Environment Committee on April 19th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to thank all the witnesses here today. Regrettably, in this 800-clause bill, where the government refused to divide it, you are the first witnesses who are talking about this part of the bill, so there is a big onus on you. I appreciate all the specific proposals for amendments.

I have lots of questions, but I only have six minutes, unfortunately.

Professor Bankes, it's great to have you here. You're certainly high on my list of recommended witnesses. You've done great work in Alberta and continue to do so.

My question is quite different from what other people might be looking at, and it's the part on certificates for designated international power lines. I know you're probably well aware of the arguments over the MATL line, which went through southern Alberta and was built for export. I understand that there's still ongoing litigation on the constitutionality of it and that the NEB did not get involved in that. Do you think that part of the bill is clarifying it? It simply says that the commission may make recommendations and that the federal entity might get involved in those approvals.

Have you looked at that part of the bill at all?

[Prof. Nigel Bankes]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Duncan.

I have looked at that part of the bill. My recollection was that there were really few, if any, changes from the current provisions of the National Energy Board Act, so I have two comments on that.

One, I think interprovincial transmission lines should be subject to federal regulation. They are not at the moment unless any such project is designated. I think that's unfortunate given that we probably need to be strengthening the interprovincial grid as part of responding to—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm asking about the international lines.

[Prof. Nigel Bankes]

The international lines are subject to federal regulation, depending upon the proponent's election. The proponent has the ability to run the project through a provincial permitting system rather than the federal permitting system, which is what happened in the MATL line, the Alberta-Montana intertie that you referred to.

You have this sort of strange combination of federal and provincial regulation, which seems odd to me. It's not what we do for pipelines. It's not clear to me why we have different rules for transmission lines.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

There are really interesting proposals from the Pembina Institute. Thank you for picking up on the expert panel recommendations. You're recommending the creation of a public intervenor office for the second part of the bill. Should that also apply to the impact assessment process?

[Dr. Nichole Dusyk, Postdoctoral Fellow, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute]

That's a really interesting question and I think it's something we need to consider. It's our opinion that it could be appropriate, thinking about it from the perspective of an energy regulator and the projects that would fall under the energy regulator. It is something we do need to think about.

When we were proposing it, we were not just thinking about the assessment process but about the entire life cycle and the number of places where better public participation is needed along the life cycle. We think that it could work to use it in the impact assessment for projects that would fall under the CER, but that also would need careful consideration. We wouldn't say that is an absolute requirement. Rather, we see it as a value, as a mechanism that could really ensure that we have access and representation all along the entire life cycle of a project.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm noting that the witnesses from Pembina, along with quite a few other interveners, are saying that it isn't enough just to say that the public can participate and that the agency may have rules on costs. You're recommending that we need specificity on both of those.

[Dr. Nichole Dusyk]

That's exactly it. We have had rules around public participation for a long time, but I think what we really need to think about is how we can grow institutional culture that not only allows for public participation but actually values it and understands the role that it can play in improving projects.

I'd like to also speak to the issue around efficiency because it is a concern in terms of the volume of participants. We also think that a public intervenor could play a role in that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You're talking about a public intervenor office.

[Dr. Nichole Dusyk]

Yes, exactly, in terms of potentially creating classes, groups of citizens together.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do you mean as is done in Alberta?

[Dr. Nichole Dusyk]

Right, and probably a number of people who intervene in these assessments and in projects don't necessarily need to do it individually. It takes a lot of time and a lot of resources. They would be happy to know that their interests are being represented, and they don't necessarily need to be there in person. We think it also would improve the efficiency.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have one more quick question for you. I know you want this question.

Do you believe in situ should be included on the project list? Do you believe that there should be extensive public consultation, and do you believe the project list should be in place before we do the final reading of this bill?

[Duncan Kenyon]

To be very clear on that, over the past 50 years, the development of oil sands has changed the face of Alberta in terms of economic prosperity, but it has also driven massive environmental impacts from tailings to greenhouse gas emissions.

The future of oil sands will be in situ, and if we exclude that type of project from the list, we are, in fact, excluding oil sands from being reviewed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Absolutely, as well as climate considerations, I guess.

[Duncan Kenyon]

One hundred per cent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Next up would be Mr. Rogers.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the presenters today.

I am an MP from Newfoundland and Labrador. I live in a riding where the vast majority of the work in offshore oil and gas occurs, where we have built gravity-based structures over the last couple of decades , and have developed a fairly large offshore oil and gas industry. Of course, the province keeps talking about the potential for the future, in terms of offshore oil and gas.

I'm hearing lots of commentary coming back to me from Newfoundland and Labrador from groups like Noia, CAPP, the province itself, and the energy minister. Most of the lobby effort really is related to offshore oil and gas in terms of this act and what it's going to do in terms of the future process that people will have to follow, in terms of public consultation, and all of these kinds of things. Of course, what they keep talking to me about is how if certain parts of this act are changed or amended, that is going to mean or have some dire consequences for offshore oil and gas.

What I am more interested in today, I guess, is what might be your perspective on this. I know, for example, that under the Atlantic accord there are certain stipulations that are alluded to with regard to the offshore petroleum boards.

I just wonder, Mr. Bankes, if you could maybe comment on what you see as a future role. I know you have talked already about the C-NLOPB with regard to their involvement in the future development of offshore Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

[Prof. Nigel Bankes]

I can try, Mr. Rogers, although I suspect both Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Butler might be better placed to answer, because I have principally been looking at part 2 of the bill, dealing with the Canadian energy regulator, and the CER will have really no jurisdiction in relation to offshore oil and gas. It will have jurisdiction in relation to offshore renewables, and it seems to me that is a positive development for both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, in that it puts in place a regulatory scheme where there was none before. Whether it's the best scheme, I don't know, but it's good to see that gap addressed.

With that, I am going to defer to my east coast colleagues, if that's all right.

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

Thank you. I appreciate the comments.

Ms. Mitchell, maybe you could comment.

[Lisa Mitchell]

Sure. Thank you for the opportunity.

Clearly, the petroleum boards play an enormous role in the regulation of offshore oil and gas exploration and activity off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. We wouldn't see that changing. This is really about how those projects that are on the list of designated projects or activities would be assessed. The way the impact assessment act changes that is to move those to a review panel process.

The one point we did make, which I think is perhaps relevant, is that we think regulators are better placed to advise on that process than to sit on those review panels.

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

Thank you very much for that commentary.

Under this proposed Bill C-69, Ms. Mitchell, what are the particular challenges and opportunities? I know you've talked about some of these things, but specifically for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, what are some of the challenges you see that this legislation presents?

[Lisa Mitchell]

Do you mean the challenges in terms of the development of the offshore?

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

Yes.