THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 4, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 5:31 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 28 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, and to examine the subject matter of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy; and, in camera, to consider a draft report.
Senator Josée Verner (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Josée Verner. I am a senator from Quebec and the deputy chair of the committee.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
[English]
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
[Translation]
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones.
Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
[English]
I will now ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Robinson: Hello. Mary Robinson, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan, and not officially a member of the committee today.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan, and officially a member of this committee.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Deputy Chair: Today, the committee continues its examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 28 of Part 4 of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.
For our first panel, we welcome, by video conference, the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan; and Mr. Brad Gilmour, Partner, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
Welcome and thank you for being with us. About 10 minutes is reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, minister, and then Mr. Gilmour.
Hon. Bronwyn Eyre, M.P.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan: Thank you very much, senators and Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear today. We know it was short notice, and we appreciate your fitting us in.
I remember the last go-round on this bill in its original form back in 2019. Certainly, we felt passionately — I felt passionately — that it was not a question of one-off changes or amendments at that time, but really that the entire bill had to go, as they say. We agreed with the Court of Appeal of Alberta — a majority — that Bill C-69 took a federal “wrecking ball,” as they put it, to the provinces’ exclusive jurisdiction under section 92A of the Constitution over power generation and natural resources. That, as we all know, was borne out at the Supreme Court last fall, when the majority recognized that the Impact Assessment Act was a clear example of federal overreach, and that the power of federal authorities to, among other things, permanently put provincial projects on hold was “an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament” which “plainly overstepped the mark.” That, in our mind, has not fundamentally changed. To our mind, the federal government has only done the barest minimum to accommodate the Supreme Court holding. In that reference last fall, the general tenor remains unchanged. This is severely problematic for a whole host of reasons.
Let’s not forget that Electricity Canada President and CEO Francis Bradley told this committee only recently that Canada has missed a key opportunity to create a regulatory environment that boosts business confidence and minimizes risks, and that there is mounting concern in the Canadian business community about our country’s ability to compete and generate long-term prosperity. Saskatchewan would have to concur with some of those concerns.
In 2022, the Mining Association of Canada was characterized as having “buyer’s remorse” over having initially backed Bill C-69 due to the number of mining projects being made subject to it. The Mining Association of Canada said it was sending a cold shiver up the spine of the Canadian mining sector. That was in 2022.
Many business leaders have been sounding the alarm, as we all know, about Canadian productivity and how we have to boost it. Certainly, Saskatchewan feels that we are doing our part in that regard, but this bill in its current form is not the path forward.
We also know that over the course of Bill C-69’s brief and — we would submit — destructive life, it has been the usual story of some projects being approved in some areas of the country and not approved in other areas. That, of course, creates broader and deeper uncertainty.
For example, in April 2022, Bay du Nord off the coast of Newfoundland was expeditiously approved by Minister Guilbeault and cabinet, but international investors have walked away from the Saguenay liquefied natural gas plant of Berkshire Hathaway to the tune of $9 billion — that was a few years ago — and from the Ring of Fire development in Ontario because of the uncertainty, as many international investors have stated, and the uneven application of Bill C-69.
It is Saskatchewan’s position that there is basis for a future challenge to the new act if it is passed as is and without significant changes. As a province, we will be having those conversations.
At this juncture, I am happy to delve into discussion further with committee members, so thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Brad Gilmour, Partner, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, as an individual: Good evening, senators. I’m a partner with the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, so I’m not here representing any government. Thank you very much for having me here today to provide my views on the Impact Assessment Act and the proposed amendments.
These are my personal views, and they are based upon my experience as a regulatory and environmental lawyer over the past 28 years or so, having worked with all versions of the federal environmental assessment legislation concerning major projects and developments across the country. My experience started with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 1992, which came into force in 1995, and then with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 — or CEAA 2012 — and, of course, the Impact Assessment Act, where I worked on amendments to Bill C-69 that came to this Senate before the act was proclaimed into force. Then, I worked as counsel to Alberta, along with my colleagues, in respect of the reference case both at the Court of Appeal of Alberta and the Supreme Court of Canada. I will emphasize that today these are my comments.
My presumption going into this is that the ultimate goal is to develop federal environmental assessment legislation that focuses on areas of federal jurisdiction and ensures that environmental impacts of projects are reasonably assessed before decisions are made, as well as that input from directly affected stakeholders is obtained, including — very clearly — Indigenous groups, whose treaty rights or traditional lands may be affected, and that the processes are transparent, efficient and do not present unreasonable levels of uncertainty, regulatory litigation and political risk. Understanding the processes, timelines, costs and the end-of-process risks is extremely important to proponents who might consider investing in Canada and developing major projects.
I’ll go into a little bit of a good news/bad news story: We have 30 years of litigation on federal environmental assessment laws. It has been very litigious legislation, and that, in and of itself, should be concerning, but the positive side of that is they’re valuable in that the courts have told us what you can do under federal environmental assessment and what you can’t do. It would be unfortunate, in my view, if those lessons learned from that litigation are not incorporated into the next version of the federal environmental assessment process.
We’ve known for over 30 years that the federal government can draft and implement constitutionally valid federal environmental assessment legislation. That was the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, or EARPGO, and it was the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992 — or CEAA 1992.
If you go back to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), in a nutshell, that legislation was determined to be constitutional, because it was merely procedural in nature. It was simply designed to gather information about the environment to be used as a component of other valid federal decision-making processes, usually in situations where the federal government had a decision to make in respect of that project — often a permit.
The court took comfort from the fact that there was a strong nexus between the federal assessment and clear federal jurisdiction — i.e., the issuance of a permit or a decision being made in respect of the project.
CEAA 1992, similarly, was only engaged when there was a federal decision to be made in respect of the project, quite often a federal permit. That was called the decision-based trigger, and I know you’ve heard a bit about that in your deliberations.
CEAA 1992 moved away from a decision-based trigger to a project-based trigger. If your project was listed on a regulation, then you were under the legislation, and that was essentially the trigger. Then, there was this definition of “effects within federal jurisdiction,” which I’ll talk about in a moment.
What that act did was it focused on major projects, which solved one of the problems under CEAA 1992, but it started us down a road to another problem, as it was the predecessor to the Impact Assessment Act.
The Impact Assessment Act was implemented, and a reference case was started by the Province of Alberta. Ultimately, it ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada in March of last year. In a 5-2 written decision by the Chief Justice, the Impact Assessment Act and the regulations were found to be unconstitutional with the exception of 10 non-controversial provisions.
What might be helpful for you to take away from that decision are some key points. First of all, the definition of “effects within federal jurisdiction” was much too broad, and it was not sufficiently linked to federal powers under the Constitution Act. The court said that even if it accepted that these were, indeed, federal effects, it did not drive the ultimate decision making. That decision-making process incorporated other concepts and other factors that were not federal.
What’s also important is that the court reinforced what we learned from the Supreme Court of Canada in the Oldman River case 30 years ago, which is that not all constitutional powers can be used to the same extent to regulate in areas of the environment. The court goes into this in the decision.
As an example, where the province is the primary, as I’ll call it, life-cycle regulator of an activity — if it’s a local work or undertaking, or if it’s something in relation to the development of natural resources — then it has broad jurisdiction to regulate on all matters, including matters related to the environment.
