Environment Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[Jennifer Jackson]

I think those questions are fair to ask. Socio-economic questions should be raised.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

They should be part of the process.

[Jennifer Jackson]

Yes. We think there should be a modification of the current process. We think the current process is working; it can work better.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

If we were to move to a modification, perhaps a list approach, do you have any suggestions on how we could still make the EA process retain the environmental integrity of the process with that new approach?

[Jennifer Jackson]

I think if the CEA Agency was empowered and staffed properly to do the work it needs to do, then either a list or a non-list approach could work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

The time has expired. Thank you.

The last seven minutes are for Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thanks for being here to help us understand your views on CEAA and what should be done to improve it, change it, or otherwise.

Mr. Bennett, I was struck by your comment that in a previous statutory review of CEAA, there had been consultation with industry by the environment ministry beforehand. Were any of the other members also involved in a previous CEAA review directly?

[Terry Toner]

No.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Could you speak to us a bit about the value you see of having a consultation with the department to maybe flesh out some of the complexities of the different views?

[Dr. John Bennett]

Absolutely. Consulting with people who have hands-on experience with the process and using that as the basis for making recommendations to the minister is far superior to the minister's making recommendations to the people who are actually involved in the process.

In terms of our sector, as environmentalists, we don't have the same access to resources to bring people together and move them around the country to actually do that. So it was very useful when Environment Canada actually brought people together and asked us what kind of input we wanted to make.

I'm not talking about the Sierra Club of Canada or the David Suzuki Foundation or Greenpeace, which are big organizations that have big budgets. I'm talking about the group in Lethbridge and the group in Yukon, which don't have a budget or paid staff but are actively involved in the process, dealing with issues and projects in their communities. They're being deprived of a voice in this process because of the way the government is behaving.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I presume it would be project proponents and business associations and so on that would have been consulted as well.

[Dr. John Bennett]

Absolutely. [Technical difficulty--Editor]...sometimes separately.

There was a process built towards the last review in which the government actually went out and sought advice before it went forward to the committee; then it went to the committee and there was further consultation.

It's critical when all the questions so far have been about how this affects industry. The two industries that are with me do great, important work, but they're fundamental public works. They would commit future generations to certain ways of doing things and certain environmental impacts.

If it's not worth spending a few years considering that, what's the point of having an environmental assessment? If it takes time, it takes time. We do have to understand the implications. We do have to investigate what's being presented that's going to commit us for a generation—if you build a coal-fired power plant, it burns for 45 years.

If it takes four years to determine whether or not we want to build another coal plant or whether that's the best kind of coal plant to build, I don't think that's a big penalty. I think the rest of society accepts that that's what we need to do. We're not just talking about speeding up the process; we're talking about protecting the environment, protecting future jobs and future livelihoods of Canadians.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

My guess is that nobody on the panel would disagree that there are some things that could be done to reduce timelines, just through bad process that can be cleaned up, and there are other things where it's appropriate and necessary for time to be taken to get them right.

The complexity of doing that with so many different factors to consider is why, it seems to me, consultation with industry and environmental groups by the department would be very valuable before bringing it to the committee.

Just an editorial comment. Having dealt, as a minister, with the Britannia mines disaster—one of the largest contaminated site problems, killing shellfish and seafood in Burrard Inlet for literally generations—I believe a four-year consideration of that project would have probably saved a lot of money, compared with hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup later.

In order to be more effective for industry without compromising environmental protection, there is some discussion in terms of timelines. There has been input from witnesses about having a two-stage assessment process; one stage is a go/no go in a shorter timeframe. In B.C. the EA calls it an off-ramp, so if it's clear this isn't going to be a go, you get it out of the system so you can focus your resources on projects that have potential to be approved.

Can I hear a comment, from both Mr. Bennett and from one of the industry proponents, on that idea of a two-stage system?

[Sandra Schwartz]

If I may, I will again reiterate the point where the original intent of environmental assessment was not necessarily to halt or stop projects, but actually to ensure that environmental impacts were mitigated or removed.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Excuse me, I'd like to just comment on that.

Wouldn't it have been the purpose to halt or stop projects that clearly were going to have a far greater impact on the environment than society was prepared to accept?

[Sandra Schwartz]

If you can mitigate for those environmental impacts, that's what environmental assessment is supposed to look for. Then, ultimately, the proponents are to address those environmental impacts—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

And—those two things, yes.

[Terry Toner]

With the two-stage proposal that you're suggesting, one of the tools that already exists, for example, is the strategic environmental assessment. In Nova Scotia most recently, we underwent a strategic assessment for the tidal and offshore renewable industry—in advance of even bringing forward demonstration projects—and the intent was exactly what you said. It was to get at some of the additional planning and broader issues, to see whether or not Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be interested in progressing with that type of industry, which then allows more specific discussions. If that's a yes, we are interested in tiptoeing into that area, then both the projects and the reviews can be much more focused with that policy in hand.

It's not the only mechanism.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Can I hear from Mr. Bennett on what his view is on that?

[Dr. John Bennett]

We would agree. If there are things that shouldn't be done, we should identify those right away; then the process could be used to modify the ones that were going forward.

This is part of the democratic process in our society. We should look at this as not just a technical grading of proposed projects but of how society wants to go forward and what kinds of development it wants. So if something like that would contribute to that, it would give us an opportunity to put the arguments in focus—what we want to talk about in terms of issues on the table, before we get into the minutiae of the size of the pipe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Next we have

Ms. Liu, who will have five minutes.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

My first question is for Ms. Schwartz.

On the Canadian Electricity Association website, it says that:

CEA and its members recognize the importance of EA because the process provides an avenue for mitigating environmental effects, provides communities a forum to voice their concerns and suggestions, and helps decision makers better integrate a project's environmental, social and economic considerations.

I find this very interesting, as you mention the importance of public consultations. Are we to understand that the association is in favour of an environmental process that would have greater credibility from the population's perspective?

[Sandra Schwartz]

I'll let you answer this.

[Terry Toner]

We're always interested in having the most credible of processes. I think the comments we raised in our brief and in our remarks by Ms. Schwartz were really directed at saying we want to see the right level of review for the right level of project.

So if broader planning issues need to be discussed, then they should be discussed and reviewed and vetted in either a strategic assessment or a higher level of review. If we still get down to looking at projects, but at a high level, then those triggers should be at that high level for that comprehensive and significant review. As we get further into the process, if that project is to proceed, then there are permit mechanisms to deal with that.

What we have now is that when a review takes place, all those things are discussed in one review and it becomes very difficult to sort.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Forgive me for interrupting you. I thank you for your answer, but I wanted, rather, to hear your comments and your opinion on the part of the environmental assessment that has to do with public consultations. Is that a good thing for the industry?