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.
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
No, this goes back to the fact that for the vast majority of environmental assessment screenings—and comprehensive studies as well—this was a self-assessment process until a year ago, as managed by the 14 departments that Mrs. Feldman referred to.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
We hear that the vast majority didn't require further changes, but we don't actually know the statistics.
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
We undertook an audit back in 2007, and we did do some of that work internally and found that 94% of the 2,200 projects audited presented the potential for very minimal environmental effects. The commissioner, when he did his work in 2009, agreed with those findings.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Many of these natural resource projects will be in areas where you're going to have many projects taking place, i.e., you're going to require cumulative impact assessments and regional assessments. How will you be addressing that?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The act, as it stands now, does not provide for regional environmental assessment. It's project-based environmental assessment; we look at each project. So the process has presented some difficulties with respect to cumulative impact.
The government has recently indicated it will be monitoring water quality in one area, in the Lower Athabasca. That will be an important start to getting the data needed to look at the impact.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Can you specify some of the difficulties that you have encountered in this? Instead of just saying that it's challenging, can you list what those challenges have been, please?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Because we're looking at a specific project each time, it's hard to look at the cumulative impact. And because there has been no data source providing a baseline from when the development started to where we are now, it's been difficult to assess the impact of the projects on the environment.
That's where I was going. I'm just saying that the collection of that data has started.
Conservative
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to go back to the screening question. Ms. Liu mentioned it, and it seems important, given that screening accounts for 99% of environmental assessments, and given that the commissioner said in 2009 that “the rationale or analysis in half of the files examined was too weak to demonstrate how environmental effects of projects had been considered and whether actions were taken to mitigate them”.
I'm also concerned that it seems to be a self-assessment process, if I understand it correctly. I understand that self-assessment has some economies of scale, especially for the government, by shifting the costs onto the proponents. But there could be problems if, under self-assessment, the proponent conducts the screening and determines whether to provide an opportunity for public participation, determines whether to require a follow-up program, and makes the final decision.
Did I misunderstand that?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
By self-assessment we mean that each responsible authority has to carry out the screening, not the proponent. So if it is a maple syrup operation expansion and ACOA is providing funding for that expansion, then ACOA has to carry out the screening. That's what we mean by self-assessment.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Okay, thanks for that clarification. That does help me.
My second question is about coordination of federal and provincial assessments.
In 1998, apparently there was a subagreement between the feds and the provinces, except for Quebec, to come up with a process. There's been heat on both sides about this. The provinces feel the feds meddle too much and hold up the projects they have approved, and environmental groups and concerned citizens feel there's inadequate scrutiny or sometime they feel that the provinces don't have a backbone and want the feds to be more severe.
The B.C. government felt there were billions and billions of dollars that were being held up by federal assessments, after they felt they had done their job as a province. Do you think there's some validity to that concern, and what would you recommend as the most effective way to ensure that environmental issues are covered without undue cost or duplication?
Are there changes you might recommend to the act or the processes that would help?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I agree that there were often cases where the provincial and the federal governments were out of sync. The province might have completed its assessment before the federal government figured out which department was responsible for carrying out the assessment. So there were instances where the federal government only began its environmental assessment after the provincial process was completed.
But as I said, since July 2010 that hasn't happened any more for major projects because the agency is now responsible. There is no more discussion among departments as to who the responsible authority is. We are now mandated, in amendments that were passed in 2010, to begin a comprehensive study if a federal decision might be required.
That enables us to proceed with the province and, as I said, has ensured that we align our processes and provide one set of information requirements to a proponent, and that we coordinate our public consultations. In my view many of the criticisms that have been levelled at the federal government over environmental assessment in regard to overlap and duplication and inefficiency were taken care of through the July 2010 amendments.
Whether that's sufficient, I think will be an issue that may come before the committee and which others may speak to. Some provinces have suggested that the provincial process should substitute for the federal process, or that the provincial process should be deemed equivalent to the federal process. So I imagine there will be others who may want to discuss those issues with you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you, Ms. Feldman.
Mr. Hyer, thank you so much. Your time is up.
Next is Mr. Sopuck, for five minutes.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Thank you.
My first question relates to the factors to be assessed under a CEAA review. I see from some of the materials I've received that what can be assessed under a CEAA review is the need, the purpose, and alternatives to the project. Those are business decisions, and I question whether CEAA should be involved in the decisions that business people or governments make on whether a project is necessary or not.
Do you think it's appropriate for CEAA to be involved in the business case of a project?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Mr. Sopuck, when we look at those factors, we look at them from the point of view of the proponent.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Okay, but the comment I want to leave on the record is that I find it strange that an environmental assessment would even have as a term of reference a responsibility to look at the need, the purpose, and the alternatives to a project. I think it can be safely assumed that the proponent would have evaluated all of that. The review, in my view, should stick strictly to the environmental aspects of the project.
My next question relates to projects that are, quote, “likely to have significant adverse environmental effects”. Do you consider environmental change to always be adverse?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Let me go back to your first question, if I may, for a few seconds. It was a very good question.
As Ms. Feldman mentioned, we do look at these factors from the proponent's standpoint. When the proponent is a private sector proponent, we do actually have guidance in place that promotes this type of approach.
What is the purpose of looking at these factors? It's not really to question the need for the project or the purpose of the project from the proponent's standpoint. But at the end of the CEAA process, if there is a determination that the project is likely to cause significant environmental effects, a decision has to be made by cabinet as to whether those effects are justified in the circumstances. That's where the consideration of these factors becomes relevant in weighing the overall costs and benefits of the project.
With respect to your second question, you're right that with every project there are positive and negative environmental effects and broader effects. Our legislation focuses specifically on negative environmental effects. So that's the focus of this legislation.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
I'm aware of that, but I would argue very strongly that it's a very subjective view and that one person's adverse effect is another person's positive effect.
I look, for example, at prairie reservoirs, which are often built for flood control. They cause significant alterations to valley habitats. But the result of creating a reservoir is a steady state in terms of ecological processes and, more often than not, very significant fish populations that form the basis of significant local economies.
Again, adversity is in the eye of the beholder, so I don't find that a very scientific term. It's a value-laden term that I think we need to examine. What needs to be looked at are ecological processes. Those are sacrosanct in terms of the environment.
You made a point in the slide deck that review panels of landmark projects work well. Would you consider the Mackenzie Valley panel to have been a success?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That panel took a very long time, and I think there is certainly a view that no environmental assessment should take as long as the Mackenzie Valley panel took.
October 20th, 2011 / 12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Yes, I would agree, especially considering that all of the environmental work was done in the 1970s—and I was part of that environmental work—and redone in the 1990s. It is a particularly bad example of a landmark project that was reviewed.
The negative economic repercussions for northern communities are significant and will be felt for decades to come, so I would question that.
NDP
Lise St-Denis NDP Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
How do you explain the small number of comprehensive studies carried out each year?
President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Comprehensive studies are designed for major projects. So it depends on funding. If there are a lot of projects, we do a lot of comprehensive studies. If there are no projects, there are no studies. It all depends on the number of projects submitted to the agency.