Finance Committee on May 5th, 2010

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to officially thank Mr. Wallace, in Canada's other official language, for the quality of his biscuits and to remind him that “biscuit” is masculine.

We can be quite surprised to see these kinds of suggestions concerning the environment in a financial bill, but I know this melting pot isn't your decision.

Can we say that the Department of the Environment is abandoning its environmental responsibilities and transferring them to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency?

[Yves Leboeuf]

No. In fact, what is consolidated at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is simply a switch from a complex system already established under the act... This quite complex self-assessment system means that all federal government departments and agencies are required to conduct environmental assessments when decisions are required on projects. For bigger projects, the large-scale projects subject to in-depth studies or review boards, it often happens that two, three or four federal decision-makers take part in the same project. In those cases, they all have separate responsibility for conducting an environmental assessment for the project.

In practice, honestly, in many cases, this has resulted in a nightmare and a bureaucratic and administrative labyrinth leading to major delays at the start of the process, even just to start the process. In some cases, they have to wait 15 or 16 months at the departments concerned just to confirm that en environmental assessment is required. Once they are in a position to confirm that, they start one assessment, then another, for major projects subject to in-depth reviews for up to 10 or 11 months, simply to get through the first stage of determining what type of environmental assessment should be conducted.

The idea here isn't at all to transfer responsibilities from the Department of the Environment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. For some of these projects, the environment department is one of the authorities responsible and is required to conduct an environmental assessment. In many cases, it's the other departments, such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada or Infrastructure Canada. The idea here is to get away from this system, where two, three or four different departments have parallel obligations with regard to a single project, and to consolidate responsibilities within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

If I understand correctly, we had a big administrative mess. Now we're saying that we're at least going to have a big mess for everyone in the same place.

Wouldn't the Government of Canada be well-advised to consider that, since we have environmental assessments in Quebec, for example, since we have everything that's necessary for all those projects, it's going to rely on the environmental analysis conducted by the provincial authority?

[Yves Leboeuf]

There are all kinds of issues that go beyond the amendments proposed here and that are relevant to the operation of the federal environmental assessment process, including the one you're raising, the interaction between the federal and provincial processes. They have been, and still are, the subject of numerous discussions.

There was a meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment last October, at which all the ministers agreed to take advantage of the next parliamentary review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—that's a legal requirement and it is to start soon—to consider these models for collaboration and cooperation at the federal and provincial levels. The kind of approach you're suggesting will clearly be discussed in that context.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You said that four or sometimes five federal departments are involved in an environmental assessment. We're trying to resolve that with the bill, but there will always be 10 provinces and one federal government. It seems to me it would be simpler to resolve this by saying that the provinces will take care of it.

[Yves Leboeuf]

Here's how we operate in practice: we have federal-provincial cooperation agreements with a number of provinces. This kind of agreement has been in place with the Government of Quebec since 2004. Under these agreements, when federal and provincial proceedings are triggered on a single project, the two levels of government work together to conduct a single environmental assessment that generates relevant information so those levels of government can make their decision together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right, thank you.

Mr. Carrier, please.

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

Thank you.

Good morning.

I see in the presentation on Part 20 that the purpose of the amendment to the act is to provide for decisions to be made in legislation rather than by regulation and that some infrastructure projects will be subject to an environmental assessment.

It troubles me a little to see that environmental studies wouldn't automatically be required by regulation, in accordance with established regulations, but rather in legislation.

What do you mean by in legislation? Perhaps it's defined a little further on. I'd like you to tell me that. Are we determining, in legislation, the type of project that will be subject to an environmental study, that would subsequently therefore be automatically conducted, or will the decision to go the legislative route be on an ad hoc basis, depending on each project?

[Yves Leboeuf]

No change is proposed in Part 20 to the way of deciding which projects will be subject to environmental assessments or to determine whether they require an environmental assessment. The part of the legislative summary you are referring to refers directly to exclusions that already exist by regulation and concerning which Mr. McCallum earlier asked how they were adopted last year. They are now permanent, those exclusions that were established for a two-year period, that were excluded by regulation last year. It is now being proposed in the bill that they become permanent exclusions.

