Environment Committee on March 29th, 2018

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Gratton, my next question is for you. You talked about the transitional provisions and the difference between the mining and the pipeline provisions. Thank you for clarifying what Mr. Fast said. I know that he didn't intentionally mean to take out of context what the minister said. If the transitional provisions were made to be the same, would that satisfy your concern? Would that change your answer with respect to investor confidence?

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes, absolutely. Exactly as it is for NEB, with the option to opt in.... It may be that a proponent enters very late before this act comes into force and says they'll plan for the next one. Certain elements of this act may prove to be more attractive. We don't know. The early planning is an innovation. It has potential. It may be that a proponent may choose to opt in to take advantage of the early planning idea in this act. But we ask that the option, just as it is for NEB projects, be left to the discretion of the proponent between now and the act coming into force.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Rogers.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Terry or Francis, generally speaking, your statement from February 8 was pretty positive in terms of the legislation. I think that's fair to say. But there was one concern that you identified with regard to navigable waters. You expressed concerns over potential increased delays because of permitting. The early planning phase in the bill is intended to support one project, one assessment.

My understanding is that in this early planning phase, if the impact assessment is required, three documents will be issued to guide the impact assessment process, including an impact assessment co-operation plan, which includes indigenous engagement, a partnership plan, and a public participation plan; tailored impact statement guidelines; and a permitting plan, if required. These would provide clear and transparent expectations for project proponents and for the public.

Can you comment on how this may alleviate your concerns?

[Francis Bradley]

Maybe, Terry, you can talk to some of the specifics. Of course, we're dealing with this piece of legislation on a separate track, but our overall fundamental concern was that legislation and regulations already exist for the protection of water. It seems as though these changes are starting to creep into that area, and going back to the comments I made at the very beginning, they are adding additional layers of pancaking.

As to the specifics, Terry, do you...?

[Terry Toner]

I think we would simply say that if the permitting plan is developed in such a way that it provides coordination of all the steps that happen, one of the great things that might occur in the early planning is the possibility that all departments that have relevant other permits or requirements or expertise will participate in that early stage and hopefully will be fed into these various products that come from that. If that were to be done appropriately, that could probably alleviate a large number of our concerns.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

We'll go to Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you very much.

One of our colleagues today used the phrase “polluter pays“, and I strongly object to that. The implication is that you're polluters. In my previous life I managed environmental licences, and I know very well that modern industry does not pollute. It's shown in how well Canada's environmental indicators are improving.

I very much appreciate Mr. Gratton's direct way of speaking. I think he would have liked being here yesterday to hear Mr. Chris Bloomer's presentation—he's from the pipeline association—where he used the phrase “the toxic regulatory environment”. We know the word “toxic” means poisonous.

I'm astonished, Mr. Gratton, when you make the point that commodity prices are increasing around the world, but investment in Canadian mining is going down. Where in the world is mining investment going right now?

[Pierre Gratton]

Here are a few facts for your information. Canada's percentage of mineral exploration spending has been falling for the last half a dozen years. Australia has taken up a good chunk of that. It's also going to Latin America. Last year Australia had record levels of gold production and of exports. Three new lithium mines have come on stream. A nickel sulphate plant is about to go forward. A major copper mine has started production, I think. This is at the very early stages of the rebound in commodity prices and you look at Canada and you don't see that. It's not coming here.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Does Australia have a different environmental project review process than Canada does?

[Pierre Gratton]

Though a federal system, most projects are not subject to two levels of federal EA in Australia.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Their review process is efficient and timely. Can you say that, reasonably?

[Pierre Gratton]

I'm loath to be overly simplistic because the systems are different, but generally speaking it's faster.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Has Australia's environment suffered because of this faster process?

[Pierre Gratton]

Honestly, I don't know enough about Australia to say so, except it's a fully developed democratic country. It is our natural competitor, and the Australians are currently doing better than we are at attracting new investment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

The question was a bit rhetorical because every modern industrial society has the highest environmental standards. It's a process every country goes through. As they get richer, the environments get better and better. There's no doubt about it that Canada is losing out in terms of investment.

Mr. Mooney, I have a specific question for you regarding Cameco and indigenous employment. Do you have any metrics on indigenous employment within Cameco? How many indigenous people are employed by Cameco and from how many communities?

[Liam Mooney]

I do. In that regard, approximately 50% of our long-term contractors and employees are residents of Saskatchewan's north. In that conversation, it is a long and challenging effort to get to that level of employment. However, we do look for opportunities to improve those numbers and work with our northern stakeholders, as we outlined, in relation to training and education opportunities to further those numbers as best we can.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Have there been any studies done on the socio-economic metrics in communities where there is a fairly high level of employment in the mining industry or the uranium industry? I know that's a little bit outside your wheelhouse, but the conditions in those communities are very important and one does expect when employment levels are high because of mining that the social conditions will have improved.

[Pierre Gratton]

You could look at the results of diamond mining activity in the Northwest Territories and look at the acceleration of post-secondary education levels among indigenous people in the north. It's completely tied to the opening of that first mine and ever since. There is a transformation, frankly, taking place in the NWT right now. We are the economic sector of that territory, so it's directly attributed to our contribution. You could look at Voisey's Bay, in Labrador, where today 60% of employment at the mine is indigenous. Ninety per cent of procurement is with indigenous-owned businesses.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What I would say is shame on those who want to stop these projects.

As my last comment, I'd like to quote from the legal opinion on this act from Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt:

Despite the Government of Canada’s suggestion that the new legislation will improve the efficiency and timing of federal regulatory reviews, there is nothing in the new legislation that will necessarily achieve these results and many aspects of the legislation will likely have the opposite effect....

In conclusion, it is our view that the proposed legislation suffers from the same problem that we have been observing in project regulatory processes for some time. These reviews are becoming forums where all manner of social and environmental issues are expected to be addressed, even when they are beyond the ability of any single project proponent to mitigate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Sopuck, you're out of time. I just wondered if there was a question in there somewhere, but okay.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I can make a statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You did, yes.