Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue No. 7 - Evidence, October 19, 2016
SAINT JOHN, New Brunswick, Wednesday, October 19, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 10 a.m. to study the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the East and West coasts of Canada.
Senator Michael L. MacDonald (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, everybody. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our distinct pleasure to be here in Saint John.
This morning, the committee is continuing a study on the development of a strategy to facilitate the transport of crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries and to ports on the east and west coast of Canada. This study began last March with the objective of finding a better way to bring Canadian oil products to market.
The committee felt compelled to meet here in Saint John since your community has a vested interest in the transportation of energy products.
Before continuing, I just want to advise everybody that when you use your microphone, please turn it on and turn it off afterwards. Everything's being recorded and translated so it's very important. They don't self-turn on and self-turn off like a lot of them, so keep that in mind.
I'd like to introduce our first witness, Mr. Bill Breckenridge, from New Brunswick Energy and Resource Development. He's the assistant deputy minister of the department.
Mr. Breckenridge, please begin your presentation, and then the senators will have questions.
Bill Breckenridge, Assistant Deputy Minister, New Brunswick Energy and Resource Development: Thank you, senator. It is indeed a pleasure to be here and thanks for the opportunity to discuss energy infrastructure, public confidence in the NEB process, the rights of indigenous people, specifically as it relates to transportation of crude oil and pipelines.
My name is Bill Breckenridge, as Senator MacDonald said. I'm joined today with my colleague Holly Stewart, who is a project executive in our department, and if there are any tough questions, I'll defer to her.
In our department, we understand the pipeline will provide significant economic benefits to the province, both short and long term. I have a few opening comments, if that's okay, and then we can go right to questions. I should have checked that with you first.
Sacha Patino is with our department. He's our pipelines and petroleum analyst.
Witnessing the success in other provinces, we're quite observant of seeing what's been happening in Western Canada over the last several decades with oil and gas development. How it's been able to change their economy has been something that inspires us. We have a long history of oil refining here in the province, and Energy East is a good fit to that. We acknowledge and accept and appreciate the economic benefits, but it's also critical that the government here in the province exercise due diligence and scrutinize any proposal for energy infrastructure development to ensure that environmental impacts are avoided or minimized to an acceptable level. We're confident that the continued economic development of our resources can occur in an environmentally responsible way. To ensure this, the Government of New Brunswick, in the case of Energy East, is participating in the NEB process as a registered intervenor.
On behalf of the people, we also have staff dedicated to working on the project and conducting a thorough review. A number of provincial departments are partnering and dozens of representatives will continue throughout the process to look at this project from many angles, from an environmental point of view, a First Nations engagement point of view, public safety.
As we go through the process we'll continue to put a New Brunswick lens on it and make sure that questions that we have around the areas that I mentioned — First Nations, emergency response plans, of critical importance, detailed watercourse crossings, how is it going to impact, where is it going to be, what are the potential impacts to air quality, land use, wetlands, restoration impacts, public health, and, of course, the economic and employment opportunities that a major project such as Energy East presents to the province.
I'm just going to leave it there and open it up to questions. I'll wrap up with saying that the province hopes the NEB process resumes soon. We're following it closely and we look forward to seeing some new developments on that. Again, I reiterate my distinct pleasure to be here with you folks today and I look forward to the discussion.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breckenridge.
Senator Mercer: First, thank you for being here; we appreciate it.
We've had a lot of discussion over the past number of months but particularly the last couple of days about social licence and how social licence is obtained. We haven't heard yet any great opposition to the program in New Brunswick. In your assessment, from the provincial government's point of view, is there any opposition to it and from which communities would we anticipate that opposition coming from?
Mr. Breckenridge: Thank you. Social licence or social acceptance or public acceptance, whatever term seems to be the flavour of the day, is obviously something that we take very seriously in New Brunswick. I agree with your sentiment that there generally seems to be a willingness to consider Energy East, but we're not discounting the fact that some groups have expressed their concerns and we respect and appreciate that they're able to express their concerns and ask their questions.
I find public acceptance and understanding of energy issues is complex, and I think a lot of people smarter than me, if they had a solution to it, would be able to present it, and I'm not aware of it. But I personally feel that energy literacy is one of the things that there's a bit of a deficit of in Canada and I refer to that in meaning better understanding of energy and its impacts on the province, on the country, better understanding of how the energy sector works and contributes, and the safety measures that are in place when it comes to the energy sector. I don't put this out as a criticism: People are busy; they've got their own jobs and their own things to do. Energy is complicated and it's not simple to grasp and understand all the risks, benefits and rewards that come with it.
To sum up, what I would say is that we are participating with TransCanada. We're willing to engage and talk to people that have their concerns and to listen to them. I think the better understanding, the more information that's put out there is the best way to go forward.
Senator Mercer: You've introduced a term that I wrote down and I do like — energy literacy. As we've gone across the country, we have discovered that this is a problem. Canadians understand that we have this great resource but they also don't realize we only have one customer. They also don't realize that one customer buys our product at a discount, not at the world price. They also assume that we've got markets for it when we only have one market, we have one customer. If you only had one customer for your hamburgers, the customer could dictate the price he or she is willing to pay for those hamburgers, and our customer dictates the price being lower.
You've hit on a very interesting term; the terminology is interesting. You say you're working with TransCanada. One of my criticisms has been the fact that TransCanada and the other players in the pipeline business are a little late to the dance here. They've started to try to build social licence now when perhaps they should have been building social licence over the past number of years in anticipation that at some point they might want to build a pipeline east or west. Would you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Breckenridge: Thank you for the question. If I could just quickly talk energy literacy, because I have an example that I heard years ago that I thought was brilliant.
I was at a speech with David Suzuki once. He was saying that he was at a school in suburban Toronto and they were talking about air emissions and the quality of the air, and he said, "I said to the students, if you're concerned about the quality of your air in your community, when you go home tonight, make sure that if there's lights on in rooms, turn them off.'' He said everyone of them asked, "Why? What does that have to do with the quality of the air?'' not understanding the link that Ontario has coal-fired generation that produces electricity. He says that's where we've got to start, in the schools. If you want to talk about it, I have some ideas on that later. I understand you're going to hear from TransCanada later today and, with all due respect, I'd prefer that they respond to that. We work with them. I find we haven't had any challenges getting information from them. We have a cooperative relationship with them. So when it comes to that, I would prefer that they respond to that, senator.
Senator Mercer: One of the major groups that will need to be involved in granting social licence and in being part of the process if the pipeline were to move ahead is the Aboriginal peoples across the country. We have two major groups in New Brunswick. Do you see their involvement as being a positive one at this point?
Mr. Breckenridge: We, in New Brunswick, recognize that the 15 First Nations communities are rights-holders; they have traditional rights that need to be respected and we appreciate that. One of the challenges I've found personally, to put one group in and say that one group is for and one group is against, I've made the mistake myself. I think it runs the gamut in the First Nations communities. There are some who support it and some that don't.
Again, the challenge that we have is to have a process that is beneficial to the First Nations communities. I think it's fair to say, historically, when we've engaged on projects, it's basically that, project by project. But what we need to move to, and I know the province is trying to, is to move to more of a strategic approach because one thing that we've heard from communities, and I think it's a fair point, is that when you come to them to talk about Project A and say, "Here are the potential impacts from Project A; what do you think?'' you engage the process. Next week someone else comes in and talks to that same community and goes, "Here's Project B that's going to be developed at the same time in your community.'' Well, it's pretty hard to look at them in isolation. There's the concept of accumulative impacts. So we're trying to build up capacity in the government to meet with communities and have more of a strategic approach across the sector instead of talking about Project A and saying, "This, for the next ten years, is all the projects we think that will be occurring. What are your thoughts and what is your opinion on that?'' I think if we can move to that we'll have more successful engagement.
