Transport Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Okay, going back to the departments then, how many staff members in the federal government are involved in environmental assessments?

[Steve Burgess]

I'm not sure. I could take a guess at that. Of course every department has EA responsibilities, and there are crown corporations and so on. I don't think I have those numbers for you, I'm sorry.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You're not aware of the actual numbers. Would you say it's adequate, not knowing the numbers?

[Steve Burgess]

If you spoke to other departments, I'm sure they would say they could use more staff.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

The problem here is that we're trying to resolve an issue, but part of the issue is the question of staffing and resources. We've had a lot of corporate tax cuts from the Conservative government. It appears to me that what we're actually looking at is much more of an investment in staffing, so that we have a sufficient number of people on the ground to conduct environmental assessments.

I'd like to go to you, Ms. Flood.

For Fisheries and Oceans, as part of your environmental assessment team, how many staff members do you have?

[Ginny Flood]

In Fisheries and Oceans I can't give you a specific number because I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can certainly provide that to you.

The way we're structured right now, we have a centre of expertise for environmental assessments for major projects, which are natural resource major projects, infrastructure projects, or projects that have significant economic development impacts, aboriginal issues, federal-provincial considerations, and those types of aspects.

Also, we just received an additional 41 FTEs from the regulatory improvement initiative, better known as the major projects management office. That will help us deal with the major projects.

Over the last few years we've also been taking on a modernization of our whole program, which included putting in some processes to look at risk: what the risk is and the significance of environmental impacts. We try to work very closely with proponents to mitigate impacts and therefore not have proponents seek environmental assessment, because we do not have to issue authorization.

My understanding is that Transport Canada is looking to move more into that risk management approach also. It is, at the same time, respecting and not lowering the bar on environmental concerns or issues, but just looking more at the significance of those impacts and whether they can be mitigated.

To answer your question, we have staff in all regions, but I don't have the numbers. I can certainly provide you with those numbers.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It would be interesting as well to have today's numbers compared to those of 10 years ago, because that's certainly an issue we've seen in other government departments. There has been a slow erosion of staffing to do the job. It's like anything else. If you're in a hospital and you don't hire nurses or doctors, then the problem isn't about closing more beds; the issue is actually staffing up, so the hospital is running effectively and efficiently.

I'd like to come to you, Ms. Scharf.

The proposal is to exclude minor waters and minor works. I'd like you to give us an example, if you could, of a river system in British Columbia that would be considered minor waters.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

Mr. Chair, I don't know if we can provide that, off the top of our heads. We would be pleased to get back to our colleagues at Navigable Waters Protection Act and provide that information to the committee. We can certainly give generic examples, but I did not come prepared with a specific minor water in B.C. My apologies.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

When you talk about minor waters, what is the definition you're looking at? You say minor waters could well be a tiny stream with a very low volume of discharge, or it could be a fairly significant body of water. I think it would help the committee to know exactly where you're trying to place the bar.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

Mr. Chair, I'll make an introductory comment and then I'll turn it over to Keith Grady, our senior adviser in this area.

I will make the same comments that I believe Transport Canada officials gave when they appeared before the committee on February 28. The way it is constructed right now—and I believe David Osbaldeston made this point—minor waters are such that I believe if you float a canoe in a body of water it is considered a navigable water. From that point of view, streamlining the act and excluding things of that nature would be very advantageous.

If it's possible, Mr. Chair, I'll turn it over to Keith Grady, who is more expert in this.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Just so I understand, you're saying a minor water body would be a water body where we can navigate a canoe?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The definition of navigable waters right now is that if it will float a canoe, it's considered a navigable water.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I understand, Mr. Chair. My concern is the definition of minor waters.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I'll let Keith respond to that, Mr. Chair.

[Keith Grady, Senior Advisor, Environment Review and Approvals, Issues Management Directorate, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada]

Thank you. Perhaps I could elaborate.

Transport Canada and the navigable waters protection group are going to have to sort this out. For example, where there are numerous natural existing obstructions in the waterways, where seasonal flows can essentially preclude that water body from being navigable for periods of time, I would certainly consider, from an Infrastructure Canada point of view, the types of minor waterways that might be taken into account in the proposals Transport Canada's putting forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask a question, I want to clarify something that arose when Mr. Volpe was questioning the witnesses. I don't believe we are working at cross purposes, but he did suggest that ministry staff had indicated a preference for a complete revamping of the bill as opposed to perhaps picking the low-hanging fruit.

