[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 30, 1996
.0830 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
This afternoon, we are studying the Main Estimates, that is vote 15 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. We are very pleased to have with us its president, Michel Dorais.
Welcome. Would you like to introduce your colleagues and make a statement? The floor is yours.
Mr. Michel Dorais (President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Allow me to introduce Mr. Paul Bernier, Senior Vice-President, Process Management with the Agency, and Mr. Bob Connelly, Vice-President, Process Development. The three of us form the executive committee of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
.0835
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I thought it might be useful to give you a brief overview and update on our activities.
The last time we appeared before your committee was March 21, 1994. At that time we came as officials of the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO. Today we're pleased to represent the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which we refer to as CEAA. Beyond the shorter acronym, much has transpired in these two years, and especially since proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act on January 19, 1995, just a little over a year ago.
[Translation]
As you can see in the Main Estimates, the Agency must overcome major barriers in order to enforce the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act effectively. Self-assessment, public participation and the principle of sustainable development are all factors forming the basis of the spirit of the act that will enable us to make better decisions.
Today, when we speak of sustainable development, we mean a vast set of structures and various environments. The Agency is required to work closely, on a day-to-day basis, with a number of representatives of various jurisdictions, the industry, non-governmental organizations and native groups. We deal on a daily basis with Canadian representatives across the country. Reconciling often opposing views is an essential element in the success of sustainable development.
[English]
The environmental assessment business has a relatively short history, and it's evolving as methodology and science continue to improve the process. On top of this natural evolution, we also operate in a changing world. As the main estimates indicate, there are powerful external factors influencing our work. Program review, fiscal restraint, public expectations, federal-provincial relations, regulatory reform, cost recovery, globalization, competitiveness, and a plethora of other factors have a direct impact on how we deliver the federal environmental assessment process.
With all these forces at play, CEAA has committed itself to three fundamental thrusts or directions. The first is to ensure the efficient and effective application of the act through our day-to-day work in environmental assessment. The second is what I call ``continued reform''. ``Continued reform'' refers to ongoing regulatory development and process efficiency under the act. The third area is innovation. I believe if the federal government is to maintain a leadership role in environment and deliver a world-class process, we must understand and stay abreast of initiatives such as public involvement through new technologies and the development of standards such as the ISO-14000.
At present the agency is involved in a number of active files. We have completed the first comprehensive studies under the act on the Musselwhite Placer Dome mine, the Calgary base decommissioning, and the Huckleberry mine. Several others are in progress.
On the public review front, several are going on from the previous regime, such as the BHP diamond mine. Others, such as the Express pipeline and Sunshine ski development, are being conducted under the new process. As you probably know, other potential assessments are on the horizon, such as the Voisey Bay mining development, Terra Nova, the Sydney tar ponds, and Sable Island.
In our first year of operation the agency has further developed major initiatives to provide for a more certain, timely, and effective process. This work is continuing on several fronts.
[Translation]
One of the highlights of our first year has undoubtedly been our education and training program. Based on the principle of self-assessment, education and training are being used to increase understanding of the Act, to provide the appropriate tools to environmental assessment practitioners and to promote compliance.
As the Estimates indicate, the Agency has undertaken a vast training program in 15 different locations across the country. To date, some 2,000 persons have benefitted from this training initiative. As a result of cost recovery, the Agency has managed to cover its expenses and the results are more than gratifying.
.0840
We are now in the second phase of the training program, in which we are reviewing the general aspects of the Act. We are also offering specialized training through technical presentations on the regulations and procedures.
[English]
The scope and depth of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are defined by its regulatory framework. At present four essential regulations are in place: the law list, the comprehensive study list, the inclusion and exclusion lists. These regulations are essential to the application of the act and were in place at the time of proclamation.
Two other key regulations are at the juncture where they can be submitted for ministerial consideration. The regulation on projects outside Canada varies and excludes the act so that the process may be applied to Canada's international activities. These activities fall primarily within CIDA's development assistance program. Also, a one project/one assessment regulation is near completion. This regulation encourages departments to coordinate their activities so that projects will be subject to only one assessment. This regulation speaks directly to concerns regarding the possibility of multiple triggers and duplication.
All of the regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have gone through rigorous consultative processes. The regulatory advisory committee was established above and beyond the normal federal regulatory process to advise government on the development of regulations under the act. The committee is an innovative mechanism that attempts to seek consensus on the issues involving regulatory development. It is a multi-stakeholder forum that involves industry, environment groups, the provinces, federal departments, aboriginal groups and others.
The regulatory advisory committee has not reached consensus on all issues, and it was not expected to, given the diverse positions represented. But it has isolated problem issues and it has contributed to an open and transparent process in which stakeholders speak to each other.
Ensuring that the environmental process is compatible with fiscal restraint and competitiveness has led us to explore a number of cost-recovery and process-efficiency measures. Our direction in this regard is explicit. Last year's budget gives clear instructions for the Minister of the Environment to explore options in these areas. The 1995 budget states:
The Minister of the Environment will also develop, in consultation with concerned ministers, provinces and stakeholders, proposals for recovering all costs attributable to environmental assessments as well as options for streamlining procedures and timelines for the environmental assessment process.
In order to respond to this directive and advance a variety of options, the agency sees the initiative of process efficiencies and cost recovery as going hand in hand. Consultation on these measures will begin shortly. We are targeting April 1997 to put these measures in place.
In order to reflect concerns that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act might have a negative impact on competitiveness, the agency and the Department of Industry have undertaken a joint monitoring program. This program has three essential tasks: to collect comments on any problem encountered by proponents with the act, to ensure that there is not a negative impact on the industry, and to document the benefits to sustainable development. The results of the program are to be transmitted to ministers at the end of the fiscal year. I should point out, however, that after one year the joint monitoring program has not identified any major issues.
[Translation]
Harmonization with the provinces is a key issue in the environmental debate. However, clarification of the federal and provincial roles is the main issue.
Questions may be less clear in the environmental field than in other fields since they have occupied a prominent position in the general public's mind for only a short time and also because of the sharp increase in our understanding of environmental issues and the Supreme Court decision holding that the environment is a field of shared jurisdiction or responsibility.
.0845
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act recognizes the need to harmonize the processes by enabling the Minister of the Environment to enter into agreements with the provinces. To date, we have signed agreements with Alberta and Manitoba. Negotiations are under way with the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario. These agreements, together with the option to delegate most environmental assessments to the provinces, will greatly help reduce all overlap and duplication.
[English]
An additional feature of this agreement is the establishment of single windows in the provinces. Single windows serve to assist proponents in their environmental assessment requirements primarily by coordinating the federal interests that may be involved in an assessment.
To sustain innovation, we have also undertaken a number of special projects so that we can remain in step with developments globally. We are looking at such things as performance measurement, competitiveness and standards such as the ISO-14000. With the International Association of Impact Assessment, the IAIA, we are involved in an international study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment.
