Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Blanchette, you have five minutes.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lindgren, in your presentation you spoke about significant public participation in principles and priority issues. That seems to be an important point, in your opinion.

Whenever consultations and assessments are being done, of course public participation is important to the extent that it contributes to increasing public approval of the project as such. What link do you see between public approval and significant public participation?

In that context, can you tell me where the best practices are used in this regard? What should the committee study to improve those practices?

[Richard Lindgren]

Thank you for your question. I'm sorry, I can't respond en français. I only speak two languages, which are English and legalese.

I would look to what happened here in Ontario in the late 1980s and also in 1996. We had something called the Intervenor Funding Project Act, which was a mandatory requirement upon proponents to provide adequate levels of participant funding to interested parties. That was a highly effective, well-regarded program that was terminated, I would suggest to you, for larger political reasons in Ontario. There are some good lessons to be learned from that process, because it enabled people to retain the technical and scientific expertise that is necessary to fully participate in these sometimes complex environmental assessment processes.

I know some will suggest that while we have participant funding for comprehensive studies and joint review panels, etc., under the CEAA.... We do. I question, first of all, the quantum, the amount of the money that's provided to public interest groups and others under the CEAA process.

I'll give you a good case study. My colleagues and I are currently involved in the joint review panel that's going to start next year on the proposed deep geologic repository for low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste on the Bruce Peninsula. CELA, my group, has been awarded a grand total of $37,000 to assess what is probably a multi-billion-dollar project, which has been in the planning process for literally years. The proponent, Ontario Power Generation, probably spent millions of dollars in assembling the technical and scientific material needed to prepare the 10,000-page environmental impact statement that's been filed.

Yes, we have participant funding at the federal level, but it's a mere drop in the bucket compared to what proponents are spending. If we're really going to be serious about increasing public participation, we need to look more seriously at increasing the participant funding program.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

When you talked about priority issues, you mentioned ecological and socio-economic viability. When a project is presented, clearly it is important that it be profitable, but it must also be in the public interest and contribute to society.

I would like you to expand further on the links between economic and ecological viability.

[Richard Lindgren]

One of the main purposes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to make sure that ecological, social, and economic considerations are fully integrated and duly considered at the same time. That's a stated objective of the CEAA. You see it in the purposes of the CEAA. You see it in the preamble. I am not entirely sure the EA track record over the past decade or two really matches that rhetoric.

Unfortunately, these EA processes tend to be fixated on impact mitigation. What are the environmental impacts? Are they likely to occur? Are they significant? Can they be mitigated? That really amounts to an exercise that is asking the question of how we can make a potentially harmful project less impactful or dangerous. Those are important considerations, but it's missing some of the important questions, like how does this project actually contribute to the overall ecological integrity of our natural resource base, the thing we depend on to get by?

I see Mr. Chairman giving me the wave, so I'll end with that. We need to get serious about ecological sustainability. We haven't to this point under the CEAA

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette.

Next we will hear from Mr. Sopuck. You have five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Since time is tight, I hope we can all be brief.

Mr. Lindgren, over time has the federal environmental assessment process in your view gotten better, worse, or stayed the same?

[Richard Lindgren]

There's no right answer to that.

I see some successes. I heard the president of the agency here last week indicating that one of the most successful aspects of the CEAA is the registry. I agree with that. That has been a success. Then I look at screenings that don't do a very good job at identifying mitigating environmental impacts. I see joint review panels that may or may not have missed some of the big-ticket questions. I would say the track record has been mixed.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

It has basically stayed the same if you net everything out, in your view.

On the theme of environmental outcomes, as opposed to environmental process, I will note that in your presentation it was entirely about process. I'm kind of an outcomes person myself. In your view, Mr. Lindgren, is Canada's overall environmental quality getting better, worse, or has it stayed the same?

[Richard Lindgren]

Again, it depends on which parameters you're measuring. It also depends if you're looking at it at a national, regional, or local level. Air quality has gotten better in some areas, in some areas it's gotten worse. Water quality, better in some areas, in some areas worse. It's hard to generalize. I'd like to think that the environmental assessment process under other regulatory regimes has incrementally improved the situation over the early 1990s, but it would be hard to find evidence of that in all aspects.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

The WHO just recently put out a report that said that Canada, along with Australia, has the highest urban air quality of any industrialized country—the highest urban air quality in the world. I assume they surveyed cities right across Canada. I think the argument can be made, and I happen to be a biologist by training, that in many, many, many cases, Canada's environmental indicators have improved.

Ms. Kenny, there's a number of pieces of legislation that are out there. Of course, we've got SARA, we've got the Fisheries Act, we've got CEPA, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the National Navigable Waters Protection Act, and existing provincial environmental statutes. Proponents have to take into account all of these acts and regulations at the federal and provincial levels in the planning of their projects, and they have done everything they can to ensure they comply with these statutes. Is that true?

[Brenda Kenny]

Yes, definitely.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I asked the question in the spirit of being concerned about the environment itself, as opposed to process. What is the actual environmental value added from the CEAA process, in your view?

[Brenda Kenny]

We're supporters in our sector of good-quality, early planning around environmental protection, which gets embedded into how you propose to do a project, and you're open to challenge that in an open and transparent process. So the central point of good EA is to make sure that's embedded in how you're thinking about the project, and all of those factors--whether it's species at risk, migratory birds, fisheries habitat, and the like--are components of what you turn your mind to early, and also engage with many stakeholders well in advance of filing any applications.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Right. So these statutes are taken into account in the process of planning a project?

[Brenda Kenny]

They're fully taken into account both for the substance and also the investment risk. Frankly, you don't want to be sitting on a $10-billion project having missed a component that could slow you down. But the first driver is have you covered the bases? Do you know what the risks are? Are your stakeholders giving you the information that's going to help you do that?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Are you confident, Ms. Kenny, that in the case of large projects the bases are being covered by proponents?

[Brenda Kenny]

I'm confident that between the track record, particularly in pipeline.... I mean, these are not rocket science. These projects are relatively routine. We know what we confront on those. We engage people around them and apply the best available science, and we are tested publicly, particularly where it's in a regulator such as the National Energy Board. We're subjected to the equivalent of a joint panel review for even the smallest projects.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I really appreciated you comments, Ms. Kenny, on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, because having worked on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline as a biologist back in the early seventies, I was astonished at the recent process for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I think you were bang on when you talked about roughly a 34-year process, with zero outcome, and what we're left with is impoverished communities in the north, all the while knowing that we can build pipelines in an environmentally sound way.

Is that a fair characterization of what happened?

[Brenda Kenny]

I would say it has put us as a nation at a disadvantage, indeed, yes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

What is your view, then, Ms. Kenny, in terms of legislated timelines for CEAA and other environmental assessment processes?

[Brenda Kenny]

I think legislative timelines can be helpful. I think you need to be careful. You need the appropriate length of time for a review. Legislative timelines on permitting after a public determination, absolutely--you know it's in the public interest, let's get on with it. That would be where I'd put the focus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

Again, we want to thank both witnesses for being with us today and for your testimony.

We have witnesses lined up, colleagues, for Tuesday already, and we do ask for materials to be distributed to you so you have time to read them ahead of time. As soon as we get them, the clerk will forward them on to you.

Ms. Rempel.

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

Perhaps one additional comment, Mr. Chair.

I know that Mr. Lindgren had said that he would be submitting an additional proposal. That's wonderful.

Ms. Kenny, if you're interested, we'd also like to extend the same invitation to you as well.

[Brenda Kenny]

Thank you. I certainly intend to do that for the committee.

Thank you.