Environment Committee on April 25th, 2018

[Scott Tessier]

I don't know. There are certainly competitiveness challenges faced in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. I will say that the industry assesses the attractiveness of a region based on below-the-hole considerations, so that's the geophysics and geoscience, and the above-the-hole considerations, which are things like stability in governance and the regulatory regime.

I think we have a world-class regulatory regime. On the broader competitiveness discussions, they are a little outside my remit. We don't preoccupy ourselves with the economics of the operators. Those are more discussions and questions that are better placed to governments.

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

Well, I kind of respectfully disagree with that, because basically the reports are in. This is in an article from the Maclean's, “Investment by foreigners has collapsed. Foreign direct investment...in Canada clocked in at $31.5 billion...down 56 per cent...”

Chris Bloomer from the pipeline association made the point that “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.”

It appears that Bill C-69 is setting us on a path that's seriously going to affect Canada's competitiveness.

You brought up the issue of competitiveness, so obviously you are concerned about it, given the business you're in. How do you see this bill affecting Canada's competitiveness in terms of attracting investment around the world?

[Scott Tessier]

Maybe a good proxy for the discussion is to look at our nominations and calls for bids. We have seen record numbers in years gone by, and we had a relatively modest offering in uptake last year.

We have a call that closes in November. I suggest that the committee should all keep an eye on the bids that we attract in the round that closes in November of this year. That will be a good indicator as to what you're asking.

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

I can assure you we will be watching, especially on this side of the table.

Again, I go to what Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said. He made the point that “If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have a minute and a half.

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

Okay.

I would like to conclude with the legal opinion from Osler and company. They say:

Despite the Government of Canada's suggestion that the new legislation will improve the efficiency and timing of federal regulatory reviews, there is nothing in the new legislation that will necessarily achieve these results and many aspects of the legislation will likely have the opposite effect.

From the industry associations, of which your industry is a part—you may not be part of the association, but you are all part of the same industry—and a legal opinion from a resource company, the consensus is emerging very quickly that this bill will encourage a decline in foreign investment in Canada and will slowly grind our energy production to a halt.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My questions will be to Mr. Watson.

It's great to see you. We worked together a lot in Alberta on the Clean Air Strategic Alliance, which we both worked very positively with, and we recommend, at the federal level, bringing everybody together.

We've heard mostly about the first part of Bill C-69, but of course there is a second part, and that is the new Canadian energy regulator. A number of recommendations have been made both for the impact assessment part and the Canadian energy regulator.

One of the recommendations that some of the witnesses are suggesting, and frankly that the expert panel recommended, is that rather than ad hoc panels, there should be a full-time tribunal.

Given your experience both in Alberta and as the head of National Energy Board, do you think there is an advantage to having a full-time tribunal that develops the expertise to hear those hearings, or do you think you would be able to deliver the same responsibilities effectively with people appointed ad hoc to panels?

[Peter C. Watson]

I think one of the things that will be important, which is a feature that's already designed into the legislation—as we consider the nature of the projects we're responsible for, pipelines and international power transmission lines—is the full integration of the life-cycle regulatory oversight. As you're aware, we have some of those features and have had under the NEB Act. We think that working in partnership with the impact assessment agency, and providing our technical expertise and ability to deal with the issues that will arise under the Canadian energy regulator act, is a good way forward, and will maximize the strengths and abilities of both organizations.

I think in our world, the integrated review process can work well.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm not raising a question about the integrated.... There are questions about that, about how many should come from the various energy sectors. It's more of a question about how under the first part of the bill, the proposal is that there simply be a roster of people who could be appointed to panels, whereas right now we have a full-time National Energy Board.

Do you think that there are any advantages to a full-time tribunal that may be lost with simply a roster of people who could be pulled up from time to time?

[Peter C. Watson]

I'm not sure if I'm in the best position to speak to that specific issue because in our instance, as we exercise our authority over federal jurisdiction, it is helpful to ensure that we understand and have full knowledge and capacity to appreciate the issues across the entire life cycle. This is partly because we ensure the ongoing safety and regulatory oversight associated with those projects.

I know that you've received information and advice from other people and other witnesses, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the question might be more appropriate for them. I can't really speak to the range of issues that they may be faced with.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Sure. We look forward to having them back again, hopefully.

