Evidence of meeting #52 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
How will environmental standards and protections be upheld with the regulatory streamlining that's proposed under Bill C-39?
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
Let me answer it for BCA, and then Peter will do Bill C-39.
For BCA, there are five factors. One of them is that we have to assess greenhouse gases and clean economy. We can add other factors for all our projects. If our project's in the marina, we add the marine factor. We add terrestrial. We look at all the environmental issues, including greenhouse gases and anything else that might come along with the project when we're assessing that as a factor. That gets weighted as we look at the listing recommendation. It also must be addressed along with first nations rights in the conditions phase.
On Bill C-39, I'll turn to Peter.
Peter Feldberg Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Major Projects Office
Bill C-39 is largely about process. The primary change is to do assessments and permitting in a concurrent way as opposed to a consecutive way.
Most of the changes you see through Bill C-39 are changes to process to make things run quicker. There aren't any changes to environmental standards. For example, the environmental criteria that are set up in the Impact Assessment Act remain and the environmental criteria in the CER Act remain.
The environmental standards remain the same in Bill C-39, as they were pre-existing. It's a bill about process.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
That's perfect. Thank you.
All of the members want to ask questions today, so I'm going to pass some time over to my colleague from Carleton.
Liberal
Bruce Fanjoy Liberal Carleton, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Farrell, the Prime Minister said, “The path to affordability is electrification; the path to competitiveness is electrification; the path to net zero is electrification.”
Can you give us an update on the major projects you're working on right now that are helping to advance Canada toward our doubling of the grid by 2050?
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
As you know, the Prime Minister has put out an electricity strategy and a nuclear strategy. Our projects office currently has a couple of small hydro projects up in the north—Taltson hydro and Iqaluit—that we'd like to get built. They're not currently PONIs, but they are referred projects. They would replace the diesel the current communities up there have to build in order to live in the north.
We have the ability under our office to look ahead, so we have teams right now working across Canada, looking at potential new projects with tie-lines among provinces. There are also, as you know, a number of projects that people might be looking at, such as SMRs and nuclear. So far, those are further in the future, so the provinces are working on those. We aren't yet. Our particular interest right now is in looking very carefully at the opportunities to tie together grids so that we can get the benefit among the various provinces.
Liberal
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
The Labrador trough is a strategy under our office. If Quebec and Newfoundland come to an agreement on Churchill Falls and Gull Island, we will assess whether they would benefit by coming to our office either for a concierge service, because we can help with permitting, or for a listing, because then we can do a number of other things, including the financing stuff.
At this point, we're waiting to see if they become projects. They require Newfoundland and Quebec to get together.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema
Thank you very much, Mr. Fanjoy and Mr. St-Pierre.
Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Farrell, you said you were assessing greenhouse gas emissions. An oil sands pipeline project would generate greenhouse gas. We're talking nearly 30 million tonnes—27.7 million tonnes, according to Environment Canada—to produce this oil in Canada. Two hundred million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is almost a third of Canada's emissions when we burn this oil.
Is the economy more important than the environment in your decision-making criteria?
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
Remember that with the Pacific link pipeline, one of the criteria for building the project is that the Pathways project be completed. Pathways would reduce emissions by 16 megatonnes of greenhouse gases once built, six megatonnes through a carbon pipeline and then an additional 10 megatonnes.... As a package, that's how this project works.
We assessed what the greenhouse gas emissions would be from the pipeline itself. It brings up the emissions a bit. Of course, Canada, through its various greenhouse gas strategies, will have to find a way to reduce that by 2050, given our goals for 2050.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Your assessment doesn't take the greenhouse gas reduction targets and the government's 2030 targets into account.
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
We looked at the greenhouse gases over the life of the project, up to 2050, and we looked at them relative to the.... Of course, that project won't even be built until 2033.
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Regardless of the project, can you think of any oil and gas project that might be rejected due to the greenhouse gas emissions? I understand that, in the case of a pipeline, you can't think of any, but I find that highly questionable. Obviously, everyone thinks this is an environmental disaster, but can you think of any oil and gas project that could be rejected because of greenhouse gas emissions? If so, please give me an example.
