THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 11, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 8:02 a.m. [ET] to 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, everyone.
[Translation]
It’s almost Christmas!
[English]
Before we begin, I would like to ask all the senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. 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 all for your cooperation.
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 am Joan Kingston, and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner, deputy chair of the committee from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba region.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to welcome everybody today, as well as those listening online at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on November 26, we are pursuing our study on 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.
Today we have with us, from Natural Resources Canada, Erin O’Brien, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fuels Sector; and Veronique Houle, Director, Projects Division, Policy and Planning Branch, Fuels Sector.
We have, from the Major Projects Office, Peter Feldberg, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, by video conference; and Sarah Jackson, Director, Regulatory Coordination, by video conference.
From the Canada Energy Regulator, we have Darren Christie, Chief Economist; and also Mike Johnson, Technical Leader, Hydrocarbon Resource, both by video conference.
Welcome to all of you.
We are going to begin with Erin O’Brien from Natural Resources Canada.
Erin O’Brien, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fuels Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you so much, chair and senators. It is a pleasure to be here with you today. I am very happy to be accompanied by my colleagues Mr. Feldberg, Mr. Christie, Ms. Houle and others.
Today I am looking forward to discussing your study of amendments to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which are proposed in Division 41 of Bill C-15.
Before I provide an overview of the proposed amendments to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, I would like to provide some context about the liquefied natural gas sector in Canada. As many of you know, the government has set out a plan to diversify export markets for Canadian energy to make Canada a clean and conventional energy superpower. Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, offers an opportunity for Canada to achieve this objective.
Canada is the world’s fifth-largest natural gas producer, currently producing roughly 19 billion cubic feet per day. You might hear me say “Bcf” throughout my remarks. So that’s what that refers to.
Canada has immense marketable natural gas reserves, estimated to be about 1,100 trillion cubic feet. This represents approximately 160 years of supply at current production rates.
Canada’s growing LNG sector has relatively low upstream natural gas production costs, short shipping routes to Asia, stable governance and best-in-class emissions profile.
All of these factors uniquely position Canada’s LNG sector to support the growing global market, which many forecasters expect will grow to be greater than 600 million tonnes per year by 2050, which is up from about 400 million tonnes today.
This year, 2025, was a big year for Canada. We had our first LNG export facility, LNG Canada, start operations this past spring. We are anticipating several more projects to advance across the country. Should all these projects move forward, Canada could export approximately 50 million tonnes of LNG per year by 2030 and potentially growing to 100 million tonnes by 2040.
Now, many of these LNG projects will require significant capital investment, and Canadian projects will need to compete for global investment dollars with projects in the United States and other regions.
As announced in Budget 2025, the government is proposing to provide targeted support for Canadian LNG projects with the objective of generating investment in the sector and enabling long-term global competitiveness. This includes amendments to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to extend the maximum validity period for LNG export licences.
The proposed amendments in Division 41 seek to extend the maximum validity period of LNG export licences from the current maximum of 40 years to 50 years. Longer export licences will strengthen the business case for major LNG projects. They will increase the potential return on investment for proponents by permitting production to go on longer and providing more time to amortize upfront capital costs.
In the global competition for investment dollars, this can make all the difference. For LNG projects, which often cost in the tens of billions of dollars, even a small increase in a proponent’s internal rate of return can be a determining factor when considering a final investment decision.
Extensions will also serve to enhance project economics for phased projects, as they will permit later phases to benefit from longer production horizons.
Existing LNG export licence holders wanting a 50-year licence would need to apply for an amendment to their existing export licence or for a replacement licence.
Decisions to issue export licences are based on what is known as a “surplus test” to ensure that the quantity of natural gas exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after estimated domestic demand. My colleague, Mr. Christie, from the Canada Energy Regulator will be able to explain the details of that test.
Ultimately, the amendments to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act that we are discussing here today are minor in nature. They will, however, have positive impacts for the sector and Canada overall. They are intended to help expand Canada’s energy output and increase associated economic benefits such as job creation, royalties and government revenues.
I would like to thank you for inviting me today and look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will hear from Mr. Christie.
Darren Christie, Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator: Good morning, honourable senators. Thank you for inviting the Canada Energy Regulator, or CER, to appear as part of your study of Bill C-15 and specifically the proposed change to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act that is included in section 5, Division 41.
My name is Darren Christie, and I am the chief economist at the Canada Energy Regulator. I am joined today by Mike Johnson, technical leader for hydrocarbon resources. In my opening remarks, I will cover the CER’s mandate and how we regulate natural gas exports.
However, before going further, I want to acknowledge that I am appearing before you today from Calgary, located within Treaty 7 territory, the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Confederacy, which includes the Siksika, Piikani and Kainai First Nations. Treaty 7 is also home to the Tsuut’ina First Nation and the Stoney Nakoda, including the Chiniki, Bearspaw and Goodstoney Nations. I would also like to recognize the Métis that have settled in southern Alberta and call this place home.
The CER’s mandate is clear. We regulate energy infrastructure, specifically, international and interprovincial pipelines, international power lines and offshore energy projects and power lines in a way that prevents harm and ensures the safe, reliable, competitive and environmentally sustainable delivery of energy to Canada and the world.
The CER is also responsible for advising and reporting on energy matters. One way we do this is through our Energy Futures series, where we explore how possible energy futures might unfold for Canadians over the long term. In addition to the Energy Futures reports, the CER develops provincial-territorial energy profiles, produces market snapshots that highlight key trends in Canada’s energy sector and publishes oil and gas production statistics aggregated from the provinces.
The CER’s mandate also includes the regulation of exports of all hydrocarbons and electricity from Canada. Our role in adjudicating these exports, including for natural gas, is set by the CER Act, specifically under Part 7 of the act.
[Translation]
For the exportation of natural gas, the Commission of the CER currently has authority to issue licences for up to 40 years, subject to approval by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and to issue short-term export orders.