Mr. Chairman, as the first president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, I am often amazed by the number and diversity of the challenges we often face in applying the new act. What I have spoken about represents much but not all of what we do. We are a relatively small entity - 87 people - and I'm very proud of how we have met the challenge in our first year.
My colleagues and I will be more than pleased to answer any questions. Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Would you like to begin, Ms Guay?
Ms Guay (Laurentides): Good morning, Mr. Dorais. A moment ago, you spoke about agreements between the federal government and the provinces. You cited two provinces and said you were in discussions with certain other provinces. Where do you stand with regard to Quebec?
Mr. Dorais: There are currently no discussions with Quebec respecting a comprehensive agreement to harmonize environmental assessment processes. The discussions are on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis, as you can currently see in the case of the joint assessment for the Lachine Canal. We are conducting assessments through the comprehensive studies currently under way.
Ms Guay: Mightn't that risk delaying certain projects? How do you evaluate the situation to date?
Mr. Dorais: To date, given the number of proposals that have been submitted from Quebec, this has not caused any problems. It's obviously harder to discuss matters on a case-by-case basis than to sign a comprehensive agreement which subsequently makes it possible to adjust. But our discussions are nevertheless going smoothly.
Paradoxically, in the case of Quebec, our experience with harmonization on a case-by-case basis has been good. With respect to the Lachine Canal, this is the sixth public assessment that we have done jointly with the Government of Quebec. So we nevertheless have a certain amount of experience that enables us to speed up the processes.
Ms Guay: You say you are conducting joint assessments with Quebec. Who ultimately does the assessment? Is it BAPE? Is it the federal government? Who is in charge of these assessments? How are the findings given?
Mr. Dorais: In most cases, both parties conduct the assessment. We have a number of models that have been used, particularly in Quebec. In the case of the Lachine Canal, there is a parallel assessment. There is one commission with two chairmen, a federal chairman and a provincial chairman. Harmonization is being achieved in this way. In all the other cases of harmonization, we have created a single commission operating in accordance with BAPE's rules on which a member of the federal government sits, and the commission's report was submitted to both federal and Quebec authorities.
Ms Guay: In another connection, you are aware that the government has recently signed an agreement with Russia to import plutonium to Canada.
.0850
I would like to know your opinion on this. Shouldn't the Environmental Assessment Agency conduct a study of the dangers and effects of these plutonium imports? Have you been asked to do so?
Mr. Dorais: On this project, I only know what everyone has learned from the newspapers. There's no proposal. There are discussions on a concept, but no concrete proposal has been submitted anywhere.
However, any proposal of this kind would obviously have to be submitted, in whole or in part, for a series of approvals that would trigger the mechanism of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and thus an environmental assessment of the potential project.
Ms Guay: If these imports proved dangerous, would the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency have the power to say we are not importing plutonium because the risks are too great? Do you think the government can go ahead without your authorization?
Mr. Dorais: Contrary to what you find in a number of provinces, at the federal level, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and its commissions only have a power of recommendation.
In all cases, we recommend certain possible decisions to the Minister through our environmental assessment reports.
Then it's up to the ministers who have the authority or to the agencies that have decisions to make - that may be the Atomic Energy Control Board - to decide whether to issue the permits.
The Canadian act has nevertheless been amended over the past year so that, when there is a public hearing and a public hearing report, the decision is up to the federal cabinet, to the Governor in Council.
In such cases, the government as a whole makes the decision; the Agency as such does not make the decision.
Ms Guay: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: I suppose Madame Guay is asking you what would trigger a study of that nature.
[Translation]
Mr. Dorais: Without any specific proposal before me, it is hard to say exactly what could trigger it. Financial issues may trigger a study, or authorizations issued by the Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board under the terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Any change to a nuclear reactor, for example, would trigger the mechanism provided for in the Act.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Guay. Mr. Lincoln, please.
Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): From January 19, 1995 to March 22, 1996, 3,531 cases were submitted to the Agency. Of that number, 3,521 were trigger cases, and there were only eight studies and two panels. Does that show that something is not working? How can it be that, out of 3,531 cases, there were only two panels in 14 months?
Mr. Dorais: I have no factual explanation. Given that these are the figures from a single year, we are in the process of analyzing them.
The figures are not surprising since, when it did its basic planing, the Agency estimated there would be between two and five panels a year. So the fact that there were two panels is not necessarily surprising.
We can read these figures a number of ways. We can say that there were not many assessments, but we can conclude that the screening stage was very effective since it eliminated the proposals that could have a very significant impact and that would thus be subjected to the public hearings process.
.0855
We don't know how many projects were abandoned at the screening stage because they would have had significant repercussions that would have resulted in a public hearing. So the figures are not necessarily surprising.
As to the comprehensive studies, their number is somewhat surprising. We were expecting there to be a few more comprehensive studies each year. We don't yet know whether this can simply be attributed to the limited number of projects or to the types of projects submitted under the Act.
Mr. Lincoln: In fact, it is you who decide. I am very sceptical. Among the trigger cases, there were 1,323 on the law list, 538 on land and we only have five studies on the law list, none on land issues and two panels.
It seems to me that the Agency itself should initiate the studies and decide whether studies or panels are necessary.
Mr. Dorais: In all, we had 4,101 projects and all of them were assessed. The fact that we had eight comprehensive studies and two panels does not mean that the other projects were not assessed. The 4,000 projects were assessed.
It's not the Agency, but the comprehensive studies regulations that decide whether such a study will be carried out and that establishes the project classes.
It states, for example, that beyond a certain production tonnage, these projects must be the subject of a comprehensive study. If, in a year, there are no projects exceeding the thresholds established under the regulations, the projects are not comprehensively studied.
As to the commissions, there are very specific provisions dictating to the minister responsible the procedure to be followed when the study must be conducted by means of public hearings. I dare hope we don't have any more commissions because these projects do not have any significant effects that cannot be attenuated.
Mr. Lincoln: You will admit that there is a certain degree of subjectivity in the assessment of the regulations and substance when it comes to deciding the matter. I will come back to this, but I have another question.
This is the entire question of the three major mining projects relative to Native peoples.
[English]
As you know, I've taken a lot of interest in diamond mining and I've spoken to some of you extensively on it. Now I have a letter from the Cheslatta Indians regarding the Huckleberry open-pit copper mine. Accordingly to them - and I've read the documentation, and it seems as if they have a case - the impacts on unceded Cheslatta lands were not sufficiently evaluated. The impacts of transmission corridors on the Broman Lake and Wet'Suwet'en communities were deficient, according to them. They are very scared of contamination of fish-bearing water from acid rock drainage, and we know what happened up north in La Grande and also with Giant Mines. They claim there were errors in the B.C. review, according to the B.C. review assessment act.
They sent me a letter from Minister McLellan to Minister Marchi, with copies to five senior ministers. I was flabbergasted to read this letter to Mr. Marchi, which said that the Japanese investors are losing patience - as if the Indians aren't losing patience. It seems as if the Japanese investors rule our lives.
