Environment Committee on Oct. 8th, 2014

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Hallman. It's nice to see you again.

In Chapter 4, the commissioner found that it's unclear how projects are designated as being in need of an environmental evaluation. Specifically she said that there's a lack of clarity in the process and criteria, as well as the transparency.

Your response seems to accept the suggestion to document more. I guess that speaks to transparency. However, in terms of clarity of the criteria being used, are you going to take measures to clarify that process of designating the projects that specifically need environmental evaluation?

[Ron Hallman]

Mr. Chair, the commissioner has recommended that we develop criteria to recommend changes to the regulations. The act does provide some direction on that. The commissioner indicated that how we go about that is not necessarily clear for proponents and the public. We have accepted that. Of course, not everybody who doesn't work in this environment all the time will be able to look at the act and translate whether this will mean something for their project.

We have committed to providing clear language and making available on our website the types of considerations that go into whether a project ought to be designated or not.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

What kind of timeline are you looking at for making sure that these criteria are clarified to the public?

[Ron Hallman]

In our response, we haven't committed to a specific timeline yet.

The commissioner offered a number of recommendations, most of which relate to clarifying information, providing clear information, and making it public.

It's worth noting, as well, that this audit happened in a snapshot of 18 months after the coming into force of the act. We have guidance on certain topics on our website already, so we're going to go through those. We're going to see which ones respond to the recommendation and where the gaps are. Then we'll talk to people about what they think they need information on.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, we appreciate the fact that the bill was rewritten, that the process has been rewritten, and that there are still things to be undertaken. But obviously, one of the things that the commissioner did raise as problematic with that is that the public feel as though they don't have confidence in that process. That's clearly problematic. Even if it's only for two years, people feeling like they don't have an effect on the environmental evaluation process is a concern. You certainly don't want to lose the confidence of the public when it comes to that, especially seeing that the commissioner raised the fact that aboriginals coming specifically from rural, remote communities, feel they have a limited capacity to engage. It means that the objective of the law isn't really being met, she essentially says. That's quite worrying. You agree that this is of top concern, I assume.

[Ron Hallman]

What I agree with, with respect to the recommendation, is that clear and available information about our processes is key to helping Canadians understand the act and how it applies. That gets to the heart of transparency, not only being aware of what the decisions are but how they are formulated and how the process works.

I feel a bit of disagreement with the assertion that Canadians don't have confidence. The commissioner indicated that transparency is important for maintaining confidence. In the objective review that I saw—specifically, I'll refer to chapter 4 rather than any other comments that might have since been made publicly—no evidence was ever presented to me that the public have no confidence or have limited confidence in the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Oh, no way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll move now to Mr. Woodworth for five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There are three things I want to ask if I have time in five minutes. One is regarding the environmental assessment process.

My understanding is that in 2012 the Government of Canada expanded the project list that would require assessments. This is done under regulations under CEAA. Could someone clarify for me what types of projects were brought under the assessment requirement of CEAA through that regulation amendment in 2012 from the Government of Canada?

[Helen Cutts, Vice-President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Department of the Environment]

I'd be happy to respond.

When we amended the project list, we brought in particular types of projects that we saw were having the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects. We made the decision based on consultation with the public. The types of areas that we brought in were diamond mines, the first exploratory drilling well offshore, railway yards, and international bridges and tunnels. These were all added to the list.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Was this when aggregate mines over a certain size were added also, or was that at a different time?

[Helen Cutts]

There was a change in the threshold for aggregates.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My second question is really to ask for an answer to Ms. Ambler's question on hydrofluorocarbons. I don't want to try to restate the question, but if we could get the answer for Ms. Ambler, I would appreciate it.

[Mike Beale]

Mr. Chairman, the minister did in New York announce her intention to issue a notice of intent to regulate in the area of HFCs. That is important, in a sense, because of the relationship between the two environmental issues of climate change, on the one hand, and ozone depletion on the other hand. The committee members will be aware that the Montreal protocol is a very successful international agreement that addresses ozone depletion. The first key substance that was attacking the ozone layer was chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. The Montreal protocol helped to reduce, and then phase out, CFCs. Then the world moved to HCFCs, a less potent type of destructor of the ozone layer, and that was quite successful. Then the world moved to HFCs. The good news about HFCs is that they don't destroy the ozone layer. The bad news is that they are a very potent greenhouse gas. So, in a sense, you were trading off one problem for another problem.

What Canada has been trying to do internationally is to work with the United States to get increased attention on the importance of stopping this trend towards the increased use of HFCs, which, if left unchecked, would lead to very significant greenhouse gas emissions and make climate change worse. What the minister announced in New York was the intent for Canada to bring forward a regulatory initiative that would be aligned with that of the United States to try to put a brake on the emissions of HFCs.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Very good. Thank you.

If I can, I will ask one quick last question regarding oil sands monitoring. I understand that a recommendation regarding annual reports being released on an established schedule resulted in agreement that there will be annual progress reports. Has a schedule been established? Can we count on those reports coming out more quickly than 15 months?

[Dr. Karen Dodds, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment]

Indeed, with our colleagues in Alberta, we've agreed to a schedule going forward. For the second annual report, the first part of it should be released tomorrow, and then the second part should be released later this fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll move for the last five minutes to Mr. Bevington, please.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Forbes, on this forecast business that we've talked about a little bit, you said you didn't quite agree with the forecast that was made by the commissioner. Had your department created its own forecast prior to the commissioner's report on how you will achieve the goals of Copenhagen?

[Chris Forbes]

I may have misspoken. If I did, I apologize. What the commissioner uses is indeed our forecast in the charts Mr. McKay was referring to. What I was differing on was how those forecasts were being interpreted, what—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

So there is no other forecast?

[Chris Forbes]

There may be other forecasts, but I think what you'd find is that we have forecasts that are generally fairly widely accepted and thought of as fairly sound by people who follow these things.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Okay.

For the areas that the commissioner hasn't shown us any figures for, have you forecast what your regulations would likely achieve?

[Chris Forbes]

No, and I—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

So you don't know what the—