:
Good afternoon, committee members, witnesses and invited guests. Welcome to the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Pursuant to the orders of the day and to Standing Order 108(2), today we will be discussing Northern Territories Economic Development: Barriers and Solutions.
[English]
Members, we have witnesses with us today, but before we begin, because this our first meeting resuming consideration of the study we were working on in the second session of the 40th Parliament, as a matter of protocol we should formally adopt the motion to resume the study of northern territories economic development: barriers and solutions.
I understand the wording of the motion has been circulated to you. It reads:
That the committee resume its study of northern territories economic development: barriers and solutions started in the previous session, and that the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the second session of the 40th Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in this session.
Do we have a mover for the motion? It is moved by Mr. Dreeshen.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We continue.
There is a second motion, or budget, rather. The budget for the resumption of this study has been been circulated to you. This is a routine aspect of our business, committee members. Typically each committee is allowed at each session a global envelope that it uses for the expenses of the committee. I think you have a copy of it. It's on legal-sized paper. I would entertain a motion to adopt the budget expenses for this study, which you'll see come to a total amount of $39,500.
It is moved by Mr. Dreeshen.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Now we'll go to our witnesses.
I welcome two witnesses today, and I would like to start by offering our apologies. We had a couple of false starts here. We had both of the agencies involved with us here today scheduled to appear at earlier meetings. Because of scheduling problems, we had to cancel on them. Finally we were able to make this, and I appreciate your patience.
Today we welcome Ms. Sheila Leggett, vice-chair of the National Energy Board, and Mr. Steve Burgess, executive director of project reviews and operations for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
The normal format is a ten-minute presentation, and then we go to questions from members.
Let's begin with Ms. Leggett.
Good afternoon.
[Translation]
Good afternoon.
Mr. Gaétan Caron, the Chairman of the National Energy Board, extends his apologies to the committee. He was unable to be here today as he is attending to duties associated with the evaluation of the Mackenzie Gas project application.
I am not in a position to comment on the content of the application, as it is an ongoing proceeding before the Board. However, I can update you on the remaining process for consideration of this application. The NEB's oral hearings are scheduled to resume this coming March 29 to deal with updated evidence. The NEB panel will hear final arguments beginning mid-April. The NEB expects to release its regulatory decision in the fall of 2010.
The NEB is an independent federal agency that regulates several aspects of Canada's energy industry.
[English]
Our purpose is to promote safety and security, environmental protection and efficient energy infrastructure and markets in the Canadian public interest within the mandate set by Parliament for the regulation of pipelines, energy development, and trade.
Of particular note for this committee would be that NEB regulates all oil and gas exploration and production on non-accord frontier lands; for example, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut and certain offshore areas. The NEB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. The NEB has regulatory responsibilities under the National Energy Board Act, Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, known as COGOA, and Canada Petroleum Resources Act, known as CPRA, relating to environmental protection, safety and conservation of the resource.
It also has responsibility for conducting environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Indeed, the National Energy Board has been considering the environment in its decisions since its inception in 1959, and under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since 1995.
The NEB has developed a strong capability with respect to environmental assessment, with about 45 environmental, socio-economic, and stakeholder engagement specialists on staff. Currently, the NEB conducts about 20 to 30 screening and comprehensive study types of assessments per year.
The National Energy Board is active and effective in Canada's pursuit of a sustainable energy future. This requires us to consider the economic, social, and environmental aspects of all facilities applications when we make a decision about whether the proposed project is in the public interest.
The board believes in a goal-oriented approach, where regulatory expectations are clear and companies determine the means to achieve the objectives. Recently, the regulations for drilling and production under COGOA were updated to reflect this regulatory best practice. The board also believes in regulatory accountability and has committed to service standards for all of its applications processes
The board believes that regulatory processes should result in better outcomes, such as the best evidence possible from a broad base of parties when an application is being considered and better environmental protection throughout the life cycle of all approved projects. The board does not believe that process for the sake of process adds value to Canadian society.
I've spoken briefly about the Mackenzie gas project to the extent I can in terms of timelines. I would just note that in following those timelines, we will meet all the obligations that we set out and signed for in the 2002 cooperation plan.
Other activities that we're preparing for in the north include getting ready for exploration drilling in the Beaufort Sea in the 2013 to 2017 timeframe. In order to be ready for that, we are in the process of conducting a review of our policy on same-season relief well capability. Part of this review will include a technical conference in Inuvik. The policy will guide applicants on the board's expectations regarding the capabilities an applicant would need to demonstrate in the event a well goes out of control.
As part of the Government of Canada's commitment to the Inuvialuit under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the NEB is working with a number of government departments, the Inuvialuit, and the regulated companies to demonstrate preparedness in the unlikely event of a spill from regulated oil and gas activities.
There are a number of companies planning to conduct marine programs in the Beaufort Sea, Lancaster Sound, Baffin Bay, and Davis Strait.