When we look at the second project, the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, BHP is carrying out the project that is being assessed at Lac de Gras. I remember meeting with some of your officials. We had suggested that DIAND carry out a socio-economic assessment on the total impact rather on a project-by-project basis, which I understood was under way. We tried to link the two so the result of one project assessment wouldn't come before the result of the total socio-economic....
.0900
Again, I would like to know, because this is a big foreign multinational coming in, and the people who suffer the consequences are always the aboriginal people in the first place.
Then we have Voisey Bay, which is exactly the same pattern again: a huge mining multinational coming in. There's going to be a panel. Somehow I've come to be so skeptical that I think the results are already written. And who will suffer the impacts? It will again be a defenceless aboriginal group or nation.
I wanted to find out whether you have looked at the complaints by the Cheslatta people; where we stand on the BHP question; and where we go with Voisey Bay, what the timing is, and so forth.
Mr. Dorais: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'll take them in that order.
On the Huckleberry project, I know there are claims that there were errors in the B.C. process. The matter is in front of the court, so I won't comment on these, but on the federal side there was a major representation by the Cheslatta and a number of other people. In fact, on the public file, if my memory is good, something on the order of 110 documents were made public, including the letters you referred to. All the documents have been tabled publicly in the public files, so everyone could look at this.
The environmental elements were taken into consideration, a report was written by the fisheries department, and that report was made public. This was the basis on which the Minister of the Environment made the decision that the comprehensive study did address all the elements that were raised.
On that, obviously, as in any case, there is a judgment call. What makes the process rich, I think, is that all the information was out there in the public file, available for everyone to look at and to comment on. It was the basis on which the ministry made its decision. The next step is for the Minister of Fisheries to issue a permit for the mine to proceed, with conditions associated with it.
On the BHP panel, as you know, the panel is currently at the stage of writing the report. That report will be available in June. I suspect the panel will be reflecting what they have heard from the population in general, including natives.
About the broader social study that was to be undertaken by Indian Affairs, if my recollection is good, there was no pretension that all the results would be available at the same time. However, I can undertake to pass to Indian Affairs a request to have a status report on exactly where it is, because I don't have the most recent information, and I'd gladly pass that to you.
On Voisey Bay, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Bernier, who has been following that file from the beginning, to give an update.
Mr. Paul Bernier (Senior Vice-President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): Indeed, reference was made to the fact that there will be a review of the Voisey Bay mineral development. The current situation is that the Province of Newfoundland is looking at an initial project description of only one component of the proposed development. It's a component that deals with what the company has indicated are advanced infrastructure exploration components. This has led discussions between the Government of Newfoundland and ourselves, and also with the Inuit of Labrador, and the Innu, on the scope of the project. Those discussions are continuing.
Both governments are very much determined to include a meaningful role for the aboriginal interests in the design of the review process and the participation of the communities in that process.
.0905
With respect to timing, the company is now working at finalizing, I believe, its project description. I think they have a target date of mid-June. With that document I think we'll have a better understanding of what the company is proposing by way of overall development. Once we have that document it'll be a milestone in bringing forward an overall understanding of the review process.
Mr. Lincoln: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. Next is Mr. Knutson.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm a recent addition to the committee, so bear with me if my questions are a little rudimentary.
I notice from the details of the estimates that your budget was cut from a forecast amount of roughly $12 million, albeit an actual of $10.5 million, to an estimate for this year of approximately $8 million. I just wondered if you could outline what effects those cuts are going to have. Specifically, what would you like to be able to do that you're not going to be able to do because of the lack of money?
Mr. Dorais: That's a very pertinent question, given the numbers, which do not quite reflect reality in the sense that the actual budget of the agency is supplemented by access to a central reserve that finances the panels we have. There is a Treasury Board reserve of $4.2 million we can access on a year-to-year basis, depending on the number of panels.
The access to the reserve for this year is in the order of $3.6 million. We'll know, obviously a little later in the year...depending on the number of panels referred to us. So the actual figure of$7.9 million is not an exact figure for expenditure. It's $7.9 million plus whatever we access in the reserve, which is about $11 million. So the budget has been stable. I think that is the answer.
Mr. Knutson: You're saying there's been no effect; there's been, in effect, no cuts.
Mr. Dorais: There were some cuts two years ago that brought the budget from $13.3 million to $11.2 million, but in the creation of the agency there was no cut. The budget stayed stable.
We had to adjust internally quite dramatically, because there was a major increase in responsibilities. Comprehensive studies did not exist under the previous system. Class assessment did not exist, so we had to add all those responsibilities and did not get any additional funds to that. We did adjust our priorities internally, but we did not have a cut per se.
Mr. Knutson: I notice from the notes prepared by the researcher that the act kicks in on basically any decision by the federal government that has an environmental effect. I just wonder, is there a definition of an ``environmental effect''?
Mr. Dorais: There is. It's in the act. We'll pull it out in a second.
The act kicks in to essentially three cases. You have to have a project first. That's defined in the act. You have to have a trigger, which is one of the four elements. It could be money, land or a regulatory trigger. You also have to have an authority, a federal authority of some kind, a department or a minister.
Environmental effect is defined in section 2 of the act as:
- any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such as
change on health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage, or the
current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, or on any
structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural
significance
.0910
Mr. Dorais: Those questions are always tricky to answer when you don't have the particulars, but my immediate reaction to this one would be that it would not, because you don't have a project.
The act is designed to deal with projects, generally speaking - things you construct or activities that are very specifically defined. That's how the whole assessment process has been structured.
The authorization of an additive per se would not constitute a project. So in that case the act is not the appropriate vehicle.
Mr. Knutson: You're saying that if you take the example of the bST approval, there's nothing under environmental law that would force the Department of Health to worry about the health of animals.
Mr. Dorais: I'll ask Mr. Connelly to comment on that.
Mr. Robert Connelly (Vice-President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency): I'm not an expert on the particular act, but there is the Health of Animals Act with Agriculture Canada that probably would be relevant to the issue you're talking about.
The Chairman: Mrs. Payne is next.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I apologize for being late. I welcome the members to the panel.
This might have been covered before I came in. A number of negotiated arrangements have been made with foreign countries, and I'm wondering what they provide for.
Following that, given the border between Canada and the United States, I'm wondering why there has not been any bilateral agreement with that country.
Mr. Dorais: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Mr. Connelly, who is on top of these files, to answer that question.
Mr. Connelly: As you correctly point out, there are a number of bilateral arrangements with different countries. In general these are in the environment area, and they largely involve the exchange of information, so often you find in a bilateral agreement - say with Russia or with Poland, as examples, or with Chile - sections dealing with environmental assessment, the area we work in.
With respect to the United States, we are presently working with the United States and Mexico on a transboundary environmental assessment agreement. This is associated with the side arrangement that was made under NAFTA with the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Through subsection 10(7) of that agreement, we are actually working with them to develop an agreement on how we would assess projects that might have an impact in the other country. We have had two meetings, and I think we're advancing fairly well toward an agreement in that respect.
