Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 5th, 2011

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, so we know what those were. It was there for a short term and it was there to implement economic stimulus, but those have since been closed back off after the stimulus program was ended. Do I understand that correctly?

[Helen Cutts]

Yes, that's my understanding.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, that's good. And none of that would have applied to any of these other types of private sector projects. Those were strictly just municipal infrastructure projects. Is that right?

[Helen Cutts]

That's right.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

The gist of our study now is obviously about resource development and some of the factors that are facing us in the north. At the last committee meeting I asked the department officials who were here from Natural Resources about how long a project proponent might take from a concept right through to getting a shovel in the ground, and they said up to five years. These things change based on the complexity of the application and so on. And I have to tell you, as a member of Parliament, I had lots of phone calls from municipalities and so on when we went through the economic action plan, that things were sitting on somebody's desk somewhere in Ottawa waiting to be approved.

Can you tell me at what point the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is involved? In that anywhere from a three- to five- or a three- to seven-year average on a five-year project? About how much time does this have to spend on the desks in front of folks administering the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? Is it a large portion of that five years, a short portion? Does it change? Is it a dynamic thing based on the level or the nature of the application?

[Helen Cutts]

In the past year our emphasis has been on ensuring that the whole process that is public servant time is 365 days, from--

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Claude Gravelle]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt because our time is up.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay. I withdraw my comment about your doing a good job, Mr. Chair.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Claude Gravelle]

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you for this. I was just wondering about one thing. As these things are done, I wouldn't want this to add more cost to it, but that is one of the things. What is the cost of when these things are done? Is there ever any sort of economic question or economic criteria applied when there are any of these screenings or assessments as it goes up the ladder? Or is purely the impact to the environment the only criterion applied to every element under the act?

[Helen Cutts]

Under the act we apply only an environmental lens. However, we do look at indirect effects on socio-economic conditions, and by “indirect” I mean if the project causes an environmental effect and that environmental effect in turn brings about a socio-economic effect, we would look at it.

So if a river or stream or lake was going to be destroyed and an aboriginal group was dependent for its income and its livelihood on fishing in that area, then that would be an economic effect that followed from the environmental effect, but we would not look directly at the economics of the development.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, then, you would look at potential damage, but you wouldn't, say, look at the potential for growth or opportunity. If we put in a mine someplace in northern Saskatchewan, what that could do to change the socio-economics of the northern community, that positive element, wouldn't necessarily be looked at. It would only be what--

[Helen Cutts]

I wouldn't say it's only the negative side that's looked at; I would say that it's the indirect side. So if the environmental impact on a particular group or individual was positive, that would factor in as well. It could be a positive or a negative effect from the environmental effect.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Okay.

Now, economic impacts are often fairly subjective, so I'm assuming that wouldn't necessarily be at the screening level. That would be more at the comprehensive level. This would be something that you would then give up the line to the minister and he would have to make a judgment call on this. Am I understanding that correctly? Or is it broader in how it's interpreted?

[Helen Cutts]

According to the act, we want to look at all the environmental effects. So we would look at the environmental effects in terms of loss of habitat, loss of ability to hunt, for people who want to hunt in that region. The comprehensive study would be structured with headers for all these different effects, and the minister would not be briefed separately on any of the socio-economic ones. He would read the whole report as a whole and would make a judgment as to whether there are overall adverse environmental effects from that project.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

He would see the recommendations, but he would not be bound by anything. He could make a decision subjectively at that point?

[Helen Cutts]

I'm cautious about saying that the decision is subjective, because the decision is based on a huge amount of research and science. He receives a recommendation that says on the basis of the information that has been collected from all of the stakeholders, there are or are not adverse environmental effects.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

But he could, if he wanted to, choose to interpret it in such a way that may not be what everyone else would interpret from reading the evidence. Would that be a way to put it? He's not necessarily bound by the recommendations of the evidence presented to him.

[Helen Cutts]

I would say he would have that freedom, but he's bound also by the court of public opinion. He would have to be able to justify a decision, to explain whatever he was calling for.

You may be interested in a circumstance. If the responsible authority thought that there were significant adverse environmental effects, they could take it to cabinet.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Claude Gravelle]

Thank you, but we're going to have to stop here and go to our next set of questions, from Mr. Saganash.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both witnesses for being here today.

I have a couple of questions, but I'm going to start with the federal-provincial cooperation that you talked about earlier, and how that works out in reality on the ground. I want to take an example from Quebec, for instance, where there is a hydroelectric development project being proposed. I know that Quebec has often taken the position in the past that a hydroelectric development is a provincial project and should be subject only to provincial assessment.

On the other hand, I know that any hydroelectric development has impacts on federal jurisdictions--navigable waters, migratory birds, fisheries, lands reserved for Indians, and so on. There are provincial jurisdictions that are affected by provincial projects.

How has CEAA assessed and dealt with these situations in the past? I know there have been harmonization agreements in the past, but, for instance, in northern Quebec, which you briefly mentioned, there is a treaty and there are environmental assessments and review processes that are applied for under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. How do we deal with those kinds of situations?

[Helen Cutts]

We have a good working relationship with our provincial colleagues in Quebec, and the legislation of each order of government is something that each government respects. Our Quebec colleagues understand that if there is something in our act that calls on us to be at the table doing an environmental assessment, even if they have views that maybe hydroelectric is really within their domain, if it's in our comprehensive study list that we need to assess it, they understand that we're in the game. It's in their interests and ours to work together. That has been our practice as much as possible.

Our ability to work with the provinces has been augmented in the last couple of years in part because of the MiningWatch decision. Very briefly, this was a Supreme Court decision that clarified the scoping of a project. Prior to that decision, there were delays in scoping the project among federal officials, and often a provincial process was ready to begin and the province didn't want to hold up its own development and could not wait for the federal government to sort out its scoping issues. Now, with the scoping issue resolved, we're ready to start our work at the same time as the province, and it's working quite well.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I would like to ask our two witnesses another question. In Canada today, there is a constitutional aspect to deal with; it is called the “duty to consult with aboriginal groups“.

I would like to know, from your point of view, how that constitutional aspect has been accommodated now that it is a legal reality today everywhere in Canada. How are you including that constitutional aspect in the process of assessing and studying the projects that you have to undertake? Is it just by having aboriginals come as witnesses to proceedings that are already under way, or can they play a real role in the process as panel members? How has your department included the constitutional requirement that is in effect today?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Claude Gravelle]

I am sorry, but you will not have time to answer that question. Your five minutes are up.

Mr. Lizon.