On the other hand, Parliament may also have a role, but it is typically much narrower in those circumstances, where the province is regulating the activity. It might be in the case, for example, of a mining activity, which is primarily regulated by the province, but a permit is needed under the Fisheries Act, or there might be an impact to fish habitat, but in that case, the scope of ability to regulate is much narrower, and it must be tightly confined to the boundaries of what the fisheries’ power allows under the Constitution Act.
What is also important is that if Parliament is going to regulate, for example, with respect to fish or fish habitat, it’s crucial to recognize that those powers also have boundaries — and not all effects, including adverse effects to fish or fish habitat, could be validly regulated by Parliament. That’s in the case law.
Now, conversely, where Parliament has jurisdiction over an activity — for example, in respect of an interprovincial or a national work or undertaking, such as a pipeline or railway — it has broad jurisdiction to regulate those activities, as it’s the life-cycle regulator of that. Where a jurisdiction has that broad regulatory authority, it typically regulates the entire life-cycle of that activity from beginning to end, and would have the expertise to make informed determinations in the public interest.
Respecting these boundaries is key to ensuring that federal environmental assessment is constitutionally valid, and the Supreme Court told us that the Impact Assessment Act was not and did not.
Getting to the amendments — and this is the last part of my submission, and then I’ll be happy to answer your questions — as I count, there are 32 amendments to the Impact Assessment Act with the stated intention of ensuring that the act is constitutionally sound. I do have significant concerns and doubts as to whether the amendments achieve that objective; although, that is an issue that will ultimately be decided by the courts.
I would suggest that, perhaps, a more productive assessment at this stage would be to ask the following three questions: First of all, is it clearly constitutional with the amendments? I would submit that it’s not. That’s unfortunate, because, as I said, we have case law that tells us how the federal government can constitutionally and validly regulate in these areas. Right at the get-go, we have uncertainty, and, again, if we’re talking about providing certainty in process for all parties involved, including investors, we’re starting off with a very large question mark over the legislation.
The second question is this: Even if the court were to find that it is constitutional, is there a significant risk of it being used in an unconstitutional manner? I think that there’s a significant risk of that, which, again, means more litigation and more uncertainty in legislation that has historically been very litigious.
Third, is it likely to achieve the objectives I described earlier, including bringing reasonable certainty in terms of process and outcome to project proponents? I don’t believe that it does.
I’ll talk briefly now about some of the key amendments. Recall that under the Impact Assessment Act, as it currently exists, the defined term “effects within federal jurisdiction” was found to be unconstitutional. That has been replaced with the defined term “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction.” I would suggest that the new definition adds — well, it does add — the concept of non-negligible adverse changes to things like fish and fish habitat, migratory birds and Indigenous groups. But that wording continues to introduce uncertainty into the application of the act. What is and what is not a non-negligible adverse change to, for example, fish or fish habitat is unclear.
We know that the act prohibits doing anything that may cause a non-negligible adverse effect, and that is backed by offence provisions and penalties as high as $8 million per day per offence, and it imposes personal liability on senior officers of corporations. The effect is that if your project is on the list, and it’s in the regulation, regardless of whether or not you require any federal approvals at all for the project, you are in because it’s impossible to know what the agency of the day or the minister would determine to be a non-negligible adverse change. And if you get it wrong, the consequences are severe.
Importantly, the rationale for the exercise of federal jurisdiction to implement the prohibition remains unclear. I can tell a client whether they need a permit under the Fisheries Act, but I can’t tell them what somebody might think is a non-negligible effect to fish or fish habitat.
The question will be whether the breadth of the newly proposed definition is sufficiently constrained to be constitutional. The screening decision is based upon this broad definition, and a full environmental assessment will be required by the agency if it is satisfied that the project may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — i.e., non-negligible adverse changes to the listed areas. For me, it’s hard to see where we’ve moved from with the starting prohibition, which is based on non-negligible adverse effects. Information gets filed about the project, then it’s reviewed, and the basis upon which it advances is essentially the same standard — non-negligible adverse effects. If such changes are anticipated, then a full environmental impact assessment or impact assessment is required. The proponent will be thinking about time, cost, uncertainty, regulatory risk and litigation risk.
The decision-making process is now two steps for the minister and the Governor-in-Council. First, after taking into account mitigation measures, it’s whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — the non-negligible adverse changes — are “ … likely to be, to some extent, significant and, if so, the extent to which those effects are significant.” This is very ambiguous wording. It lacks clarity and opens the decision-making process up to various interpretations and the intended risks associated with that.
If the project does not pass the test, the proponent has the option of trying to redesign the project in a way that would be consistent with the decision, but then you’re really back to square one because you’ll be asking the same question: As I’ve redesigned it, is somebody at the agency going to think that, even as redesigned, it’s going to have a non-negligible change to areas of federal jurisdiction?
In summary, while the amendments may address some of the Supreme Court of Canada’s concerns with the Impact Assessment Act, an unnecessary constitutional question mark, at the very least, will continue to hang over the Impact Assessment Act if amended as proposed. There is a significant risk of the act being used in an unconstitutional manner, even if it is ultimately found to be constitutional with the attendant uncertainty and potential litigation. I do not believe, unfortunately, that it will bring the requisite certainty needed, in many cases, to efficiently and effectively get major projects that are subject to the act approved.
With that, I’ll end and welcome your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: This question is for both witnesses. Does this iteration of the Impact Assessment Act comply with the Supreme Court opinion in the reference case? I think both of the witnesses have said no. If that is the case, and if there is a continued overreach by the federal government, how can this be cured? What are the amendments that you would put forward? Is this repairable?
What is the scope of your concerns, and what are the significant changes you would recommend? The Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan has made reference to those significant changes. I’m wondering how that can be articulated, and is it a safe prediction that further litigation is inevitable without amendments?
Ms. Eyre: Thank you. Mr. Gilmour has outlined very clearly what it was before — litigious, somewhat dense and occasionally troublesome — and what it has become now since the advent of Bill C-69.
It was interesting that, the other day, Mr. Gratton from the Mining Association of Canada referenced some “golden years,” as he called it, when environmental assessments were actually at their most efficient and collaborative. In other words, he was pointing to the fact that this is not an insurmountable hurdle, and has happened before when the federal and provincial governments and their respective regulatory structures stick to their respective lanes, as collaboration and working together is possible. As he put it, I believe, cooperation was present, but everyone stuck to their knitting.
To the question of what we do with this act, I think it has been very clearly laid out how complex it remains, how vague and how prone to more litigation it is, and how unfortunate that is in terms of establishing the certainty that we so desperately need in this country over assessments and the process through which projects go. I pointed out in my comments about some of the unevenness of application, where you have the Bay du Nord project, but not other projects and so on — the buyer’s remorse that has been expressed by the Mining Association of Canada.
