Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2013

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What about the assessment of the information gathered by the proponent? Is that within the environmental assessment project?

[Terence Hubbard]

That's right. One of the—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

If it's not adequate, do you extend the timeframe?

[Terence Hubbard]

There is a provision to stop the clock, if you will, while we await additional details from the proponent. That isn't within a timeframe.

One of the factors, in addition to the timelines we have introduced, is clarity of information requirements. Within regulation, legislation, and guidance documents, we now have a lot greater precision in determining what's required from project proponents when they submit an application. When they get into the process, they have greater clarity of what it's going to take and how long it's going to take to get through the process so that there are no surprises for them either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Bevington.

We have remaining on our list Mr. Allen and Mr. Trost.

Go ahead, Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to all of the witnesses for being here.

I want to follow up on Mr. Bevington's question. There is a proponent in New Brunswick who has submitted a proposal for a tungsten and molybdenum mine in the Sisson Brook area. They did years of baseline data before they even submitted an EIA. That was submitted with a comment from the public to come back by October 13. The company was clear with me that the timeline stopped when the questions came back. Can you clarify that this is the case?

[Terence Hubbard]

That is kind of our standard practice. Any time additional information is required from a project proponent, that timeline clock will stop until that information is reviewed and a decision is made that it's adequate for the review to continue.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

So basically a company can't stall out the clock for 18 months and play that game.

[Terence Hubbard]

That's right.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

You indicated some of the equivalencies and B.C. being a leader in the equivalency side. I do know in New Brunswick it's a little different. I think there is going to be a little bit of a timeline lag or difference in the process in New Brunswick. How are you making out with some of the other provinces in terms of getting to these equivalencies?

When you actually approve the project, are the permits, which can sometimes take a long time, and you indicated four years, not just approval but a permit, are you handling the permits as part of this process as well? Do the permits end up being a sequential process or a parallel process?

[Terence Hubbard]

I can start and Jim may have some additional details to add.

First off, in terms of the arrangements and agreements with the provinces, we have a number of mechanisms and we've been working very closely with the provinces. Jim has been very engaged in a federal-provincial working group that has been working together to identify opportunities to better align and make use of some of these new tools as we go forward.

B.C. was obviously the first out of the gate and was pushing pretty hard to have these provisions in place. It was fairly well prepared to take advantage of the new tools when they were in place. Conversations are also ongoing with Saskatchewan at this point in time.

In some of the other jurisdictions, particularly in Atlantic Canada, some of the conversations that we've had to date have indicated that they'll kind of wait and see in terms of the success of some of the other approaches in other jurisdictions. As well, there's a strong interest in relying on federal expertise and capacity that we have in place for some of these review processes, recognizing that not all jurisdictions have the same resource base and the same level of capacity to deal with some of these major development decisions. There's a commitment to working together. There are different mechanisms and different ways we do it, substitution equivalency being one way. Other ways are kind of aligned joint reviews where we work hand in hand.

In terms of your question with respect to permitting processes, that's one of the big value adds of the MPMO initiative as well. We're taking that whole review life-cycle perspective, so it's not only the environmental assessment, but those back-end permitting processes. At the beginning of every project review we take a look at what federal responsibilities would be for the project. We identify milestones and who is responsible, and set timelines for completing those activities as well.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Your DM oversight committee would be responsible for confirming--

[Terence Hubbard]

Would manage any issues; that's right.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

You're six years into this. It sounds to me that we had a dog's breakfast before, with all the overlaps and potential gaps that could have actually resulted. Now your funding goes until 2015, I think you mentioned, the next bucket of funding.

Realistically, the horse is out of the barn, is it even a possibility to go back? It would seem to me that if you build this capacity you would be fragmenting again and it would be really easy to fall back to what was happening before.

[Terence Hubbard]

It's a difficult question at this point. Obviously, there will be policy discussions with respect to the evolving role of this office and how we work with federal partners and agencies going forward. We were designed and put in place for a specific purpose. Ideally, at some point in the future we'll have achieved our mandate and everything will have been accomplished and the system will be operating and knitted together and working as it should without needing some central oversight authority in place.

