Environment Committee on April 18th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have seconds. I think you'd better call it quits.

Mr. Sopuck.

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

Mr. Northey, you were quite proud of the report that you and your colleagues produced, but I want to look at some testimony that we received not that long ago from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve investment. I would say we're at a very high risk of leakage of carbon outside of Canada, so the resource won't be produced in Canada but will likely be produced in a jurisdiction with no carbon policy.

Chris Bloomer, from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said, “New projects are grinding to a halt and we have major problems as a sector and as a country accessing new markets for our energy products to the world.” He further said, “In short, we cannot see that timelines will improve; we expect them to be longer.” Mr. Bloomer goes on to say, “If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

In a legal review by Osler and company, written about in The Lawyer's Daily—you can tell I don't have a life, because I read The Lawyer's Daily—it was quoted by the author, “there is nothing in these legislative proposals that suggests future assessments [of designated projects] will be in any way streamlined, more efficient, or more effective”, and that's compared to your review of the legislation.

Are these people all wrong?

[Rodney Northey]

I'm puzzled by how many things you wrapped together there.

What the legislation does is not, with respect, what the panel recommended. It's hard when you bring to me what the legislation says and critique it. I will go back to where the panel is. The panel was trying, as I was trying to say earlier, to balance off the various industry interests along with the other interests. I thought the way we dealt with that was through an integrated timeline and by this adjudicative process, the dispute resolution process I was trying to speak to earlier.

The bill doesn't do the adjudicative process and the timelines are really, with respect, not much different from what we have under the current bill, where the timeline is ridden with time outs. The question we were wrestling with is how you get a timeline that actually works.

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

So you're saying Bill C-69 is flawed.

[Rodney Northey]

Yes, I would say that.

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

Okay.

Again, it's quite ironic that only the Conservative members of Parliament on this committee talk about the health of communities, jobs, and incomes. I guess that says a lot.

Mr. Hazell, I live right next door to a national park. I'm the parks critic for the opposition. I have a little insight into how parks work.

Are you aware that under the old CEAA they had to do an environmental assessment for a park bench? If CEAA 2012 gets rid of all those insignificant assessments, it will free up resources to look at real projects that have the potential to do environmental impacts.

Surely you have to agree that an environmental assessment of a park bench is not really necessary.

[Stephen Hazell]

Sometimes an environmental assessment of a park bench is necessary. If it's adjacent to a mountain caribou path, that might be something to take a look at. But I completely agree that having 5,000 legally required assessments every year under CEAA 1990 was too many. Having a couple of dozen under CEAA 2012 is too few.

I think we have to strike a balance. We don't want to have too many legal requirements, I agree with that.

Can I just come back to your point about early engagement? I think it's important.

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

No, I'm sorry. I have very little time.

[Stephen Hazell]

You just asked the question about early engagement.

The early engagement idea—

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

I don't think I did.

[Stephen Hazell]

—was intended to help industry get through projects more quickly. It was designed for them. The idea is that if we can do early engagement with communities we can reduce the amount of paper that's produced, identify the issues, get communities on board, and get things done more quickly.

We all support that. If it's not working, let's figure out a way to make it work. Let's not throw that particular baby out with the bathwater.

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

I'm not going to argue with that. For sure let's figure out a way to make it work.

Just on your park bench thing. All those small things can be developed with standards. We don't need to have assessments for them. Just have the right standards and implement them.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to work in the oil sands. I lived at Denman camp on the Kearl project doing environmental assessment there. Again, with the effect of this legislation on energy and industrial development, I know some on this committee are uncomfortable with this approach because it's so effective.

I would point out that Andrew Weaver, the head of the Green Party in B.C., sent out a news release about an hour ago regarding the Prime Minister's comments on the oil sands. Mr. Weaver said he's disappointed that “the Prime Minister is doubling down on a sunset industry whose expansion puts our climate targets out of reach.”

A singular experience for me, when I lived at that Denman camp was the type of people who were in the camp. They came from all walks of life. Many were labourers who up to that point lived on very low incomes. These people's education levels were low. The oil sands were a chance for them. Many were from the Maritimes.