October 27th, 2026 / 4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
Frankly, our office is more focused on the infrastructure that's required in the country, such as gas pipelines and oil pipelines, and transportation, such as roads, trains and ports. A lot of our focus so far has been there.
I have not received any projects that we're seriously looking at right now that are pure oil and gas projects.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Farrell, for being here today.
I want to follow up on some questions from my colleagues about the Pacific link proposal.
First, I'm a bit concerned now about the uncertainty, because on Pacific link's website, it shows that the end point is Roberts Bank. We all know that the outer ring of Roberts Bank needs to be built out in order to accommodate that ship-to-ship transfer for the VLCCs to go to Asia. This, combined with the fact that the Pacific link pipeline would still require a final investment decision in the spring of 2028, leaves Canadians questioning how exactly this pipeline will be built on the schedule that is outlined so far.
The government has directed the route. The plan is for the Crown corporation that you used to run to build this Pacific link proposal. It's finally been designated as a project of national interest, even though the Prime Minister promised it previously.
Could you let us know what kind of independent commercial assessment the MPO obtained on the route and the financing for this project in advance?
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
To be crystal clear, the project has been approved under the Building Canada Act and is now listed under schedule 1, which means that it has now moved under the Building Canada Act legislation and it must be permitted, with a conditions document, by September 1.
Based on what that conditions document is, the investors, which happen to be Alberta and Trans Mountain, will look at the conditions document and make their final investment decisions. They are like any other investors globally; everybody needs a conditions document that allows them to construct in order to do their final financing and make sure that they can achieve the financing.
Of course, they will still have to go to the market and get oil companies to sign up for capacity on the pipeline. They're going to have to put a price against that capacity. It's a real project. That's how real projects work in this world. They don't get built just because they'd be a good idea.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you for making it clear that there's still a long way to go before this is a real project, with shovels in the ground, that Canadians can count on.
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
No. It's a real project that's doing the right things in order to be ready to be invested in.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
It is the Crown corporation that had major cost overruns and didn't get the other pipeline set up until long after the initially proposed start date. We owe it to Canadians to be clear to them about the realities around the pipeline.
Of course, the Liberals have already had this experience with the Trans Mountain expansion, when they had to redo their own indigenous consultation, which failed initially. On October 14, you said you felt like “we can never get this country to work.” You said that about first nations and major projects. You've led the MPO for more than a year. You ran the TMX Crown corporation set to build this promised Pacific pipeline. That had 156 conditions. I hope there will be a way to limit them.
What I'm concerned about is.... During Bill C-5 hearings, I warned over and over that insufficient indigenous consultation would send projects to court. You've probably seen that the long-time energy-producing and -owning Cold Lake First Nations, which supports pipelines and responsible resource development, is now challenging the national designation for the Pathways project and the Pacific link pipeline, and six other first nations oppose it. These are all first nations that are pro-oil and gas, pro-energy infrastructure and pro-energy exports.
Ultimately, it is the Crown's duty to effectively deliver on their consultation and get to “yes” for major projects in a good way. Can you tell us about any concrete recommendations or advice you've given to make sure that consultation gets done properly?
How can Canadians really be confident in it, when first nations that support oil and gas and pipelines are already challenging a decision?
Chief Executive Officer, Major Projects Office
Rob, do you want to take that one?
General Counsel and Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs, Major Projects Office
Sure. Thank you for the question.
First of all, it's important to recognize that, even though the two projects are publicly linked, they are separate projects with separate regulators and separate jurisdictions. Therefore, to the extent that Treaty 6 nations or others may be uncomfortable with the Pathways project, that is not necessarily a reflection of the Pacific link.
People are linking the two as if they're one project, but they are not.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
The head of the MPO literally just said the pipeline is conditional on Pathways. That's exactly what the federal government has said.
We have a major challenge if first nations that are pro-oil and gas production and support energy infrastructure, support Pathways and have a long history of being owners, producers and service supply providers to the oil sands sector are already challenging in court this national designation—