Senator Mercer: I agree with you. I think the problem is that we tend to do things in the Aboriginal community in isolation; we do one thing at a time. This gives us an opportunity to address a whole bunch of issues, together and collectively, and make some long-term decisions.
The other issue is the Bay of Fundy. It has been known over the years as environmentally sensitive. I know that there have been some changes on how shipping has moved through the bay that have been positive with respect to its effect on the right whale. Is the provincial government concerned at all about the environmental risk of having a large number of tankers leaving Saint John with product in their hull?
Mr. Breckenridge: We have, as I'm sure you know, senator, a fairly long history of shipping refined petroleum products out of the port of Saint John through the Bay of Fundy, and we want to continue that but to make sure it's done in the most environmentally respectful possible way. Standards are in place. I know other departments, not mine, we don't regulate that industry, but other colleague departments are constantly reviewing their regulations and their policies to ensure that standards are met, that it's done in the most safe manner. The Bay of Fundy is a precious resource. I'm sure every New Brunswicker would agree with that. We want it to be able to co-exist with other industries in the most safe and environmentally responsible way.
Senator Doyle: You mentioned the NEB. We've had witnesses that say that maybe the NEB should have the final say on whether or not a project is approved or goes ahead. Now what happens is that the National Energy Board approves or disapproves a project and then it goes off to cabinet for final approval. Would it be better if the whole process was de-politicized? When it goes off to cabinet it's regarded as being political and what have you. Kind of get the government off the hook a little bit so that we can have an impartial body approve some of these projects instead of going off to the Prime Minister and the cabinet. You know how it works. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Breckenridge: Excellent question, senator, thank you. Just to be clear, you're asking a career public servant what the politicians should be doing?
Senator Doyle: I thought it might be a little bit improper from that point of view but let's look at it from the National Energy Board's point of view.
Senator Mercer: Your boss is not in the room.
Mr. Breckenridge: Yes, but I see the media is, though. I don't want to evade the question at all and I want to be as open as I possibly can, senator. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
I think the NEB process, the scientific assessment is important. Obviously, it's critical to the process that is to be understood, but I would maybe go a little out on a limb and say politicians are elected to represent their constituents, the people vote for them to guide and oversee development, and I see a role for them. I don't know if I can put it in a fine enough point, if it should be the decision right to federal cabinet. I do see value in when you want to build social acceptance, that if you want to build confidence in the regulatory processes and the political process, that if politicians are held accountable for a number of initiatives, I think it does contribute to building social acceptance for project decisions.
Senator Doyle: What can be done to improve public trust? Again, that seems to be an area that the politicians should be more involved in than a career civil servant, but what can be done to improve public trust? Surely, from all studies that have been done, pipelines seem to be safer than rail or tanker transportation, and the whole area of public trust is almost getting out of hand actually. Could it be that we've often misinterpreted the noise of a few as being the opinions of the majority of people? It seems every group that we meet with, it's social licence, social licence; it just keeps coming at you. I wonder if we've misinterpreted, not the importance — social licence is very important — but have we misinterpreted the noise of a limited number of people, a few probably who have vested interests in the environmental end of it? The indigenous people, of course, have a major interest and I'm saying that's very, very legitimate. I don't know if there's a question in that, but do you have a comment?
Mr. Breckenridge: Yes, I have a comment if that's okay.
We've been through a lot of project development here in the province the last 15 years or so and we've had ones that went fairly well and other ones that it's fair to say did not. If I can even go back to one of my initial comments, one of the challenges is that I've literally seen letters come into the minister's office saying we're really concerned because of "this reason,'' and I look at it and that's not accurate. The concern that you have is about something that's not going to happen in the project, that's not the case. It goes back again to energy literacy. When you're in an age where you're bamboozled by information all of the time, if you don't have the background to look at something and say, "That just doesn't make sense; I know enough about this topic to know that just couldn't happen; that's sort of a ridiculous,'' if we could work on energy literacy and get to that, the people would have a filter when they hear information.
Let's be honest, groups have their own agendas, pro or against, whatever it is, so they'll put out information that benefits what they're trying to accomplish. With every statistic, with every perception — but if the population could have a point of going, "No, that doesn't make sense because I know enough,'' that would really help I think to build the public trust and public confidence.
I think it's fair to say people are afraid of what they don't know enough about; I know I am. I remember reading about killer bees 30 years ago. They were all going to come up and I was getting all concerned about that; that never really happened, but it's things like that, again, literacy, to understand, to have a foundational knowledge and to be able to understand the process and the project better.
Senator Doyle: There is not a lot of public education out there on the economic and the social benefits of pipelines versus rail and tankers, but the environmental end of it seems to be well known because people are lobbying hard on that. How can we achieve, I wonder, a better balance? Should we be out there — when I say "we,'' maybe government or somebody should be out there, lobbying the economic benefits and the social benefits. It doesn't seem to be happening. It's all just one term: social licence, social licence. But how do you achieve social licence if you don't have the proper amount of information from both sides out there?
Mr. Breckenridge: Another good question, and I did a little bit of research on the committee before I came here and I see you've met with a lot of people, so what I'm going to say you've probably already heard, but a few years ago I was at a conference and it was a public relations firm president who was considered an expert in the field of public engagement. He had one line that stuck with me that I never forgot. He said when you deal with people who have a legitimate opposition to your project, don't spin, negotiate. He used the example of trying to do a wind farm in a community. If someone says, "I don't like the looks of wind farms, I don't like the looks of the turbines, I think they're ugly,'' you shouldn't come back saying, "But they're renewable energy, they're great.'' You should say to them, "Okay, we'll have a program here that if there's a wind turbine that's in your sightline, we'll pay you $300.00 a month.'' P.E.I. did that. They had some initial opposition. Guess what? A lot of it went away. Looking at that turbine looks a lot better when you get a cheque every month for it. To me, it's sort of perfect.
When you have objections, my suggestion is, you've got to address them head on, and often sometimes the debate goes against, "Oh, these are the benefits.'' An environmentalist says, "I don't like this project because it's a threat to the water lands.'' The argument shouldn't be, "But it's going to create 30 jobs.'' My concern is, show me that you have safety measures in; show me you have mitigation in place that will protect the watershed, because that's what I'm concerned about. I think it happens on both sides. I just observed this and I'm sure we've been involved in it, that we get caught up in the benefits of something, and if someone has a legitimate concern, we just keep talking about the benefits rather than addressing their concern. I think that kind of direct dialogue would really be helpful.
Senator Doyle: Good, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: As a senator from New Brunswick, I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome you to New Brunswick, particularly here in Saint John.
We must listen to the public's concerns, we must be present and make recommendations to the government to move the project forward. Mr. Chair, let me be precise and clear, I think the Energy East pipeline is a project that is equally important for New Brunswick and Canada, given the extensive infrastructure that has been the reason for building a unified Canada. When I look at the Trans-Canada Highway, I see an infrastructure project from coast to coast to coast, from east to west. When I think of the railways, from east to west, I see national projects, nation-building projects.
However, our people have concerns. I for one have some questions for the assistant deputy minister, but we must not forget that —
[English]
— decisions on any infrastructure have to be based on scientific data. In my career as a parliamentarian, there is no project that has had unanimous consent. You've had people for and you've had people against.
Here in New Brunswick, the last information that I have, and the date is a couple of weeks ago and this is seven out of ten New Brunswickers, regardless where we live, support Energy East. However, we must address concerns. I agree with the assistant deputy minister, when the previous senators posed the questions, that there is a time for education but there's also a time for decision-making.
