Environment Committee on March 29th, 2018

[Dr. John Barrett]

One of the most important things for our industry to do is, first of all—as you have done—point out the difference between us and the use of nuclear technology on the weapons side, which is completely separate. We're governed by the international non-proliferation treaty. Canada is a civil, peaceful uses of nuclear technology country, full stop.

Internationally, we have a lot of expertise. As former Canadian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the chair of the board of governors there, I know there's always been considerable respect for Canada because of its knowledge. Its regulatory expertise is international. We almost set a gold standard in that regard. That's something people are not fully aware of, I think. Normal everyday Canadians don't see that type of expertise that is recognized internationally.

The other point I would make, which I think you were alluding to, is that when you consider the uranium mining and the products of it that go into fuel development and that are the source of fuel for reactors that may be in other countries and may be under different types of technology—not CANDU reactors—then that is contributing to emissions-free electricity. There is a direct connection between what is mined in Canada in the uranium mining and what is shipped internationally. We are contributing to reducing that, especially if the alternative would have been for a country to turn to coal or one of the fossil fuels.

I give the example of Romania, which does have a CANDU reactor. If you look at their geographical situation, I'm sure their alternative would have been a fossil fuel, but they have two Canadian reactors. It's our reactor technology and the fuel we provide. We've looked at the numbers there to calculate what that has been over the last two or three decades. It's a real contribution to the climate change file.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Does Canada actually get credit for those emissions reductions that are generated by the use of our uranium or our technology around the world?

[Dr. John Barrett]

I've never seen it calculated quite like that. Indeed, we were pointing out this phenomenon to Natural Resources Canada a couple of years ago, and they began to look at it for the first time, as far as I understand. So no, it isn't really recognized, but it's an important facet. When you are looking at our industry and its contribution on the climate change file, it's significant.

Also, as I mentioned in my remarks, 20% of Canada's clean electricity today comes from nuclear power.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

I have a question for Mr. Gratton.

I think all of us took note of your remarks right at the beginning of your comments about Minister Carr's statement. Just for the record, I'm going to read the quote of the minister back into the record. This was from the meeting when he appeared before us to address this very bill, last week. He said, “All projects that are currently under review will be reviewed under the National Energy Board. We are expecting that this legislation will be ratified by Parliament sometime in 2019”.

It will be as is until the legislation is proclaimed. He clearly made a commitment that all projects that are in the pipeline under the 2012 CEAA would continue to be under that regime until that process is completed. There would be no starting at the beginning under the new provisions.

It concerns me that the legislation right now, as worded, does not reflect what the minister has said. He has either mischaracterized the legislation or somehow misstated the facts. I think all of us at this table have taken note of this.

Would you provide us with some draft wording of the amendments you're looking for to remedy that failing in this legislation and circulate that amongst all the members of this committee, so that we can make sure this act actually does what the minister promised it would do.

[Pierre Gratton]

Not to defend the minister, but what the minister said was technically true for NEB, and he was speaking about NEB projects. This is an issue of one side of government not talking or coordinating very well with the other side of government. You have the agency and you have the NEB. He's responsible for the NEB, and what he said is true about the NEB.

The rules are different for mining that fall under the agency. We don't fall under the NEB. That's the problem. In the brief we submitted, you will have specific language on how this can be amended.

Also, in relation to your previous question, the copper and coal we export from B.C. are also some of the lowest-carbon-generated copper and coal used for electrification and steel-making around the world. I just thought I'd point that out.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We don't get credit for that either, do we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. That's great.

Next up is Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

To the Canadian Electricity Association, I'm puzzled about your discussion about federal assessments. In the 50 years of building coal-fired power plants and gas plants, I don't think there has ever been either an individual federal assessment panel or even a joint panel.

Am I hearing you saying that you're open to that and that it would be a good idea and that perhaps should be on the project list?

[Terry Toner]

Are you talking about a coal-fired plant?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No major facility to generate electricity in Alberta, I believe, has ever been subject to a federal panel.

Do I understand that you're suggesting there should be federal panels?

[Terry Toner]

I think what we've said and would say is that we're not confident that new coal would be built, new coal-fired generation. So that takes care of that for you.

Secondly, on natural gas, we think we really need to understand what level and size would be appropriate to be on the project list, and that is under consideration in our discussion paper that is out now looking at that. Obviously, if we have a clean site that already exists and there is some expansion and that is helping coal shut down and this is an appropriate transitional and necessary generation, I think that has to be evaluated against criteria to see whether it meets those criteria to be on the list.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I have some concerns with these suggestions from two intervenors that when there are expansions on site there's no need for a hearing. I object to that because there are additional carbon emissions and there's additional pollution, and in those sectors, they are very serious emissions and impacts.

