Ms. Elizabeth Swanson at the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee

On November 19th, 2012. See this statement in context.

November 19th, 2012 / 3:50 p.m.

Chair, Regulatory Policy Work Group, Associate General Counsel, TransCanada PipeLines, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Elizabeth Swanson

I agree they are housekeeping and technical for the most part.

I would point to the exception being clause 432, which brings an amendment to the transition provisions. The net effect of that is to close a loophole that might have existed. It's very complicated. If I try to explain it, it's going to take a few moments. The way I understand it is the original drafting under CEAA, 2012, as I looked at it, would have enabled certain projects for which an assessment was deemed not necessary under CEAA, 2009 to not require an assessment under CEAA, 2012 for the very reason there was a statement that an assessment wasn't required.

The proposed amendment closes that loophole. For example, if a trigger under CEAA 2009 came up subsequent to a decision being made, and if they would otherwise be assessed under CEAA, 2012, that loophole's closed now.

See context to find out what was said next.