Feel free to answer this one. I know you're a career civil servant and also a professional, but when we talk about social licence and democracy, the people that we elect, and also to listen to the concerns of both sides of the issue, nobody can define what social licence is.
[Translation]
In my definition of "social licence'', to have social permission means that an elected individual, at any level — be it municipal, local, provincial or national — makes the decisions. The project before us creates jobs and will help strengthen and improve the economy of Atlantic Canada and of New Brunswick. Do you have a more precise definition of "social licence'', and if so, could you share it with me?
Mr. Breckenridge: Thank you for your question.
[English]
Holly showed me a political cartoon the other day. It had a person holding up a little sign saying, "We're good to go; I got the social licence.'' It's an ephemeral thing. It's something you can't really touch or anything.
I agree with what you're saying, senator, that decisions need to be made. If we try to create a process to have unanimity on major decisions, things won't get done, you're right. What the definition of social acceptance is, if I knew that I think we'd be further down the road here.
I appreciate your comments and I agree with you that there's a role for the federal government here, and this is a nation-building project. When you look at Energy East, it's a project of national significance. So that has to be part of the process absolutely, I completely agree.
Here in New Brunswick, the economic benefits are pretty well understood. It's pretty straightforward. You can look at it and say, "Okay, I can see how it would benefit the economy here,'' and I think that really does build the seven out of ten that you referenced.
Senator Mockler: What's your feeling on the statement that the pipeline is the most secure means of transportation of oil in the world? At this stage of the game we're looking at pipelines. This pipeline will be very important when you see that the biggest refinery in Canada is in Saint John, New Brunswick. I can tell you, I was on the airplane last night from Ottawa to Montreal, Montreal to Saint John, and believe you me, a lot of people do not know that the refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, is the biggest one in Canada. So there is a process of education to be added.
[Translation]
According to previous testimony, the National Energy Board should be in charge of approving the pipeline project, not the government or the federal cabinet. What do you think of this recommendation, as a professional official, and to what extent, if any, would removing the responsibility for this decision from cabinet have an impact? The "social licence'' is important because it concerns those who are elected and work in their communities. We should remove the responsibility from cabinet, because the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Gallant, supports the construction of the pipeline. What is your opinion as an official working internally? What can we do to further educate and inform the public and to answer questions based on facts, not on hearsay?
[English]
Mr. Breckenridge: Excellent questions.
First, again I've got to go back to energy literature and I'll give you a quick example. Here in New Brunswick there's an organization called Gaia. It's a Greek word and I believe it means "earth.'' They're about energy understanding. They go into the schools in francophone and anglophone communities in New Brunswick, from kindergarten to Grade 12, and they link their programming to the curriculum. The students are evaluated on it. They do everything from having little devices called a "Watts Up" and they go around and plug this device into any kind of electrical device and it shows you how much energy it uses. Then they figure out where that energy comes from. They do little energy efficiency projects in the schools. One example, Carleton North ended up saving thousands of dollars in heat because they realized they could close the big black curtains every night in the schools because so much energy was escaping.
So the students who are in the schools now are going to benefit from a better understanding. These are the kinds of things we've must get to to get to the issues that you identified. How are we going to make these decisions? In the little bit of research I've done, the International Energy Agency, organizations like that, the demand for oil isn't going away. Maybe in a hundred years from now we'll all be driving electric vehicles, but if you look at the next few decades, demand for oil is going to continue to be there. I don't personally know of a safer way to transport oil than pipeline. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't. Is it a hundred per cent? Obviously, nothing is. I use the example that when a small plane goes down, does everybody say, "Planes kill people; we should never fly''? You learn from mistakes and try to make things better. These are some of the challenges we have to deal with.
To your big question about should the cabinet have the final say in the NEB, I really think that's a political decision, and I'm backpedalling on that again. Maybe over a beer later I'll tell you what I think about it, but here I don't want to do it.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: As my colleagues have done, I want to thank you and your colleagues for coming this morning, Deputy Minister.
I am hard pressed to know what to ask you, because what happened in Quebec is quite dramatic, namely the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic. I think politicians and the public alike, including myself, are still dealing with the trauma of that day.
I understand the importance of the project. In terms of diversification, opening markets and independence, I think there's hardly a question about the project on the economic, scientific and safety fronts, as Senator Mockler mentioned. In Quebec, a kind of duality has developed in the debate between the use of oil and the pipeline, and there is a degree of confusion between the two.
When politicians do not show some backbone — I'm thinking of the Government of Quebec in particular — and back off when it comes to the development of oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in Anticosti Island, as well as when it comes to the development of shale gas, they send a negative message on the development of the resource. So how can we ask the people to support a project when their own elected officials back off from the development of resources? That makes public support more complex. How can the people be persuaded when their politicians are not? I don't know.
You are close to power as a deputy minister. I was. I was for a number of years, and we are quite close to politicians, and have a certain power to influence them as senior officials.
So let me ask you whether you have discussions with your colleagues in the other provinces. Do you converse with those politicians, perhaps not to persuade them, but to at least educate them on the fact that they have a leadership role in a project like that? When I think that Quebec receives almost $10 billion per year in equalization payments, mainly from the provinces developing oil resources, I see a double standard, and I don't think that information is shared with the public. Quebec provides services such as daycare and free university education because there's money coming in from somewhere other than Quebec taxpayers.
I don't know. Deputy Minister, my question is whether you communicate with your colleagues from the other provinces to ensure there is an educated and informed debate to help minds and thinking grow so that we can encourage the development of the resource. At any rate, I'm a little annoyed with the way we have to talk to our fellow citizens so that they support the project.
Mr. Breckenridge: Thank you for your question.
[English]
First, your comments on Quebec are spot on. We follow it. I agree completely with what you're saying. From our perspective, it seems that when the question was being asked in Quebec, are you supportive of the Energy East pipeline, another discussion started up saying, "I don't think hydrocarbons should be extracted anymore and we need to go to a hundred per cent renewable future.'' So instead of having a discussion on the pipeline, and it's probably not a surprising thing that that happened because they are linked, then the conundrum becomes, how do you engage a process to talk about this when everybody else, or groups, want to talk about this? That gets really challenging. I agree with what you're saying. Here politicians have staff and we'll see how good they are, but they have staff that try to educate them and inform them on what's going on, but they have their own opinions, too, as you correctly pointed out, and so they're getting information from all sources.
How do you come up with a process? That's a $64 million question on how can we get to a point where we have a level of understanding.
Here in the province what we can do, we need to look and we are trying to look towards doing a more comprehensive view and look at all the impacts of energy. Again, same with consultations and engagement with First Nations, instead of project-by-project we need to have a vision of where we want to be. I think it's time for a national discussion of where we want to be.
I don't envy the federal government where energy is largely the purview of the provinces, but in many countries, a lot of the power and decision-making resides in the national capital and they can look at it from a national point of view. I know provincially, especially here in Atlantic Canada — I should say it's great to see so many Atlantic Canadian senators here today. I talk to my colleagues I would say daily, but weekly; we get together all the time. We recognize we're a small region; we have a lot in common; but if we're going to have a voice on issues of national significance, if all four of us work together we have a better voice. I know at the political level they do, especially in the region, they talk a lot about these issues. Many of the issues we're having are very similar in nature.
