THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 4, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:01 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry; and study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 32, 40, 41 and 42 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Joan Kingston. I am a senator from New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba region.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
The Chair: 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 ensure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphones. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator to protect the interpreters’ hearing. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you for that.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I would like to welcome our witness today.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 8, we are pursuing our study on the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum industry.
We are pleased to welcome today on our first panel, from the Miawpukek First Nation, Chief Bradley Benoit. Chief Benoit, you will have five minutes to make opening remarks, after which we will move to a question-and-answer session.
Bradley Benoit, Chief, Miawpukek First Nation: Good morning, honourable members of the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am Chief Bradley Benoit of Miawpukek First Nation of the island of Newfoundland. We have been recognized since 1984 as the only land-based First Nation on the island of Newfoundland, representing approximately 830 on-reserve members and an additional 2,500 off-reserve members spread throughout Canada. I come to you today to speak on your study concerning Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
As a First Nation, we are unique in Canada. My people were written out of the terms of Confederation when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949 and fought for years to be recognized as First Nations. The previous Chief of my nation, Misel Joe, had to hunger strike within provincial government offices in order for us to receive recognition as Indigenous Peoples within Newfoundland. This relationship with Newfoundland has been filled with acrimony and hostility at times, culminating in the court case Newfoundland v. Drew et al., which affirmed the bad case law of the province which denies us the duty to consult but still recognizes us a Mi’kmaw people.
To that end, our people are deeply concerned by the activities and engagement of proponents in Newfoundland’s offshore. I come here today to ask this committee to consider economic reconciliation as a foundational principle in approving new development; to force these proponents to come to the table in a meaningful way to engage with our nation and share in the benefits of Newfoundland’s rich offshore with jobs and a community development fund so that my nation can continue to be an economic driver in the region, focus on creating sustainable employment in our rural area and continue to be stewards of the land and water.
Currently, proponents only contribute to a small participation fund for their various projects, but this fund is often too small to carry out the extensive science and traditional knowledge to allow us to fully participate and address our concerns. Building capacity within my nation and keeping a vibrant, thriving work base has always been our goal. As a nation, we presently have near 100% employment on-reserve in my community, so expanding participation funding for consultation and engagement would be critical to building long-term capacity for my people. Moreover, my nation has a number of commercial fishing licences, which support several of our critical band employment programs, and harm to the fish stocks will have a direct impact on how many people we can employ year over year.
Presently, we are being left behind. I respectfully ask that this Senate committee consider as a part of your study the ideals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially those provisions surrounding economic reconciliation and self-determination through free, prior and informed consent. Mi’kmaw people have long travelled through Atlantic Canada as traders and semi-nomadic peoples as well as harvested the bounty of the sea for sustenance and ceremony. Anything that harms the ecosystem and traditional species — such as the salmon, or as my people know it, the plamu — my people have relied on must be known and accommodated for.
We know that projects that include First Nations at inception have fewer obstacles in their critical path to production and have better outcomes for all Canadians, so I urge you to consider Indigenous inclusion as a fundamental principle. As the most easterly province in Canada, with many ice-free deepwater ports and with only one land-based First Nation, we are uniquely positioned to export any hydrocarbons produced in Newfoundland to better support the energy sector needs of Europe, the North and the rest of Canada through proper development. We are not anti-development, but we need to be included, recognized and engaged to help meet those needs. Thank you for your time, senators, and I look forward to answering any follow-up questions you may have. Wela’lin.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Benoit. The senators are going to ask questions.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for joining us. In September 2025, this past September, Fermeuse Energy announced its intention to build Newfoundland and Labrador’s first liquefied natural gas facility, 90 kilometres from St. John’s, at the company’s existing marine supply base. Is the Miawpukek First Nation working with the First Nations Major Projects Coalition to secure an equity stake in this project? Has there been a unanimous decision to collaborate, and how are those negotiations going?
[English]
Mr. Benoit: There are no conversations on that yet — well, we have an equity share in LNG NL. Are they part of that?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Benoit: They are? Yes. No conversation has been ongoing as of yet. No one reached out to speak to me. I have inherited this partnership with LNG NL. I have not yet heard from anyone on this project.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Would you want to have a part to collaborate? What is your wish?
Mr. Benoit: Absolutely. As I said, we are not anti-development. We are always open to collaboration or opportunities. We absolutely would.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Have you knocked on their door? Have you made some efforts on your part?
Mr. Benoit: Yes. Right now, we have meetings arranged in the new year to meet with Leo Power, our partner with LNG NL.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In your nation, is there consensus that you have to participate in oil and gas development and not just in fisheries? What is the consensus? Because those are two very different views.
Mr. Benoit: Absolutely. They are very different. The consensus in the community is they are not opposed to looking at business opportunities. They are always open-minded regarding partnerships and ways to bring economic development into my community.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have one last question: What is the situation of your community in terms of employment, poverty and development? Could you give us that in a nutshell?
Mr. Benoit: We have 100% employment in our community. As soon as someone turns 20, they can go to work.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In the community?
Mr. Benoit: In the community, yes. We will find somewhere for them to work and give them a certain amount of work for the year.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So you would say that the poverty rate is —
Mr. Benoit: We have a high standard of living in the community, I would say.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Chief Benoit. I want to say that I have been to Conne River, where Miawpukek First Nation is located. It is not just a model Indigenous community; it is a model community within Canada, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know it to be that. I know Chief Misel Joe and worked with him many times, and you mentioned him in your opening statement. I know that in the community, the success is based on the education of young people. Can you talk a bit about the success of the community and the things you want to continue?
Mr. Benoit: I would like to continue the employment opportunities. That’s a big cost to us — ensuring the employment. People who turn 20, some don’t know what they want to do in post-secondary, and they can go work and find their niche that they fit into with this. If they want to work in heavy equipment, they can work in heavy equipment. If they want work in a clinic, well, we have one they can work in. They can find their path through this employment we offer, and I think that’s very important and unique to Newfoundland.
We have a lot of educated people in Conne coming out of our schools. We have doctors, lawyers and nurses. I like to consider us relatively successful with respect to education.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you for that. Certainly, 100% employment is pretty successful.
I’m going to ask a question about oil and gas. I know that in the dockyard in St. John’s, there was an opportunity for Miawpukek to join a joint venture that supplies services to the offshore.
Mr. Benoit: Yes, absolutely.
Senator D. M. Wells: Can you tell me about the Indigenous involvement there and any other involvement that you had? You mentioned LNG NL. Can you talk about the partnerships or the partnerships that you would like to have?
