Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2010

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

And now let's go to Ms. Leslie for seven minutes. Go ahead, Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for helping us with this, for shedding some light on what's going on.

I have a question about recent announcements in the throne speech and budget, changes to environmental assessments and more responsibilities being given to the National Energy Board. I'm wondering what you can let us know about how that happened. Was there a consultation with the National Energy Board and government? Was there a consultation with first nations? Anything you can tell us about that....

[Steve Burgess]

I can't tell you how that happened, I'm afraid. It was a commitment made in the budgets, obviously. However, I can tell you a little about what it might mean for the future.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That was my next question.

[Steve Burgess]

Perhaps my colleague can provide more information.

As you are aware, the National Energy Board regulates facilities such as interprovincial and international pipelines and international power lines under the National Energy Board Act. As well, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that environmental assessments be undertaken with respect to those facilities because of the regulatory decisions that the NEB makes with respect to them.

As my colleague mentioned in her presentation, the National Energy Board has a long history of conducting environmental assessments with respect to projects they have jurisdiction over. For many years now, we have undertaken joint reviews with the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to ensure that the requirements of both jurisdictions are met in a single environmental assessment.

Our legislation has provisions in it that allow for the delegation of environmental assessments to other jurisdictions, or the substitution of our process by other processes in the case of public hearings--what we call review panels--if it's deemed to be appropriate. I would say first of all that nothing in the budget speech implies that there will be new legislation required in order for this to come about; in fact, it's been contemplated as a possibility in our legislation since it was enacted in 1995.

A few years ago we undertook a project with the National Energy Board to substitute the national energy process for our processes under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the case of a pipeline in New Brunswick called the Emara pipeline. We did so to determine whether this was a feasible approach to undertaking a credible environmental assessment. An evaluation was undertaken of that substitution initiative; the evaluation found that it achieved the results of an efficient process, allowed an appropriate amount of public involvement, and properly addressed the environmental effects associated with the project.

I think the purpose behind the Speech from the Throne announcement, or the budget speech, was to give more impetus to this approach in situations in which our minister and the National Energy Board feel it would be appropriate to undertake an approach similar to what we did in the case of the Emara project in New Brunswick.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

You mentioned that the changes don't necessarily mean that legislation needs to be created to make that happen. What about resources? Do you know if the National Energy Board will receive more resources to carry out this mandate?

[Sheila Leggett]

At the current point, I don't think there are any projects in front of us that will require additional resources to carry out this mandate. This is work that we have been doing, and as I said in my presentation, it's a matter of streamlining the processes so that we can focus on the outcomes.

One of the aspects that I alluded to quickly in my presentation was the life cycle of a pipeline. The benefit of the National Energy Board as a federal regulator in this jurisdiction is that we're not responsible just for making the decision about whether a project goes ahead or it doesn't; if the project is approved, and if, in the case of large projects, there's a recommendation to cabinet that a certificate be issued and cabinet decides to issue that certificate, we're then with that project all the way through to abandonment. The National Energy Board affixes conditions to any decisions it makes, and it follows those conditions all the way through. It allows the full life cycle of a project to be followed.

There are instances in environmental assessment of a panel making a decision at the front end but not having the jurisdiction to regulate all the way through. That's another aspect that is, in our perspective, very beneficial for making sure that we stick to what we're trying to do, meaning that if a project's been decided to be in the public interest, it gets built in a way that's safe and secure, respectful of the rights and interests of people around it, and environmentally mitigated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You only have about 30 seconds left, Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, thank you very much.

Now let's go to Mr. Duncan for seven minutes.

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

Does that get added on to my time then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Well, you might wish it were, but unfortunately it's not. Go ahead.

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

I'll be asking some questions that probably sound pretty simple, but I do so just for clarification.

Decisions by the environmental assessment agency and the NEB are non-binding in both cases. Is that correct?

[Steve Burgess]

That's not a simple question, Mr. Chairman.

As I mentioned in my presentation, our process is essentially a self-assessment process. Before a federal authority can issue certain regulatory approvals, or provide funding that would allow a project to proceed or undertake a project directly, for example, it first has to undertake an environmental assessment. Those decisions cannot be made until that assessment is completed, and that would be the case for screenings and comprehensive studies.

In the case of review panels, they are independent panels of experts selected from outside government who essentially advise the government on issues related to the project, specifically whether or not the project is likely to result in significant adverse effects, and in the case of projects that could have significant effects, whether or not those effects are justifiable. Ultimately, in the case of review panels, it's cabinet that decides whether or not the project should proceed.

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

So in the case of the joint review panel for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, were the people on that panel specific to that review panel and not some of the regular employees?

[Steve Burgess]

That's right. Those members were all selected from outside government and were appointed not so much to represent the areas from which they came but to be nominees or appointees from the various settlement areas, as well as from the federal government.

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

So is the terminology of “joint” in any way referencing CEAA and NEB? Am I correct or incorrect there?

[Steve Burgess]

In the case of the Mackenzie gas pipeline?

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

Yes.

[Steve Burgess]

The joint review panel is a panel that was established between the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or the Minister of the Environment in fact, and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board and Inuvialuit Game Council. Those are the three partners in that assessment. The NEB process is being conducted separately but in a coordinated way.

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

Okay, so I have a question for Ms. Leggett. You received a report in December, along with the rest of the world, from the joint review panel. Now the NEB is saying it will have its report done by this fall.

[Sheila Leggett]

That's correct.

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

That's a pretty quick timeline. We had multiple timelines for the joint review panel. Is there a pretty high level of assurance that you'll meet that timeline?

[Sheila Leggett]

I can't speak on behalf of the panel, but that is what the panel has been stating in its press releases; and as I said, it is set to reopen the hearing. The bulk of the hearing is completed. The NEB panel has been waiting for the joint review panel report.

There is some additional evidence to be examined, starting next Monday the 29th, and then moving into final argument in mid-April, I think on April 12, and then with the predicted release of the NEB decision in the fall.