Evidence of meeting #5 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 assessment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Do you have an example where a federal agency is a funding source?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
A good example I would cite deals with two of the commercial crowns—the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation.They provide commercial funding to proponents to carry out projects, so they are required to do assessments every time they provide funding to a project.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
The key seems to be that a federal decision is involved.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That's correct.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I'm wondering it's possible for an environmental assessment not to be triggered under CEAA if a project has environmental impacts on an area where there's been no federal decision.
12:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That's right. I think I referred to that in my remarks. There are instances in which a project may have effects on an area of federal jurisdiction, but because there is no trigger, there is no federal environmental assessment.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Could you give us an example of an area where a federal jurisdiction might pose an environmental problem?
12:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I'll give you the example of an in situ oil sands project where there may not be a federal trigger. An in situ oil sands project may not require the issuance of a federal permit. So although the oil sands are located in areas where there are substantial aboriginal populations, and although oil sands development will have an effect on aboriginal peoples, if there is no federal decision required, there would not be a federal EA of an in situ project. However, an oil sands mine tends to require a federal permit, whether from Fisheries or Transport. So an oil sands mine would be reviewed but an oil sands in situ project might not be.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I want to ask a question on another area. We're talking about the difference between a comprehensive study and a panel assessment. I notice that part of the program has funding for public participation. It was mentioned that aboriginal groups would receive funding through that formula. You might give examples of other groups that might receive funding to take part in that comprehensive review process.
Could you briefly explain how you make a decision between a panel and a comprehensive study?
12:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
We provide two types of funding. One is for aboriginal consultation for first nations. The second is for what we call the public participant funding program, where we allocate a certain amount of money and make it known through local advertisements. That way, individuals or non-profit organizations with particular knowledge or expertise and an interest in the project are able to apply to CEAA for funding to participate in the environmental assessment.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you, Ms. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Lunney.
Next is Ms. Duncan, for seven minutes.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the agency for coming here, and for the important work you do.
I will begin by saying that I'm struggling. You mentioned the potential investments in natural resource projects of maybe up to $500 billion over the coming decades. At the same time, as my colleague mentioned, there's potentially a 43% cut to the agency and, potentially, a 33% cut in terms of human resources. If we look back at the 2009 and 2010 budget bills, there's criticism of the changes that were made to environmental assessment. They're said to be complicated, unwieldy, and not addressing Canada's most pressing environmental issues.
There are some real contradictions there and I wonder if you could speak to them.
12:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
You refer to the amendments. I think the 2010 budget amendments went a long way to addressing some of the criticisms. As I said earlier, the agency is now responsible for carrying out comprehensive studies, which means we're now able to engage at the very outset and to coordinate our processes with provinces. As a result, there is no longer delay, inefficiency, or duplication. I think that was a very helpful change in the 2010 budget.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in my question.
We're going to have $500 billion in assessment needs and at the same time we're seeing significant cuts to the agency. You mentioned the improvements that you see as a result of the budget bill. I do have to point out that there has been criticism that those changes did weaken the act. How do you respond to the needs of $500 billion versus these cuts?
12:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I think the answer is that these are not cuts; they're potential buts, which is why they're shown the way they are in our report tabled in Parliament. It will be a decision of the government whether to re-authorize the funding in the next budget.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Okay.
I wonder if we have statistics and how far they go back, so that we can have an idea of whether the number of assessments is increasing or decreasing over time. For example, how many screenings, comprehensive studies, panels, etc. were done each year? What time was spent on them? Who were the stakeholders? Does that information exist?
12:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
We have our registry Internet site.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
No, I'm aware of the registry. I've asked very specific questions. Could those answers be tabled with the committee?
12:20 p.m.
Yves Leboeuf Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
We could provide the numbers to the committee, Mr. Chairman. The information is pretty complete since we established the Internet registry in 2003. There is a complete set of information with respect to the number of screenings, comprehensive studies, and review panels since then.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
That would be great if it could be tabled for each of the type of assessments: how many hours were spent; how many stakeholders. Does that exist?
12:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
No. We can only give you the numbers. I want to be clear. That's why I referred to the registry, the Internet site. We can go back and get you the numbers on each type of EA, but that's all we can do.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Will we know whether it was a positive or a negative outcome?
12:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I don't know what you mean by a positive or negative outcome.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I should have been clearer.
Will we know whether it ended there or whether further requirements were necessary?
12:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Yves, I don't think the sites show the conditions attached, do they?