ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

0905

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. Pierre Fortin (Executive Director, Canadian Hydropower Association)

0910

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Fortin

0915

The Chair

Mr. Jamie Kneen (Co-Chair, Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network)

0920

Mr. John Sinclair (Co-Chair, Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network)

0925

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

0930

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Ed Norrena (Director, Board of Directors, Canadian Environment Industry Association)

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse (Chair, Technical Advisory Group, Canadian Environment Industry Association)

0935

0940

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

0945

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

Mr. John Sinclair

0950

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Sinclair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

0955

The Chair

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

Mr. John Sinclair

1000

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique--Mactaquac, Lib.)

Mr. Ed Norrena

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

Mr. John Sinclair

The Chair

Ms. Scherrer

1005

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse

1010

The Chair

Mr. John Sinclair

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Mr. John Sinclair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Pierre Fortin

1015

Mr. Roy Bailey

Pierre Fortin

Mr. Roy Bailey

Pierre Fortin

The Chair

Ms. Rebecca Last (Director of Programs and Policy, Canadian Environment Industry Association)

The Chair

Mr. John Sinclair

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

1020

Mr. John Sinclair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Jamie Kneen

Mr. John Sinclair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Jamie Kneen

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Sinclair

Mr. Jamie Kneen

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. John Sinclair

1025

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse

Mr. Andy Savoy

Ms. Rebecca Last

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Ed Norrena

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

Mr. Andy Savoy

Mr. Jamie Kneen

1030

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.)

Mr. John Sinclair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jamie Kneen

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Sinclair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. John Sinclair

1035

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Lundhal

The Chair

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Chair

Mr. Ed Norrena

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 064

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. We have a quorum. We welcome you, and we'll start without delay. Please keep your comments to a few minutes each so that there will be time for questions.

Who would like to go first?

Mr. Lundhal, please go ahead.

Mr. Pierre Fortin (Executive Director, Canadian Hydropower Association): Actually, I'll go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Fortin, bienvenue.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to meet with the members of the Committee.

Allow me to introduce myself, my name is Pierre Fortin. I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Hydropower Association. As you will probably have noted, the name appearing on the agenda was Mr. Paul Adams, President of the Association. Unfortunately, Mr. Adams was detained in Vancouver late last night, not only because of the snow, but also because of mechanical problems. If he had been able to leave, he would have arrived here at about six o'clock this morning. He therefore asked me to attend in his place.

I have beside me Mr. Pierre Lundhal, who is our Association's Environmental Adviser. He is the one who wrote the brief that we presented to you.

As for the Five-Year Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Association has participated in the deliberations that have taken place since the beginning.

¿ (0910)

[English]

In February 2000, the association submitted a first brief during that consultation process. Because of that involvement, we're here today to discuss Bill C-19, which was tabled by the minister in March 2001.

The association has some concern about the environmental assessment process and its implications. We believe further progress can be made to remove some of the obstacles currently in the way of the future development of a clean and renewable energy source, namely hydro power. Before I describe our specific concerns, I'd like to just say a few words about our association.

[Translation]

Our association was established in 1998. It obviously represents the interests of the hydroelectric industry in Canada and also internationally. The Association was created mainly because of structural changes occurring in the industry, notably the restructuring and deregulation of the North American markets. We represent the producers of hydroelectric power, a number of manufacturers and other firms involved in hydroelectric development. In fact, our members represent 95% of hydroelectric power production in Canada. The Association obviously tries to promote the use of hydropower and to foster awareness of its benefits.

[English]

“What benefits?”, you'll ask me. Well, hydro power is not only an efficient and reliable source of electricity; in our view, it is the only clean and renewable source that can make a substantial contribution to meeting Canada's growing electricity demand of 1.3% per year over the next two decades. With its unique storage capability, hydro power makes an excellent partner to other renewable and clean energy by supplementing the irregular power output of such green solutions as wind and solar power. I think that's a fact worth noting.

Despite the benefits of hydro power, the tendency is to see the percentage of our power, as part of the Canadian power generation mix, diminishing year by year.

[Translation]

In 1950...

The Chair: I encourage you to present your comments on the bill because at 10 o'clock two or three colleagues will have to leave the meeting to go to the House of Commons, where there will be a debate on climate change.

Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Fortin: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Let me then focus on three issues that we see in the environmental assessment process. Some of those are looked after in the bill itself.

Firstly, there are uncertainties in the evaluation process regarding some of the requirements of CEAA, including the interpretation of certain terms, the scope of studies, and the duration of the process and its outcome.

Secondly, there's an insufficient harmonization between federal, provincial, and territorial processes. I know that point has been made by a number of stakeholders.

Thirdly, the present environmental assessment process places excessive emphasis on local impacts. I think that's an important point. It does not take into consideration large-scale negative impacts on the environment such as acid rain, smog, and climate change, all of which have serious detrimental effects on the health of Canadians as well as our fisheries and forests.

Emphasizing local impacts while ignoring air pollution and climate change has the undesirable effect of privileging fossil fuel powered plants over hydro power plants. Given the problems facing Canada and the world in the 21st century, especially with regard to climate change, this seems shortsighted, to say the least.

To address the concern that dominates the current legislation--the local impacts--while it is true that hydro power project developments have local impacts on the environment, such impacts can be minimized by careful planning and operation in collaboration with local communities. This is being done at this time by the hydro power industry. The fact remains, however, that those impacts are local, while the impacts of fossil fuel alternatives are long-term and large-scale.

As you will have seen in our brief, we have made a number of concrete recommendations, and I refer you specifically to section 6, entitled “Suggested Improvements to C-19 and Related Regulations, Policies andGuidelines”. We believe our recommendations can further improve the environmental assessment process and at the same time protect the environment and ensure the development of a clean, renewable source of energy. These recommendations include proposals to reduce the duration of the environmental assessment, to ensure that the scope of the assessment is reasonable, and to consider emissions or offsets of greenhouse gases in the environmental assessment of energy projects.

The environmental impact assessment and review of all major development projects is part of internationally recognized good environmental practices, and we do support that process. However, as it stands, the process has the unintended effect of favouring the development of non-renewable, more polluting forms of energy, specifically fossil-fuel-generated electricity. We believe the process should instead, with more balanced criteria, favour a form of energy that can help reduce air emissions and fight air pollution and climate change.

In closing--one short point--the Canadian Hydropower Association and the industry it represents are not alone in supporting hydro power as a more environmentally friendly source of energy. I'd like to draw your attention to a survey that was conducted late last year by Leger Marketing, which shows that 71.8% of Canadians support the development of further hydro power development. That number exceeds 85% when Canadians are asked to take into account the fact that these projects could improve the environment by displacing greenhouse-gas-emitting sources of electricity.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fortin, that was very clear and very succinct.

