Evidence of meeting #13 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

R. Liam Mooney  Vice-President, Safety, Health, Environment and Quality, Regulatory Relations, Cameco Corporation
Jamie Kneen  Co-Manager, Communications and Outreach, Environmental Assessment and Africa Programs, MiningWatch Canada
Denise Carpenter  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Heather Kleb  Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

My question is for the Canadian Nuclear Association and Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Kleb.

Can you please tell me what is your view of a potential new listing approach to identifying projects subject to CEAA?

11:45 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

Thank you. I would start by saying there are existing inclusion lists, exclusion lists, and law lists. Our recommendation would be to work with the existing lists to better define which projects require assessment. I agree with Jamie in saying that the exclusion list regulations are not sufficiently developed.

In our case, because of the lawless trigger regarding licences, anything we do requires a licence to be issued or amended, so we virtually always trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—even that replacement of a weir on a small stream at the Chalk River site.

So we would recommend that the exclusion list regulations be further developed to exclude minor works and activities, and also works and activities that were previously assessed. So our licences initially trigger an EA, but even once issued, if it's amended or renewed we continue to trigger EAs on the same sites for similar activities.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

With respect to the current “all in unless” approach versus a list approach, we've heard earlier witnesses who have suggested that a list approach would inevitably exclude new projects, the types of projects that haven't been imagined yet or done or thought of. Do you have any ideas or suggestions for us about how we could deal with that potential challenge?

11:45 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

First, I agree with your comment. There's a lot of innovation in our industry. We could find in a few years' time, say, a new small modular reactor project that isn't on the list.

What we would recommend is to go back to the existing list, particularly the exclusion list, and refine it so that minor works and activities, previously assessed activities, or environmental risks are not repeatedly assessed.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Do you think we could ensure that such an approach would protect the environmental integrity that we all want to come out of this process?

11:45 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Denise Carpenter

Absolutely.

11:45 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

Yes, I agree.

11:45 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Denise Carpenter

It's to our advantage to make sure this happens.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

You mentioned that an EA should be allowed to investigate the socio-economic as well as the environmental effects. But I think it's slightly different to say that an EA should be allowed to examine positive environmental effects as well as negative ones. It seems that much of environmental assessment, and perhaps rightly so, is focused on potential negative outcomes. I believe the origins of the act were to make sure that we prevent disasters and environmental destruction. Do you think we should be advancing the study, within the EA process, of potential positive environmental effects as well as negative ones?

11:50 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Denise Carpenter

An environmental study should look at the potential negative and positive effects.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Do you feel that the present process does that?

11:50 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Denise Carpenter

Not so much.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Do you think that the project list approach to determining which projects require a federal EA would be effective in focusing resources on larger projects?

11:50 a.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association

Denise Carpenter

Absolutely.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

I want to ask you a bit about timelines, particularly legislated timelines. Could you expand on that a little, especially with regard to ensuring that if those were put into place, protection of the environment and environmental integrity would not be compromised?

11:50 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

I guess our members would agree that timelines should be identified for key steps in the environmental assessment process. However, our recommendation is that this should be achieved through agreements on key steps and timelines between the proponent and the agency, rather than in the legislation itself.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON

Okay. I appreciate that. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit across the board.

Mr. Mooney, many of your company's projects are located in Saskatchewan, and we heard testimony from the Province of Saskatchewan that their environmental assessment process takes up to a year, while the CNSC screening can take up to three years. Has this been your experience?

11:50 a.m.

Vice-President, Safety, Health, Environment and Quality, Regulatory Relations, Cameco Corporation

R. Liam Mooney

The province sees all of those EAs, and we're not the only party in that world. Historically, there were some large gaps between processes. But that has mended over time, and we would commend the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for their work on screening-level assessments. There can be some disparity between the provincial and the federal processes, though.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you. Time has expired.

Next we have Ms. Duncan for seven minutes.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for coming.

If I could begin with Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Mooney, both of your groups have raised the importance of looking at economic, environmental, and social impacts as part of this assessment, and I'm wondering, if you could write your wish list, how would you study those economic environmental and social impacts?

11:50 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

I'll start off, and then maybe Liam can follow up.

In my experience, I would say that social, economic, and environmental considerations are considered in the environmental assessment process. They're well studied in the environmental assessment process. Our concern is that when it comes time to make an EA decision, the balance between healthy environment and healthy economy goes one way.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

And which way is that?

11:50 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

Healthy environment, which we obviously are looking to achieve as well, but both require consideration.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

So you feel currently the legislation covers economic, environmental, and social impacts?

11:50 a.m.

Director, Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association

Heather Kleb

Absolutely.