Mr. Benoit: I will speak a bit on the dockyard first. We still have a good relationship with Qalipu and Horizon and Membertou. We have a good relationship with them. We still collaborate with them with our — we have the Miawpukek Horizon. We own the icebreaker. I don’t know if you have seen the Titan documentary. That’s the one that brought the submarine out. But we do collaborate with Newdock quite a bit, and it is a good relationship. There is still an opportunity for us to partner there if needed. But when the opportunity came up with Newdock, it was just after buying into the Clearwater deal, so we didn’t want to jump from one huge business to another.
Regarding LNG NL, that’s an inherent partnership that Chief Misel Joe had started before I came in, and I am looking to work with that now in the new year. I’m going to meet with people on that to see how to move forward.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you. I will go on round two.
Senator Galvez: Good morning, Chief Benoit. Thank you so much for being with us today. I think while everything works okay and the infrastructure is operating as engineers want it to, everything is okay, everything is fine. However, infrastructure has a lifespan. It is not forever. Even though people want it to last forever, when engineers design, we design for 50 or 60 years. Now we are pushing for the infrastructure to have a life cycle analysis. So we look and see what will be done with whatever infrastructure platform, pipeline, whatever, and what will happen after its lifetime because there is degradation. And accidents happen. What is your worst nightmare if something were to happen, because these platforms — I think the oil in some parts is ending. They are downsizing production. So what would be, for you, the worst environmental scenario in that area? You know that area. What do you think your role would be?
Mr. Benoit: If we had an oil spill or something like that?
Senator Galvez: There are hurricanes there now. It is one of the places with the highest tides and the highest waves. Do you foresee any accident happening, or do you think that this —
Mr. Benoit: I could see it being safe. I can’t see it being detrimental, the sea conditions being bad. I can’t see that being bad, no, to be honest with you.
Senator Galvez: It would never happen?
Mr. Benoit: I can’t say never. I cannot guarantee never.
Senator Galvez: If it happened, what would be the role of your community? In your MOU, in your negotiation with the industry, what would be your role?
Mr. Benoit: It would be lobbying for cleanup and for help. I have to think a little bit on that one.
Senator Galvez: The number of oil spills from pipelines has logarithmically increased in the last 10 years. I just came back from COP where I talked to Indigenous People from the Amazon, and they do not appear in the MOUs and cannot lobby for cleaning up. I know some First Nations in other areas of Canada where they are told in the MOUs and in the agreements that they will be called to clean. It is in the agreement. So if something happens, that’s what their role is, to go and clean or help with the cleanup. That’s what I’m asking you about. What would be your role if an accident happens?
Mr. Benoit: It would be devastating to our traditional foods. Our salmon stocks are already down. If it comes in through the sea, I would say that would be affected by that.
I guess it would be helping to protect. It would be monitoring. It would be reporting the effects that it has on our community. We are trying now to restock our rivers with salmon. I guess that would fall into that too. We would help to clean up. We have a good natural resources department. We would get to work on that for the monitoring and everything else. We have an offshore research business known as Mi’kmaq Alsumk Mowimsikik Koqoey Association, or MAMKA, that we are collaborating with Qalipu on, and we would get them involved too, I would imagine.
Senator Galvez: Who would pay for all of that?
Mr. Benoit: It would come from us. We would pay for that, though, as I said, it would put a strain on us. We would essentially pay for that. We wouldn’t let it sit idle. If we had to, we would pay for that out of our own pocket.
Senator McCallum: Welcome, Chief Benoit. Thank you for your presentation. I would like to go back to your 100% employment. Who is the main employer?
Mr. Benoit: The band.
Senator McCallum: Where do you receive the money from?
Mr. Benoit: We have our own source from our fishing vessels that helps support that.
Senator McCallum: As you said, it would be good if you were able to get into employment with oil and gas. I can see that.
When you talked about free, prior and informed consent and the lack of duty to consult, do you have any vision of how you might start those conversations?
Mr. Benoit: To start those conversations, I have been meeting with provincial officials. I have been saying that they need to come and talk to us. An example is that we have another unit being added to the hydro dam in my backyard. I have been pushing and pushing for consultation on that. That would fall hand in hand with the province. When I speak, it is not just that we need to be consulted on this. We need to be consulted on everything that goes on in our backyard.
Senator McCallum: We are starting a study in Indigenous Peoples Committee on the duty to consult, so I will talk to you about that afterward —
Mr. Benoit: Sorry to cut you off. A lot of people reference the case where we pushed for consultation, saying that we don’t have rights, as has been found in the Newfoundland v. Drew et al. case. It was found that they do not have a duty to consult with us. We do not have land claims. To the provincial government, we are just settlers. That is what they say.
Senator McCallum: What about the federal government? What is your relationship with them?
Mr. Benoit: We have a good relationship with them.
Senator McCallum: But they have a duty to consult, and they cannot leave it to the province. It has to be the federal government. So they don’t get involved in it?
Mr. Benoit: No.
Senator McCallum: Okay. Who are the Indigenous rights holders in the offshore Newfoundland and Labrador licensed areas?
Mr. Benoit: I would say it is just us.
Senator McCallum: Just you. Is that a problem when you are a lone person?
Mr. Benoit: We don’t have any backup. It is just us. We do have the Qalipu, which is large in numbers, but they are a landless band. It was written into their terms when they made their agreement that they would have no land rights, so, although they are large in numbers, when it comes to this, they are not a huge help.
Senator McCallum: Okay. I’ll talk to you afterward about that as well. What would consultation and benefit-sharing look like? What is your ideal? This is what you are; that is your right.
Mr. Benoit: It is, absolutely. I see how it works from Nova Scotia to B.C. I know consultation is not perfect, but it is a lot better than what we have in Newfoundland. There is zero obligation in Newfoundland.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Fridhandler: Chief Benoit, welcome to the committee meeting. By way of background, where is your land situated on the island?
Mr. Benoit: Folded in half from west to east, we are right in the middle and right on the bottom.
Senator Fridhandler: On the southern end in the middle?
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
Senator Fridhandler: Your 100% employment is amazing. Congratulations to your organization on that. You run the gamut of doctors, lawyers and nurses. I was going to ask where you could pivot to upgrade, but it sounds as if you are well positioned as it is.
Mr. Benoit: For 100% employment, we have own-source, but we don’t have our own-source for much else. Our roads are terrible and our infrastructure is aging. We don’t have a lot of money for upgrades.
Senator Fridhandler: Okay. What about your members who are not on your land? I can’t remember how many you said you had. How are they dealt with and looked after?
Mr. Benoit: Right now, we don’t have a lot of our own-source. I would love to be able to help them more, but right now we must focus on the community members. We do receive funding for off-reserve members, but that’s the extent of that. However, if they want to come back to the community, we will welcome them with open arms.
Senator Fridhandler: I don’t have any other questions right now.
The Chair: I have a question. I would like to continue on about the 2,500 people who are off-reserve members of your community. Do you see any role for you in terms of, for instance, recruitment of tradespeople? I am thinking of that for the oil and gas industry and other industries, as far as that goes. Do you have that in your plans, to recruit back to the community and help develop people for the trades?
