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.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So let's call that the all-in-unless-excluded approach. And I understand that to be the result of section 5, among others, which sets out triggers, combined with section 7, which sets out exclusions. Is that correct?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
In fact, in spite of efforts to make exclusions, the act still requires a full assessment of small projects.
Would you consider that to be a major drawback of the all-in-unless-excluded approach?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Well, I think there are instances where resources could be put to better work looking at projects that are more likely to have an adverse environmental impact than small projects, where it's been shown that the vast majority are unlikely to have such an impact.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
All right.
You don't want to use the word “drawback”, but I will say that if resources could be spent better elsewhere, then I would consider it to be a drawback if they not required to be spent there.
Ms. Leslie was then going to the point that some provinces take a different approach, and I think I heard you say that they use project lists. Is that correct?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Actually, I have to ask you first of all, how does that work? How do they get things on a list, or not on a list? How is the list developed?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
These lists are typically based on an internal assessment that each jurisdiction would make about the potential of these projects to cause sufficient environmental concerns that justify being subject to an environmental assessment. While you will typically see some variation between one province and another, each project listed will be among the major industrial projects.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Would there be benefit to CEAA or its implementation, from your perspective, if we were to go from an all-in-unless-excluded approach to a project-list approach?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I have to tell you that, personally, I think our resources across the government could be better used in looking at the projects that may have significant adverse environmental impact, rather than at looking at projects such as the expansion of a maple syrup operation.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Again, I guess you're up against the notion that you're not supposed to comment on policy, but from what you've said, I'm going to conclude that there is a benefit to going to a list approach rather than the all-in-unless-excluded approach. Even in a list approach, somebody still has to look at projects and determine whether they should go on the list.
Is that correct?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The point Yves was making is that there has to be some work to look at the projects with the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact, and then to use them as the basis for drawing up the list—which would clearly have to be subject to consultation.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So the list is for types of projects, not actual specific projects?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That's correct.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.
We're going to have to call it a close there. We're out of time for this portion.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here. This has been very informative. I sense there may be more questions that members would like to ask you, and so we may be looking at inviting you back. Thank you so much for being here today. You're excused.
Colleagues, we have one item to deal with at the end of this meeting, the budget. As you're aware, the review of CEAA has been referred to the standing committee. It's a legislative review that we are required to carry out. The timing is wonderful, and we need a budget to do that. The clerk has prepared a typical budget for this, and the recommended amount is $39,750.
October 20th, 2011 / 12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
On a point of order, should this be in camera, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
No. Budgets for this are typically dealt with in an open meeting.
What I'm looking for is a motion.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
I move:
That in relation to the statutory review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the proposed budget in the amount of $ 39,750, be adopted.
Conservative
NDP
Lise St-Denis NDP Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Perhaps I am not used to all this. In terms of witness expenses, why are we asking $1,950 for three people when they come from Montreal and $10,200 when they come from Calgary?
Perhaps there is the air fare. Could you tell me? Maybe it makes sense for Vancouver. So it is the air fare. That's it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you, Ms. St-Denis.
These are estimates. We could move the number of people around to any city. This is a typical estimate sheet when witnesses are being called. The hope is that the amount the committee spends in the review will be substantially less, that we will be very frugal, and that we will use video conferencing as often as possible. This is a typical template that's used in such a review. The numbers for who is coming from where can be moved around. We need a budget and this is just a template.
Ms. Leslie.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hope I'm also on a list to ask a question later about something else.
First, I'm wondering if you can help me understand what happens if the committee does decide at a later date to travel.
Maybe I'll ask that question first.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
If the committee decides to travel, the committee would have a different budget, which would have to be voted on. This is a budget where we can go up to $40,000 without having it approved by the Liaison Committee. This is for just under the $40,000.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Can I ask a follow-up question?
Can we adjust anything that we approve, obviously, at the will of the committee?