Environment Committee on Nov. 7th, 2012

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. This relates directly to the transition provisions that our witnesses spoke to. They raised this issue in their testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Both witnesses and questioners, though, do need to keep our focus on clauses 425 to 432 inclusive.

Proceed.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm unclear on your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

I just want to make sure that we are dealing with the mandate, with what the committee decided was the scope of our questioning and review.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay.

I can link it back to clause 432. I am interested in knowing who was consulted on the project list, and I think that's relevant, because I'm wondering if there was feedback from them about the technicalities of the transition as well. As I noted, the situation we're in is very complicated and complex.

[Helen Cutts]

The answer has two parts. In terms of the actual project list that came into force on July 6, at the same time that the act came into force, that was making use of the comprehensive study list, a regulation that was already in place. That regulation listed projects and types, such as a mine of a certain size. There was no consultation, because we were taking one regulation and essentially repeating it.

We did, however—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

For what it's worth, that's what I figured. I'm glad to have that clarified.

[Helen Cutts]

Yes.

Then the second part of the answer is that, recognizing that that was put in place in order to ensure that the act could be implemented, we began immediately in July to contact aboriginal groups, environmental NGOs, the provinces, and industry associations. Our letters went out in early July to invite them to talk about the project list. We brought people together face to face, answered their questions, and explained how it worked in the context of the act. They all provided feedback by the deadline in August.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Your time has expired.

Ms. Rempel, you have another seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the clauses we're reviewing today, clauses 425 through 432, do any of these clauses impact any of the environmental permitting or legislation that's related to CEAA 2012? Specifically, with regard to clause 428, as I read through this, it seems as though it clarifies the need for follow-up on decision statements, but perhaps you could spend a little bit more time walking us through that. Perhaps you could walk us through the follow-up that's typically undertaken with the decision statement as well.

[Helen Cutts]

In terms of the government's approach to responsible resource development, it obviously sees an integrated system. The environmental assessment process comes first, and often there is federal permitting that comes after it.

Clause 428 refers to a follow-up program. That follow-up program is not a follow-up related to permitting, so I think what you may be asking is what's really happening in clause 428 in terms of the requirements in the decision statement.

At the end of an environmental assessment, the minister prepares a decision statement that indicates whether or not there are significant adverse environmental effects. It also indicates what conditions are imposed on the proponent in terms of mitigation conditions and also what is expected of the proponent in terms of a follow-up program.

The follow-up program is very interesting. It is a scientific exercise that asks this question: do the mitigation measures as proposed have the effect that we expected them to have? For example, if there were some measures that were to be taken to prevent erosion, it wouldn't be sufficient for a proponent just to put in place certain measures if they didn't have the effect of preventing the erosion. The follow-up program needs to ask the question: did the mitigation succeed?

What we want to ensure by putting forward clause 428 is that the decision statement not only has those core requirements that we want to impose on the proponent—a follow-up program and mitigation conditions—but that we could also ask for other administrative requirements, such as the requirement the proponent actually report to us on the results of its follow-up program.

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

How was that received by some of the stakeholders or project proponents that utilize the act?

[Helen Cutts]

On the operations side, we've really had a handful of proponents that have come through under the new act—fewer than 10—and the feedback has generally been very, very positive. They're obviously not at that stage of the process, but they haven't raised concerns about entering into a process.

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

On the follow-up process that's outlined in clause 428, how does that compare to other jurisdictions?

[Helen Cutts]

In Canada, the provinces also generally have required follow-up programs of proponents. In other countries, it's a standard measure that's seen internationally as a good practice.

The follow-up has another purpose as well. I've talked about ensuring purely for that project that all the mitigation measures are working, but it also has an advantage to us at the agency, because if we have been recommending a certain mitigation measure and we learn from a particular project that the mitigation measure is not working, then we're not going to recommend that for the next project of a similar type.

I know that the Auditor General has been very concerned that Canadians benefit from information of that nature and has asked us to ensure that the results of follow-up programs are integrated into future decision statements.

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

That's great.

Going now to clause 430, in my previous round we spoke a little bit about an example of a project that would go through that. Could you maybe walk us through in a bit more detail, in the example you gave us, the process a proponent would go through with respect to the federal component of the EA?

[Helen Cutts]

An environmental assessment is something required for projects that have gone through a screening, that were a part of the designated project list. That's a list in the regulations. Clause 430 is a special federal stewardship clause that is for non-designated projects, so the process is going to be very different, and I'm hesitant to refer to it as an environmental assessment process, so as to avoid confusion with the one for designated projects.

First of all, we're talking about projects that are not on the designated list. These are the smaller ones. Suppose a federal authority has to make a decision on crop-grazing on agricultural land and has to provide a crop-grazing permit or some other type of permit for the use of that reserved land. That federal authority would get details from the proponent about the nature of the environmental effects. It would look at the duration of the effects, the intensity of the effects, and what those effects were in terms of federal interest—whether a fish habitat was disturbed, for example. Then it would have to determine if those effects were significant or not.

In our experience with screenings, we found that the vast majority of them did not generate significant adverse environmental effects, but it is possible that a smaller project on federal lands could generate significant effects. We've held the requirement high, so that if that project is to be approved in spite of those significant effects, that federal authority would have to go to cabinet to see if those effects were justified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Ms. Duncan, you have the last seven minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I'm going to pick up on some of what my colleagues have said. Could you describe the consultation process followed since the tabling? Just give us an idea who was consulted, the numbers, and feedback, please.

[Helen Cutts]

Sure. This summer we invited approximately 20 environmental NGOs. We invited the 10 provinces and 3 territories, approximately 20 industry associations, and 3 national aboriginal organizations.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Of those who came, who was involved? I would like to know who the actual participants were.

[Helen Cutts]

Of the provinces, all were able to come to our initial meeting, except for P.E.I. and Quebec. Quebec held a separate telephone call with us, after the fact.

There was an extremely good turnout for the environmental organizations. I can't remember, but some of them sent replacements, so that while we sent out about 20 invitations, we ended up with more than 20 participating.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Could you table who came to that, please?

[Helen Cutts]

Yes, I could do that.