---

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

EVIDENCE

---

QUEBEC CITY, Friday, April 26, 2019

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day, at 1:02 p.m., to study 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.

Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

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 am an independent senator, and I represent Quebec. I am also the chair of this committee.

I would like to ask my fellow senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair.

Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.

Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.

Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec. Good afternoon.

Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Montreal, Quebec.

Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.

Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.

The Chair: At this time, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Jesse Good, and the clerk of the committee, Maxime Fortin. I would also like to thank the reporters, the interpreters, and the people who have been with us on this tour, which ends today. If everything went well, it is because of them.

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.

This afternoon, in our first group, we have André-Martin Bouchard, World Director, Environment and Resources, from WSP Canada Inc., with Martin Larose, Vice-President, Environment and Operations, Quebec, WSP Canada Inc. Appearing as an individual is Louis-Gilles Francœur, an environmental journalist and the former Vice-President of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement du Québec.

You each have five minutes. Let me ask Mr. Bouchard to speak first.

André-Martin Bouchard, World Director, Environment and Resources, WSP Canada Inc.: Good afternoon. Honourable Senators, thank you for your invitation to appear before this Senate committee today on Bill C-69.

My name is André-Martin Bouchard. I am the world director of the environment division at WSP. I am an environmental engineer by training. I have 25 years of experience in environmental consulting. With me today is my colleague Martin Larose, who is WSP’s Vice-President of Environment and Operations for the Province of Quebec.

WSP is one of the world’s leading professional services firms, with about 48,000 talented people. WSP is a Canadian company, with its headquarters in Montreal. We are technical experts and we provide strategic advice. We develop sustainable solutions and we design projects that will help societies to grow for future generations.

Our employees include engineers, biologists, geologists, geomaticians, archeologists and multidisciplinary teams that support our clients in all sectors of all industries.

WSP has about 6,000 environmental experts around the world, of whom 1,400 are in Canada alone. We work in all environmental areas, such as environmental impact studies, assessments, the social and environmental acceptability of major projects, environmental compliance audits, climate change and greenhouse gas management, water, air and soil management, wildlife habitats and wildlife, to name just a few.

In general, our role as environmental consultants is to produce technical and scientific studies in support of project design so that they are environmentally acceptable, often beyond the standards and regulations in force. We prepare environmental and social impact studies and applications for approval. We guide our clients in seeking approvals, by which I mean that we explain the process, the timelines and the risks, and we establish strategies. We participate in advance, to make projects better and reduce the effects on the environment. We assess the impact of projects and we publish the results in plain language so that the public can understand. As scientific and technical experts, we interact with the government and the stakeholders all through the approval process.

We have assisted a host of clients in the environmental approval process for mines, harbours, roads, railways, bridges, electricity lines, hydroelectric dams, wildlife management, in a word, for an entire range of projects of all kinds across Canada.

Over the years, we have observed that a lack of clarity in the process makes planning difficult. Therefore, the expectations of stakeholders are difficult to manage, including for the clients conceiving the projects. This lack of clarity is specifically related to the following factors.

First, dealing with both provincial and federal processes has often been an issue. Second, the process is difficult to follow because of the uncertainties resulting from multiple “competent authorities” at federal level, and the lack of clear criteria for following the federal process in previous versions of the act. Third, issues and expectations related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and, I would add, sustainable development, are not clearly defined either. Fourth, the consultation processes with stakeholders, particularly First Nations, are not clearly defined. Finally, delays that occur at every stage of the approval process often make that process slower than was initially anticipated in the established timeline.

As for Bill C-69, our general belief is that it must ensure that the environment and communities are protected at the same time as it allows for sustainable economic development in Canada. More specifically, for the current consultations, we submit the following comments.

In terms of the priorities and the responsible authority in Bill C-69, we applaud the resolve to clarify and prioritize the initial process, by establishing a clear list and a confirmation by the agency that a project is designated from the moment its description is received. Having a single agency, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, responsible for the process, should make the process of sharing and discussion easier and more fluid, and should ensure that a level of expertise is developed and maintained within the department.

As for the process that Bill C-69 proposes, we will be addressing: (1) the preparatory phase, (2) the step at which further information is requested, and (3) the substitution process.

We applaud the establishment of a preparatory phase; this will allow exchanges between stakeholders, including First Nations, to begin quickly. However, we are concerned about the length of this phase being set at 180 days given that, in the Canadian context, the sampling and the basic studies that have to be done for impact studies to be prepared normally take two seasons, the spring and summer. It is therefore possible that two years of sampling may be required, which would increase the timeline considerably. It must be possible for the basic studies to begin at the same time as, not at the end of, the preparatory phases.

According to our calculations, the length of the process would be 510 days, not counting the time required to complete the impact study, which normally takes about 1 to 2 years. So, for optimal timelines, it is important to allow sampling to proceed, and guidelines to be received or issues to be identified before the end of the preparatory phase.

The guidelines must match the reality of each project and the specific environments in which each project takes place in order to identify the real issues. To that effect, it is our opinion that interaction between the project team and the agency is required in the preparatory phase in order to discuss the project and to properly align the subsequent stages.

As for requests for further information, the process in the 2012 act includes a stage to analyze the correspondence between the impact study and the guidelines, outside the timeline for analysis and before the stage at which further information is requested. The line between the two stages is very thin and, often, the correspondence analysis stage seems to be used to ask questions, therefore infringing on the question-and-answer stage or the further information stage. We gather that this correspondence analysis stage will no longer be part of the process, and that is a good thing.

We believe that Bill C-69 should identify the number of series of questions and comments allowed in order to make the process more effective, more predictable, and more transparent. To shorten the questions and comments phase, we also suggest that department analysts are consulted ahead of the process, in order to discuss and validate the survey protocols and methodologies used when the impact studies are produced.

As for the substitution process, we believe that duplicating provincial and federal processes is not necessary and that it results in over-consultation and confusion for participants on the ground. So, in order to fully understand the issues, we are proposing that more clarity be required in the substitution process. specifically as to the following questions. Which process will be substituted, the provincial one or the federal one? What will happen if the environment ministry of one province does not want its process to be substituted? Would it be possible to clearly define the substitution process in the legislation itself? What would acceptable cases be and how would it be done?

As for the impact assessments, we look favourably on considering all impacts and all components together, including the positive impacts. We believe that the analysis of the projects will be enhanced as a result.

We are concerned about the possibility that a project may be rejected by the minister even before the impact study process is started, according to clause 17. In our view, this diminishes the environmental assessment process. There is actually a risk that decisions may be taken on the basis of perceptions and political considerations, rather than on the basis of scientific analyses of facts and data.

We point out that the approach to requirements on greenhouse gases and climate change is vague. Consequently, we urge more clarity in this aspect, especially in the guidelines.

As for cumulative effects, the 2012 act proposed a very academic approach, in which considerable effort produced ambivalent results. The approach is difficult for the public to follow and to understand. So we applaud the fact that Bill C-69 encourages the assessment of cumulative effects of actual activities in a region, and the assessment of federal policies, plans or programs. It also considers those assessments in the overall impact assessments. However, we do not understand how the approach will be integrated into, and considered in, the impact study process.

The potential use of a strategic environmental assessment in some key cases seems to us to be an excellent approach that we see in Bill C-69.

In conclusion, we believe that Bill C-69 proposes a more modern approach that is better tailored to today’s context, particularly in terms of consultations with the public and First Nations, and in terms of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and project sustainability.

However, implementing Bill C-69, with a lack of clear benchmarks, may well create delays and uncertainty. We suggest: first, greater flexibility in the preparatory process by providing guidelines early; second, limiting the number of series of questions at the stage where further information is requested; third, establishing a clear and well-defined substitution process; fourth, reviewing the minister’s potential ability to reject a project before the environmental assessment process is done; fifth, clarifying the requirements in terms of greenhouse gases and climate change; and finally, sixth, defining the approach to cumulative effects. Thank you very much.