I'm not sure we're at that point yet, but we're continuing to work and look at opportunities for that continuous improvement. Maybe one day we will be there, I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

We now have Mr. Trost, followed by Ms. Moore, and Mr. Regan.

Go ahead please, Mr. Trost, for up to five minutes.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up on where Mr. Allen was going, tying into some of my earlier questions.

As you noted, B.C. has been eager, and Saskatchewan seems to be number two, but I'm not quite understanding the reticence of some of the other provinces. You were fairly diplomatic in how you were wording it, and I'm sure you will be in your answer, too.

What seems to be some of the degree of reluctance? From my perspective, more efficiency means less cost. A lot of the provinces have financial issues, so saving money and increasing investment seems to me to be a bit of a no-brainer. What tends to be their hesitancy? Are there things that we can do at the federal level to increase their desire to engage with your office?

[Terence Hubbard]

I don't know if I would describe it as reticence on the part of the provinces, because it was a strong voice right across jurisdictions through a number of different fora. The provinces were really looking toward these new tools and these new approaches and to having these mechanisms in place.

A lot of the driver right now in terms of B.C. wanting to be first out of the gate is that, if you look at the map, a lot of the projects right now are being proposed in B.C. Their being able to develop the expertise to make the most use out of these tools, I think is why they have the biggest push at this point in time.

I think all provinces will have an interest in moving towards that objective. We're looking at different ways and different tools and approaches to move in that direction.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Is it not so much a question of reticence as it is capacity? I would think that after this many years of going forward, with their highly talented bureaucracies and scientists and so forth, they could be fairly rapid in moving this forward.

Am I just thinking that things move quicker than they should? What am I still missing here?

[Terence Hubbard]

It's not simply a process of saying the federal government is going to vacate and to leave the responsibility of the federal government to move forward and handle these activities. In terms of the new tools and approaches we've put in place, we've been quite clear that provinces need to demonstrate that they can meet federal requirements and carry out all of the requirements under our federal legislation going forward.

Provinces need to be able to integrate into their processes those activities. That doesn't mean the federal government will stop participating in those processes, either. In the case of B.C., the federal government still participates and shares its expertise with B.C. in carrying out those reviews. There's still a jointness in terms of participating in these reviews.

I think some provinces are looking to those experiences and treating the early experiences going on in B.C. as something they can learn from as we go forward. They can make sure they've got things right before they fully jump into it.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

When I did field geophysics back in a previous life, I remember talking with a senior geologist who was in charge of the project. This wasn't a project that would ever be big enough to get the interest of your office, but he was saying that he was spending over 50% of his valuable time—he was a geologist with 25 years of field experience—doing paperwork.

Are there principles here that can be applied throughout the entire government? Not every federal project, I think, falls under your office's jurisdiction. If it works well for major projects, why wouldn't this sort of principle work for all projects involved?

Do you have any comments on that?

[Terence Hubbard]

One of the big focuses of our office and our initiative in the plan for responsible resource development was to ensure that our resources could be allocated and really focused on those major projects. Where there were activities that weren't contributing, that didn't have that level of value, and where we weren't having a value add, we were looking to refocus and reallocate those resources to those bigger projects where there are potential impacts, where they can make a difference.

Looking beyond just the major projects and in terms of some of the other changes we've made, we're no longer looking at hockey rinks or outhouses in parks, that sort of thing. We're really focusing on the major projects. For the most part, those are resource projects in terms of the big projects that have impacts on areas of federal jurisdiction.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

To summarize what you're saying, you're no longer wasting federal government resources on projects that frankly didn't need to be studied in the first place. Hockey rinks generally don't have a major environmental impact, except maybe on the morale of the community involved.

[Terence Hubbard]

That is correct. That was a fundamental part of the reforms that were brought forward in terms of the analysis and focusing on major projects with the most potential for impacts on areas of federal jurisdiction.

There were two elements. It had to be a big impact and it had to be a big impact on something that the federal government could control.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Ms. Moore, you have up to five minutes.