Natural Resources Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you very much for that question.

There are several aspects that I might highlight, but there is one in particular that I might want to shine a light on in the context of both this project and the recent projects that have been regulated by the CER. Certainly, the considerations around social, economic and environmental factors are a key part of any review that the CER will undertake in its project reviews. With its focus on life-cycle oversight, those same considerations remain true in our entire regulatory framework.

One element of the Trans Mountain project that I will highlight specifically—and I mentioned it in my opening remarks—is a quite innovative approach in the context of working with indigenous peoples in a different way. I mentioned the IAMC and, in the context of Trans Mountain, working in partnership with those impacted communities along the route.

I mention this because it actually has benefited our regulatory framework across Canada and is really with an eye to having those partnerships able to identify and take action on areas of concern that would have impacts not only on the environment but also in terms of cultural impacts, heritage resources and real implications in the long term of how these natural resources and infrastructure projects operate. I would say that's an innovative feature, but it's something that we've continued to employ—not only in the Trans Mountain context. We have adopted those best practices and are now incorporating them into our regulatory framework, which would apply to the companies that we regulate across the country.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you for that.

The second issue I want to address, obviously, is security. As you know, July 6, 2013, was a day that we in Quebec won't forget. Forty-seven of our citizens—Quebeckers, mothers and fathers—lost their lives, and half of the downtown core of Lac-Mégantic was destroyed.

From a safety perspective, can you comment on how this is the safest way of doing it and what the ratios are with regard to protection via rail versus pipeline? Can you expand on that a bit?

[Tracy Sletto]

Certainly, and I appreciate both that sentiment and the question.

I may turn to my colleague Mr. Loewen in a minute to expand on this, but one of the things that I will mention is that we talked a bit about 600 people working at the regulator. I can tell you that each and every one of them goes to work every day thinking about that safety mandate.

The job of the regulator is to identify and prevent harm associated with the regulated activities we work on, and we do have a dedicated staff focused on exactly that. Thinking through how to identify in the first instance those causes of harm and how to prevent them is really key.

Perhaps I might turn to my colleague, who is responsible for our regulatory activities and, specifically, emergencies.

Mr. Loewen.

[Chris Loewen, Executive Vice-President, Regulatory, Canada Energy Regulator]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Schiefke.

The degree of regulatory oversight is proportional to a project's complexity and scale, and this is a very complex and very large project. It's perhaps the largest in Canadian history, but it's definitely the largest for the CER.

The larger and more multi-faceted projects are, the more monitoring and guidance we provide in order to make sure that the conditions for the project are followed. We also use a series of enforcement tools to ensure that companies are following the regulations and standards set by the CER. These include everything from administrative monetary penalties to condition compliance and inspection officer orders.

Safety is always our top priority, and it includes all workers and contractors on job sites. There were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 workers on this project over its lifespan, which is quite a huge achievement. The safety record, from the CER's perspective was one that.... We always think we can do better, but we think in this case it was very good.

Also, we confidently enforce some of the strictest safety and environmental standards in the world.

I'll leave it at that.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I have just one last question, because I think I have about 20 seconds left.

Based on the expertise you have, if you had to choose between transporting oil by train or by pipeline, is it a question? Is it even close?

[Tracy Sletto]

I certainly appreciate the question. I think you'll appreciate my response, which is that our role is to stay focused on that safety record in terms of the oversight of our regulated infrastructure, so it might be for others to comment on that choice.

However, we're certainly confident in the role we have and the job we do with respect to that oversight of pipelines.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Schiefke.

Monsieur Garon, welcome to the committee. You have six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here. We need to come to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources from time to time to see to what extent, from an energy and environmental perspective, a Liberal is a Conservative.

What my Liberal colleague just said is absolutely scandalous, in that the Liberals' objective is not to meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets, but rather to do as the Conservatives did and export as much oil as possible. The argument we are hearing is that pipelines will be built because it is a safer way to transport oil than a train. That is the argument my colleague just used when he asked the people from the Canada Energy Regulator whether the pipeline is less dangerous than a train to transport tonnes of oil. That is a completely dishonest question from my colleague, who is an honest person.

So I'm going to ask you this: Wouldn't it be safer, if we had energy security, to transport and export less oil?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you for your question. It is somewhat related to the market and our mandate.

The question around our role in overseeing that activity is not one of a policy leadership role in making those larger choices. There are certainly market forces at play that are quite crucial. Part of our role, though, as the Canada Energy Regulator has to do with our energy information mandate and the work we do on the forecasting and modelling of various scenarios into the future.

With respect to potential exports or—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you, if I may. It's a bad habit of mine.

So I understand that the mandate of the Energy Regulator is, among other things, to ensure the safety of facilities, but that you are unable to tell me whether, by transporting less oil, there is less risk of accidents. I have my answer: I understand that you are not allowed to give me the answer. It's obvious. What I wanted to show was the dishonesty of my Liberal colleague's question, which put you in an impossible situation. You shouldn't do that to your guests.

I understand that your role is to ensure that, once a facility is built, the energy is transported safely. Transportation includes aspects that are interprovincial in nature, and that concern safety and the national interest.

Would it be fair to say that you could have a mandate to ensure that the dirtiest oil in the world is transported in as environmentally responsible a manner as possible? Is it possible that this is your mandate?

[Tracy Sletto]

Is—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I will clarify my question.

Scientific data show that oil sands production is an extremely polluting process. It comes with processing stages, it is appalling from an environmental point of view and it is not Ottawa's responsibility. So you are right to say it and I am not criticizing you, but when the representatives of the Canada Energy Regulator come and tell us, in committee, that their work, essentially—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Garon, we have a point of order, so I'll ask you to hold on one second.

Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Chair, this is a federal committee dealing with federal issues in federal jurisdiction and dealing with crucial economic infrastructure regulated by these folks. They're actually not here to comment on the development of resources that are provincial in jurisdiction, which is what the member is now talking about—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

It's a point of debate, Mr. Chair.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—and just like him, we Conservatives believe very strongly—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

It's a point of debate. It's not a point of—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—in respecting provincial jurisdiction, and I suggest that Quebeckers share that view too.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs. That's not a point of order. Monsieur Garon does have the right to ask his questions with the time allotted to him.

Monsieur Garon, I know you know what the study is, so continue on with your questions. Thank you.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

When it comes to threatening municipalities with the elimination of funding for housing, the Conservatives do not mind provincial jurisdictions, but when I ask relevant questions, they do. Try to make sense of it, Mr. Chair. I gave up a long time ago.

Basically, what I was saying is that Alberta's oil from the oil sands is the dirtiest—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You just said you are going to support the Liberals.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, is everything okay? Are we done?

Alberta oil is the dirtiest oil in the world, and that's not Ottawa's responsibility.

I want to clarify the mandate.

When we invite you to testify before the committee to ask you questions about the safety and environmental aspects of energy transportation, is it possible, within your mandate and for federal regulators, to ensure that one of the dirtiest oils in the world is transported in the greenest and safest way possible?

[Tracy Sletto]

Thank you for your question.

For me, as the chief executive officer of the Canada Energy Regulator, I really am here to speak about our mandate and role. With respect to how we conduct that activity and our focus on that safety and regulatory mandate, I'm certainly able to speak about how we do that and what motivates us and our priorities in that respect, but I think you're asking a question that is much more policy-related and that is, for us, one you might ask others to speak to.