Evidence of meeting #7 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 ceaa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
If the budgets are reduced, we will have to reassess the way in which we meet our obligations under the law.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
You also say that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board have a responsibility to consult aboriginal people. Those organizations are also facing important financial pressures. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act clearly states that you are governmental leaders when it comes to the environment. How can you claim that you are discharging your responsibilities although you are receiving less money to consult the first nations?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
As to projects under the purview of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or the National Energy Board, our role is similar to the role we play with regard to all of the responsible authorities that conduct preliminary studies.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe that the member opposite is speaking about the NEB. We're reviewing the CEAA act today.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Are there any other comments on the point of order?
Ms. Liu, I will remind you to make sure your comments are germane to the discussion. Thank you.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I think my comments are quite relevant to this discussion, as we are talking about the ability and the consultation process of environmental assessment. But I will make sure that my comments stay relevant, as well.
In 2009, the environmental commissioner assessed the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by the government. The commissioner stated that when determining the scope of the project to be assessed, the other federal authorities did not agree amongst themselves. This often hinders the assessment process, causes delays and even sometimes causes multiple assessments to be conducted. What has been done since the commissioner's report to correct the problems related to federal coordination, particularly with regard to the scope of the projects?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Two things were done, mainly. Both are related to amendments made to the law last year.
Regarding the problems identified by the commissioner in connection with the multiple levels of authority involved in the assessments, it is precisely for that reason that the assessment of major projects that are subject to in-depth studies was entrusted to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It was to avoid having several levels of authority legally responsible for conducting assessments of the same projects.
The problem has been ongoing for certain preliminary studies that could involve several responsible authorities at that stage of the proceedings, but as to the bigger projects that require in-depth studies, amendments were made that essentially settled those issues last year. The other change that took place since the report of the commissioner results from the Supreme Court decision handed down last year in the MiningWatch case, in connection with the scope of the project. The court clearly indicated that the scope of the project must be congruent with the scope that was originally proposed by the promoter.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you. Your time has expired, Ms. Liu.
Mr. Toet, four minutes.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Chair.
The amendments of July 2010 have been spoken about a couple of times. I'd like to focus on them a little bit during my questioning here.
First off, I would ask if you could just give us, seeing as we have a short period of time, a brief outline of what the amendments were about.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The amendments in July 2010 dealt with a number of aspects principally related to the comprehensive study process. The amendments removed the step in the process where the minister decided on the track, whether it would be a comprehensive study or a review panel. That step was eliminated. Analysis done through our quality assurance program had shown that this step had resulted in considerable delay in the conduct of the environmental assessment.
Secondly, the amendments consolidated the authority for comprehensive studies to the agency. The agency is responsible for the conduct of the comprehensive study, whereas in the past it potentially had been among a number of responsible authorities.
The third change was an amendment that allowed the Minister of the Environment to set or limit the scope of the project being assessed. Those amendments have not yet been used, and those amendments...that power needed to be used subject to conditions that the minister set and made public. And conditions have not been set or made public; as I said, the power hasn't been used.
The last main one concerned the regulations that related to infrastructure projects, that excluded certain infrastructure projects, that related to municipal infrastructure funded through a number of different funds or as a schedule to the act and made a part of the legislation.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
How would you assess the implementation at this point in time?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
As we indicated last week, for all the comprehensive studies that have commenced since the amendments have come into force, we're working fully in sync with provincial jurisdictions.
As we also mentioned last week, our main client in terms of resource sector at this point of time for these big projects is the mining sector. I'll leave it to the mining association, whom I assume you will invite to appear before this committee, to give you a sense from their perspective of whether the amendments have brought some improvements. But based on our discussions with them, they seem to agree with our assessment that they've brought key improvements, major improvements, in the system at this point in time.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Your assessment is that it's going well at this point in time.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I wanted to also talk about the act and the comparison with similar laws in other countries.
What other countries, if any, use an environment assessment procedure similar to Canada's?
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
There are maybe a couple we can speak to. Australia has a somewhat similar regime. Most countries have environmental assessment legislation.
In Australia's case, they have the same kind of dynamics we have here in Canada. They have the federal level of government and, in their case, state, which would be equivalent to our provinces. The states in Australia have primary responsibility for resource development, and they have their own environmental assessment procedures.
In Australia the federal government has legislation that's based on identifying where projects have impacts on matters of federal interest. They have eight areas of federal interest that they look at, from the Great Barrier Reef marine park to marine areas to world heritage sites to rare species in ecological communities to nuclear actions. These are things that tend to be in the federal jurisdiction.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Mr. Toet, your time has expired. Thank you so much.
Last is Ms. Murray, four minutes.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions.
Could you tell me who in a joint review panel is responsible for the environmental effects evaluation and the possibility of impacts?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
When a project is referred to a review panel--that would include circumstances where the panel is established jointly with another jurisdiction--the panel is made responsible for assessing the environmental effects and reporting back to the Minister of the Environment with their conclusions and recommendations.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
And in the case of a joint review panel with the National Energy Board without provincial jurisdiction, who's responsible for collecting the science information?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That would be the same. The responsibility is with the panel.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
So does CEAA fund the joint review panel? Where do the funds come from? What budget does the panel draw on?
Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
With respect to the panel costs themselves, these are shared between the NEB and the agency. We have a cost-recovery system in place that allows us to cost-recover our share of the costs from the proponent, and there are also resources made available to participants in the process. As I explained previously, both the public in general and aboriginal people participate in the review.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
So you have a budget for CEAA, and if you have, for example, a joint review panel with the National Energy Board, between the two agencies you have to come up with the funds that you can possibly recover from the proponent.