Environment Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[Terry Toner]

It's always of value, and industry, independent of the process and in advance of any project or initiative we bring forward, often engages in significant public consultation. On many of the projects I've been associated with over the past 30 years, if we have an interest in a project, the place we start is to understand and consult with people in that area.

[Sandra Schwartz]

If I can add to that, I think the important point is that our industry has a licence to operate. So for us to build, we must seek the public's approval to do that, and if the public says no, then we need to look at other options or other places to proceed with projects.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The members of your association often talk about the need for a more predictable environmental assessment process, so as to facilitate investments. Do you acknowledge that the best way to make the environmental assessment system more predictable is to ensure from the outset that a project is socially acceptable to the population?

[Terry Toner]

As utilities, we often are involved in quite far in front processes. Many of us are regulated within our province, as we are. We regularly undergo integrated resource planning exercises that are highly public and participatory in nature and are administered by the utility and review board or the equivalent board in that jurisdiction.

So it does provide for a fair amount of future evaluation of options and consideration and vetting of it and public comment on it, and we continue to benefit from that on an ongoing rolling basis as those are reviewed and renewed. And it has caused transformation in our industry.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you.

My next questions are for Mr. Bennett.

Are you concerned that the environmental assessment process budget for consultations with aboriginal people is in jeopardy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have 15 seconds.

[Dr. John Bennett]

I'm concerned about the whole process of consultation, that some of the changes that have been made will limit public consultation in the future, even possibly affect the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Unfortunately, your time has expired.

Next we have Mr. Sopuck for five minutes.

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

I'd like to explore the distinction between environmental process and actual environmental results on the ground. By results, I mean the chemistry and biology of the environment itself.

Ms. Schwartz, presumably any project that's planned these days takes into account all the applicable statutes and regulations, like the Fisheries Act, SARA, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the various provincial regulations. It goes without saying that those standards are built into the project design, right?

[Sandra Schwartz]

Yes.

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

So regardless of the CEAA process, a project will be built with the highest environmental standards of the day. In terms of environmental results, what is the value added of the CEAA process in terms of results? What will the final project have in terms of environmental effect?

[Terry Toner]

In many cases, as a project proceeds, there is some optionality that is part of what is brought forward, and often the process can inform. It provides an opportunity also—as was discussed with the last member—for public participation in various forms, which is helpful. Companies, utilities, entities bring forward projects, but we're not all-seeing and all-knowing. Only government is.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Terry Toner]

As a result of that, the process adds a lot of value. We're simply trying to find a way to provide advice to your committee which will allow for that to take place in a more efficient manner.

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

Yes, but again my focus is actually on environmental results, so for many developments that are out there.... In terms of pipelines, we know how to build pipeline crossings over streams; we know how to ensure a fish passage under highways, and so on. I think that actual environmental results are often lost sight of in this wrangling over process. It's actually the results that count.

Ms. Schwartz, again, in terms of multiple federal authorities, can you give an example of multiple federal authorities in terms of a project assessment, and what affect that had on that specific project?

[Terry Toner]

I guess I'm going to answer that.

There are many examples. Almost every project we engage in ends up with a number of triggers from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, so Fisheries and Oceans Canada, navigable waters, migratory birds, and therefore Environment Canada, and a host of other agencies can sometimes become involved, along with the province.

Examples could include everything from the Lower Churchill project being discussed in Atlantic Canada to multiple hydro facilities across the country. The challenge comes in trying to...as you described, there is a very well-established understanding of what the issues are. It's surprising how long it takes to mobilize people from the various agencies and departments to come together and provide input, in terms of reference, or even to decide whether they're going to participate.

If we had a much more clear-cut process with a stronger lead, perhaps the agency or some other mechanism would provide for that more direct initiation of the project and the process, and would still allow departments—expert departments and decision-making departments—to play a role.

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

I think the poster child for bad environmental process is the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

I was involved with the environmental assessment of it many years ago, and a 34-year process resulted in no project and a number of very impoverished communities in the Mackenzie Valley, which will stay impoverished.

Can you talk, Mr. Toner or Ms. Schwartz, about the real economic impacts of these kinds of delays, vis-à-vis the knowledge that any project will be built to the highest environmental standards of the day?

[Terry Toner]

It's always difficult to exactly quantify the costs of delay, but every time there is a delay it certainly creates an opportunity to introduce additional studies, which sometimes add very little value considering the costs just for people to participate—even on the industry and government side—in the process in asking and re-asking questions and calling for review that has already been reviewed.

It tends to extend the timeframes, of course, with the costs of that. It puts in question financing mechanisms. I'm not an economics major, but it starts to enter into those difficulties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Toner, your time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Next we have Ms. Leslie for five minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony today.

With due respect to my colleague, Mr. Sopuck, I actually disagree that the only thing that matters is the end result. I think process is very important. Industry is very smart, and you know this. The term “social licence” comes to mind. Industry knows that in order to actually be successful, you need social licence from the community to say, “Yes, there is a robust process, and this company has fulfilled this robust process.”

My question is actually first to Mr. Bennett. When it comes to that aspect, the social licence the industry knows it needs, how do you see changing, fixing, scrapping, or tweaking the act to ensure a solid public consultation process? What are improvements that you would see?

[Dr. John Bennett]

We need to keep it independent. It should be independent of the regulators, those who are sitting on panels, when it gets to panels. They should be seen as neutral, and not be people who are associated with the industry they're assessing.

What I didn't get to say earlier was that when I appeared at the hearing for the nuclear plant at Darlington, sitting in front of me as the assessors were a nuclear engineer who had spent his life working for AECL and the Atomic Energy Control Board, and a former government minister who was responsible for and strongly supportive of nuclear power.

That was two-thirds of the panel. I don't think they made any improper decisions, but that sure gives the impression to the public that this is a fixed thing.

We need to have a system that's independent.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

And impressions count.

[Dr. John Bennett]

They absolutely count. It's the reality.

So we need to have a system that's independent and that we can rely on, and there must be sufficient support and resources for the public to participate. The system now is incredibly Machiavellian. You apply for some funds to support your submission and you get a letter back telling you how much you'll get. It has nothing to do with how much you asked for or the real costs involved.

That's something that needs to be addressed as well: the public needs to be supported so that it can participate fully. It's not a system where you have a few people come and say their few words and then you listen to them, write it down, say thank you very much, and go ahead. This is how the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission operates, by the way. They have hearings in order to let people yell at them and then they go ahead with their decisions.

So we need an independent system. If we're going to put more effort into CEAA itself, then CEAA needs to be bulked up. It has to have the capability to do it. What we're seeing is that we're giving it more authority and more things to do and then taking away its money. So I don't see how it's possibly going to work. Whatever changes are made, we'll be back here seven years from now, and they'll be saying exactly the same things because there will still be delays, because—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Well, on that, I use the words “tweaking”, “scrapping”, “improving”, “amending”, but maybe it's not about tweaking. Maybe we could take a blue sky approach. Maybe we could envision a different process. One of our previous witnesses talked about.... Actually, the Electricity Association said the original intent of the act was not to stop projects; it was to remove or mitigate an adverse impact.

One of our previous witnesses asked, what if we looked at a process that considered sustainability and gave recommendations about how to make things better, how to make a project better.

Mr. Chair, could you keep an eye on the time, because I would like an answer from Mr. Bennett and the Electricity Association if that's possible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have a minute and 20 seconds.