[English]

Mr. Kneen, would you like to go next?

Mr. Jamie Kneen (Co-Chair, Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network): Good morning, Mr. Chair, honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm Jamie Kneen. This is John Sinclair. We are co-chairs of the environmental planning and assessment caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network, known to many by its initials, CEN. With us today is also Jannis Kline, caucus coordinator. We'd also like to specifically thank Peter Duck of the Bow Valley Naturalists for doing much of the groundwork for this submission.

The environmental planning and assessment caucus is composed of environmental assessment practitioners, community-based educators, academics, activists, lawyers, policy analysts, private consultants, and other concerned citizens. All of these individuals have firsthand experience with environmental assessment in Canada. They share a common vision of truly effective environmental assessment in this country. Their energy, knowledge, and on-the-ground experience make the caucus the most substantive and dynamic network of environmental assessment expertise in Canada today.

We have attached a list of caucus members and a variety of other caucus documents related to our work and the present bill.

We would note that several caucus members have testified or will be testifying to this committee, and we would like to unequivocally support and affirm the work they have presented or will be presenting to you. They include Dr. Bob Gibson, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and the Environmental Law Centre.

A huge amount of important work has been done in trying to bring some reality to this discussion of an often arcane process, as well as elaborating on some very specific recommendations on the drafting of the legislation itself. As the name of the caucus implies, we see environmental assessment as part of a rational, ethical, and sustainable planning and development process, but it is a crucial part, and it deserves far more emphasis than it has received, either in policy or in implementation.

We welcome the proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act embodied in Bill C-19, but they are modest, and as a whole do not take us further down the road toward sustainability. In fact, the bill is notable as much for what has been left out as for what it contains. It is clear that the whole five-year review has been an exercise in reduced expectations, from the outset of the public consultation process to the wording of the bill in front of you.

We are working in the context of aggressively unsustainable development and timidity in environmental protection, whether we look at energy policy, endangered species, toxic chemicals, or federal departments' efforts to interfere as little as possible in corporations' ability to extract profit from our common natural heritage. So it is not surprising that this bill, as drafted, presents little net improvement over the status quo.

It's not just improved legislation we need; it is the political will for the federal government to exercise the authority it already has to use the legal tools at its disposal, and fulfil the legitimate role ordinary Canadians expect it to.

The caucus has been promoting eight key elements required for good EA for about 13 years now. You will find these at the end of this document. In the documents we have appended to our submission, you will see that we have identified 12 priority issues at the outset of the five-year review process. Given how far down this road we have come, we will not address some of the more general fundamental principles. We have included six priority areas in this submission, but in the interests of time we will focus on only the first three. Of course, we will be pleased to answer any questions on anything in this submission. The written submission contains cross-references to relevant sections of the key five-year review documents.

The six key issues that were found to be common concerns among delegates at the December caucus meeting were: public involvement; environmental assessment tracks; policy EA or strategic EA; the criteria for determinations under the act, including all federal bodies under the act; and the enforcement of the act and decisions under the act.

I'll let John take the next section.

¿ (0920)

Mr. John Sinclair (Co-Chair, Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network): Thanks.

I also want to thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

The first issue I want to deal with is public involvement. There are three problems relating to public involvement that I will highlight today, that we've chosen to focus on today.

The first of these involves the discretionary nature of public involvement in most--really, the vast majority of--environmental assessment screenings. The second is the proposal for an electronic registry system. The third is the lack of public involvement and follow-up activities.

In regard to the first, as you know, public involvement remains discretionary at the screening level, and the result is that the public is not involved in most environmental assessments in Canada. When this involvement does occur, it is usually under the control of the proponent, with no clear direction to conduct meaningful public participation. Public involvement is often poorly done, with no evaluation of the quality, and it occurs usually late in the process.

While the public is not the only participant to the process, it has little power to ensure that its concerns are incorporated into the actual EA process itself. In order to address this issue, the minister's report to Parliament has committed to providing guidelines for public involvement in screenings. In particular, the minister's report promises that the guidelines will include a requirement for responsible authorities to document, in each screening report, the basis for the decision relating to the need for public participation.

The regulatory advisory committee reached consensus on this issue and even provided wording for a suitable CEAA amendment in this regard, yet Bill C-19 does not require that such a decision be made. Nor have the promised guidelines for such meaningful public participation been placed before the public. Without a chance to see these guidelines and without a legislated requirement to decide on the need for public input, it is questionable whether Bill C-19 will actually deliver on its promise of more meaningful public participation.

We have a number of recommendations in this regard. Our first would be that there should be a participation regulation as part of Bill C-19. We're tired of seeing public involvement relegated to guidelines. Bill C-19 should require the responsible authority to document, in screening reports, the basis on which it has made the determination on whether or not to consult the public.

Third, Bill C-19 should include a requirement for the responsible authority to evaluate public involvement conducted within individual environmental assessments.

Fourth, Bill C-19 should include serious consequences if a public involvement process is found to be inadequate.

Lastly, Bill C-19 should empower the public to ensure that appropriate public involvement occurs.

Problem two is the proposed electronic registry. Information is key to any environmental assessment. People must know the assessment is taking place and they must have the documentation to participate. Currently, Bill C-19 is proposing that the paper registry be replaced by an electronic registry system. We see a number of problems with this, and are concerned about losing the comprehensive nature of the current paper file. Many people interested in projects find electronic files inaccessible. In addition, electronic files currently pose problems related to translation that often delay public distribution.

Our recommendations in regard to this problem are that the registry must be both comprehensive and accessible to all interested parties. Therefore, the existing registry system and its “all in” requirement must be retained in the act, with the new electronic requirement being added as an enhancement to the current system. Second, the electronic registry can include notification and a list of documents in its initial stages, and this need not include texts for all documents listed. Third, the requirement that paper documents be kept in convenient locations must be retained. And last, Bill C-19 must specify that the responsibility belongs to the agency to ensure that registries are being properly maintained by responsible authorities.

Problem three is the lack of public involvement and follow-up. As you know, environmental assessment deals with the realm of prediction. Follow-up is essential to ensure that those predictions are correct. An important part of those follow-up activities should be the involvement of the public, especially the public that's been directly affected by the project. We recommend that Bill C-19 should include a requirement for public involvement and follow-up.

Jamie.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Our second key issue has to do with the environmental assessment track. One of our major concerns is the proposed revisions to the comprehensive study process. Bill C-19 pretends to improve certainty of the assessment track by requiring the minister to make an early decision on which track--comprehensive study versus panel review--the project will follow.