The maximum term for natural gas export licences was extended from 25 years to 40 years in 2015 through amendments to the National Energy Board Act.
This change was carried forward under the CER Act in 2019. When assessing applications for long-term natural gas export licences, the Commission of the CER applies a “net-surplus” test that is set out in section 345 of the CER Act. This test establishes that the proposed exports must not exceed the amount of natural gas expected to be available after meeting the reasonably foreseeable needs of Canadians.
Applicants for natural gas export licences must provide supply and demand projections and demonstrate that exports will not compromise Canada’s domestic energy requirements. The Commission of the CER reviews these applications through a written process, including a public comment period, and must decide within 180 days, followed by ministerial approval.
[English]
Currently, there are 23 valid export licences linked to LNG projects, with 18 of them for 25-year terms and 5 of them for 40-year terms. Only one of these licences is currently active, which is the 40-year export licence for LNG Canada, a natural gas liquefaction facility and marine terminal for exporting liquefied natural gas, or LNG, in the District of Kitimat, B.C.
Other than the licence for LNG Canada, all of Canada’s natural gas currently being exported is under export orders. These orders are generally for a maximum of two years and receive CER Commission approval within two working days.
The CER, as an independent regulator, was not involved in drafting the proposed amendment to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, but we can share insights on our role in implementing these changes, should they pass, and our experience with natural gas export licences.
In closing, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today about the work of the CER. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will continue with Peter Feldberg.
Peter Feldberg, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Major Projects Office: Thank you for having me here as part of your study of Bill C-15, the proposed budget implementation act, 2025. I am also appearing from Calgary, and I respectfully adopt the land acknowledgement made by Mr. Christie.
I am joined today by Sarah Jackson, Director of Regulatory Coordination, Major Projects Office.
Before I turn to the specific minor amendment made with respect to the Building Canada Act, I would like to describe a little bit about the activity of the Major Projects Office. The office was established a few months ago. On September 11 and November 13, the first two tranches of projects and transformative strategies were referred to the Major Projects Office by the Prime Minister.
We are maintaining the pace and working to find the best path forward for these nation-building projects.
Projects referred to the office are the kind of major projects that will build Canada, the kind of projects Canada needs to connect our economy, diversify our industries and trade opportunities and create high-paying careers while protecting the environment and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Government of Canada has been working closely with provinces and territories, industry and Indigenous Peoples to evaluate projects that would offer the greatest benefits for Canadians so that we can move on quickly to meet the moment.
Major projects have been brought forward in a number of ways, including by proponents, Indigenous groups as proponents of projects, industry associations presenting projects on behalf of proponents, premiers, through the first ministers’ conferences or other fora and federal departments and ministers.
When a project is referred to the office, we work with proponents, provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples to find the right way forward for each project. Depending on the type of project, as well as its status, requirements and milestones, this could include many different options, including streamlining permitting processes, structuring financing, advising on the execution of the project or advancing meaningful Indigenous engagement and economic opportunities.
Not all projects referred to the office will be designated under the Building Canada Act. This is only one tool the office may use, after an assessment that a project would benefit from regulatory streamlining. We will seek out the best course of action to advance a given project quickly so that proponents can make smart and timely investment decisions.
A small amendment to the Building Canada Act is proposed in Division 40 of Bill C-15. This consists of a minor correction to the requirements for reporting on the online public registry. Specifically, it ensures that information to be posted on the registry reflects each of the five factors that are considered in designating a project under the Building Canada Act. In the current text, reference to one of the factors is missing, with reference to paragraph 5(6)(a) to (d), which would be corrected to paragraph 5(6)(a) to (e). I note that the amendment does not change any of the factors themselves.
I also understand that an amendment is being proposed, led by Natural Resources Canada, to the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to lengthen the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of liquefied natural gas from 40 years to 50 years. The Major Projects Office is generally supportive of this measure in that it will provide LNG proponents with greater legislative certainty to help incentivize long-term investments in Canada’s energy sector.
Ms. Jackson and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have as they relate to the Major Projects Office.
The Chair: Thank you to all. We will start questions by the senators.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: My question is to the officials from the Canada Energy Regulator. Following the adoption of this amendment, which is necessary to increase our exports in the sector, how will Canada compare when it comes to the rules in place in the United States and in other countries that are major exporters of liquefied natural gas, such as Ecuador and Australia?
[English]
Mr. Christie: Thank you for the question. I think it may actually be something that the Natural Resources Canada witnesses could answer. As I mentioned, the CER, was not involved in actually proposing or coming up with the change, so we were not involved in the analysis that led to it.
Ms. O’Brien: Senator, thank you for the question, and I’m sorry that we are not going to get off to a great start here. I will have to come back to you with that specific information, but I do understand that overall we align — generally favourably — with the United States.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you. Your website currently indicates that six liquefied natural gas export projects on the west coast are at various stages of export. That includes phase 2 of the Kitimat terminal, which was referred to the Major Projects Office this past November. Excluding phase 2 of the Kitimat terminal, have all of the other projects been approved by the federal government? Do they have export licences to be operational by 2030?
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: I’m happy to start that question, and Mr. Christie might have further details to add.
Thank you for that question. It’s an exciting time in Canada. There are a number of projects, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, across the country that are in various stages of development. Those that are closer to the finish line and are most advanced are along Canada’s West Coast.
There are currently two LNG projects that are in operation. The Tilbury LNG facility just outside of Vancouver only serves a domestic market. Canada’s first export-oriented LNG facility is LNG Canada Phase 1. As you note, they are exploring a second phase and final investment decision, or FID. There are there approximately six other projects along the B.C. coast that are currently under construction: Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG and then four that are under development.
All of these projects would require export licences. It is up to the project proponent to determine the length of the licence that they are seeking. As my colleague, Mr. Christie, has noted, there are 25-year licences, 40-year licences and, now with this amendment, we are proposing that a 50-year licence also be a possibility. So projects will have different durations of their licence.