Do we have any solutions? Not yet. We're still trying to get through them, but I would just say that my opinion would be, and only to get past this, is we do have to have some kind of national dialogue. I don't know what mechanism that takes, but some kind of national dialogue: "Okay, Canadians, where do you think the country should be in 15 years? Here are all the challenges we have.'' We know our resources. We pretty well have an understanding of that but, as a country, where do we need to go? I think that would be a step in the right direction, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Let me ask you one last question. I completely agree with you that a debate needs to be held and a leader for the debate is needed because the credibility of the debate often depends on the credibility of the leader as such. I'm looking at Mr. Trudeau right now and he is more popular than any prime minister ever before, including in Quebec. I looked at the polls yesterday and there would be 76 Liberal MPs if an election were held tomorrow. I'm wondering whether he would not be the ideal leader to talk about it, especially in Quebec, given his impact.
[English]
Mr. Breckenridge: I think that's another question for over a beer, but I agree, the Prime Minister is obviously well positioned. I have a strong view on that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
The first thing I want to put on the table is I'm a big supporter of the Energy East pipeline, so I want to make sure that's fully understood by yourself and your colleagues.
When we were out west, it's amazing how much discussion we had about the Energy East pipeline out west. People would make the point that the pipeline went through six provinces and every province it went through had a lot of benefits from the pipeline, but of course once the bitumen goes into the water it brings seven provinces into play. Once bitumen goes into the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia comes into play here. You mentioned the history of exporting refined petroleum products from Saint John; it is a long history and it's well accepted, but bitumen is not a refined petroleum product; bitumen is a heavy oil. What discussions have your office or your department or your government had with the government of Nova Scotia regarding the handling and the export of bitumen through the Bay of Fundy?
Mr. Breckenridge: Thank you for your question. I'm not aware personally because that would be led by the Department of Environment and Local Government here in our province. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position — whether they have talked to them about that or not, I just honestly don't know.
The Deputy Chair: If bitumen were exported through the Bay of Fundy, obviously it would bring a lot of tanker pressure into the Bay of Fundy. At the moment, all of the refined product that is exported through the Bay of Fundy or that comes in to the refinery has to veer close towards the shore of Nova Scotia to avoid the right whales. Now, we support that in Nova Scotia but it is a significant risk for the province of Nova Scotia. Do you have any idea about the projected number of tankers and the size of them to export this bitumen through the Bay of Fundy and how much pressure it would bring into the Bay of Fundy?
My second question is, have you done any studies on the consequences of a large, heavy oil spill in the Bay of Fundy?
Mr. Breckenridge: Can I just consult with my colleagues for a second on that question?
Thank you for that pause. The short answer is, yes, I know our Public Safety Department is intricately involved with not only the proponent but talking to provincial colleagues about potential impacts as well as Environment and Local Government work on that as well.
I can add also, personally, that I share your concern about the Bay of Fundy. Our department talks constantly to Nova Scotia when it comes to something such as tidal energy because the fishermen tell us, and not to be flippant, but the fish don't stop at the halfway mark. Any development that Nova Scotia wants to do in tidal energy of installing turbines into the Minas Basin, we're concerned about that and we want to be involved in it. We have a great working relationship with the departments down there.
So it's a shared resource amongst the two provinces, as you well know, and a long history of cooperation on it. Projects like this, I know the government is committed to continue to dialogue with Nova Scotia and to make sure, again, that environmental considerations are taken into full account.
The Deputy Chair: I asked two questions. You didn't answer either one of them. What would be the projected increase in traffic of tankers in the Bay of Fundy? Have you done any studies on the consequences of a heavy oil spill in the Bay of Fundy?
Mr. Breckenridge: I don't have the exact numbers, but I know it's a significant increase in tanker traffic. I apologize, I don't have that stat in front of me. Sorry, I can't answer that one.
The second one, I'm not aware of a study on a bitumen spill in the Bay of Fundy. I'm not saying it's not been done, but I'm just honestly not aware.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Mercer: I'm going to try to give you a question that's not going to get you into political trouble.
Emergency response and emergency preparedness for a pipeline going through New Brunswick territories is important and a question asked by many people. Are you aware of any special plans by the government of New Brunswick to do a couple of things, such as increase training? Many first responders are volunteers in rural parts of New Brunswick. Are there any plans for special training for them? Are there any plans for increasing the quality of equipment that might be available to first responders in rural New Brunswick? Is there a plan to publicize what that response will be so that New Brunswickers can feel comfortable that the government is ready to deal with any problems that might arise?
Mr. Breckenridge: Thank you for your question. I have an answer right here so I will answer it directly.
Our Department of Justice and Public Safety is committed to ensuring that an appropriate level of equipment and adequate level of training exist along with the projected rights-of-way among potential first responders, as you referred to, to ensure that there's a strong response capacity in case of an incident, without placing undue risk or burden on the agencies that provide these emergency services, obviously. We often use the example that we have a nuclear reactor here. It has a high level of acceptance, as I'm sure Senator Mockler knows, in the community because of the people that work there and they understand it. Some people have said, what if there's a catastrophic thing? We have a comfortable level, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission provides regulations we follow and we just try to ensure that it's done in the most environmentally sensitive way. Interdepartmental committees have been struck for the last two years, shortly after Energy East was announced, to look at these issues exactly to ensure that we do have adequate capacity to address those issues.
Senator Mercer: Has that been communicated to New Brunswickers? Do they understand? We go back to the issue of social licence and your term "energy literacy.'' Do New Brunswickers know that the government has a plan in place to ramp up emergency response capabilities in the communities where the pipeline might be?
Mr. Breckenridge: I know we've had several outreach events to communicate that. Is it getting to enough people? Again, I really don't know. I know that we try to address it; we get letters in to the minister's office that refer to it. There have been town halls; there have been a number of public events that address these issues. As we go forward, we continue to do more of it because I think it's an example where a little redundancy would not be a bad thing. If people hear it over and over again, it would probably be a good thing.
Senator Mercer: Going back to our ongoing discussion of social licence, and again your term "energy literacy,'' I think it's important that we tell people that this is not all happening in isolation. While the pipeline will be owned by the companies going across, most of it, private land, et cetera, the government has prepared to respond to any emergencies that might happen. I think Point Lepreau is a good example of the level of education because New Brunswickers only have social licence for Point Lepreau because they also have the comfort level that there is the capability of responding to any problem at the plant.
Thank you, chair.
Senator Mockler: I'd like to make a comment in respect to two questions that were posed. One is on the Bay of Fundy, and the latest information that I have is that the entire Bay of Fundy, Assistant Deputy Minister, is covered by ALERT. ALERT is the Atlantic Emergency Response Team. It was established in 1991 and licensed under the Canada Shipping Act to handle precisely environmental emergencies. Every tanker that enters the Bay of Fundy must, Mr. Chair, have a contract with ALERT. Is that still the case?
Mr. Breckenridge: We're aware of ALERT. Whether the contracts are still in place, I would have to respectfully get back to you on that.
Senator Mockler: Okay, please do, through the chair.
Mr. Breckenridge: Yes, we will.
Senator Mockler: The Saint John refinery, Canaport terminal and East Saint John terminal, each have on site, as I was told when I was in government here in New Brunswick and today as a parliamentarian in Ottawa, emergency response teams with a total of over 200 members. I want to share with you, approximately 26 members are on duty per shift and are fully equipped with an on-site fast track truck, fire truck, incident command vehicle and other vehicles to respond to a variety of emergencies including fire, leaks, spills and medical incidents, and we have a good record on that here.
My question to you is, and I appreciate the fact that you will come back for the previous question, do you share information with ALERT and a response team at the terminal level to make sure that we answer questions based on scientific data so that we can answer the question posed? We have seven out of ten New Brunswickers supporting Canada East, so can we answer the other three that have to be answered?
Mr. Breckenridge: Yes, senator, it's my understanding that they meet on a regular basis, share information, identify if there are any perceived gaps or not and work collaboratively to ensure that we have the environmental measures necessary in place.
