Evidence of meeting #8 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 projects.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Bennett  Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada
Jennifer Jackson  Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
Sandra Schwartz  Vice-President, Policy Advocacy, Canadian Electricity Association
Terry Toner  Representative, Canadian Electricity Association, and Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc.

12:20 p.m.

Representative, Canadian Electricity Association, and Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc.

Terry Toner

That's correct.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

What more should be done, in your opinion, with regard to changes to the environmental assessment?

12:20 p.m.

Representative, Canadian Electricity Association, and Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc.

Terry Toner

Timelines are an important consideration. I think working our way through the “one project, one assessment” idea is quite important, and figuring out how that happens is important. I draw upon the work of the regulatory advisory committee that has existed for many years since the early days of the act. It created and brought together folks from government, provinces, industry, ENGOs, and others to have input into some of the changes they were able to make, and a lot of good work was done to hear those various views. Among other things we've looked for obviously is consistency between the decisions that are made and the subsequent approvals. If there is a difference there, that's a mixed signal that can cause delays and costs. The Manitoba project that was mentioned earlier is an excellent example of that.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Time is up.

12:25 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy Advocacy, Canadian Electricity Association

Sandra Schwartz

I would just add two other things we also firmly believe: duplication with the provincial assessment process should be avoided, and the benefits of the project--and not just the risks--should be included in the assessment.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Time is up. Thank you so much.

Next is Mr. Hyer for five minutes.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bennett, you touched on this a little bit. In 2010 the government transferred responsibility for energy projects under CEAA, to the National Energy Board for pipelines and to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for nuclear projects. I don't know if you're aware that the tiny Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Labrador board are responsible for offshore drilling.

Would you like to just comment a little bit more--and save me some time for one more question--about capacity and new resources that will be available to adequately do these jobs, if you know of any, and your perception of any other factors that are important?

12:25 p.m.

Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada

Dr. John Bennett

We fundamentally disagree with doing that, especially with the offshore boards. If you actually read their mandates, they were set up to promote the offshore development, and they're also assessing the projects. So how do you get unbiased advice to government from an agency if you say, “Your job is to promote this, and your job is also to assess it”? You can't get the same thing. So that should not have been done.

It's the same with the NEB and CNSC. They have a regulatory role. They should be kept as regulators. They should not be actually making decisions about what should be assessed, and they should not be running the assessments. That should be a separate role for the agency that does assessments, because it's a wider and more important role.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

This is a question for all of you. A number of previous witnesses have talked about how the present process seems to capture an awful lot of small and relatively insignificant projects and misses the big ones, the strategic ones, the big picture ones. I have an example to ask you about. If any of you are familiar with this, I'd love to hear your comments.

The Matawa chiefs in northern Ontario and others have come to me because they are concerned about the Ring of Fire project. It is huge--on the scale of Voisey's Bay, or perhaps bigger. They've been granted a comprehensive review study rather than a joint panel review. It seems to me that this would be a logical one for a joint panel review at the front end, with fewer problems in the long term.

Do any of you have comments on that? Do any of you share my concern as to why we're not doing a joint panel review for the Ring of Fire?

12:25 p.m.

Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada

Dr. John Bennett

I agree that there should be a joint panel for the Ring of Fire. One of the problems we've seen in the changes is that we've given greater latitude to the minister to determine what has to be assessed and how it should be assessed. These shouldn't be political decisions. They should be public policy decisions that are put before an independent agency.

One of the determinants of whether you get a panel or not should be public concern over the issue. So if you have the constitutionally required consultation with the local community and it says, “We want a full panel”, that should have some bearing on the decision to have a full panel or not.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

You have about a minute and a half.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Bennett, you're obviously passionate on this subject, so why don't I give you a minute and a half to speak on anything you'd like to add to what you've said today.

12:25 p.m.

Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada

Dr. John Bennett

I would like to refute what was said about the Mackenzie hearings. If you look at the record closely, you'll find it was industry that caused most of the delays, especially in the last process. Imperial Oil was unable to provide the proper information in a timely way. It repeatedly asked for recesses, which resulted in a four-year process. That resulted in the last decision. That decision resulted in about 100 or so recommendations to make the project better, which would actually help those in the local communities looking for employment.

