to report.
The Chair: Yes, thank you.
Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: I’m not going to disagree with what Senator MacDonald wants to do, although I would suggest that, here we are, it’s Thursday afternoon. Leadership meets on Tuesday. Could we not send the message to leadership via usual routes that the committee is very concerned because of what Senator MacDonald has outlined, and the number of amendments that may be proposed, that this committee will not be able to meet the agreed-upon deadline? And we would like them to give us consideration to alter that deadline.
Let’s have leadership then come back to the committee, perhaps by Tuesday afternoon.
The Chair: Yes, that’s good.
Senator Carignan and Senator Simons.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’d like to add that whatever means are used, if we must add an extra week to hear provincial premiers, I don’t think that this will delay the adoption of the report or of the bill.
You have to understand that the leaders or the whips have begun a negotiation. Personally, I was not consulted. I don’t know if others here were consulted. We would have liked to know that an extra week would allow us to hear the provincial premiers on this bill.
The Chair: For your information, we will hear the ministers on May 2.
Senator Carignan: Which one?
The Chair: The three ministers.
Senator Carignan: The premiers?
The Chair: The three Ministers of the Environment, Natural Resources and Transport.
Senator Carignan: I was talking about the premiers.
The Chair: We sent them a letter and they are at liberty to reply and let us know whether they will appear or not, or whether they will send one of their representatives. Most have answered. Some of them will not be coming, and others will send representatives.
We just learned today that Mr. Kenney intends to come. We will communicate with him and we will find out when he will appear.
[English]
Senator Simons: You will recall that the date was originally the one that I moved in the Senate, which at the time was a compromise between people, frankly, who wanted it earlier and people who wanted it much later. And I made it up out of my head while I was sitting in the Senate seconds before I made that speech. And it was a surprise to the ISG, too, when I picked that date, because it was mine.
I am not thus wedded to it, and I am very cognizant of Senator MacDonald’s points. We had a couple of very critical witnesses — I mean critical in the sense of important witnesses — in Winnipeg whose testimony I want to see back. I don’t know if we need a whole week, or if we need a few days’ extension, but I think Senator Mercer has the wise counsel here, that, if we’re all generally in agreement that we need a little more time, it makes more sense to not upend the apple cart on our own.
The Chair: Do you want to modify your motion?
Senator MacDonald: No. I just want to add something, because I think it’s an important point. It’s back to something we discussed about coordinating our efforts to put together a subcommittee, and we’re open to that. But one of the big challenges is we’re groping in the dark, here.
Senator Mitchell is the sponsor of the bill. He is the conduit to the government on the bill. We have to get some feedback from Senator Mitchell on whether amendments will be acceptable, on what sorts of amendments might be acceptable, to give us a little guidepost there.
I think we need to consider that, too. It’s just another week. I want to leave that motion on. I don’t mind Senator Mercer’s suggestion, as well, unless somebody things we should modify my motion, but it’s one more week. And it’s before the break, and, again, as somebody from the East Coast, I think it’s important that our transcripts are in before we make the final decision on this or go to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chair: Two things. We did agree in committee and we voted that we were going to put it in May, and I know that there was — if we needed more time. But we have this agreement of the leaders.
It’s true, yes, that we have been discussing at the steering that we would like to form a subcommittee to deal with the amendments from all caucuses and groups. Personally I consider that that is extremely efficient way of dealing with it, because it’s a mass of amendments. I think that the last thing that we want is to appear in the Senate with contradicting amendments.
Senator Patterson: That was my point.
The Chair: I see that there is a concern, so can we wait until Tuesday and see if we can unanimously agree, if we wait until Tuesday to make this decision?
Senator Massicotte: I’d like to comment, if I could. My first reaction is negative. Because personally I accepted those deadlines to travel, because I was convinced we could meet those deadlines. So I’m not very keen on amending it, but I can appreciate, if you can’t do it, you can’t do it.
But I think you have to look at a critical path. For me to be more comfortable, the critical path is not the premiers coming up, not the transcripts. The critical path is getting to the amendments, and for us to agree on the amendments if we can, and then getting that process inside the Senate.
And that is the critical path. That is the thing that’s going to take the longest. The other three or four things, they’ll fall because they’ll get done before we get to the amendments.
So I wouldn’t mind. I know we can punt and punt and punt, but time is running out. I’m anxious for us to agree on how we proceed forward from here on, not us, not you, together. And we’re a large number. We can do it by committee if you want. We can do it by subcommittee. But I think it’s time to decide and get a process in place, get dates done.
