Transport Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I am not sure I understood the question.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

No agreement has been signed between Quebec and the federal government under the Building Canada program. Is that correct?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

Unfortunately, I am not here this morning to discuss the issue...

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

No agreement has been signed under Building Canada to this point. I simply want to have you confirm that.

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I am not absolutely sure, given that I have not received a briefing on that issue recently, but my understanding is that no agreement has been signed.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I understand that, but things are always a bit complicated in Quebec. Moreover, Economic Development Canada plays a role in your work. Who oversees the application of the criteria in Quebec? Is it Economic Development Canada or your department?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

That is a very good question. Both organizations are involved. With Infrastructure Canada, we have accountability with respect to the Building Canada program. In the past, the service delivery partners also had some responsibility. I must say, however, that this issue is outside my area of expertise, and it would probably be better for you to address your question to the department in order to obtain an official answer.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The fact remains that Quebec is the only province where Economic Development Canada is involved in this way, is it not?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

I am concerned that I might mislead you. You would be better advised to address your question to the department.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I will do that.

Mr. Smith, when the federal government invests in some aspect of infrastructure, you get involved. That is one criterion. Environmental assessments are carried out where required. Is that right?

[John Smith]

The funding is, as I mentioned, one of the triggers for an environmental assessment. So in general, yes, you're correct. Now, within our legislation, there are mechanisms for excluding assessments of small projects. We have a regulation, called the Exclusion List Regulations, 2007, that lists a lot of projects that are considered to have insignificant effects and therefore don't have environmental assessments. But in general, yes, when there is a proposed provision of federal funds, it triggers an environmental assessment.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

People at the municipal level are saying that when the federal government invests in infrastructure, both the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the need for an environmental assessment apply. It is as if an additional layer of complexity is added.

If the Navigable Waters Protection Act is amended, you can still be involved in infrastructure projects. Is that correct?

[John Smith]

For a specific project, if you amend the NWPA and the minor works are removed from the need for a permit under the NWPA, that removes one of the triggers for an environmental assessment. But on that same project, if there is federal funding or a decision by another body, the environmental assessment is still needed.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That is what I mean. Every time we talk about a Building Canada project, we are talking about federal funding. And therefore you need to be involved on the environmental side. So in addition to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, there is another layer of complexity added. On the other hand, if you are telling me that you will no longer be involved when there is federal funding once the act is amended, that may raise a red flag for me.

[John Smith]

The proposed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act would mean that for certain minor projects that don't need an approval, you'd remove one of the triggers. So if there's a case of a project for which, before, the only trigger for a federal environmental assessment was that approval, it wouldn't require an assessment. If there were another indication, like funding, it still would. However, as my colleague mentioned, I think, in her opening remarks, one of the things that happen with approvals under the NWPA is that because of the requirement to determine whether water is navigable, for example, sometimes it takes a while before there's some certainty about whether they need to initiate that approval.

Even for those projects that would still trigger environmental assessments because of funding, removing that one requirement sometimes pushes decisions back. So while there would still be an environmental assessment, there could potentially be some streamlining.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Suppose a municipality wanted to build a lookout beside a small stream that was considered non navigable under the new definitions. From what I understand, if there is funding provided under Building Canada, and therefore the federal government, there would have to be an environmental assessment of the project because a waterway is involved. Is that right?

[John Smith]

Yes. Oui.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If I understand correctly, Ms. Scharf, you are saying that the Navigable Waters Protection Act adds a process that may delay the project. Is that what you are saying? I gave the example of a municipality wanting to build a lookout over a waterway. As soon as something can float on a waterway, we are now talking about navigable waters. So the approval process will take more time. Is that correct?

[Shirley Anne Scharf]

Yes. Where the project description states that a community is undertaking a major project, we carry out an environmental assessment. However, the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act have done a lot to make the process less complex.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for coming today.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Smith. How many staff members do you have right across the country conducting environmental assessments?

[Steve Burgess]

I'll answer that one, if you don't mind.

I should probably clarify that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency doesn't actually conduct the environmental assessments. The assessments, as Mr. Smith mentioned in his presentation, are actually conducted by the individual departments that are responsible for making decisions with respect to projects. So in the case of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the decisions there that trigger CEAA, it's staff of Transport Canada who actually conduct the environmental assessments. In the case of infrastructure, it's staff of Infrastructure Canada or the regional delivery agencies who do the assessments.

Our role at the agency with respect to the vast majority of assessments is to, where appropriate, help in the coordination of those assessments. There can be a number of triggers federally for EA, which means that several departments might be involved in environmental assessments. There may be provincial assessments required as well. So our job is to coordinate those.

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

I'll come back to the question about your agency. How many staff members do you have?

[Steve Burgess]

Currently we have a total of just over 150 staff. Of those, probably 50 or so are in regional offices across the country.