Mr. Benoit: Yes, absolutely. We have an Indigenous Labour Market Information, or ILMI, program that keeps track of everyone, what trades we have and the workforce we have in the community. But for developing for trades and pushing for the trades, it is hard because right now in Newfoundland, there is not a lot of work for the trades. Pushing for the trades is setting them up for failure. I have worked in the trades. I know you have to go away in many cases. I try to explain that to people who want to go to school. The money is good, but are you willing to leave the province? It’s a kind of double-edged sword.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I wanted to come back to salmon fishing. Thank you for being here, Chief Benoit. You said that almost all jobs revolve around salmon fishing. Do the current operations affect this type of fishing? If there were other operations in the future, how would that affect your fishing areas?
[English]
Mr. Benoit: Not all our employment connects to salmon fishing. Our salmon stocks are almost depleted. It was one of the better rivers in Newfoundland, but now our salmon stocks are down to almost nothing. We had 100 salmon go through one year. It is starting to pick back up now, but this year was very bad because of the low water levels. A lot of our salmon died off in the low waters. With regard to offshore exploration, if it is going well, it will not affect our salmon, but if anything happens, it could potentially wipe out our salmon population completely because it is on the brink already.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I would like to go back to Senator Galvez’s question. If there is an oil spill or if something else happens, why would you just accept it and pay for it when you didn’t do it?
Mr. Benoit: Yes, we would get it paid for. I wouldn’t just sit by.
I thought the question meant if there was no funding coming in, no nothing, would you just sit there? No, we would definitely try to get money, either from the federal or provincial government, to assist with that.
Senator McCallum: What about the oil company?
Mr. Benoit: The oil company, yes, absolutely. It is their duty to clean up, I think she did say.
Senator McCallum: Okay. I’m still shocked at this. How did your group lose its status as a community, such that you’re not considered?
Mr. Benoit: I can explain that.
Back in the early 2000s, they had a wilderness area set up next to our community. There was cabins in it. Our people had cabins in this wilderness area. So when they come in, they said, “You have to tear down all your cabins.” The people said, “No, this is our traditional hunting grounds. We have rights.” It went to court.
It was determined that we were just settlers from Nova Scotia. We weren’t actually there before 1870 or so. I think that was the year they said we settled in.
Senator McCallum: In your area — were the NunatuKavut group in that area? Is that where they were, or was it further south?
Mr. Benoit: NunatuKavut is Labrador.
Senator McCallum: NunatuKavut. No, it’s the —
Mr. Benoit: Beothuk?
Senator McCallum: Do you know the “pretendians”?
Mr. Benoit: Oh, the Qalipu?
Senator McCallum: No. Well, I have heard that too.
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
Senator McCallum: It’s that group that said they were Métis and then said they were Inuit.
Mr. Benoit: NunatuKavut.
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Mr. Benoit: Todd Russell’s bunch. They are south coast Labrador.
Senator McCallum: And they’re considered a group but you’re not?
Mr. Benoit: No. Well, we’re considered Mi’kmaw. They considered us. Their legitimacy is not questioned. It’s just they consider us settlers. They said we’re not actually from Newfoundland. We settled here back in the 1800s before it was established.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Mr. Benoit: Or after. We were there after it was established.
Senator McCallum: Would you be able to provide the committee with your history of all this? It’s important we know the history of being told you’re settlers, but you are First Nations and don’t have the right to consult. All of that is important in this study.
Mr. Benoit: It absolutely is. It is disheartening. As I said, I go to Nova Scotia just to see all the rights and benefits they now have compared to us in Newfoundland. It’s sad.
Senator McCallum: Yes. Because I know the Mi’kmaw, on the East Coast, they put separate tribes of people into groups. I was reading up on that. It was for administration. Now I think they’re trying to resettle them back to where they came from.
What made you go there? Was that your traditional land — your ancestors’?
Mr. Benoit: Yes. My great-great-grandfather, Horace Lewis, was the first recognized Chief in Miawpukek, or Conne River, at the time, and that was back in 1884, I believe, that the Grand Council appointed him as Chief.
Senator McCallum: If you could provide that for us, that would be good.
Mr. Benoit: Right now? The history?
Senator McCallum: No. Please send a document.
Mr. Benoit: Okay. I was getting ready for a long talk. I can send that in. Absolutely, I can send the history of Conne River, how it started and where we are today.
Senator McCallum: That would be good. It would have been good to know that before we started this conversation.
Mr. Benoit: We did have rights right up until the Newfoundland v. Drew et al. case. It was a bit patchy but it wasn’t as bad as it was after the case.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Mr. Benoit: Now, when we push for consultation, they reference that case to us.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks, Chief Benoit. I want to mention the wilderness area where the cabins were ordered removed. Did they order everyone to remove them?
Mr. Benoit: Yes. It wasn’t just —
Senator D. M. Wells: It wasn’t just targeted.
Mr. Benoit: No.
Senator D. M. Wells: Ironically, it’s called the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve, where those came down and, of course, the Bay du Nord project.
I have a couple of questions. Senator Galvez mentioned the pipelines. Of course, we have no oil or gas pipelines. You described the location of Conne River.
As I talk to you, I can say it’s just west of the Burin Peninsula and the offshore oil installations are 200 or 300 miles east of that area. Of course, the Gulf Stream goes west to east.
I think you would agree there is virtually no possibility that an offshore spill would land anywhere near.
Mr. Benoit: I don’t want to say never. I hate to guarantee something that you can’t predict.
Senator D. M. Wells: Unless the currents change.
Mr. Benoit: Yes. I would have to agree.
Senator D. M. Wells: Do you know of any of the people who came from Conne River who are working in the offshore? Is that a typical thing for people to go and work?
Mr. Benoit: We’re not working in the offshore oil industry in Conne River. A lot of people worked in the trades to help build the offshore, like Hibernia or White Rose. There have been people working on the construction of these, but I don’t think there are a lot working offshore.
Senator D. M. Wells: Right. The last question I have is this: If you were to get a community fund as you mentioned, would any of that go toward training for trades? I know the training is done elsewhere for the most part.
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Would that be one of the things you could focus on?
Mr. Benoit: Absolutely. If they come to us and want to train a workforce to be able to work in there and want to partner with us, we’re more than happy to do that too. We have done that.
We have had partnerships with Equinox Mining that did that. We had partnerships with Roughrider in Alberta. That’s way before my time. But they did the same thing and it worked out perfectly.
There have been times where we offered training in the community and had people come in, which is better. It helped because a lot of people can’t travel elsewhere. St. John’s is far away with respect to getting training. If the businesses come in and want to partner up and offer training in the community, that would be great too.
