Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that.

Would greater use of strategic environmental assessment enable a more efficient assessment of many projects?

[Mark Wittrup]

The answer in my books is no, because the strategic environmental assessment is really government's job to do. It shouldn't be placed on proponents.

Really, a strategic environmental assessment is the land use planning discussion within government, and that should be done in a more systematic way, and the results of that should inform whether a proponent can actually go and work in an area rather than being sort of an after-the-fact gatekeeper.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Should a strategic environmental assessment be done at the federal level?

[Mark Wittrup]

It depends on the jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction has different areas to look at, so there would be a role for strategic environmental assessment at the federal level, provided it's done by government and not by the proponent, and the same at the provincial level.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately, your time has expired. Thank you.

We're going to begin now what would normally be a five-minute round. I'm going to go to four minutes, so we have enough time to change our witnesses at the end and start at 12 o'clock with new witnesses.

Ms. St-Denis, you have four minutes.

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

In your view, the federal environmental assessment regime is not consistent given the many stakeholders in the many departments involved.

Would creating a single environmental agency endowed with administrative jurisdiction and a specialized tribunal provide the consistency needed to balance the diverging needs of the various federal departments and agencies? Would it limit the number of players involved in the environmental assessment process? In fact, one of our next witnesses, Meinhard Doelle, will be addressing that issue.

[Mark Wittrup]

In the province of Saskatchewan we've really done that. We have....

I'm sorry, my French would not be passable, I'm afraid.

In the province of Saskatchewan, we have a single point to look at environmental assessments, and we can make recommendations to go to the tribunal level. We think that having a single point source to do environmental assessments does bring a lot of consistency.

The issue, I think, is why screening-level assessments generate the same level of process for many projects as a comprehensive study. I think at the screening level especially, you could have a single clearing house, and I believe CEAA is already positioned to do that, where they would be able to say whether a project had any touch points in the rest of government, rather than having it go out and be reviewed all the way around.

That's where most of the process delays come, in this dissemination to many agencies. Usually it's only one or two or three that are actually involved; that tends to be the case.

I wouldn't see setting up an additional government agency or a tribunal as being necessary given what exists already.

[Dr. Tareq Al-Zabet]

Could I add something there, if the time permits?

The problem is besides that diversity of the federal agencies that are connected to CEAA as a coordinating body there, the concept of having to have a permit to go through a screening process is by itself destabilizing the whole EIA process.

Normally, if you build a house you go and get a permit. But if you want to build a house under the existing system, you have to go through a screening that would be triggered by any of the 40 federal agencies. So besides the diversity of the federal agencies, the whole concept of going through a screening process, which is a different system for EIA, that hinge to a permit is really by itself a disabling piece so that whatever you do, even if you add another agency, it's not going to go anywhere.

So it's really the act itself that needs to be modified to get this piece out of the system there.

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

You talked about the maturation of provincial regulatory structures that deal with environmental assessment, and that is probably based on your own experience in Saskatchewan. In terms of the federal government acknowledging the provincial EA processes, should it try to harmonize the various provincial regulations in place across the country?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have five seconds.

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

Okay: yes or no?

[Mark Wittrup]

No.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you.

Next we have Mrs. Ambler.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

My questions will refer to the current all-in approach versus a possible list approach. Would you agree that federal resources should be focused on larger projects that pose a higher risk to the environment than smaller projects do?

[Mark Wittrup]

The answer is yes. It's consistent with our results-based regulatory framework, in which you apply the resources where they're required. When we did the analysis on results-based regulation generally, we found that staggering resources were going to very minor permitting activities. It chewed up a lot of time.

It takes resources away from the things that need to be looked at.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Basically, it would assure a more effective distribution of the resources, concentrating on places where the environmental outcomes are the real question.

[Mark Wittrup]

Correct.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

It wouldn't focus simply on the process.

[Mark Wittrup]

Correct.

[Dr. Tareq Al-Zabet]

Just to give you some statistics from CEAA that they mentioned in their presentation, roughly 95% of their screenings show that they are insignificant or minimal. So 95% of whatever you do there is really a permit issue.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Right. I understand.

Some of the witnesses we've heard from in this study have suggested that there should be a new trigger for effects on federal jurisdiction combined with a project list. Would you recommend that, and can you suggest what a new trigger would be?

[Mark Wittrup]

As far as I know, we're the only province that's avoided generating a list of project triggers. We feel that our screening process, which employs six major points that would put a project into a full environmental assessment, allows for a very thorough and effective screening. We don't think much gets through that would require....

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Is one of your six criteria related to areas of provincial environmental significance?