The analysis is being done, to your question of what could be fixed. But some of the fundamental tenets of this new iteration of Bill C-69 are so troubling and so difficult to overcome in terms of clarity, with “adverse effects” absolutely being one of them. As mentioned, the proposed amendments replace “effects within federal jurisdiction” with “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction.” The problem with that is that the federal government can defer assessments to provinces as long as those assessments take into account adverse effects within federal jurisdiction, with “adverse,” of course, being in the eye of the beholder. What are non-negligible adverse effects, as pointed out by Mr. Gilmour? It is an adverse effect whether you add “non-negligible” to the front or not. The question becomes: Whose jurisdiction does it fall under to assess them, and what does that mean? And as I say, it’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s very subjective. I think there are very troubling aspects to that. Certainly, Saskatchewan has grave concerns around that going forward.
The amorphous public interest also still applies. There is some good news, if we can call it that, in that the act is no longer triggered simply by greenhouse gases, so the new definition of “interprovincial effects” is limited to water pollution and interprovincial rivers. Mr. Gilmour and I would both agree that the problem is the “incidental” part. If you have a highway being built between Regina and Saskatoon, and it crosses a stream that has fish in it, traditionally, I think it was relatively clear that the fish were incidental to the highway. On both micro and macro levels, that has become vague and ambiguous.
For any project, whether it is power generation, in situ oil sands, highways, the Ring of Fire, oil development off the coast of Newfoundland or liquefied natural gas at Saguenay — go down the list — my response would be it’s no wonder that, for example, $9 billion was pulled out by Berkshire Hathaway in the Saguenay liquefied natural gas project because of the uncertainty that this has created.
I think it is difficult to say that if this could change based on what’s currently before us, it would be good to go. I think that’s the problem. It isn’t, and the surgical nature of the changes has been so surgical that the fundamental tenets remain, and they remain troubling.
Mr. Gilmour: Thank you for the question, senator. As I said in my submission, having a constitutional question mark over the act is problematic right from the get-go. We knew — 30 years ago — how to write a federal assessment statute that was constitutional.
We have to read the case law, and we have to look at what the courts have said in the past under all versions. From that, I think you could figure out a piece of legislation that is constitutional and workable. While the devil’s in the details, I think going back to a decision-based trigger as opposed to a project-based trigger would be one element that would grant certainty. What you’re doing then is understanding why the federal government is engaged. You need a permit for the project. It’s on federal lands. The federal government is funding the project and is the proponent of the project. That’s clearly linked to federal jurisdiction. It takes away that question mark.
The next element is to look at some of the case law about how we ended up in court on a number of cases because of ambiguous wording in the legislation. There are a number of examples of that, in which tightening up the language in the legislation — the wording, the drafting — is important to bring more certainty to what the process is and how it works.
Timelines are important. That has moved, but there is so much opportunity to stop the clock, and the timelines are ultimately uncertain. I think fundamentally, though, what will help us in getting major projects is that both levels of government must stick to their jurisdictional lanes. I don’t think that this could have been stated any more clearly in the Supreme Court of Canada decision. If you regulate the activity, which is often the province for local works and undertakings, then that should be the decision maker. If the federal government has a role, then they should engage in that process, but not drive the process. And if there is a public interest determination, it should be made by the province in that case. By having two public interest determinations, what is the outcome if one is “yes” and one is “no”?
Conversely, on the federal side, where Parliament has the expertise and jurisdiction to regulate, that’s the primary regulator, and if the province has a role, it should be similarly incidental to that function. I would like to add one or two more comments.
In addition, we need to eliminate the political risk at the end of the process. If we have life-cycle expert regulatory tribunals that regulate these activities — whether federal or provincial — one thing to consider is whether or not that’s the entity best able to make the public interest determination, because if you have someone who invests in this process, follows the rules, gets the regulatory approval, goes through the inevitable litigation at the end of the day and is successful, but then has that overturned by a political decision, I think you can understand how that affects investor confidence. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
I was in the committee when the bill came in, so that would have been 2018. For the first time, I realized how the resource extraction companies didn’t care about First Nations lands or lives. That’s when I started looking at this.
You talk about public interest determination. Where are the Indigenous people in this? Because they are always falling under interjurisdictional areas. When you say that you want to minimize risk in the business community to compete and prosper, First Nations have not prospered. They’ve been left behind. That was why, when we looked at the bill, I put amendments in there because I was concerned about First Nations and the lack of basic rights. They are not even considered.
You ask whose jurisdiction it is when most of the projects are on Indian lands, and there are interprovincial waterways when you look at the tailings ponds.
When we look at all of that and the adverse effects, how would you word that to protect First Nations so that it is not all just about money, and they get a fair share of what is happening here? It worries me that this has come forward, and I don’t want First Nations to fall even further behind now. You talk about tightening the language. Give us an example of what you would put instead of “adverse effects.” Can both presenters speak to that?
Mr. Gilmour: Thank you, senator. You have raised an important question and a complex one. I won’t speak on behalf of Indigenous groups and what works for them. I can tell you that when Alberta went to the Supreme Court of Canada, certain Indigenous groups supported Alberta’s position and wanted the legislation to be found unconstitutional.
There were Indigenous groups that supported Canada’s position, too. But my thinking on that is that there is not one position with regard to this legislation and how it affects Indigenous groups.
I can tell you that in my own personal career — in terms of resource development and engagement with Indigenous groups — the significant trend that I’ve seen, which I think is good, is that we’ve moved from a process where, if a project was developed, there was funding for traditional land use studies and there might be jobs and business opportunities, and those were all good, but I think what we’re seeing more currently is for greater participation of Indigenous groups in projects that might affect them, including taking equity positions in projects.
I think that’s an opportunity, but I can’t speak on behalf of Indigenous groups. I know enough to know that there is not one voice. There are multiple voices with respect to that question.
Ms. Eyre: Thank you very much for the question. I would echo that. With the deepest respect, I think one of the issues is the complexity that not only Bill C-69 introduced into the process of approvals, but also these latest, recent amendments as well. I think that if the goal of the original bill was to streamline things — and that was one of the stated goals — it didn’t achieve that because, as I stated earlier, you have some projects which have been approved very quickly, such as the Bay du Nord project, and others that are not, which are in holding patterns and are “to be determined” in every sense. I think it is that lack of certainty and clarity, as well as increased ambiguity, which isn’t in anyone’s interests, including when it comes to Indigenous First Nations’ engagement in major projects.
I would point to the last go-round, in which there was quite a lot of talk about the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, for example. To Mr. Gilmour’s point about complexity, there were many First Nations groups in B.C. who were in support of that project, and there were those who weren’t. There is no single position or opinion that those groups all hold. If the goal of Bill C-69 was to make things clearer and more predictable, in terms of the steps that everyone has to go through — including proponents of the project, the governments involved and Indigenous stakeholders — it didn’t achieve that.
We’re left with not only an unconstitutional bill, but also potentially unconstitutional amendments. I think that really isn’t in the interests of anyone. The Supreme Court has held that there are grave issues with this, and I don’t think the amendments solve that. That’s the problem we’re confronting.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I hear what you’re saying, but it seems to me that there is no certainty in the way any bill is interpreted. You are looking for certainty, but I’m wondering how that could apply to environmentally sensitive projects that are assessed case by case. I feel as though you’re asking the impossible of a bill. There is usually a series of choices that provide a bit of flexibility for assessing each project.
I’m wondering if your demands regarding an assessment bill might be a little high. What’s more, it will be up to the courts to decide whether the bill is now constitutional, not us as parliamentarians.
This is my first question: Are your demands realistic?