Senator D. M. Wells: With people going away to do training and eventually work, much of that money would come back to the community and the families there.
Mr. Benoit: Absolutely.
Senator D. M. Wells: Is that typically how it works?
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Chief Benoit.
Mr. Benoit: No problem. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll continue on your question, Senator Wells. I was also curious to know if you were working on the oil rig. Why is that, do you think? Is it a question of lack of training or lack of interest? Do you prefer to stay on your land?
Mr. Benoit: There is a lack of information. We’ve had trades come in to talk to us about job opportunities. We had mining come in and talk to us about job opportunities. We had fishing vessels come in, and the fishing companies come in and talk about our business and job opportunities.
We have never had the offshore oil industry come in and talk to our community about the job opportunities and explain to them the possibilities if they were to get this training and so on. There’s no information there for us to be able to work in that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So there is no dialogue.
Mr. Benoit: No.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you regret that?
Mr. Benoit: I would like to see that. I don’t really regret it but I would like to see that. If they came to us and wanted to do that, I would welcome it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What is the role of the Government of Newfoundland in all this? We had a Crown corporation here, if I remember correctly, the Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, or OilCo. Are they more open and engaged with you because they are a Crown corporation? They are in the oil business.
Mr. Benoit: No one reached out to us from that corporation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Well, that is too bad. What can I say?
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There’s something here. I think my colleague wants to help me. I’m seeing an absence of dialogue here and opportunities that could be missed.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m not a witness here, but I’m happy to help, if I may.
The Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, or OilCo, is a small-percentage owner of the projects, but the operators — with an upper-case “O” — are the licence holders, and they’re the ones who make the choice on their subcontractors or any of the trades that they use.
It might be a number of companies — OilCo being a small one — but it’s the operator who has control over that. It’s not so much the Newfoundland and Labrador government, but the Newfoundland and Labrador government has a huge role in benefits agreements with the operator and the requirements around hiring from Newfoundland and Labrador first, Canada next and then globally.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It could be either quotas or efforts from the government to try to include you in that oil business or —
Mr. Benoit: As I said in my speech, it’s sometimes hostile at times. It’s a rocky relationship that we have with the provincial government.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why is that?
Mr. Benoit: As I said, the recognition of our rights is where it all kind of started, and it’s been a push on our side.
It’s been getting better. Since I’ve been Chief — and I know Chief Misel Joe has been working on it, too — it’s been getting better. But considering the 1980s until now, as I said, only in recent years has it been getting better.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: And with respect to your rights, did you appeal?
Mr. Benoit: Yes, we did.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Where are you on that now?
Mr. Benoit: That was shut down, too, back in the early 2000s.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: After that, there was no other way to appeal?
Mr. Benoit: We’ve been looking into it. We’ve been doing DNA testing in our community to see if we have Beothuk lineage. That’s the route we’ve been kind of going down.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay, well, good luck.
The Chair: I have another question about whether you and your community have been consulted about Bay du Nord.
Mr. Benoit: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: And what did that consultation consist of?
Mr. Benoit: That was before my time. That was long ago. I’m not sure exactly what that consisted of.
The Chair: So on the consultation and maybe the timeline, was it 10 years ago or 5 years ago that Bay du Nord was conceived of?
Mr. Benoit: I’m not sure. I’m sorry.
The Chair: So there has been no recent consultation on Bay du Nord?
Mr. Benoit: On the wilderness area? No.
The Chair: I’m thinking of the oil and gas project.
Mr. Benoit: Oh, okay. No. We didn’t have consultation on that.
The Chair: I confused you, because I know you talked about the wilderness area as well.
Mr. Benoit: I apologize. You said that. Coincidentally enough, it was called Bay du Nord, too. Sorry about that.
No, we haven’t been consulted on that.
The Chair: Earlier in your remarks, you talked about economic reconciliation, if you will. In the past, Newfoundland and Labrador have benefited from the oil and gas industry.
Did I hear you right in that maybe you’re looking for your share of that economic growth or prosperity?
Mr. Benoit: I would like to be involved. I don’t just want a handout share. I would love to be involved in this economic growth within our province.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Benoit: As I said, I’m not anti-development. Our community is by no means anti-development, but we would like to be a part of this.
Senator D. M. Wells: I want to revisit the cost for any spills or cleanup. Don’t ever pay for it yourself.
Mr. Benoit: No. I misunderstood her question. If it were left there and no one was doing anything, then we would step in.
Senator D. M. Wells: No, I know the people of Conne River would do that anyway. You’re stewards of the land; that’s what you’re well known for.
Mr. Benoit: Absolutely.
Senator D. M. Wells: Just so the committee is aware, the operators — and we spoke about who the operators are — are 100% responsible. They must post a bond as part of their condition of licence, and the bond is in the multimillions of dollars. So they are 100% responsible for all cleanup costs — full stop.
Mr. Benoit: Yes, absolutely.
Senator D. M. Wells: Over and above even the bond.
Mr. Benoit: That was a miscommunication on our behalf. If we did have a spill, we would not sit idly by and watch it. We would initiate the cleanup and bill later. That was my point on that. I didn’t mean that we were going to try to clean up the whole oil spill.
Senator D. M. Wells: No, that was a good point you made.
Mr. Benoit: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for Chief Benoit?
When we met before, you talked about yours being a unique community, and I think that is one thing that’s come through in your answers to our questions. You had offered to provide us with a bit of an historical outline of how your community came to be way back in the 1800s, and we would really appreciate it if you could provide that to us as a committee.
We’re very happy that you came today.
Senator McCallum: When you look at the Aboriginal rights and treaty rights in section 35, do those apply to you?
Mr. Benoit: No. Absolutely not. We have no treaty rights.
Senator McCallum: And the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP?
Mr. Benoit: They don’t apply to us either. Newfoundland never adopted UNDRIP.
Senator McCallum: What?
Mr. Benoit: Newfoundland doesn’t follow it. They never adopted UNDRIP. The federal law does, I guess, but Newfoundland doesn’t.
Senator McCallum: Oh, okay.
Mr. Benoit: With respect to information on Conne River, I’m sure there are things I’m missing and probably said wrong. I can send exact information to you, if you would like, on Conne River and how we got to where we are today.
Senator McCallum: Was the wilderness area done by Parks Canada?
Mr. Benoit: Yes.
Senator McCallum: When was that done?
Mr. Benoit: That was in the early 2000s. I’m not sure on the exact year.
All of these things happened before my time. I was 10 or 12 at the time when all this happened. I wasn’t very old. However, I could get the exact information.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Chair: Your testimony here today has been eye-opening for me regarding the differences that occur, as you said, between Nova Scotia and you in belonging to the same nation, really, the Mi’kmaq Nation.
Thank you very much for being here. We really appreciate it.
Mr. Benoit: I enjoyed it. Thank you very much for being kind and welcoming to me. I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you for being open and educating us on the differences that you have.