In addition, a few years ago Canada signed, along with the United States, an international agreement developed under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on environmental assessment in a transboundary context. That has not yet been ratified by either country, but nevertheless there are very important principles in that agreement, which we're following.
Mrs. Payne: You say that the agreements with foreign countries are for an information process only. So there's no negotiated agreement on action as such? Is it just a transfer of information?
Mr. Connelly: In the area of environmental assessment, yes, it's largely information exchange - other than this convention in the UN Economic Commission for Europe that I mentioned.
However, in the area of the environment in general, there are other exchanges that are more than just information.
Mrs. Payne: Regarding the agreements between Canada and the United States, I'm thinking primarily of past activities and what's happening. I realize there are treaties and all these agreements in place, but in terms of bases - I happen to have one in my riding, and I suppose that's one of the reasons why I'm asking this question - and environmental clean-up when an American base is closed, what is the agreement under which that environmental clean-up would take place? Or is there one?
.0915
Mr. Connelly: I'll have to respond, I think, based on a guess. It probably has a lot to do with the original agreement entered into at the time when that base was formed. There is nothing in the environmental assessment area per se that would deal with that situation with an agreement.
Mrs. Payne: That is actually the basis for the question. In the case of this particular one there was nothing in the original agreement that says any environmental problems should be dealt with at the time of the base.... Negotiations are going on as I speak. However, my understanding is they are not to our satisfaction.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): I have just a couple of quick questions - and my apologies for coming late. We had another meeting.
Where combined federal and provincial activities are taking place, who is responsible for doing the environmental assessment on those activities? Secondly, once you've done an environmental assessment, who enforces to ensure the recommendations for your assessment are carried through?
Mr. Dorais: When you talk about federal-provincial combined activities, do you mean when both jurisdictions are involved in actually doing the assessment?
Mr. Martin: For example, a highway is being built in my riding. Part of the funding comes from the federal government, and part comes from the provincial government. Who is responsible for doing the environmental impact assessment on that highway expansion?
Mr. Dorais: In virtually all cases in the country, the proponent, whoever is building the highway, is responsible for completing the assessment. Both levels of government that would be involved are responsible for receiving the assessment, assessing its quality, and then making whatever appropriate decisions are required. So in that case, to answer your question, the proponent would be responsible for doing the assessment.
Who is enforcing recommendations? In the federal case, when there is an assessment the minister responsible for issuing the permit issues the permit with conditions that reflect the assessment. So each particular piece of legislation involved, be it the Fisheries Act or any other piece of legislation, would in fact be the authority responsible.
In the particular case where there's a financial trigger, the authority that gives the actual funds is responsible to ensure the assessment is carried out, and it can attach to that financing any conditions related to the assessment.
The Chairman: I'll ask a few questions from here before we start the second round.
Could you give us some concrete examples of situations where, having conducted the preliminary review, you decided in phase one the quality of the application was such that it would not warrant proceeding either with a study or with a panel? You said earlier you think the explanation for such a low number of studies and panels is to be attributed to the fact that matters were cleared up in this early phase. Could you give us some concrete examples?
Mr. Dorais: If I said ``is'', I probably should have said ``could be'' attributed to that.
The answer I think is no, unless my colleagues have some examples handy. The reason is we do not have at this point a quality control mechanism that examines the initial screenings done in every department to find out whether they are of appropriate quality or not. What we have done is we are issuing guidelines to help departments doing that.
.0920
It was pointed out to us - and I think we're realizing it - that there's quite a variety or variance in the quality and the methodology of doing initial screenings in various departments. Some are done very quickly on a checklist basis, and some are done very thoroughly. As part of our program for the next year, we will be trying to assess whether there is some form of uniformity there. If there isn't, we'll try to issue some more explicit guidelines to ensure that we reach a certain level of quality there.
The Chairman: The reason for probing you along this line is that under FEARO you gave the impression of being much more active than you are now. There were panels and frequent studies and reports that came out of FEARO, whereas here, looking at what has happened in the last 15 months, out of a total of 3,531 types, as they'll called, or files, so to speak, you're down to just two panels. You told us that you range between two and five.
Could you give us an indication of what made you decide on those two panels and what these panels are dealing with? As to the studies, what are the studies dealing with, and what made you decide on the studies? Don't you think you should have a methodology whereby you could inform the committee next year as to what was achieved, by specific examples, in phase one?
Mr. Dorais: The comparison of numbers is always difficult. The number of panels is not surprising if you look at the history of FEARO and the history of the new agency. At the beginning of FEARO, the average yearly number of panels was one, sometimes two. Then there was a surge of panels around 1987-89, with the Oldman case coming into effect. I think it reached a maximum of 19 panels in one year. But for all of the other years, a two-panel year is not unusual.
The number of comprehensive studies is a number on which we have very little influence. It's determined by the actual content of regulations. The real question there is, are there projects out there that have been screened that should have been assessed through the comprehensive study mechanisms?
But the number of projects that reach the comprehensive study level is determined by the regulations: there are so many tonnes or there aren't so many tonnes. The biggest question, and the one that I think is very important - after two years of data, I will hopefully be in a position to inform the committee in detail as to what is happening - is how are we doing the screenings? We're doing 4,000 screenings.
You're referring to an impression I also had, that there were many more screenings under FEARO. The data we had on the number of initial assessments, as we used to call them under FEARO, was based on data provided around town on the basis of acquiring funds to fund those activities. So I personally have some serious doubts about the validity of those figures.
We do know now that 4,000 is not the complete number of assessments completed under the new act. I've just written to all departments asking them to provide me with exact figures on how many assessments they've done over the last year. I suspect that number is going to be higher. The number of 4,000 is the number of assessments registered in the public registry, but as you know, departments can elect to have their own registry according to the act. They don't have to file these numbers there.
The data that we do not have at this point, and that I think it's important that we acquire fairly quickly, is what is the quality of those assessments? Are they done on a napkin on a Monday at noon and then filed in, or are they thoroughly done through the necessary study? This is really the type of data we would propose to acquire over the second year of operation.
The Chairman: So will you please provide this committee, then, with an explanatory note on panels and studies?
Mr. Dorais: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
.0925
The Chairman: Don't you think this should be part of your presentation as a matter of normal practice?
Going on to plutonium for a moment, should the cabinet and the Government of Canada decide to bring plutonium to Canada, which section of the act would you invoke in order to launch an assessment?
Mr. Connelly: To respond first of all to the trigger, Mr. Caccia, it would be some of the provisions under the Atomic Energy Control Act that would actually trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Chairman: Which provisions?
Mr. Connelly: I'm afraid I don't have the law list regulation with me. I can supply that to you afterwards, but there are provisions listed in the law list regulation that would actually trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Chairman: Are you saying that you would not have jurisdiction on plutonium being imported into Canada?
Mr. Connelly: Yes, there would be jurisdiction under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Chairman: Which section would you invoke?