I'm asking this of all the panellists. Do you agree with Mr. Weaver that the oil sands should be phased out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have two seconds to answer that.

I think we're going to end up having to get the answer in the subsequent question.

[Stephen Hazell]

Yes, I do agree.

Ultimately, there's a complete shift in global investment. Renewable energy now receives more investment than the oil and gas industry globally. A transition is under way. It's going to be a tough one. We really have to focus on just transition for workers. Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's perfect.

I did have agreement. I just want to confirm with the committee that we're going to keep going until about ten minutes to, and then we'll break for the vote.

Next up is Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Northey, I'm so glad to hear you testify about the tribunal. I think I'm at odds with just about everybody I'm talking to who thinks an agency can deliver what a tribunal can. My experience is with the energy and the utility review boards in Alberta. It's always been a tribunal. I frankly don't understand.

The proposal in here is that the impact assessment agency is going to adjudicate first nations' rights. I just find that an absolutely astounding possibility. Without completely revamping this act, I don't know how we can shift that. Anyway, I was really grateful for your review. I thought it was very sensible. To me it makes perfect sense, based on my 40 years' experience dealing with those tribunals.

I'm deeply troubled with even the concept that the federal government could defer to a provincial government to hear evidence on and rule on matters of federal jurisdiction. I would appreciate.... I can't see any conditions that would make any sense whatsoever. On the other hand, joint tribunals have always been suggested as the way to go. Many provinces push against that because they just want the feds to butt out.

I would like to hear from both Mr. Northey and Mr. Hazell on the issue of substitution.

[Rodney Northey]

Do you want me to go first?

[Stephen Hazell]

Yes, go ahead.

[Rodney Northey]

First, I think the only example we have of trying to do it right now is in B.C., and the B.C. legislation was modelled on the federal CEAA, so there was certainly an effort in the background of that to make them work together.

I would agree with you that, in legal terms, there are some problems because the whole nature of this is that each level of government has some things that are more exclusive, if I could put it that way, and some things are concurrent. The problem with environment is that numerous things are concurrent, but some things are exclusive. How do you deal with exclusive on a substitution? That's very difficult to work through.

On the other hand, to take your model, I think federal-provincial co-operation is the proven path on this and should be the path we go forward with. In that respect, I support where this bill is, but I support where, in fact, we were with EARPGO in the 1980s and CEAA 1992. All of them had a model favouring co-operation and not substitution, and the courts in the late 1980s, when they were quite active about this, also had a fairly strong interest in seeing co-operation and not unilateralism.

That's where I would be on that.

[Stephen Hazell]

Could I just say that I don't think substitution is a good idea. It's a bad idea. The reason is that federal departments and agencies have decisions to make, and they have to make decisions based on the best information they can gather. To hand over that authority to look at the information and figure it out to some other agency that has different interests and different priorities is just a mistake.

The joint review process is really the best. Sometimes we do run into problems because sometimes provinces don't necessarily want to allow the feds to come and play, so the committee might want to think about ways in which it can encourage joint reviews through amendments to the bill. That is the co-operative model. That's a better way to go. I think it ultimately results in better decisions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Paddle Canada, I wish I could spend more time on the rivers but I can't.

Can you speak a bit to the concern that a good number of people are raising with what happened to navigable rivers under the Conservatives and now is also troubling?

I don't think there is anywhere in the provisions the right of Canadians to recommend additions. Some have suggested there not be a list at all and simply all navigable waters require a review maybe based on the significance of the proposal. Could you speak to that?

[Jay Morrison]

I could, and to be honest with you, that's where I differ a little from some of my colleagues, especially the ones in the environmental law areas. I know Josh Ginsberg personally. We've served on the Friends of Temagami board together. I think perhaps they are focusing a bit too narrowly on the wording of defining navigable waters as likely to be navigated by vessels. I think saying that navigable waters are waters that currently are or likely to be, really, includes just about anything that we might want to navigate, because in my view it will include what was done in the past whether it was by first nations or people like me who are recreational paddlers.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do you agree that the definition right now is inadequate?

[Jay Morrison]

There really isn't much of a definition. There never was. There's a bit of a myth—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

There's a definition in the act all right.