A new power would thus be created in the act for the environment minister, in the event some project, an excluded project was to cause problems from an environmental standpoint or raise environmental concerns. That would be a new discretionary power for the minister of the environment: to require that such a project be subject to the act. That's new, to the extent that these projects had been excluded by regulation for a year. This is a power that did not exist, and it is not possible to create such a discretionary power for the minister by regulation. So that's why this is being done in the context of the act itself.

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

In your opinion, is this an improvement, with respect to environmental studies, that would stem from Part 20 of the bill?

[Yves Leboeuf]

With respect to excluded projects, these are the same ones that had already been excluded for a year. The question of trying to reduce the number of environmental assessments in the case of smaller-scale projects has been discussed on numerous occasions for many years, including in the context of the previous legislative review. Following that review, the minister of the environment at the time, minister Anderson, undertook to reduce the number of environmental assessments conducted under the act by one-third.

The number of projects subject to the act, even taking these exclusions into account, is roughly the same as it was at that time. There are various reasons for that, including the fact that a larger number of organizations than at that time are currently subject to the act. But essentially, this stems from discussions that had been underway for a long time.

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

Don't you think all these studies will be subject to legislative decisions, depending on the government in place, the party forming the government?

[Yves Leboeuf]

All these excluded projects are still subject to the various regulatory requirements, whether they're federal, provincial or municipal. They are still subject, as the case may be, to provincial environmental assessment procedures, if the provincial procedures are triggered in the case of those kinds of projects. The regulatory framework in place—federal, provincial and municipal—is still applicable to all those projects.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The problem with this legislation is that you really don't know what it means until you actually have a project in front of you, and then at that point it's a bit of the eye of the beholder.

I understand that you wish to streamline the process. That makes some sense. I understand that you don't want each agency tripping over itself. That makes some sense. Nevertheless, there may be instances of projects that really call out for a very detailed assessment from a variety of standpoints.

The issue that's topical these days is drilling in the Beaufort Sea. Would this proposed legislation apply to drilling in the Beaufort Sea?

[Yves Leboeuf]

Those proposed amendments are completely neutral with respect to the overall environmental assessment framework that applies to drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

What does “neutral” mean? Does it mean the minister could use these to consolidate the review process, or he or she could just retain the current process?

[Yves Leboeuf]

Under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the responsible authority, the federal agency responsible for permitting drilling in the Beaufort Sea, is the National Energy Board. Those amendments, as you can see from them, will consolidate in our agency the responsibility to do comprehensive studies, except for the projects that are regulated by the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for which it's basically the status quo. They were already responsible for managing the environmental assessments of the projects they're regulating, and even if these amendments are passed and come into force, they will continue to be the ones responsible for the management of those assessments.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Well, in the Beaufort Sea it's not likely the Canadian nuclear agency would be applicable, but the National Energy Board certainly would have a primary role to play. Would the role of the National Energy Board in a project such as the Beaufort Sea potentially be enhanced by this legislation?

[Yves Leboeuf]

It doesn't change anything.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You're saying they would do whatever it is they do and your department would do whatever it is you do.

[Yves Leboeuf]

Exactly, and the only circumstances in which our agency or the ministry of the environment would be involved more directly in those projects would be the referral of any of those projects to the ministry of the environment for the establishment of a review panel; if the project is of such a magnitude that it may require an assessment at the review panel level, under the act it's for the ministry of the environment to establish such a panel.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I take it, then, that this legislation would therefore apply to projects of much less magnitude than, say, drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

[Yves Leboeuf]

If I might correct you on that, the main impact of the proposed changes relates to major projects, except those regulated by the NEB and the CNSC, as I mentioned, for which the status quo is maintained, but it's to the other large projects that are subject to assessment at the comprehensive study level, as I mentioned earlier, that the most important change would occur.