Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was environmental.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you very much, Mr. Vegh.
Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.
Mr. Albas, it's over to you for five minutes.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all our witnesses for sharing their expertise with us today.
I'll go first to you, Mr. Vegh. Bill C-39 talks specifically about how the CER can deal with foreign counterparts. In this case, I imagine that would be the United States. Is that correct—some sort of regulator, whether it be pipeline-related or electrical?
Senior Fellow, Adjunct Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes. That's correct. The CER has done that.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Does it seem to you that the government is somewhat tacitly acknowledging that the relationship and the interdependence on energy flows between our two countries will continue?
Senior Fellow, Adjunct Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I don't know what the government's view of this is, but our pipelines are interconnected. Our transmission lines are interconnected. Reliability relies on coordination between the two jurisdictions. It's only natural that the regulators would stay in contact and would be working together.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Yes, well, energy develops where there's population. They're usually right across the border from one another.
I would like to ask you about the Building Canada Act. Obviously, you've said that you don't think that is a good long-term piece of legislation. The government wants to simply make it so that it can continue to use these powers. Parliament saw a five-year period before.
I asked the minister if he should be actually showing his work and showing that the mechanism works before coming and asking for an extension of that. Do you believe the ministers should show their work, that there should be some sort of review process and that both houses decide whether or not to continue those powers?
Senior Fellow, Adjunct Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think there should be a debate about whether those powers should be continued. When you talk about the ministers' work and you consider the infrastructure that is being considered under the Building Canada Act, we may not see that for several years. If we put off a review until there's experience with the project being completed, we could be back 10 years from now and discussing that review.
I don't think there's a need to review. I think we understand that legislation, and I think that legislation is flawed.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I believe it's flawed as well. I think if you had the responsible authorities, once a commencement date is started on a project where they identified national interest characteristics and made a simple referral to the BCA minister, and then you made a rationale of, first of all, why it's in the national interest, and second of all what the BCA process, by scheduling through one and two, could do, that would actually create a pipeline for these projects. They're expert-reviewed from the get-go, rather than having a Major Projects Office that knows very little about it or has any authority.
Would that be an interesting concept for you?
Senior Fellow, Adjunct Professor, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I don't see why you need it, frankly. If Bill C-39 is passed, you have a process that can consider pipelines, both long pipelines and short pipelines. You mentioned the issue around the criteria for approval of a project as a national interest project. The challenge there is that the criteria aren't very meaningful. Any project can meet those criteria if you define it that way.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Well, right now the objective criterion is who the minister talked to last, whether it be a premier or a lobbyist, but I take your point.
Lastly, I'd like to ask the Canadian Nuclear Association a question.
Of course, your types of projects are extremely complex, yet the government believes they can be done in a year. Is that correct, sir?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
What the government is saying—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I mean the approval process could take a year.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
They're pointing to a process whereby in a year an application would proceed. Again, what we've been saying is that the definition of that process needs to be clear in order for all concerned, specifically in the industry, to understand that it's not being uploaded at the front end.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
On that point, the Groundhog Day clause we've identified, where commencement starts only when the responsible authority, in this case the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, says so, would you like to see there be some firm dates and times, so that they can't ask for another report, another report and another report?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Again, it's very much defining that process, defining what a complete application is and understanding it, so that all applications are made accordingly. You're dealing with an industry that wants to, obviously, proceed very thoroughly. Therefore, understanding eliminates the—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
A process that's defined, that has predictability and certainty, is something that you would be supportive of.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Yes.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Okay.
Lastly, Ms. Shea, in regard to banking, do you believe that some of the monies that are put forward to that should go back, wherever practicable, into that same ecosystem?
Vice-President, Regulatory and Indigenous Affairs, Mining Association of Canada
Yes, absolutely.
We talked about the habitat banking, but there's also the fee-in-lieu option, which would need regulations to develop.
Bill C-39 talks about the environmental damages fund. I think it could be separate from that, but my concern is that the environmental damages fund is quite broad, so you would want to have something specific to fish habitat.
My other concern about the environmental damages fund is that it typically lists violators. We would want to make sure that if you were paying into the environmental damages fund as part of regulatory compliance, you wouldn't be listed as someone who broke an environmental law. That would be another distinction.
Absolutely, it needs to go back to where the impact is happening. You could pool that money to do a bigger offset project with all of the money from the different projects in the area.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Shea.
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
Next up, Mr. Louis, it's over to you.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today.
In my view, the building Canada strong act is about making the process of building projects work better while maintaining the scrutiny. We're proposing less duplication, and we're hearing about better coordination across government, while environmental assessments, public participation and meaningful indigenous consultation continue.
I want to explore how that greater certainty, stronger scrutiny and more meaningful engagement can reinforce one another.
I will start with Mr. Christidis.
We all know that Canada needs more electricity as we grow our economy and build these projects. The building Canada strong act would put nuclear impact assessments under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission while the environmental, health, social and economic factors required under the Impact Assessment Act would continue to be assessed.
Can you share with this committee how making the Nuclear Safety Commission the regulator can help with more coordinated review and enable us to increase the amount of nuclear generation we have online more efficiently without compromising safety or environmental scrutiny?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
To put it clearly, for us, making the Nuclear Safety Commission the regulator, putting the impact assessment part into the CNSC process and allowing the CNSC to coordinate the various different agencies for the permitting to magnify the efficiency—I believe there are about 11 agencies involved, if not more—are very good things that we applaud.
From that perspective, Bill C-39 is pointing to the right way. There are some particulars with regard to the indigenous consultation piece, as well as the definition of the one-year process of approval, that need to be further defined.
Again, to answer the question you asked, it is very supportive of both a much more efficient and understood system and much more certainty for nuclear projects to come forward.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you for that.
Nuclear energy depends on uranium, critical minerals, transmission and capital investment. How important is regulatory certainty across the entire clean energy supply chain if we want investment to happen here in Canada?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Investment across the board looks at the regulatory regime as a means of understanding the certainty, and it's one of the key areas where, if you greatly increase the certainty, then you increase the amount of investment that could be generated. That's across a number of different infrastructure projects, if not all infrastructure projects, as well as nuclear.
Again, that's why this bill is pointing in the right direction. It's key to the recommendations being made in other spaces, which include the right financial models that identify the risk allocation among the federal and provincial governments and industry and allow them to proceed.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you.
We talked about critical minerals with nuclear, which would take me to Ms. Shea.
Northern Ontario has large mineral potential that can grow into jobs, processing capacity and stronger supply chains. How can that greater regulatory certainty help Canada's critical mineral potential, including in northern Ontario, through the entire chain, from processing to clean energy supply chains and jobs?