The NEB also anticipates dealing with an Alaska gas pipeline proposal in the future, either as an application to the NEB for the proposed Denali Alaska gas pipeline, which is in partnership of ConocoPhillips and BP, or in a support role to the Northern Pipeline Agency in the case of a proposal for an Alaska gas pipeline by TransCanada and ExxonMobil.
You asked us to talk about barriers and solutions, and we've identified two barriers from our regulatory perspective. I've talked about COGOA and CPRA. They were both designed in a different era of oil and gas development for large-scale offshore projects like Hibernia, and we're finding that they're not well suited for the increasing variety of and smaller scale projects now being contemplated in the north. The NEB is responsible for the oil and gas development components of these acts. However, the acts themselves are administered by INAC.
The second aspect we wanted to bring to your attention was the shared mandates of various assessment and regulatory bodies in the north, which result in regulatory complexity and uncertainty for potential investors.
Moving forward to solutions, I want to talk to you about some of the current solutions we're working on now, as well as a suggestion for a future solution. Our current solutions speak to the second barrier I identified of regulatory uncertainty. We have spent a lot of time and effort in the past and present, and anticipate doing so in the future, working with northerners to find holistic solutions to northern energy matters.
One of the ways we do this is through a very active participation in the Northwest Territories board forum, in which our chair, supported by staff, is very engaged. This group of regulators is developing strategies to achieve regulatory efficiencies without compromising effectiveness or jurisdiction.
This work has been very helpful for the board. As a result of it, we've developed a number of partnerships that we formalized in memorandums of understanding to align and coordinate processes. We have an existing MOU with the Mackenzie Valley environmental impact review board on a cooperative framework, as well as one with the Northwest Territories water board on cooperation with respect to downhole injection. We're in the process of discussing other potential MOUs, including ones with the environmental impact screening committee, the environmental impact review board, and INAC.
In our process of working with northerners, we have learned much from northerners. As a result of some of those learnings, we've modified some of our processes in both northern and southern Canada to increase the ability of aboriginal groups and stakeholders to participate in our proceedings.
We have an aboriginal engagement program through which we go out and visit communities in advance of any application being considered. We inform them as to what the National Energy Board is, what our processes and mandates are, and how parties might be able to ensure that they are ready to participate in any process that we have that might come to their community.
We've also been told, both in northern and southern Canada, that our hearings tend to be intimidating and are too formal. Through the lessons we've been learning through northern Canada, we've been adapting our hearings while maintaining the natural justice principles that we need to, yet striving to make our hearings less formal and less intimidating so that we can hear from as broad a variety of parties as possible on the applications.
The NEB is striving, in close collaboration with northern boards, aboriginal groups, and stakeholders, to develop environmental and socio-economic assessment and regulatory processes in the north that are responsive to the aspirations of northerners for a sustainable future, are clear and well understood, have predictable timelines, are coordinated, and minimize duplication.
I spoke to the fact that I was going to leave you with a suggestion from our perspective about a future solution. I have mentioned the potential to modernize COGOA and CPRA. One suggestion we'd like to leave with you today is that in considering any potential modernization of those two acts, it would be a good idea to allow for participant funding programs to be developed, creating the possibility of substitution under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This approach was recently announced in the budget speech for projects regulated under the National Energy Board Act.
Thank you very much for your attention. Those are my remarks.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased to be here today, finally.
[Translation]
I hope that all committee members have a copy of my presentation. I would like to explain to you at this time how the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act works.
[English]
I thought I'd first give you a bit of a constitutional context. As you're probably aware, the environment is not really mentioned in our Constitution, but the courts have confirmed that this is a matter of shared responsibility, and that's a very important issue to remember as we go through this presentation.
Each order of government--provinces, territories, and the federal government--has responsibilities with respect to the environment and environmental assessment. These responsibilities require us to work together with our colleagues in other jurisdictions to ensure that environmental assessment is done correctly.
Federally, as you're no doubt aware, the government has responsibility for matters such as navigation and shipping, fisheries, migratory birds, and so forth. Provincially responsibilities relate more to local works and undertakings, in particular natural resources and matters of a local or a private nature.
[Translation]
The original federal environmental assessment process was set out in 1974. The process therefore goes back a long way. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act did not come into force until 1995. It is triggered by federal decisions about proposed projects, either as the proponent, source of funds, land administrator or regulator. The CEA Act applies to projects.
Furthermore, the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals is a non-legislated process that requires federal departments to conduct strategic environmental assessments. It should also be mentioned that the CEA Act has limited application north of the 60th parallel where processes arising out of constitutionally protected land claim agreements with aboriginal peoples have been or are being enacted through federal legislation.
[English]
So there is relatively limited application of our legislation north of the 60th parallel.
You should have in your deck a map that describes the environmental assessment regimes in the north. Each of the land claim areas has its own environmental assessment regime. In fact, currently the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act applies most generally in the Inuvialuit settlement area under that region's final agreement, and only in a very limited way in the rest of the northern territories.
