Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2011

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Mooney, and then I'll come to Mr. Kneen.

[R. Liam Mooney]

We would agree with the CNA in relation to what the current legislation provides and the application thereof. Again, we're more concerned with that balance between the healthy environment and the healthy economy that Heather mentioned. I think the assessment is global in that nature, but sometimes on the economic side it's that balance on the mitigation measures and what might be proposed there. It can get very blue sky in technology as opposed to a balance between the project proceeding and not proceeding—healthy environment, healthy economy.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Kneen, do you think that we cover economic, environmental, and social impacts suitably in the current legislation?

[Jamie Kneen]

No.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What would you like to see? Give me your wish list.

[Jamie Kneen]

The current definition is social and economic impacts of the environmental impacts, which is a little bit artful in its formulation, I think. So we would fully support the full inclusion of environmental, social, and economic impacts, except that I have difficulty with this balancing of either/or, because we've already said that the purpose was sustainable development, which is actually trying to make these things work together, not to trade off an unhealthy environment for some money or some jobs, but to find a way forward that actually puts those things together. If we're going to make any meaningful progress, that will be the framework. So it absolutely requires bringing all those aspects together in the assessment and in the decision-making.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. Kneen, you mentioned that one of the things we need to do better is consult with aboriginal Canadians. Again I'll ask for your wish list. You've mentioned funding availability phased, and we need better amounts. Is there anything else you would like to include in that?

[Jamie Kneen]

First I would like to say that MiningWatch is a non-governmental organization. It is not an aboriginal organization, although we have strong aboriginal representation on our board of directors and in our membership, and so on. So we're speaking from the perspective of working with first nations communities and organizations and reflecting some of the difficulties they're experiencing.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Could you outline those difficulties, please?

[Jamie Kneen]

They are access to information, access to money, and access to technical capacity to do their own work in relation to these processes. I think you've heard from the Assembly of First Nations about their overall perspective. I would simply say that it needs to be discussed with them. We can provide some input, but I think that really needs to come from them.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Kneen, you've mentioned that you would like to see monitoring and enforcement. Would you outline what you would like to see in terms of both, please?

[Jamie Kneen]

This could take a while.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Give us as much detail as you can, please.

[Jamie Kneen]

The agency has had a quality assurance program in place for some years. It has delivered some mixed results because of its limitations in actually looking at the projects that are being assessed and the assessments that are being undertaken. One of the more difficult aspects of that is actually trying to identify projects that were not assessed because they escaped through some regulatory loophole, escaped screening, and never made it into the assessment process, so we don't know what that comparison looks like.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What recommendations specifically? On monitoring?

[Jamie Kneen]

Specifically there needs to be a mechanism in place, and I would say through the agency. There is not capacity in place or processes in place at the departmental level, say, at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to review the broader recommendations of an environmental assessment process.

That I think can only be done by the agency that is in a position to actually integrate all of those considerations. It would monitor and report on compliance, with recommendations and conclusions coming out of an environmental assessment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have 30 seconds.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. Maybe we should close it down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

In the second round we have a very short period of time, so we'll give a minute and a half to Madame St-Denis.

[Lise St-Denis, NDP, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm speaking to the representatives of the Canadian Nuclear Association. Can the consolidation of environmental assessment responsibilities, to use your words, be done through the administrative and judicial process within a specialized federal agency with increased licence-granting powers?

[Heather Kleb]

Yes.

[Denise Carpenter]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

One minute.

[Lise St-Denis, NDP, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

One minute, okay.

Your opinion on the authority in the best position to conduct an environmental assessment tends to favour a delegation of authority or administrative expectations between the federal and provincial organizations, as Mr. Woodworth said.

But how could the decisions of those organizations with delegated powers be reviewed without there being a federal intrusion, for example?

[Denise Carpenter]

To clarify, first of all, we were talking about Saskatchewan and uranium mining on the provincial side. On the plant side, we're talking about a federal regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.