Mr. Christie: I was just going to add that in terms of the licences currently in place, the two projects currently under construction, Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG, both have export licences already from the Canada Energy Regulator. In the case of Woodfibre LNG, it is already a 40-year licence, and Cedar LNG has a 25-year licence and, in fact, earlier this week received a favourable decision from the commission to have a 40-year licence replace that. It has now, as of two or three days ago, been referred to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources before the 40-year licence can replace the 25-year licence.
Then for the Ksi Lisims LNG project, another that is among the — I’m not positive what the list of six is, but I’m confident in saying it would include that — they have a 40-year licence as well.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: A report from the David Suzuki Foundation states that some liquefied natural gas projects haven’t advanced as planned, not because of regulatory delays, but because of investor decisions and market conditions. Prices are low, and it’s a situation that’s likely to get worse as global supply becomes increasingly abundant and decarbonization threatens the industry’s long-term prospects. Given those conditions, how do the changes you’re proposing take that reality into account?
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: Thank you, senator, for that question. There is a lot that we could explore in terms of what you have raised.
In looking at demand forecasts for LNG, what we are seeing, and most private market forecasters — but even agencies, including the International Energy Agency, or IEA — are saying recently that there will be tremendous growth in the LNG sector, certainly from now through to 2040 and 2050.
Within a shorter time horizon, there is expected to be significant supply in the late 2020s through to, sort of, 2030, but then beyond 2030, we are expecting that demand will outstrip supply. This is where we are seeing tremendous opportunity for growth of Canadian projects.
I think one of the benefits in terms of Canada developing its LNG market is that we are looking for a bit of a lift in terms of domestic natural gas prices. Right now, Canadian natural gas traded through the AECO Hub trades at a lower price than at Henry Hub, and that is for various reasons, but we are expecting that there will be some uplift due to Canadian natural gas exported through LNG, realizing international benchmark pricing for LNG. We are expecting that there will be a benefit in terms of pricing for Canadian product.
Then in terms of environmental impacts, again, I think we are extremely fortunate in Canada that we have among the lowest-emitting LNG projects globally. If you take a look at LNG Canada Phase 1, it is approximately 60% lower emissions than the global weighted average.
Then as other projects start coming online, notably Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG, those projects will be powered through electricity. Their emissions profile will be approximately 94% lower than the global weighted average. This is going to present, I think, a real competitive benefit for our projects. We see a bright future for Canadian LNG ahead.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like some clarification. You say that the price of liquefied natural gas has declined for a variety of reasons. Apart from the fact that you have a number of competitors in other parts of the world, are there any other reasons for the drop in the price of this resource?
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: Senator, to clarify my comments, there hasn’t been a drop necessarily in global LNG pricing but in domestic. The domestic cost or price of Canadian natural gas is significantly lower, and that’s for various reasons, including limited egress, so limited opportunities to export our product to date.
To date, 100% of Canada’s natural gas exports have occurred with the United States through pipelines. LNG represents an opportunity for Canada to access more lucrative Asian and European markets for our gas. As such, we’re hoping there will be an uplift in the domestic price for Canadian natural gas which, at various points of the year over 2025, sometimes has traded at negative pricing. This is seen as a boon by the industry.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks to all the witnesses.
In liquefied natural gas, or in the gas production, does the producer — the one who holds the licence to produce — are they essentially the same entities that also do the exporting, or are the terminals their own separate entity unassociated with, other than on a commercial basis, the producers?
Ms. O’Brien: I think it depends on the project. There are different ownership structures. For instance, if you take a look at LNG Canada, a number of the owners of that project are also upstream producers. There can be different types of arrangements.
Senator D. M. Wells: The company that currently holds the 40-year licence, would that be the producer or the exporter, or is it the same? That’s where I want to go.
Ms. O’Brien: It would be the exporter. For instance, LNG Canada, which is a consortium of a number of investors, would hold the export licence. But a number of their investors are natural gas producers in Canada’s upstream.
Senator D. M. Wells: Okay. I’m trying to get there. A company that would be applying for a 50-year licence, that will be the company that is pulling the gas out of the ground?
Ms. O’Brien: No.
Senator D. M. Wells: Or is it a 50-year export licence?
Ms. O’Brien: It’s a 50-year export licence.
Senator D. M. Wells: The companies that currently hold the 40 year ——or something other than 40 year that is not 50 — would they automatically get a 50-year licence with the passage of this legislation?
Ms. O’Brien: It isn’t automatic. The proponents, if they are interested, could make that application. As I say, there will be 25-year licences, 40 and 50. It would be their decision based on the economics of their project in terms of what they would prefer.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks. My final question for now, you mentioned limited egress of gas from Canada, and essentially a single market expanding now to larger markets. What would be the solution to get over this hurdle of limited egress?
Ms. O’Brien: I think LNG is that solution because it provides us access to more lucrative global markets for our natural gas, largely in Asia. Asia represents about 70% of the global LNG market. It offers us more opportunities and greater diversification in terms of our export markets.
Senator D. M. Wells: I said that one was my final question, but this is actually my final question.
Ms. O’Brien: Sure.
Senator D. M. Wells: With the 160-year bank we have for natural gas, does that number also include offshore Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. O’Brien: I believe it does. But I think, Mr. Christie, you might want to confirm that.
Mr. Christie: Thanks for that. My understanding is that the 1,100,000,000,000 cubic feet is just representative of what is in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, which is where the production is today. So the 160 years is comparing production in the same region as where the resource number, which is the 1,100 Tcf is as well. Both are comparing the numbers, just in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would like to get, if I could, from our witnesses the numbers that would include Newfoundland and Labrador’s potential. It’s 160 years. I know it’s not current licences. If the committee could get that, it would be helpful.
The Chair: Is it possible to provide that?
Ms. O’Brien: It is for sure.
