Evidence of meeting #16 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was genome.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
What does it mean when it says it allows the Minister of the Environment to delegate the power to establish the scope of a project? In establishing the scope of the project, you determine which path it follows.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Yes, but it's not the path. There are two things different, and that came clearly out of a Supreme Court of Canada decision at the end of January, in which the court indicated that the scoping decision and the decision about the required level of assessment are two different decisions. The past practice before that for all federal departments, and in fairness for our federal partners, was consistent with the state of the law as it had been established by lower courts, in many cases the Federal Court of Appeal; the practice was to establish the scope of the project, and they had discretion to focus on some components only.
Liberal
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The various federal departments have decisions to make.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Exactly. Those 30 to 50 federal departments or agencies were all responsible for making decisions.
Conservative
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Leboeuf, you referred to the signing of the agreement by Mr. Anderson in 2004, unless I'm mistaken. That agreement simply made it possible to appear only once rather than twice before two different groups—a citizens group, an environmental group, or engineers who were interested in a project. They took someone who was appointed at the federal level, and they sat him down with the BAPE people. Is that correct?
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Yes.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
No.
The intent behind this approach, which is still the one used not only in Quebec, but also in most provinces, is not to rule out or eliminate the requirements of one of the two levels of government with regard to environmental assessments, but rather to work hand in hand so that there is only one assessment, which is conducted jointly.
In practice, in Quebec, that's done in the manner you described, with the addition, to the two regular members of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, of a third member appointed by the minister of the environment. It becomes a joint commission where they prepare a report that is considered by both governments.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I'll sum up the situation. This is a situation I know about, since I was minister of the environment at that time, and I signed that agreement with Mr. Anderson. Nothing was taken away from the safety net that was in place, whether it be the work of our bodies, screening, analysis, etc. We maintained the status quo. The only people who were dissatisfied were the consulting engineers, who could no longer appear twice before two different commissions and thus bill for both appearances. I stopped receiving Christmas cards from the engineers, but apart from that, everyone was happy, since there were no recalls.
In this case, however, I think it's fair to say that less importance will be attached to these matters because of the amendments that are being proposed.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
What part are you referring to in saying that?
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
To what aspects of Part 20? I have a different take on Part 20, but is there something particular in Part 20 that enables you to draw that conclusion?
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Let's start with this. Let's suppose we want to have an environmental assessment conducted for a project by an agency that is neutral, an independent umpire. Let's say we refer the project to an agency like the National Energy Board, which has its nose in files concerning large-scale energy projects. I respectfully submit that we're approaching what, in the theoretical field of regulation, is called regulatory capture.
There are two major theories on regulation. The first is the theory of regulatory lag. People like you who study a situation, people who regulate the banks or securities markets, will always lag a little behind the Goldman Sachs of this world or behind the engineers who have to design a project because that's the nature of the beast. They will be ahead. The established regulations will be slightly behind, hence the English expression, regulatory lag.
The other theory is the theory of regulatory capture. When you work in a single field that you are supposed to regulate, sooner or later you wind up with the same point of view as the people who belong to that field. Let's leave the environmental field for a moment. The individual who was earning millions of dollars at Goldman Sachs thought there was nothing abnormal in the fact that everyone at Goldman Sachs was paying himself bonuses of several millions of dollars. There's nothing more natural, since that person has always lived in that world.
I contend that someone from the National Energy Board who's based in Calgary, who has his nose in those projects, and who is no doubt very competent, does not have the necessary autonomy or independence. I think that the environmental assessments as currently provided for, before this amendment arose, are conducted by people who are far more neutral, autonomous and independent than the people from the National Energy Board.
I also think we're beginning to approach a critical point in the weakening of our federal environmental standards. Last year, the Navigable Waters Protection Act was scuttled. This year, we're reducing our environmental assessment protection for the reasons I've just given.
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
There's nothing in Part 20 that provides for a transfer of responsibilities to the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board's responsibility for environmental assessments will remain essentially the same, even if Part 20 is adopted. Part 20 states that the responsibilities of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency are being consolidated by requiring that more in-depth studies be conducted, except for projects regulated by the National Energy Board or by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Those two quasi-judicial agencies are already responsible for the environmental assessment of the projects they regulate. We're maintaining the status quo for their projects.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
In your professional point of view, that role won't be diminished in any way?
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The proposal that we consolidate the environmental assessments in advance, which is included in Part 20, is a longstanding request by all sectors and stakeholders.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I'm willing to admit it, but that wasn't the gist of my question. I took the liberty of putting the situation in the context of the weakening of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but let's set that aside for the moment. Let's just talk about Part 20. I want your opinion as a professional.
This in no way, in any manner whatever, represents a weakening of our environmental assessment system in Canada?
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
If I rely on your assessment in advance, that isn't the effect this will have.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I'm simply trying to understand the distinction. I can come back to this, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I just wanted one clarification. You talked about some of the exclusions. Just to clarify it and put it on the record, can you just explain why an environmental assessment would not be required for certain federally funded infrastructure projects?
Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Why they would not be?