I would like to welcome back Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Today, we are going to be talking about Division 42 of the budget implementation act, or BIA, which makes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA. Welcome.
[Translation]
Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for your invitation today. My name is Stephanie Lane, and I am the Executive Director of Legislative Governance at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
I am here today to discuss amendments included in Part 5, Division 42 of Bill C-15. This division includes targeted amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA.
CEPA is an important federal law aimed at preventing pollution and protecting the environment and human health. It provides the legislative basis for a range of federal environmental and health protection programs.
[English]
For the most part, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, is an enabling statute that authorizes action on a wide range of environmental and health risks, from chemicals to air and water pollution to waste and emergencies. CEPA also includes provisions to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation in environmental protection through mechanisms such as administrative agreements and equivalency agreements. These two types of agreements are the subject of the amendments proposed in Division 42.
Before describing the amendments, I will provide a brief description of these agreements as they are in the act today. Administrative agreements are work-sharing agreements between the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature and another government in Canada or Indigenous Peoples. These agreements can cover any matter related to the administration of the act, including inspections, enforcement, monitoring and reporting.
To enter into an administrative agreement, the minister must first publish the agreement or notice of its availability in the Canada Gazette. After a 60-day public comment period, the minister must then publish a report summarizing how comments were dealt with. Finally, after publishing this report, the minister can enter into an administrative agreement subject to the approval of the Governor-in-Council.
Many of the current administrative agreements under the act are environmental occurrences notification agreements. These agreements establish a streamlined notification system in case of an environmental emergency or environmental occurrence such as an oil or chemical release. The federal government has these environmental occurrences notification agreements with Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon.
The other type of agreements are equivalency agreements, which are written agreements between the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature and another government in Canada that can be entered into when there are provisions in force under the laws of that government that are equivalent to certain CEPA regulations. When such an agreement is in place, the Governor-in-Council can make an order to effectively stand down provisions of those CEPA regulations, in essence declaring that regulations made under the act or provisions thereof that are the subject of the agreement do not apply in the jurisdiction of that government. For example, the federal government has equivalency agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia respecting the release of methane from the oil and gas sector.
Part 5, Division 42 of Bill C-15 would make targeted amendments to provisions on administrative agreements and equivalency agreements.
Currently, both administrative and equivalency agreements are subject to a mandatory five-year limit, requiring renegotiations even when circumstances remain unchanged and a current agreement is satisfactory. Part 5, Division 42 of Bill C-15 proposes to remove the mandatory five-year limit for both administrative and equivalency agreements. This change would provide greater flexibility to enter into longer- or shorter-term agreements, reduce administrative burden and support stable intergovernmental arrangements.
Part 5, Division 42 of Bill C-15 would also make an additional minor amendment affecting equivalency agreement provisions only. It would clarify that for equivalency agreements, provisions of another government must be “equivalent in effect” to certain regulations made under the act. This clarification would codify existing, longstanding practice.
If passed by Parliament, the amendments would apply prospectively, meaning they would only apply to agreements entered into after the amendments come into force. Agreements already entered into prior to amendments coming into force would continue to be governed by their existing terms and obligations.
To support the implementation of these amendments, the department is developing an operational policy to guide it in assessing equivalency, that is, when assessing if laws of another government will result in overall environmental effects equivalent to the federal regulations, as well as to guide improving transparency and accountability associated with these agreements. The policy is expected to include safeguards, such as guidance related to termination, to ensure that equivalency is maintained throughout the duration of an agreement.
[Translation]
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, honourable senators.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We will now turn to questions from senators.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Good morning, Ms. Lane. I want to try to understand why you thought it was a good idea to have these equivalency agreements, as some people may see them as a way to water down environmental regulations. Who pushed the government to include that in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?
Ms. Lane: These equivalency agreements have long existed in law. They are found in a number of environmental statutes. There are also equivalency agreements in the Fisheries Act.
The purpose of these equivalency agreements is actually to create a situation where we can better cooperate with the provinces.
[English]
The agreements themselves and the requirements for entering into these equivalency agreements require there be an equivalent regulation of a province, territory or Indigenous government. The effect of these equivalency agreements does not diminish the environmental standards from the federal government. In many cases, from the existing agreements, there is modelling done that demonstrates that the effects and outcomes of the regulations at the provincial level will meet or beat the regulations at the federal level.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll give you an example to see if I understand correctly or if I need further explanation.
Pollution, as we know, does not respect borders. If one province enters into an agreement that allows higher levels of toxic substances in water, for example, this could have an impact on neighbouring provinces, since there are waterways that flow across them. Will neighbouring provinces be consulted in that process, or will they be exposed to more pollution?
Ms. Lane: I’ll try to answer the question, but if I haven’t really understood it, I’ll —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: A stricter standard in one province could be considered equivalent to a less strict standard in another province.
So, if less stringent standards are approved in one province, does that mean that another province would suffer the repercussions of that standard, in terms of water quality, for example?
Ms. Lane: It’s difficult for me to speak hypothetically.
[English]
It’s hard to envisage, and I don’t want to lead senators or the committee astray. Perhaps I could use an example of an existing agreement and how that was determined. Of course, the act and the regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, are vast. So there are regulations that deal with specific substances that may find their way into water or air. For these examples I’m providing of existing agreements, I should note that there may be differences in the future that are hard to predict.
However, if I take the example of a 2025 agreement with British Columbia respecting the release of methane from the oil and gas sector, the provisions of that were determined to be equivalent in effect if they resulted in equivalent greenhouse gas emission outcomes. In particular, greenhouse gas emissions under the provincial regulations must be no greater than they would have been if the corresponding federal regulations had applied instead.
In that case, the department determined equivalent emission outcomes by conducting an assessment using the same modelling methodology for both existing federal and provincial regulations. The department estimated the methane reduction outcomes from the federal regulations and the British Columbia regulations using a methodology that was transparent and publicly available.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Who monitors whether the province is complying with this equivalency agreement? Is it you or the federal government?
[English]
Ms. Lane: The agreements themselves are also publicly available, and there are information-sharing requirements in the existing agreements through which the province and the federal government are asked to provide information mutually on a regular basis. There are those safeguards in many of the agreements.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Youance: Thank you, Ms. Lane. You mentioned that Bill C-15 will potentially change the relationship between the Canadian government and Indigenous governments. Have any prior consultations been held on this change?
Ms. Lane: I don’t know whether the department has consulted Indigenous peoples, but the amendments included in Bill C-15 are very specific and are proposed to reduce the number of years.