Mr. Connelly: Just to back up a little bit, the Atomic Energy Control Act would require a permit to allow that to happen. That in turn would trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The act as a whole would apply to it, so it would be screened and then a decision would be taken whether or not to subject it to a panel review.
The Chairman: [Inaudible - Editor] the moment that the permit is filed, be activated by way of an examination of the application?
Mr. Connelly: Yes.
Mr. Dorais: Mr. Chairman, we could provide more details, but the regulations appeared in the law list under Atomic Energy control regulations, subsections 7, 10, 25 and 27. Those would be the regulations involved. Unfortunately I don't have the libellé of these sections, but we could provide them to you.
The Chairman: The next question has to do with subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. There is some indication that this subsection might be suspended or even transferred to the provinces, and that therefore this instrument might be missing in the arsenal of instruments at your disposal. What would be the consequences of such suspension or transfer of the power to the provinces?
Mr. Dorais: As the minister pointed out to this committee last week or two weeks ago, there are no concrete projects on the table on exactly what conditions or what would be transferred.
I can tell the committee that according to the registry, 110 projects have been triggered essentially under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. These projects were not triggered under the guideline order before the new act. As you know, the Oldman case established that the Fisheries Act was not a trigger under the guideline order. So there are 110 projects that would not have been triggered under the guideline order and have been triggered under the act.
The information I don't have on those 110 is whether the Fisheries Act was the only trigger or there was another trigger. In most big projects of the Voisey Bay type, for instance, or any other major project, there are usually multiple triggers. The Fisheries Act is not the only trigger.
The Chairman: I have one final question before launching the second round. Have you as an agency been pressured, directly or indirectly, to accelerate the work you are in charge of, and if so by whom?
Mr. Dorais: We have been heavily pressured by industry in committees, groups, meetings and consultations, but we have not been pressured by the government or indirectly to accelerate the work.
The Chairman: Which particular industry?
Mr. Dorais: One of the characteristics of our field is that we have multiple stakeholders: industry, the provinces, environmental groups, aboriginal governments or aboriginal representatives. We constantly meet with all of those stakeholders. Since the very beginning industry has been very concerned about the time environmental assessment takes, and they have put on pressure. But I think the pressure being put on is more to set time lines than actually to accelerate procedures.
.0930
The Chairman: Which particular industries?
Mr. Dorais: The mining industry.... Actually, most of the general industrial sectors are very concerned about time lines and the time it takes.
The Chairman: Can you identify them, besides mining?
Mr. Dorais: I can provide the committee with the details of exactly who raised that during the various consultations, but I would say it was a unanimous concern of all the industrial sectors we've met, represented by industrial associations, that time lines and the time it takes to do assessment are of great concern to industry. That would include mining, forestry, oil and gas - all the major sectors.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin, please.
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): We see in the Estimates that your agency authorizes the Minister to sign agreements with other jurisdictions. We also see on page 18 of the Main Estimates that your agency has signed bilateral agreements with Alberta and Manitoba.
You have also signed bilateral international agreements on the environment with countries such as Hong Kong, China, Russia, the Netherlands, Poland, Mexico and, more recently, Chili. Why have so few bilateral agreements been signed by these jurisdictions and Canada?
You have signed agreements with Alberta and Manitoba and you are preparing to sign others with other provinces. If no agreements have been signed with the other Canadian provinces, I would like to know your problems. We know that Canada and the United States have a common border. We talk about overlap and duplication. Why have we signed agreements with this many countries, but not yet with the United States?
We also see in the Main Estimates that, under the bilateral agreements with Alberta and Manitoba, you have opened designated offices in Edmonton and Winnipeg. We also read on page 9 of the same Estimates that you have opened regional offices in Halifax, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. What is the difference between a regional office and a designated office? Why haven't you opened offices in the five Canadian regions?
Mr. Dorais: I'll begin with your last question. Regional offices and designated offices are the same thing. We are talking about exactly the same offices.
Mr. Asselin: Why are the two terms used?
Mr. Dorais: We call them ``regional offices'', but in the agreements we sign with the provinces, we talk of ``designated offices''. These are contact points designated in the agreements.
You must understand what is meant when we talk about offices. In general, it's an individual. In a number of cases, we have borrowed an employee from the province who works with us on federal-provincial files. This is the case in most of our offices. There is only one person on site; we're not talking about major infrastructures.
The agreements with foreign countries were signed with our cooperation, but mainly through the work of Environment Canada. There is generally only a paragraph or a section on environmental assessment. In all cases, these paragraphs call for exchanges of information, exchanges of courtesies, training and the possibility of training courses for representatives of foreign countries who come and spend a month or two at the Agency. These courses are recognized in a number of countries as a very highly developed process.
.0935
As to the United States, we are currently in talks with the NAFTA secretariat, in particular the environment commission, to determine the basic criteria and eventually to sign a joint agreement on environmental assessment and on information exchange and procedures when there is a project on one side of the border that has repercussions for the other side.
Mr. Asselin: We know that the Canadian government has allocated $3 million to the Irving Whale salvage case. I would like to know whether your agency has been brought in on this case. If so, what recommendations have you had to make? I suppose you have made recommendations, but you no doubt also have a monitoring role in this instance because there could be a major ecological disaster.
It was explained to us that the barge could be raised. If the barge broke in two, what could be the environmental impact? Do we know?
Mr. Dorais: Our role in this case has been extremely marginal. The environmental assessment provided for under the Act that Parliament passed and under the 1984 order is based on the principle of self-evaluation. That means that the departments responsible had to conduct the environmental assessment and to bear its conclusions and consequences.
We played an extremely marginal advisory role on the process that should be followed, the number of public consultation days necessary and the various stages of the process. Our role was not related to the substance of the environmental assessment. The assessment was conducted under the former system, not the new. It began before the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act came into effect.
Mr. Asselin: Do you have the power to make recommendations and to become more directly involved in the case?
Mr. Dorais: There are 85 persons at the Agency and most of them are concerned with the public hearings process. We do not have experts who can get involved at the substantive level. These experts are in the departments responsible, in particular the Department of the Environment.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Asselin. Mr. Martin, please.
[English]
Mr. Martin: In the aboriginal land claims issues, where the aboriginal people are going to have, and quite rightly so, greater control over their own environments, who is going to be making the rules and regulations that are going to be set up for economic activities, industrial activities, taking place on aboriginal lands? Who is responsible for setting up those standards, and once those standards are set up, whose standards take precedence, the standards set up by your organization or the standards set up in the aboriginal land claims by the aboriginal people?
Mr. Dorais: In the case of land claims the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act applies. There is a section in the act that allows the federal government to substitute an aboriginal process as designed in the land claim for the federal process if it meets the criteria of the act there. So the criteria that are set up would be the criteria of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but the process applied could be the process described in the land claim.
Mr. Martin: I'm sorry, I'm still not quite clear. Once the land claims are settled, once a standard is set up - and standards are going to be set up within the confines of the aboriginal lands, the aboriginal state - are those environmental standards not going to take precedence over Canadian environmental standards, or will they take precedence over them?
