Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. As mentioned, my name is Chris Bloomer. I am president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. We represent 12 major transmission pipeline companies, operating 119,000 kilometres of pipelines and transporting 97% of Canada's crude oil and natural gas production.

CEPA is pleased to participate in this review of the Fisheries Act. It's through periodic review of legislation and regulatory processes that we ensure that the goals of policy and legislation are met. We are participating in all the related federal reviews and consultations, including NEB modernizations, CEAA 2012, and the Navigation Protection Act.

Before I get into specific comments, I would like to comment on what CEPA believes are the fundamental principles of effective regulation that apply equally to all the reviews. The most effective regulatory framework for all stakeholders is one that is clear, efficient, and comprehensive. In particular, the process should be science- and fact-based, conducted by the best-placed regulator, avoid duplication, outline clear accountabilities, contain transparent rules and processes, allow for meaningful participation, and adhere to the need for timeliness. We support any efforts that the government makes to achieve these outcomes.

With respect to the Fisheries Act, I'll provide some comments in three specific areas: first, a brief overview of the methods used for installing pipelines across water bodies; second, the impact of the changes made to the act in 2012; and finally, the importance of maintaining a single best-placed regulator, the National Energy Board.

CEPA's members reviewed their practices both before and after the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act. They examined the way data was collected and analyzed, and the mitigation methods and best practices that were already in place. This process revealed that the thousands of watercourse crossings our members completed followed well-established, best-practice construction methods.

There are two main construction practices, excavating a trench or using trenchless methods. When practical pipeline companies use a trenchless method, which involves horizontal drilling or microtunnelling beneath the water, this method does not require any direct excavation of banks or bed of water body, and can be used as long as the banks and surrounding lands are stable. The trenchless method minimizes or eliminates altogether any impacts to the water body and serious harm to fish and fish habitat. In certain circumstances where site-specific geotechnical conditions may prohibit the use of trenchless crossings, a trench through the watercourse is required and is constructed so as to minimize impact.

The pipeline industry has conducted hundreds of EAs and has prepared as many permit applications. It has therefore developed best practices and a deep understanding of the potential environmental effects of watercourse crossings and their impacts. We have experience and confidence in the effectiveness of the construction and mitigation practices for watercourse crossings.

This brings me to our second point, the impact of the changes made to the act in 2012. Through the review of construction methods and industry best practices, our members confirm that these methods continue to be as effective in protecting fish and fish habitat as they were prior to the 2012 changes. The concerns expressed by various groups regarding 2012 changes to the act tend to focus on the fact that fewer authorizations are required under the revised legislation. While fewer authorizations are required, the effort that the pipeline companies must invest to determine whether to apply for an authorization under the Fisheries Act has not changed. This is because the act still requires the protection of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries.

The practical measures that pipeline companies used before the 2012 definition changes under the act are the very same measures that have continued to be used after 2012 to avoid serious harm to fish. The changes in 2012 also allowed for project proponents to engage a qualified environmental professional to prepare a self-assessment for a project and identify appropriate mitigation methods to address any potential impacts. This has been a positive change, because it has allowed professionals with knowledge and expertise of aquatic habitat, pipeline construction, and operations to apply best practices to meet regulatory requirements.

To build on this positive change, CEPA believes this review of the act provides an opportunity to introduce revised DFO-issued operational statements that existed under the previous act. These operational statements provided valuable guidance to project proponents.

In essence, nothing has changed from the practical perspective for the pipeline industry, and the CEPA supports a review of the act that is focused on the enhancing the actual protection of fish and fish habitat rather than the number of authorizations.

The last point I would like to make relates to the role of the NEB and the Fisheries Act authorizations. In 2013, DFO and the NEB signed a memorandum of understanding that gave the NEB responsibility for reviewing applications under the fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act.

Under the MOU, the NEB is responsible for assessing the potential impacts of pipeline projects to fish and fish habitat and determining whether mitigation strategies are needed to reduce or prevent those impacts. If the NEB determines that a project can result in serious harm to fish, it will inform the DFO. The DFO will then review the project and determine whether an authorization is required. However, if the NEB determines the project will not result in serious harm to fish, the project applicant does not have to make a separate submission to DFO for the review.

The NEB's assessment of the impacts to fish and fish habitat takes place during its comprehensive review of pipeline applications, which avoids duplication and has proven to be effective and efficient. The NEB assessment considers whether the proponent plans to follow standard improved mitigation methods that are specific to pipelines. This is helpful because, as a best-placed regulator, it applies its unique knowledge of the history and success of these mitigation methods and uses this information to determine whether or not the project is likely to cause adverse effects.

The MOU gives the NEB the power to monitor a project to ensure it complies with the conditions of the Fisheries Act permit after it has been issued. This complements the NEB's life-cycle oversight of pipelines, from design to abandonment. Essentially, the process triggered by the MOU avoids having two departments perform the same assessment.

We don't believe that the delegation to the NEB has resulted in loss of protection or weakened the protection of fish or fish habitat associated with pipeline projects. In fact, it created a more efficient permitting process that resulted in better outcomes by reinforcing accountability with a single regulator. An integrated approach, including the initial assessment of harm to fish or fish habitat, takes into account the full range of safety and environmental concerns and allows both industry and the regulator to work together to more effectively achieve better outcomes.

To this end, CEPA recommends that the current MOU between the NEB and DFO be maintained. Any changes that are made to the act should be focused on making improvements that ensure the continued protection of fish and habitat related to fisheries. This could include reissuing guidance materials to be used in the assessment of work in or near watercourses.

CEPA recognizes that having our lakes and river beds protected is important to Canadians, including pipeline operators. When pipelines cross water bodies, industry takes care to protect the area during the entire life cycle of a pipeline.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)