Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good evening. My name is Ward Prystay. This evening I am here to provide testimony on behalf of Canadian Construction Association, or CCA, on part 3 of Bill C-38 regarding responsible resource development. I am a principal with Stantec Consulting, which is a member of CCA. I have 20 years of experience as an environmental professional, with the past 18 years as a fisheries and environmental assessment consultant.
The CCA represents 17,000 members across Canada working primarily in the non-residential construction business. As an industry, construction employs over 1.25 million Canadians and accounts for just under 7% of our overall GDP. CCA members are supportive of strong environmental assessment and permitting processes and believe they are an important contributor to sustainable development in our country.
With regard to the proposed changes of Bill C-38, I would like to comment on the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act.
During the parliamentary review of CEAA in November last year, CCA presented membership concerns to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the act and the lack of certainty and predictability in its implementation. In particular, CCA raised concerns about uncertainty regarding triggering and timeliness of the process, the wasted resources applied to the assessment of projects and activities that have very little environmental risk, and the duplication of effort and process when both federal and provincial environmental assessments are triggered.
The changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in Bill C-38 address the concerns that CCA raised last November. I would like to touch on these.
With respect to uncertainty regarding triggering and timeliness of the process, the current CEAA framework triggers an environmental assessment by one of four mechanisms: when the Government of Canada is the proponent of a project; when it will transfer lands to facilitate a project; when it will provide funding to enable a project; or when it issues a permit or authorization identified in the law list regulations.
For private sector projects, it is usually a permit or authorization that triggers an environmental assessment. As a result, proponents must invest in a high level of engineering design at the planning stage of their projects to trigger CEAA. For environmental screenings there is no timeline for receiving formal confirmation that the act applies. The 2011 timeline regulations for comprehensive studies have been a distinct improvement, but they still allow three months for a decision on whether the Environmental Assessment Act applies. They also allow the agency to suspend the 365-day review process whenever a question is asked of the proponent.
Under the proposed changes, environmental assessments will be triggered based on project-specific thresholds identified by regulation when there is a direct linkage to federal areas of responsibility. This list-based approach of deciding which projects require an assessment was a recommendation of CCA last November, and it is fully endorsed by the membership. It removes uncertainty about the need for environmental assessment and will improve project planning. It will also free up federal resources from a bureaucratic interdepartmental coordination process that has no value from an environmental protection perspective.
The concern CCA raised regarding timeliness of the process is also addressed by the proposed changes. The key steps to triggering an environmental assessment are clearly defined in the new legislation, as are timelines for each of these steps. This will bring certainty to proponents at the early stage of the process. There are also timelines for reviewing the environmental assessment and for making decisions. This will provide significant certainty in project planning, regardless of the type of environmental assessment.
I have an important comment on the proposed changes to CEAA in regard to the beneficial use of government resources. Today there are 3,040 environmental screenings, 36 comprehensive studies, and 11 review panels active under CEAA. Many of these screenings are mere checklists for legislative compliance—they're not true environmental assessments. The new project-based threshold approach is expected to eliminate the majority of the small screenings that pose little to no environmental risk. In addition, the consolidation of responsibility for conducting environmental assessments—under the authority of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board, and the Nuclear Safety Commission—will result in the Government of Canada making one common decision for a project. It will no longer make the same decision five or more times for a single project through various departments.
With respect to duplication of effort and process where both federal and provincial environmental assessments are triggered, the proposed amendments will allow the federal assessment requirements to be addressed by provincial processes where they're equivalent. This will bring to life the philosophy of one project, one assessment.
Together, these changes will simplify scoping, improve the timeliness of assessments, and free up government resources to focus on assuring resource projects are constructed, operated, and decommissioned in an environmentally responsible manner.
We would like to raise one minor concern regarding section 67 of the proposed legislation. We are concerned that intervenors may use this clause as a basis for legal challenges against the federal government. In this section, where the federal government carries out a project that is not a designated project under the act, there is a requirement to confirm that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects before proceeding, or if it would, that the Governor-in-Council would decide if the project is justified.
We believe this determination cannot be made without an environmental assessment that meets the standard of CEAA. We believe this is not the intention of Parliament, and we recommend considering an amendment that clarifies the basis and scope of this determination.
CCA has also reviewed and supports the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act. Specifically, CCA agrees with the addition of a purpose section of the act; revisions to the pollution prevention and fisheries protection provisions; changes that allow a single authorization to be issued addressing both fish and habitat together; and inclusions of a framework for improving the timeline for review of applications.
Together these will provide clarity on interpretation and application of the act across Canada, and will ultimately improve the efficiency of the approval processes for projects.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, CCA views the proposed changes within part 3 of Bill C-38 as a positive step forward. We believe the changes to CEAA will establish a regulatory framework that assures one project, one assessment. This will minimize duplication of process, improve timelines, and free up federal resources to tackle projects with the potential for greater environmental consequences.
In addition, the changes to the Fisheries Act will clarify the intent of the legislation to protect fisheries and ensure greater consistency in application of the act across Canada.
Together, these will provide greater certainty on the regulatory requirements and timelines for projects without lowering environmental standards.
Once again, thank you for inviting CCA to share our membership views on the changes to Bill C-38.