Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 29th, 2012

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

If alarm bells weren't going off in households across the country, they certainly are now, to know that's behind this government attempt.

What type of debt does that leave future generations if this government eviscerates environmental assessments to the point at which there's only a handful done across the country every year? Is there a liability created for future generations when all of these eliminated assessments are not done?

[Scott Vaughan]

That's a question probably for Environment. Similar to the answer to the honourable member, I would say there's currently already $7.7 billion in environmental liabilities that will be paid for, not for decades but for centuries to come, from some sites that preceded strong regulation, strong reviews, strong assessments. What I have said is those are very expensive cautionary tales to make sure these things aren't repeated.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

This is appalling. This is the height of your responsibility. This is something the government hasn't revealed, and we're so thankful to actually get this information out in the public domain. Canadians certainly need to know about this.

I'd like to go further on the issue of public participation, because that's part of the underpinning of ensuring environmental assessment and project assessment. We now have a government that is going to exclude a wide variety of individuals, depending on where they live or what they plan to say. What does that do to weaken additional protections for Canadians, if Canadians are excluded because of what they think or where they live, by this government's attempt to say that you have to be directly impacted? I'm talking about energy assessments. You have to be directly impacted for the government to permit you to speak out or participate in public evaluation.

[Scott Vaughan]

Again, I would say this would be something on which the committee may seek clarification. What does “directly affected” mean, particularly since the bill has a very strong statement on assessing cumulative effects. Previously it was “consider”; it's now “must”, which is a clarification in a positive direction. But given the focus on cumulative effects, what does “directly affected” mean?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Amos, could you comment on what we just heard as well, the reduction in the number of assessments, the evisceration, as you mentioned in your testimony, of the number of assessments, and the debt that is going to be created that future generations are going to have to pay as a result of this irresponsible action of the government?

[Prof. William Amos]

Let's take a concrete example. The Taseko Mines project in northern B.C. proposed a gold mine. The B.C. environmental assessment office approved the project. They gave it the stamp of approval. The current federal government, under the jurisdiction of Minister Prentice, took a hard look at the project, and, based on the recommendation of a joint review panel, said, “No, this project ought not to go forward. It's not in the public interest.”

If that assessment had not been done federally, that project would have gone forward. It may still go forward. It's being reviewed again. The idea here is that there is a federal role for environmental assessment. If it's not done, then we're going to enter a new era in which decision-making around projects is reviewed only by one jurisdiction for a certain limited number of factors, and it won't necessarily be comprehensive, the way it can be done now. That's not to say that the situation right now is perfect. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said to be a law that can't be improved. Certainly, there are processes that could be improved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian. You're half a minute over time already.

Ms. Rempel, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Vaughan, could you briefly define for the committee what a screening currently entails under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

[Scott Vaughan]

Briefly it is—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

What types of projects would be conducted under a screening?

[Scott Vaughan]

It's largely for smaller projects or projects that will—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Could you give an example of a small project that you've encountered that would be under a screening?

[Scott Vaughan]

I can give you different examples. Do you want a big one or a small one?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

One of the examples we heard about during the review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was a maple sugar bush operation where there was a desire to plant an additional sugar bush, and that required a screening. Adding a park bench in a national park required a screening. I think it's important to note that these are the types of projects—projects that have limited environmental impact—that were included under the screening category.

Would you categorize that statement as being correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

I'd say it's partially correct. I'd say there are also larger projects, which is what I had mentioned: exploratory wells; seismic wells for offshore drilling; pipelines under 75 kilometres would be under screenings.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

But now, under the new act, there are different categories of assessment, including standard, etc., which would still require environmental assessment.

Would that be correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

I think that's the critical question, and that's what I said in my opening statement. That's why I think the project list will be critical. My understanding now is that the project list is going to be based on the comprehensive study, not on larger screenings.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

So the short answer is yes.

Just to go back to the statement that 99% of current environmental reviews are based on those smaller screening projects, that's correct?

[Scott Vaughan]

Ninety-nine point nine per cent of EAs are screening levels.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

We've heard a lot of talk about allocating resources to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Would you suggest that allocating resources to larger environmental projects, many of the projects that Mr. Amos talked about tonight, would perhaps be a good use of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's resources?

[Scott Vaughan]

Absolutely.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Excellent.

So then would you characterize us transferring resources from the 99%, which my colleague is very concerned about, to perhaps focus on the larger projects as a good use of resources?

[Scott Vaughan]

Yes.

Just so we're clear—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you.

To clarify, moving from 6,000 to a lower number of environmental assessments would actually help the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency use its resources more effectively?

[Scott Vaughan]

You'd have to ask the agency.