Evidence of meeting #99 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was projects.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
—proposed by the Canadian energy regulator will be subject to an impact assessment, so Canada's climate change commitments will be considered in the impact assessment of major pipeline and energy transmission projects.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I won't belabour it. Yes, the panel will consider, but not the CER appointees, so you might want to revisit the legislation. That might be something that you might want revisit.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
How do you respond to concerns? Both ministers might want to speak to this. The expert panel appointed by the government recommended, having heard from everywhere across Canada, a permanent quasi-judicial tribunal. Why was the decision made to simply have ad hoc panels of people appointed each time there was a project?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We've taken a very different approach from the previous government. We've been very clear about the factors that must be considered. We've been clear that there will be one agency that will be leading the assessment. At the end of the day, it's up to elected representatives to make decisions on projects that are worth billions of dollars. In fact, in the next 10 years, it's estimated that projects will be worth $500 billion, and that we—
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
With all due respect, Madam Minister, that's not my question. The question you're answering is if the panel will be decision-making or recommending. My question is, why did you decide to have ad hoc panels as opposed a stand-alone, full-time, permanent, quasi-judicial panel that would have expertise?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I'm happy to turn this over to my deputy to answer in more detail. We are going to look at the best, most qualified people for a particular panel, and we've been clear about the requirements for the panel, that people need to have expertise on indigenous issues.
I will ask Ron Hallman, the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, to respond.
11:45 a.m.
Ron Hallman President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The benefit of having a wider range of potential members on a roster is that the breadth of the types of projects that the agency undertakes assessment of are much wider than what the typical life-cycle regulator would look at. We look at dams, mines, roads, railways, etc. It's useful to have a roster of experts in a wide range of things that can be brought together for a specific project at a specific time within a range of circumstances, indigenous realities, community realities, etc. That's the system that we have at this time.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
The Minister of Environment repeated many times, when she spoke at second reading of the bill, the importance of public participation in the review of these major projects and how important it was that this legislation would resolve the lack of faith in the current NEB process where clearly there was great consternation because people were being denied the right to provide evidence or to cross-examine. Why is it then that this legislation is vacuous on prescribing specific rights? It simply says there will be a right to participate. It doesn't say whether that will include the right to table evidence or to cross-examine and it simply leaves it to the agency to decide from time to time when someone can participate, when they can't, what they'll be allowed to do, what they can't do.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Under the previous government there was a standing task when it came to the National Energy Board. That has been removed. We have heard loudly and clearly that Canadians want the right to participate, and they should. We certainly believe that we need to hear from communities because that will help us make the best decision possible. That's the principle we will be following. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency does a very good job right now of reaching out and hearing from communities and from Canadians across the board. We think that's the approach we should take. Under the previous government people were shut down, they were prevented from testifying, from expressing their views. We think that is a wrong-headed approach.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
With all due respect, this legislation does not change that situation. It is also silent on whether costs will be available. I have a lot of experience in participating in energy reviews. The only way the community and indigenous peoples can participate is to be fully allocated costs and cost advances. We see nothing in the budget and there's nothing specifically prescribed that costs will be available to everyone who wishes to participate.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
We've been very clear that we will be providing support for communities and indigenous peoples to participate. We've increased it significantly. This consultation will start at the beginning, in an early engagement phase; we think it is critically important to hear those voices, voices from community members and also from indigenous peoples.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you for the invitation and including not just me but the parliamentary secretary as part of this committee. As Minister Carr mentioned, it is not just the two ministries that work together, but the two committees work together. I think that's a strong statement. I for one think this bill is a reflection that the economy and the environment go hand in hand.
In my capacity as chair of the committee over the past few years I've had the opportunity to meet with stakeholders on a regular basis. We heard the words “trust” and “certainty” today. One of the issues that comes up on a regular basis is the word “confidence”. When I've been speaking with stakeholders from across the country, they have expressed to me some concern about confidence with regard to investing in Canada because of the process that has been in place for the last number of decades.
My question is to both ministers. How do you see this piece of legislation changing that and restoring confidence to stakeholders so we can move forward with all the large energy projects in the system?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Let me start by agreeing with the premise. The major objective of this legislation is to find the balance among investor certainty and predictability, environmental stewardship, and indigenous partnership and participation. We think we have met that balance. In my conversations as recently as a few weeks ago in Houston, when the energy world gathered to talk about these issues, to talk about competitiveness, and in all my conversations, to talk about Canada.... We have an awful lot going for us in this country, but it's important to underline the fundamental issues of predictability and certainty among investors when they look at decisions that can be made virtually all over the world. Canada has to be able to make the argument convincingly that the set of conditions in place in our country is favourable against any other country that may be competing for international business. We believe that this legislation will enhance our competitiveness because of the importance we are putting on certainty and predictability.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I can just add to that. We spent a lot of time hearing from industry about the need for certainty, but I think everyone agrees on the need for certainty. Through early engagement, we will be having outputs that industry is very happy to see. We will be working with provinces to have one project, one review. That means we will eliminate the duplication that is burdensome for industry and also takes additional time. We can align our timelines with provinces. We will also help them understand the consultation that's needed with indigenous communities. They've asked for support in that regard, and also on the permitting process. They want to understand what the permitting process is.
We think this is actually going a long way to responding to exactly what industry said. They said, “Tell us what we need to do”, and that was not available under the previous system. We think this will actually make our system much more attractive to business, provide the certainty that's needed, ensure we're protecting the environment, but also ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Also, we'll make sure that all of that is done at the front end of the project. That's why you'll see that there is a front-end load of information and of certainty, so that the proponents know exactly what's expected of them as they move through the process so there are no surprises—certainty, predictability, no surprises.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you. I have a small amount of time left.
A number of projects are currently pending before the National Energy Board. Can you tell us what's going to become of those projects and how this is going to change when the new legislation comes into effect?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
All projects that are currently under review will be reviewed under the National Energy Board. We are expecting that this legislation will be ratified by Parliament sometime in 2019, so it will be as is until the legislation is proclaimed.
Even after the legislation is proclaimed, those projects that began under the current system will remain under the current system unless the proponent makes the choice to move to the new one. It would be a decision that the proponent would make.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
If you can answer this question in one minute, I'm not sure you can, but I'll let you try.
What's the biggest difference between the new national energy regulator and the National Energy Board right now?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
First of all, it has a modernized governance structure, which is very important to split the functions that were combined. There will be, by legislation, the necessity of appointing an indigenous person as one of the commissioners. That's a difference. One of the seven statutorily will be required. It will be active in one project, one assessment with the impact assessment agency and will also work with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the offshore boards. They will be working with the impact assessment agency.
We think we have streamlined the process. We have been very specific about the governance structure that would lead to more expeditious decision-making, more accountability, and more transparency for Canadians.