Martin Larose, Vice-President, Environment and Operations, Quebec, WSP Canada Inc.: I have nothing to add. We worked together to prepare the brief. I am here to support Mr. Bouchard as he answers your questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Louis-Gilles Francœur, Environmental Journalist and Former Vice-President of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement du Québec, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me, ladies and gentlemen.

I would first like to insist on one point that, in my view, seems more important than all the others: the need to pass this bill, while improving it to the extent possible in a reasonable time, in order to have it come into force.

I share the opinion of a number of those who have gone before me that the process has been a major and lengthy one, in which the matter has been thoroughly examined. But, in my view, improvement is necessary in some respects. In that sense, I feel that the Senate has a role to play in making proposals that would lead to significant developments.

In my examination, I will not spend time on many of the more legal or administrative matters, because I find that there has been a lot of debate on them. I would like to focus essentially on one thing, which would make the federal process more credible, more effective, more open, and more flexible. In my view, these are the four basic objectives. Of course, I am going to set out for you some conditions that, in my opinion, would make them all the more imperative.

The issue of credibility largely rests on the independence of the commissioners. At the moment, the minister appoints them and appoints the president of the agency that is then going to organize the commissions. As I have always maintained, I feel that, even in Quebec, the president of BAPE, and the president of the agency, should be appointed on the basis of a consensus in the National Assembly or Parliament, depending on the level of government. Why?

In many cases, environmental validation or assessment will deal with government projects, such as a port, a project requiring some digging in the St. Lawrence. There are a lot of projects in which the government has a stake. Governments have a right to have a stake in projects, but the environmental assessment must give the impression—which actually must be genuine—that there is no conflict of interest, partiality, or a lack of independence in general.

When people participate in hearings, they have to—this was my experience as a journalist. I had the privilege of covering most of the contentious environmental issues for 30 years, ever since 1981. Each time, I saw a lack of credibility, time and time again. That led to intentions being on trial, and eventually to problems, and certainly to a lack of social consensus.

I feel there are two possibilities. We could ask the sustainable development commissioner to have a pool of people who could be nominated when the government wants to launch and it environmental assessment. He would be able to evaluate departmental files, but would do so; rather he would appoint people from a list that he would have prepared to evaluate the projects in complete independence.

We could imagine that this would be done by the president of the agency. But he could be a political appointment or be perceived as a political appointment. Perception is everything, always. But, if the appointment of the agency’s president requires a parliamentary hearing, as is done for judges, that person would have credibility and would then be able to choose the members of the commission himself. He would have the status to do all that, I feel. He would have room to manœuvre, which really would be an affirmation of the public interest and the independence that the position requires. As he would be called upon to take a position on pipelines that the government might want, or on projects of all kinds that the government might want, or might launch itself, it would resolve a good number of the problems of perceived partiality or of real conflicts of interest.

Those are the two possibilities, as I see them.

Second, we must be more effective. I can tell you that, after 40 years of environmental assessments in Canada and of the experience from various provinces, I do not understand why the federal government has not hit on the idea that commissions must have the powers of a royal commission of inquiry. When I was a BAPE commissioner, I had to require people there to submit documents. They might be the developer, or his consultants, and sometimes, they might be from ministries. I can tell you that I was forced to decide—about half of the time—to require documents belonging to the government to be produced. But if I had not had the powers of a commission of inquiry, the public and the commission would not have had that information at hand.

If we want the best interests of the public to determine a subject, I feel that it is inevitable that the commission must have everything it needs that is relevant to its mandate, without going too far. The rule of relevance can then be left to the courts to decide. If a commission of inquiry, in Quebec or in Ottawa, exceeded its mandate, it could be called back to order at any time, and that is a good thing. But the power is essential, in my view, both for the credibility and the effectiveness of commissions, if we want them to get to the bottom of things.

Third, to be effective, we have to be able to contribute financially to help members or groups of the public to participate. People are exhausted in these consultations. Often, there are two of them, there has been a lot of talk of substitutions. When they attend hearings, we must be able to allow them to call upon experts as well, to have a level of opposing expertise that the man or woman in the street does not have. It benefits the projects, because it serves to improve them, and that is in the interests of the commission.

In that context, the Régie d’énergie du Québec model is very useful. People make funding proposals, indicate who they want as experts, and the board decides what it feels would enhance public scrutiny, and assigns budgets.

So it is important to do that if we want projects to be improved and public participation to be more than a simple expression of a mood, but something with greater depth and greater rigour

I also think that an environmental review should be available to everyone. If there were a project in British Columbia, I feel that I would have the right as a Canadian to say that this waterway belongs to me, that I have the right to go and vote. If they say that only local people are allowed to speak, I’m sorry, but that’s not true. In Canada, I am a co-owner of all natural resources.

What is this principle that was unfortunately enshrined in the 1982 legislation, which gives only local people a voice? Large groups have expertise. They are able to make a major contribution—I saw it in hearings—by allowing them to ask questions, not just give an opinion.

In Quebec, you see, the process is divided into two parts. In the first part of the hearing, the public becomes the commission’s counsel, that is, the public addresses its questions to the commission chair, who refers them to the proponent, who is required to respond under the Act respecting public inquiry commissions. They cannot not answer the person who just asked the question. They are not only invited to give their opinion. So this promotes a public hearing process where there is a collective acquisition of knowledge.

I have often seen people arrive at hearings with an idea of the project, but who, when faced with the questions they themselves ask or the questions asked by others, change their opinion. Then, when we look at their brief, we see that they changed their minds 85 per cent of the time because the process allowed them to look into all the questions they had in mind and get answers, with the force of the Act respecting public inquiry commissions. So when they write briefs, they are much more “grounded”, forgive me for saying so, than if they had simply expressed a prima facie opinion when reading the project notice or the impact study.

Then, large national groups, from a similar perspective, have a very important contribution, because most have a certain specialty. I could name groups that specialize in toxic substances, and others in the natural environment, and so on. But when they arrive at the first part of the hearing, the commissions benefit from their expertise because they ask questions to the promoters that are much more relevant than those that local people can ask.

Sometimes people in the area ask real questions, but you have to have a capacity to welcome them and not just ask people for their opinions. They must be allowed to participate in the questioning and to empty the entire pool of questions. Then, once we have gone through the whole issue, everyone can give their opinion. This is an efficiency factor that would change the rule. It should be open to everyone.

The Chair: Mr. Francœur, you need to—

Mr. Francœur: A few minutes; I’m wrapping up.

In terms of flexibility, I would say that it is essential to adjust the analysis time to the scope of the project. The economic community always says that we want to move quickly, that’s for sure, but a year, a year and a half, sometimes two years to analyze a project, is nothing compared to the fact that people, society or ecosystems will have to live with these impacts for 50 or 70 years. It’s a very short time. You have to take the time to do it.

Where I think the government can reduce delays... After the hearing, I saw people and governments take a year, a year and a half, two years after the report was presented. The government should have a deadline to give an answer once all the elements have been put in its hands.

I would raise one last point. I think it is essential that the commissioners no longer be people who come from the area where the project will be located. Industry people who sit on commissions in Quebec are totally prohibited. Why? It’s like judges. If a project doesn’t suit someone, it will go to court. Have you ever seen any specialized judges in there? Yet, we will live with the judge’s decision. The judge will hear from all the experts.

A commission must be composed of generalists capable of integrating all aspects before them, but they must avoid giving the impression that, as they come from a particular environment, the decision isn’t neutral, if they share the other cultural issues and values of the promoter’s people, with whom they went to university.

