Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Steve Burgess]

I have to confess, Mr. Chair, that my knowledge of that report is limited.

[Sheila Leggett]

As is mine.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Briefly, in his report he noted that a northern projects management office, known as NPMO, should have a single point of entry and primarily do two things. First of all, it should assist in coordinating federal departments; second, it should liaise with regulatory bodies that apply to all projects, major and minor. This was a report this committee has dealt with, and in my view it has profound implications in today's discussion. It's not necessary that you have a complete sense or understanding of the report, but in a nutshell those are two key points as they might apply to the federal government.

Could you comment or elaborate on the plan for the NPMO? Specifically, do you envision the NPMO coordinating all relevant regulatory bodies as they might apply? This is what the McCrank report is effectively suggesting.

Also, how do you envision or recommend the NPMO play a coordinating role most effectively?

[Sheila Leggett]

First of all, I can tell you that we are supportive of the NPMO at the National Energy Board as a means of working effectively with groups to coordinate activities. The exact role and function of the NPMO as it has been established I'm not completely aware of, so I wouldn't want to speak outside of what that aspect of it is.

I would go back to my comments that our lessons learned are if we talk to each other and sit down and figure out what our roles and mandates are in our jurisdictions, through the Northwest Territories board forum we've found we've been very successful in being able to look forward to how we can develop processes. I would assume there would be a role for NPMO along those lines similar to what NPMO has been doing south of 60, which is allowing a coordination point for departments and agencies to talk to each other.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I would encourage you to take a look at that report. Certainly we've discussed it and worked with it here at the committee in the context of much of what we're talking about.

[Sheila Leggett]

I have read it, and the NEB is very familiar with it and is very supportive of anything that will allow minimizing any regulatory duplication.

The National Energy Board is very committed to making sure we achieve the best outcomes--hence my comments about not process for the sake of process.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Great.

My second question might be directed more toward you, Mr. Burgess. Again, just referring to the McCrank report by way of preamble, he noted that defining principal steps and standards could streamline the consultation process and lead to substantially improved relationships. I think part of the legacy here will be relationship building on so many levels.

The recommendation for the federal government was to give a high priority to developing a policy that outlines the roles of governments, boards, and participants in responding to the requirement, particularly for aboriginal consultation.

Importantly, our government has dedicated an unprecedented $2.8 million over two years to the CEAA to support aboriginal consultation in addition to participant funding programs for each agency.

Are we working simultaneously to improve consultation? Is there a consolidated, defined process in the works in these regards?

[Steve Burgess]

Certainly the government is taking its responsibilities with respect to aboriginal consultation much more seriously. The funding that is being provided to our agency for aboriginal consultation is extremely valuable. It's well understood that we have responsibilities to consult with first nations before we make decisions that could adversely affect them. That funding is being used to consult with first nations in the context of environmental assessments.

Our view is that whatever mechanisms we can put in place that will improve the environmental assessment process—to make it more efficient, effective—without adversely affecting the quality of the environmental assessments and ultimately the quality of the environment in the long term should be supported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

You were over a little bit. We gave you a little bit of latitude.

Do you have a question, Mr. Lévesque?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Monsieur Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses today.

I am from the great riding of Red Deer, Alberta, and I have a couple of things.

As far as our National Energy Board is concerned, I was speaking with people from the oil and gas industry and they were talking about the regulatory processes they have. They indicated that they're probably the most stringent regulations in the world. They said the only country that perhaps had gone any further was Australia, and that's because it used the model we have in Canada to devise new regulations. There is a lot of work that has been done, and there are a lot of significant and important things that I think people should be aware of.

The other thing I would like to mention—one of our members mentioned it earlier when he was speaking about the tar sands—is that it's actually a process, and it is not really tar sands. It might be important for him to realize that even the NDP in Alberta recognize that it's no longer an accurate term and it's derogatory. I just want to put that on the record as well. When those sorts of things are mentioned, it irritates me somewhat.

To get to my point, you recently issued draft conditions for the approval of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I wonder if you could summarize some of those conditions and explain to the committee why you recommended them.

[Sheila Leggett]

I'm sorry, I can't; I'm not on the panel. This is the work of an independent panel composed of National Energy Board members and the process is under deliberation at this point. All I can speak to you about is the process.

[Steve Burgess]

I would simply add that the report of the joint review panel for the Mackenzie gas project came out last December with a series of recommendations with respect to the project and how the panel sees that project proceeding. The government is currently studying those recommendations to determine how best to respond. Ultimately it will be the government that decides whether, and how, the project should proceed.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

One of the other things we were presented with in budget 2010 was the red tape reduction panel, to review key areas of federal regulations. I'm curious as to what types of things you think might be applied to speed up some of the delays around pipelines and if there are other steps you could consider to have some of these projects continue in a timely fashion.

[Steve Burgess]

I'm not sure I can speak specifically to pipelines, but I can speak to resource projects in general. One of the tools that exists under our legislation is that we are able to delegate the conduct of environmental assessments to other jurisdictions. If our act applies to a project that is also being assessed provincially, through the Energy Resources Conservation Board in Alberta, for example, we can delegate the conduct of that EA to the provincial authority. That facilitates the conduct of EAs, simplifies the process for proponents, and so forth. The federal government does retain its decision-making responsibilities with respect to that environmental assessment.

We talked earlier about the substitution option that exists within our legislation.

From our perspective, those are the kinds of things we see as being feasible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are about 30 seconds left in the time spot here.

Mr. Duncan, you wanted to add something?

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

In the budget there's a proposal to transfer responsibility from CEAA to NEB and the Nuclear Safety Commission for projects falling under those areas of expertise. Would that leave much room for CEAA in the north?

[Steve Burgess]

As I mentioned earlier, our act currently applies very little in the north. The environmental assessment process is established under the land claims agreements to trump--a word I heard earlier--our process. So our process only applies in very limited circumstances for projects of significant national interest or in transboundary situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan and witnesses.

Now we'll go to Ms. Leslie, for five minutes this time.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I really don't have expertise when it comes to environmental assessments, but one thing I am concerned about is this idea of moving more of the powers from environmental assessments to the National Energy Board. There is a bit of a red flag there for me, so I'm hoping you can help me out with this.

I agree with Mr. Martin that any time we consider economic development we also need to look at the health and development of that region, of those communities. If we look at the impacts on Fort Chipewyan, Mr. Martin asked for results--any reports you have on health impacts. When it comes to the tar sands--and with all due respect to my colleagues, I think “oil sands” is a euphemism, so I prefer “tar sands”--how are you actually screening for environmental health impacts and impacts on first nations--more the how versus the results?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Again, Ms. Leslie, you're tying it to some specific geography that's outside the context of our study. The issue is the importance of environmental assessments and protection of the environment to communities in the north. You have to connect the dots.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I absolutely understand that, but we have the National Energy Board here, and increasingly we're seeing environmental assessments being moved to them. The Athabasca tar sands.... It's not just one specific area. I think we need to know how the National Energy Board is actually doing environmental assessments. Maybe it doesn't need to be specifically about Fort Chipewyan, but how are they doing environmental assessments, no matter where they are?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's okay.

Go ahead.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you for the clarification.