Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

[Ed Wojczynski]

The B.C. provincial government overrode an earlier decision, and a project was cancelled. I believe it was called Kemano.

But, certainly, I think what happens is that companies look ahead to decide whether or not they're going to invest in the first place, and even begin the process.

I agree with just about everything our colleague Dr. Usher said, including the need for more research and monitoring. However, I disagree with one comment he made that having a longer process would not affect investments and the decisions because it only makes the projects better.

In our projects, we're talking of regulatory processes of not six months to a year; we're talking about four years. Certainly a number of projects have had that.

When companies are looking at developing thermal resources for which the process often takes a year, and the construction period is shorter, upfront that's going to have a cost impact, and a risk impact, and a meeting-the-market timing impact. So I think what will happen is not that the projects get cancelled, but that the investor decides not to go into hydro in the first place.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Right. You're talking about a four-year process to construct something that takes only a year.

[Ed Wojczynski]

For the hydro projects often I've had four-year federal regulatory processes to get the authorization, and then there's the construction period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Time has expired.

Closing off the last of the five-minute segments is Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

We've been discussing timelines a little bit, and that's come up from a number of our colleagues here. I think hydro was mentioned as your third bullet, and improving timeliness. That just came up in the previous discussion here.

Dr. Usher, I appreciate your thoughtful approach. You've been at this a long time, as have other people at the table. I notice you started your remarks with your primary concern, products and outcomes, rather than with process. I appreciate that you said somewhere in your remarks that you like to ask what the question is that you're trying to address in a review process.

You made some comments about mandatory time limits, on which there seemed to have been some discussion here. But I thought you did make some good points in your presentation about room for improvement. There are things that can and should be done with respect to the timely and effective provision of technical support to panels. You mentioned timely and fulsome provision of information to panels by all participants and—a third bullet—panel guidance and training with respect to procedures and conduct.

Those are things that perhaps can be tweaked. You've obviously put some thought into this. I'm wondering if you have any recommendations specifically about how to achieve those objectives.

[Dr. Peter Usher]

I'm not sure how you could put them into legislation or even regulation. A lot of it has to do with the culture of how we do things. I find that if I would go to, for example, the provision of information to panels by all participants....

I would draw attention to something that I didn't mention in my submission. You know, our system relies on proponents to...and I know the term “self-assess” is used in a different mode than has been used all through these proceedings, which has to do with self-assessment by federal departments. Proponents are also expected to self-assess in the sense that they do the assessment of what they think the impact of their project will be. Not surprisingly, they try to put a good light on it; fair enough, as they should.

Trying to get information, for example during rounds of information requests, can sometimes take an enormous amount of time, and after a while one thinks, you cannot wring blood from a stone here.

I don't want to get too detailed about the kinds of...because I think they're very project-specific, or event-specific maybe. But I think there's an issue around the timely provision of information.

On the business of technical support to panels, once the parties have set up panels, they should think through the obligations that they have imposed on those panels and ask whether they've provided them sufficient resources to do the work they are expected to do, because they have not always.

I can tell you there was a certain point in our review on the Mackenzie gas project when we desperately needed assistance and we were told, “Don't worry. You don't need assistance. No problem. You've got 11,000 pages of transcript and 100,000 pages of evidence to go through. What's the problem?” Well, we didn't set that up.

So when you set up a process, you have to give very careful thought to what the consequences are of fulfilling the objectives that you have set to meet.

I don't know if that answers your question, but I've tried.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I appreciate your taking a stab at it.

The other thing you talked about was monitoring and follow-up. Some of these projects have been done repeatedly, whether we're talking about building a hydro dam or a micro hydro project or whether we're talking about highway construction and a culvert under a road. Some of these things have been done before. We've put regulations in place to cover this type of project.

When you talk about monitoring and follow-up, do you have suggestions on how we might create a science base that would establish the parameters of what is going to be required, so that we can cover a broader range of projects, in a general sense, so they know upfront what the requirements are?

[Dr. Peter Usher]

I'm not sure you can establish it upfront, and that was the point of my remark about why reviews should focus on what is new.

You know, if you're just doing routine culvert construction or routine pipe installation at a river crossing, which has been done many times before, the issue is not to review the impact of that single event, which may be done under a specific permit, but what happens when you put them all together.

What happens, for example, on the Mackenzie River when you do 300 crossings of tributary streams, any one of which may have very little impact, but all of which may have a very substantial impact on the fisheries of the Mackenzie River? You have to figure out how to monitor that.

It's at that level that we need the work, not where somebody is going out and saying, at this very tiny level, “Is there is a grain of sand here? Is there a drop of water there?”

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

That has ended the appearance of today's witnesses. We want to thank each of you for coming and for providing the briefs.

We will suspend for a few minutes and committee will reconvene in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]