Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

My thanks to all the witnesses.

To the Canadian Construction Association and the Canadian Hydropower Association, I just want to say that it's great to have this sort of first-hand experience at the table about some of the issues that you encounter.

I really would be remiss if I didn't particularly thank Dr. Usher.

I want to say that if all of the witnesses who came before us had your degree of care and thoughtfulness, my job would be a lot easier. I just want to make the point that when I see someone who stays to facts and who presents things logically, I do listen very carefully, much more carefully than when I hear journalistic headlines and demonizing of opponents coming out. Thank you for that.

I want to try to be specific in my questions. I'll direct them to the industry representatives, beginning first with the idea, the notion I have, that there are times when more than one federal body gets involved in conducting environmental assessments. For example, we have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have the environment department, which may be involved in migratory birds or SARA or who knows what else. There's a diffuse accountability and, I would say, a fragmented accountability.

I'm wondering if either or both of the two associations here could give us an example, if you know of one, where that has happened, where you've had a project or you've observed a project that has gone through several different federal authorities in order to ultimately get a final assessment.

I'll start with the construction association, and then we'll go to Hydropower.

[Jeff Barnes]

Briefly, almost all of the larger assessments involve multiple triggers and more than one agency. If you're affecting a large area of land, you're going to affect migratory birds and maybe fish and so on, so almost all of the assessments of those larger projects do involve many agencies, and necessarily, in the context of when they're being triggered. I don't really see that as a problem, but it does take a lot of coordination.

The real challenge is that especially when we have harmonized processes with other jurisdictions, where those folks who are required to do an environmental assessment of a whole project when they are fisheries resource scientists or responsible for the Migratory Birds Act.... Those things, they're really outside their sort of core expertise and their mandate, and certainly that's why we applaud the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency taking on a decision-making and coordinating role for comprehensive studies.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I sense a little bit of the scoping issue in what you've just said. If I have time, I would like to come back to that, but first I would like to go the hydro power people.

You mentioned a specific project in Manitoba; I forget the name.

[Ed Wojczynski]

Wuskwatim.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Not having been involved in any of this, I'm just trying to imagine a case, or I'd like to have a case described to me, where this has occurred, where there have been multiple assessments required by multiple federal authorities.

[Ed Wojczynski]

I'll try to be quick.

Wuskwatim is a $1.6-million hydro project done in partnership with the local Cree. It went through a CSR. It's nearly finished construction now. In that project we had navigable waters involved, and DFO; they were the two main issues.

I would say there wasn't really conflict between having the Transport people and navigable waters and DFO. That wasn't a problem, but we had a very specific problem where caribou were an issue. Environment Canada and DFO, for about three or four months, delayed the whole CSR because they couldn't figure out who should deal with that on our project.

We also applaud the CEA agency as now having the lead role because those kind of issues would hopefully be dealt with much better than they were then.

Our problem often is not so much between the departments, but even within the department. For instance in DFO—most of our interactions are with DFO—we can go through a CSR process, as we did with Wuskwatim, and think we've reached a resolution in all the major issues. Then, later on, we had authorization under the application of the Fisheries Act, and essentially we had to redo most of the stuff and we got different answers. Only in the last six months—here's a project that we'll have spent $1.2 billion on—did we get the authorizations for operating the facility. In retrospect, we never would have started it if we'd known it would take so long.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Keeping in mind—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Time has expired.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Oh, the time has...? That's it.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Choquette has the floor for five minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing before us.

My first question is for the representatives of the Canadian Construction Association and Ms. Kwasniak.

There's been a lot of talk about multiple assessments and wastes of time and money. I think we're all agreed as to the importance of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its improvement. It's important to do assessments.

Do you think that better coordination among the federal authorities and between the federal and provincial governments could settle many of the problems you have now?

[Jeff Barnes]

Yes, precisely; that is a solution. We've offered in our submission a number of different ways in which resources could be focused on very important matters of environmental assessment--that is, understanding the project and environmental effects and developing mitigation and so on.

These administrative aspects of the act, particularly the trigger mechanism and federal coordination, result in an expenditure of resources that is enormous—6,000 assessments a year in Canada—and that is not achieving any analysis, discussion, or value added around the environmental questions.

I'll leave it at that.

Arlene.

[Prof. Arlene Kwasniak]

Thank you, Jeff.

In a lot of the issues that have been discussed is the fact that you do have multi-triggering and that is a problem with the coordination within the federal family. I know the idea of perhaps replacing self-assessment with some other mechanism, such as extending the agency's authorities over screenings, might be an answer. I think that is certainly something that is worth exploring, because if the federal family really got its act together, I think that would relieve a lot of the inefficiencies.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

My next questions are for Mr. Usher and the representatives of the Canadian Hydropower Association.