Second, you say that the Énergie Saguenay liquified natural gas project fell through because of environmental assessments. I’m sure you will recall that the Legault government pulled out because the project was controversial and there were many questions about the environmental impact of the gas pipeline in Quebec. It was a political decision that, as far as I know, had nothing to do with assessments. Minister, since you brought up the issue twice, I just wanted to set the record straight. Are your demands realistic?
Ms. Eyre: First, that is absolutely true. As you say, the Saguenay project fell through not only because of Bill C-69. That was one of the factors that led to investments being withdrawn, as we clearly explained at the time. For example, Berkshire Hathaway stated that the uncertainty surrounding the project was in large part due to the bill. There were other reasons — and you’re absolutely right to point that out — but that was one of them.
What I meant — and the Mining Association of Canada agreed in 2022, as I mentioned — is that the uncertainty surrounding Bill C-69 put a serious damper on that investment. There is great uncertainty among investors in this country, as we saw in Saguenay, but also with the Bay du Nord project, which was approved quickly.
In terms of certainty, I think there was a flawed balancing act in this country before Bill C-69. There have always been discrepancies between the provincial and the federal governments, and the relationship has naturally always been complicated. We know full well that we are not a typical federation. As I said, the balancing act is flawed, but at least it exists. Now the back-and-forth between the two jurisdictions is much more complicated.
Bill C-69 has given rise to a lot of uncertainty, which has not helped investment in this country. It’s clear that approval for projects varies greatly. I recently read about the electric vehicle plant near Montreal, which I’m not sure is specifically related to Bill C-69. It is a good example of a project that was quickly awarded and there was certainty, but that isn’t the case for other projects. There are still projects ongoing, but I really believe that Bill C-69 caused uncertainty that wasn’t there before and did not improve the situation. It’s not legal.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The Northvolt plant is in Quebec and doesn’t straddle any borders. It has nothing to do with Bill C-69.
Mr. Gilmour, do you want to round out that answer to my question? Are you not demanding perfection? You mentioned the term “adverse effects.” Given the number of projects to assess, how can we be more explicit than mentioning “adverse effects” in a bill?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Thank you, senator, for the question. I don’t think we want perfection. If we had perfection, I would probably put myself out of a job.
However, while I think we should not expect perfection and we won’t have perfection, I think we can do significant things to reduce the degree of uncertainty. I will go back to my point being —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: For example, what would you put instead of “negative adverse effects”? What would be your way of qualifying it?
Mr. Gilmour: First of all, I would tie it to a federal decision. If it is tied to a federal decision, then I understand the jurisdictional basis upon which the project is being assessed by the federal government. If I am doing a mining project, I say, “Okay, what do I need to do to get a mining project?” Well, I will be pulling out a bunch of provincial statutes because I know that the life-cycle regulator of that activity is the province. Then, somebody might come to me and say, “What about the federal side?” They might ask if I am affecting fish habitat. If the answer is “yes,” then I need a federal fisheries permit. The federal government has a decision to make in respect of this project. Then, it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to implement overtop of that their own assessment project, and maybe what they do is substitute that in with the province and participate in a way that is specific to their jurisdiction.
But in my mind, having these virtually boundless definitions of “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” that result in non-negligible changes is not remotely close to having a structured legislation that’s based on clear federal decision making.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We have a bit less than 15 minutes left, and many of you want to ask questions. I would ask you to be a little more concise if possible. This is an important issue.
[English]
Senator Wells: I will be concise.
Mr. Gilmour and minister, thanks very much for your presentations. It gives me grave concern when I hear the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice and Attorney General say that she has grave concerns. So on that, does this bill in its current state — without amendment — open any project process to further delay via court challenge because we don’t get it right?
Mr. Gilmour: If I understand your question correctly, Senator Wells, yes, I think it does. Again, it goes back to the ambiguity as to why the federal legislation is engaged in the first instance. Again, it is more straightforward if a client decides to build a project, asks if it will affect fish and then asks if they need a Fisheries Act permit. The answer is yes, and I understand why I’m there. But it is more problematic when someone comes to you and says that they are building a project and don’t require any federal permits at all, and then they ask if they should just go to the province. The answer is no, if you are on the regulation. Then, we get into litigation risk. When you look at the language being used, it opens the door to various interpretations and opportunities — as we’ve seen under prior versions of the federal assessment legislation — to take some of these matters to the courts.
I will give you one example. Under CEAA 2012 — and this definition was carried through the Impact Assessment Act — the definition of the “designated project” includes not only what is on the regulation. When you go to the definition, it says that it’s all things that are incidental to that. What are all those things that are incidental? That has led to specific litigation that has caused delays in projects, simply on one definition within the act that is not precisely drafted.
Senator Wells: When the Senate is permitted to do its job in the time that it needs, the intent is that decisions under the legislation don’t end up in the judicial process. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we look at it for the second time and third time sometimes.
The other thing is — and I will finish on this, with respect to giving colleagues a chance as well — I think we’ve seen this federal government welcome process uncertainty in order to allow them to determine that this was a business decision by the proponent, not taking into account that uncertainty for investors goes into the calculation of business uncertainty.
Ms. Eyre: Right. If I may, I would say to that, no guff. The instances are well documented, such as the Ring of Fire. Bill C-69 is explicitly mentioned as creating investment uncertainty. I’ve listed a number of others.
The point is, in some cases, of course you have situations where a proponent may be in sync with the federal government or a provincial government, and in other cases they’re not. The point that you then have all these different lanes with all these different players in the mix is precisely why uncertainty is so destructive to productivity and the economy.
I don’t think it is too much to ask, as investors into this country but also as provincial governments, that the rejigging of the second go-round of this legislation be clearly constitutional. The fact that there is so much doubt, again, is the last thing that we need for investments in this country. When you have all the uncertainty over phrasing, such as “adverse effects” and “incidental” and “public interest,” and all the things that remain around stopping the clock and cabinet weighing in on decisions case by case, as has been stated — well, it’s case by case, all right — it is very problematic to be back in this situation. I think that for all the reasons that have been stated, there are grave concerns as a result.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Unfortunately, this is unforeseen, but there will be a vote in the Senate in a few minutes. If the witnesses can wait for us, we will suspend the meeting just long enough for us to do our duty as senators in the chamber.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
Thank you to our two witnesses for their patience during the few minutes we took to go and exercise our right to vote. We will continue our questions with Senator Galvez.
[English]
Senator Galvez: First, to both of you, I would like to say that this committee has received other lawyers who have said exactly the opposite of what you have said, which is that these amendments solve the constitutional conundrum. When I look at the backgrounds of the lawyers who have told us this, it’s interesting to see that the environmental lawyers say this is good, but lawyers who are defending oil companies, companies doing remediation, energy companies and those polluting are saying it’s not going to work.
The subject is very complex. Science has evolved a lot. It took us 20 years to review the impact assessment, which was too long. Last time, we included cumulative effects, secondary effects and climate change. These are things that need to be understood for every specific project.
As senators — and maybe you have a different idea of what a senator should do — we have been told that we have to care for vulnerable populations and regional specificities. When we look at these energy projects, they are so huge that they impact multiple jurisdictions and provinces, as well as water, air, sea and groundwater. Groundwater is all over. It is many provinces and territories.