Two other recommendations were made by Calgary entities—a professor from the University of Calgary, and the Pembina Institute. They recommended something that, regrettably, will probably require a royal recommendation because it would require additional resources. They proposed an independent energy information agency. I think the intent there is that, because of their experience before the various provincial and NEB tribunals, it would be useful to have a common base of neutrally collected information that everybody can rely on and have trust in.

Do you think that there would be some benefit to consideration of that to support the work of, frankly, all the tribunals under Bill C-69?

[Peter C. Watson]

We support the integration of the efforts relative to energy information generally. We play a certain role in that, but it's not a complete role, nor should it be a complete role. We collect certain datasets that are absolutely critical and have been part of our mandate under the NEB Act. They are also critical for the functioning of our role as an economic regulator, for our understanding of flows of energy in the country, and for our responsibilities around import and export jurisdiction.

We contribute core datasets to the system. We understand and support the need for better integration across the system, and we would want to be a part of that as we go forward in the future. We think we can and should strive for better integration and effort across the Canadian energy information system.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My other question has to do with something that has been raised by some of the industry: the concern about the transition period between the enactment of this law and the creation of the new entities and about the continuation of the National Energy Board.

I wonder if you'd like to speak to that at all.

[Peter C. Watson]

Sure. I just really want to convey to the members that during this interim period, of course, we will continue to deal with applications under the NEB Act. We'll also be positioning our organization to respond to the changes that will be required when we transition to the new features. We're very mindful not only of our efforts in this transition period, but also of providing clarity and certainty relative to applications that are already in process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to our distinguished representatives of regulatory bodies across Canada. It is a privilege to have you here.

I feel as though the public—not just the constituents of Pontiac, but Canadians in general—would want me to ask each of you to speak to the issue of public trust in our regulatory institutions. How do you feel the legislative proposal in Bill C-69 is actually going to successfully address it, and where may there be opportunities for enhancement in order to achieve greater public trust? At the end of the day, if we want the environment and the economy to go hand in hand, we also need the public to come right along with that process. The public needs to feel as though good projects are going to be well regulated and that they're going to be well assessed before they even get off the ground.

I would go to Mr. Binder to start, but I'd invite each of your respected institutions to respond. What could be done better in Bill C-69? What could be modified to greater enhance public trust in our regulatory institutions?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Thank you for the question. I think it's an important question in an era where people hear about fake news and inauthentic facts. We just heard about a recent poll showing that 40% of Canadians thought science was a matter of opinion. In that environment, the question is, as a regulator, how do you have people come in front of us, participate in our hearings, and accept our decision?

What I would like to separate out is the project approval process, where we are trying to reach out with public hearings. We actually have participating funding for people to appear in front of us. It's webcast. We issue an annual report on the performance of the licensees and facilities. We do all of this.

By the way, in case you haven't been to one of our hearings, I strongly recommend that you show up. It's riveting material. There's a really interesting discussion back and forth. Hopefully, people will try to understand the science and the technical information that's being considered by the commission.

We will not ever change a small percentage of people who are anti-nuclear, period. We hope that the vast majority.... Particularly in communities where there are facilities, the approval rate for those facilities is very high. In those host communities where they understand the work that's being done by the licensees, I think there's a high acceptance. How we bring it up across the whole board is a challenge. We are trying to do and provide as much.... We have a legislative mandate to disseminate technical and scientific information, and we try to do this best by using our website, our new media, etc.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I appreciate that, but what I am asking is around Bill C-69 in particular. What aspects do you see in this that could be enhanced in order to better achieve public trust? I appreciate that you're doing your utmost to communicate to the Canadian public, but there is clearly a disconnect.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, this question is actually a matter that is better reserved for those who are not regulators. This is a question being asked to one of our regulators about public trust. That's a question to be asked of other stakeholders or politicians, and I believe it's inappropriate to ask that of our regulators who are present here at the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I understand your point. I'm just wondering if the member would like to adjust his language.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I think the question is entirely reasonable. If any of our witnesses feel uncomfortable with my asking the question, I am entirely certain they will say, “I don't feel comfortable answering the question”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I've been flexible on all sides in letting people ask questions, make statements, and not ask questions, so let's carry on. We'll keep that in mind.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Maybe I'll pose the question to the NEB. I'll start in a really positive way, because I had a fabulous experience—and I think my clients did as well—at the Arctic offshore drilling review way back in 2011. Mr. Steedman was a key player in that process, and I commend him for his role in all of that.

[Dr. Robert Steedman, Chief Environment Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you.