Transport Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of my questions have been answered, but I've got a few specific-detail ones.

First of all, Ms. Scharf, in your reference on page 3 to waste and wastewater infrastructure, you are talking about piping. That's the aspect, if you were building a plant—and I'm thinking of Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant—that has to be replaced. So it's not the plant itself but the connection to the water and what comes out that is your concern.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

Yes, it would be.

But I might also turn it over to Keith Grady, who deals with these on a regular basis, Mr. Chair.

[Keith Grady]

You're correct. It's the water intake for water treatment plants, and it's the discharge pipes into water bodies for wastewater treatment.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

On page 5 in the second paragraph, you indicate that detailed projects and site plans necessary to confirm application of the NWPA are often unavailable in the early stages of project planning, so the status can be unclear until late in the assessment. When do you get the detailed site plans? Do you not get them right from the beginning?

[Keith Grady]

Not necessarily; it really depends on the application. In many cases that's not available early in the planning process, which is when environmental assessments are usually undertaken, at least under the federal process. So it may be some time after the assessment is actually started that the NWP has enough information to determine how the act would apply in that particular circumstance.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

On page 6, in the fourth or fifth paragraph, you make reference to the proposal to exempt minor waterways, etc., and say that overhead power lines will no longer be required to apply for approval if they meet specified criteria. Have those criteria been drawn up, or is that something that would come as a result of these changes?

[Keith Grady]

I guess, in fact, to some extent they are reflected in the criteria and the types of works that Transport Canada has already looked at in its brochures for excluding minor works. I think you're familiar with, for example, pipeline crossings. Water intakes are another example.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

On page 7, in the first paragraph at the bottom, you say that currently the NWPA approval triggers the requirement for an assessment first, which can delay the regulatory approval. What does “first” mean? Before proceeding any further? Is that in effect what it means?

[Keith Grady]

I didn't have time to catch your reference.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

In the first paragraph on page 7, the last sentence says it requires an assessment first. It's just the wording, and I was trying to follow that. You already have the NWPA assessment, do you not, at that point?

[Keith Grady]

I think what we were referring to there is that for projects funded federally through the Building Canada Fund or any of our existing programs, there will still be an environmental assessment required irrespective of the NWPA requirements. That will continue. But the same types of projects without federal funding would not necessarily require an NWPA approval, and that would shorten the time for the regulatory approvals prior to project implementation.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Smith, on page 6 of your deck, you gave examples of recently completed projects. You talked about the marine terminal and the copper mine. I'm particularly interested in marine terminals. I'm thinking again of the Vancouver port and some of things they're going through.

When you say “recently completed”, just how long do you mean? One of the criticisms we've had—and I'm not suggesting we follow their track entirely—is that China is able to go from concept to completion in about three years, and it would appear that after six or seven years we're still thinking about it and different issues. I've heard this criticism in my responsibility as critic for the Pacific gateway, that for a lot of the projects necessary to make our ports competitive, the approval process or review is so long as to be a deterrent.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

[Steve Burgess]

I can speak to that.

We're certainly aware of those concerns as well. For some years now we've been looking at ways to improve the efficiency of the federal EA process. The most recent initiative was the major projects management office, which was established to enhance the efficiency of EAs and the regulatory process with respect to resource development projects. That included quite substantial resources for our agency as well as other departments to improve the efficiency of the process.

I'm not aware of a similar program that's aimed at infrastructure projects like the port authority projects and so forth. But certainly we're aware of the concern related to timing, and we are looking at ways to improve that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

Ms. Scharf, you give examples on page 6 of your presentation of changes that might reduce the study required for approval. You state:

[...] the proposal to exempt minor waterways and minor works will benefit infrastructure projects such as pipelines (water and sewers) and overhead power lines [...]

You talk about overhead power lines. In fact, it seems to me that those projects have a particular impact on navigation. I was surprised to see that they would be excluded from study.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I would answer that the issue for us is the impact of the protection of navigable waters. When a project description indicates that there is federal funding, we carry out an environmental assessment in any case.

Perhaps I did not fully understand your question. Maybe Keith can add something.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would first like to finish my question.

In Quebec, transmission lines are built by Hydro-Québec, and that is generally how things are done in the other provinces as well. These are not federal projects. So you are recommending that no assessment be carried out. That is what I understand from this.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

The legislation and issues surrounding environmental assessment vary from province to province. It depends on the project, the legislation and the regulations involved. We generally try to harmonize our efforts with those of the provinces and to work in a coordinated way. Perhaps Keith could add something on this.

[Keith Grady]

Thank you, Mr. Carrier.

Just to be clear, we would only be involved if there is federal funding for that project involving the transmission lines. Then in terms of whether it would be appropriate from a public health or public navigation safety point of view to exclude aerial cables or transmission lines from consideration under the NWPA or the federal Environmental Assessment Act, I would point out that it's Transport Canada's policy not to do a NWPA review of transmission lines in certain instances. That's defined in the brochure that they make available to applicants.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I will make do with that answer, which is not clear to me. I have another question that I would like to ask before I run out of time.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency seems to be very important. In response to a question asked earlier by my NDP colleague, you said that you did not really have enough staff to carry out environmental studies and that you do them in cooperation with other departments. I would like to raise a specific project in my riding. There is a bridge being built over Rivière des Prairies on Highway 25. In answer to my questions, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirmed again recently that the proponent had not provided all the necessary information to complete the environmental study for the project. That is all well and fine in principle, except that construction has begun and the project was announced without anyone knowing, publicly at least, about this environmental study which you are carrying out and which, I suppose, should be important.

[Steve Burgess]

I will provide part of the answer to your question, and Ms. Flood will give the rest. To begin with, I should say that the issue is not that the agency does not have the resources it needs to carry out assessments, but that it is not the agency's role to do so. Its role is to coordinate the assessments and the participation of other departments or the provincial authorities to have the assessments carried out. So our role is quite clear and specific. Responsibility for the assessment falls to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans if approval is being sought under the Fisheries Act, the NWPA, etc. I must admit that I do not have specific details on the project you are referring to. That said, before Fisheries and Oceans or Transport Canada can issue a permit, an assessment needs to be done. And they are the ones responsible for carrying out the assessments. If there is no approval required under the Fisheries Act and there are impacts on fish habitat, then there is a clear lack of compliance with the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

The Fisheries and Oceans official was going to answer the question as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry.

Ms. Flood, do you want to finish?