Mr. Dorais: What the land claims have now is a description of the process that will take place. What the eventual legislation will have is a description of the process that will take place in the claim area. The act has a provision there which allows the federal government to substitute this process for the process described in the act. But the criteria, all the ones set in the act, the criteria under section 16 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for instance, are the standards there, and they still apply.
.0940
Mr. Martin: If Canada is investing abroad in a number of develo pment projects, do you have any responsibility or say in the environmental impact of Canadian investment activities abroad, say through the Export Development Corporation?
Mr. Dorais: No. The Export Development Corporation is not currently covered by the act. It could become covered by the act, but that would be through a regulation, which has not yet been written. At the present time it does not apply to the Export Development Corporation.
It does apply to CIDA, however. So all this aid that is related to projects would be covered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Mr. Martin: In the case of a situation such as the Three Gorges Dam, where we are making an investment with dams that are being built on existing fault lines that have a significant danger of causing the dams to collapse, with the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people's lives, would your organization have some say in the investment of Canadian moneys into that project?
Mr. Dorais: [Inaudible - Editor]...if the money is channelled through the Export Development Corporation at this time.
Mr. Martin: If the money was transferred through CIDA, you would have some say?
Mr. Dorais: Yes.
The Chairman: Would you please elaborate on the last question? You would have a say with CIDA provided that....
Mr. Dorais: Well, if CIDA's money is involved in a foreign project of any kind, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act currently applies in its entirety, which means that all the conditions and the process requirements of the act apply to that expenditure, be they screening, comprehensive studies, or even a panel.
Now, there is a regulation in drafting that varies the application of the act to take into consideration the particular circumstances of having a project outside of Canada, but that regulation is not in effect.
The Chairman: Excuse me for intervening, Mr. Martin, but I'm just trying to broaden....
Mr. Martin: Yes.
The Chairman: Could you then explain to Mr. Martin why only four screenings took place this year, why in 15 months only four screenings took place under CIDA?
Mr. Dorais: The explanation of CIDA and four screenings is that, of all the money spent there, only four were qualified as projects under the act and needed to be assessed.
The Chairman: And who determines that - CIDA or you?
Mr. Dorais: CIDA determines that.
The Chairman: Is that adequate? Is that satisfactory?
Mr. Dorais: This is the information that we don't have but hope to have for the committee next year. We do not now have a system whereby we review every single one of the 4,000 screenings that are done throughout the government.
Mr. Martin: Does CIDA have to ask you to do an assessment, or is it automatic?
Mr. Dorais: It's automatic. They are required by the act if there is a project. If there is a trigger, such as money, they are required by the act to do a screening there.
Mr. Lincoln: To come back to Huckleberry, I understand that the fisheries department minister has not issued a permit as yet because your agency decided there were outstanding matters to be completed in regard to the long-range impacts. You said you couldn't recommend it as yet, and this is why there is the delay for the permit now. Is that correct?
Mr. Dorais: No, I don't think so. The minister, in his letter to the Minister of Fisheries, has not approved the project, and that's very important. The minister has said to the Minister of Fisheries that the environmental assessment under the act has been completed and therefore he could move to the next step of the process, which is to issue or not issue the permit. He made some suggestions in the letter, which has been made public - I don't have it in front of me - but those are only suggestions.
Mr. Lincoln: In regard to Mr. Caccia's question about pressures, I read in this file that the letter was written by Minister McLellan to Mr. Marchi with copies to five ministers - actually six, because there was another copy to Mr. Massé as well. Plus, there was a letter from the ambassador in Tokyo to the Deputy Minister of the Environment, copied to, I think, four deputy ministers, including the Minister of Fisheries, who was directly involved - not to mention the pressures from the B.C. government that invested $15 million in this project.
.0945
Do you think it would be worth our while to examine a possible amendment to the CEAA to provide that there should be no direct or indirect influence to bear from any source until a permit is issued on a particular project?
Mr. Dorais: I could pass this observation...but in this particular case the minister followed the agency recommendation, and all letters and material, including the letters you quote, were made public immediately, and no pressure was exerted on the agency by anyone for that particular project. The agency did the work as efficiently and as quickly as it could possibly do it and forwarded a recommendation to the minister.
Mr. Lincoln: About the screenings, the 4,000 are those that have been registered in the public registry under the act. But as you rightly said, the ministries themselves can keep their own registries. So in effect you rightly suggested there may be many more than 4,000.
The first observation I would like to make is this. Surely there should be some coordination mechanism as between your agency and the ministries that keep separate registries for them to file the number of screenings they do internally and register on their own registries, so at least we know how much the total is without your having to ask them.
Secondly, when you say after the whole rundown there were nineteen panels and then it got back to a normal two, maybe two is a normal figure, I don't know, but it seems to me a very low figure. Don't you feel if this is the kind of issue where you don't have the staff to examine how thoroughly the screenings are made by every individual department - and I appreciate that fully - perhaps this should be a mandate to be given to the new commissioner for environment and sustainable development, to check into these ministries and find out how much quality or otherwise there is in those screenings by ministries?
Mr. Dorais: On the registry, I wish, quite frankly, the whole town would hear the recommendations of the member. The central registry we provide as a service to the departments is an essential tool that has, if it's well maintained and complete - and we have invested in the electronic infrastructure to do so - incredible information. For the first time in all the history of environmental assessment for the federal government, it tells us how many projects we actually look at. We never had that information before.
I am now writing every week to one selected deputy minister. I take them in turn and ask them questions. I told them I would soon table an annual report in Parliament and I needed accurate information on the number of projects. I'm using every means at our disposal to encourage people to participate. I think they're starting to come to see the value of that. Hopefully in the second year of operation the situation will improve. But I don't have any coercive mechanism to force departments to put their projects through that.
On how screenings are made, and the role of the sustainable development commissioner, given that it's a major element of decision-makings in departments, I certainly believe it's one area of sustainable development strategies that departments will have to cover and therefore the commissioner will have to cover, in the end. The agency will be more than pleased to provide the commissioner with all the information we do have on the system as a whole.
Mr. Lincoln: Last, one observation. Maybe we should also look at a possible amendment to the act to centralize the registry within your agency. That would solve a lot of problems.
On subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, I know I met with Mr. Connelly some time ago about the project of returning section 35 to the provinces and creating subsection 35(3). Can you tell us where this is at, from your standpoint? We have contradictory information that perhaps it has been dropped, or perhaps it's being delayed. Is it under active consideration? Where do we stand now with subsections 35(2) and (3), from your standpoint?
.0950
Mr. Dorais: I think the most accurate information is the information the minister gave to this committee last week, which is essentially that there are proposals floating. We have not seen a final proposal or any details of how that could be done and what the consequences would be. Environmental groups have made very strong representation to our minister. He has registered those recommendations and has passed them along to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has also registered them. At this point in time, that's where it's at.