Two key problems arise from this proposal. First, it doesn't actually provide any increased certainty, and second, it is quite unclear how this proposed new process will work.

With regard to problem one, the uncertainty in the process is simply shifted to the beginning of the process from the end. The change proposed would require the minister to make a decision about the significance of environmental effects without being informed by an environmental assessment. To us, this moves dangerously close to the tactic of “approved in principle, pending the outcome of an environmental assessment”, which is simply unacceptable in an EA process that relies on self-assessment. Our recommendation is simply to delete the proposed amendment and keep the existing approach to decisions about environmental assessment tracks.

To go into it a bit further, it's quite unclear how the new comprehensive study process is supposed to work. Details, such as criteria for making the track decision and the timing of opportunities for public participation or public involvement, are missing. The RAC consensus specified that public participation should occur during the pre-scoping and scoping portions of the process, during the preparation of the comprehensive study review report, and during the time for commenting on the report itself. The minister's report promises guidance material to be developed, but there's no commitment to participation at any specific stage in the proposed comprehensive study process.

With regard to the scoping and pre-scoping portions of the process, some members of our caucus have suggested four public involvement steps leading up to this new track decision: one, that when the notice of the project proposal is made available, there should be a request for public input on scope within 30 days to review the project and make comments on the scope; two, that the proponent and the responsible authority should produce a draft scoping document and seek public input through a workshop involving the public, completed over 60 days; three, that the final scoping document should be released for public review and comment over a 60-day period; and four, that the final draft of the scoping document should be sent to the minister with comments from the public and with the responsible authority's report on the recommended assessment track.

Another key problem in the proposal is that once the decision to follow the comprehensive study process has been made, it cannot be reversed, yet it is not possible to know the significance of effects prior to conducting the assessment. The need to account for issues relating to uncertainty about the significance of effects, new information, and public concerns arising from the assessment is also overlooked by this proposal.

We have a series of recommendations and four proposed approaches--

The Chair: It seems to me you're going into the regulatory realm of this type of legislation and are therefore bringing up important but very specific details. Perhaps you can instead give the committee the broad outlines of what you think should be done by way of amendments to or improvements on the existing clauses of the bill.

Your time is up, in other words. Can you sum it up, please.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we're getting at is that there needs to be a legislative requirement within this. You're quite right, we're talking about regulatory details, but they require a legislative hook to give them some force. What we've been presented with is a proposal for a guideline, which to us is simply inadequate.

The Chair: Then would you like to propose a legislative hook?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Well, our essential proposal is to take out that section of the amendment, because it's too complicated and unwieldy the way it is.

The Chair: What is the number of the section you're referring to?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: It's clause 13 of Bill C-19. To us it's simply unworkable. We've tried to go into some detail, if there's a real desire to pursue it further.

The Chair: Would you like to wind up?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Yes.

Our conclusion is that the five-year review does not allow meaningful time for discussion on these topics, and there's a need for a larger discussion about environmental assessment. This was recognized by the regulatory advisory committee. A lot of important topics, like cumulative effects, have not been addressed and need to be discussed.

Our proposal is that Bill C-19 include a requirement for a parliamentary review of the act within five years.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kneen.

All right, who is next?

Mr. Norrena, welcome back to the committee.

Mr. Ed Norrena (Director, Board of Directors, Canadian Environment Industry Association): Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we represent the Canadian Environment Industry Association. I'd like to introduce our team. Rebecca Last is the policy director for the Environment Industry Association, and Lucien Cattrysse is the chair of the technical advisory committee that has been put together to assist us in the review of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The environmental assessment legislation of Canada is very important legislation for the Environment Industry Association. It is good for sustainable development and environmental protection, but it is also a good driver for our membership in terms of business and good environmental protection.

I'd like to turn it over to Lucien Cattrysse to briefly make the points we would like to leave with you today.

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse (Chair, Technical Advisory Group, Canadian Environment Industry Association) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee.

We would like to make three key points today, and they're endorsements of the legislative amendments from the five-year review.

The first relates to renewing the federal commitment to environmental assessment. Federal funding has gone down for environmental assessment. In the recent past we had the green plan. Some of the remnants of the funding from the green plan were rolled into the permanent budgets of the agency and some of the departments, so there's a shortfall of resources there.

In terms of environmental assessment research, we used to have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. It was funding some key research that put Canada in the forefront of environmental assessment practice globally.

We now have a research budget in the range of $100,000 to $200,000 per year. It takes about $20,000 to get all the experts in a room, so there isn't much money left over for research following that.

We believe this has led to an inconsistency in perception among federal departments and stakeholders as to the purposes of the legislation--inconsistency as to what is good EA.

Our position is that the Government of Canada should develop specific goals, targets, and performance measures for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We are endorsing clauses 31 and 32 of this legislation, which promote a quality management program for good EA “to promote and monitor compliance” with the EA act.

As well, we would like to request further funding for research, to regain Canada's position as a researcher for environmental assessment practice. That's our first main point--federal commitment to environmental assessment.

The second point we'd like to make is that the focus or the scope of the legislation should be clarified as well. There seems to be a focus on screenings rather than comprehensive studies. We recognize the value of screenings, but there seems to be an administrative fixation on the screening portion, and we have not seen a significant number of comprehensive studies.

To my knowledge, and to our knowledge as an association, we have really not had a project that was stopped by this legislation. That has to be balanced with the unmonitored value of the legislation in precluding a project that's a non-starter from the get-go from going through the process. The legislation has a lot of value in precluding projects that aren't feasible from getting off the ground to begin with; that's an underlying value of this legislation.

Because of the awkward focus, there seems to be a lot of administrative burden associated with the screening aspect, and lower productivity, when the focus of the legislation could be promoted for more “comprehensive study” types of environmental assessment.

Our recommendation here is that we endorse the amendments to clause 11 that promote a class screening concept to improve the efficiencies associated with screenings that remain valuable. We're not advocating a reduction of the scope of the legislation, just more efficiency in dealing with projects that are of known impacts and where the mitigations are the same every time. So we're promoting the class screening concept.

We would also recommend that CEAA include provision for assessment of projects that affect national interests. This category of projects affecting national interests could be defined in much the same way as projects are currently listed in the comprehensive study list. That's our second main point.

The third main point urges integrating follow-up requirements into environmental management approaches. This legislation is essentially green legislation. It's planning legislation. There's always a varying debate about how far into the life cycle this legislation climbs.

While we're not advocating this become full life cycle environmental legislation--there are other pieces of legislation that can deal with the brown, or the environmental protection, component--we are endorsing the concept that this legislation have sufficient detail to set up the framework for full life cycle environmental management of projects that are undertaken, because it's the piece of legislation that generates the most information about the project going through the cycle.

