Senate roadshow stops in Alberta's oilpatch for feedback on impact-assessment bill

When Rick Peterson meets with senators today in Calgary, he'll bring more than his analysis of what needs fixing in Ottawa's plannedoverhaul of how energy projects get approved.

The former Conservative leadership contender, whofoundedthe pro-resource-sectorgroupSuits and Boots,will also point to letters from people from across Canada who've been hit hard by tough times in the energy sector.

• 'Livelihoods are at stake': Senate under pressure to overhaul controversial Bill C-69

"You want to make sure the senators understand they're not just looking at grey, black and white legislation," said Peterson, who willaddress the senators at themeeting in a downtown hotel.

"They're looking at human lives, and they have a responsibility to act accordingly."

The remarksillustrateboth the high stakes and strong emotionsthat have become part of the debate in the province's oilpatch over Bill C-69, which aims to revamp the assessment process byscrapping the National Energy Board and empowering a new body to conduct more extensive consultation with groups affected by development.

It's one reason why a Senate committee is taking the rare step of touring the country to collect input from Canadians while the senators reviewthe bill.

"I think this is a good time to break with precedent," said Sen. Paula Simons, an Independent senator from Edmonton.

"It seemed to make sense to me that we should go to the places that were in the centre of the debate, and hearfrom experts in their home communities."

The Senate committee is in Calgary today after starting meetings inVancouver.It will travel next to Fort McMurray, Alta., Saskatoon and Winnipeg. The roadshow will then tour the East.

This follows weeks of discussions in Ottawa, where the senators have heard from various experts from all sides as they prepareto suggestchanges to the bill.

When the Liberal government last year unveiled C-69 whose full name is "An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts"it was toutedas a way to streamline the approvals process for natural resourcesprojects, while bolstering consultations with Indigenous communities affected by extractive and other industries.

The bill also sets new timelines and parameters for reviews, whichwould consider not just impacts on the environment, but also long-term effects on societyand health, Indigenous peoples, jobs and the economy.

Ottawa contends that an improved consultation process will help industry address potential problems earlyand stave off negative court decisions, such as the one handedthe Trans Mountain expansion project last summer, when afederal court ruled that the process of the regulator, the National Energy Board,was "so flawed,"it shouldn't have been relied upon to approve the expansion.

For supporters of the legislation, many of these changes are overdue.

But in Alberta,it's become a flashpoint for workersand an industry facing an uncertain future. It's a struggle that Sen. Doug Black felt his colleagues needed to see for themselves in considering the legislation.

"The committee members need to hear from people, businesses, communities," said the Independent senator from Alberta.

It's no mystery why the oilpatch hasconcerns with the legislation. Some even call it the "no-pipelines" bill.

The sector worries it will bring more uncertainty and red tape while deterring investment. One pipeline group warned last year that it's "difficult to imagine" a new major pipeline could be built under the proposed act.

Executives have expressed concern that the bill fails to address the big financial risks associated with lengthy reviews, while still leaving the final say in the hands of the politicians.

In particular, Peterson is concerned that the new review process could consider how projects are consistent with Canada's environmental obligations, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change.

"That opens up a snake pit of issues and problems and potential litigation," Peterson said.

And while the bill aims to improve consultations withIndigenous communities in Canada, there's concern amongchiefs in Alberta that it would harm their communities' economic development and self-determination, "particularly as a result of weakened investment in the energy sector."

Still, not everyone believes thebill wouldstiflefuture projects.

Duncan Kenyon, the Alberta regional director of the Pembina Institute, an environmental research and advocacy group, says the proposed legislationis a chanceto rebuild credibility in the regulatory system.

"I actually have a lot of faith in where the industry is going," Kenyonsaid.

"I'm seeing that happening as we speak, in the innovation that is occurring in oilsands companies and whereeconomic policy and climate policy is pointing, as well: being able to drive innovation and make that resource something that can fit in a 21st-century economy, which is a de-carbonising economy, but still needs oil and still needs gas."

But beyond all the analysis, the debate stirsstrong emotions.

Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said Bill C-69 has become more than legislation; for some, it's a symbol of "Ottawa not caring about Alberta."

Placards reading"Kill Bill C-69" are common at pro-oil-sectorrallies in the province and in Ottawa.

The bill comes as the industrysuffers from low commodity prices while also strugglingto get new pipelines built. A new report this week saiddirect employment in Canada's oil and gas sector is expected to drop by more than 12,000 jobs this year, most of them in Alberta. There's also growing global scrutiny of the impact that burning fossil fuels has on climate change.

"The people of Alberta really feel the pressure of a rapidly changing, volatile energy sector," said Warren Mabee, associate director of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

Peterson and others consider the Senate committee's tour critically important, and hopeit will lead to amendments to the bill.

"The Senate can propose all kinds of amendments, and we're confident that what [they hear] will empower them to send those amendments back to the House," Petersonsaid.

Still, anyamendments the Senate makes would need approvalbythe House of Commons, where equally strong but conflictingopinions exist about the bill.

For his part, Black believes thegovernment is open to changes.

"I'm an optimist," he said. "I believe we're going to be able to find middle ground recognizing that everybody is going to have to water their wine a little bit."