When a commission sits in front of a room, people must be convinced that the hypothesis of doing the project and of not doing it are on an equal footing. If there are people in the industry ahead, it is one of the causes of a project’s failure.

In Quebec, working in this way has made it possible for the Bureau d’audiences publiques to process 126 of the 340 energy projects in 40 years, or 36 per cent, and that in none of these projects has the decision been challenged in court. Generally, it has led to consensus because people say to themselves that the commissioners are free, that they have no ties, that they are trying to reach a consensus, and people rally around them. If they feel that the dice are loaded, they will go to court.

That’s the problem with the Canadian system, and it is in the interest of industry, promoters and projects to have an evaluation process that is as neutral, independent and effective as a court would be, without being a judicial process. It’s in everyone’s interest and that’s what would calm the game down. I lived it as a journalist for 30 years, and I can tell you that, as a Commissioner, I come to exactly the same conclusions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Francœur.

We’ll now start the question and answer session with Senator Miville-Dechêne.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First, I want to thank you for being here. I would like to highlight in particular the presence of Mr. Francœur, a former fellow journalist, and tell you that you have the same verve in front of the Senate as you had as a journalist. It is very pleasant to listen to you, and it is very clear.

So, after the compliments, here are the questions. This morning, Minister Benoit Charette came to explain at length and with conviction that the system you are talking about, the BAPE and the Quebec assessments, was excellent and that it was therefore necessary, and I can quote him, “that Bill C-69 provide for the possibility that only the Quebec assessment procedure apply to projects that, because of their nature, fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction”. So, he simply asked that, when the federal jurisdiction is incidental or less important, the federal government should not conduct its own hearings, its own assessments, which is not the case at the moment.

I want to know, from your point of view, because you have worked in the system, but also because you are a strong environmental advocate, if you think it’s the right thing to do and how it should be done. Because the Quebec government, namely, Mr. Charette, also felt that what is called substitution was not a mechanism he liked. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but he saw it as a kind of guardianship. In short, he didn’t think it gave Quebec enough freedom to act as it sees fit.

So what do you think about this, and do you think the environment would benefit?

Mr. Francœur: Obviously, I didn’t hear Mr. Charette’s speech or presentation, but I will give you my thoughts on that.

I believe the first memorandum of understanding signed between Quebec and Ottawa on environmental assessment took place during the fourth or fifth hearing, in 1982-1983, on a first LNG port project in Gros-Cacouna. And just before that, a federal-provincial agreement was signed that provided for this. I found that it was probably the smartest deciding line ever designed, and I don’t know why it wasn’t repeated later.

The agreement stated that there were two procedures, one that would apply and the other that would be the responsibility of the decision-maker with the most important decision to make in the case. So, in short, if the project was federal or provincial in nature, it decided the issue, and at that time, a Quebec commissioner would sit on the federal commission or a federal commissioner would sit on the Quebec commission.

This was still used a few years ago, for example when there was a hydroelectric dam project in the Laurentian Wildlife Reserve on Lake Picoba. There was a project there. Well, there was a federal commissioner who sat on a BAPE commission. It wasn’t a problem; he had a single report and both governments made decisions. But first it was a Hydro-Québec project. It was clearly a provincial project. But there were impacts that affected federal jurisdictions, so they added a federal commissioner because it affected navigation, migratory birds, and so on. However, it was rather incidental to the main project, the dam, and so on. So this line seems to me to be completely functional and respectful of obligations.

I think what’s important in this area is the quality of the harmonization between the two procedures so that there are no difficulties or pitfalls along the way.

For example, if you are dealing with a project, take a cross-border oil or gas pipeline that passes through two or three provinces, for instance. The Quebec procedure indicates that — and it’s the act, not a regulation, so we can’t play with that — it takes four months to evaluate a case. But how can we do take four months to evaluate a file, when two or three other provinces are involved, when delays can stretch well beyond the four months? Do we have to wait until all the others have finished before the Quebec hearing takes place? Are they going to make a decision? It’s becoming an administrative nightmare. I really would not want to be a Commissioner on a committee like this. It would be really complicated.

So, I think a federal group with someone from Quebec would be quite relevant. In the case of a port expansion, I think that Quebec could exercise its jurisdiction to a greater or lesser extent. It owns the water resource, and navigability is Ottawa’s responsibility, but the resource itself is Quebec. It’s industry, it’s commerce, it’s in its field of expertise. One could very well imagine a provincial hearing.

But again, there would be an improvement.

Take for example a port project in Contrecœur. It’s a project that exists; I don’t know where it stands.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: It will happen soon.

The Chair: Could you please speed up the response?

Mr. Francœur: But, you see, there are four port expansion projects; Montreal, Quebec, Saguenay, and perhaps another, upstream. Fine. Are all four of them necessary? There would have to be a strategic environmental assessment to determine the navigation needs. As a commissioner, if I were sitting on the BAPE, I would not like to have to work on a project like that one, even with the federal level, knowing that obstacles would prevent me from having a broad perspective on the whole, and that I could not evaluate the project justification.

Is it necessary? That is the first question to be answered by a hearing. If the project is not necessary, it will not go forward. If it is, it will, and attempts will be made to improve it. But if you can’t examine the justification because you are unable to see the whole project...In a lot of files, the federal government...in the federal bill, I do not see a very clear chapter on the need for strategic environmental assessments before consideration is given to a certain number of projects.

How many pipelines do we need in Canada to further the development of the west as much as possible?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will hear the next question, from Senator Carignan.

Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Francœur.

I liked your analogy involving the Régie de l’énergie, with regard to the funds being granted when the project is relevant and adds value. I think this concerns the funds that are made available to do the work, but the notion of interest is also present.

I’d like you to clarify your thoughts on the matter of interest, because I may well have an opinion, as a Quebecker, on the use of a river in British Columbia, but I will not have the same direct interest as someone who lives on the shoreline and may be impacted by the rising waters caused by a dam, for instance. So it seems to me that priorities have to be set with regard to people’s direct interest and the impact on those people.

Could you tell us how things work at the Quebec BAPE, and what solutions there might be to that issue? Because some indigenous groups, in the west also, as I recall, have told us to be careful, because by giving everyone the floor, we drown out their voice, which is important. So if you open up the process too much, you diminish the importance of their voice, although they have constitutional protection in this regard.

Mr. Francœur: I understand the relevance of that question. It is very important, in my opinion.

I believe it would be up to independent commissioners to assess that value-added aspect. It is up to the regulator to say that it will add to the understanding of the file if this group or that citizen puts forward a proposal.

I’ll give you an example. You may have, for instance, a pipeline that is slated to cross an important river in the west. I know an engineer who managed the work on the gas pipeline that crosses the Saint Lawrence. He showed me the pipeline specifications for a pipeline related to an important river, and pointed out to what extent they were inferior to international standards. He told me that if there were a hearing on that, as a world-class engineer with an international reputation, and as an international project certifier, he would tell the regulator that according to international standards, this is not acceptable.

If there is a Quebecker who can enlighten a body examining a western project, there should not be administrative criteria that exclude him. If he wants to carry out a study and submit it to the regulator and indicate that he’d like to have a small stipend to do a second assessment and submit it to them, if the regulator thinks it is appropriate to fund it and do it, it would be the one to know if this adds to the file or not.

If you have truly independent commissioners, I think the public and the party concerned will accept the decision. If it is a pipeline project and three people out of five come from the oil industry, he will say: “I think I got the rug pulled out from under me.” And that is why the independence of the commission is important, as we were saying. If it is a truly independent regulator that makes decisions to further the public interest, I think participants and the public will be able to live with the decision.

Senator Carignan: So, I understand that with respect to Bill C-69, you are clearly not comfortable with the current status of the agency and its independence, nor with its status as an institution, with who creates it and also with respect to the perception of independence it will project.