¿ (0935)

To that end, we're endorsing the follow-up provisions in the legislation. We're endorsing the follow-up provisions under clause 19 of the amendment. We are endorsing the amendment that allows follow-up programs to be more comprehensive. The programs are no longer limited to the mandate of the regulatory trigger under which the responsible authority is acting. So it's more an all-encompassing form of follow-up that deals with the project, not just the narrow mandate of the regulatory authority, the responsible authority.

Further, we would like to address this latter amendment, in clause 19, which is to further strengthen it, to require an environmental management plan as part of follow-up. This is not an unknown quantity or new thing. There is other legislation in other countries, such as Malaysia. The World Bank requires an environmental management plan. This is a situation where you would have enough detail in the plan to set the framework for the full life cycle environmental management without specifying all the details. So you could describe the resources required for a full life cycle management, what other means or approvals are necessary under other legislation for the project, the means and timeframes for mitigation items that are to take place down the road.

We find that organizations or projects that undergo this type of discipline can quickly roll that information into an environmental management system for the full life cycle. These are consistent with non-regulatory, voluntary requirements, such as ISO 14000.

In summary, we'd like to make three key points about our brief today. Renew the commitment to this act. Renew commitment to the purpose of the act. State what the purpose is, with performance measures to achieve that purpose.

We're endorsing a quality assurance program to promote good EA. We're endorsing a request for more research to put Canada at the forefront of environmental assessment again. We're asking for a realigned focus to put more emphasis on comprehensive studies and to use the class screening concept to promote efficiency for screening level assessments.

Thirdly, we're endorsing the follow-up provisions within clause 19 of the amendments and request that the concept of an environmental management plan that would set the stage for full life cycle environmental management be promoted.

Thank you.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you very much. One can recognize Ed Norrena's fine handling of that presentation. It's very helpful.

We now have Mr. Bailey or Mr. Mills, one of the two, followed by Monsieur Bigras, Madam Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Reed.

Please go ahead.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. My apologies for being a little bit late. The university students are on their annual pilgrimage to Ottawa to present their positions.

My colleague, Mr. Mills, has now returned. It might be of interest to the panel to know that our supply day motion today in the House of Commons is dealing with environment. There's a big debate all day on it, so it's kind of a coincidence that you're here at the same time, but it's a worthy coincidence.

On a recent trip I made overseas--I was mainly in Scotland--I was amazed at the interest in this topic. Because of that country's smaller scope, it's more concentrated than even here in Canada, with our wide expanses.

Canadians are becoming more and more interested in the environment. There is no question about that. What has amazed me in my reading, in the last six months in particular, and in some of the outside programs I've sat in on, is the amount of attention being given to the environment by industry in Canada. Sometimes I don't think we give credit to industry for their innovations and the amount of money they are spending.

I want to point that out, because recently I was able to observe some tremendous advances in this topic by many of the companies, including wind power usage and splitting water into hydrogen...all of those things that are coming on.

There are three main things I want to bring to your attention, though. Speaking for myself, I believe it's necessary for the committee to encourage you to provide us with certain amendments, as you see fit. In doing that, we have to be cognizant of the socio-economic interests at the same time. You must include those. You can easily sell a man a pair of shoes if the soles of his shoes are worn out, but you can't sell him a pair of shoes if he's very comfortable in the shoes he's wearing. That's a skill you can assist this committee with, and this committee, in turn, can assess the entire Government of Canada.

I believe we have to acknowledge public involvement and give it commitment and protection. The more acknowledgment they receive in the media, the more likely you're going to get more people on board. I'm not a public ad man or anything, but I just know from experience in life that this is very true.

That said, I'll let my first questions go. Thanks to all of you for being here this morning.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, please.

M. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too will be brief because time is pressing.

In the North Shore region we have in at least one case seen hydroelectric projects slowed down because of what I might call a certain laxness in decisions regarding federal environmental assessments, whereas the provincial environmental assessments - I am talking, among others, of the BAPE - had already been conducted.

My question is as follows: How can we obtain all the necessary guarantees that a project will have a zero environmental impact and at the same time ensure that hydroelectric projects, which in my view are green, job-creating projects, will in fact go ahead?

How could amendments made to the current bill take account of these two priorities that sustainable development and economic benefits in fact represent, so as to enable us to achieve a solution that is both economically and environmentally viable?

¿ (0945)

Mr. Pierre Lundhal (Environmental Advisor, Canadian Hydropower Association): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will answer this question. I would first say that we need to make the process more effective. For this purpose, among others, we had suggested limiting the time taken for the various steps in the federal process and to make provision in the Act to ensure that such time limits can be imposed.

A second method would be to maximize the use of existing information obtained from previously completed projects and from the environmental follow-up that was done. These are invaluable sources of information that has often been put to little or no use. Bill C-19 should contain a section saying that the factors to be taken into account in reviews should include the results of follow-up programs and studies conducted for similar projects.

[English]

One additional thing that could be done to make the process more effective without posing any risk to the quality of the assessment is to make less uncertain the definition of the scope of the project. As it stands today, the scope of the project has to be defined by responsible authority on a case-by-case basis. The law should be slightly modified so that there are limits to how a project can be scoped. The same thing should apply to the determination of the scope of the assessment. I'm referring to sections 15 and 16 of the current CEAA.

Merci.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kneen and Mr. Sinclair, I was reading your briefs with a great deal of interest, and particularly, Mr. Sinclair, the paper you put together with regard to the five-year review. In your brief you said that the whole five-year review has been an exercise in reduced expectations. Also in this paper that you have produced, Mr. Sinclair, is a particular line here that I find rather fascinating. It says:

One must question whether the goal set at the outset of the review process to ensure more meaningful public participation in an environmental assessment has been accomplished, or if the changes lean more towards what Petts (1999) defines as legislation that emphasizes decision legitimization rather then decision enhancement.

Given these two comments in these two documents, I'm just wondering about your feelings on the review. If you could elaborate on that, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. John Sinclair: In terms of the review itself, I think we would agree that the process for the review was well orchestrated. I guess the concern lies in whether the information that was garnered during the review was actually used in the proposed legislation, Bill C-19.

I looked particularly at the public involvement aspects and went through all of the information that was provided by the public through the review process, including the regulatory advisory committee meetings, and I identified 16 different amendments that were suggested through those consultations, five of which have been responded to in Bill C-19. All of those were in the original discussion document put out by the agency. So none of the new things that people felt were important, such as defining meaningful public participation, as one example, are included in the new bill.

In terms of the process of the consultation itself, I think it was well orchestrated, but in terms of the use of the data that was collected, I have to question how much the data was used in the development of the bill. In other words, were decisions made before the consultation actually took place? And I'm talking just in terms of the public involvement component of the three key things that the consultation was supposed to address.

