Environment Committee on March 29th, 2018

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

I'm going to move to John or Liam from the Canadian Nuclear Association. I hope you're okay if I call you John and Liam.

The definition of adverse “effects” is broader. It will now read, “changes to environment or to health, social or economic conditions and the consequences of these changes.” How will this potential change impact your industry?

[Liam Mooney]

In that regard, I think some of the uncertainty that's been mapped out by our colleagues at the CEA and through the mining association.... I think we have a lot of experience on environmental assessment and the impacts and assessment of those.

Some of these other factors are more in the space of social sciences, and to make determinations and decisions based on that broader definition will be a challenge. I think that's something we said in our own remarks, that we'd like to seek some additional clarification.

Terry referred to the multi-industry advisory committee. I'm the CNA representative on that committee, and I can say in that regard that there has been some concern expressed by the industry representatives at that table about the weighing of the different factors that are included in that determination. I think one of the more prominent issues that we want to bring to the table is the focus on adverse effects. The language of it starts in a negative space, but you have to also take into account the socio-economic benefits of the development in question.

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

I do have another question. I see mining would like to chime in. If you're able to do that in 15 or 20 seconds, so I can get in one more question, that would be great.

[Pierre Gratton]

I just wanted to point out that, for mining projects, because of our heavy engagement with indigenous communities, because of where our projects are, some of those new aspects of this proposed legislation are already factored in, to a degree. We don't feel it's a huge shift for us, but I would agree that time will tell just how it all plays out.

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

Fair enough.

Again, for John or Liam, indigenous traditional knowledge would be taken into consideration when assessing a project. Can you tell us a little about the ways that you're currently considering indigenous knowledge when you or your members are working on a proposed project?

In any remaining time, I wouldn't mind if mining chimed in at the last second, as well.

[Liam Mooney]

In that regard, I think we've had a long history of engaging with our local stakeholders and understanding their concerns. I think that the incorporation of that indigenous knowledge and the feedback from those communities is a big part of the shaping of the specific projects in question and designing them to address and mitigate potential impacts in that regard.

The other piece that I would be remiss if I didn't speak to is on the provincial side of the assessment. Mr. Gratton referred to our experience in that regard. Provincial assessments—in Saskatchewan, at least—are broader in their context, so the adverse effects and the broader take are something with which we've had quite a bit of experience and enjoyed considerable success.

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

Do you want to run out the clock, Pierre?

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes, that's also true for other jurisdictions like B.C. and Quebec, so we're not breaking new ground in the mining sector all that much with those aspects. I think we speak to traditional knowledge in our brief and we've spoken to it in the past. One of the challenges is that it's proprietary, at times, so it can be challenging to get them to share that knowledge, particularly publicly. If they're sharing knowledge about where their trap lines are, they're disclosing to others where they hunt, and that's an issue. It's a delicate issue, but it's one that we have some experience working with and we're comfortable moving forward with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you so much. We appreciate that.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since this is a bilingual country, I'd like to thank the witnesses who used the language of Molière.

Thank you for being here this morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to start with a very simple question. How will the legislation before us help your sector reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its environmental impact?

[Francis Bradley]

Perhaps I can begin. Everything we're going to have to do in the future to be able to build out the clean energy future of this country is going to require the sorts of reviews that are envisaged in this legislation. There's no way we're going to be able to meet our clean energy future with the system we have today. It's inevitable that there's going to be a requirement for significant build-out. For example, the study by the Trottier energy futures project attempted to assess what our greenhouse gas emissions commitments up to 2050 would look like, and their expectation is that it would result in a doubling or tripling of the requirement for electricity in this country. To even be able to take a step into that future is going to require an efficient and open regulatory regime.

[Dr. John Barrett]

Thank you.

I might add also that, from our perspective, it's an excellent question because we try to frame, as best as possible, the work of our industry within that larger context, because that is really the key element of the industry. It can contribute all of this very dense source of clean electricity to our country and to others around the world. When we look at the act, we see that this is the opportunity to allow projects to proceed on a timely basis, producing the confidence among all stakeholders, among communities and citizens, that this is very safe, the environmental protection is there, and people are satisfied with that.

What is coming down the track, internationally and certainly in Canada, is that we're being seen, right now, as a leader in the development of advanced nuclear technology that may be reduced in size so that you have smaller types of reactors that could have applications that open up a vast array of possibilities in Canada and elsewhere, where you're not looking at huge capital projects that could break the bank, but smaller reactors, right down to a kind of battery that could go in small communities.

I'll stop here, but the main point is that working hand in glove, industry with the act, we could really do some very impressive things for our country.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Gratton, would you care to add anything?

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes. First, I would point to the fact that our contribution is relatively minor.

Second, Ontario currently has two projects that will deploy electric vehicles in underground mines. That's the trend in the industry right now, so we will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, it's important to understand that our products are essential to the economy of the future, whether we are talking about copper or lithium.

Fourth, infrastructure investment is one of the measures that contribute to a reduction in future greenhouse gas emissions. If you look at the projects in northern Canada, you see that they are dependent on fossil fuels, because they have no other choice but to use diesel. Investments in hydroelectricity and perhaps small nuclear reactors will certainly make other solutions more accessible.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

As I see it, you are already taking steps to reduce your impact on the environment. You recognize the importance of sustainable development and greenhouse gas reduction. No doubt everyone at this table wants to improve our environmental outlook by doing the least damage possible to the planet.

This week, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development released a report indicating that Canada had not made progress and was not on track to achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 or 2030.

The current government has brought forward this legislation, but its track record for the past two and a half years hasn't exactly been stellar. Do you sincerely believe that we are on the right track and that this bill will make the situation better?

From your comments, I gather that this legislation brings uncertainty and means additional work. It will make things more cumbersome and less clear. You're also concerned about the discretion it gives the minister.

In light of all that, what does the outlook for your industry look like?

[Dr. John Barrett]

The recommendations that we're trying to put forward on the table and that I'm hearing from the other organizations are mainly driven by making this an effective vehicle for getting the environmental considerations well under control, and to everyone's satisfaction, but making it work for the industry. If we get that right, I think then we can really start moving into addressing the electrification needs to get to a clean and low-carbon economy for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. That's all we have time for. They will get another question. They can pick that up at that time.

Mr. Maloney.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm splitting my time, so I have to get right to the point here.

Mr. Toner, my question is for you. You raised this idea of a privative clause, which is very interesting. Could you explain to us where you're going with that? How comprehensive do you mean this to be? Do you mean it to cover all decisions or certain decisions? What would that look like? Do you have specific recommendations on what it would look like?

[Terry Toner]

We will have specifics in our final report. I think what we're really talking about here is the notion of saying that this is a fairly extensive process that will allow for a good debate and participation by all sectors. The thought should be that, yes, there are some things that still would be challengeable in court, but there would be other things that, perhaps as we get to a decision, should be the decision. There should be a higher bar before a court challenge is possible.

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

You're going to provide us with your recommendations and the language on what that would look like?

[Terry Toner]

Yes.

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

Okay. Can you tell us right now specifically what areas you would include or exclude?

[Terry Toner]

I think we're mostly interested in the final decision that comes at the end of the process.

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

That would be unchallengeable in the courts.

[Terry Toner]

Relatively unchallengeable, I think. We can never say completely unchallengeable. I think there are always occasions in this country when things could be raised. There would have to be reasons, and I think the courts would have to recognize that the process has been good and that the legislation would attempt to ensure the process has led to a balanced decision that has had proper discussion.