Mr. Francœur: Yes, you are correct. That is my judgment. I think it could be improved. I am not saying that it is not credible at this time. I am not saying that the hearings that took place suffered from a lack of credibility. But with certain files, yes, there were problems. I experienced them as a journalist. It was clear simply from people’s reactions. When people have negative reactions to what is going on, the first person they’ll speak to is the reporter covering the file. So, I heard them one after the other. They certainly were easy to identify.

Senator Carignan: And you had to protect your sources.

Mr. Francœur: Exactly.

Senator Pratte: I would have two questions for Mr. Bouchard, and perhaps also for Mr. Larose.

First, you pointed out that the existence of a single agency responsible for impact assessment is, in your opinion, a good thing. I’d like you to say more about that, because several other witnesses have told us that they were worried to see that there would now be this agency that will not necessarily have the same expertise as the Régie de l’énergie regarding pipeline projects, and so on.

My second question is about substitution. Mr. Francœur, you may have something to say about that. Mr. Bouchard, you said that you would like the substitution process to be clearer, and I’d like to hear you on that because when I read the bill, it seems clear enough, regarding what conditions could warrant substitution and when, but obviously it is not clear enough for you.

Mr. Larose: As to the advantage of having a single body, in our opinion and according to our experience with impact studies, when a single body “carries the can”, the process is much more fluid. If you have other regulators or competent authorities, there isn’t necessarily a hierarchy among them, and this hinders the flow. Things take longer, and the file stagnates.

You have touched on the lack of expertise in certain cases. The purpose of the agency, if I compare it, for instance, to the Quebec Ministry of the Environment, is not to be an expert on all of the files but to pilot an impact assessment file and count on experts in various federal or provincial departments, and obtain their advice to inform its judgment. The role of the competent authority is a coordinating role, the role of a project manager, if you will, to move the file forward. It is in that sense that we find it advantageous to have a single authority.

Senator Pratte: And on the matter of giving more clarity to the substitution mechanism?

Mr. Larose: It’s just that we’ve experienced this in the past. In the legislation, there has always been a sentence or sections that indicated that the intent was to have a single process, coordination, substitution.

In Quebec, since LCEE 2012, there have been no substitutions. So, if we don’t clarify the law as to how this will be applied, we run the risk of seeing the same thing happen. The new bill, which I think is good, covers more territory than the assessment of impacts, and is closer to the provincial approach. So, both are going to be even more similar, and we are going to have two processes.

We share Mr. Francœur’s opinion on substitution, that is to say that if the issues are mainly provincial, the leader should be provincial, in our opinion, and federal experts could be added, or vice versa. We feel that is the best way to have a substitution process that respects both jurisdictions.

The Chair: Mr. Francœur, did you want to add something?

Mr. Francœur: I’ll just add a word. I think it’s important that there be a single entity, and especially the same rules for everyone, because this increases predictability for the promoters; they know what to expect from one year to the next, they see various hearings happening, and consultants are familiar with the framework. It becomes like a chess game they have been playing for years. So, everyone benefits, including the public.

The bill says that the government may make all of the regulations it likes to apply the law, but there should be one exception; the bill should force the government to publish regulations on how hearings are conducted, so that the predictability will be total.

This is what we have in Quebec, and it did clarify the game. People look at it before engaging with the process and things are clear for everyone. Companies like WSP know exactly what to expect, the public knows what to expect, and the bureau knows what it has to do.

Senator Massicotte: I want to thank all of you for having come here.

I think I’ll start with a question for Mr. Bouchard. I believe you are responsible for all of the environmental projects in Canada.

Mr. Bouchard: Yes, and even throughout the world.

Senator Massicotte: With reference to your experience, we know that there has been a substitution agreement with British Columbia, in Canada. I think that British Columbia residents are very demanding when it comes to the environment, and are very particular, as are Quebeckers. In this case, they managed to conclude a substitution agreement. Public servants and the Deputy Minister of Environment have confirmed that this works very well. Of course, it is “one project, one assessment”.

So, if British Columbia can arrive at an agreement with the federal level, why is it not possible in Quebec to do the same, and have the same outcome?

Mr. Bouchard: Listen, I think that Quebec has developed expertise. Without going into political issues, I think that Quebec has developed expertise over the years that it can be proud of. It has developed certain skills in terms of the environmental assessment process, public hearings, et cetera. and that expertise can be used and enhanced and be beneficial in the future.

Even in the context of Bill C-69, I think that substitution projects or future substitution agreements could happen in Quebec, to the extent that existing expertise is called on.

I also agree with Mr. Francœur and Mr. Martin Larose; earlier the gentleman referred to the idea that when there is a project that is primarily provincial or interprovincial, with secondary federal issues, a commissioner may be added. I think that is a good solution and a good way to apply the substitution process, in order to not duplicate the federal process, and vice versa, for airport, port or rail projects.

Senator Massicotte: Thank you.

If I may, Mr. Francœur, research was done by three environmental specialists, I believe, who carried out a study on the duration of assessments throughout Canada in different provinces. According to that study, the length of assessments was much shorter in British Columbia and Quebec than in several other provinces, as well as at the federal level. I am referring to projects of over a billion dollars, which is quite credible if you look at the past 30 years.

You know Quebec very well, and you also know the federal process. What is the explanation? Why has it been quicker in Quebec, let’s say, than elsewhere in Canada? The authors speculated a bit; they thought that it was because in Quebec the process is less legal, the presentations are less formal, and the whole thing is more in the nature of guidance, sharing information and arriving at consensus. But by the same token, when you describe the process in Quebec, with the power to ask questions, I don’t know if it’s true that the process is really less formal and less legal than elsewhere in Canada.

May we have your comments, please?

Mr. Francœur: The Quebec process is not a decision-making process, nor is it quasi-judicial. This is what allows people to come to the hearings and just ask questions of the panel. They don’t need to come with a lawyer, because the audi alteram partem rule and legal principles do not apply. The person is questioned. Their questions are listened to, they are passed on to the promoter, and answers are required. And since the commission has the powers of a commission of inquiry, it is only when it exceeds its jurisdiction or its mandate that its decisions can be appealed before the courts.

But the process as such is not a decision-making process. In Quebec, it was a strategic decision made in 1979-1980 when the BAPE was created and there was a choice to be made between a decision-making or a consultative role. The choice was to say that the process would be opened up as much as possible, that it would not be a decision-making process, that it would not be quasi-judicial, but that the government would be free to accept or reject the commission’s recommendations.

It’s the democratic principle. If the government makes a wrong decision, it will pay the political price. It does not hide behind a decision-making body to say that it is not the one that increased Hydro Quebec rates or taxes, but it was the others. It makes the decision and it is accountable to the population for it.

Secondly, there is another, more administrative reason, and that is the fact—and someone this morning deplored this, but on the contrary, it is really an advantage— that when the impact study arrives on the table and is submitted to the public, the government makes a decision about its receivability. The government issues guidelines. It tells the promoter what to study, sends him the list, and there are several pages. It does not limit itself to saying that it has received the impact study. No. When it receives the impact study, it will ask questions until all of them have been answered. They may not be the answers it hoped to receive, but it will get valid answers to its questions.

Secondly, when we get to that stage, all of the departments have been consulted and asked whether they had additional questions to submit, so that when the Ministry of the Environment determines that the study is deemed acceptable, and tells the BAPE to make it public and begin the consultation process, I would say that the file has been substantiated.

It has the powers of a commission of inquiry to go and get additional answers if needed.

Senator Massicotte: May I ask another question?

This morning, the Enbridge CEO came to speak to us. He made two comments; he had two requirements that constituted his position. The first is that the board, association or organization that does the review should be entirely technical; the decision should be entirely science-based and made by independent people and not be a government or political decision, because this, he felt, would add a riskier element.