There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of establishing timelines and deadlines for environmental studies. It's been said that this could save the industry some money. What do you think? Is this really a solution? Mr. Usher, I know that you've already said a few words about this. Could you say whether timelines are a solution that would save money?

If there's time, the representatives of the Canadian Hydropower Association could say a word about the criteria. You said that lists were perhaps not the best solution. Could you say more about this?

I'm listening, Mr. Usher.

[Dr. Peter Usher]

Thank you.

I really ought not to say very much about the question of lists. I don't feel I know enough about the pros and cons of that to give you a good answer. I think we all would agree that things should be done faster than slower, and that whatever can be done to speed up the process should be done.

Having said that, we can't cut corners. I think, if I could remark on it, there's a lot of suggestion from time to time that somehow the processes take so long that an investment opportunity is lost. I would argue, actually, that if there is a good business case for a project, it's going to happen whether the review takes six months or a year. If it doesn't go, it's probably because there wasn't a good business case in the first place.

I'll give you an example. It's a great myth in the city of Calgary that Tom Berger spiked the original pipeline, that it didn't happen because of him. Well, the reality is that it didn't happen because they didn't have a good business case. The banks were no longer prepared to give them any money to do it. So maybe he did them a favour.

A good review should improve a project, not stop it necessarily. I mean, there's always the possibility that it should be stopped, but most of the time, it should be made better.

I don't know how much more I can say about that. I did suggest some things....

I think you're telling me to wind up, so I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

And I thank you. Time has expired.

You had an extra thirty seconds there.

Mr. Sopuck, you have five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you.

I understand that the established timelines for comprehensive studies regulation came into force in June 2011. To both industry associations, what is your view regarding these new timeline requirements, and why are such legislated timelines important?

[Jeff Barnes]

I actually have first-hand experience. I'm personally involved as a consultant on three comprehensive studies that are under way. What we're seeing is a clear understanding of who has authority--that would be the agency--with the amendments. Then the timeline regulations are causing a great deal of focus on efficiency, harmonization, resolving issues with other jurisdictions, and living up to meeting the timelines.

To date on those three projects, with my first-hand experience, I've been extremely impressed with the way the agency has been conducting itself. I think it's proving to be, at least from an early perspective, a very good move to have those regulations in place.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Just as a follow-up question, then, I do have an unusual focus on the environment itself in terms of environmental quality. I find these hearings so process-oriented that we often lose sight of the environment itself. Regarding these legislated timelines, have you seen any compromising of environmental quality based on scientific data?

[Jeff Barnes]

No, I have not. In fact, I don't think the administration of process has a whole lot to do with the quality of environmental assessment. If anything, the fact that people are focused on it seems to keep people thinking clearly about what needs to be done and what's involved.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

That begs another question I have asked other industry witnesses. Given that when you design a project you take into account the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, the migratory birds act, and all of the applicable provincial, territorial, and municipal regulations--those are built into the project's design--in terms of the environment itself, in terms of the physics, chemistry, and biology of the environment itself, what is the value added of the CEAA process?

[Jeff Barnes]

Well, that's a very good point, and we allude to that, I think, in our presentation, in my musings that we've lost touch with the fact that EA was born in the sixties, when we didn't do anything to plan our projects.

In planning and revising CEAA, we need to be aware of the fact that there are many tools, such as laws and regulations, that actually deal with and make many things routine. The environmental assessment isn't of any value to the fisheries authorization, for example, in my opinion. That has to be done regardless of whether you have assessment or not.

So I don't see a lot of value added for triggered authorizations.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Wojczynski, regarding your point about environmental change caused by hydro developments, for example, I do strongly subscribe to your view that CEAA should look at the positive environmental effects of a project. Too often we confuse “any” environmental change; we assume it's a negative thing, and it's often not. I think your example of fish populations is exactly right in terms of what happens behind water control structures and reservoirs.

Could you expand on other positive environmental effects of some of the developments you've been involved with?

[Ed Wojczynski]

Yes, and I'll talk about the environmental effects, not the social right now.

Another one is reduction in greenhouse gases. When we've had CSRs or there were federal panel reviews, the preparers of the reports had the proponents...and being told, well, you can throw in something about reducing greenhouse gases, but that's not part of our mandate; we're looking at what the negative environmental impacts are; so throw it in, but that isn't part of our overall consideration--except at that final decision at the cabinet level on whether the project should proceed or not.

That's a very clear one that we've always struggled with. So you could help reduce climate change and warming....

Okay, I'm finished.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I have one last point, then, regarding your social license point, Mr. Wojczynski. Don't you think it's the proper role of elected officials to decide the social license? We have a consultation process called elections, so where do folks like us fit in this process?