Thank you, Mr. Doherty.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I just want to say thank you to the witnesses for attending today. Thanks.
December 5th, 2016 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a quick yes-or-no question for everybody. Again, we'll start with you, Mr. Bloomer, because we can't see you very well, although you've turned into a marvellous portrait on our screen here.
Hardie
Were you consulted on the changes that took place in 2012? Just answer with a quick yes or no.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Were we consulted...?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Yes, we were.
Liberal
Director, Environmental Regulations and Conservation Biology, Forest Products Association of Canada
I was not at FPAC at the time. I've heard that there was very limited consultation.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Now I'd like to hear the answer from the electrical folk.
Go ahead, Mr. Gibson.
Senior Environmental Specialist, Canadian Hydropower Association
Yes. The answer from the CEA would be that, yes, we were consulted. Because of the very strong relationship we've had with the DFO, we've been consulted with for all the changes that have occurred over the last number of years.
President, Canadian Hydropower Association
I would say that we were consulted. There were a number of formal processes—parliamentary processes, as well—where we were able to work through on this.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
That's interesting, because a pretty common observation from the groups that have been described as environmental or advocates was that they had not been consulted. They felt rather out of the process of making these changes, and that led to some questions of confidence.
Mr. Bloomer, I'll ask this of you particularly. This last week or so, pipelines seem to be a fairly big issue out my way in British Columbia. On the issue of confidence, the fact that the National Energy Board is involved in the environmental assessment process of your projects causes some concern amongst others who would rather see your environmental assessments take place just like all the others that are required to take place.
Do you have a concern that there might be an uneven application of the oversight, the regulations, and so on, between the NEB and the Canadian environmental assessment authority?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Thank you for the question.
No, we would not and we don't see any difference in how the NEB applies the CEAA rules, because they're the same rules. Some people take issue with some aspects of the NEB, but the key thing with the NEB is that, on this point, it's consistent with what the CEAA rules are.
What's important to understand is that the NEB regulates pipelines over their life cycle. The Pipeline Safety Act that went though Parliament recently increased the regulations and the requirements to report, and so on, on pipelines and environmental issues. The NEB has the authority over the life cycle of a project to enforce those environmental regulations through audits, and so on, whereas through the CEAA, CEAA will provide the approval but not the oversight.
I think it's important to make the distinction around pipelines that the NEB has the expertise, it has the technical horsepower to evaluate these things, and it is done very consistent, almost exactly consistent, with what the CEAA rules are.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Very good, I appreciate that. That's good insight on the lifetime oversight.
Getting to the electrical folks, both groups have mentioned that there are very few GHG emissions. You'd probably be forgiven for not factoring in two other things. First is the GHGs created when you actually make the concrete that goes into the dams, and second, as we've learned from some of the assessments of the Site C project in B.C., is the methane that's produced when you flood an area. With that, plus what we've seen now, especially in British Columbia, with more of a turnover to run-of-river projects and then the stuff Elon Musk is up to with his electricity-producing shingles, do you think the era of the big dam is going to come to an end anytime soon? Very clearly, there are significant habitat implications when you build one of these things.
President, Canadian Hydropower Association
I could answer on behalf of the hydro-power industry.
I'll probably hearken back to what I was saying in the opening comments. The government's mid-century review of its climate strategy did a survey of seven prominent external studies talking about what needs to be done in order to lower greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The one common element throughout all those studies was a call for more hydro-power generation. Precisely why is that, on a full life-cycle analysis, hydro power does have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any sort of generation. That includes methane emissions, as mentioned, as well as emissions again, in the full life cycle, from concrete, and so on.
Hydro power is something that already keeps Canada's emissions low, makes us have one of the cleanest, most renewable electricity systems in the world, and it's an area where we're able to grow and where we're able to back out some of the more emitting generation that still exists throughout Canada and replace it with hydro power.
It's also important to mention that hydro is an enabler of the other forms of renewable electricity. If you're interested in, say, solar power, wind power, or marine tidal kinetic, the one issue for all those different forms is the variability of their generation. Sometimes their ability to generate doesn't always match the load demand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Hardie. Thank you, Mr. Irving. We have to cut it there, sorry.
For three minutes, we'll have Mr. Donnelly, please.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll ask this to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, and I'll pick up a little bit on where Mr. Hardie was going. Pipeline projects are a little controversial. They are magnets for controversy, at least in the last five to 10 years in Canada. There's certainly much concern. Many scientists, environmental organizations, first nations are concerned about the impact on fish, fish habitat, and watershed health.
Mr. Bloomer, do you see the changes that were made in 2012 as being helpful? Obviously, there's the concern about fish and fish health, and then there's also what happens in terms of public relations and providing certainty on both sides. Even as a local elected official, whenever I dealt with, for instance, developers in the city, one thing I heard about was certainty.
Do you have a reaction as to whether the changes provided that certainty you would need as an industry, building huge projects that are crossing many watersheds?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
I understand the question as being whether the changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012 created more certainty in the process.