Mr. Lincoln: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): The agency indicates on I think page 9 of the estimates that it's in the process of revising its organizational structure, as our note here says, to better meet its objective and to respond to the evolving needs and objectives of its clientele. The restructuring comprises two levels: the executive, encompassing a president and two vice-presidents, and a number of semi-autonomous teams whose function and staff requirements are described.
Then down below it describes, I guess, one of these teams:
- To undertake and manage the Agency's responsibilities for comprehensive studies and class
screenings; and to advocate timely, efficient, high-quality environmental assessments of
projects...
- After that it says ``2 FTEs''.
Mr. Dorais: Comprehensive studies is the particular section you're referring to.
Mr. Forseth: Yes.
Mr. Dorais: We should not be misled by the numbers there. The numbers are numbers of FTEs allocated to a team on a permanent basis, but the way we function, and the way new organizations function, is that we allocate people where the work needs to be done. Therefore, if there was a sudden surge of comprehensive study, that team could have eight people for three months and then would dissolve and be brought back to two people for the rest of the year.
So the teams are flexible. That was the whole intent of the organization we put in place, to be able to have enough flexibility to move around and meet the workload requirements there.
On the comprehensive studies, I have a preliminary list. We do track I can't remember how many projects, but dozens and dozens of projects could eventually become comprehensive studies. We know there are a number coming up. I can provide the member with a list of them.
Mr. Forseth: Can you name two or three of the more significant ones?
Mr. Dorais: The ones in the system now coming up are the Dublin Gulch Heap Leach Gold Mine project in the Yukon, the Kemess Mine in British Columbia, the Cheviot Mine in Alberta, and the cimenterie Cimbec au Québec. Those are some of the comprehensive studies currently in the system.
There is then the second set of comprehensive studies, projects that have not been submitted but would eventually have become comprehensive studies. Then we try to look as far as we can on the radar screen to plan our work there.
All work in this case is essentially to help the department's concerns and help the proponent do the best possible study. In the end, when we receive the report from the department, we advise the Minister of the Environment on whether or not this particular project should move to a full public hearing or should go back to the department for authorization.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you.
The Chairman: Some of you may want to have another question, but while you mull it over I will proceed with a couple of questions.
You told us you would move into cost recovery next year. Will the cost-recovery phase affect quality?
.0955
Mr. Dorais: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I hope it will improve quality. The minister has been mandated to look at options for cost recovery. In our mind, looking at options means looking at all options, including not recovering anything.
We will be going out soon with a paper and having some discussions with all stakeholders about the concept of recovering all costs. At the beginning of that exercise...I've been known to say that it's an exercise within the federal family that lacks discipline. Given that many departments are involved, we spend a lot of time in exchanges among bureaucrats rather than actually doing the assessment per se. I'm hoping that if we get some kind of cost attribution, cost recovery, or whatever we end up with, it will introduce a discipline into the system that will make it more efficient. Therefore we'll have more time and resources to spend on the environment rather than on the process itself of exchange among departments.
The Chairman: Going back to subsection 35(2), you indicate in your chart here that you had a total of 96 activities or actions under Fisheries and Oceans. I suppose this is all subsection 35(2) stuff.
Mr. Dorais: Most of it, yes.
The Chairman: The number of authorizations under subsection 35(2) seems to have gone down under CEA. Is that a fair conclusion, that it has gone down drastically compared to the preceding phase?
Mr. Dorais: No, I don't think so, Mr. Chairman, because they were done under the guideline order. The Supreme Court had ruled subsection 35(2) as not being a trigger under the guideline order. For the last two years of the life of the guideline order, there was no involvement of environmental assessments in subsection 35(2) authorizations.
The Chairman: Was that because of that order of the Supreme Court?
Mr. Dorais: Yes. Those were over and above, so this is a net gain in a sense.
The Chairman: Is that how you explain the fact that authorizations have gone down?
Mr. Dorais: No, authorizations under the Fisheries Act, or the involvement of environmental assessments and authorizations under the Fisheries Act, have gone up by 110. That's the latest figure. They started at zero.
The Chairman: As to CIDA, the low number of screenings is due to...what? Would you repeat it?
Mr. Dorais: There are two questions in your question. An explanation has been given to us by CIDA. Essentially they've said that they looked at all projects that were financed in any form by the various programs and concluded that...I just want to give you the latest figure. Do we have the figure for CIDA?
The four assessments since the beginning of the act are the number of projects that qualified under the act.
The second part of your question was whether or not I'm satisfied with that. I don't have the information now to answer that question. In our view it is a problem in that we have no tools at this time to assess whether we can be satisfied that this is actually the reality. But that's the information provided to us by CIDA.
The Chairman: Will you have such tools a year from now?
Mr. Dorais: I hope to be able to give the committee a report on the screening phase of environmental assessment that would include an assessment of the general quality with which this has been done. It's also a commitment I've made to environmental groups.
The Chairman: You may recall that under Bill C-56 there is an authorization to develop regulations on participant funding programs. How is the work proceeding on developing those regulations? When will you have them?
Mr. Dorais: Our intent is to have this regulation ready for April 1997, when we start cost recovery. So part of the discussion that will be taking place now in the context of recovery of the cost of environmental assessment and the cost of participant funding...the results of those discussions would then be integrated into regulations. This is why we haven't developed it.
.1000
The Chairman: Would you, perhaps a couple of months before, inform the members of this committee of the details of that program, and when it comes into effect and how it is supposed to work?
Mr. Dorais: I certainly will, and I'm certainly hoping to be in a position to provide the committee with more information sooner than that, so the committee can make input into it.
The Chairman: Do you have any comments to offer to us - I don't recall whether you did comment on that or not in your presentation - on the public registry and how it is operating?
Mr. Dorais: It's one program I'm proud of, in the sense that it has been recognized worldwide as one of the best. It won an Internet award. We've had nearly 60,000 hits on the Internet, which means it's been consulted somehow about 60,000 times.
That figure we must be very careful in using. The more accurate figure is over 4,000 people actually dial into the Internet to consult our registry. That's a hard figure: unique people, unique sites. It has now over 4,000 projects, 4,100 projects.
I think it's an extremely important corporate management tool for the government to manage environmental assessment. One of the key problems under the guideline order, in my view, was that every department was managing environmental assessment in a vertical way, all by itself, not talking to anyone else. We've been working very hard at trying to raise that to a corporate responsibility. Tools such as the public registry allow us to do that. We're investing a lot of effort in it.
The Chairman: Can you bring this committee up to date on the cabinet directive of 1990? How has that worked out in practice? Have assessments been made, and does the public have assess to such assessments?
Mr. Connelly: One of the things we've been doing to assist departments is a study of the state of the art in how you assess policies, because the directive you're talking about is the directive dealing with assessment of policies. Often these days it's called ``strategic environmental assessment''. We've been looking at methodologies and approaches within Canada, in other governments and in practices at the federal government level, and also internationally, to try to develop the state of the art and to assist departments in improving their present practice in that area. We've also started to identify areas where the directive could be improved. In due course we will be coming forward with ways to improve further the directive you referred to.
The Chairman: Can you indicate to the committee which policies you're examining at present, if any?
