Environment Committee on April 19th, 2018

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

Just for the record, the northern gateway project was killed by a political decision after a rigorous proposal process, and for Mr. Amos's benefit, here's the picture of the Kearl project. The project passed all the reviews and was built and is generating jobs and income for Albertans and all of Canada.

Mr. Butler or Ms. Mitchell, I would presume that biodiversity conservation is in the Ecology Action Centre's wheelhouse in terms of the activities you do.

[Mark Butler]

Yes.

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

Good. Renewable energy is being developed off the east coast at a fairly rapid rate. I'm thinking in terms of wind energy and also tidal energy. Is that a fair comment?

[Mark Butler]

They're working hard on tidal. There are some challenges, but I'm hopeful. I think it's an incredible resource.

We also have a major offshore wind opportunity in the form of Beothuk Energy. They have the European capital to move ahead, but I understand there have been some obstacles, not from environmentalists but perhaps from our provincial utility in terms of hooking up to the grid.

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

Just to clear the record up, I'm a fisheries biologist by training and I have a lot of difficulty with tidal energy and wind energy. The environmental problems with tidal and wind are always glossed over.

For example, in Ontario, every year there are over 41,000 bat deaths caused by wind turbines, 14,000 bird deaths, and 462 raptor deaths. In terms of the bats, three of them are SARA-listed species under the Endangered Species Act, but it seems that wind energy and all renewables get away from any environmental assessment whatsoever. It's in the mandate of the Minister of Environment to enforce the Species at Risk Act, yet at the same time the Ontario government ran roughshod over local communities in Ontario and eliminated their right of appeal in terms of assessing wind turbines and wind project developments.

Mr. Butler or Ms. Mitchell, should renewable energy projects be subject to the impact assessment act when it's passed?

[Mark Butler]

That's an interesting question. I wondered if somebody was going to bring it up. I would say yes.

Siting is obviously important whatever you're talking about, but we recognize too that renewable energy is addressing a serious problem we have, which is climate change. We've just come out of a winter in Nova Scotia in which we've had more storms and more damage to coastal infrastructure, including roads and wharves, and the cost of that is really starting to mount.

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

Shouldn't the provisions of the Species at Risk Act be brought in to assess wind turbines? They're getting away scot-free. I'm a birder and we have bats in our community and on our farm, and we enjoy these species immensely. The mortality rate is astonishing, yet it gets a free pass. Why is that?

[Mark Butler]

I don't know if it's getting a free pass. I think we're hearing more about it and about having too many in the wrong place. I'm a birder too. I know that habitat loss is the top impact on birds and that actually the top two causes of direct mortality for birds are cats and windows, which you wouldn't think, but it's actually true. Over 300 million birds are killed each year by cats in Canada. Sometimes when people complain about wind turbines and birds, even though they have some profile in their community, they often need to look in their own backyard.

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

Cats don't kill raptors or bats. I've heard that excuse before and I don't buy it for a minute.

In terms of tidal energy, what has the Ecology Action Centre learned about the impacts on fish populations?

[Mark Butler]

I wrote about this 25 years ago. I've been following it. Tidal barrages across rivers, like the Annapolis one, have clearly killed fish. They kind of slice and dice them. In-stream holds a lot more potential. It's tough though, because it's really hard to study and monitor. Picking the Bay of Fundy, for example, you have the waters moving at three or four knots.

I think we're going to find a way to develop tidal that will have a relatively small impact, given the overall biomass, on fish.

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

Mr. Kenyon talks about the move to renewables, and you're saying it could do better over time, but there are existing renewable energy projects in place right now. Should they be subject to rigorous environmental assessment and community approval?

[Mark Butler]

Yes. No project should get a free pass, but tidal is getting more scrutiny and more attention than any other energy development has ever had, because on the technical side, we have to figure out lots of things but also because there is concern from fishers about the impacts. We also have concerns. If we start finding harbour porpoises chopped up on the beach, or sea bass, or whatever, then we will have a problem.

So far, we haven't determined there's a major problem with in-stream tidal.

