Transport Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

[Kim Beaudin]

Yes, with respect to vision, we want to ensure that our provincial and territorial organizations in Canada are consulted. Vision can encompass a number of things, and once the information is provided to us in terms of the details, then we're certainly going to submit something to the federal government. I like that question. I think it's very important. It encompasses a number of things, and yes, we're going to take those steps, certainly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. My thanks to the witnesses for joining us this morning.

As you know, and as the testimony shows, the federal approval process for the projects proposed and scheduled in the legislative measures for protecting navigation no longer automatically lead to a federal environmental assessment. That has been the case since the act went into effect in 2012, if I am not mistaken.

Clearly, the mandate the minister received is to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards. In your view, what would modern protection safeguards be? I would like to hear what all three of you have to say.

[Andrea Hoyt]

I'll start. As my colleague mentioned, the various environmental protection pieces fit together: CEAA, the environmental assessment process, and the various permit approval processes. Before 2012, a federal permit was a trigger for environmental assessment. Some projects are assessed under CEAA 2012. A good, modern process will step back and be a holistic sustainability planning process. That way, before you get to the permitting of a culvert, you already know what the regional vision is for economic development and environmental sustainability, and you already know how the local aboriginal groups feel about the protection of various waterways. That is all done long before you get to the permitting of a culvert.

If you were to modernize and have a more proactive process, that's what it would look like. It would be a planning process, and it would look at long-term sustainability.

[Kyle Vermette]

I would agree. I would add that it's important for this process to consider co-management mechanisms. Part of the reason is that, as I've mentioned, I've been working through the CEAA review process. I've heard many proponents, in speaking with the expert panel, say that there don't need to be protections under CEAA because there are other processes, permitting and otherwise, that allow for that protection of the environment, for that sharing of information, and for that assessment on impact.

I would reiterate that the need for these legislative processes to work together is paramount. The ability to have an environmental assessment triggered.... Again, I don't think there is a want for a cumbersome or repetitive process, but it's important to have a broader, more sustainable view, including a consideration of cumulative effects. It is critical to not just look at it on a project-by-project basis. Those are all important aspects of what a modern process would look like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Beaudin.

[Kim Beaudin]

In terms of modern protection and assessment, inclusiveness is very important, as well as a holistic approach, including the voices of our elders. I noticed that when we talk about the environment and any issues around the protection of the environment, sometimes the elders are left out of the equation. Their input is really important.

Mr. Vermette talked about co-management, and that's another issue. When we drill down to each area with respect to provinces, co-management comes into effect and we're all part of that process. I know that it can be somewhat cumbersome for the federal government because it is a huge bureaucracy that stretches from coast to coast. I'm hoping that the federal government will look at ways to make it more user friendly with respect to certain organizations. That way, these organizations, whether they're grassroots or not, will have an opportunity to provide input with respect to changes or even recommendations.

These are important, and I thank the member for the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes, but your time is up.

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we would have to be deaf to not hear that you want to see all waterways once more covered by the act by default. I also think I hear your very clear view that the environmental assessment process should be triggered automatically in the event of an infrastructure project on a waterway. However, it seems that you are open to the idea of the environmental assessment process being linked to the scale of the infrastructure. That is to say that the process would not have to be identical for projects of all kinds. In terms of major projects, we could specifically be talking about pipeline projects that are required to cross a very large number of waterways all over the country.

In your opinion, who should be in charge of the environmental assessments for those major projects? Do you believe that the responsibility should lie with the Department of Transport or do you agree with the National Energy Board having it?

I invite you each to answer in turn. We can go in the same order as this morning and begin with Ms. Hoyt.

[Andrea Hoyt]

We have, happily, not had to address the issue of pipelines in Nunatsiavut at this point.

I think that the National Energy Board has a lot of expertise within the organization. However, in a modern, improved environmental assessment process in Canada, I believe there should be one organization that does environmental assessment and has the capacity to do good environmental assessments for all the projects it assesses. The National Energy Board has other responsibilities, so I think it should be CEAA.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I used pipelines as an example, but, in your case, power lines would be more appropriate.

Would your answer be the same in that case?

[Andrea Hoyt]

Yes, I think that the one organization that does environmental assessment and does environmental assessment well should do environmental assessment for linear projects as well as non-linear projects.

[Kyle Vermette]

I share my colleague's view that whoever is responsible for conducting environmental assessments needs to be one body. With respect to whether that's the National Energy Board, we're just in the process of considering how the process may be modernized, so I'm not sure we're in a position to formally respond to that.

In principle, I think that avoidance of duplication and ensuring that whoever is responsible for that decision-making is competent, experienced, transparent, and is viewed as capable is an important aspect.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Your turn, Mr. Beaudin.

[Kim Beaudin]

Thank you for the question.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is leaning toward one body with respect to any changes or recommendations coming forward. What we're finding overall is that if you have two or three different committees or bodies looking at different changes to legislation, or having to approve a pipeline for example, it's like a big political football. It goes from one thing to the next, and we're not sure who is going to make the decision.

Of course, as you're aware, the pipeline issue has been in the news quite significantly across Canada, and of course now it's touching the United States. It's important that one body speak to that.

Again, we're going to look at this and send a formal response back to the federal government. I think it's a really important question, and I thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin, your time is up as well.

Everyone has had an opportunity to ask their questions. Witnesses, if you could make some written submissions to the committee when you've had some additional time to think about things, it would be helpful. As you know, we're examining this to see if there's a solution that deals both with your concerns and the concerns of local governments for a streamlined process. Your suggestions as to what kind of a process that might look like could be very helpful to the committee in the recommendations that the committee will make to the minister as a result of our consultations and our review that we are doing here.

Thank you very much to all our witnesses. We will excuse you.

We will go in camera for committee business.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, may I just request something from the analyst?

We have identified local authorities as those that are consulted during these processes. Could we have the names of those local authorities? I'm assuming they are municipalities, territories, etc., and added to that, the process they would abide by in these situations when waterways or things of that nature are added.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]