Evidence of meeting #16 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nwpa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have one further question.
I noticed nobody asked a question in relation to regulations, if it could be done with regulation without legislation. But I wonder if the departments could provide to us a process chart, if they have one available.
I'm more confused today than I was three days ago. I don't know about the other members, but I would like to have more certainty as to the process itself that your departments take, what triggers what and where we go in each particular case.
Finally, if it is possible, Ms. Scharf, could you provide the information in relation to the EA assessments that you're suggesting—you're looking at different types—to help this committee in the future? And I certainly would like to find out why we can't do it through regulation, if we could.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Jean.
We do have a little bit of time left, and I know some people want to ask another question.
Monsieur Carrier.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I will ask a short question that follows up on the one I already asked.
When the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is involved in a file, whether it comes from Fisheries and Oceans or from Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is ultimately responsible for issuing the environmental study permit?
You said that the agency only coordinates the work, but it is still responsible on behalf of the government. Or does some other department, such as Fisheries and Oceans, have that responsibility?
Acting Vice-President, Program Delivery Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
One of the federal authorities is responsible for carrying out the assessment and making the decision. I should perhaps add that there is no approval that results from the environmental assessment process. It is not a process that results in a certificate or an order in council. A decision is made regarding whether or not there are impacts on the environment.
Bloc
Acting Vice-President, Program Delivery Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
That's right.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, are you allotting a period of time, or do you just want us to ask...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's just as questions come up.
I have a couple of minutes, so I'll allow you to start.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much. I have two or three questions. I will say that it will take the opposite point of view of Mr. Jean.
When I see government ministries not having the kind of honest debate that should be held around this, because there are serious consequences as well for what is being proposed, I get apprehensive that there seems to be a lockdown within the ministries to avoid the kind of debate that should be taking place on this.
There's no doubt that there may be some advantages to dumping a portion of the environmental assessment...because that is indeed what we're talking about, not modernization but dumping a significant portion of environmental assessment. There are also serious disadvantages to that. I would like to have seen today more of a debate between the ministries around the consequences of this, but that's perhaps something that we can pursue off-line, away from this table, because I certainly understand the pressures that bureaucrats are receiving now from the current government.
I'd like to come back to the issue around the screenings and follow up on Mr. Maloney's comments around removing the reference to the four named works. On the four named works, why are we not looking for a proposal for minor modifications of those named works, as opposed to excluding them from the act?
Secondly, in the environmental screenings that take place today, what is involved? That's a little bit along the lines of Mr. Jean's process question.
Thirdly, coming back to the issue of the minor waters, which is disturbing to me, in British Columbia we have, I think, a lot of waterways that would fit into the definition of minor waterways, but where there are significant repercussions for modifications. So I would like to hear from each of the ministries as to what their discussions have been around minor waters and how that would be defined.
Those are my three questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before you answer—and I'll ask you to do that—it's important to note in regard to Mr. Julian's opening comments that I think that is something where probably we would want to bring the ministers of the departments in, to have that open dialogue that you talk about, rather than the people within the system. They're here to implement what government asks them to do, as opposed to forming the opinion of government. I'll just clarify that.
Do you have any comments?
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
On your first question about the named works, my understanding of the current situation of the proposal is that because the named works are in there, minor versions of those types of works can't be excluded. So no matter how small any one of those types of works is, it will always trigger an authorization. So removing them doesn't mean they will no longer be subject to the NWPA. Those types of works can now be looked at similar to other types of works, and those that are minor can be excluded. It doesn't remove them from the NWPA.
Director General, Issues Management Directorate, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada
I believe Keith will have some comments on the last question, but on that issue, it is our understanding that the intent is not to miss the major causeways or dams. The way the act is structured now, we must go through the full approval process and have site access, and that can lead to a lot of delays.
Because we don't have the specific amendments in front of us on the details of how they're defined, that makes it a bit more of a challenge. But the larger point is that they had to be designed for flexibility, but in a way that safeguards them. The way it's written now, there's no way to get that flexibility.
We're not suggesting it isn't important or significant, but there's no flexibility.
Senior Advisor, Environment Review and Approvals, Issues Management Directorate, Program Operations Branch, Infrastructure Canada
We've done hundreds and hundreds of environmental assessments of infrastructure projects over the past decade. I've personally done hundreds of them. We have a lot of experience now.
We're looking at changes to the definitions of minor works and minor waters in relation to our CEAA responsibilities and our overall approvals. From my perspective in doing an environmental assessment--if I can use Mr. Jean's example--if we're funding that road, whether or not it involves a bridge that is considered a minor work isn't really going to change the practical application of the way Infrastructure Canada addresses its CEAA requirement. We are going to consult Transport Canada and the NWPA if there is a potential issue involving navigation. We will continue to do that. We will take that information from the NWPA into account in our EA approvals as well. So if they come forward and say it's a minor project and we can proceed with these design criteria and these good management practices, we will build that into our approvals. That's very similar to what we do now.
The changes that are being proposed by Transport Canada offer us the benefit of being able to not burden our environmental assessment responsibilities with additional regulatory requirements. It simplifies the way we can carry out our environmental assessments in working with our federal partners.
From my perspective, we're going to maintain ecological integrity, and that is important. We are going to maintain navigation safety and do it more efficiently, taking into account the fact that we've done hundreds of these types of projects already and we've learned through that experience.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think it would be useful to discuss the definition of minor works and have a good debate on that. From a DFO perspective we certainly don't classify waterways as minor works or major works. If there's fish and fish habitat, we're there.
If the real concern is whether an environmental assessment will be done or not, I think the issue is whether there's a federal regulator that will be doing that, and what the value-added is of NWPA being another federal regulator on the same project.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
It really boils down to the various triggers in place to trigger an environmental assessment. The more triggers we have, the greater the chance we're going to bog down the process.
You told me just now, Ms. Flood, that even if the NWPA wasn't around, anyone doing work in a waterway that involved fish habitat would still trigger an environment assessment. So you're not going to get around that.
By making these amendments, we're expediting and streamlining the process of getting infrastructure money out into the communities, getting things built over the next seven years, and just moving forward, not building bureaucratic empires. We're trying to cut through some of the red tape that's already there. You've just clarified that.
There are numerous triggers along the way. One we haven't mentioned yet, if we're dealing with the pipeline, is that we'll need to deal with the NEB as well, which would trigger its own reviews.
National Director, Environmental Assessments and Major Projects, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The other thing is that we're looking at the same activities. When it's in and around water, Transport Canada and DFO are usually looking at those same environmental impacts when we're doing an environmental assessment. So that's also quite important.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you very much for attending today and presenting us with the information. I'm sure we'll have further discussions as we move forward. I appreciate your time.
For the committee, just as an advance, we are still looking for lists of people who want to present or who you want to put forward on the issue of navigable waters.
We have the railway safety review book. If any of you or your staff need extra copies, we have them available.
On Thursday, we're with Doug Lewis. So come ready to go.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.