¿ (0950)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The other point, Mr. Chair, is that I've heard both from industry and environmental groups who have indicated a concern around the lack of definition of scope. Quite clearly, this is an important issue that organizations from different sectors are concerned about. It surprises me that this wasn't addressed in the legislation.

I also wanted to ask the same witnesses...it's my understanding that you are RAC members, and yet the RAC has said good things about the review process. I wonder if you could clarify why you're breaking with this particular position.

Mr. John Sinclair: I've looked over the Hansard from the day the RAC members presented, and I believe the position put forward by Justyna Laurie-Lean was that the process that was carried out for the five-year review was an adequate process. So the actual meetings and stuff were run well, and things like that. While we had some argument about some of the stuff that took place in terms of process at individual meetings, I found the agency to be quite responsive to making changes with regard to some of the complaints people had.

I know the RAC members who presented didn't speak to the issue of whether the information collected during those hearings was actually used, and I don't think they commented on that. The work I've done would indicate that this information hasn't been used.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You also indicated in your presentation that you would like to see a five-year review, but as a parliamentary review. Again, could you just clarify your comments around this?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Sure. As you know, there's no new five-year review in Bill C-19. I think it would be fairly simple to tack it on.

The problem we see is that there's no standard for what that review would entail. In a sense, we're lucky this time around that the minister directed the agency to execute the review. It was well done. We've argued that it was not sufficient, but it was well done, and there was opportunity for public involvement.

However, there's no requirement there, and I think our preference would be to put it in the hands of this committee, which would at very least give us some guarantee of public access so the minister's review doesn't wind up being a simple report--one paragraph saying everything's fine, thank you very much, go home. That's why we're taking this approach.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you.

I want to thank you all for being here this morning.

Mr. Chair, I do believe this committee should take serious heed of the concerns that have been expressed by the Canadian Hydropower Association to this committee. They talk about the overemphasis on local impacts, the lack of emphasis on emission offsets, the need for time limits on approvals, and the use of existing information.

I have to tell you, from my personal experience, it doesn't matter whether a hydro project is large or small, it takes seven years to get approvals, and when we do a gas plant, it takes months. When we take a cubic meter of air and put it through a gas plant--we strip the oxygen out of it and fire the carbon dioxide up in the air--it costs nothing. In Ontario, when we take a cubic meter of water and put it through a turbine--we may oxygenate it a little bit, and deliver it a little cooler into the river to make an attraction for fish, but otherwise it's in its pristine state--we pay water rentals for it.

That's a very small exposure to the imbalance that exists on environmental assessment for hydro plants versus other forms of polluting energy. So whatever we do with Bill C-19, it seems to me that has to be taken into consideration.

In the very limited time I have before I have to go into the House to speak, I have a question that I would like to ask all of you. I think I've heard smatterings of this from most. Would it be acceptable to do a class environmental assessment for hydro power?

I've been an advocate of this in Ontario for small hydro. Class environmental assessments were started in 1989, shelved in about 1990 or 1991, and were taken no farther. That's probably because they would exhibit the truth about hydro plants and their benign nature as embedded assets in our country.

But I just wonder if that could not.... I realize hydro projects are site specific to a certain extent, but it seems to me there are values to this technology, which has a life span that is unknown. Any hydro plants that were taken out of service were blown out and actually removed. So once they're in place, they're embedded forever, if they're maintained. They are one of the keys to this challenge on global warming that we have at the present time. They're one of the major tools we should be endorsing.

But as long as we continue to create costs that are absolutely unbearable, especially for smaller hydro developers and so on, it's not going to happen. It's not going to get done.

So the question is on a class EA.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Could we have a brief answer, as brief as possible, from each one of you?

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse: I would submit that perhaps a class screening concept could be lent to modifications of existing facilities. But for the fundamental creation of a new facility, you may not want to go that route, because of the locale-specific nature of the environment where you're creating that facility.

Mr. Julian Reed: You've got to be kidding.

A voice: Oh, oh!

The Chair: He's not. Don't argue with him.

Next.

Mr. Pierre Lundhal: I think class assessments could be used: one for maintenance work, small modifications to existing projects, and a certain number of smaller projects that fulfil a kind of typical description. There are limits to what it can do, but I think it could be of great help. The industry is suffering not only from the time needed to approve new projects but also from the time needed to go through the process for relatively minor work on existing facilities.

Mr. John Sinclair: I don't think you'll find it surprising, Mr. Chair, that we wouldn't support such an amendment.

I come from Manitoba. There's a large legacy of hydro damage in Manitoba and in other provinces. We would not only oppose that, we would question the amount of time it takes to move through the process to get approval. I'm sure our colleagues from CEIA would not agree that it's taken that long to get approval for any type of project, never mind a hydro project, under the current act. Much of the time that industry takes for any project is in working with willing hosts, with the communities they want to build the facility in.

Currently, Manitoba Hydro is proposing to build a new project that we'd like to see the federal government get engaged in. They are not currently engaged in that project. The hydro utility has worked for at least two years, if not more, with communities in northern Manitoba in the development of that project. Yes, if you count that time, it takes a fair amount of time to move through the process to get a project up and running, but that's not part of the approval process. That's part of the process of finding a willing host.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Savoy, please.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique--Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I certainly have a keen interest in this issue. As some people here know, I was formerly on the board of directors of CEIA. I have some concerns with Bill C-19.

The concerns I have involve the federal and provincial harmonization. People say it led to a lot of duplications and delays. We've seen some examples of that, but I was looking for specific examples where jurisdictional issues have led to problems. How can we harmonize federal and provincial environmental assessment processes using Bill C-19? How can you harmonize that to make it more user-friendly or more effective?

I'd like to hear from all three on this one, starting with CEIA, I guess.

Mr. Ed Norrena: We have a perfect example of that. It has just occurred with the Greater Toronto Area, where we've been able to harmonize not only provincial and federal legislation but also municipal legislation and involvement in the decision-making process for environmental assessment. It was basically the development of a partnership that brought all the processes together and built that in so that the decision-making would be easier and everybody would be heard, and there would be only one environmental assessment process undertaken.

How to build it into Bill C-19? The ability to arrange for partnership and relationship approaches.

Mr. Pierre Lundhal: I think the current CEAA and Bill C-19 are a bit too rigid and don't let the minister recognize processes of the provinces or other jurisdictions unless they meet a whole series of conditions. Really, what it ends up doing is to put the minister in a position where he can use the information from other processes, but not see them as equivalent to the federal process. What we would like to see is a provision that would, with certain conditions, put the minister in a position to recognize that another process is equivalent.

