Environment Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[Dr. John Bennett]

Well, I think that needs to be made by the agency, but subject to an appeal, if those who are affected believe it should go further. As long as there's a process in which you can talk about whether or not a screening or scoping or hearing is going to happen, then it would be acceptable.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. Several witnesses have agreed that federal environmental assessments should be broadened to include full consideration of economic and social issues, as well as environmental factors. They said this would facilitate an assessment of whether the project is in the public interest and it should go ahead.

Mr. Bennett, in your opinion, should CEAA be broadened to include a full consideration of economic and social factors?

[Dr. John Bennett]

Yes, it should. We should be looking at how these things all fit together.

The limitation of the system is that it works on one project at a time. If you look at the development in the tar sands, we've had several environmental assessments. None of them have actually looked across the fence at what was next door and what the cumulative impact was going to be—and that's just in terms of the direct environmental impacts.

If the country has made a commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, then that should be a factor in determining how one project fits into another project before we go ahead with it. Right now we're looking at each project on its own. When we've raised the issues of greenhouse gases, we've been told, “Well, that's not part of this project. That's the government's commitment. They'll handle that. It doesn't affect this project.”

That's not acceptable. We need an integrated system that asks how this moves us forward in our overall objectives for the economy and the environment.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

If the agency were the single federal body responsible for project assessment, including environmental, economic, and social, would its capacity need to be increased to properly evaluate all aspects of the project?

[Dr. John Bennett]

Absolutely. It has now been asked to take on the responsibility of several other departments. It's going to either need to import into its own operation the expertise those departments provided or it's going to have to hire consultants to supply it, so we have to invest in the agency to make it big enough and strong enough to do the work we want it to do. Right now it's being cut back rather than invested in.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

I'm wondering if anyone has a differing opinion, the question being, should this be brought in to include economic and social factors?

[Terry Toner]

I think obviously those need to be considered at the right stage, so it depends on the level of assessment you're talking about. If we are talking about a strategic assessment where you're starting to broaden your examination of an issue for an area or you're looking at a policy or you're looking at plans, that obviously is a place where that needs to be part of that discussion.

As you get into a project, if that has already been properly vetted then I think it needs to fit within the scope of how it fits within that policy decision that has already been made.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Would you like to include economic and social factors in EA?

[Terry Toner]

I'd like to see them in, in the proper way, and a consideration of benefits, not just impacts.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I don't have time to do this with you. If you're interested, you could submit to this committee what you consider would be the proper way.

I'll ask Ms. Jackson. How do you feel about economic and social factors being included in EA?

[Jennifer Jackson]

I think our members have already considered the social and economic impacts of their projects before they go forward. Before you decide to put in an additional water treatment plant, you're going to explore all the potential options, such as demand-side management and water efficiency for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, before you see the need to go forward with the projects. So I think in our decision-making processes, even before we embark on the planning process, they've considered those factors, and because they are accountable to taxpayers then they have to do so.

With regard to scoping, I agree with Mr. Bennett that we feel that the scoping decisions, if they are appropriate, can be made fairly by the CEA agency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Time is up. Thank you so much, Ms. Duncan and Ms. Leslie.

Next is Ms. Rempel, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions again are for the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association.

There have been recent changes to the act. In July 2010, amendments were made to the act to make the agency responsible for comprehensive studies, and they included changes that will require an earlier start to the process.

Since these amendments came into effect, the agency has started all comprehensive studies in alignment with provincial reviews. Then timeline regulations came into force in June of this year for these agency-mandated comprehensive studies. These regulations now provide 90 days for the agency to determine whether to commence a comprehensive study in 365 days to provide a completed report for a final comment period.

We've been talking a bit about reducing delays but ensuring the integrity of the process. Perhaps you could speak about, first of all, if you're aware of these changes and how they've either improved or changed your experience with the process.

[Sandra Schwartz]

As we mentioned in our testimony, the regulations we're establishing, the timelines in particular, for comprehensive studies that were adopted in June were a good start. But we also feel that the proposed timeline itself is not strict enough and it doesn't take into account the whole process that's necessary.

Our sense is, and again we said this in our testimony, that limits should be established for all types of assessments and also for all authorization processes from the time the application is filed all the way through to completion.

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

Ms. Jackson.

[Jennifer Jackson]

We were consulted on the changes to the regulations, and we support the changes to the comprehensive study regulations that went forward.

We have a mixed feeling about timeframes because some screenings, which are a vast majority of the environmental assessments that are done, do require more time, and to put in place timelines may just put in place some artificial timelines that can't be met in every single instance. So we're willing to look at the issue more carefully with our members and consult more broadly and provide more advice to the CEA agency, if afforded.

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

With regard to the change in timelines, are there specific projects that have been impacted by this, either adversely or positively, that you'd want to share with us?

[Terry Toner]

While it's very early in the game, we have a number of projects that are occurring across the country. One example is the maritime link project associated with the Lower Churchill, which is starting to benefit from the process, we hope. It's really too early to tell in that regard. We remain cautiously optimistic.

[Jennifer Jackson]

I'm not aware of any projects that are currently affected by the new timelines. Perhaps if we had more time to consult with our members, we may come up with something.

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

An ongoing theme here has been the discussion of public consultation. You both touched briefly upon some of the proactive work for public consultation that your member companies, etc., undertake.

A statement was made earlier today that industry sometimes lets people yell at it and then goes ahead with its decision. Perhaps you could talk about some of your proactive processes that may refute that statement.

[Dr. John Bennett]

That's not what I said. Excuse me--

[Sandra Schwartz]

Just to clarify, I think what Mr. Bennett was actually saying was that it was a regulatory agency, not industry. I just want to clarify that from an industry perspective. I don't believe that was the comment that was made.

But perhaps my colleague could actually address, in more specific circumstances, the public consultation that goes on.

[Terry Toner]

Almost everything we do now has some element of public consultation, from rate applications to environmental assessment, to integrative resource planning, to simple day-to-day consultation with constituencies on a more regular basis in between regulatory processes to make sure we're getting that kind of input.

Across the country, we see some diversity, but there's a tremendous amount of public input, and collaborative public input. I don't think it's just public input. It's input from all the stakeholders in an area and from the first nations people. This is important. It's emerging. It's growing. There's a different attitude in industry in the last 10 years to embrace that, because it is the right thing to do, and we are trying to find the most efficient way for us to participate in that. We're not the only player in that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Mr. Toner.

Ms. Rempel, thank you.

Next is Ms. Leslie for five minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a great day when I get a second round. I was so worried about timing in the first round.

I wanted to share something with everybody here from the Electricity Association. Your CEO, Pierre Guimond, at the Atlantic power summit in Japan, gave a speech where he said:

Governments must exercise more leadership in supporting and enabling a long-term policy path for electricity. Governments can help electricity secure its social license and its enabling capital.

So it's a clear theme with your organization.

Mr. Toner, I just wanted to say that I like what you said about looking at benefits, not just impacts. That's certainly clear with the Lower Churchill Project, and it's something I've been wrestling with. There are the benefits of taking two billion cars off the road versus the impacts of the hydro project. There's a real balance there that needs to be struck.

I have a quick question for the Electricity Association. When it comes to the problems with timing and not being able to get things done quickly, I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that the agency doesn't have enough resources. Do you think that's a factor? Do you think that even a small amount of more resources to the agency would speed up this process?