How can we define this thing as negligible or jurisdictional when we know that toxicity doesn’t have borders? Greenhouse gases affect all of Canada, not just one province at a time. Rivers are connected in watersheds.
I will agree with my colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne that the certitude that you are looking for is impossible to get, and we need to go to this through trial and error, and learn. Also, the courts need to have experts in the environment and toxicology so that they can understand these issues.
I don’t know if you want to react to what I’ve said.
Ms. Eyre: With respect, there is quite a lot of question-begging in that question around lawyers who represent “polluters” versus lawyers who don’t. That would be a somewhat controversial stance that they would certainly consider themselves that way.
As you pointed out yourself, the issues around this are so complex, but the Supreme Court found that this bill — Bill C-69 — was unconstitutional. You can say that we should go back through the same route, if you like, by trial and error, but there are better paths. Some of those have been outlined.
There is the confusion that this recreates, but also the system that we had of some degree of cooperation and hammering it out before Bill C-69 came along. It’s not as if environmental assessments were not done prior to Bill C-69, and that is key.
Keep in mind that Bill C-69, or the carbon tax reference, is all on very specific issues, but Bill C-69 was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Certainly, my submission would be that there are risks to that happening again in terms of these amendments, because they just don’t address profoundly enough what the Supreme Court raised as concerns.
Keep in mind, senator, about the environment knowing no borders; obviously, that was sort of the impetus for the peace, order and good government argument at the Supreme Court — the real trump card that was used there — but that case was really on the very narrow issue of price stringency.
The Supreme Court decision in the carbon tax reference was very narrowly decided, as you know, but it did not provide that the federal government could simply weigh in on every set of regulations or every assessment it wanted to, and down the road, down the line. That’s where we find ourselves, not only with Bill C-69 but also with a raft of other overreaches — certainly in our submission — of federal jurisdiction into provincial. We have a federation for a reason. We are proud of it and we love it, and it is what it is. It’s the complex animal that it is between jurisdictions, and that’s the dance.
One can say it simply can’t be so that this is ever an issue jurisdictionally, but obviously the Supreme Court has found it to be so, and very narrowly didn’t on the reference case for the carbon tax.
It’s certainly the Senate’s work, with all due respect, and it’s important that we all do this work to prevent this from becoming a trial-and-error, case-by-case experimentation because productivity in this country literally cannot afford too much more trial and error.
Mr. Gilmour: Thanks for the question, senator. I will clarify that I’m an environmental lawyer, and I have been an environmental lawyer for my entire career. I also have a science background. I have a master’s degree in environmental science, so I know a little bit about the science as well.
I would suggest that the understanding of environmental effects continues to evolve outside of the environmental assessment process as well. Whether it’s the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Environment and Climate Change Canada, they have jurisdiction over multiple issues, and their science and understanding of issues continues to evolve. It’s not all within the environmental assessment process.
The other thing to consider is — whether it’s energy resources or critical minerals — those resources will be needed by Canada, whether it’s the current economy or the future economy. They will be needed by the world. We’re lucky to have the bounty of resources that we have in this country. I think the environmental laws and the rule of law, and all the laws that go around approval of projects and processes that we have, means that we can actually develop these resources better than anybody in the world. If we’re going to develop these resources that we need, this is the place to do it. Those would be my views. Thank you, senator.
Senator Anderson: Thank you both for your testimony. My question is for the minister. I’ll build a bit on Senator McCallum’s question. Currently, in the Impact Assessment Act, section 33(1) states:
The Minister may only approve a substitution if he or she is satisfied that
(d) the process to be substituted will include consultations with any Indigenous group that may be affected by the carrying out of the designated project …
Now, you spoke about the ambiguity of the Impact Assessment Act, and I just want to read now the proposed amendment in this bill. The proposed amendment reads:
Paragraph 33(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(d) the process to be substituted will include consultations with any Indigenous group that may be affected by the carrying out of the designated project …
And it goes on and adds:
… or the consultations will be undertaken under an agreement or arrangement referred to in paragraph 114(1)(f) …
And section 114(1)(f) of the Impact Assessment Act reads:
… enter into agreements or arrangements with any jurisdiction for the purposes of coordination, consultation, exchange of information and the determination of factors to be considered in relation to the assessment of the effects of designated projects of common interest …
My concern lies with the fact that they’ve now added “or,” so it’s not “and.” There is now an option to either consult with Indigenous peoples or to enter into arrangements or agreements that do not specifically reference Indigenous peoples.
Can you tell me, minister, what your initial thoughts are on this proposed amendment?
Ms. Eyre: It would be fair to say that there is broad confusion over it, and rightfully so. To all the points that have been made, is that really an advantageous goal to the exercise? Bottom line, the federal government can still deny approval for a project that is only incidentally within federal jurisdiction, so that right there is a problem. Whether it’s an “and” or an “or,” in terms of the consultation with First Nations, the fact is that there were more clearly delineated lines prior to this act, and all of them have become blurred — be it consultation with Indigenous peoples or not, be it with the provinces or not, and what constitutes “incidental” or not. It’s all the words that we have talked about that are problematic.
The previous wording before was “adverse effects,” and we’ve talked about this a number of times. It’s important to keep in mind that the wording before was “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction.” Of course, it’s subjective right there. Now it’s “non-negligible adverse effects.” Orwell would have a field day with all of this. That’s the problem. That creates a problem for the Indigenous groups, where their lands come into the consideration. Obviously, it’s an issue with provincial projects and then where the “incidental” begins and ends.
I will also say that some of what you read refers to the consultation side of it. If I may simply add, it’s indicative and troublesome that, even to get to this point with the amendments we have before us, the lip service, I would call it, on consultation has been just that. There has been no working with the provinces to any degree. I can’t speak for Indigenous consultation, but with the provinces, there’s been no opportunity to provide any feedback. That’s the Ministry of Environment. We — at the Ministry of Energy and Resources and the Ministry of Environment — were informed what the changes would be rather than being asked for any feedback or collaboration. It’s the same for Intergovernmental Affairs. There are no technical pieces, just general themes.
Surely, that’s an issue for provinces, for companies, potentially, and for investors, but also for fundamental stakeholders and, to your question, for Indigenous groups as well. So the fact that we are at this point this late in the proverbial day, and we’re still battling or analyzing and assessing and dissecting these definitions and these sections and subsections, is very worrying.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, minister. Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.
[Translation]
Thank you, everybody. The senators will take your comments into account.
(The committee continued in camera.)
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome. The committee begins its examination of the subject matter of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.
For our third panel, we welcome, from Indigenous Resource Network, John Desjarlais, Executive Director, who is joining by video conference. We also welcome, from Electricity Canada, Francis Bradley, President and CEO, who is joining by video conference; and Channa Perera, Vice President, Regulatory and Indigenous Affairs.
Five minutes is reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Mr. Desjarlais.
Senator Galvez: May I ask a question? Just for clarity, are we studying the entire bill? If I am correct, isn’t the Social Affairs Committee the one responsible?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, the Social Affairs Committee has been designated, but we are examining the parts related to the oil and gas industry workers.
Senator Galvez: There are only specific parts that we are doing?
The Deputy Chair: This is what the clerk just said: The subject matter of Bill C-50 — the whole bill.