The Chair: Great, thank you.
Senator Fridhandler: It’s important. I don’t know if my colleague Senator Verner can find what she was asking for in terms of understanding the comparables of licences globally, but I think we should see at least the deviations we might have from others because the whole purpose of this amendment is to become more competitive. I would like to see in context whether it really accomplishes that.
I don’t know as well in licences whether there are other impediments you see on conditions in licences that impede our global competitiveness?
Ms. O’Brien: In terms of licensing —
Senator Fridhandler: Yes. We’re just focused on export licences now. I don’t know the conditions that normally appear.
Ms. O’Brien: I think Mr. Christie could take you through the conditions of the surplus test and how that is determined in terms of the export licence in general.
I might sort of pull the lens up a bit in terms of answering that question. As we look at what impediments might persist in terms of advancing projects, I would say the overall regulatory and permitting framework in Canada is often raised by proponents. This is why the government has taken action to streamline those processes.
My colleague from the Major Projects Office can certainly speak in terms of what it is they are focused on in order to advance projects within a two-year window. The government is also seized with ensuring the regulatory framework itself is right-sized, so to speak, I think to meet the challenges of the day.
These export licences sit within a broader context of regulatory and permitting. But I’m not sure, but Mr. Feldberg and Mr. Christie, if you would like to contribute to that?
Mr. Christie: I can add to the point about what sorts of conditions are typically attached to a licence. They are pretty straightforward. The typical conditions would relate to things like the maximum annual amount that can be exported, the maximum amount that can be exported over the entire term of the licence. Then there is a sunset clause. If within 10 years the issuance of the licence, exports haven’t begun from the project, then it would expire.
Then there are requirements around information reporting, the point where the export is permitted, that sort of thing.
Senator Fridhandler: I want to stay focused just on the licensing. On the net surplus test, I assume that the cushion that exists is enormous from the numbers that you have given us, and the licences that are in the pipeline. You can confirm that.
But also, are you dealing with absolute reserve numbers regardless of the economics of production? Gas is not quite like oil in terms of the costs and variables that exist when you’re looking at reserves. Are we dealing with just economic reserves of the present day so we would have a floating number as gas prices move? If they go up, then our reserve number probably increases, too, because more becomes economic. Throw that back to either you, Ms. O’Brien or Mr. Christie, just so I understand the cushion here.
Mr. Christie: I’m happy to speak to that. When the commission has looked at the surplus test, the net surplus test, there has been — well there are a number of factors — two key factors that have led into all of the approvals. One is what you’re getting at, which is the size of the actual resource. Ms. O’Brien described it in her remarks, it’s many, many times — over 150 times — what current production is. The proponents have generally submitted the production level is really not hindered by the amount of gas in the ground, the resources are just that big.
In terms of the resources and whether it’s economic, it’s driven more by technological capability. The commission has found that the resource number is more informative than just reserves, because we’re looking out over such a long period of time. The other key factor that the commission has cited in many of its decisions — probably all of the decisions, in fact, where they have granted licences — is that Canada is not just an island of natural gas. We’re part of an integrated North American natural gas market, which is huge. It’s the biggest market in the world. Also, we’re well connected by pipelines such that when you look out over decades, there is a degree of flexibility baked into the fact that we already export in the neighbourhood of nine billion cubic feet a day out of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, either into the U.S. or other parts of the country. So there is also flexibility built in if there is a need for more gas within Western Canada. It’s not only a matter of trying to pull from exports going to LNG, but also this big amount of gas that currently flows elsewhere into the continental market. Then that continental market, to the extent that those flows would reduce from Western Canada, it too is huge and liquid, and therefore, the market can readjust very effectively.
Senator Fridhandler: Just to confirm, we have some multiple of economic or producible reserves that are surplus, even in the context of existing licences for export? You’re nodding, which means, yes?
Mr. Christie: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you, guests. I have two sets of questions for you.
I’m from Nova Scotia, and there are two projects, the Bear Head project and the Goldboro project, that have been abandoned. If I understand the situation correctly, there were three export licences, but only one company that is currently exporting, and it’s from Western Canada.
Wouldn’t it be advantageous in the future to have an export licence in Eastern Canada, whether in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, two provinces that are closer to the European market? That was my first question.
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: The export licence would be a requirement of any and all LNG projects. It just so happens that currently, in terms of market dynamics and opportunities, those projects are developing on Canada’s western shores. You’re right, though, there have been a number of proponents and possible projects developing in Atlantic Canada, and should those projects continue to advance, they could also avail themselves of a potential 50-year licence.
There are a number of projects in other regions of the country. Northern Canada and some in Quebec that we’re certainly tracking and are aware of. We would be very interested in projects developing across the country.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: You mentioned that there are a number of projects in the country that are under development or have potential for development. How are the surrounding communities reacting to those projects, and what can be done to get those communities to support the projects, if that’s the case?
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: I think that there has been broad reaction to the development of these projects. But as part of Canada’s regulatory processes and systems, it’s necessary that there be sufficient community agreement and approval for these projects, in particular, the support of First Nations communities. In order to be assured of that support, the impact assessment requirements and others bake in requirements for consultation with communities in general, but in particular with First Nations communities.
That can be a complex process, and a long process of meaningful engagement. But of the proponents that I have met with, they are all extremely committed to building those relationships and building the understanding among communities in terms of what the potential these projects have for economic development and economic reconciliation.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Galvez: This is a very interesting conversation. My questions are for CER and NRCan. Ms. O’Brien, you said these are exciting times. I would say that they are changing times because the only last year, US$2.4 trillion was invested in renewable energy, so while it is true what you are saying that the forecast for LNG needs are different depending on the forecaster, what I can tell you is that it’s a very important difference between independent forecasters and corporate forecasters.
For sure, you have Shell saying that LNG is going to grow. But if you look at the International Energy Agency, but in particular to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, they are saying that the imports could fall between 15% to 20% between 2025 and 2030.