The second argument he put forward was that once the project has been announced, the board will list all of the conditions that must be satisfied. His position is that if the conditions are met on the legal side, a positive response becomes obligatory. What would you have to say about these two requirements he put forward?

Mr. Francœur: If you have a board that sets conditions, since it is a decision-making body, I find it quite legitimate that the decision could only be reversed on extraordinary grounds.

If it is not a board, if it is a consultative body like the BAPE, or a commission that issues recommendations, in the final analysis, the government is free to accept them and amend them, since the assessment body is simply a consultative one.

This is the case with the BAPE in Quebec. The government sometimes rejects recommendations, sometimes it follows them, sometimes it keeps them, and amends some of the others. It is free to do so, but it is then accountable to the population.

So it is a choice. Either you make the process a legal one, and then almost everyone has to show up with a lawyer, because it is as though you were going before a court; that is what a board is. The Quebec Régie de l’énergie and the future federal energy regulator are going to be very similar. The process is quasi-judicial.

But ordinary people are not called upon to give their opinions there; if you go to the Régie de l’énergie, you won’t see ordinary people. You will see people come in with their lawyers, and sometimes they have three of them.

So the process is much more cumbersome, and it is not what I would call viable. It is generally such a technical process that it will promote the purely technical aspects. It is very difficult to get these quasi-judicial bodies to understand what is meant by social licence. They will reply that they must deal with scientific indicators. Of course, but the social sciences are sciences as well. In universities, the social sciences, or political science, are not taught behind washroom doors.

So, I am sorry, but this is a part of things in 2020, and it is about time that assessment bodies take that into account to some degree, and be able to consider something besides the sciences that use a calculator.

[English]

Senator MacDonald: Gentlemen, you’re all very experienced and qualified people in this field. Canada shares a border, an economic zone and, to a certain extent, an environmental zone with the United States.

The United States is experiencing great growth at the moment compared to our economy. In terms of natural resources, they’re booming and we seem to be grinding to a halt.

Hhow does our environmental approach to natural resource development segue with that of the Americans, and is there anything we can learn from them and vice versa? And are there obvious glaring differences that we should address?

The Chair: You are directing your question to Mr. Bouchard?

Senator MacDonald: Both.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Francœur?

Mr. Francœur: I’m going to answer in French to be able to nuance my answer as much as I want.

According to the American model, in the case of shale gas, as soon as they discovered the resource, it was an “open bar”, to use the English term.

Of course in Quebec, when the same model was proposed, social acceptability issues cropped up. As a society, which model is best for us, the American one or ours? I prefer ours, for one reason, and that is that if you have more stringent environmental standards, you will much more easily develop a sustainable development approach. Why? Because environmental requirements come at a cost, so the less expensive projects will go forward, despite the added cost of environmental considerations. The less interesting projects will not go forward if there are major environmental requirements. They will go forward in ten years when the price of the resource has gone up and the promoter can at that point pay for the real environmental measures. When you have a free-for-all, the lowest common denominator rules.

The concept of viable development... personally I never talk about “sustainable development” because Ms. Brundtland of the Brundtland Commission so often repeated this to me in interviews. She said: “Development must not last.” In French, there is in fact a translation problem. I pointed this out in my brief. It is not the development that must be sustained; it is the sustainability of the development that must be ensured. The term “sustainability” is poorly translated in French.

Let me in fact point out that the official French translation of “sustainable development” is “développement soutenable et viable”. So, it would be good to correct that in the bill, because the idea that there are limits to development if it is to be viable is not contained in the French sense of “durable”. If you say it like that, you’re saying that development must be sustained, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Brundtland Commission recommended. There must be limits.

Consequently, I suggest that you change that term in the bill. The term “durabilité” should be replaced by “viabilité” and “durable” should become “viable”. The idea of limits would then exist in the French concept, just like in the English concept of “sustainability”.

That answers your question. The reason is that environmental requirements involve additional costs, which results in the postponement of a number of projects. The projects will become feasible when the price of the resource has increased, and the concept of sustainable development implies that the interests of future generations must be taken into account.

The fact that shale gas is present doesn’t mean that the gas should be drained within 15 years. Maybe it would be good to leave some for the next generation. Maybe this gas has uses that we don’t know about now, but that we’ll see in 30 or 40 years and that will be crucial. Why should we develop everything under the pretext of transferring the indirect costs, the hidden costs, to the public or to the ecosystems?

On the contrary, I think that we must be able to integrate social, economic and ecological concerns into a real global vision of the environment. This means that projects must be spread out over time, which is very good. This prevents resources from being plundered.

Don’t ask me what I think of American politics. It could look like this.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Francœur.

Mr. Larose, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Larose: Yes, of course. I have a slightly different view. I don’t want to talk about the United States’ processes, but about Quebec and Canada. In terms of the projects, we know that investors aren’t concerned about environmental rigour and environmental cost. They’re concerned about uncertainty. Will I be subject to it? Will I have one or two processes? How long will it last? A project is economic, and it has an economic time frame. To be on time, the project must be implemented within a certain number of years. The proponent wants to know how long the process will take.

If there’s too much uncertainty for all the points that I raised, the investor will go elsewhere to carry out the project. To our knowledge, when it comes to mining projects, the environmental costs aren’t the highest costs. Mining is very expensive and harvesting minerals is very expensive. However, Quebec’s environmental rigour isn’t cost prohibitive for a project. Instead, uncertainty drives investors away.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Francœur: I want to add a very brief nuance.

I agree with my colleague. I understand that predictability is very important. In terms of the duration of the processes, it’s good when the processes run fairly quickly.

However, I’ll provide an example. The mining sector is seeing an increasing number of huge open-pit projects where everything is left out. This didn’t happen in the past. We used to dig and we had much less waste. However, I understand that environmental requirements are apparently fast moving now, because we have less than a minimum. We leave everything covered like that outside.

The mining industry is never forced to put back into the ground all the waste that it has created or left out. It isn’t asked to repair the landscape. This should be an environmental requirement. Why are manufacturers asked not to release toxic substances into the environment out of respect for nature, whereas the mining industry has had carte blanche to do so? Why isn’t the landscape repaired after the mining industry has passed through?

Of course, if these standards are what we call environmental standards, we need to dig deeper into the subject, as you can see.

The Chair: That concludes this part of our meeting, because we have one more panel of witnesses to hear from. Thank you.

We have one last panel. The Association québécoise pour l’évaluation d’impacts is represented by Yves Comtois, Member and Lecturer at the Université de Sherbrooke. La Planète s’invite à l’Université is represented by Sami Jai Wagner Beaulieu, Co-spokesperson and Research Officer, and by Andréane Moreau, Representative. Lastly, the Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique is represented by André Bélisle, Chair.

You each have five or six minutes to give your presentation. We’ll start with Mr. Comtois.

Yves Comtois, Member and Lecturer, Université de Sherbrooke, Association québécoise pour l’évaluation d’impacts: Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Honourable senators, for over 25 years, the Association québécoise pour l’évaluation d’impacts, or AQEI, has been bringing together professionals in the field of impact assessment in Quebec. About 400 representatives from different backgrounds are members. We want to point out that the thoughts and opinions expressed here are solely those of the AQEI and don’t necessarily represent the positions of all our members’ organizations.

Overall, the bill constitutes a significant improvement in terms of impact assessment, in relation to the current legislation. It ensures a rigorous and predictable process. The AQEI has noted a fairly broad consensus on this issue. Our comments and recommendations here are mainly intended to facilitate the implementation of the legislation.