We’ve been here for a week. We could have chosen an hour to get some of this done. So I urge you, let’s deal with that issue.
The Chair: That’s a good point.
Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: Actually, let Senator Neufeld go first. I was just going to make a friendly, at least collegial, amendment.
Senator Neufeld: Well, I would actually recommend that we set it off a week. And I mean that, because I think we need some sense from Senator Mitchell what is going to be accepted and what is not. And there are also some repercussions that would happen if we just go ahead with what we think our amendments are, and that are going to work. They’ll go to the house, they’ll get punted, and it comes back.
Let’s not make that process so difficult. But if we have some idea from Senator Mitchell, and I’ve told Senator Mitchell in a meeting, it’s his job as the sponsor to get some clarification from government whether they’ll accept them,
If they accept them and it goes over to the house, it’s a smooth move. If they don’t, it comes back to us, and then we have to send it back again.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with getting some clarity and taking another week to get that clarity. Hopefully we can, and then it will happen, hopefully relatively smoothly.
Or we can just keep punting it back and forth, and I don’t think that gets us anywhere.
The Chair: I think that everybody’s consensus is that we need some input from Grant Mitchell. I don’t think anybody will say anything against that.
Senator Simons.
Senator Simons: I was going to move a friendly amendment, so friendly, to Senator MacDonald’s motion — I don’t have the exact wording of your motion in front of me — that we say that we would like to send a message to leadership, to their meeting on Tuesday, requesting that they approve an extension of the deadline. In whatever way Maxime feels is the correct way to say all those things.
Senator MacDonald: I’m okay with that.
The Chair: Perfect.
And what about the subcommittee? I sense that everybody is also for the subcommittee, to get progress?
Senator MacDonald: As long as we get some feedback from Senator Mitchell.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Thank you very much for what you have provided here in Atlantic Canada. I just wanted to bring to your attention I was made aware, and I mentioned it to the clerk, and she was aware also, that there is a possibility that Premier Higgs will be in Ottawa next Tuesday, so he would certainly be welcome to the committee. Is that fair to say?
And on the second, if not, he will do it by videoconference.
The Chair: Two last comments, Senator Patterson and Senator Massicotte.
Senator Patterson: The good thing about a charter is that we can’t be late for our own charter.
The Chair: Well, yes and no.
Senator Patterson: I have a very brief comment. Since we’re going to write a letter to the leadership, and I’m happy to support that, I think it’s important that it be mentioned that the transcripts for our hearings this week will not be available until May 1, I understand. I’m not criticizing any —
Senator MacDonald: No, later than that.
Senator Patterson: Well, that point needs to be made, that we need the transcripts to do the amendments, and I’d like to see that put in the letter.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: The only frustration I have is on this issue of waiting for Senator Mitchell. I wrote him an email two hours ago, and he tried to get hold of me, and I made it very clear. We’ve been promised the project list forever. We wanted to deal with the regs to deal with all the words about general quality. Once you do that, it becomes very clear, and so on.
I don’t know. He had better perform, and I think we should be very harsh with him. It’s time to give us those things he promised us. If not, let’s develop a plan B and do without them, because we can’t be held hostage by him.
Senator MacDonald: Can we put in the letter —
The Chair: Just a second. Before the letter, I think you have to withdraw your motion, because Senator Simons has a completely different motion.
Senator MacDonald: She just amended my motion.
The Chair: Well, you said — can you read it? Do you have it in front of you?
Senator Simons: That the Senate standing committee request of Senate leadership their —
The Chair: Just to make it clear, what was the —
Senator MacDonald: My motion was to move that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources report back to the chamber on its deliberations regarding 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, no later than May 16, 2019.
The Chair: Can you add to that an amendment?
Senator Simons: Yes. That the Senate standing committee request of Senate leadership their blessing — I don’t know — their consideration that we —
The Chair: We are voting on the amendment of Senator Simons. Agreed? Unanimous? Okay, unanimous.
Now we are voting on the motion, as amended. Do we approve the motion as amended? Yes, unanimous. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I would ask one thing. If we’re going to write to the leadership, can we ask the leadership to ensure that we send invitations to Premier Kenney and Premier King?
The Chair: We can say that verbally.
Senator Simons: My understanding is he is being sworn in on Tuesday.
Senator MacDonald: April 30, yes.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)