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

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Amos, you are the last questioner and you have six minutes.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Today, we have not discussed to any extent the issue of federal-provincial collaboration in assessments, the issue of appropriateness of substitution, nor the terms upon which equivalency is determined. I want to open this up, particularly to Professor Bankes and to the Pembina representatives. I want to hear your views on how that is most appropriately done.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, we've entered a very politicized environment around the Trans Mountain issue, which has sort of framed the question, but we need to take a step back from that and look more broadly at how we want a coherent federal-provincial assessment regime to function. That's what I'm thinking about now, so I'd love to hear your views on that.

[Prof. Nigel Bankes]

I'm going to let Mr. Kenyon start.

[Duncan Kenyon]

Thanks, Nigel.

Ironically, I'm living and breathing some of the equivalency issues right now, for example, with the federal and the provincial methane regulations. The equivalency piece is quite lacking in terms of clarity and what will be the judgment for that. I'm not as strong on or as able to speak about that in the environmental assessment context, but there are some very strong principles and guidance that need to be established to make really clear how equivalency works.

Also, quite critically, when we're looking at the federation and how our country works, we really want to be clear about creating collaboration and processes that encourage the federal and provincial governments to work together. The more we discourage that type of work, the more territorial we risk becoming. Specifically, when we're starting to deal with some pretty large energy projects, or some politicized aspects, you can see how that can take away from the spirit of collaboration that we need to establish.

[Prof. Nigel Bankes]

I'll jump in with two comments. First, we should be trying to avoid duplication in review. That's inefficient. I don't think it's in anyone's interest. Second, we have to recognize that, even where we have a federally regulated project like Trans Mountain, there will be a legitimate provincial interest. I think that provincial interest doesn't amount to a veto, that the province is not in a position to undermine a federal approval, but the process has to be able to take into account legitimate provincial and municipal concerns.

It actually seems to me the Kinder Morgan review process did that. Condition number one of the Trans Mountain certificate is that it's obliged to live by provincial and municipal permits. The challenge has been that Trans Mountain has found that Burnaby has not been acting in good faith in terms of proceeding with the permitting processes.

I haven't really thought that much about the substitution issues, to tell you the truth, Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for that. In a sense, I feel that I'm also signalling to other witnesses to come, and to our own government and my colleagues, that I'm looking for a stronger regime around the determination of equivalency.

In my estimation, a system of determining equivalency premised solely on unfettered discretion is not the direction to go in. I totally agree with the idea that we want one assessment. We want collaborative federalism so that governments are working together on environmental assessments. However, that can't be achieved through a unilateral, unfettered discretion to simply say that the provincial assessment is equivalent to what is required under federal law.

What I'm looking for in the future is some real guidance on this. I signal that to our witnesses today and to others who may be paying attention to these hearings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have one minute, Will.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Have I?

I'll hand that time off to my colleague Mr. Bossio, as he may have another question. If not, then maybe the chair has a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Then I'll take it and use it for administrative stuff.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

If I could have the forbearance of the panel, I want to do a bit of administrative stuff. If I suspend, the time all goes to everybody's coming up and having a chat with you, because I know there will be interest in that.

I want to thank each of you for taking the time to come. You've given us a lot to think about. You've helped us drill down on some of the concerns we've had. If you wouldn't mind staying with us for a few minutes, I want to do some administrative things and make suggestions for the committee.

I want to first acknowledge and recognize our clerk for the hard work he's been doing trying to get all the panels coordinated. We have two panels on Tuesday, two more on Wednesday, and one panel.... Next week is going to reflect this week, so that everybody understands what we're trying to work toward.

Out of the 48 we asked, only five declined. We have one we're still waiting to get a response from, and then we'll have all of our spaces full as a result. More than 150 briefs have come in, and they are working their way as fast as possible through translation.

We appreciate all of the hard work you've done to try to make this work successfully. It has been a good week, adding to the previous weeks of testimony.

Our analysts have been busy trying to figure out how to help us, and they've given us some reports to assist. They have some thoughts on where we might want to look at some things.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, can you dismiss the witnesses?