Many energy reports are saying that, for example, just a couple of months ago, China and Russia announced an agreement on a new pipeline that will ship massive amounts of liquefied natural gas.
Can please provide to this committee the type of forecast that the government can use in order to extend this licence. The market is changing so fast. I wonder why we have extended from 25 years to 40 years and now to 50 years, when every year we are seeing changes. Who asked for this change?
Ms. O’Brien: Thank you, senator. We certainly refer to a variety of forecast documents. You’re right, the large companies — you mentioned Shell and others — certainly engage in forecasting. With respect to more independent, market-based forecasts, there is Wood MacKenzie, S&P Global, et cetera. A number of other companies that also put out independent forecasts.
We certainly closely follow international organizations, including the IEA. The United States also has a very credible energy data and informatics group. I would offer as well that so does Japan, so we look at a basket of indicators.
Senator Galvez: Can you provide to the committee in written form the forecast, so we know what numbers you used?
My second question is with respect to methane. We know that 85% to 95% of LNG is methane, which is 85 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas. While emissions are not happening where we produce this LNG, the emissions will be produced where the LNG is burned whether we export it to the United States and the United States sells it elsewhere. That’s what I understood from the energy regulator witness that what we are trying to do right now is to change the flow. Instead of sending it to the U.S., we send it to other markets, but the other markets are already mature and are going down because of the increase in renewable energy.
I want to stick to methane. Methane is 80 times more powerful than CO2. At the same time, Alberta has an issue with abandoned wells that produce 1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year of methane. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to collect this methane and sell it if you can find the markets to sell it to? Because a very large amount of diffused methane impacts the health of people.
How does this square with our Prime Minister saying we will meet our net-zero targets by 2050 and we will have methane regulations? How are we going to meet our Paris Agreement targets?
Ms. O’Brien: Thank you, Senator Galvez. You’re right to raise methane. It is certainly an important issue. I would say the Canadian oil and gas producers are very responsible in terms of their approach to climate and emissions in general. You’re right that the Canadian government has among the strongest methane regulations, and because of that, Canadian industry are world leaders in terms of their production and emissions profile.
There are a number of initiatives under way to capture methane leaks. As you mentioned, that’s valuable product to producers, so becoming more efficient in terms of production is important. There is an economic case to be made in terms of reducing methane emissions.
I would also perhaps point you to an interesting study that was put out just earlier this week, actually, by the Public Policy Forum. They have done some studies and analysis about the global impact that LNG could have on a global emissions profile. I looked at it earlier this week. Their report found that Canadian LNG is expected to reduce global emissions by between 40 and 70 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2035. This is largely because Canadian LNG helps to displace the burning of higher emitting energy sources, including coal in Asia. I think it’s an interesting report. I would be happy to provide it to the committee.
This week or last week as well, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute also put out a report with respect to Canadian energy and opportunity in Asian markets. There is a lot of work and interest in terms of the impact that our product is having on global emissions and that profile.
The Chair: I think Senator Galvez had asked that you produce a few of the reports that you used for forecasting. Is that going to be possible?
Ms. O’Brien: Are you looking for the actual reports themselves? We can provide those.
Senator Galvez: You are amending the law and you’re asking for an extension because you are expecting that there will be a future market for Canadian LNG. I would like to see those numbers. Thank you.
Ms. O’Brien: We’d be happy to provide that.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to all the witnesses for the answers they have given so far.
I would like to come back to the extension to 50 years. That means that there are amendments that will give liquefied natural gas exporters an advantage that other Canadian commodity exporters don’t benefit from. That could be construed as a subsidy for fossil fuels and maybe even considered an inefficient subsidy, according to the government’s own definition. Would this extension be considered a subsidy for fossil fuels? If so, would it actually meet the criteria of an inefficient subsidy?
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: I don’t believe we view it as — it certainly isn’t a direct fiscal subsidy. As such, I don’t believe it meets the definition of an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to come back to the market study. Does that market study also cover the U.S. market? I ask because you said that 100% of the current exports target the United States. Does the market study cover the U.S. market? We’re actually extending contracts, so we really want to know the answer. Will that demand remain stable over the years, both for the U.S. and for Asia and Europe? That was more of a comment.
[English]
Ms. O’Brien: Thank you. The market studies that I have referred to in my remarks are notably that we’re anticipating the LNG market to grow from the current rate of about 400 mtpa annually up to about 600 — refers to LNG specifically as the licence extensions are only for LNG projects.
Exports — I’ll call it a permit, but I mean that in a very general sense — to the United States, that market operates differently. Mr. Christie had spoken to that in terms of his opening remarks.
Mr. Christie, are you able to explain the nature of the different licences there?
Mr. Christie: Sure, I’d be happy to. I will say a couple things. First of all, the exports to the U.S. are done under short-term orders, and those are handled in a very different way than licences. We don’t require applicants to demonstrate surplus. The orders are generally two-years long, and the typical turnaround time is two business days. For a long-term licence, the applicant has to supply information on projections of supply as well as domestic demand and demonstrate that the exports would be surplus to Canadian needs, and the licences then are multiple decades as opposed to just the two-years orders.
The other point I will make is that when it comes to exports of crude oil, which you alluded to, it is actually only the LNG exporters who have sought the assurance of long-term licences. Other exports have been occurring under short-term orders, both in the form of the natural gas to the U.S. that I described, and crude oil exporters as well have been relying upon short-term orders.
When the evidence is provided on the export licences — because of that surplus test — the focus is really on just ensuring that it would not create a shortage of gas within Canada. The evidence is not focused as much on demonstrating that there is an international demand for the LNG export; rather it is about ensuring that it would not create a shortage here domestically.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: You confirm that it was the liquefied natural gas industry that asked for this extension to 50 years, then?
