Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Steve Burgess]

I think it's important to know that the National Energy Board doesn't regulate the oil sands. They are regulated provincially, so they don't have any jurisdiction in that area. I can say more generally that the environmental assessment process under CEAA includes an assessment of impacts on the environment and socio-economic effects, including impacts on human health. If there are issues resulting from a project that could have impacts on human health, they would be assessed through the environmental assessment process.

[Sheila Leggett]

I was going to say the same thing from the aspect of the mandate of the board. You want to think about it as far as once things cross lines--so either interprovincially or internationally. That's what falls within the mandate of the National Energy Board in terms of pipelines and power lines, as well as some other aspects of export and import.

On the aspect of substitution that you're talking about, which is the ability of the National Energy Board to undertake an environmental assessment of projects within its mandate, the National Energy Board believes this is a very positive step. Joint review panels in the past have taken some time to get established, as far as the process. We believe that by doing the substitution piece.... I wanted to make sure you knew that we had the expertise within the organization. In fact, I have a master's degree in environmental biology and I'm a board member. We've been doing this for 50 years. We just celebrated our 50th anniversary last year.

When you look at the mandate under section 52 for large projects under the National Energy Board Act, the board is required to take into account all aspects of anything that would be deemed in the public interest. The National Energy Board has always looked at the environmental, social, economic, safety, and security aspects of any proposed project. By going with the substitution approach, it allows us to be able to do that in a very coordinated fashion, while still following the requirements of the CEA Act and having it be ultimately the decision of the government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Ms. Leslie.

I'm going to take one of the slots at this point.

To both of our witnesses, one of the things we have come up against in this study is the complexity of regulations as it applies to development in the north. So I appreciate your earlier comments, and we'll go back through that to try to make sure we completely understand.

I have two main questions. One is if you could summarize for us the triggers that would have you involved on a file in the north, north of 60. As I recall, Mr. Burgess, you mentioned it is limited, but at least if we knew what those triggers were....

The second part is some discussion and some good questions have been put around the recent developments and announcements on energy projects specifically to streamline that environmental process to the NEB. Could you give some confidence around the standards of environmental protection and measures being considered on energy projects continuing to be upheld? As you can imagine, there's been some commentary that this would somehow jeopardize the high standard of care in terms of environmental protection. I wonder if you could provide a comment on that.

So the triggers, and upholding the standards.

[Steve Burgess]

Certainly.

I have to preface this by saying I'm not an expert on the environmental assessment regimes in the north. Nonetheless, under the land claims agreements environmental assessment regimes have been established that apply in those territories. At the same time, they specify that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act doesn't apply, except in very limited circumstances. The definitions of those circumstances, I would say, are a bit vague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Can you give some examples?

[Steve Burgess]

The circumstances under which our act could apply would be for projects of national significance or certain transboundary projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

What would be an example of a project that's national in significance?

[Steve Burgess]

Take a bit of a far-fetched example, maybe a nuclear plant in Yellowknife or something along those lines or some type of project that is new to the territory, which has significant concern from a public or environmental perspective.

With respect to your question of standards, you should know that we have quite a long history of conducting joint reviews with the National Energy Board and rely, even today, on the National Energy Board's process both during and following the environmental assessment to ensure that environmental conditions are applied and implemented.

So the notion of a substituted process is not of great concern to us, because we're satisfied there won't be any reduction in the level of environmental protection that we have today as compared to what might occur in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Leggett.

[Sheila Leggett]

Just to build on Mr. Burgess's point, Mr. Chair, from the aspect of environmental outcomes, the National Energy Board is confident that by having a streamlined process we will be able to make sure we move toward even better environmental outcomes. So I would be able to provide you that confidence that we believe this is a positive step forward in the safe and secure regulation of oil and gas activities that are mandated under the National Energy Board.

Another aspect I'd like to follow up on is the conditions that get imposed with any decision. We have another whole set of operations staff whose mandate it is to be in the field during the construction of any projects, ensuring that all the conditions are met throughout the construction, and then that the conditions throughout the lifetime of the facility are also met, and then, ultimately, the abandonment of the pipeline. That was what I was referring to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

So you have personnel who are actually on-site and visit the sites regularly through the course of its life as a project.

[Sheila Leggett]

Absolutely, and we actually have a risk assessment framework where, because we can't be everywhere across Canada at all times, we prioritize where we need to focus our energy and attention, both on the construction side as well as on the ongoing operations side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, are there other questions from members?

We'll finish that part of our meeting today. Witnesses, we appreciate....

Actually, let's just take a two-minute break, shall we? We'll come right back to the table and then we'll get under way with committee business. We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Members, let's proceed.

Before we get to the two motions we have before us, I have a couple of announcements I'd like to get through, because I know you'll be chomping at the bit to get out of here as soon as we finish with the motions.

You've been circulated on these, but I want to bring this to your attention. Next Wednesday there is an event in Ottawa, at the Novotel Hotel. It's being put on by the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association. You had an invitation that was circulated, but I will draw that to your attention. It's a launch of a report called Walk in our Moccasins. That is at 11 o'clock, on March 31. There is a reception to follow, which would be right after caucus, from 12 noon to 2 p.m. That's at the Novotel.

The second thing is that we've had a request from a delegation of Swedish parliamentarians who are going to be in the nation's capital on April 20 and 21 to meet with our committee. This is a Tuesday, by the way, the 20th of April. We have a meeting scheduled at 3:30 p.m. We typically have votes on Tuesdays, and then we could have our extra hour that evening. I have suggested that if they wish to meet members informally and we could get to the committee meeting room quickly after question period on that Tuesday we could meet with them in the committee room prior to the meeting at 3:30.

Please mark that in your calendars. It's Tuesday, the 20th of April, to meet with the Swedish parliamentarians.

The third thing is that we have had some questions from members regarding the meeting on Thursday, April 1. You know that will be the last day of the sitting before Easter break. We're scheduled to meet from 3:30 to 5:30, and some members are trying to make connections to get home.

Members, we have a couple of options, and I will take your direction on this. I believe there are discussions under way between the House leaders to possibly adjourn earlier that day, but I'm not privy to those discussions. However, we could either postpone the meeting and pick it up at a later time, after the break, or we could look at trying to schedule the meeting earlier that day, possibly in the 9 o'clock or 11 o'clock spot. At this point we have tentatively blocked a space for 9 o'clock, if members would prefer to do it earlier on Thursday, April 1.

On that point, is there any preference? Do I have any consensus on what you'd like to do? Would you like to postpone or go earlier in the day?

Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I'll move that we move the meeting to 9 o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that okay with everyone?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

We are talking about Thursday, are we not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Yes, Thursday.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That's fine with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right, is it agreed then?

[An hon. member]

There's no objection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There doesn't seem to be.

The room is 112-N. We'll get the notice out to you.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I think we have probably scheduled a meeting that we wouldn't otherwise have had, because if the House rises early....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All right.

Members, at our second-last meeting we adopted a motion to table Mr. Bagnell's motion. That motion had been put before us and we were in discussion. We are going to resume discussion on that motion. We don't need to read it again; it's part of the record.

We'll take any speakers on the motion at this point.

Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

To be honest, I don't know how we can discuss either motion, Larry Bagnell's or Anita Neville's, without them here, so I move to table both motions.