I totally disagree that this is always about the bureaucracy causing the delay. A lot of the time the delay is the direct result of the proponents being late, slow, inaccurate, and not doing their homework. If Imperial Oil had arrived at the beginning of those hearings with a full proposal and all the details, it wouldn't have taken four years.

In fact, I remember complaining that before Imperial Oil even announced they were going through with the project, 16 jurisdictions in Alberta and the Northwest Territories came together and said, “We'll have a joint system. You'll only have to go through one jurisdiction, even though 16 jurisdictions have authority here.” So the regulatory process actually came together to make it as smooth as possible for Imperial Oil. To sit here and state that somehow it got in the way of a good decision is absolutely not true.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Ms. Rempel for five minutes.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Thank you again to all the witnesses for coming today. We certainly feel this is a very important act to review, partially because I think there's agreement around the table that it is critically important to ensure the sustainability of Canada's environment and natural heritage. I think that's a theme we've heard from many of our witnesses.

We're also hearing that we need to strike a balance and ensure that for projects going forward there's certainty in the regulations and transparency in those processes.

Along that theme I have a general question. Perhaps each witness here could give their specific thoughts on how we could reduce delays and redundancy, while ensuring that we have that balance in ensuring environmental protection and sustainability via this act.

Perhaps Ms. Schwartz can start.

12:30 p.m.

Vice-President, Policy Advocacy, Canadian Electricity Association

Sandra Schwartz

I'll let Mr. Toner respond.

12:30 p.m.

Representative, Canadian Electricity Association, and Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc.

Terry Toner

We've provided some indications on our thinking in that direction. We believe the act needs to be revised, in conjunction with some of the other pieces of legislation, and set up in such a way that each process takes care of the issues and responsibilities under that act.

We're interested in seeing an environmental assessment look at broader issues and larger initiatives and permit processes--look at more detailed items. We're interested in seeing the federal and provincial governments continue to find harmonization and ways in which one review can be done, and each jurisdiction can take what they need from that to exercise their decisions. That's one of the areas.

Another area that I think is important, and where the federal government is taking steps, is dealing with the duty to consult with first nations. This is an emerging area of significant interest to all, and it needs to be done properly. It is also in its infancy right now, in terms of how the various departments can administer that responsibility under the act as they make decisions.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Ms. Jackson.

12:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association

Jennifer Jackson

We feel that CEAA has to work and take the lead as the clearing house of information, taking the lead where there are multiple responsible authorities. None of the departments want to take on the task, so we might as well give it to CEAA.

I feel that the CEAA could play a critical role in coordinating aboriginal consultation throughout Canada. Aboriginal communities are being swamped with requests to participate in provincial or national processes. They don't have necessarily the ability, the funds, or the time to participate in all the projects they may want to participate in. If CEAA can assist in that, I think that's a good place for them to start.

I think CEAA has to review the extent and the type of information it's asking for up front. It has to be a little more comfortable in not getting all the detailed responses and in leaving some things to the permitting process and detailed design phase.

Those are our thoughts on the matter.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Mr. Bennett.

12:30 p.m.

Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada

Dr. John Bennett

Make it fairer. Make it fairer for the public to participate. Make it fairer for industry to participate. The agency needs to be invested in. It needs to be expanded. It has to have professionals who are responsible for public consultation and aboriginal consultation. It has to have professionals who are professional in judging and making the decisions it has to make. Get the responsibility out of the regulators, out of the NEB, out of the CNSC, out of the offshore oil boards. Those are the wrong places. That decision seems intuitively correct, but it's actually absolutely backwards and wrong. You want to make sure that the public has confidence in it. The public will never have confidence in a system in which we have to go and talk to the National Energy Board about whether or not an oil project is a good idea.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Ms. Schwartz, CEAA is triggered when there is a federal decision about a project. Some projects have environmental effects on areas of federal jurisdiction that do not require an environmental assessment, because there is no associated federal decision. Instead of being triggered by a federal decision, shouldn't EA be triggered if there are potential environmental effects on matters within federal jurisdiction?

12:35 p.m.

Representative, Canadian Electricity Association, and Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc.

Terry Toner

The short answer is yes.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.