Senator Mockler: When I look at the economic drivers of energy in New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada, it's important that they create jobs. New Brunswick's largest exporter is a refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. More than 65 per cent of all New Brunswick exports are from this refinery. Another factor is that 70 per cent of Irving Oil's production — and I'll say the refinery here in Saint John — is destined for the U.S. market, which translates, honourable senators, to three vehicles in five, six vehicles in ten being fuelled by our refinery. Then when I look at job creation of about 3,000 employees, approximately 2,400 live here in New Brunswick.
[Translation]
That's not peanuts.
[English]
My question to you is, do you think New Brunswickers are not aware of all those facts?
Mr. Breckenridge: Excellent question. There's no argument in my opinion about the economic impact of Irving Oil Ltd. and their refinery and the potential from the Energy East refinery. The understanding of that, I think really it's a question of degrees. I think in the Saint John area people understand that fairly well. I think it's fair to say, honourable senator, that in other parts of New Brunswick, maybe not so much, that they don't as much.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have one more question before we wrap up.
The export of bitumen through the Bay of Fundy would require the construction of a 7.6 million barrel facility out into the Bay of Fundy. I don't know the particulars of this yet in terms of what would be involved in land reclamation or sea reclamation. Can you tell the committee if any environmental assessment and/or permitting has been done to date on this proposed facility?
Mr. Breckenridge: May I ask a follow-up question to you before I answer it?
The Deputy Chair: Certainly.
Mr. Breckenridge: Mr. Chair, are you referring to the marine terminal?
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
Mr. Breckenridge: The filing of the environmental provincial impact assessments for that, has it been done yet?
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
Mr. Breckenridge: I don't think they've started, but I can confirm that and get back to you very shortly.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your time this morning. We really appreciate your taking the time to come and visit with us.
Honourable senators, I wish to welcome our next witnesses. Mr. Bruce Fitch is the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Riverview and Interim Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Accompanying him is Mr. Greg Lutes, Chief of Staff.
Mr. Fitch, please begin your presentation, and then the senators will have questions.
Bruce Fitch, Member of the Legislative Assembly (Riverview), Interim Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick: Thank you very much for the invitation to present to the committee on a topic that's very important not just for New Brunswick but for Canada as well. Thank you, honourable senators, for your time in coming here to New Brunswick and listening to what the people have to say. It is an opportunity to come and share my thoughts on this important matter.
Before I address the specific questions that the committee is examining, I would like to provide a bit of a context to my comments. In the past I've been both Minister of Environment and Energy at different times of administration in previous New Brunswick governments. I have dealt with a number of energy projects that were fraught with public opposition, and we see the exact same issues playing out on the Energy East pipeline project. As a result, I have some observations on the subject that are representative of my experiences as they pertain to the questions at hand.
The first question the committee has asked is to focus on social licence. Unfortunately, no definition for social licence has been provided so it is difficult to comment on how one can help facilitate such a goal. As government continue to throw this term around as a condition for infrastructure projects, the lack of any objective, consistent definition for the term has resulted in project opponents and governments, as is the case here in the province of New Brunswick, appropriating the term to meet their own political goals.
My experience has found that an opponent to a fossil fuel-based project will never support such a project no matter what conditions, what protections, what standards and what science has presented or required by the government. As a result, the lack of social licence is also held up as a veto of sorts by opposing the project. After all, without a definition, social licence can mean anything, including unanimous support, something that could virtually never be obtained. Basing such important infrastructure decisions on terms that supposedly represent thresholds of support that are undefined will ensure projects continue to be delayed and cancelled across our nation. Eventually, this lack of clarity and stability erodes investors' confidence and forces investors to look elsewhere for opportunities, a situation, again, we are currently experiencing in New Brunswick due to this government's handling of the natural gas industry.
Second, the committee asks how to improve the public confidence in the pipeline review process. Again, in my experience, any perceived lack of confidence in the pipeline review process is not based in concerns over the technical details of a particular project but rather is used as a way to raise questions and concerns by opponents. By providing clear objective metrics at the start of a review project, a review board can demonstrate if a project is in the public's best interest, without having to take into account emotional arguments based not on fact but rather the desire to raise opposition to a project. This will ensure any reasonable, unbiased individual can understand if the project has or has not met the requirements established by the elected officials.
The question pertaining to indigenous people is already answered through various Supreme Court decisions. However, the challenge for Eastern Canada is in the fact that our treaties precede western treaties by close to two centuries and do not provide the same level of clarity as the treaties upon which those Supreme Court decisions were based. However, what is clear is that First Nations have to be part of the process, socially, financially and, most important, environmentally. They must be partners with project proponents to ensure that the wealth generated from such projects is shared. At the end of the day, the Crown, First Nations and proponents must come to agreements before projects enter into regulatory process to ensure that the project benefits all those involved.
Finally, a national strategy is a concept that, while it appeals to our patriotic selves, it really provides no real benefit to the stakeholders. The call for a national strategy implies that there are some insurmountable roadblocks to our appeal process at play and in the lack of progress we have made on pipeline projects in Canada over the last decade. I do not believe this to be the case, but what I see are governments too anxious to make job announcements before the plan details are finalized, leaving a communications vacuum that opponents fill uncontested. I see companies moving through regulatory matters without properly consulting with impacted First Nations, leading again to protests and further opposition. I see provincial governments determining pipeline support based on local politics instead of what's best for the nation. These actions will not end with a politically driven national strategy. We see that recently with the carbon pricing debate between province and the federal government.
What will change these actions is when the federal government starts making the case that pipelines are in the nation's best interest and lay down clear requirements pertaining to environmental protections, First Nations consultation and accommodation, and regulatory hearing process. This cannot occur with governments utilizing meaningless terms such as social licence, making unfounded claims of non-confidence in regulatory processes or subjective interpretations of indigenous consultations.
When we as a country have a clear road map on how to get these projects to fruition and a federal government that will stand behind the process to ensure proponents that meet all requirements will, in fact, be able to move forward with their projects, then we will be able to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada.
Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to listen to my comments today.
I neglected to introduce my associate, Greg Lutes, Chief of Staff. I meant to do that off the top. He's the mystery person I have to my left here.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fitch.
Before we go to questions, I want to assure you that social licence is not a reference or a requirement for this committee and its work.
We will start with Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle: I'm going to ask you my well-worn question. I ask it all the time at committee. We've had witnesses that say maybe the National Energy Board should have the final say on whether the project, the pipeline, should proceed or not proceed. Now what happens, of course, is that the NEB approves or disapproves a project and the project then has to go to cabinet for final approval. Some people say that we should de-politicize the process in order to get it moving in a timely fashion, because, as a politician, you know what happens: it gets hung up all over the place. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Fitch: Yes, I do. Again, this goes back to the role and responsibility that the National Energy Board has. If they are given a clear mandate by the government through, again, guidelines and regulations and they follow them, then that is where there is a clear road map on getting to a decision at the end of that process. If the government can lay on the table initially almost a decision tree of going down different decisions and getting to a yes, go ahead, or no, don't go ahead, then the government should follow that recommendation. What, unfortunately, is happening is that the governments say, "Well, we want the final answer, we want the final say, regardless of the data, the technical data for or against.'' Again, it almost comes back to an emotional or a political decision.
In trying to answer your question, ultimately governments and cabinets have the final say, but I think if they could lay out a clearer path right from the start and to say "We will live with the decision you make,'' that would be an easier path to follow for the NEB, to come to a conclusion and then the government should follow it. Unfortunately, there's a substantial amount of time and energy spent at NEB and it ultimately goes back to the government, which may make an emotional or a political decision.