The AQEI is pleased to see that impact assessments have been expanded to include social and economic dimensions and the positive impacts of the project. This ensures a more complete assessment and a better public understanding of the issues. Public participation will help increase stakeholder confidence in the project assessment process. This will benefit everyone.

The planning phase ensures that stakeholders’ concerns are integrated from the start of the impact assessment and specifies the information expected as part of the assessment process. In addition, the use of threshold criteria to determine the designated projects is in line with the predictability of the process.

In paragraph 22(1)(h), the concept of sustainability is addressed. The AQEI welcomes this approach. However, the AQEI believes that the approach should be defined and monitored. To this end, an interpretation guide for federal sustainability criteria would be useful.

Paragraph 22(1)(s) addresses the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. This is a new requirement in environmental assessments, and the expected information should be clarified. Again, a guide that clarifies expectations for developers would be helpful.

Clauses 31 to 35 address the minister’s power of substitution. Given that the purposes of the legislation include promoting cooperation and coordinated action between the federal and provincial governments, promoting communication and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, and ensuring that opportunities are provided for meaningful public participation, the AQEI supports the substitution process. As such, the federal and Quebec governments must quickly reach an agreement to implement a framework for all projects that require dual authorization. This would once again improve the predictability of the process in Quebec.

To this end, the recent amendments to Quebec’s environmental legislation support this substitution. Many changes to the legislation are close to the draft of Bill C-69. Federal concerns, in particular requirements for consultation with Indigenous peoples and consideration of Indigenous knowledge, could be incorporated into the provincial directive before the directive is issued to the developer and before the public consultation.

A systematic use of the substitution process would reassure stakeholders by promoting a familiar framework for environmental analysis, and would build on the Canada-Quebec Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation. It’s worth remembering that the predictability of the applicable assessment process is essential for all stakeholders, including developers.

Clauses 92 to 103 of the bill address strategic and regional environmental assessments. Strategic environmental assessments integrate public concerns and other environmental issues into the preparation of plans, policies or programs. As such, they could be more widely used.

As set out in clause 103 of the bill, strategic and regional environmental assessments should systematically be made public. Regional assessments should be conducted when government decisions may affect the Canadian environment. The assessments could at least partially support the cumulative impact studies required under the bill.

For example, we can talk about how the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union affects commercial shipping to Canadian ports on both the West and East coasts and on the St. Lawrence River.

A regional study could assess the environmental consequences of this increase in traffic, including the risk of collision with marine mammals, the risk of collision or grounding, and possibly the authorities’ response capacity in the event of a spill, depending on the seasonal navigation conditions.

The same approach could be applied to the opening of commercial shipping in the Canadian Arctic, which seems increasingly likely in the medium term.

The release of the information contained in impact assessments and environmental monitoring and follow-up programs is of key importance to the various stakeholders, both in terms of transparency and information sharing. For the AQEI, this information is crucial for the continuous improvement of the environmental assessment process and practices. This information enables practitioners to improve the quality of their assessments and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

For ease of reference, the AQEI recommends adding a geo-referenced database to the agency’s registries to make its reports accessible on a geographic basis.

In conclusion, we reiterate our support for Bill C-69, which constitutes a significant improvement over the current legislation. It improves the credibility of the process and facilitates the development of consensus through public involvement from the start of the project, while proposing a clear timeline.

The AQEI is convinced that these amendments will make it possible, by ensuring the rigour and transparency of the assessment process, to improve public understanding of the environmental issues surrounding projects.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comtois.

André Bélisle, Chair, Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and good afternoon to all the representatives of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

First, I want to point out that I’m representing the AQLPA, an environmental group in Quebec that has been around for 37 years. I’m also representing the GroupMobilisation, which has mobilized Quebec on the climate emergency issue. Right now, I don’t think that I need to spell it out for you. There’s a climate emergency. There are floods everywhere. Environmental issues are extremely serious and must be treated as such.

I must say that I’m very disappointed to see that the Conservative senators have left the room. I don’t know whether the issue ... oh, in any case, there were gentlemen from Quebec who aren’t here. I wonder whether it’s appropriate to leave at this time, when the situation in Quebec is very serious.

As I said, we’re deeply concerned about the current climate emergency. We must re-establish the credibility, controls and regulations that were in place before 2012, to ensure that our impact assessments are realistic and that the assessments aren’t based on the desires of oil companies that impose their methods.

Of course, you may say that my comments are a little blunt. However, go speak to the people who, like us in Beauce today, have seen their homes disappear. Tell them that climate change doesn’t matter and that the economy is what matters. I’m not sure that they’ll agree with you.

The current system has many shortcomings. These shortcomings include the lack of credibility, the lack of transparency, the lack of basic consistency in response to the climate crisis, and the major impacts on our societies. We sit on the Régie de l’énergie. We regularly visit Quebec’s Bureau d’audiences publiques. A few years ago, we needed to speak out against the National Energy Board for its absolutely scandalous bias in relation to the Energy East project and the secret meetings between the proponents and the authorities. This is all public record. It’s not even in doubt. The matter has been very well reported. The three senior executives from the National Energy Board recused themselves as a result of these secret meetings.

We think that we need to go back to what we had before. Bill C-69, which we support, provides a more realistic approach to the environment. That’s important to us.

However, I also agree with some of the comments that have been made. We must also avoid any duplication with what’s already being done, for example in Quebec.

Mr. Francœur spoke earlier about joint panels. I’ve participated in some joint panels, including the Cacouna panel. I can tell you that having the two levels of government working together cooperatively has helped to establish things quickly, obtain a clear and solid opinion, and make valid decisions.

We think that Bill C-69 could do a better job of opening the door to cooperation with Quebec in particular. Mr. Harper’s old 2012 environmental assessment legislation must be replaced. We really need to move in the direction proposed in Bill C-69. We can see that Bill C-69—and we hope that it will be adopted— will require the positive or negative contribution of a project to be rigorously assessed and considered as a key part of the environmental assessment process.

I want to point out that, in 2012, the federal government rejected its environmental responsibilities. We’re paying the price now. You know how many action plans have been submitted, or how many climate change plans have been introduced. We’ve never made it to one. We’ve never even complied with one. When government regulatory institutions are created, there must also be accountability, transparency and openness to the public. Above all, the work must be carried out in the interest of the public and not in the interest of certain corporations.

Earlier, we pointed out the lack of resources allocated to organizations such as ours. Whenever we need to participate in a public hearing, in Quebec or elsewhere, we have to pass the hat in order to be able to do the job. Since we’re at the Régie de l’énergie, I can tell you that we often encounter a set of lawyers. Seven, eight or ten lawyers may be involved in a case for a corporation, while we have a lawyer and two people who will try to make their views heard. We’re lost in a mess of legal procedures that ultimately means that, even though environmental issues fall within the mandate of the Régie de l’énergie, they’re always pushed to the sidelines. What matters is the procedure and the legal system, and hardly anyone can make heads or tails of them.

I’m almost done. We support Bill C-69, because it would restore credibility to the system. However, we ask that it be flexible and open to ensure as much participation as possible, in addition to transparency and accountability, so that the public can feel confident about federal or Canadian issues.

You know that Quebec is sensitive to pipeline issues, and this point was raised earlier with regard to British Columbia. No, the issue isn’t that Alberta has dirty oil. The issue is that we’re in a climate crisis, where we must drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels. Therefore, we must take clear action and make informed decisions for everyone’s benefit. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sami Jai Wagner Beaulieu, Representative, La Planète s’invite à l’Université: Honourable senators, thank you for agreeing to hear from La Planète s’invite à l’Université. My name is Sami Jai. I’m a biology student, a resident of Quebec City and a representative of La Planète s’invite à l’Université. I’m committed to protecting the environment. I want to preserve the beauty of our world and share this source of well-being with future generations so that they too can spend a winter on a river bank or a summer under the millenary cedars of the West Coast.