John Desjarlais, Executive Director, Indigenous Resource Network: Good evening. Thank you for inviting me to speak this evening on Bill C-50.
I am Nehinaw Cree-Métis from Kaministikominahikoskak, also known as Cumberland House, Saskatchewan, Canada. I started my career in the natural resources industry and worked in a variety of roles, including radiation protection, environment, safety, maintenance and reliability engineering management, until moving onto executive leadership roles in economic development, construction and management consulting, including governance roles in regulation, post-secondary education, occupational health and safety and advocacy.
I am here tonight in my capacity as the Executive Director of the Indigenous Resource Network, or IRN.
The IRN is an independent, non-partisan organization advocating for Indigenous workers and businesses. Our network has primarily focused on oil and gas, mining and forestry. While these sectors have environmental impact, they have been a very important source of economic development for our nations. As stewards of the lands — and in many cases that is the actual job or task of IRN members — we try to balance strong environmental protection with good livelihoods and healthy communities.
We have been watching the government’s just transition or sustainable jobs initiatives since they were first announced. If I’m honest, there has been suspicion and anxiety from our members. There has been a sense that the federal government is not on the same side as those who work in oil and gas especially. Indigenous oil and gas workers and businesses often feel vilified, even though they’re providing an important service and product that everyone depends on at the end of the day.
It is only in the past decade or so that we have seen real movement in the oil and gas sector to engage with and include Indigenous workers and businesses in their activities. It has led to a lot of mutual benefit and success.
Based on Statistics Canada data, oil and gas extraction and pipeline transportation offer the highest wages in Canada for Indigenous persons. In fact, Indigenous people in Canada make almost three times more in the oil and gas extraction sector than they do with the average income — more than $140,000 a year.
The wage gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous workers has largely been closed. Indigenous upstream oil and gas workers actually made 2.2% more in average weekly wages than the average Canadian oil and gas worker in 2021. By comparison, Indigenous federal government workers made 9.3% less than their non-Indigenous peers.
The oil and gas sector is also making efforts to ensure Indigenous women have opportunities for well-paying careers. The top three highest-paying sectors for Indigenous women in Canada are oil and gas-related. We know that good wages provide women and families with more options and better outcomes.
Besides direct employment, the oil and gas sector procures billions of dollars a year from Indigenous businesses. These can be entrepreneur-owned, supporting families, or community-owned, supporting nations with own-source revenues. But they have a huge impact.
Now we are seeing Indigenous nations take equity ownership in the major projects on their territories, including pipelines, liquefied natural gas terminals and gas power plants. I commend this government for making the federal Indigenous loan guarantee program “sector agnostic,” which means in practice that oil and gas projects are eligible for support.
I know sometimes when we throw those big numbers out like that, we don’t think about what they actually mean for people — what that looks like for entrepreneurs and their families when they get a new contract, or for communities that are turning dividends into services and programs that they need for their people.
I can tell you first-hand that well-paying jobs in resource sectors can be transformative for people and communities. They are able to support their families, move out of poverty and have options and choices. Seeing that and experiencing that is why I’ve become so passionate about the issue, and why I am doing what I do today with the IRN.
It’s not just economic. It’s about having a sense of pride and accomplishment in your contributions. I want IRN members to be able to feel proud about what they’re doing, and not feel ashamed or be told that they need to be transitioned out and that their skills are no longer useful or needed when there is clearly a market for them.
I have no problem with legislation that tries to train people for green jobs or create new economic opportunities in our territories. In fact, many of the skills are the same, whether it be mining uranium for nuclear power and copper for electrification or building pipelines for carbon capture or hydrogen.
But we have very good reason to expect that jobs in installing solar panels or windmills will not pay the same as jobs in oil and gas. IRN members do not want to be transitioned out of those jobs so long as there is demand for that product.
Here is my ask of this committee for the intent of this bill. Do not shift Indigenous people away from running successful businesses and earning good livelihoods. Do not shift Indigenous nations from drawing their own-source revenues from the incredible wealth from our territories.
Instead, support us to be global leaders in producing oil, gas and other products for as long as our societies and allies need them. Help us develop low-emissions liquefied natural gas to displace coal, help us capture carbon, help us develop blue hydrogen and help us mine and refine minerals more cleanly than anyone else in the world. Help us create new green jobs, not replace good resource jobs. Offshoring our high-emitting sectors to developing nations is not climate policy, and it’s certainly not reconciliation.
Finally, I would ask that this new sustainable jobs partnership council have representation from Indigenous people who actually work in the energy and resource sectors, so it can include their perspectives and solutions. I’d be happy to recommend some names when the time comes.
Kinanâskomitinâwâw. Thank you all. I look forward to questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Bradley, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Francis Bradley, President and CEO, Electricity Canada: Thank you and good evening. My name is Francis Bradley, and I am the President and CEO of Electricity Canada, formerly known as the Canadian Electricity Association.
[English]
On behalf of Electricity Canada, we would like to thank the committee once again for inviting us to appear — this time on Bill C-50. We are supportive of efforts to strengthen the electricity workforce and enable industry, labour and Indigenous groups to provide important advice to government decision makers.
I want to start by stating that electricity jobs are sustainable jobs. As all roads to net zero by 2050 go through the electricity sector, our workforce will be the foundation of this transition.
As I highlighted last week, we face a significant challenge. We will need to double the size of the electricity grid to keep pace with electrification and decarbonization across all sectors. With more electricity needed, we’re going to need more electricity workers — whether it be electricity network operators, power line workers, wind turbine technicians, cybersecurity experts, information communication specialists or construction workers, electricity jobs will need to grow exponentially over the coming decades.
Electricity Human Resources Canada projected that 28,000 jobs, or approximately 24% of the current workforce, will need to be filled in the next five years alone. RBC forecasts that 400,000 skilled jobs will be needed to build the infrastructure necessary by 2050.
To recruit and maintain this growth, we will need several things: We will need to strengthen our talent attraction, retention and promotion for skilled clean energy jobs. We will need programs to support upskilling and reskilling of workers across energy sectors. We will need to support skilled immigration and remove barriers to foreign credential recognition. We will need to support universities and colleges to build new curricula based on the changing energy landscape, and we will need to support Indigenous workers and drive efforts to attract talent from historically under-represented groups.
Electricity Canada, our members and our partners have already begun advancing this work, but it will take federal and provincial governments, Indigenous communities, labour groups and industry working together to help address our gaps and build a competitive electricity workforce.
The creation of the sustainable jobs partnership council in Bill C-50 will ensure that government decision making is informed by labour market conditions, by industry expertise and by key Indigenous voices. This group will help identify domestic and international best practices, and inform the federal government on actions to be taken within their jurisdiction.
The transition will look different in each province and territory, and it is important that movements toward an emissions-free economy allow for flexibility to ensure that the electricity grid can remain affordable and remain reliable.
Addressing the growing labour deficit within certain jurisdictions will be more difficult than in others, especially in regions that have historically relied on fossil fuels to generate electricity and provide energy. Due to the workforce uncertainty, as well as the uncertainties with supply chains and integration of new technologies, regulations like the Clean Electricity Regulations should remain flexible.