Senator Doyle: In 2015, pipeline operations in Canada added $11.5 billion to the GDP, 34,000 full-time jobs and $3 billion in labour income. Have there been any assessments, to your knowledge? We met with the Chamber of Commerce today, and I don't believe they were aware of any assessments that have been done to determine the economic impact of the pipeline on this part of the country. Are you aware of any studies that are going on or do you have any idea what the economic impacts might be for this Saint John area, which would be the beneficiary of any pipeline operation?
Mr. Fitch: Yes. My understanding is based on the data that you have given or numbers that I have heard before. When we were in government we hired an economist who did a study for us on a number of different projects right across New Brunswick, one of which was the west-east pipeline, and talked about some of the growth in GDP, the growth in jobs and the increase in what it would mean to the labour force. That individual is now working for the present government, so there is continuity in some of the information that is available.
To point to a specific study, we had one done when we were in government by an economist and that economist is still working for the government, and I'm sure that's available if need be. There are probably a number of other documents that I don't have committed to memory that would talk about some of those economic spinoffs as well.
Senator Doyle: We talk quite a great deal about public trust and social licence, but it's hard to arrive at a conclusion as to what should be done to improve public trust in the pipelines. Pipelines have a story to tell by their own statistics. They're very safe, safer than rail, safer than tanker, but still the story doesn't seem to be getting out there that it is a great way to transport crude oil. What can be done? Do you have any comments on that as to how public trust could be improved?
Mr. Fitch: That is one of the most difficult questions in how to increase that public trust. Again, from experience in the elections or when I was Minister of Environment, we had the question of shale gas as a valid question, whether to say yes or no. On many of the doorsteps as I was doing the campaign, I had to have a discussion with people on whether or not the regulations were strong enough to go forward with shale gas. Even though I had the information and the working knowledge of how a well was constructed and the safeguards and the regulations that were put in place, and the protection that was there for the environment, for the people and for the area, the person would not believe that data that I was giving them and that was the science behind it.
In trying to create that trust, you can sometimes never overcome an emotional argument of "I don't trust what you're saying'' or "I don't think it's safe.'' People have come to a belief that, for whatever reason, whether it's natural gas extraction, whether it's a west-east pipeline, for whatever reason they don't want the project to go forward, and that's where some of the opponents can argue against and the data, the statistics will not sway that opinion.
Again, I'm going back from experience. Initially, if you leave it up to the industry, there's a lack of trust there. If you leave it up to the government, there could be a lack of a trust there. That's why it almost goes back to the government to say a pipeline is within the best interest of the federation, and if they set that parameter as the start, as a starting point, based on all these regulations and all this work beforehand, then you have to almost make that decision we're going to go forward, but let's make sure we go forward in a way that I addressed before, making sure we've addressed First Nations, the environment and all the safety factors that are in place.
Senator Doyle: Thank you.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, Mr. Fitch for being here.
You raised a couple of interesting questions that I'd like to pursue with you. You said the feds need to say pipelines are in the nation's best interest. That's a nice motherhood statement, but how long is it going to take for the federal government to do that? Do you want the Prime Minister to put out a press release this afternoon to say that in the opinion of the Government of Canada pipelines are in the nation's best interest, full stop, or do you want the federal government to go through some process to get to that point?
Mr. Fitch: I don't think the Prime Minister would take my call, but I could always try.
Senator Mercer: He'd probably take yours more than mine.
Mr. Fitch: I think it goes back to the data that is available when it comes to getting landlocked petrochemicals to tidewater. Those are the stats that are there. If you look at the safety factors, the economic spinoff, government has to look at those and say if we are given the regulations strong enough that would allow us to do this in an environmentally friendly way, it will benefit the jurisdiction or the federation, the country. I think coming to that conclusion as a government would allow that process of First Nation consultation, regulatory process, the pathway forward to get to that end. Because with the government saying, "Well, we're not sure, we're going to wait and see, and maybe we'll say yes, maybe we'll say no,'' it leaves a lot of uncertainty in the market, it leaves a lot of uncertainty in the process and it leaves uncertainty in the investor's mind that "I could spend a substantial amount of money without an end result that would be positive for my investment as well.''
If there was a template beforehand, and it would have to take some work and some due diligence, but if it could have that pathway forward of saying, almost like a shopping list, define what that First Nation consultation is; define what your mandate for social licence is; look at what we need environmentally to make sure that it is protected to the best of our ability, and then sort of make the statement: If we can go through our shopping list and cross them all off, then we will move forward. When there is the uncertainty — and I guess that's why I'm saying there needs to be a mandate by the government to say we're going to do this work but based on the information we have, we see this as a benefit to the national interest.
Senator Mercer: Every step on that checklist will take some time.
Mr. Fitch: Yes.
Senator Mercer: And that's the issue.
If I interpret what you said correctly, you also said that the National Energy Board should be the final arbitrator here, their decision. That conflicts with what you've said. If you're going to have the National Energy Board make the final decision, then who cares — well, we all care, and I'm the only Liberal at the table, and I care more than these people do.
Senator Mockler: Independent.
Senator Mercer: No, I'm not independent, I'm a Liberal, and you know that, Senator Mockler.
I just get confused. You're Interim Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick. What do you say if the National Energy Board says no to Energy East? How do you then turn around and what do you say to your constituents and to all of the constituents in New Brunswick, most of whom are probably in favour of Energy East? Do you then change your mind and say it should be appealed to the cabinet now? Now that we didn't get what we wanted, should we have the right to appeal to cabinet?
Mr. Fitch: It is one of those circular arguments in that if the process is laid out very well at the initial stages and when it comes to consultation, environment and all that criteria, and that framework is set up by the government, then they should be able to give it to the National Energy Board and that decision should be the final decision. But what has happened, and that's where it's convoluted, in that the government says, "Go ahead, do your study, National Energy Board, and then maybe we'll agree with your finding, maybe we won't.'' That's what creates that uncertainty and gives a platform for opponents and proponents to be there, but with lack of some of that framework, sometimes some voices are heard louder than others.
Not to cause any confusion, but if there is that shopping list of what has to be done by NEB and what answers have to be gained, then yes, that final decision should be followed by government. But when there's that uncertainty of "Maybe we'll follow it, maybe we won't,'' that's where it's fraught with a possibility of failure.
Senator Mercer: But isn't the assessment of whether the NEB has gone through your checklist and answered all the questions a subjective thing? Well, yes, you've gone through it but we don't agree with your answer to question X so it now becomes appealable? I don't like the idea of it being appealed to some place, but also really don't like it in the hands of the NEB. I'm on the horns of a dilemma here. I think that you have a point but I also understand that the reality of politics is that it will be appealed by either the pro-pipeline people or the anti-pipeline people, and it will be dealt with by the government or by the cabinet in due course. I would suggest due course should be rather short, if I were giving advice.
Mr. Fitch: Let me just use a situation again in New Brunswick on the extraction of natural gas through fracking. It was a valid question, yes or no. We lost the election. The government of today sent it to a committee and said, "You answer these questions and then come back to us.'' The committee went out and did a substantial amount of work and did their due diligence in answering a lot of questions that were posed to them by government. Of course, the report came back and the first word was "If'' you go forward. So the government, again, it was put back at their feet, "Well, we're going to decide,'' and they took all that information and hard work and said, "No, we're going to continue a ban on fracking indefinitely.''
The difficulty with our system, of a government and an NEB, is that the NEB can go through all this work and people can put a substantial amount of investment, time and effort into it, but if the government decides on something that may not be scientifically motivated, on a political populous concern, they may say, "We're not going to go forward because we're afraid we're going to lose political support.'' That's why our system is — you mentioned the horns of a dilemma. They work in opposite sort of motive sometimes.
That's where I'm saying if the government could clearly define the process from A to Z that would lead to a decision, yes or no, they should be able to live with that.