At that meeting, Mr. Chair, I did specifically address that. Please note Marc Grégoire is the assistant deputy minister for safety and security, and I don't believe his responsibilities touch directly on the infrastructure program Mr. Grady and Ms. Scharf administer. In a question I posed to him--and I'd like to quote that question--I asked, “Would you agree with me that moving forward with these amendments will significantly speed up the process of getting the needed legislation in place to address some of the infrastructure needs in our country?” And Mr. Grégoire simply said, “Yes.” I think it's unfair to place his testimony against what we're hearing today.

I am a little concerned about Mr. Julian's comments. Of course, whenever he deals with issues like this, the solution is always adding more jobs as opposed to becoming more efficient and streamlined. As I understand it, the purpose of moving forward with some amendments is to ensure that our infrastructure moneys are rolled out in a timely manner and that this infrastructure gets built within the seven years this program requires.

I'd like to move toward a discussion about the environmental assessment process, because I think that's where most of the concerns will be raised: are we somehow gutting the environmental assessment process? If we move forward with the amendments the government is proposing, is there any suggestion that the environmental assessment process will be watered down or weakened?

Perhaps I could address that to Mr. Smith, first of all.

[John Smith]

I think you're referring to gutting it. I would say it's not gutting it. I would say it would result in fewer environmental assessments, but the projects for which environmental assessments would not be required are those that are small, not likely to involve significant adverse effects.

I would say in general, no, it wouldn't result in an overall weakening of the system. I believe the direction is consistent with some of the efforts we have undertaken in other areas to help make sure we focus on those projects that are more likely to have significant adverse environmental effects.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Let's talk about the small projects, the minor works. Of the applications you now receive to do environmental assessments for minor projects, on a percentage basis how many of them are rejected, when you can't go ahead with this project because it presents a significant environmental risk?

[Steve Burgess]

If I understand your question correctly, it would be a very small percentage. The way our process works is that before a federal authority, such as Infrastructure Canada or Fisheries, or Transport in the case of NWPA, makes a decision with respect to the project that would allow it to proceed, it is required to undertake an environmental assessment.

The only circumstance in which it would be prevented from making these kinds of decisions, funding decisions or issuing regulatory approvals, is when the environmental effects are significant and not justified. That decision can only be made by an independent panel of experts. So for minor projects, relatively small projects with relatively minor environmental effects, the likelihood of the project not proceeding on the basis of the environmental assessment would be quite small.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

What I hear you saying is that what you'd like to do is focus the resources that you have in those areas and on those projects where you're actually going to make some environmental gains or make the types of progress and do the kinds of reviews that are going to show some environmental dividends. Is that a correct characterization of what you're saying?

[Steve Burgess]

Getting back to the point that was made earlier, I think what we're looking for is exactly that. It's to make sure we focus our EA resources and our regulatory resources on those projects that we feel have the most likelihood of adverse environmental effects. In the case of relatively minor projects there may be, and very often are, other means of addressing potential effects. For example, we've talked about minor works and what constitutes a minor waterway, for example. Those small streams can have important environmental factors associated with them, spawning habitat for fish and so forth, but the Fisheries Act is there to ensure that fish habitat is protected without necessarily the need for an environmental assessment process to apply.

So I think at the end of the day what's being suggested or proposed here is quite reasonable.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Ms. Flood, you refer to the proposed amendments as perhaps moving towards a risk management process. Could you explain that a little more?

[Ginny Flood]

Basically what we've done at DFO is we've actually looked at the projects and determined a risk management type of framework whereby we actually start allocating our resources to where there are significant impacts. Our projects range from a cottager putting in a wharf to a major mine development. In most years we receive over 6,000 referrals. Not all of those end up being environmental assessments, because what we do is look at the proposal and the project, and we work with the proponent and reduce the mitigations where we do not need a Fisheries Act authorization. A Fisheries Act authorization means that we have to do an environmental assessment.

So by looking at the definition of minor works, there may be something you can actually mitigate. I won't pretend I'm an expert in Navigable Waters Protection Act legislation, but if you have a small bridge or something, to that effect there may be ways of mitigating the environmental impacts so that you will not have to issue an authorization for that. For instance, with DFO, if there's a bridge and it's a free-span, it doesn't have an impact on fish and fish habitat. We would let that go.

We work very closely with proponents, so I think it's the same type of philosophy as they're looking at--how to move more towards that approach, so that you're actually looking at things that are very significant and being able to allocate resources and putting them where those significant impacts are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.