In closing, there is no transition to a net-zero economy without a skilled workforce. We appreciate the work of this committee and the broader efforts by government to build a competitive, skilled clean energy workforce. My colleague Channa Perera and I are happy to take your questions, and we thank you for the invitation to join you this evening.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I wanted to ask a question on electricity — because I work with the bands across Canada — and the devastation that it causes. I heard that there needed to be more dams built in the four provinces that supply electricity. We are looking at B.C., Manitoba, Quebec and Labrador for the big dams. I went to Site C. I’ve gone to Manitoba. We worked a lot with Muskrat Falls.
When we met with the people, in regard to the workers who were there, none of them were Indigenous who had the good, higher-up positions. And for the dam at Grand Rapids, there is no one there. It is done remotely, so there are no workers that are there.
You talk about 28,000 jobs to be filled, and you are looking at building infrastructure, but when you finish building the infrastructure, that’s it, right? Then those jobs are gone? How many jobs do you have that are going to be permanent? When you look at the workers, what does a skilled worker in electricity have? What is it that you will be training these workers with?
Mr. Bradley: Let me begin, and then, Mr. Perera, you can fill in as well.
To begin with, yes, the future is going to require a lot more electricity from a generation standpoint. It is not only hydro. The future will be one where every region, every province and every territory will be building to meet that additional demand. Right now, hydro supplies roughly 60% of the energy across the country, but, in the future, yes, there will be more hydro, and there will be more sources of electricity coming from nuclear, small modular reactors, wind, solar and a wide variety to begin with.
Second, in terms of what the jobs are once the infrastructure is built, the generation is only one piece of the overall electricity system. Different types of generation require more or fewer people in terms of ongoing employment, but the employment currently in our sector is close to 100,000 people in terms of permanent positions. It is not simply a matter of building a plant — a generating station, for example — or a smaller plant that may operate with very little human contact. It is the entire supply chain that brings that to the end customer. It is the transmission system and the distribution system. The kinds of jobs that we are talking about in the sector are all of the jobs that are right across that supply chain which brings the kilowatts to the individual customers.
My colleague Mr. Perera, who works directly with our members on Indigenous relations, can give you a sense of some of the changes in that space.
Over to you, Mr. Perera.
Channa Perera, Vice President, Regulatory and Indigenous Affairs, Electricity Canada: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for the question.
Before I answer the Indigenous question, I just wanted to clarify that when Mr. Bradley mentioned 28,000 jobs over the next five years, we are looking at about 12,000 related to the expansion of the electricity system and another 15,700 because of retirements in the industry. That is just in the next five years.
If you look at 2028-35, the industry is looking at adding another 36,000 positions. I would say that is also a very conservative estimate. If you look at Hydro-Québec, they are looking at having to spend $175 billion by 2035, and they are looking at hiring over 30,000 construction workers by 2030 alone. I would say these numbers are conservative, and we are looking at adding more.
That takes me to the Indigenous participation. In this industry, we have come a long way in terms of partnering with Indigenous communities. We have started developing equity partnerships with Indigenous communities. We have other ownership structures as well, when we look at those companies you mentioned across the country.
Increasingly, we are investing in developing detailed reconciliation action plans that these companies are actually implementing. They are not just nice documents, but they are actually working and initiating conversations with local communities. In Ontario alone, Hydro One is looking at building every single project and transmission line going forward in partnership with Indigenous communities, which would have 50% ownership of those facilities. We continue to work with them.
In terms of the specific jobs that you asked about, we’re looking at shortages of engineers, technicians, technologists, skilled workers, power line technicians and information communication technologists. Those are some of the occupations where we will see a major shortage going forward. Obviously, with artificial intelligence, or AI, there will be a need for different skill sets, and people will have to be supported in terms of upskilling and reskilling, which Mr. Bradley mentioned.
Senator McCallum: Can most of the dams be built in the North? Is that where you’re looking at sites?
Mr. Perera: Companies are looking at various different options in terms of generation types. Hydro is obviously one. Run-of-river hydro is another sustainable option that companies are looking at. Some are looking at small modular reactors, as well as wind and solar, obviously. Microgrids are being looked at. Increasingly, distributed energy resources are being looked at by member companies. It’s not limited to hydro. That’s obviously one of the options for baseload generation as we integrate more renewables into the system.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses. Mr. Desjarlais, I have a question for you. How long did it take the Indigenous Resource Network, or those who are served by the network, to be brought to a level of sustainability where the Indigenous that you serve are on par with the non-Indigenous in the oil and gas industry?
Mr. Desjarlais: In regard to that sector, it certainly took a lifetime in terms of the development history. What we know and what we’re digging a little deeper into, anecdotally, is we’ve driven closer to that parity in the last 10 years at a greater rate than we’ve ever seen before. Closing that gap has happened over our recent history as opposed to over those years.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. When you see this Canadian sustainable jobs act being promoted by the government, do you scratch your head a little bit because the Indigenous already have sustainable jobs in the resource sector?
Mr. Desjarlais: Yes, absolutely. There are good-paying jobs; there is economic inclusion in terms of the business development and the jobs that are happening. There is a growing fear and a sentiment about being asked to transition after you’re just starting to get wage parity and business participation, where you would have to transition all over again or go through that whole process all over again. In a lot of the businesses that are succeeding in the industry, there is a lot of effort that went into it. A lot of them are asking why they have to do this again to position and pivot their businesses when they’re doing well and providing that livelihood. Our communities are greatly involved in the industry, so there is a lot of head-scratching going on.
Senator Wells: Thanks. I have a quick question for Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley, in your presentation, you talked about the benefits that could be gained from the necessary extra workers that are needed in the electricity generation and distribution sector. Would they be as well-paying, as we’ve heard from Mr. Desjarlais, in the oil and gas sector?
Mr. Bradley: The market for labour is one that is free. There is free movement of labour between sectors and in different jurisdictions. There isn’t a discount for one type of construction job versus another. There isn’t a difference in that sense.
Senator Wells: Would you see an increase in electricity prices for the consumer and businesses if electrical generation from oil and gas were taken out of the equation?
Mr. Bradley: Currently, there is the generation of electricity using natural gas in certain jurisdictions in this country. We are in the throes of — and I’ve spoken to the committee about this previously — looking at the Clean Electricity Regulations that the Government of Canada is moving forward with. We’ve expressed concerns about the potential impact this may have with respect to reliability and affordability for customers.
The reality is that, regardless of what the policies may or may not be, we’re going to be looking at building to meet increasing demand, and there will be impacts as a result of that. Even with just a growing population and, as I say, independent of whatever the policies may be, the movement of customers increasingly to electricity for transportation, for comfort and for a growing population, we will see a natural expansion that will certainly result in additional costs.
Senator Arnot: This question is primarily for Electricity Canada. I understand you’re quite excited about the fact that we’re going to double the size of the electrical grid in Canada, and there is a lot of opportunity for new workers to be employed.
You talked about recruitment, training and retention for Indigenous workers. I’m wondering if you can give me a better idea about what you’re planning, because it’s easy to say that you’re going to recruit and retain, but retention is critical. It’s not easy for Indigenous people to move to different places from northern or remote areas. The retention factor is one where we don’t have a good track record, in my opinion. I’m wondering what you can tell me about how you intend to be successful in recruiting Indigenous workers to work on the expanded electrical grid construction.