Mr. John Sinclair: We believe in a strong federal environmental assessment process in Canada. There have been difficulties already in terms of federal and provincial involvement on some projects. We feel that in some cases, and in fact in some cases that have gone to court, the federal government has not lived up to its obligations in getting engaged in provincial EAs of projects that may have federal implications.

Although I don't have the documents in front of me, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that we have questioned this issue of waste of time due to duplication and overlap. There's a paper out that shows that in fact there isn't duplication and overlap between the processes, and that in fact they do complement each other.

We're concerned that some of the agreements the federal government currently has with the provinces make it almost impossible for the federal government to be the lead agency in some of those assessments. It goes almost by default to the provincial authority to be the lead agency for those assessments.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Bailey, second round...or Madam Scherrer, pardon me.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to the issue of follow-up. In their presentations at least two of the groups here have mentioned the follow-up that is involved in the process currently in place. They seem to be saying that the assessment is not done until the project is presented or developed and that, once the project has indeed been established, there do not appear to be sufficient measures to ensure adequate follow-up and to see whether, as matters progress, there are in fact corrections to be made. There has even been talk of an environmental management plan as part of the follow-up and of the conditions involved in setting up such a plan. I believe that experience has provided us with examples where a project was modified while in progress, sometimes for perfectly valid reasons or else - at least this is what is believed - because the project proponents concluded that they would no longer look too closely at the matter and could do what they wanted. I would like you to give us a little more idea of the form that the follow-up might take.

My second question is as follows. I believe that, unfortunately, environmental damage too often appears just when the project has been completed. A proper assessment has not been conducted, and certain effects subsequently emerge. Do you think that, for a given project, the company could be required to make corrections subsequently, once the project has been completed? Or, when you talk about follow-up, are you thinking solely of the follow-up conducted during the course of the project, which is discontinued once the project has been completed? Could a five-year period be established, for example, during which any major environmental damage should be corrected under the terms of an obligation defined in the Act?

À (1005)

Mr. Pierre Lundhal: On the issue of follow-up, I think we should note that Bill C-19 reinforces the federal government's ability to impose follow-up programs on project proponents.

Furthermore, I would say that the industry that we represent here today, the hydroelectric industry, does far more follow-up than is required by the Act or regulations, and they have been doing so for a very long time. A great deal of information has thus been accumulated.

Follow-up can provide two main benefits: being able to see first whether any mistake was made in the impact predictions and being able to make corrections after the fact. I have not had time to consider the last part of your question, which was to determine whether the Act should make some provision to enable corrections to be made after the fact. I cannot provide an answer on this point.

What I can say, however, is that much more use should be made of the data from the follow-up program whenever another similar project is being assessed.

At present, the procedure and the data from an existing project are used to conduct other environmental assessment studies and to make them better than before. This is simply because certain professionals will seek these data and use them in their technical reports. I think that we should go one step further. In our brief we propose that one of the factors that should be taken into account in an environmental assessment is the existing data on similar projects in comparable regions, whenever such data can be used.

[English]

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse: Je m'excuse de répondre en anglais. C'est ma première langue....

I have one example from the past where the background studies on the environment did play a role in changing the design of the facility, and that is the Darlington station on Lake Ontario. Because of the monitoring studies done on the local fish population, they redesigned the outflow of the cooling water into a different arrangement. That's a different example of where the environmental aspects played a role in the adaptation of the design, which can only occur later in the project, once you have that type of information. That design was very much advanced before that last-minute change was made.

There is so much information and so much momentum generated by the environmental assessment process that it's a shame to let all that information just go by the wayside once a project decision is made. That information is very valuable for setting up follow-up programs, for monitoring, for measuring, and for providing adaptability. It affects how you mitigate the impacts, which are sometimes only discovered down the road, when the project is already implemented.

What we're advocating in terms of an environmental management plan is to set the stage to be that adaptive should you need to be. Rather than concentrating all the resources on the studies, save some resources for implementing a follow-up program that's adaptive enough to respond to the actual significant impacts that are generated by the project. Because of all that information generated by the environmental assessment, there seems to be a natural way to roll that information into an environmental management plan and then roll that information into an environmental management system that can be used as a framework for the whole organization around the project.

I hope that answers your question, at least in part.

À (1010)

The Chair: Merci, Madame Scherrer. We'll have a brief second round....

Oh, sorry; go ahead, Mr. Sinclair.

Mr. John Sinclair: I was just going to say that we support the changes that are proposed regarding follow-up. We would add to those changes, though, a requirement for public involvement in a follow-up, because that's where you get the good information about those impacts that are happening on the land. With respect to the question you asked about responsibility, it's going to have to be the job of the responsible authority to ensure that the follow-up is done into the future. It helps if, as happens in some jurisdictions now, licences for new projects include a call for some sort of a monitoring agency to help make sure that those follow-up provisions are being implemented.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to what my colleague, Mr. Reed, asked you about this concept of time, I'd say that we really don't have time on our side the way we did a generation ago. Do you understand what I mean by that? Let me point out that when Mr. Sinclair, who mentioned Manitoba...and he probably doesn't realize he has a town named after him on Highway 2 in Manitoba.

We don't have that time today. For instance, 25 years ago, when I was sitting in a different capacity, Saskatchewan could have bought all their hydro from Manitoba without getting into big coal-fired plants. But with the jealousy of provinces and with the environment not being a key issue, they chose to go their own route, and Manitoba sold most of their power stateside. Time is not ours now, and I want to get into that.

The length of time it would take to do an assessment...it kind of startled my colleague over there, and to some extent it startles me as well. If you are doing a project--say a hydro environmental impact study because you're building a dam and so on and you have to talk about the flooding and other things like the gases, the swamp, and all that--some of those would obviously be speculative. Did I hear someone there say that it would take about seven years to approve the project? Was that the time mentioned?

Mr. John Sinclair: It was your colleague who mentioned that.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes. In seven years so many things can happen. When I asked them ten years ago about the expansion of electricity in the Pincher Creek area of Alberta--to produce--one engineer said the only advantage that would ever have would be to pump water someplace and let it fall down and then produce electricity. Now we see that in Denmark and in many parts of Europe, and certainly in Scotland and so on, the use of wind power has increased. So we can be wrong within a period of five or six years.

Mr. Chairman, I think that's why we--society, ourselves, and government--have to be cognizant of the fact that if we're all working on the same track, then time has to be shortened somehow in producing this.

The final question I want to put forward to you involves the public involvement. How do we get over this attitude that we can't do anything? How do you surmount that attitude? You've got the public out there, you've got the federal government, you've got the provincial government, you've got local people, and they're not necessarily all singing from the same song sheet at the same time.