Senator Mercer: You're a former cabinet minister. You know that if the recommendation comes back that goes contrary to what you, as the minister, don't like and the government of the day as a government doesn't like, then they will find a way around it.
Mr. Fitch: That's where politics has interfered with moving projects such as the pipeline forward, because people are concerned or using the local as opposed to a national strategy.
Senator Mercer: I see. We've talked to a number of people particularly this week about the lack of education of the Canadian public of an understanding of the problem. We have the third largest resource of hydrocarbons in the ground in the world. We have one customer who's buying it from us at a discount, not at world prices. People say we'll get more customers. Well, to get more customers we have to get to tidewater, and we can't get to tidewater without building something to do that. People don't want to increase the number of trains moving across the country; we just have to go to Lac-Mégantic to understand why. So this is a tough situation for governments. It becomes a problem for governments to make political decisions about how much political capital do I want to spend here. It becomes risky for governments politically. I'm a political technician as well.
How do you square that circle? If you were not the former Minister of the Environment but the current Minister of the Environment, how do you square that?
Mr. Fitch: It's a great way to put the question and that's why so many pipelines haven't gone forward, is that governments, and again, I use that word in general, are looking at maybe local issues and that's where the people are who elected them to speak on their behalf, so if someone has a concern that they have, then they voice it and they say, "We don't want this going ahead because of such-and-such an environmental concern here or such-and-such an issue here.'' That's where we do end up kind of chasing our tails sometimes on this, and that's where I was talking about making sure the work was done beforehand so people know the pathway forward and those boxes have been ticked about First Nations and environmental. I guess it's doing the work beforehand as opposed to having that void that is filled by opponents.
Politicians are guilty. I like to cut ribbons. I like to make job announcements.
Again, back to your question, if I was the Minister of Energy, and I was Minister of Environment, I was Minister of Energy, I always thought that you could have that balance between moving forward on a project with the environmental protections that were there.
Senator Mercer: I want to get your opinion on one other matter, and it will be my final question. This issue of social licences is a vague thing. However, would you not agree that social licence is not something that you are granted, it's something you earn, and that you don't earn it because we wake up today and we need social licence on policy X? I've described it as, you don't show up five minutes before the dance is over and necessarily go home with the prettiest girl. You show up to the dance early and you meet people and you put your case.
Is it that industry has not done a good job here in helping the process of earning social licence by suddenly, because we have a downturn in price, we've got our best customer finding sources internally, et cetera, and complicated by the large wall of fire in northern Alberta last year, would you agree that industry has not done a good job in helping their own case here?
Mr. Fitch: It's a good question, a difficult one, really. Again, I go back to that, you're right, that's a question about social licence, and the experience we had in New Brunswick where the present government said we have the mandate to put a moratorium in place for shale gas, and, again, I'm using that because it's a personal experience and you asked for my opinion. Some people voted against us because that was a valid question, but some people voted against us for many other reasons as well. I could show you the list of the issues that I met at the door. Sometimes getting that mandate from the public, and you have a platform and people look at your platform and there could be one item in there and you, as a politician, hang your hat on it and say, "I've got the mandate because I was voted in.'' Again, when you look at the reality, some would say, "No, I'm okay for you to move forward on that file,'' or "No, I don't want you to move forward on that file. I voted against the other guys because I didn't like what he said or what she said or an issue unrelated to.''
But politicians take the fact that they're voted in to say, "Well, okay, I have a mandate to implement my platform,'' whether you agree with it in full or just a part of it.
That's where it goes back to the due diligence and how are we going to have a process in place that will get us to an end result that is going to be beneficial because sometimes your platform is conflicting where you say we want jobs and to grow the economy, but we'll put a moratorium in on an opportunity that could create those.
I was trying to make a parallel between what we experienced here in New Brunswick and potentially what's happening on a national level with the west-east pipeline.
Senator Mercer: Thank you.
Senator Mockler: In my parliamentary experience serving New Brunswick and Ottawa, it's very difficult and people have not come up with a clear definition of what we call social licence. Like the chair has said, we're not here to try to define what the social licence is. But we're being told by leaders of our communities, elected officials federally speaking, that we need a buy-in, a social licence. We need also to include First Nations, and I think that is very important. I think also what is very important is that we look at Energy East.
Social licence for me, there's no doubt in my mind that when I knocked on doors as a representative of a party and they decided to give me their confidence and their trust on election night, that is a social licence to make sure that I can find the best and put at that table the best people that we can to enhance economic and social development, regardless where we live, and New Brunswick is not the exception. That's why, in my book, the best country in the world is Canada.
When I look at New Brunswick, I think a social licence is — because at the end of the day Fred and Martha, the taxpayers, have the final say. When I look at seven out of ten of New Brunswickers in the latest poll, people will say, "Oh, it's a poll.'' No, it's what people have said. Seven out of ten support Energy East.
I think Energy East is a nation-building project. I will quote Senator Mercer: This issue extends beyond partisan lines. It doesn't matter who forms the government. For me, this nation-building project is as important today as it was when we look at the history of Canada. We're going into 150 years. Let it be a project such as the railway, a project such as a Trans-Canada Highway. We all know what it meant for Atlantic Canada not too long ago, that when we completed the four-lane highway it became a factor of economic activity in Atlantic Canada. When I look at the St. Lawrence Seaway, when I even look at air transportation, those are nation-building projects, Mr. Chair. Or best, when my children talk to me about the infrastructure of broadband Internet from coast to coast, it is a nation-building project.
That said, with the experience that you have, do you feel that there is a lack — and I want to stress that again because previous senators have asked that question — of education from governments, the NEB and the other stakeholders? There's a lack of education. What would you recommend, with your experience, to inform the people of New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada about such a project? Because those projects that I mentioned to you helped create wealth in Canada.
Mr. Fitch: Thank you for the question, Senator Mockler.
I don't argue with you on the points that you made about moving forward, but your question of how do we help educate people to the point of gaining acceptance, that is where there is information and you can throw as much information as you have, stacks of it, the EUB was faced with stacks and stacks of papers, yet if someone has a certain belief all the information in the world won't change that belief as to whether or not the pipeline should go forward. I think when you have seven out of ten supporters in New Brunswick, based on the last poll that you mentioned, that shows that there is an acceptance of that here in the province of New Brunswick. I don't know what the statistics are in the other jurisdictions across the country, but I think that is where we go to the local.
Senator Mercer, in your question you were asking about industry and I apologize. I knew you had a two-part question and I didn't answer that second part. I wasn't avoiding it; I just couldn't remember what it was, so I'm taking better notes. Whether or not industry has done a good job or a bad job, that comes back to mandate. If they had a have mandate on what they have to do to consult with First Nations, to consult with local politicians, to consult with other shareholders, if they had a clear understanding of what it was they had to do before they could gain acceptance or to move forward, then they could tick the boxes off as they went through to that.
Back to what do we do as stakeholders and what do we do to educate individuals, unfortunately, we have a difficulty in literacy in various areas so the written word sometimes is not as accessible or understandable in some circumstances, and people will gain their opinion based on who they talk to and what they hear sometimes more than what they read. The access to information with social media and various opportunities such as that, it's easy to put information out but it's also easy to put misinformation out, and that's where sometimes people form an opinion based on the misinformation that's available to them.
Senator, you pose a question with a difficult answer and I don't have the answer here today on that one, but I think continuing to work with industry, work with government, work with the regulators and work with the proponents and opponents to try and understand. The direction is, for the greater good of the country we need to move forward on a project such as this, as was the rail lines, as was Air Canada, as were so many other national institutions that benefited the country.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: In all the discussions about social licence — and we are in a democracy here in New Brunswick and Canada — when I see that Premier Gallant, as well as former Premier McKenna, former Premier Lord, former Premier Thériault, former Premier Alward, and former Premier Graham have supported Energy East, that's a pretty clear message to me in social licence.
