Environment Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2011

[Mark Wittrup]

To go back to your original question, with respect to screening-level assessments, they tend to be of a relatively minor nature. To be quite honest, some of the triggers, especially within an existing industrial site, are laughable.

Generally, though, on the screening level, I could see all of that, as we've recommended, be devolved to the province. It's in line with our results-based regulatory initiative, which applies the resources where the risk is. The risks are those projects identified correctly in the comprehensive study list.

The major projects have the potential to significantly affect the environment. They should get the full process and full scrutiny by the public, as well. But screening-level triggers, for the most part, are more than readily handled, tend not to be transboundary, and tend not to enter into any of those broader federal jurisdictions where the federal presence is necessary and welcome.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

You also said that when you're looking at the outcomes of separate CEAA reviews or provincial reviews, the outcomes are often the same. Could you expand on that and perhaps talk about percentages where you see that? If differences emerge, are what they look like and how they result consistent?

[Dr. Tareq Al-Zabet]

I think the problem is, again, a process issue. The outcomes are the same. Saskatchewan has been working on the EA processes for the last 10 years. We have exactly the same processes. As I said earlier with respect to the timing of the start, by the time it's triggered by CEAA, it has already been decided by us. I'm just going to give you--

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Sorry, are you saying you built your process to mirror CEAA, or...?

[Dr. Tareq Al-Zabet]

No, no, but the major steps in a technical EA are almost the same. By the time they trigger their EIA, or they decide if it's a screen or whatever, they have different timing.

For example, we do two consultation processes or two public consultations. It takes them three years. They have hearings systems. Again, it has nothing to do with CEAA sometimes. It has to do with the responsible authorities, the other federal agencies attached to CEAA. Every one of them has a different scope. DFO could take a month or 90 days. CNSC could take three years. It's really an open-ended kind of process on their side. Even if CEAA wanted to make this efficient, there are issues in the other agencies that are hinged to that process.

That's why it gets complicated. It's not one agency you're dealing with, actually.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

You also spoke to the “opportunity cost” discussion some of your proponents have made. In talking to them, what are some of the roadblocks you're hearing about as far as their making a decision to not put forward an environmental assessment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately, Ms. Rempel, your time has expired. Seven minutes goes so fast.

Ms. Duncan, you have seven minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming. We appreciate your time and effort.

I'd like to pick up on what my colleague Ms. Liu was asking about. Your brief recommends early consideration of the duty to consult aboriginal peoples.

I'd like to begin by asking whether aboriginal consultation is part of the Saskatchewan EA process. Or is it undertaken outside that process?

[Mark Wittrup]

The answer is yes, it is part of the process. In fact, it is part of any decision that we make that might impact on traditional rights in the province, so the answer is yes. We're currently in discussions with the CEAA in order to try to align those as closely as possible to see if there are any synergies.

Like the federal government, we don't have infinite resources to apply to the duty-to-consult issues, so we do delegate the nuts and bolts of consultation to the proponents. As part of that, we get them to complete part of their relationship building, then we come in later and finalize the duty-to-consult process.

To briefly touch upon the issue of resources through the first nations and Métis relations branch, we're working to fund capability in the province to technically look at, with the first nations and Métis, environmental assessments.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

Do you think aboriginal people should be consulted early in the process, or that the government should consider early on how best to efficiently and effectively fulfill its duty?

[Dr. Tareq Al-Zabet]

Basically, aboriginal and Métis communities are consulted earlier in the process than even the public. From the moment we decide that this is a project that is going to be a full EA project, they are notified by registered mail first.

For your information, we have what we call a wide government policy framework on duty to consult that has tier one to tier five, depending on the size of the project, and we ensure that they are informed from the beginning. We have a duty to meet with them depending on the level of impacts. That's even apart from the public consultation process.

We are heavily engaged in this, and it's actually one of the biggest pieces that takes most of the time for us, but we make sure they are on board and aware of the issues and they have full participation in the process.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Should this consultation be integrated at the federal level?

[Mark Wittrup]

Well, the duty's on the crown, and if it's integrated, it would make it more efficient, and certainly.... Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So it's yes.

[Mark Wittrup]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Should CEAA be amended to include an assessment of socio-economic factors?

[Mark Wittrup]

Fundamentally, in the Saskatchewan system, the answer is that social and economic factors can be considered as part of the environmental assessment process. That's part of our decision-making process. In the guideline process, we would identify any particular areas that needed to be examined.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

But should CEAA be amended to include an assessment of socio-economic factors?

[Mark Wittrup]

My fear, again, is that it would generate more process rather than less process.

I think my answer would be couched in the fact that you have to understand, in the grand scheme of things, where environmental assessment, at least in our opinion, resides. It's not at a feasibility level in a project in order to determine whether the project will have significant adverse effects on the environment or public health and safety. Once that answer is no, all mitigations included, then it goes over to the more detailed licensing and permitting side of things, where all of the detailed information is. What I'm worried about is getting too much of the flow, in an expansive project, up front.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm trying to get a yes or no answer here. Should CEAA be amended to include an assessment of socio-economic factors?

[Mark Wittrup]

That answer, I would say, would be yes, because that would impact differently on project outcomes; and rather than having a strictly environmental view of it, yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. So you think it should be included.

Would this require provincial EA processes to include a socio-economic analysis before they could be deemed equivalent?

[Mark Wittrup]

We already do.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

The question I have to ask more broadly is would it also require provincial EA processes—not just in Saskatchewan—to include socio-economic analysis?

[Mark Wittrup]

What I'm trying to avoid is saying yes to a full socio-economic impact statement. What I would say yes to is the inclusion of socio-economic factors in the discussion.

That's where I would like to clarify that.