Mr. Pierre Fortin: I think it's a question of education.

A comment was made earlier...a specific example of Manitoba Hydro talking to the people over two years. Years ago, Manitoba Hydro was blamed for not talking to the people. Now they're blamed for talking to the people too much. So there's a balance that has to be found.

I think you'll find that in our industry--and I was talking to somebody earlier, before the meeting--there's still a perception that the industry, as far as the environment is concerned, is operating like it was operating 50 years ago. That's not the case. As a general rule--and it's been stated publicly by a number of provincial hydro utilities--no project will be undertaken unless it's environmentally friendly, and of course unless it's economically feasible, but also unless it's accepted by local communities. Here we're talking not just about the local communities but also the native communities surrounding any larger project that may be undertaken.

So I think it is a question of education, of explaining what the impacts are, because there are impacts. For whatever electrical projects you undertake, even if you're talking solar or wind, there are environmental impacts, so you have to make those known up front. As I said, I think your question is quite philosophical.

À (1015)

Mr. Roy Bailey: What about enforcement?

Mr. Pierre Fortin: In what way do you mean?

Mr. Roy Bailey: A small number of people disagree; it's negligible. What about the power of enforcement to make sure the project does go through?

Mr. Pierre Fortin: I guess once the environmental assessment has concluded, it will have taken into account those different points of view, and once the agreement or the approval is given, the project will go ahead.

The Chair: Any other comments?

Ms. Rebecca Last (Director of Programs and Policy, Canadian Environment Industry Association): Actually, if I may, I'd like to give you an example of one of the ways in which Canadian expertise in public consultation, and particularly in working with native communities, has been exported. This has become an export product, where Canadian natural gas and other resource-based companies have gone overseas--the environmental impact assessment work done in helping them to build pipelines, for example. One of our member companies was involved in taking a group of environmental professionals, who happened to come from first nations communities in northern Saskatchewan, down to Peru to work with the confederation of Amazon Indians of Peru to ensure that those native groups in South America would benefit from the development work that was being done by resource companies down there.

So what you're asking about in terms of public involvement is an area where there's significant Canadian expertise, and that was quite an exciting success story.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sinclair.

Mr. John Sinclair: In terms of getting better public involvement, I've done some research on why people don't get involved. As you probably know, one of the main reasons people don't get involved in an environmental assessment is that they feel the decision is a foregone conclusion, and the deal has already been made; the government has agreed to carry it and go ahead with the project. There are often memoranda of understanding signed, and they feel that the decision is foregone. That's why people don't come out.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We now have Madam Kraft Sloan, in the second round, followed by the chair, and then we will adjourn.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to go to this issue of discretionary public involvement in screenings. I'm wondering, Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Kneen, if you could outline for the committee why this is such a huge problem. Perhaps you can talk to some numbers--for instance, the number of screenings versus other kinds of environmental assessment. What are we really talking about here with regard to the number of projects and the percentage of times? Do you have it documented where there has actually been public involvement in screenings? I thought I'd read something about 10% to 15% in your paper, but I might be wrong about that.

À (1020)

Mr. John Sinclair: Yes. I'll just give the facts, and then Jamie will add some more to that, but to date there have been over 25,000 assessments carried out under the act. That figure includes thousands of screenings, 62 comprehensive studies, and 11 panel reviews, nine of which are completed. So the vast majority of assessment under the act is screenings. Well over 95% are screenings.

I'm sorry, I don't have the reference right here in front of me, but I believe it was an agency document that highlighted the 15% figure that you referred to as being the number of screenings that actually involved some form of public involvement.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

Mr. John Sinclair: That's why we see it as such a huge issue that this not be relegated solely to guideline, that there be some requirement within the legislation to involve the public, and that it not be discretionary. We see that as the way to move beyond the 15% figure. Everybody talks about how important public involvement is to the EA process. Why aren't we doing it, then, in the majority of cases in Canada?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. So this is a huge problem that way.

I want to draw committees members' attention to page 3 of your brief, where you talk about this issue of guidelines. The minister's report promises that these guidelines are forthcoming and that they will include a requirement for responsible authorities to document in each screening report the basis for the decision relating to the need for public participation.

Perhaps you can help me with this. As I understood it, guidelines are not necessarily mandatory, so how can a guideline have a requirement for a responsible authority to do something?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: That was our question.

Mr. John Sinclair: Yes, that's the issue, exactly.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So when we read in the minister's report that guidelines are going to have a requirement for responsible authorities to document certain kinds of activities, it's quite obvious that it's not a real requirement, then.

Mr. John Sinclair: That's right; that's our....

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, that's always my concern with these kinds of things.

As well, you said that these guidelines haven't come forward. What level of public comment occurs when guidelines are being developed? Are there requirements for 60-days public comment for guidelines?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: In this case we have, on the one hand, the regulatory advisory committee, which does get a look at guidelines under this act. On the other hand, beyond any possibility through the RAC and through our representatives on the RAC that we might have to get involved, there isn't a broader public involvement past the Canada Gazette process, which is technically public but not very widely used. I don't know too many people who read Canada Gazette Part I, comment on the regulations, and see what happens in Canada Gazette Part II.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: But guidelines don't go into the Canada Gazette. Can you answer for the record, please?

Mr. John Sinclair: Yes, that's correct, guidelines don't go in the Canada Gazette.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: So we're left with the regulatory advisory committee.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Right. But the regulatory advisory committee, let's be really clear, is not the public. It's an important committee that does very good work, but it is not the public. Here we have an issue of utmost concern to the public, which is fundamental public participation. Guidelines are going to be developed. And the minister has said in the minister's report that there will be a requirement. But you can't have a requirement in guidelines, and there's no real opportunity for public comment.

So we have a real problem here, don't we?

Mr. John Sinclair: Well, this is where we question whether or not we're going to get one of the main goals of the five-year review, which was more meaningful public participation. And in the agency's background document, they themselves document the difficulty with public involvement in screenings. Some of that information you're talking about might have come out through the five-year review process, but I'm not sure it's going to be used in this context.

So, yes, it is a problem.

À (1025)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: On the one hand, Mr. Chair, we have a five-year review that has sort of dictated the scope of the topics that are going to be examined. Then we have a piece of legislation in front of us that deals with only some of the items identified in the five-year review. And then even the things that have been identified as very important are probably...well, I wouldn't like to say worthless, but they're somewhat questionable. So we have a whole lot of issues here that have to be dealt with.