Some key features of the Environmental Assessment Act are that it's a self-assessment process. Hence, departments that have decisions to make with respect to projects are responsible for undertaking those assessments. Approximately 6,000 to 7,000 assessments are conducted every year across the country. Almost all of those are what we call screenings. For projects with more significant environmental effects, we require that comprehensive studies be undertaken, which are more detailed assessments, or a review panel involving public hearings. The idea is that the level of assessment is geared towards the nature of the project and the level of environmental impact that could occur as a result of the project.
Recently, as you're certainly aware, aboriginal consultation has become a very important issue for the government, and we have recently looked to incorporate the government's aboriginal consultation responsibilities into the environmental assessment process.
In terms of continuous improvement, there are a number of things that have happened and are continuing to happen with respect to the implementation of our act. In 2005 a cabinet directive was developed on implementing CEA. Essentially the objectives were to ensure a more timely and predictable environmental assessment process as a result of concerns that had been raised by proponents of projects, provincial authorities, and others.
In 2007 there was another cabinet directive aimed at improving the performance of the regulatory system for major resource projects, including, for example, mines, pipelines, hydroelectric developments, and so forth. The objective was to establish an oversight body called the Major Projects Management Office to facilitate the environmental assessments and regulatory processes to ensure they were applied in an efficient and effective way.
More recently, in 2008, there was an amendment to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, clarifying the relationship between the environmental assessment processes established under the land claim agreement and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, essentially so that the act would apply in a very limited way to transboundary projects, for example.
Then in 2009 there were a number of recommendations made by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment for the improved integration of federal, provincial, and territorial environmental assessment requirements to improve harmonization, efficiency, and the rigour of the environmental assessments that are undertaken.
Mr. Chairman, that's my presentation.
Thank you.
:
Perhaps my colleague can provide more information.
As you are aware, the National Energy Board regulates facilities such as interprovincial and international pipelines and international power lines under the National Energy Board Act. As well, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that environmental assessments be undertaken with respect to those facilities because of the regulatory decisions that the NEB makes with respect to them.
As my colleague mentioned in her presentation, the National Energy Board has a long history of conducting environmental assessments with respect to projects they have jurisdiction over. For many years now, we have undertaken joint reviews with the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to ensure that the requirements of both jurisdictions are met in a single environmental assessment.
Our legislation has provisions in it that allow for the delegation of environmental assessments to other jurisdictions, or the substitution of our process by other processes in the case of public hearings--what we call review panels--if it's deemed to be appropriate. I would say first of all that nothing in the budget speech implies that there will be new legislation required in order for this to come about; in fact, it's been contemplated as a possibility in our legislation since it was enacted in 1995.
A few years ago we undertook a project with the National Energy Board to substitute the national energy process for our processes under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the case of a pipeline in New Brunswick called the Emara pipeline. We did so to determine whether this was a feasible approach to undertaking a credible environmental assessment. An evaluation was undertaken of that substitution initiative; the evaluation found that it achieved the results of an efficient process, allowed an appropriate amount of public involvement, and properly addressed the environmental effects associated with the project.
I think the purpose behind the Speech from the Throne announcement, or the budget speech, was to give more impetus to this approach in situations in which our minister and the National Energy Board feel it would be appropriate to undertake an approach similar to what we did in the case of the Emara project in New Brunswick.
:
Members, let's proceed.
Before we get to the two motions we have before us, I have a couple of announcements I'd like to get through, because I know you'll be chomping at the bit to get out of here as soon as we finish with the motions.
You've been circulated on these, but I want to bring this to your attention. Next Wednesday there is an event in Ottawa, at the Novotel Hotel. It's being put on by the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association. You had an invitation that was circulated, but I will draw that to your attention. It's a launch of a report called Walk in our Moccasins. That is at 11 o'clock, on March 31. There is a reception to follow, which would be right after caucus, from 12 noon to 2 p.m. That's at the Novotel.
The second thing is that we've had a request from a delegation of Swedish parliamentarians who are going to be in the nation's capital on April 20 and 21 to meet with our committee. This is a Tuesday, by the way, the 20th of April. We have a meeting scheduled at 3:30 p.m. We typically have votes on Tuesdays, and then we could have our extra hour that evening. I have suggested that if they wish to meet members informally and we could get to the committee meeting room quickly after question period on that Tuesday we could meet with them in the committee room prior to the meeting at 3:30.
Please mark that in your calendars. It's Tuesday, the 20th of April, to meet with the Swedish parliamentarians.
The third thing is that we have had some questions from members regarding the meeting on Thursday, April 1. You know that will be the last day of the sitting before Easter break. We're scheduled to meet from 3:30 to 5:30, and some members are trying to make connections to get home.
Members, we have a couple of options, and I will take your direction on this. I believe there are discussions under way between the House leaders to possibly adjourn earlier that day, but I'm not privy to those discussions. However, we could either postpone the meeting and pick it up at a later time, after the break, or we could look at trying to schedule the meeting earlier that day, possibly in the 9 o'clock or 11 o'clock spot. At this point we have tentatively blocked a space for 9 o'clock, if members would prefer to do it earlier on Thursday, April 1.
On that point, is there any preference? Do I have any consensus on what you'd like to do? Would you like to postpone or go earlier in the day?
Mr. Duncan.