[English]
Mr. Christie: That is not what I meant to imply. I wouldn’t know whether they did or did not. It wasn’t the Canada Energy Regulator that was involved in the actual amendment to the legislation.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
The Chair: There are a few other senators who would like to ask questions. Are all of you available to stay another 15 minutes? Okay. Great.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. When there were the consultations that were done, what were some of the — you talked about economic impacts and reconciliation. What were the social and environmental impacts, whether they were positive or negative, for the communities who host liquefied natural gas export facilities? If there are negative impacts by increasing it to 50 years, will that make it worse, and are you aware that they might worsen?
Then you said they are going to be powered through electricity for some of them. Was that also taken into account in the impact that hydro has in communities? I went to visit the Site C dam, and there were a lot of negative impacts on both the non-Indigenous and the First Nations in that area. Now I am hearing more about dams further up north. I’m wondering if there will have to be more dams built to accommodate not only the natural gas but now you are looking at cars. It seems that everybody thinks electricity is going to be the one to replace oil and gas, and that’s not a reality yet.
Ms. O’Brien: I would start by just clarifying. There are levels and layers of consultation, and I apologize if my remarks earlier were confusing.
In terms of this proposed legislative amendment, we did consult with industry. Principally, it was industry that had asked us to consider and bring forward this measure. But as we developed the legislation, we recognized that there is an obligation on us to respect the UNDRIP, and so we are consulting with Indigenous communities. In fact, we had sent a letter out to communities very recently. We provided Ms. Houle as a contact. But specifically, the longer export licence terms respect the Indigenous rights and land use agreements because any extension, moving from the 40 to 50 years, must align with an approved environmental assessment. That assessment includes meaningful Indigenous consultation. If the impact of the licence extension would change the nature of the decision they have in terms of their environmental assessment, the proponent is going to have to go back and ensure that the environmental assessment is re-evaluated and then respects the terms of the licence extension.
Providing an export licence extension does not provide the proponent with an ability to export a greater amount of volume than what they are currently approved to supply. It would allow them to amortize that volume of production over a longer period of time. If they would like to produce more than what they are licensed for, they are also going to have to seek permission to increase that volume. It isn’t just the nature of the export licence extension that would result in potential impacts, economic or social, as you have mentioned.
You have to consider this amendment within the broader regulatory and approval process that exists for these major projects.
Senator McCallum: Are the First Nations supportive of this?
Ms. O’Brien: We have not had any response to our letter as of yet.
Senator McCallum: So you are going ahead with this, saying, “We have to respect UNDRIP,” but actually you have not consulted completely before moving ahead?
Ms. O’Brien: We are currently in the process of consulting.
Senator McCallum: If this bill goes through, the consultation will not be done then.
Ms. O’Brien: We believe we have a very limited obligation in terms of consulting on this very specific amendment. We are currently fulfilling that obligation by making the communities aware of our intentions.
Senator McCallum: Are they supportive of it? What concerns do they have?
Ms. O’Brien: Nobody has raised any concerns with us with respect to this proposal.
Senator McCallum: Not just this proposal, but LNG itself. Like hydro, there are many concerns from First Nations. I’m working with them on it, and I’m wondering if the LNG itself is producing negative impacts in the coast communities.
Ms. O’Brien: There are a number of projects that have obtained their environmental permits. As such, they would have completed their necessary consultations and addressed any negative impacts that might arise because of the project. Some of the projects have Indigenous benefits agreements. Other projects are considering Indigenous equity. For instance, the Cedar LNG project is a world first in that it is majority owned by the Haisla Nation. There are a variety of ways in which projects are addressing social, economic and First Nations issues in order to develop.
Senator McCallum: Okay, thank you.
Senator Lewis: Thank you. You answered a little bit about the licensing requirements. Is there a review process in place during the lifetime of the licence? The ultimate penalty would be if you had a bad actor, and the licence would be cancelled. Is there a process that goes through those 50 years and ensures that the proponent is behaving properly?
Ms. O’Brien: I believe the mechanism is through the net surplus test. Mr. Christie, can you speak to the monitoring of the licences?
Mr. Christie: Yes, certainly. From the compliance perspective, the key while the exports are actually occurring under the licence is only that they don’t exceed the volumes that are authorized. Also that they report the information that is spelled out in the licences themselves. Since the licence isn’t about the facility, when it comes to a bad actor, to the extent that the issue was with how the facility was being operated, that is not something that relates directly to the licence. That would be with a different regulator. We have no role in compliance there. As I say, it is really only about ensuring that the volumes do not exceed what is authorized within a licence, and that they report what they are required to.
The one other thing I will note is — as Ms. O’Brien alluded to — because the test is surplus, the Canada Energy Regulator stays abreast of what is happening with energy markets overall, and we would monitor to see if there were ever any indication that there is a concern about surplus. If there were, it would likely not relate to a particular bad actor, but we don’t anticipate that situation would arise anyway, even if it were due to overall market circumstances.
Senator Lewis: There is a mechanism in place in case over 50 years the surplus ratio changes from where it is now just due to all kinds of natural gas being exported and increased domestic demand, those kinds of things. Will that surplus be revisited during the lifetime of the licence?
Mr. Christie: There is not an automatic trigger. It is something that we continue to look at as part of our energy information program and our role in overseeing exports generally. If there were to be issues, then we could trigger a review or process on our own initiative, should we see issues in the marketplace.
The Chair: This brings us to the end of this panel. Thank you very much to all of you for answering our questions in a very fulsome way.
I would like to thank Ms. Minet for being here. Welcome. You will have five minutes for opening remarks, and then we will move on to questions from senators. You have the floor.
Laura Minet, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, as an individual: Thank you for the introduction and for inviting me to appear before you today.
I am an assistant professor in civil engineering at the University of Victoria. I am joining remotely today from the university and want to begin by acknowledging the Lekwungen peoples, on whose territory the university stands, and the Lekwungen and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples, whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day.