As well, Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if through you we could send a letter to the minister or to Environment Canada to ask for information on the status of these guidelines, and get whatever information we can, whether it's on the draft guidelines or whatever. Or maybe we could consider calling witnesses back from the department or the agency to deal with this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Savoy, please.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're looking at an act that might be more harmonized with international processes, such as the World Bank. Would you see that substantially increasing the opportunities for Canadian companies abroad in environmental assessment?

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse: Yes, definitely.

Mr. Andy Savoy: That was an easy one, just to get it on record.

Second, on balance, do you think the benefits derived from environmental assessment on major projects outweigh the costs? I'm talking about the federal government involvement here.

Mr. Lucien Cattrysse: Again, yes, definitely. I don't have exact figures in front of me, but there's the old saying, an ounce of prevention, a pound of cure. The cost of an environmental assessment is typically 1% to 3% of the capital cost of the entire project, and that's a small price to pay, in our opinion, for some pretty effective decision-making information to be at hand for a project.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Did you want to speak to that?

Ms. Rebecca Last: Yes, actually.

The new environmental assessment oversight for projects funded under Export Development Canada are being budgeted through EDC's process at 5% of project cost, which is not inconsiderable, but still, as Lucien has said, is very much worthwhile in terms of being an ounce of prevention.

Mr. Andy Savoy: In looking at the lack of clarity with the extent of federal jurisdiction in environmental assessment, which we know there is, do you have any suggestions on how we might go about defining a national interest in EA matters, aside from the four triggers that we have? Do you have any other ideas of how we can define more of our national interest or imperative on EA?

Mr. Ed Norrena: One might consider the global issues that are of concern to us, particularly in relation to climate change and persistent organic pollutants that are definitely of national interest, and have them captured.

Mr. Pierre Lundhal: We need to have some framework to better take into account these global impacts, as Ed Norrena just said. I don't know if it can be made to fit in CEAA or if it has to be some other framework, but this is key.

In the energy field, for example, decisions are currently made on a project-by-project basis. You never have a chance to see what impact you have on greenhouse gas emissions if, after having studied ten projects, you make a decision that results in doing nine thermal power projects and only one hydro project. There is no way of doing this in the current process. It cannot be done on a project basis, but it has to be done in some way.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Do you want to comment, gentlemen?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: That leads to another item we've talked about, which is strategic environmental assessment. The Government of Canada has numerous international obligations that have environmental implications, and that's one of the pieces we didn't get to in our presentation. But talking about policy assessment and strategic environmental assessment, specifically to address some of those more long-range concerns, is crucial to any meaningful EA regime.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): On the point made about public comment, with respect to whether regulations would provide for a focus on guidelines, is there not a section in the act that provides for discussion on the guidelines? Doesn't subsection 58(3) talk about that opportunity? Is that opportunity not being provided to the environmental community?

Mr. John Sinclair: Under the current act there are something like 15 different guidelines, one of which is a public involvement guideline.

I can't comment on the extent to which the public participated in the development of those guidelines. I know that in the case of cumulative effects--which isn't a guideline under the act but information available to proponents and others--a study group did it.

So I think the point being made is that under Bill C-19 there is call for a guideline to ensure meaningful public involvement, and the question is whether or not the public is going to have an opportunity to comment on that guideline, specifically in this committee. That would be our concern.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Pardon my ignorance on this, but I thought in the legislation under that section there was a requirement for public consultation. I wasn't following how that could be invoked to any greater extent. The relevant section says:

The minister shall provide reasonable public notice of and a reasonable opportunity for anyone to comment on draft guidelines, codes of practice, agreements, arrangements, criteria or orders under this section.

I was just trying to figure how that could be any more entrenched or made more explicit. Is that opportunity not being provided?

Mr. Jamie Kneen: I believe that refers to panel reviews and comprehensive studies. We're saying there are two sets of problems. One has to do with screenings, which are the bulk of environmental assessments that are carried out. Secondly, this new proposed comprehensive study process doesn't have clearly identified or adequate public involvement.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. So you disagree with the other presentations, which have said that screenings have to be subject to much clearer guidelines in order that there won't be a large spectrum of very costly but non-essential national-interest-type screenings. You disagree with that.

Mr. John Sinclair: I'm not sure that's....

Mr. Alan Tonks: Well, I take the broader view that there is entrenched in the existing bill adequate provision with respect to public comment on guidelines. I do not understand--and pardon my ignorance--why you are not satisfied with that provision in the bill. What more can be provided vis-à-vis developing the guidelines?

Mr. John Sinclair: I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but if there's a plan, we haven't seen the plan for getting input on those guidelines from the public. As Jamie has pointed out, the guidelines will be commented on by the regulatory advisory committee, but as has been stated, that doesn't necessarily represent the public.

À (1035)

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan has a point to make, then I will have a question, and then we'll adjourn.

Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I was trying to make is with respect to screenings, which form the bulk of environmental assessments, and not the other forums, where of course there are provisions for public involvement.

Thank you.

The Chair: Going back to Mr. Reed's question, I understand that the Canadian Hydropower Association is proposing that the environmental assessment should be subject to defined timelines and that if they are exceeded, that would be considered an approval. Now, the question is roughly this: Given that the responsible authority can also be the proponent of the project at the same time, how can it be ensured that the deadlines are respected?

Mr. Pierre Lundhal: I guess if we have timelines or time limits set in regulations...and you know, when we state that in some cases there should be a principle of what we call “default approval”, which would mean that if the decision has not been taken after the limit, it is presumably an agreement. This cannot be simply a general, unqualified principle that applies to all decisions. What we suggest is that the law be amended to provide for such a possibility and then that regulations be developed with all stakeholders setting both these time limits and the mechanism for the implementation of the time limits

The Chair: Fine, but you're not answering the question. You're going neatly around it. You're hesitant in tackling it.

Would you like to give us an answer in writing, perhaps?

Mr. Pierre Lundhal: Yes. I need some time to think about it. But I do understand your question--the principle of self-assessment, the time limit, and how they work together.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Kneen.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Mr. Chair, you could always reverse the default so that after a given period of time, if a consensus or a decision has not been reached, nothing happens.

The Chair: Mr. Norrena, do you have any comment?

Mr. Ed Norrena: I'm reflecting on the CEPA legislation, where there were in fact time constraints put into the legislation, but it was never contemplated that these time constraints would be put into regulation. I would go to that extent but not to the extent of putting them in regulation. I mean, what you want is the benefit of good decision-making in a timely fashion, so use these as objectives as opposed to the other way around.

The Chair: And this concludes our meeting. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for bringing us your knowledge, your experience, and your reflections. Any further suggestions you might have to convey to us in writing will certainly be very welcome. We appreciate your broad experience in the field, and we certainly would like to hear from you again.

This meeting now stands adjourned. We're trotting back to the House to hear the debate on climate change.

Thank you.