Our collective is a recent venture, but it has already organized many initiatives and mobilized hundreds and thousands of students from Quebec. This shows how much young people care about the environment. The collective organized the largest global climate mobilization, bringing together more than 150,000 people in Montreal, 4,000 in Quebec City, and hundreds more in other cities in Quebec.

The collective has helped high school student groups from Pour le futur Montréal and Pour le futur Québec organize demonstrations and sit-ins every Friday for several weeks. These initiatives have brought together hundreds of students. We’ll continue our efforts until concrete and consistent measures have been implemented. At this time, despite a demanding end of the session, the collective and the young people from Pour le futur Québec have gathered in front of the hotel to show their support for Bill C-69.

Since February, our collective has mobilized all of these people in support of three key demands, the second of which relates directly to your decision on Bill C-69. We are calling on the government to adopt climate legislation that would make it mandatory to meet the targets of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Passing Bill C-69 is, in our view, the minimum the government can do to contribute to the target and help the planet. The bill requires that the climate impacts of a development project or any other project having an environmental impact be taken into account. This would be the first piece of legislation in Canada’s history to make it mandatory for project assessments to take climate considerations into account. This bill is a basic first step towards extricating ourselves from the looming environmental disaster.

We support the bill, and we implore you to pass this legislation.

The bill establishes a framework for decision-making and requires that the impacts of major development projects on ecosystems and federal lands be subject to systematic assessment. Our legal system currently lacks any such mechanism, and we believe its implementation is necessary to protect the country and future generations from the effects of economic projects that are profitable in the short term but put our collective future at risk.

In conclusion, the first sentence in the bill’s preamble gives us hope, underscoring that the Government of Canada is committed to fostering sustainability, which is paramount in the current crisis. Bill C-69 defines sustainability as “the ability to protect the environment, contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people of Canada and preserve their health in a manner that benefits present and future generations.” As students, we see that vision as essential in order to achieve the social and environmental harmony that the country has long been lacking, and that is what we expect from our government.

On that note, we hope you will make the right decision for our planet, our future and generations to come. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now move into the question and answer portion beginning with Senator Pratte.

Senator Simons: Sorry to interrupt, Madam Chair, but I think Ms. Moreau has something to say.

The Chair: My apologies. Go ahead.

Andréane Moreau, Representative, La Planète s’invite à l’Université: Honourable senators, thank you very much for giving our student collective, La Planète s’invite à l’Université, the opportunity to share its views.

I’d like to start by showing you a photo that tells the story of the protest that took place in Montreal, on March 15, so you can see for yourselves, the scale of the movement that has taken hold. We are also showing you the photo so you can see the faces of the young people whose voices we represent and the fact that we are constantly growing.

My name is Andréane Moreau. I am an architecture student at Université Laval and a representative of La Planète s’invite à l’Université. My involvement in the fight against climate change is a way for me to channel the anxiety I feel about the environment into action, rather than sitting idly by watching as our planet is destroyed. I am acutely aware of the environment that surrounds me, and I am terrified at the idea of doing nothing to stop the destruction of our planet.

I wasn’t able to vote in the last federal election, and neither can the youth and children of today or the generations of tomorrow. If they could, they would have already demanded much tougher legislation to ensure current policies don’t jeopardize their future.

Today, we are speaking up in support of Canadians living with the effects of global warming, including the current flooding Quebecers are facing. We are also speaking on behalf of our fellow humans, as we witness the erosion of fertile lands, widespread deforestation, toxic air pollution, ocean acidification, the loss of thousands of species and climate change, with nothing being done about it.

In the past, we accomplished great things together. We built cities and societies, so I am hopeful that we can put both differences and partisanship aside and come together to take action before it is too late.

I am here today on behalf of the student collective La Planète s’invite à l’Université as well as the students sitting outside the hotel right now. I am here because Bill C-69 is a step in the right direction to protect the environment, and another symbol of hope for my generation and the ones that follow.

We, the youth of this world, are mobilizing because we have nothing to lose. We are asking you to do something because, by doing nothing, we all lose. We are mobilizing for action on climate change and social justice, and we ask you to do the same.

We have taken to the streets by the thousands, and we will continue to do so because, for many young people it is the only way to have their voices heard. It is their voice that you should be paying closest attention to because the far-reaching decisions that will affect our future are in your hands, not those of the oil and gas lobby. Do not play pushover to the oil industry, which cares only about its short-term gain, much to the detriment of the common good.

Today, on behalf of the student collective La Planète s’invite à l’Université, on behalf of my generation and on behalf of future generations, I beg you to consider Bill C-69 not in terms of its economic benefits, but in terms of your children’s future.

Today, I beg you to support the passage of Bill C-69 because it takes into account our health, our land and the future of our children. On that note, we hope you will make the right decision for our planet and our future.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Pratte: I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today. We will look at the photo as soon as the meeting is over. It has to do with our rules and procedures.

My question is mainly for Mr. Comtois, but the other witnesses are welcome to comment afterwards if they wish.

Mr. Comtois, during your presentation, you said you were in favour of the substitution principle, which previously existed in the law and which the bill reinstates and describes.

This morning, Quebec’s environment minister appeared before the committee, and he likened the substitution process set out in the bill to an assessment overseen by the federal government. In other words, the Quebec government doesn’t seem to think that substitution is really possible because of how it is laid out in the bill. In Quebec’s view, the substitution provided for allows the government to retain its grip on the environmental assessment process.

I’d like to know where you stand on that. In cases where Quebec’s jurisdiction was at stake, does the bill truly allow for substitution?

Mr. Comtois: Yes. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. In other words, the problems lie in the implementation.

If I read what the bill says word for word, my understanding is that the provincial process is substituted for the federal process, and that’s what we want. In Quebec, we have a 40-year history of doing impact assessments related to projects. People are very familiar with Quebec’s process, and that’s why we think it would be useful to apply the same process to federal projects as well. That would make it clear to the public that the same objectives are being sought.

I was involved in public consultations on a federal project, and I can tell you people were totally confused. They wondered when the BAPE, Quebec’s environmental review agency, would come into the process. I told them that the BAPE wouldn’t be involved because it was a federal project subject to a federal process, and people were totally confused.

In order to avoid that, then, Quebec’s process should be given priority. From what I gather, federal jurisdiction pertains mainly to Indigenous peoples, fish, migratory birds and endangered species, and to that we can add energy and marine transportation. Seldom, though, do those considerations play a central role.

In most cases where the federal government has clear jurisdiction, it could include in the direction that proponents be given, from the outset, Quebec’s criteria so that its statutory and regulatory requirements are also met.

Senator Pratte: Mr. Bélisle, do you have anything you’d care to add?

Mr. Bélisle: I won’t repeat what Mr. Comtois said, but I’d say it’s not clear from reading the bill. The intent is there, but I think it would be preferable to lay it out clearly, indeed, to recognize, in the spirit of cooperation, Quebec’s expertise and approach and to identify ways of working together.

It has to be laid out clearly; it has to be understood by the reader. When I read the text, it’s not clear whether it’s the federal government’s will to assume control of the process or whether it’s possible to recognize that the province has expertise and that it would be more efficient and cost-effective to work together.

Senator Pratte: When I read the bill, my understanding is that there is a willingness to cooperate, but that there is also a desire to make sure assessments of federally regulated projects are properly carried out.

Mr. Comtois: Absolutely.

Senator Pratte: Not every province is like Quebec. Some have weaker processes, while others have stronger ones, so that’s another concern.

Mr. Comtois: Yes. I would just add something in relation to the stakeholders who talked about British Columbia’s process. The big difference, as far as I can tell, is that British Columbia’s law emerged after the federal government brought in its rules, and so the province based its approach on the federal government’s. That’s not what happened in Quebec, which already had a process in place.