[English]
I will share this with you. I'd like to have your comment. A previous witness suggested that the final approval of a pipeline should rest, and I know some touched on it earlier, with the National Energy Board rather than the Governor- in-Council. We all know what the Governor-in-Council is. That's the executive council that makes the decision, Prime Minister and his cabinet.
What are your views of this recommendation? I have trust and I know NEB. It's a robust structure that we can share our views for or against and, at the end of the day, they have to make a recommendation to, in my book, democracy, the executive council, the Prime Minister.
With your experience as an elected official with responsibilities at different ministry levels, what are your views on such a recommendation? To leave it in the hands of the NEB?
Mr. Fitch: It goes back to the horns of dilemma. If cabinet isn't supportive of a project, they will reverse a decision no matter what the recommendation is. But if the process is set out properly, if the groundwork is accomplished beforehand and everyone knows the pathway forward and those requests can be itemized, such as First Nation consultation, what is it and who's going to do it — is it industry, is it government, who's there? — and how are we going to get the information out, is it through a mass mailing, is it through social media, and what information are we going to take from expert advice?
If the cabinet does its work beforehand to lay out the process and the EUB follows that process, then the cabinet should support that recommendation because they've laid out a very clear path. If the path is not clear and the EUB doesn't know who to talk to or how to communicate or what their mandate is, the role for industry, the role for the proponents or how to gather information and disseminate that information, then it leaves that uncertainty.
But if you have a clear pathway and that pathway is followed by EUB, cabinet should follow that recommendation. If the outcome is not what an individual wants, well, if you have been clear in your mandate and there has been a clear direction for the national good, we should be considering that in the light that this will create jobs; it will create economic development; it will provide funds to help with social issues, such as health care, senior care, education and the environmental issues that we face, it should be a logical step. With the work done beforehand, with the work followed through, the cabinet should follow that.
That's why cabinet ministers have such big shoulders. They have to make those tough decisions, and, unfortunately, you can't remove that political side because that is their job, to make those decisions.
It is a bit of circular logic, but if you do the work beforehand and there's a clear pathway, the logic should be that that decision will be approved by council.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Chairman, if you permit, a little statement and a little question?
The Deputy Chair: Sure.
Senator Mockler: I want to take advantage of the witness in all respects with your ministerial responsibilities in answering this little question.
The entire Bay of Fundy is covered by ALERT — the Atlantic Emergency Response Team. It was established in 1991 and licensed under the Canada Shipping Act to handle environmental emergencies. Every tanker that enters the Bay of Fundy must have a contract with ALERT. Then it goes on. We can also talk about the Saint John refinery, Canaport terminal and East Saint John terminal. Each have on-site emergency response teams with a total of over 200 members. Do you think that is sufficient or should we do more?
Mr. Fitch: I really don't have the expertise to say it's sufficient or it's insufficient, but let's take Point Lepreau as an example and the work that they do to make sure that they have emergency response ready to go. I can speak to that because I've seen it in action. I've been part of those reports on coming back and they do the mock disaster, and they have various scenarios that they run through, when I see what they can do. Now, there are some situations that are just situations you don't anticipate, but the fact of the matter is the ones that they can identify, be it a storm or an attack, they run through a list of the mock disasters that they can prepare for. I have a significant amount of confidence in what they are doing.
I'm not as familiar with ALERT so I can't speak directly, but I know many of the professionals around Bay of Fundy that are involved have done a fantastic job to make sure the environment is safe, the people are safe and that any disasters that may be anticipated would be addressed.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, Mr. Fitch. I'm sorry. People form opinions based on what they hear in the media. I think it is important to understand that the opponents have a louder voice than the proponents. I post a lot of information on my Facebook page about the hearings and, this morning, I was chatting with a lady who said that she was against the development of oil and that we need to use more solar and wind energy, which does not even make up 1 per cent of the energy production in Canada.
As we can see, I think the opponents have managed to deprogram or program the people with scientific falsehood that pit oil against other types of energy, such as wind energy. I think we are involved in some deprogramming, not just in education and information.
When I chat with people on the Internet, I can't believe their level of knowledge. I believe in cars, but I think it will take 30 or 20 years for Quebec's fleet to be electric. So people are programmed to believe certain things and, when a pipeline project comes up, they are not against the project but against of the use of the resource being developed. So Mr. Fitch, I don't know how we'll be able to deprogram those people, by providing them with better scientific knowledge, by reassuring them about the environmental matters and transportation safety, but I think the opponents have done a better job than the proponents.
If there is no Canadian leader or leadership in the project — and I agree with what Senator Mockler said about the railway and Air Canada — if we have no leader to defend the project politically, I don't think the Energy Board will be able to go along with the project. Politicians depend on public opinion. You are a politician. I'm certain that your party conducts polls every month or every other month about how the public relates to you. So my question for you is this: As Senator Mockler says, how will we be able to turn this project into a Canada-wide challenge, an economic engine? You are a politician. I think the answer must come from you. The answer must come from politicians.
Mr. Fitch: Thank you very much for that question. I would say yes, it is a project for Canada and Canadians.
[English]
And if it was up to me, I would say yes now. Unfortunately, it's not, and that's why I was challenging the Prime Minister to say this is of national interest. We need to move forward and here's the mandate for the NEB; here's what you need to do to make sure this can go forward in an environmentally sound and the most safe way that's available for Canadians.
The risk of not doing it is that we don't have the funds to promote some of those other projects, moving to solar, moving to wind, moving to some of the important green energy sources. Again, even some would argue windmills have a site issue and hydro dams create problems. It's sometimes even not clear there.
Within my riding there are about 11,000 people. If one person calls me on the phone and says, "I want you to do such-and-such,'' and then the next person calls me and says, "I want you to do just the opposite of such-and-such,'' then I have to, as an elected official, make my decision. Am I going to promote this side or that side?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have one final question. Mr. Fitch, do you agree with me — and this is my perception — that support for the transportation of oil is inevitably connected to support for the development of oil? In the current debate, the two cannot be separated. It can't be done. The public will agree with the transportation if they agree with the development, and I think national leadership is needed for that too. No one is against forestry. No one is against mining, but when it comes to oil, there's a sort of image or demonization. I don't know whether you agree with me, but the debate needs to deal with both aspects at the same time, both development and transportation. They cannot be separated.
Mr. Fitch: Yes, that is a good question.
[English]
Again, this goes to the larger question, are we going to use the resources we have in Canada to benefit Canadians or are we going to leave the resources in the ground? There will be an argument that, yes, they're better left in the ground. I don't agree with that argument. I think that the resources are going to be extracted somehow, somewhere, sometime. I acknowledge that argument that some people say no, never, ever, ever.
The transportation question is almost a secondary question in that how do we get those products to market and what is the safest, most cost-effective way to do that? As long as it's not a roadblock to that question of the pipeline, then it makes sense to address the two of them at the same time. But if that becomes a bigger question that puts the pipeline on hold for another period of time, the investors may, again, look for investment elsewhere or just say this project has gotten to the scope that it doesn't make any sense and we will abandon the project.
So, with a note of caution, if we go back to debating whether the hydrocarbon should come out of the ground or not, if that is another roadblock, that one has probably already been addressed. In Alberta they've had that social licence for many, many years, to be extracting natural resources.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Fitch and Mr. Lutes, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank both of you for your presentations and your time here this morning. It's very much appreciated.
Honourable senators, this concludes the morning session of our hearings.
(The committee adjourned.)