Finance Committee on May 5th, 2010

[Yves Leboeuf]

As we mentioned earlier, those projects and classes of projects were excluded a year ago by regulation. The rationale at the time was essentially based on the experience acquired mostly by Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada involved in conducting environmental assessments of these types of projects for 14 or 15 years. They had conducted 1,000 assessments of such projects during that period, more or less. Their experience demonstrated that at the end of the day, when it comes time to ensure that these projects do not cause significant effects, which was the focus of the act, there was no added value in doing a federal environmental assessment in that context. There were already sufficient measures out there, be they the federal regulatory framework, Fisheries Act authorizations, Navigable Waters Protection Act permits, provincial and municipal regulations, bylaws as they apply to those projects, and provincial environmental assessments as they may apply to them. This framework, already in place independently of a federal environmental assessment, was sufficient to ensure that those types of projects will not cause significant effects.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

You asked the question I wanted to ask. Whatever the case may be, in my view, the fact that these studies aren't conducted by a department or an agency specialized in the field constitutes a weakening of the commitment to respect the environment. Ultimately, you're delegating this responsibility to the department that commissions all the infrastructure projects, and doing so without conducting any study.

[Yves Leboeuf]

As I said, this is based on the experience acquired by these departments and agencies over a period of 14 or 15 years in the assessment of this type of project.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'm still asserting the idea that, with respect to the analysis, this is nevertheless a loss in environmental terms.

[Le président, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's all?

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to the last point we were discussing. I was asking Mr. Leboeuf whether Part 20 of Bill C-9 wouldn't have the result, in concrete terms, of weakening environmental assessment as a whole in Canada. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm trying to summarize what I understood from his answer.

You answered that you were doing that. As a legislator, I'm taking a cold look at this. I don't doubt your competence: I'm asking you what the effect of Part 20 is as a whole. Is the position that the exclusions provided for and the screening done in a different manner in no way represent a weakening, in any regard whatever, consistent with your opinion as a professional?

[Yves Leboeuf]

Yes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

What's your basis for making that statement?

[Yves Leboeuf]

With regard to the three components covered by the bill and the exclusions, as I said, experience acquired over a period of 15 years shows that these projects cause no major effects. They have been excluded for a year and will continue to be excluded.

Let's talk about assigning responsibilities for conducting in-depth studies to the agency. In our opinion, and in my opinion, that will lead to higher quality environmental assessments. We're talking about assigning the environmental assessment process to an agency whose main and sole mandate is to oversee the conduct of high-quality environmental assessments. Let's be honest, that's no longer the case of all the departments that have to enforce this act and that often have contradictory mandates and that aren't always purely environmental in nature.

By concentrating these responsibilities in an agency whose principal mandate that is, we think that will lead to higher quality environmental assessments. As I indicated, based on our consultations with all stakeholders over the years, there appears to be a consensus that this will lead to higher quality environmental assessments.

As regards the third component of the bill and of Part 20, that is to say granting the minister of the environment the discretionary authority to establish the scope of projects and making it possible to focus the environmental assessment on certain components of those projects, the terms and conditions of the application of those provisions will still have to be established when those amendments have been passed. However, Mr. Mulcair, the objective is not to reduce environmental protections.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Once again, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful. I'm not attributing motives to anyone. Mr. Leboeuf tells me that the objective is not to reduce environmental protections. He's giving us an orientation argument.

I'm trying to do my job as a legislator. I'm looking at Part 20 and I see a reduction. He tells me the exclusions were included in the regulations a year ago and that we're only incorporating them in the act. However, in the same breath, he explains to us that these assessments have been done for 15 years. We can try to see eye to eye. In legislation, we are creating new exclusions and we will entrench them. He said that, over a period of 15 years, we have realized that this was not that serious on the whole. However, he can't convince me that, in the past 15 years, there haven't been any cases in which that was absolutely necessary, hence my claim that this is a reduction.

[Yves Leboeuf]

That's not what the experience acquired by Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada shows.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'd like to come back to that.

Let's take a concrete example. Mr. Leboeuf, are you saying that, if the Department of Transport is doing work on a road, for example, and passes through a wet area, making a decision for the projects in question in legislation and not by regulation—so we don't have the flexibility to change the decision—does not constitute a reduction of environmental protection in Canada?

[Yves Leboeuf]

As we speak, Mr. Mulcair, these projects are excluded by regulation. If one of those projects were to raise environmental concerns, it would remain excluded. With the proposals contained in Part 20, the minister of the environment would have the power to require an environmental assessment of that kind of project, if such a situation were to arise.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm going back to my critical mass argument. With the reduction in the strength of the Navigable Waters Protection Act last year, and with what we're doing in legislation, no longer by regulation, this is an established fact. We would be moving to a piece of legislation that entrenches the principle that there is no assessment. That has been in the regulations for one year. That's not a lot of time for us to be able to assert that.

From now on, the exception would be what the rule used to be. The rule used to be greater prudence in assessments. Now, greater prudence will be the exception. I respectfully submit to you that this entrenches a reduction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Leboeuf, do you want to answer?

[Yves Leboeuf]

I don't think he has any question, so I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Mulcair.

I want to clarify, then, because you said in French that you will have an environmental assessment of greater quality. Perhaps you could just repeat in English some of what you said in French and explain why you say that.

[Yves Leboeuf]

Essentially, when I mentioned that, I was referring to a broad consensus among stakeholders, many of whom had been asked about and had supported consolidating those responsibilities to do environmental assessment in a central organization. The reason for that is that you end up with environmental assessments being conducted by one organization whose central and unique mandate is to ensure that high-quality environmental assessments are conducted, as opposed to those responsibilities being dispersed between 30 or 40 different departments whose mandate is not only to do high-quality environmental assessment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Duncan, in order to sign you in, we have to either have Mr. Mulcair—

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm leaving.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Duncan, just to be clear, we're having five-minute rounds with officials and we're reviewing part 20 of Bill C-9. We will hopefully have witnesses on this section sometime next week.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have witnesses from CEAA, and how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have five minutes.