[English]
For each of the agreements, as mentioned, the act requires consultation as part of the creation of the agreement process. Draft agreements need to be published before they are entered into, comments must be considered and reports must be provided about the comments received and how they were considered. In the creation of the agreements themselves, there will be consultations done. But I’m not aware of consultations undertaken by departmental officials on the specifics of Bill C-15’s amendments.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I’m getting to the second part of my question. With the five-year rule being changed, do you have any idea how many administrative agreements will have expired by the time Bill C-15 comes into force?
Ms. Lane: Currently, the government is conducting consultations on the administrative agreements I mentioned.
[English]
The environmental emergencies notification regulations are currently under way. I believe that the expiry for those agreements is in 2026. It is possible, depending on the timing of the Royal Assent of this bill, that the provinces and the federal government may want those environmental emergency notification agreements to not include an expiry date. However, at this time, the negotiations are under way for those agreements.
[Translation]
If you like, we can provide you with data on all the agreements.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Lane: Presently, I’m aware of six equivalency agreements and eight administrative agreements that are in force under the act at this time. As I was mentioning, the notification agreements are currently under negotiation with provinces and territories, and a post has been put up online asking for public comments.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you again, Ms. Lane, for your return visit. With respect to the contracts that are already signed and the new contracts that may be signed, when you look at it retrospectively, can those contracts be extended or is hoped that any existing contracts that expire would fall under the new rubric?
Ms. Lane: The expectation is the latter: The agreements that have currently been negotiated and are publicly available would expire at their expiry date, and new agreements entered into would be subject to these new provisions under CEPA. It is possible that some agreements may continue having a five-year expiry or a different expiry. The act and the agreements included in Bill C-15 just remove the mandatory five-year expiry date.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Good morning.
[English]
Thank you so much for being here to answer our questions. These amendments to CEPA are supposed to help and assist the nation-building projects that the Prime Minister is proposing in tranches of five. Now we have LNG, and we have a new pipeline that will deliver oil from Alberta to B.C.
With respect to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, or TMX, when we constructed that, we saw that the costs ballooned and exploded from $4.7 billion to $34 billion. We are transporting dangerous, flammable substances, and there was a period when there was no insurance company insuring the TMX pipeline. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the insurance companies want to remain confidential. They don’t want to see their names published. We wonder why.
There were legal challenges, and the oil, instead of the price increasing, it went down. We are at $70 per barrel. I don’t know the current price needed to make a profit, but I know that 70% of the oil doesn’t belong to Canada; it belongs to America. My question is this: How will these modifications assist in doing better than the TMX? In addition to all the problems that I explained, we know that we now have forest fires in other areas. We are constructing new pipelines that carry highly flammable substances.
I was in Geneva when we were talking about that. The question that somebody asked me during this Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction panel about pipelines in the boreal forest was this: Are we going back to the use of asbestos in order to protect those pipelines, because they are going to be in zones with high probabilities of forest fires?
Can you tell me how this improves the situation instead of worsening it?
Ms. Lane: Thank you for the question. The amendments in Bill C-15 related specifically to this division are about the equivalency and the administrative agreement provisions under CEPA. They are focused on removing this five-year timeline and changing equivalency in effect.
I cannot speak to the examples provided and whether these amendments would in any way help or hinder the issues that you have identified. The agreements that have been entered into under the act, to my knowledge, would not necessarily have a relationship with the issues that you spoke about related to TMX or asbestos.
The goal of these amendments really is about reducing burden and creating efficiencies in government where there are situations that both equivalency agreements and administrative agreements are working well. The agreements can take a significant amount of time to negotiate. The purpose of these amendments is around reducing burden, achieving efficiencies and working collaboratively with provinces, territories and Indigenous governments where there are equivalent regulations in those jurisdictions, or where there is a desire, such as in the case of administrative agreements, to make sure there are efficiencies related to the various jurisdictions.
Senator Galvez: From your answer, it sounds like the only purpose is to accelerate — to make things happen faster.
There were modifications to CEPA recently. Among them was the list of toxic substances. It is called “Schedule 1” today instead of “List of Toxic Substances.” Whose responsibility will it be to enforce that the considerations with respect to toxic substances will still be there as a main point during the consideration of a new project under these new rules?
Ms. Lane: I think you are referring to the amendments to CEPA that were made in Bill S-5, which passed in 2023. In fact, Schedule 1 of the act, which includes the list of substances that meet the criteria for toxic under the act, has always been Schedule 1. In the act, the test related to what substances are placed on the list has not been changed.
I would say that the proposals and amendments included in this division of Bill C-15 — I misspoke if what was taken from my comments is that the idea is to speed up. The regulation-making process of the federal government is what it is, and federal regulations will continue to be made.
I’ll speak particularly to the equivalency agreements. The ability to enter into equivalency agreements has existed in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for quite some time. We are just proposing to remove the requirement to end agreements automatically after five years if the environmental outcomes or effects continue to be equivalent with provincial or territorial regulations.
The federal government continues to have responsibilities under the act to assess and manage substances that are added to Schedule 1. So those things have not changed with these amendments.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I’m having a hard time following this. Are you saying that the consultations in the administrative agreements are not completed and that you are negotiating? The end question is this: If that is the case, then why is it already in a bill if you don’t have something concrete? Are you concerned about that?
Ms. Lane: Section 9 of the act is an enabling provision that allows the Minister of the Environment to enter into administrative agreements with other jurisdictions. Section 10 of the act allows the minister to enter into equivalency agreements in certain situations. There are existing agreements that have been entered into under sections 9 and 10 of the current act, and those will continue. They have standard elements to them. Many of them, especially in the case of the administrative agreements with the various provinces, look very similar and contain similar elements.
The one thing that is changing effectively with these agreements regards that for any agreement that is entered into under the existing act, there is a mandatory five-year end point. So after five years, you need to renegotiate the agreement.
What we are proposing to do here is remove that obligation to terminate immediately after five years. There are agreements called environmental occurrences notification agreements that have been renegotiated at least twice that I am aware of, perhaps more. I can provide those details to the committee if there is an interest. Currently, those expire on March 24, 2026. And because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act includes quite a prescriptive process of consultation requirements for those agreements, the renegotiation process for those administrative agreements has already begun.
The first step is to publish a notice of the fact that this agreement is being renegotiated and ask for public comment. That process has begun because there is a need to have a new agreement in place as a result.
So the plan will be to renegotiate these agreements. If the amendments to Bill C-15 don’t pass prior to the termination of the agreement, then these particular agreements may include a five-year end date. But that is really the only change that is being proposed as part of Bill C-15. So it would be beneficial and would remove the requirement to renegotiate at a future date, but it isn’t essential because we still have the authority to negotiate these administrative agreements.
Senator McCallum: Okay. Regarding the equivalency agreements — I’m looking at the water pollution. The bill is discretionary and not mandatory. That’s why there is so much pollution occurring in Canada. Our water is being polluted. There really are no standards in place.
My understanding is the provinces can bring their own legislation to limit or negate federal law, and that has happened when we look at the Migratory Birds Convention Act in Alberta.