Senator Simons: I must apologize for my French, which is less than perfect. Nevertheless, I like to ask questions in French when I can.

Thank you all for your presentations, which were very impassioned. I have a bit of motherly advice for Mr. Wagner Beaulieu and Ms. Moreau: be smart and be brave. That’s wonderful.

My question now is for Mr. Comtois. You talked about cumulative effects in your presentation. Bill C-69 provides for regional and strategic assessments. Do you think the use of regional assessments is sufficient to cover all the cumulative effects?

Mr. Comtois: It’s certainly not sufficient, but it would be a good foundation. In any event, the problem, given what we are seeing now—given what experience has shown—is that the use of strategic assessments is quite rare. They are supposed to be used for federal policies, plans and programs and, as I mentioned with respect to regional assessments, when free trade agreements are reached that are game-changing. At the very least, the environmental consequences of those changes should be considered.

Currently, that’s almost never done, in my view. In fact, I experienced that while participating in a federal project. We were asked to study the cumulative effects of four port improvement projects in Quebec. When I work for a proponent on a port, I have no knowledge of what’s going on with the three other ports. How am I supposed to conduct strategic assessments or study cumulative effects related to those ports. That’s the problem right now.

Senator Simons: Thank you. I’m going to have to leave, but it doesn’t mean I don’t want to be here. I have a plane to catch, and if it left without me, that wouldn’t be good.

The Chair: May I take this opportunity to follow up on my fellow senator’s question? Mr. Comtois, you seem to be saying that we need guidance on the issue of strategic development and regional assessment. You also seem to be saying that guidance should come from the government. In addition, with respect to other elements, you said guidance was desperately needed for explanation purposes. I have no doubt, though, that if we were to make that suggestion to the government, it would say that it can’t address that dimension in the act; rather, it could be done through the regulations. That brings me to my question. Instead of the committee recommending an amendment to address your concern, could we note the need for clarification, perhaps in the form of guidelines?

Mr. Comtois: Yes, absolutely. I wasn’t trying to say that the government should amend the act. I just wanted to highlight the importance of providing clarity in relation to those points, because, as things stand, it’s not clear what is meant.

The Chair: Thank you. My other question is for Mr. Bélisle and the La Planète s’invite à l’Université representatives. It’s about participation and consultation.

You are no doubt aware of the major debate swirling around the consultation of Indigenous peoples and their “free, prior and informed consent.” With respect to future generations and people who do not live in the area where a project is being carried out, a number of questions arise. Who should be consulted? Why should they be consulted? Should certain stakeholders be given priority?

I’d like to hear your views on public consultation in that regard.

Mr. Wagner Beaulieu: Yes. There’s no doubt that, when it comes to an environmental assessment and the decision as to which stakeholders to consult and who should be given priority, young people must be taken into account. I don’t necessarily mean only students, but, rather, people who are younger and who live near a project site. That’s an important measure.

I also think the way the consultation process is implemented can make it for young people or students to participate, so it may be necessary not only to find a way to include them and hear their proposals, but also to ensure follow-up. I would say that’s fairly important.

The Chair: I just want to say that the existing legislation includes a test, and that test gives priority to the people who live in the area. It doesn’t allow for other views to be factored in. Conversely, Bill C-69 does not include the test, and so, everyone is allowed to provide their input. That’s what I mean then, about consultation. Do you have anything further to add?

Mr. Bélisle: We welcome the consultations being opened up, because, over the years, we’ve seen many cases where relevant expertise was lacking. Take the AQLPA, for example. It was the AQLPA that alerted Quebec and Canada to the type of fracking involved. If, in that case, the AQLPA had not been allowed to comment on the project in Lotbinière because it wasn’t a local stakeholder, we wouldn’t have found that acceptable.

Let’s turn the question around. Knowing whether someone can contribute to the project or strategic assessment in a constructive way depends on whether they can add value and have relevant experience. Limiting the consultations to people who are directly affected by the project is foolish, because, despite their best intentions, they often lack relevant experience.

Mr. Wagner Beaulieu: I’d like to add something quickly, if I may, to what was just said. We were talking about prioritizing stakeholders and determining who should be given priority in the consultation process. I think one of the things our movement tries to highlight is that the people who will be most affected by the project should be given priority.

Local people matter, of course, but youth across the province are going to feel the impact, not directly, but over time. It’s important to keep that in mind and endeavour to give priority to stakeholders who will be affected in the long term, while taking into account how different people will be impacted. That would be one way to include young people in the process.

Mr. Bélisle: Something else that goes hand in glove with that is our response to global problems. It’s not just people who live in Edmonton who are affected by global warming. It’s everyone on the planet, so it’s not right to exclude people and organizations with expertise on the subject simply because they don’t live in the area. That doesn’t work.

We therefore welcome the fact that Bill C-69 opens up the consultation process to stakeholders.

[English]

Senator MacDonald: Mr. Bélisle, three Quebec Senators left this table before you arrived. Two were members of the ISG; one was appointed by a Liberal Prime Minister. One was a Conservative, who wasn’t here to defend himself. Not only is what you said inaccurate and unfair, it’s the conduct of a bully.

My father was president of four different unions. I’m the youngest of 10 children of a working-class family, and I will not be bullied or labelled or denigrated by you or anybody else because I happen to be a Conservative. As my late mother used to say, good manners don’t cost a cent.

Now, my question is for Mr. Comtois. You mentioned the importance of scientific knowledge. I agree with you. Scientific knowledge is very important to apply. I believe in science. But you also mentioned the importance of integrating it with Indigenous knowledge.

What do you do when Indigenous knowledge comes in conflict with scientific knowledge? What is your solution or your approach?

Mr. Comtois: Usually, when we are talking about traditional knowledge, it’s related to what people believe in. It’s may be wrong or untrue, but they believe in it. So, for my part, it’s relevant to take this into consideration as scientific knowledge, because in an environmental impact assessment study, we have to demonstrate that those beliefs are not accurate.

So it’s important to take this into account. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree with it, but we have to discuss those matters thoroughly.

Senator MacDonald: What about knowledge that’s not scientific, but not necessarily Indigenous knowledge? Does that have any standing? Is there such a thing? Do you accept such a thing, or are we not allowed to have —

Mr. Comtois: It doesn’t mean that I accept it. It means that I will take it into account to convince them that they are wrong in believing it.

So it’s a matter of we don’t have the right to discard that because we believe that it’s not important. It is important. What people think is important, but we have to make it clear in the environmental impact assessment study that it’s maybe a fear for this project, but it’s not the case, that their fears are not founded.

Senator MacDonald: All right. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bélisle?

Mr. Bélisle: I wanted to respond to what Senator MacDonald said.

First of all, I’d like to apologize because the people weren’t there. I would’ve liked to tell them to their face, but they weren’t there. As for being a bully, again, please accept my apologies.

[English]

Senator MacDonald: Your apology is accepted.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélisle: Thank you.

As for being a bully, I would just like to point out something. Thousands of people in Quebec right now are dealing with flooding in their homes, so I have a really hard time when a Quebec politician isn’t there to hear those comments. I may be a bit cranky, but when I see my neighbours losing their homes, I’d say I have reason to be a bit frustrated.

I do admit, however, that I was gruff, so I apologize.

[English]

Senator MacDonald: Well, there are two representatives from Quebec still at the table.

The Chair: There are three.

Senator MacDonald: And I’m here.

Senator Simons: And I’m from Alberta.

Mr. Bélisle: I was thinking of Mr. Carignan especially.

Senator MacDonald: That was obvious.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes the last part of our meeting, if there are no further questions. Thank you.

(The committee adjourned.)