I heard from both the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Canadian Electricity Association, and I'm not sure that mining mentioned it but you might want to respond. I didn't get a chance to ask the oil industry this, but I asked them after and they shared the concern of a lot of people that those bills have been processed before we even see the project list.

Do you agree with what some people are saying, which is that there should be an opportunity to see those project lists before this legislation is finalized so that we see what it applies to?

[Dr. John Barrett]

I'll take a stab at answering if I may.

On the latter point, yes, we do agree and have suggested in our intervention that having the project list at the same time as considering the act would help immensely, because there are some calculations and considerations that would be very practical and I think that could be done.

On the question of activities, different activities on a licensed site, what we were suggesting is not that new capital expenditures that occur on the licensed site would be completely free of any assessment. It's just that the site has the environmental assessment as a sort of baseline and—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The site is the facility, right? The site means the land to me. You mean the facility.

[Dr. John Barrett]

If you have the facility and you're adding something to it, you could consider that as a delta. Rather than doing a complete review from start to finish, you would look at the delta between the two.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I understand that. That's not a new argument from industry. That is a continuous argument by the oil sector.

I would like to ask the Canadian Electricity Association something.

You talked about the sustainability of your facility. Can you tell us your interpretation of what sustainability means under this bill?

[Terry Toner]

Actually, there are lots of debates still taking place as to exactly what it does mean in general in many locations including the multi-interest advisory committee that I sit on. It's being developed, but what we know is that it expands to be more than just environment. Sustainability will take into account—as it says in the bill—aspects of socio-economic, health, and I believe also cultural and indigenous.

In terms of the way in which that is going to be assessed, I think this is an evolving area. We're trying to deliver in our sector more sustainable projects, moving from projects that people have less satisfaction with to ones that are more fit for the future as we move forward.

[Francis Bradley]

I would just add to Terry's point. Fundamentally, what is it that we're attempting to deliver and we're attempting to drive towards? As a country, we have made very significant commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions in the 2030 and also in the 2050 time frame.

In that context, there is absolutely no way we're going to even get anywhere near any of those targets without a very significant expansion of the clean electricity sector. We're going to have to move pretty aggressively into electrifying transportation and other parts of the economy. The only way we're going to be able to do that is if we are able to in fact expand the clean energy sector in this country.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The mining association raised this issue, and I think others might have, but it left me puzzled because in my involvement with projects, you are applying for your federal and provincial permits at the same time as you're going through the environmental assessment, your water permits and your air permits.

I don't understand why you would say that if you're on the regulatory path already, then there shouldn't be a new assessment. Can you clarify that? If you've already applied for your permits, but you haven't gone through an assessment process yet, are you saying you shouldn't have to go through the new assessment process?

You said some projects are already on the regulatory path, and most people apply for the regulations at the same time they're going through the EIA, so all you're saying is that, if you haven't gone through the CEAA, okay, we'll do the new process.

[Pierre Gratton]

No, what we're saying is that we have.... One of our members right now is wondering whether or not they should submit their project for a federal environmental assessment under the current act or not, and they have advisers saying they shouldn't, that they should wait until the new act comes in because they don't know what the rules are going to be, and that halfway through they're going to change. You can't make investment decisions not knowing how a new act is going to function, which is something that was recognized fully for any of these projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm so sorry to do this. I let Linda go on a bit longer, because I wanted to hear the answer, but I can't let it go on too much longer, so thank you.

Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, folks, for being here. It's very good testimony, and I truly appreciate the very pointed recommendations that you're all making.

The first question is going to go to the Canadian Electricity Association, Francis or Terry.

Bill C-69 has shortened timelines for decision-making, both for project reviews and for cabinet. With the new early planning phase, which will include outreach with stakeholders, indigenous communities, and others, do you think the time frames are going to be reasonable to get all this done?

I'm looking at Terry only because I know him, but, Francis, perhaps you...?

[Terry Toner]

We don't know yet. We haven't seen it happen, but in 180 days, six months, we'll have done as most proponents would have done, a lot of work before we even get to trigger that.

If the government is ready, the agency, and so on, and I think they will be, and people are collaborative, I think we can do it and I think the government can do it. If there are requests for delays of the process at the various stages of the process, I think that's where we're concerned about the risk. If it's an open and collaborative process with real opportunity for all of the stakeholders and the indigenous communities to participate, I'm confident that we can get projects through.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Other than what you just stated, do you have any other suggestions you want to get on the record here for things that might improve the process?

[Terry Toner]

There's already a pretty good list of products that come out of that, and one of the things that is often done in provincial processes is provisional orders, which provide more specificity, collaborative agreements and other things, to make sure that, not only do we know what the plan is, we know the time frames that are going to be associated, the mechanisms with which people are going to participate—hopefully, they're the appropriate amount—and that provides a degree of certainty in planning for all the people in the process.