Evidence of meeting #4 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 process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for coming today. I especially want to thank Madame Touchette, because she's getting the bulk of the questions.
I'm very encouraged by a lot of the things you're saying. You agree with the audit, you understand there were some major issues, and you're going to rectify them. Mr. Gerretsen touched on some of the timing of it.
You will agree that the conversation around the environment has certainly changed with this new government, will you not? It's pretty clear, right?
Do you feel you're able to adapt to that new attention to the environment? Are you going to be able to adapt to that new reality with the things you're trying to accomplish now, the changes and the recommendations?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, National Energy Board
I'm going to turn this to our chief environment officer, Dr. Steedman.
12:40 p.m.
Dr. Robert Steedman Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
Thank you very much for that question.
I think I'd start by saying that environmental protection and safety are pretty much hardwired into our processes. As you know, the National Energy Board conducts environmental assessments that are fully compliant with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, in all of our major projects. In addition to that, all of the minor projects undergo an environmental assessment along with the economic, safety, and other kinds of things the board has to look at when it considers a project.
Nothing has changed in terms of the focus and the intensity of our environment work. We have about 70 staff who are directly involved in environmental assessment and environmental compliance verification, so it's a very big deal at the board. It's our largest technical job family. I think we have great tools in the legislation that we have. We have very powerful enforcement abilities, and we take a life-cycle approach to environmental oversight as well as safety oversight.
That's something that is a feature of having a dedicated regulator in a sector like interprovincial and international energy transport. That means that, when we look at a project, we can consider optimizing the design from an environmental perspective. That's the purpose of environmental assessment. But through management system oversight, audits, inspections, and other kinds of techniques, we make sure that the outcomes we're looking for are delivered through the life of those projects.
It is a challenge. Some of broader context of the environment has changed, as you quite well know. I think we're very well equipped to do that, and we have a very passionate staff in that area.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Great. Thank you.
I have a couple of quick questions.
I agree that the goal of your organization is to operate and effectively carry out the regulatory regime, the mandate that you've been handed. At the same time, why are your systems outdated? I've been in technology for 35 years. It's not new. It's not rocket science. Why are they outdated?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, National Energy Board
I can't speak to management decisions that were or were not made prior to when I arrived a year ago. What I can tell you is that we have undertaken to modernize our systems and we are dedicating resources to that. It's happening.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
On the pest control management side, I understand that your fee structure hasn't changed since 1997, so your budget hasn't increased or, if it has, barely, in that time. Is the reason that you're experiencing the deficiencies that you are in delivering on your mandate a result of a lack of resources and funding? Why has nothing changed since 1997?
12:40 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Thank you for the question.
First, to clarify, not 100% of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's activities are funded through cost recovery. Right now it is about 15% of the total, and the rest is funded through appropriations of the government. We continue to do the best with the resources that the government chooses to dedicate towards the agency.
There is no attempt to make excuses for the amount of time it has taken us to do re-evaluations of some of the older pesticides. We understand we're behind the commitments we made. We feel that this was something that the international community has struggled with overall. These are very complex legacy chemicals that we've been working to address. We are hopeful that, with advances in technology, we're better able to use predictive analytics and other tools to focus where those risks are in order to be able to get caught up.
We actually think that with the update in the fees it will move us into new service lines, things that industry is looking for from the PMRA that we have not been able to actively engage in. This won't just be an increase in fees. It will be an expansion of the services we provide to help industry and to ensure that we're doing an appropriate job—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Sorry, I hate to cut you off.
Both to you and the NEB, what kinds of increases have you seen in your budgets in the last 10 years?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think we're running out of time. I think that's a detail that we can probably get answered for the committee. We'll get that question answered but we've run out of time there.
Mr. Fast.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to go to the very heart of what the NEB does. We're all aware of the fact that Minister Jim Carr announced interim measures impacting two specific pipeline projects. He was quite proud to say in the House of Commons that the process and the decision related to these interim measures was an inherently political one. I had understood, and I believe it is still the case, that the National Energy Board process is one that is science based, and the recommendations that emanate from that process are based on science and are intended to inform the government's decision in each of these cases.
Am I correct in saying that? Can you very briefly explain what the National Energy Board's mandate is on that issue?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
In the area where the board makes recommendations to GIC on new projects, particularly major projects, the NEB's job is essentially to advise GIC whether a project can be built safely in a way that protects the environment and whether the project will be used and useful. That is based on the record that is collected during the public proceeding. Massive amounts of technical evidence is tested in various ways by people who may have opposing views. The panel of the board has the duty of finding fact and making a recommendation that has to consider benefits and burdens at national, regional, and local scales, and to give that advice in a factual and reliable way, often amidst lots of controversy and differing expert opinions. They need to find fact as best they can based on the written record to make that recommendation to cabinet.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I can tell you that in the four and a half years that I was in cabinet, for every decision that cabinet had to make, which was a recommendation from either the environmental assessment process or the NEB process, when those recommendations came forward, they were only approved if there was an ability to mitigate all of the environmental impacts. On those occasions where it just wasn't possible to mitigate, cabinet said no. You can understand why I'm a little concerned that now the interim measures create a parallel process that is inherently political.
With regard to the process of reviewing, say, the Trans Mountain expansion project, I believe, Ms. Touchette, you did indicate that indigenous input was a part of that process. Is that correct?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Okay.
You did not consider the upstream impacts of that project—or did you?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
When panels of the board are scoping their issues for reviewing major projects, and also for the environmental assessment, they use the legislation that we've been given and the mandate of the board, and they make decisions on that. Part of the environmental assessment is deciding how far you go. The biggest scope is the entire globe. When we're looking at a specific project, the board has to decide what it will look at in terms of the ability to find fact that is directly related to the project at hand.
That's what the board has been doing in major projects—
February 23rd, 2016 / 12:45 p.m.
Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
Each project is based on the facts before the panel, and that's—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The one I asked about was Trans Mountain. Were the upstream impacts taken into account, or are they being taken into account, in the assessment?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
Do you mean upstream greenhouse gas emissions?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
The board found that they were not directly related to the project they were assessing in that there were multiple sources and multiple transportation options. Those are the kinds of things that have to be relevant to a cut-off point.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
On the issue of costs, I believe your testimony was that you operate presently on a 95% cost-recovery basis. So you actually have the tools in your arsenal to be able to raise the funds....
No? Are you limited by Treasury Board?