Evidence of meeting #110 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Yes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like to hear your views on whether the government is open to making those transitional provisions consistent across both acts.
12:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I'll start and then my colleague, Brent Parker, will continue.
We have heard the comments that the Mining Association has brought forward.
It's important to note the interim principle the government put in place in January 2016, such that no project would go back to the starting line. That important principle is continued throughout the thread of the proposed legislation.
Brent can speak to some of the specifics around transition.
12:50 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Obviously, people have gone through the transitional provisions. There are a lot of transitional provisions for agency-led assessments in comparison to either substituted processes or those that are currently led by the other responsible authorities. We've heard that concern.
In terms of the way in which they were structured for the agency, there are three components to it. There are those projects under the former act, not CEAA 2012, but 1992. There are only a few of those projects now in the system but the plan with the transition provisions as they currently exist is that those projects would essentially terminate at the coming into force. Those that are now under CEAA 2012 would transition across to the new act if they haven't commenced or if the environmental impact statement information has not been provided and is in conformity with the guidelines. There's a point there where stakeholders have asked for certainty about whether there can be a different point in time for that. The way they're structured now is that this is the milestone for the transition.
I can't speak to what amendments might come forward. Based on what the minister has said today, I know that there's an openness to considering amendments. At this point, we have these provisions and we can discuss them from here.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I didn't want to have to cut you off but we're definitely wanting to make sure that the last questioner gets a chance.
Mr. Aldag, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
We're going to turn our last slot over to Elizabeth. If Elizabeth wants to share it with Madame Pauzé, she will have that opportunity.
May 3rd, 2018 / 12:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you for your generosity.
I want to get back to Will's point and I think we're also having a conversation among ourselves and bringing you in. My anger—I apologize for anger—but I've dealt with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board extensively in my previous role at the Sierra Club of Canada, and working in the Maritimes to try to protect the Gulf of St. Lawrence. As recently as, I think it was 2010, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board permitted seismic testing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence during the time the right whales were in transit. I mentioned this in my preamble to the minister, but I also know that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, through both their enabling legislation and their own accords, which give rise to the legislation between the provinces and the feds, include a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas.
As a specific question related to those agencies, that's where I have not seen them having any expertise—to your point that they know about safety. I'll go back to Jeff or any member of the panel. We have expertise about the Fisheries Act and protecting fisheries that comes from DFO scientists, but no one is suggesting there must be someone from DFO on a panel, though obviously, you are going to consult them. We have expertise from Transport Canada. No one is saying you have to have a Coast Guard person on the panel.
Regulating energy regulators and inserting them into environmental assessment happened in C-38 in spring of 2012. The expert panel that prepared the report for this government said we don't need them there. We never had them before. We don't need them now. In light of that, if anyone on the panel wants to make a case that these specific energy regulators have a role on a panel that is somehow superior to that of all the other expertise that's held in all the other departments that you will be consulting, can you try to explain why they are treated differently, except that Stephen Harper is winning this round?
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office, Department of Natural Resources
Go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Maybe I'll begin with a couple of quick points on this. We alluded to earlier that, as we move forward, the requirements of both the impact assessment act, as well as the acts that govern the development of either the offshore, nuclear, or Canadian energy infrastructure within Canada both have to be met. It's akin to a mining project, where the impact assessment act, as well as provincial regulations and laws would need to be met. We're trying to develop and advance a single process where we can satisfy the requirements of both pieces of legislation within one process. That's why we're aiming to bring these pieces together within one process. At the same time, we're looking to leverage the expertise of both organizations to ensure the best outcomes from these regulatory processes.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Québec debout
Monique Pauzé Québec debout Repentigny, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to return to clause 63 of the bill.
The Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement warned us about this clause, if I may put it that way. The centre proposed an amendment that would ensure that the process complies with provincial law and municipal regulations.
Have you studied this amendment? If so, where are you at with it?
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just before you start, I have to get unanimous consent, from those on the committee, that we can continue for just a few minutes, as bells have started. Do we have unanimous consent to continue for a few minutes?
1 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No. I have another meeting at 1:00, as I said at the beginning of the meeting.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I wasn't pushing it past 1:00. I was going to 1:00 and we're not at 1:00 yet, so it's over there but it's not—
1 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
This morning, I believe, the minister said she was open to the idea of studying future amendments.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. Thank you very much.
I just want to thank all of you very much for being here with us. After we heard from all of the witnesses and saw the amendments that were coming forward, we did very much want this chance to question you in detail, so thank you very much for giving us that opportunity.
I will now end the meeting. Thank you.