Evidence of meeting #101 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I'm aware of the Agnico Eagle gold mine up at Baker Lake, for example, and the extremely positive effects that has had on that community. I read up on it. I think the employment rate is 100%. So kudos to the mining industry for helping indigenous communities—something this government talks about, but simply doesn't do.
Mr. Abel, how important is the energy industry in terms of pension funds in this country?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
The industry probably contributes more to this country and to governments in this country than the next two or three combined. You will not find another industry that contributes more to the economy in terms of taxes, royalties.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
In terms of pension funds—for example the Canada Pension Plan, most company pension funds—they're larded up with energy investments, aren't they?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Largely, in Canada, yes. The TSX at its highest point was probably 25% oil and gas weighted.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
It always bothers me that people use the word “industry” as if it's something out there, so I think it's very important to personalize it in terms of the effects on people themselves.
I have a last point, Madam Chair.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
The firm Osler, Hoskin, and Harcourt did a complete analysis and trashed the whole bill.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We have seven minutes to get into the House. We'll be back right after votes.
Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We will resume, please.
Thank you very much to our guests for their patience as we have been running back and forth to vote, and for the agreement and accommodation that we'll extend by 15 minutes to try to make up that time.
Ms. Duncan.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thanks.
Concern was expressed by Mr. Bloomer, and perhaps indirectly but also by the petroleum association, about the time of economic uncertainty, but would you not agree that some of the significant factors for that uncertainty are the international concern with and commitment to address climate change, the shifting investment away from fossil fuels to renewables, including by many of your own members, public concern with the project review process, as Mr. Amos had identified, and the increasing commitment to finally resolve land claims and observe the UNDRIP?
My question for you would be which of those do you think the government should not address?
6:20 p.m.
Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I would agree with you that there are a number of factors affecting the competitiveness of our industry and the ability to attract investment. What I would say is that it's not true that investment isn't being made in other jurisdictions. It is, in fact, and I would argue that many of those jurisdictions—the U.S. is a good example, for the Permian Basin in Texas where there is no climate policy—that investment is going crazy. Look at Brazil offshore; they don't have strong commitments either. It's not the only factor and I'm not here to say that Bill C-69 is the only factor at all. We agree and we've taken strong positions on indigenous reconciliation. We are supportive of climate policy that sets practical objectives that are implemented in a practical way.
They're all important. I agree with you.
6:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
I'd have to echo that comment. We're not saying that climate, indigenous reconciliation, participation, all the factors that are under consideration...and the industry has always worked to engage and to make sure we meet the highest standards in all those areas, but investment is leaving the country and people are making decisions that will have a long--term impact on the economy.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Until Mr. Trump came to power, the companies seemed to think it was appropriate to continue operating in Canada, so the obvious question is the onus is on industry to decide if you want to still operate within a regime that actually sets up a good regulatory regime.
I have a couple of questions for the Hydropower Association. They were hoping that I would ask them some questions.
I'm wondering if you support the need to consider transboundary impacts of hydro projects. We recently had the review of major project Site C, where the transboundary impacts into Alberta and Northwest Territories were not duly considered and responded to, which has resulted in a UNESCO call for an investigation into that. I think that isn't necessarily specifically listed under the act. Do you think that should be specified and, in fact, protect you so that once a decision is made, all of the impacts are considered and then you feel that you have a well-founded decision?
6:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Hydropower Association
That's a good question. I can't comment on the Site C specifics.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
6:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Hydropower Association
Having a federal review that covers the range of issues and if it's a pan-Canadian issue, which transboundary is, then having the federal process do that would make sense.
6:20 p.m.
Regulatory Chair, Canadian Hydropower Association
Yes, I would echo what Eduard is saying. It does make sense to have that included and make sure when you get your approval you feel you have been covered for all aspects, absolutely.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay, thank you.
I'm hearing the Hydropower Association saying maybe there would be small projects and we shouldn't necessarily go with a full-fledged review, but a lot of people are raising concerns about cumulative impacts and the problem is up to this point in time—and it certainly has happened with oil sands applications as well—we're still struggling with who does the review, do you simply consolidate the cumulative studies done on all the projects, and who has to pay for it. That is a problem also with the so-called small hydro. At what point in time does somebody stand back and ask, what about the cumulative impact if there's just going to be one more, or major dams on one river system. How would you respond to that?
6:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Hydropower Association
I think there are different parts to the answer.
The first is that cumulative effects do need to be assessed, whether it's small hydro or anything else. The best place to assess those, in our view, would be to use regional assessments, which this act provides for.
There are multiple different kinds of projects. If you have one additional, let's call it, small project, and there have been a whole bunch of other projects and then future projects coming down the road, to put the burden of the cumulative assessment on one—
6:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Hydropower Association
This act does provide for regional assessments, and that would be the best place, in our view, to do a cumulative for a region.
Small projects are the second aspect of that. If there's a small project that has a larger than normal or unusual potential for impact compared to other small projects, adding them into the cumulative, the minister does have the ability to bring the small projects into the assessment.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
How does does she know until she does the assessment...is the problem?