Because of the increased mining and the water pollution that is occurring already, how will this be tracked? Won’t it create more work for someone to track?
When I look at Manitoba, with hydro and the Churchill River Diversion, and the province is looking at doing away with — it’s something like this. The First Nations are very concerned, because they actually have no say anymore.
What will happen in this case, then? Do you know what I’m asking?
Ms. Lane: Yes. I believe I understand the nature of the question, but please don’t hesitate to ask again if I haven’t quite answered it.
As you noted, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is primarily an enabling statute. It does include specific prohibitions in particular situations, and it includes the ability to make regulations related to substances that are on Schedule 1 that meet the criteria for being toxic under the act.
As I’m sure honourable senators are aware, environment is a shared jurisdiction, and there are matters that are addressed by provincial governments as well.
What I can say is that these amendments will not change the way in which the federal government is approaching regulations under the act. The test for making regulations and the regulation-making authorities under the act are not changing.
There are six active equivalency agreements. It is not something that exists throughout the country on all issues. There are a number of equivalency agreements that exist, but they don’t exist for all substances or matters or in all jurisdictions.
I wouldn’t say that these amendments included in this division of Bill C-15 really change the landscape of the federal government’s authority to take measures for environmental protection under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Senator McCallum: Why don’t they just leave the five-year limit then? Why change it?
Ms. Lane: For the equivalency agreements, specifically? One of the issues that I mentioned is that, where environmental outcomes and where environmental effects are the same and remain effectively protected, it does create a burden to continue to have to renegotiate these agreements.
The government has announced, in Budget 2025, several measures as part of the Climate Competitiveness Strategy. One of the measures that it signals was its intent to propose amendments to CEPA to enable long-term agreements with provinces and territories. There is a desire in certain sectors and with certain industries to enable these long-term agreements to allow for investments to occur from industry. Where investments take time, there is a need for there to be certainty for industry.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I had the same question as Senator McCallum, but I will ask it differently. The legislator saw fit to impose the five-year limit, and there was logic behind that decision at the time. Is the repeal of the five-year limit a request from industry or from your minister?
[English]
Ms. Lane: The equivalency agreement provisions do include a five-year period, as you both noted. What I would say is that the department is developing policy and guidance to support these amendments, and there may be situations in which that five-year time frame will continue and is recommended to continue.
With respect to who has asked for these amendments and where these amendments come from, I can come back again to what was announced in Budget 2025. Maybe I can read from the text of that budget:
As announced in Budget 2025, Canada intends to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to enable long-term equivalency agreements with provinces and territories reflecting the net zero by 2050 focus of the Clean Electricity Regulations, allowing these to be extended beyond the current limit of five years. This will help provide certainty for provinces and territories, utilities, and project developers as they plan their clean electricity investments and projects going forward.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question concerns what comes before this text. Here is the second part of my question. There are currently a number of bills before Parliament that amend acts and regulations. I am thinking in particular of Bill C-4, which repeals Part I of the greenhouse gas pollution pricing. At the same time, certain elements are being removed from Bill C-15. Is there any logic to this? It seems as though we are riding on two trains that are not travelling at the same speed — or perhaps they are travelling at the same speed? Can you explain how Bill C-15 will be adjusted to the various amendments proposed by other bills that are still under consideration?
[English]
Ms. Lane: I am not an expert in all of the policy areas and program areas related to both Bill C-4 and Bill C-15.
I would say that the Climate Competitiveness Strategy in Budget 2025 has pulled these various pieces together, and there are elements in that Climate Competitiveness Strategy that speak to carbon pricing and to these proposed amendments.
There is, certainly, a direction that the government has indicated it would like to go with respect to the climate and achieving objectives of net zero.
Senator McCallum: How does this affect section 35 rights? How are they handled? I’m thinking of water pollution, toxic substances and government operations on federal and Aboriginal lands.
Would the federal law still prevail in those areas, since they cannot offload section 35 rights to the provinces and consultation cannot be offloaded to the provinces or corporations?
How was that handled?
Ms. Lane: The regulatory development process of creating regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not changed, so the duty to consult applies to the development of regulations made under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In addition, when entering into these agreements, there is the obligation in the act itself to consult and receive comments.
With respect to these agreements — and you mentioned the reserve land and the obligations to consult and accommodate under section 35 — the obligations with respect to federal regulations don’t change.
I’m not sure if that answers your question.
Senator McCallum: I don’t understand. With the Building Canada Act — was it Bill C-5?
Ms. Lane: Yes.
Senator McCallum: The government can ignore all these laws. There are only some that are protected, and CEPA is not one of them. I don’t understand what we’re doing here because the government can ignore CEPA anyway. Is that correct? When does CEPA apply? Do you apply it randomly if the government can pull it at any time? I never understood how that would work.
Ms. Lane: I’m not the best person to speak to you or to answer questions on the Building Canada Act, its implementation and what was in Bill C-5. Officials from the Major Projects Office or the Privy Council Office might be better able to explain the application of that law. As I understand it, it applies to designated projects of national interest.
Senator McCallum: Only to those?
Ms. Lane: Correct.
Senator Galvez: You said that this amendment seeks to provide assurance to potential investors. That is a big jump that I think we are all having a lot of trouble understanding. Can you please elaborate on how these two things are connected?
My colleague asked you about who asked for this amendment, but it’s implicit that it was a request from the corporations that wanted this assurance in order to invest. I am a little bit confused.
Ms. Lane: Yes. Apologies, Madam Chair, for not answering that question more directly. It is that I am unaware of the genesis. I’m not the person responsible period for the various regulations that exist in the department, so my role and responsibility relate to the development of laws and law reform, so I don’t have the answer to your question.
With respect to the policy, why this was introduced and for what purpose, I am here to explain the provisions as I understand them and provide the rationale as I understand it. However, in terms of the specifics, I can’t provide much more information than I already have today as to what was announced in the budget and the intention behind these amendments.
Senator Galvez: Given this situation, I think it’s important that Minister Dabrusin come and answer these questions, because we don’t understand. As my colleague Senator McCallum says, they are saying we don’t need to look at any of these bills, so why are we modifying this bill if at some point, the government can say it doesn’t need to follow this act with respect to a nation-building project? There is a big void or gap in information and understanding.
The Chair: Regarding the genesis, as our witness has just said. Of where it came from. That’s —
Senator Galvez: But also the purpose. Why are we in a hurry to pass this amendment? Why are we doing this now? I’m sure there is a reason that we do not understand.
