Environment Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Paul Cassidy]

No, it's quite all right, and I regret that I cannot speak to you in the other official language.

However, I will respond by saying that my boots-on-the-ground experience is that we still have issues with regard to a lack of harmonization of processes in Canada, driven, by and large, by the differences in timelines that the various legislation across the country provides. In some cases, as I indicated earlier, it's the absence of timing or requirements on the federal side.

To answer your question, in brief, my view is that there needs to be a lot more work done on the harmonization. I appreciate that efforts have been made. I'm very aware of the comprehensive agreements that are in place with certain provinces, including British Columbia, but I believe that we still are running into difficulties associated with inconsistent approaches and, indeed, ultimately, the ultimate lack of harmonization: that being inconsistent decision-making, where you have a federal process making one ruling and a provincial process on the very same project making a different ruling. That, to me, is the ultimate failure of harmonization.

[Lise St-Denis, NDP, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

In your view, is a more stringent environmental assessment act required in order to tie in the federal government’s greenhouse gas reduction targets and the production of fossil fuels in Canada?

[Paul Cassidy]

I think there are other ways to deal with the issues of fossil fuels and the issues you raised than the environmental assessment process. I'm not ruling out that the environmental assessment process can be used in that regard, but I think there are ways for those issues to be addressed that are more efficient than the environmental assessment process.

So I would not generally agree with the suggestion that stricter forms of environmental assessment are the best approaches for those issues.

[Lise St-Denis, NDP, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

Should we, in Canada, readjust the government’s enforcement power and the incident criminal offences?

[Paul Cassidy]

That's an interesting question because, as Mr. Hazell referred to, the enforcement of environmental assessments in Canada has had an interesting history, to the extent where, for example, in British Columbia, you get an environmental assessment certificate at the end of the day. That is actually the type of permit that I think Mr. Hazell is referring to. It is an offence to violate an environmental assessment certificate. Indeed, in the Ontario legislation the same has occurred. There was even litigation about that in Ontario, years ago, when an environmental assessment certificate was alleged to be violated.

So there is a history of those types of ultimate processes involving an enforcement. That's not the case in CEAA right now, as you know, but it has an interesting history.

I would only support such an arrangement if there were a full, concurrent approval process where permitting occurs at the same time and you have that one-stop type of shopping that Mr. Hazell referred to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

The last questioner is Mr. Toet, for five minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you.

My questions are directed to Mr. Hazell.

They go back to some of the triggering that you spoke about in your introduction and that Mr. Hyer touched on a little bit in his questioning. I first want to refer to a presentation that I believe you made on “Environmental Assessment in the Climate Century” to the Forum of Federations on September 14.

[Stephen Hazell]

Right.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Were you a representative of the Sierra Club of Canada when you gave this presentation?

[Stephen Hazell]

Remind me what the date of that was.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It was September 14, 2009.

[Stephen Hazell]

At that time, I was executive director of the Sierra Club. That's correct.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

So it would have been a presentation in that role.

[Stephen Hazell]

That's correct.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay. On page 10 of that, you describe the national environmental significance approach that is used in Australia.

[Stephen Hazell]

Right.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

My understanding is that this approach is being used in Australian assessments and specifically means that an environmental assessment in Australia is triggered when “...actions [are] likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance”. Would that be a correct description of that process?

[Stephen Hazell]

That's correct, yes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Could you elaborate, then, on how this process would work in Australia? You seem to have some good things to say about it. I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate a little further on that.

[Stephen Hazell]

My understanding is that, as in Canada, most environmental assessment activity is actually undertaken at the state level--the provincial level in Canada--so the states have the primary authority and the federal Government of Australia does not get involved so much in environmental assessment activity.

But there is this provision in the federal Australian legislation that allows the federal government to undertake an environmental assessment. They can do that when they make a determination that it is a matter of national significance. Some of the areas that are considered to be nationally significant are laid out in that legislation. Climate change wasn't one of them, but there are other matters that were.

My interest in that law is really based on the idea that a national government should have some discretionary authority to assess projects that are in the national interest even though they may not otherwise be captured by some law list trigger.

An example is given of an in situ oil sands project: a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions. As a country we're committed at the provincial level, the federal level, etc., to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Shouldn't the federal government have a seat at the table? Or shouldn't the federal government be able to require an environmental assessment in that situation?

Australia took this approach. It may be of interest in terms of an amendment to CEAA.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay. That leads me into my follow-up question on that. You say it may be of interest to look at in Canada. How can you see that helping in our process in Canada?

I know that the Australian model basically includes world heritage properties, wetlands of international importance, Commonwealth marine areas, nuclear actions, etc. They do have a really formalized process. They're also very formalized as to what would bring this assessment about.

How do you see that working out in Canada, then? You obviously have a liking for the model, to some degree, so how do you see that working within the Canadian structure?

[Stephen Hazell]

I would say there could be a provision in CEAA which basically states that where the Minister of the Environment determines that a project is of national significance, he or she may establish a panel review to review that project.

There are some similar sorts of provisions in CEAA right now. They're very complicated and they have not been used that much, but there is the option for individuals to petition the Minister of the Environment to establish a panel review, under several different sections.

This would be clear, and I think it would improve the overall operation of the act and ensure that the federal government is looking out for the environmental effects of projects that are really and truly national in scale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Mr. Hazell and Mr. Cassidy.

Mr. Cassidy, you made a long trip to come here.

We thank both of you so much for providing some valuable and important information.

That ends this portion of the committee.

Ms. Rempel.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, with regard to process for tabling documents. I know that my colleague has asked for a couple of documents to be prepared by one of the witnesses. It's my understanding that we typically ask for documents when they're referenced in a presentation or perhaps haven't been provided to the committee.

I'd like some clarification on process for that as well as what's been requested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Are there any other comments on that point of order?

Ms. Duncan.