Great. Thank you very much.
Then we are on page 6 of that briefing document, and the recommendation we are looking at is headed “Rationalize Project Triggers”. It has been mentioned by Drs. Gibson and Sinclair that the environmental assessment is intended to serve as a planning tool for the projects. However, functionally the EA process has been extended to regulatory decisions made with respect to minor approvals that are already covered under an existing licence.
The net result is a great number of EAs for minor works, introducing lengthy process delays into what are essentially administrative decisions. Section 7 of CEAA specifies the circumstances under which an environmental assessment is not required. Perhaps it could be expanded so that projects that actually improve environmental performance are not put through the same protracted review, which only prolongs their implementation.
The SMA brief proposes an amendment to paragraph 5(1)(d) of the CEAA and the addition of a paragraph 5(1)(d.1) to ensure that only those activities or undertakings that are not bounded by the current licence would have the potential to be encumbered with the federal EA process.
In the interests of time, we won't expand on recommendation number 3, to better integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations. I'd like to move to page 8 and the fourth recommendation, which is the establishment of environmental assessment cycle times.
Cycle times for the completion of federal EA processes vary between industry sectors and between regulators. While the typical timeframe for major projects in Canada has been four years, the MPMO's stated goal is to reduce this to two years. We would note that the Australian Olympic Dam deposit went through its EA process in just over two years.
The new regulations, the establishing timelines for comprehensive studies regulations, are very promising in this regard, and the SMA is very encouraged by the potential improvement in predictability and timeliness.
However, these regulations and any other improvements to CEAA should be extended to all industry proponents, including uranium industry proponents, irrespective of other federal regulatory regimes. The SME brief proposes adding a new section 12.6, which would specify that
Every federal authority shall comply with timelines prescribed pursuant to Regulation and by the federal environmental assessment coordinator unless otherwise authorized by the Minister.
Finally, we'd like to look at ensuring consistency for all project proponents. CEAA applies to resource developments that are regulated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. However, for developments in the uranium field, the CNSC is the main federal body, with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act serving as the primary piece of the regulatory authority.
As such, we would put forward an additional recommendation that these reforms be extended automatically to the uranium and nuclear industry so that project proponents in this sector are treated equally to those in other resource and energy sectors. It bears repeating that what we are seeking is not lower environmental standards, but improved efficiency in the overall regulatory process.
Again, in summary, our four recommendations are to eliminate multiple environmental assessments; to rationalize project triggers; to better integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations; and fourthly, to establish environmental assessment cycle times, and to make all of these provisions also applicable to the uranium industry, which is regulated under the CNSC.
Mr. Chair, thank you very much, and thank you to committee members. We'd be happy to entertain any questions you might have.