My expertise is on ambient air quality and population exposure to air pollution. I am currently conducting research on liquefied natural gas export facilities, also referred to as LNG export facilities.
At LNG export facilities, gas is liquefied for ease of transport and shipped on cargoes overseas. Flaring, which is the controlled burning of gas, sometimes has to occur for maintenance, safety or emergency reasons. Flaring is not without consequences for local communities. It is a source of many air pollutants, including fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and benzene, which are known to cause short-term and long-term respiratory and cardiovascular issues. Benzene is also known to be carcinogenic.
Let me now talk about the current landscape of LNG in Canada. The first two large-scale Canadian LNG export facilities are LNG Canada in Kitimat, which started operating in September 2024, and Woodfibre LNG in Squamish, which is currently under construction.
At the time their environmental impact assessments were approved over 10 years ago, we had little information on how much flaring was conducted at similar facilities worldwide, for two major reasons: First, there were a limited number of existing facilities; in fact, half of the current 61 facilities operating in the world opened after 2012. Second, most existing facilities are not publicly disclosing the frequency and amount of gas they flare.
As a result, environmental impact assessments developed for those two export facilities were based on estimates from the proponents, and assumptions made over the process are not available to the general public. The same applied to the more recently approved Cedar LNG facility, currently also under construction in Kitimat.
Another important aspect of the Canadian environmental impact assessments is that the commissioning phase was completely ignored on the basis that it is short and should thus not impact the local communities.
In 2012, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, launched two satellites equipped with the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite, or VIIRS, a unique instrumentation that can provide us with crucial information on flaring around the world.
Using data from the VIIRS, I recently led a study looking at flaring at LNG export facilities around the world. We noticed that the commissioning phase of export facilities lasts on average two years, and volumes of gas flared is on average three times higher than during regular operations. This goes against the idea that the commissioning phase is short and has limited impact on local air quality.
Additionally, we now have the example of LNG Canada in Kitimat as the first large-scale export facility operating in Canada, which entered its regular operations phase on July 1, 2025. This means that air emission permits and regulations on volumes of gas flared should start being enforced. The permit for LNG Canada states that:
The authorized rate of Discharge for routine flaring shall not exceed 7.8 cubic metres per minute (m3/s) based on a monthly average.
Between July and October 2025, LNG Canada has flared between 129 and 142 cubic metres per minute on average per month, which is 17 to 18 times higher than the authorized limit.
I find it worrisome that the air permit has been highly exceeded on four consecutive months out of four months of regular operations.
In relation to Bill C-15 Part 5 Division 41, my understanding is that section 593 allows for LNG export licences to be granted for up to 50 years, from the previous 40, and that section 594 removes the power to make regulations regarding the term of LNG export licences.
I am thus wondering the following:
What is the urgency of extending export licences for an industry that is just starting in Canada, and for which we have little background knowledge and experience regulating? The power to create regulations is an important tool to course correct. Why is it being removed?
What will happen if LNG export facilities fail to respect the limits set in their permits, as LNG Canada is already doing?
Is there a path to revoking an export licence if studies identify serious health threats to the local population?
My main motive today is to ask for caution rather than precipitation in extending permit licences for a brand-new Canadian industry.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Minet. We will begin with questions.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much, Professor Minet. I have been receiving a lot of information and comments from rural landowners who speak about Alberta’s multi-billion dollar well-cleanup crisis, in which methane is at the centre of their complaints and their health issues. So congratulations and thank you very much for the work you are doing with respect to the health impact.
My question today is about the economy of this, as you said, new industry. The numbers don’t seem to match what the proponents are saying; that we are going to have a lot of revenue coming to Canada. Can you enlighten me about what type of energy is needed in order to produce LNG? Because I know that cleaner energy like Site C hydro is used to produce very intensive carbon-polluting energy. Do you know something about it? How do we produce LNG? What’s the source of energy?
Ms. Minet: Thank you for the question. This is not entirely my area of expertise, but I would assume that producing LNG requires fossil fuel energy sources because you cannot extract natural gas just using electricity; at least this is not currently the case in Canada. Then there is the question of how you liquefy the gas when it is at export facilities. We have heard before, in particular with Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG being fuelled by electricity. Firstly, this is not yet the case; and secondly, this is diverting clean energy toward the production of liquefied natural gas, meaning that, in particular, for Woodfibre LNG there is a part of the facility — the compressor — that will not be fuelled by electricity because BC Hydro does not have the capacity to provide enough electricity for it.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Fridhandler: I’m a little confused by your assertions that breaches of flaring controls and the regulations that might apply to that have anything to do with the term of the licence. The tie escapes me. I assume there is a regulatory regime that established the permissible flaring by LNG Canada and that is not tied to the grant of a 40- or 50-year licence. Is that correct?
Ms. Minet: It is my understanding — and I may be wrong — that when a facility applies for an export licence, they have to conduct an environmental impact assessment. What I understood from Assistant Deputy Minister O’Brien earlier is that if the proponents want to apply for an extension of the licence, they would have to go through an environmental impact assessment again, while this would not be the case if the licence was granted for 50 years directly.
Senator Fridhandler: I did not hear that there had to be a new environmental assessment. I heard that there was a review of the net surplus of the gas that is being subjected to the export licence. I’m just suggesting that the concern you have expressed is governed by a different regime, and maybe we will just differ on that and get some clarification in due course.
Ms. Minet: I think it would be interesting to clarify. I’m sorry I’m not the best to respond to this. But how the environmental impact assessment tied with the export licence and how the compliance is verified and do they have to reapply for an environmental impact assessment if the licence is for 50 years.
Senator Fridhandler: Okay. We’ll just do a fact check on that, because I can’t imagine that the risk of an investment on a 40-year facility would be subjected to a further environmental assessment. That’s done at the front end. If you are offside on some of the controls and conditions, I understand, and it is regulated. We’ll check on that but I don’t believe that to be the case.