Mr. Perera: Thank you. In terms of Indigenous employment, our member companies — major electricity companies across the country in generation, transmission and distribution — are actively engaging local communities, and they start as early as high school. When we look at the long-term, net-zero environment, we need to start planning now in terms of the curriculum and so forth. Those things take a lot of time, and we’ve been having more disconnected dialogue over the years in terms of various governments, industry and other groups, as well as connecting with Indigenous communities. I know from working with member companies on this file that they are engaging and identifying key occupations that some of the Indigenous communities and peoples can participate in, and providing that training and development. Some companies have in-house training and development that they do once they identify those key occupations.
Companies are also looking at working in partnership with those communities in terms of direct contracts and providing supply chain opportunities. If it is forestry, for example, in terms of vegetation management, when we have long transmission lines that are sometimes thousands of kilometres long, we need to have proper vegetation management to ensure the reliability of the system. I know a lot of member companies are working with communities to give those contracts to them so that they look after that aspect of the business.
There are other positions as well in terms of support level, manager level and senior management level. Increasingly, companies are working through their reconciliation action plans to identify those opportunities to recruit Indigenous peoples at all levels. Those are some examples. I’m not sure whether I answered your question.
Senator Arnot: I am happy with your answer.
Mr. Perera: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you to our witnesses for coming here today. Sorry for the delays.
When I read the purpose of the bill, it clearly states it is to promote economic growth and sustainable jobs, and, in the shift to a net-zero economy, it seeks emissions reductions.
It is important to know how these sustainable jobs are aligned with our climate commitments and how — even though it is sector agnostic — each sector has a transition plan.
Can you both explain to me how you are going to get to net zero in your respective sectors: the Indigenous oil and gas and electricity sectors? Thank you.
Mr. Desjarlais: Sure. I can go first.
First, I have a clarification: Our network represents the Indigenous workers and businesses in the sector. We don’t represent the sector, so to speak. We don’t represent the oil and gas industry.
That said, the Indigenous people in that space are already participating in many of the efforts in terms of innovation with carbon capture and transition technologies, participating and engaging in efforts to try to innovate in terms of emission intensity, profiles and things like that.
In terms of the education and thought leadership, one of the other ways that Indigenous nations are engaged and meeting some of those things are through the orphan wells program too. Many Indigenous communities are actively involved, seeking additional federal funding to be able to manage and mitigate many of the emissions that are coming out of those orphan wells.
There is a lot of Indigenous engagement and participation in that to ensure we are driving toward that net-zero economy, and that we are doing what we can to adapt to the global climate needs in terms of bringing our emissions down and reducing our impact.
Mr. Bradley: With respect to the electricity sector, principally electricity is going to be the method and electrification will be the method by which we decarbonize.
How will we be achieving that? We’ll be achieving that by expanding, to a very great degree, the non-emitting sources of electricity that we are generating. It is a world with more hydro. It is a world with small modular reactors, carbon capture, more wind, more solar and more interconnections. Transmission will be critical in that space.
The ability to — in fact, between now and 2050 — build as much, or more, infrastructure than we’ve built in the last century is the challenge in order to be able to do it as quickly as it needs to be done. It is something that customers are expecting. We’re increasingly seeing it from businesses as well. Businesses want to move into jurisdictions where they can be assured the sources of energy and the sources of electricity that they will be drawing upon are those that are non-emitting sources.
Senator McBean: Senator Yussuff, please go first. He’s the sponsor.
Senator Yussuff: That’s very kind.
Colleagues, thank you. It is an honour to join you on this committee given the responsibility you have.
Let me start my questioning with the electricity sector, recognizing the world is obviously moving in a rapid direction in how we decarbonize. In doing so, this piece of legislation is about the human resource side and the policy we need.
Every sector in this country will go through some form of transition, whether it’s the electricity, oil and gas, auto or steel sectors; they’re all going through transition.
Given it’s a human resource bill, and in the context of looking at the human resource needs as a country — and how employers, workers and the Indigenous communities can come together to figure that out — what aspect of the legislation would you say is helpful in regard to helping you not only maximize the number of jobs we can create but also, equally, help workers who might need to adopt new skills to ensure they can continue to work in a sector?
I’ll give you an example. I was present during the transition from coal generation in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I recognize some workers lost their jobs because they went from coal to natural gas. They didn’t need as many workers because they weren’t shovelling coal into the furnaces anymore to heat the facility and generate electricity.
Those workers needed new skills. How did we upgrade them? Equally, the workers who would lose their employment from those sectors had to be upgraded.
How does this bill help you in the electricity sector to deal with the challenges that you are talking about with 28,000 jobs in five years or 400,000 jobs by 2050?
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, senator, for the question.
It is a piece. This legislation is not a solution. There are no magic bullets to this. It is a small step in this direction, but it is a step. It is going to be important to be able to put together the frameworks to spark the kind of dialogue that will be required for us to be able to achieve this.
By the same token, establishing a sustainable jobs partnership council and a sustainable jobs secretariat is not going to somehow magically solve our challenges in being able to do this. We do recognize that it is a piece. It assists us in moving in the direction we need to move in.
Senator Yussuff: In regard to the work that you are doing, first, let me thank you for your leadership and the work you are doing representing Indigenous businesses and workers.
As you know, there are many workers who work in facilities in Canada. In the context of the bill, I understand you may have some concerns with the oil and gas sector.
Equally, the bill is a human resource bill. Given what you said to Senator Galvez, how would this bill be able to help you recognize and represent Indigenous workers and businesses to meet some of the needs and train workers to help them prepare for the other jobs that may come on stream in order to help the members earn some of those good wages you’re talking about?
Mr. Desjarlais: Absolutely. I have a couple of different points.
From the labour and human resource side, there is the economic impact; that is one of the concerns. How does the bill contemplate that in terms of upscaling, retraining and entering into new markets where the livelihood is not the same, or potentially not the same? There is concern there. What does that look like?
Does that mean further skilling so that they can participate on a dollar-per-dollar basis in terms of the economic opportunities they lose from the industry that they would be transitioned out of? There is that whole question.
There is also the question in terms of those businesses within those supply chains. They are participating meaningfully in those supply chains, and probably more meaningfully than other supply chains across Canada in terms of the sophistication of those Indigenous businesses. They are probably still the most vulnerable too.
We don’t see the same representation of Indigenous businesses right across the full supply chain. As we transition and move out, again, what are the supports? How do we understand and contemplate it in terms of building new entrepreneurial supports so that those businesses can pivot and participate in other sectors just as meaningfully as they are participating in oil and gas? I think those are two of the larger fundamental questions: How does the bill do that and how does it support Indigenous workers? At the end of the day, the importance of this to Indigenous people is not just about the economic activity, but also the cascading socio-economic. As we support our families, move through intergenerational trauma and healing and afford good livelihoods, and as our children grow up and participate more meaningfully in society, that’s afforded by well-paying careers and business opportunities. Is there contemplation for that so that I can still maintain the same type of livelihood at home — the same lifestyle — and then participate in a new economy and contribute as an Indigenous worker or business?
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Thank you all. Your contributions will be taken into consideration by senators. I thank senators and our witnesses for your participation today.
(The committee adjourned.)