The Chair: Is it the minister or is it Environment and Climate Change Canada who should be here to answer those questions?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think it’s a political question we’re asking. Why are we there? I think Ms. Lane is telling us that she can explain the change — and she’s doing that well — but we are interested in why we should bother making this change if they can just suspend the law. It is probably because it’s a bit less visible, but we need to know that.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Galvez: I will add that our role is to see the unintended consequences of whatever amendment we are applying, so at this point, I don’t know what the unintended consequences of this change are because I know neither the purpose of this change nor its genesis. I would ask that Minister Dabrusin come and answer the political questions.
This is also highly technical. I agree it is political, but it has to trickle down to the technicality of the amendment.
The Chair: That’s why I asked if it’s the minister or the department itself. They’re the ones who make it happen. Or is it both?
Senator McCallum: Ms. Lane, when you have your equivalency agreements and you only have them in certain places, like Alberta, B.C., Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, how do you handle it if the national project crosses a province that doesn’t have that kind of agreement?
Ms. Lane: I will answer that question, but if I may after that just respond to some of the back and forth and propose a path forward.
The federal regulations continue to apply. There is an order made by the Governor-in-Council for a specific province where there is an equivalency agreement in place that essentially stands down the application of that federal regulation in that province for the duration of the agreement. So the federal regulation itself doesn’t change, but on the law’s website where it lists the regulations and the orders that are specific to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it includes those orders as well so that the public will know which regulations apply in which jurisdiction.
Senator McCallum: So there’s the possibility that in one province, it will be unlimited, but in another, you need the five-year renegotiation, or does this go all across now?
Ms. Lane: I see. Pardon me. I misunderstood the question.
There will be agreements that are bound by time, and there are agreements that specify that the time limit will expire. Those are existing agreements that have already been negotiating under the act. Then, there may be agreements with specific provinces that don’t have that expiry.
It’s possible that there will be renegotiations of agreements that are made, and there may be different time frames, but those will all be transparently available on the law’s website, and it will be very clear to Canadians which laws apply.
The Chair: Senator Youance has been on the list to speak, so maybe after she asks her question, the other things you wanted to say may actually roll into that.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Actually, this isn’t really a question. I wanted to make the same comments as Senator Galvez. Senator McCallum’s question regarding Bill C-5 is very interesting, but it mainly concerns Division 40.
We are analyzing the divisions separately, but a connection needs to be made among these different divisions, which is why it is important to have someone who can give us a global context, rather than going through each division separately.
Considering Division 40, we know that it will amend the Canada Energy Regulator Act. A number of elements are involved, but we are conducting an analysis in silos.
Ms. Lane: It falls into silos.
Senator Youance: Exactly, we work in silos and there are interactions among the various amendments in the divisions. So it’s essential that someone help us get an overall picture. We appreciate your answers, Ms. Lane. We want to have an overall picture to be sure of why we are here and to know exactly what we are doing.
Ms. Lane: Thank you. I just wanted to add a clarification regarding Bill C-5.
[English]
If the committee and the chair have more questions, I think that the Major Projects Office or the Privy Council Office would be better placed to speak to the Building Canada Act, but as it intersects and interacts with Environment and Climate Change Canada’s legislation, I can speak to that particular element.
Senator Galvez, you were speaking to standing down all of CEPA with respect to the Building Canada Act, but the schedule to the Building Canada Act specifically mentions the disposal-at-sea provisions. It doesn’t mention the entirety of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
In relation to that act, it is about those projects of national interest. Projects need to be designated in order for the provisions of that act to apply to them.
[Translation]
It’s very targeted, actually.
[English]
The provisions in that schedule of the Building Canada Act specifically refer to, as far as it relates to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, one division of one part of the act only.
In response to the other comments and questions related to the genesis of these, if helpful — though it may not be satisfactory — we can provide a written explanation. There may be people within the department who are more familiar with this than I am and can provide an explanation of that.
The Chair: We would appreciate any submission that you might have that would clarify some of the questions and comments from today, yes. Thank you.
Ms. Lane: Related to the genesis and where this came from, yes.
The Chair: For the committee, I’d like to bring to your attention that next week, on Tuesday, Professor Mark Winfield from York University will be here to answer any questions you may have, and that is again regarding Division 42. Also, the Major Projects Office will be here on Thursday. That involves some of what you’ve asked about.
Senator McCallum: As they announce new major projects, will you be seeking equivalency agreements with provinces, such as Manitoba? The Norway House Cree Nation has been designated a major project for mining, but you don’t have an agreement. How will you handle the new ones incoming? They’re just starting to come in now.
Ms. Lane: Again, I can’t necessarily speak to hypotheticals, but I think that those projects will be primarily dealt with under the Building Canada Act. I’m not aware of any discussions related to equivalency agreements as it relates to these major projects or the projects under the Building Canada Act.
Senator McCallum: So they can do whatever they want then.
Ms. Lane: No.
Senator McCallum: It seems like that with the Building Canada Act, that they can go full steam ahead. I’m sorry.
Ms. Lane: The federal regulations continue to apply.
Again, I would defer to my colleagues from the Major Projects Office to explain the structure and functioning of the authorization process under the Building Canada Act, but I would say that the federal regulations continue to apply, and the government has indicated its desire to maintain strong environmental protections as it relates to these projects.
Senator Galvez: For clarification, could you please define what an equivalent agreement is and give a concrete example?
Ms. Lane: Sure. An equivalency agreement is permissible in a situation where there are provisions in force by or under the laws of another government that are equivalent to certain CEPA regulations and that have similar CEPA investigation provisions. The act, in section 10, sets out the specific situations in which the minister may enter into an equivalency agreement. Where that agreement has been entered into, the agreement explains what provisions are equivalent. If you have provision X of Y regulation at the federal level, what provisions of the provincial — As I mentioned, there is agreement with British Columbia respecting the release of methane from the oil and gas sector. The federal government and the provincial government worked together to identify the objectives and outcomes of the regulation, and they looked at whether the greenhouse gas emission outcomes of the provincial rule are equivalent in effect to those of the federal rule. In that situation, an agreement can be entered into.
In that case, it was about the emission outcomes of the two, the federal and the provincial regulation.
The Chair: We’re coming to near the end of our time, so I have some questions for the committee itself.
On Division 40, my understanding is it actually deals with a change that needs to be made in the wording, because Senator Woo, at third reading of the original bill, brought up that 1(e) was left off. It was talked about in the first part but not transposed into the second part.
We asked for a written submission regarding that, but there is still the question as to whether we need to invite the minister or Environment and Climate Change to illuminate some of the concerns that you had had.
I’m asking for the committee’s thoughts or direction on that.
Senator Galvez: It wouldn’t hurt to invite her, and we’ll see if she wants to. Maybe she wants to come.
The Chair: Does that sound good to everyone? Okay. That’s what we’ll do then.
Ms. Lane, thank you very much for coming twice in a short time to see us. We appreciate all of the information you’ve given us and the advice regarding some of the other departments and new structures that may be able to give us some more answers.
(The committee adjourned.)