Ms. Minet: What I’m saying is that the environmental assessment is done before granting the licence and the permit to construct and to export. It is not redone throughout the licence period.
Senator Fridhandler: [Technical difficulties] I don’t know that it is done on the CER’s granting of an export licence. But we’ll look into that.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: In fact, I would like to follow up on my colleague’s questions. Since we’re here mainly to discuss this issue, I was wondering about the extension to 50 years.
More information is needed on the extension process. Why is it urgent to extend the timelines now, when there’s so much uncertainty in the market? It could be argued that it would make more sense to do the extension in the next fiscal year.
If there’s a much longer process to go from 40 years to 50, I think that’s the best place to look for the answer to that, in order to better understand the relevance of the extension.
Does the extension to 50 years mean that Canada is backtracking on its commitment to net-zero emissions and its greenhouse gas reduction targets? What’s your impression of this extension’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions?
[English]
Ms. Minet: In terms of greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions, this will all depend on how those facilities are operating and whether they are using intense carbon energy or whether they are fuelled by electricity.
It also depends on what we consider as the Canadian target for GHG emissions. By exporting LNG, we are not accounting for emissions associated with the use of LNG in Canada, but it is happening elsewhere, so it all depends on where the boundaries are. Right now, Canada is considering what is happening on their territory only, but this is not necessary something I agree with in terms of where to put the boundaries.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
Senator Aucoin: You talked about greenhouse gases. You mentioned that British Columbia doesn’t currently generate enough electricity for the compressors used to compress natural gas. In that case, what energy is used to do that?
[English]
Ms. Minet: It is natural gas that will be used for compressors to actually compress natural gas.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. It would be less polluting than diesel, gasoline or coal.
My next question is about flaring. Flaring should be approximately 7.8 cubic metres, but I believe that it was between 129 and 142 cubic metres over four months. Can you explain that further? That would be appreciated.
[English]
Ms. Minet: Yes. As part of the production of natural gas, flaring has to occur, so there are flare permits associated with the different facilities in terms of how much those facilities can flare, because flaring also has impacts on air pollution.
The current permit for LNG Canada, the first [Technical difficulties] should be applied now because it has entered regular operations. Yes, as I said, their permit states 7.8 cubic metres per minute on average per month. For four months, it has been a lot more than this, 17 to 18 times higher.
This is public information, and it has been disclosed to the BC Energy Regulator. I don’t know yet what is happening, and I don’t know how long they can flare more than what their permit is before something happens.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I would like to ask for clarification on that. Are there any related fines? Or will it continue to be between 129 and 142 cubic metres? Is the government monitoring that? You said that it had been published. Can you give us some information on that?
[English]
Ms. Minet: These are really good questions, and I don’t really have answers to this. Currently, the regulator is the BC Energy Regulator, and I am not entirely familiar with how they are going to deal with these increases and this overpassing of the thresholds in terms of flaring, and I don’t know how long this is allowed to last.
While this is not directly related to an extension of the 50-year licence, I believe it is, because we are hoping to extend the licence permit to facilities, but we have to make sure that they are well regulated on all aspects of them. It’s not just in terms of how much gas can be exported. It is also on how much pollution can be generated by those facilities.
Senator Galvez: I was reading your article on the analysis of the flaring activity, and you use a very complex and interesting technology. I was wondering, how easy is it to find these detection systems, and who uses them? Do the corporations that exploit these LNG facilities, do they have them?
Ms. Minet: The data I used for my study is from an instrumentation on a satellite that is operated by NASA, and it is available to the general public, so anyone can access it.
It is not perfect data, because it’s only based on satellite, so it’s detecting flaring only when the satellite is passing over a facility. But this is information that could be used by anyone if they really wanted to track flaring around the world or at a specific facility.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to hear your thoughts on community adaptation. Does a 50-year contract bind communities for multiple generations? What can be done to ensure the right to reassess contracts? There is already talk about impacts on the health of the communities surrounding liquefied natural gas development areas. Based on your expertise, can you suggest possible contractual mechanisms? How will the communities be able to negotiate with companies?
[English]
Ms. Minet: This is a great question. Thank you.
I think it is difficult to negotiate something when you don’t have all the information provided to you. We are lucky that LNG Canada is providing publicly some information on flaring volumes — so the volume of gas they are flaring every month. We actually have data day by day, so this is useful.
However, I want to say that in the community in Kitimat, we also have some air quality monitors to kind of understand what the concentrations are, but those are not perfect, because they don’t cover the entire community. Depending on where they are located, they could highlight some air quality issues or not.
I think for a community to be able to defend themselves or to actually know what they are exposed to, there needs to be a lot more data and studies done on what the impact of the LNG facility is on them. I think we could have more air quality monitoring.
In fact, BC Energy Regulator was doing more air quality monitoring in more locations but they stopped in November 2024 and haven’t restarted since. Many physicians have asked to do a comprehensive health impact assessment of all the facilities located in Kitimat, in the Kitimat air shed, because there is a lot of industry there. There is not just LNG Canada. There is soon going to be Cedar LNG. But there are also other manufacturers.
For a community to be able to really understand their impacts, they need to be provided with the data and the studies necessary for it. That shouldn’t be just the initial environmental impact assessment that is done at the beginning, or even 10 years before a facility is starting, which is currently the case in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Here is the second part of my question. How can we, as senators, incorporate provisions on resilience or periodic review into Bill C-15? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations?
[English]
Ms. Minet: That’s a really good question. I believe Bill C-15 is mainly related to export licences, but I think the ability to be able to review the export licence not just based on the flows of LNG going in and out of facilities, but also on the respect of the other permits or regulations associated with this infrastructure could be incorporated to be able to provide some reviews every 10 years or so.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Other questions? Seeing that we have none, thank you very much for being here, Ms. Minet.
Ms. Minet: Thank you for inviting me.
The Chair: I wish you all the best of the holiday season. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)