Mr. Connelly: Again, these policies are examined by the departments themselves when they bring them forward. It's based on the principle of self-assessment. What occurs is that frequently we see new policies moving through the cabinet process, and within the cabinet documents there is a section that deals with the issue of environmental considerations.
The Chairman: And how is it working out?
Mr. Connelly: Sorry?
The Chairman: This type of self-assessment: how is it working out?
Mr. Dorais: Our experience, Mr. Chairman, has been that it's very uneven. It's done on a systematic basis, but we don't have any tools in place now to assess the quality of whether or not it's done, other than the Minister of the Environment intervening and making sure the element of the environment is taken into account in policies.
The Chairman: What we heard in here obviously is the fact that we do have a comprehensive system of analysing, assessing, and evaluating physical projects. On that we are strong, we are proceeding well, and we are gathering experience from that knowledge.
On the policy side, though, we seem to have here some kind of a vacuum. So we would be looking to you for some indication of what your conclusions are on whether there is a vacuum and how that situation can be corrected on the policy side in the light, for instance, of the fact that a sustainable development commissioner is to be appointed or in the light of other legislative measures that are being implemented or developed. In other words, it's the policy side that is of interest to this committee.
.1005
Could you comment on that?
Mr. Dorais: As Mr. Connelly pointed out, over the next year we will be recommending to our ministers various options and ways to strengthen the current directive. The current directive, however, exists. It is there, it is public, and it says essentially that every minister must do an environmental assessment of new policies that are submitted to cabinet. In most cases this is done, but it is done on an uneven basis.
That assessment document is a public document, and that's the check-and-balance that is built into the current policy there.
The agency itself does not act as a sort of control agency, going around and telling departments whether they have assessed something properly or not. The cabinet is actually responsible for making that assessment as a whole on whether or not that has been done.
I'm hoping that, through the analysis that would lead to proposals to strengthen that or modify the current directive, we will be able to provide this committee with more information about how it's going and what can be done to improve the situation.
The Chairman: Let me provide you with a concrete example. The budget is a powerful policy instrument, as we all know. The budget one day may contain some special measures to favour the development of tar sands oils and taxation, fiscal, concessions to facilitate that development. That has, as we know, considerable impact on and implications for the whole question of climate change and CO2 emissions.
How do you see, then, this directive operating within the budget framework? Would the Minister of Finance be expected to self-assess his or her own policy?
Mr. Dorais: Your example illustrates the complexity of policy assessment, and also the danger and the difficulties in having a set of rigid rules.
Policies in countries that do not have a central planning system are developed in various fashions, in various ways and various circles. It does not mean that it cannot be assessed, but I think each department and each minister now has responsibility under that policy to design the most effective way to assess the policies that he or she is putting forward.
If I recall well, in the last budget there were some sections, maybe timid ones, on attempting to assess some of the measures that were taken in the budget. That's a good sign. It's a sign that the process is evolving in the right direction. That was the whole purpose of the cabinet directive: to ensure that the process of decision-making on policies was evolving in the direction of integrating environmental factors. It's happening at a slow pace. It is happening, but it's happening unevenly at this point in time.
The Chairman: You can see that if you have a general commitment on the part of any government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the long term, and then within the government you have one department that is given programs and fiscal tools that would increase the dependence on and the production of fossil fuels, then there is a contradiction within the government on those two developments. The overarching policy is affected negatively by one specific departmental policy, sometimes even aided or helped along by the budgetary measure that is being proposed at any given time.
In a situation such as that, what role do you see for your agency?
.1010
Mr. Dorais: The agency can play only a process role in helping people, in informing people, in giving them the tools to do the assessment, but we are not in the position, and we don't have the tools, to force people to do it. Other tools being designed, such as the commissioner on sustainable development and sustainable development plans, would certainly help in that direction. But the agency per se, with the tools at our disposal, both financial and legal tools, has limited its activity to developing the guidelines, trying to improve them, and providing departments with as accurate information as we can on how to do these things.
The Chairman: Do you need a change to the act whereby it would be the environment minister who'd have the final decision-making power other than the proposing minister?
Mr. Dorais: Certainly we would need a major change to the act. Policy assessment is not covered in the act. The minister's decision-making power, the way you describe it, is not covered in the act.
The Chair: Mr. Forseth, please go ahead and start the third round of questions.
Mr. Forseth: I would like to just take an example and work backwards, start with a problem and then look back at the regulatory and legal structure that should respond to it. I'll just take, for example, the Sydney tar ponds problem. Does CEAA apply to that? Is there some way it would kick in or be involved with that particular problem? Maybe we could work backwards and give some concrete examples here of operations.
Mr. Dorais: It's a bad example, to a certain extent, because we don't have a project there. A preliminary project was floated around by the province, but at this point in time we do not have a project. So the act does not apply, because there is no project, there is no federal authorization.
What you would need is some kind of trigger. If the project that's been floating around in the press were put forward.... If I'm not mistaken, if there is a dam that needs to be built and a navigable water protection permit would need to be issued by the minister responsible for the coast guard, that would trigger the act.
In that particular case, would it go on the comprehensive study list?
Mr. Connelly: Yes.
Mr. Dorais: It is a project that would be described in the comprehensive study list. A comprehensive study would immediately be launched, including some public consultation. The report and all the public comments would come to the Minister of the Environment. We at the agency would advise the Minister of the Environment on whether or not this should go to a public hearing, or this should be authorized immediately. If it went to a public hearing, the minister then would set a panel and we would go through a full set of public hearings.
Mr. Forseth: Who has to come forward with an idea of an action plan, then, that would get CEAA involved?
Mr. Dorais: We need a project to be involved. Without a project there's nothing to assess. So we absolutely need three things: a project, a department responsible, and a trigger of some kind, which could be land, money or a regulatory trigger. So if we don't have those three conditions, the act is not triggered.
Mr. Forseth: Page 18, under the title ``Aboriginal Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government'', says in the second paragraph, ``anticipates...up to 48 comprehensive claims''. Then it says, ``By providing for First Nations-specific environmental assessment regulations, the Act also recognizes...the changing relationship''. So it anticipates financial demands and logistical support.
I would like you to describe whether we are up to the task and where we are going with the whole aboriginal issue. Are we looking at eventually having complete parallel regimes, yet the average taxpayer is going to support that?
Mr. Dorais: Are we up to the task? It is a very important task, there's no doubt about it. In the last year the agency did create an aboriginal team within our team system. We did not have that before. We now have four people working full time strictly on aboriginal environmental assessment issues. So it's a very important part of our resources, when we're a small agency, to do that.
.1015
What we're trying to do there is discuss and have systems that meet the requirements of the aboriginal people involved in their claims, but at the same time have that compatible with the existing system and easily substituted, so we don't have two systems applying. Harmonization agreements in some cases, substitutions in other cases, delegations in other cases - all the tools are used to make sure we have no duplication and overlap.
How this will end up is very hard to predict. The negotiations are complex and are different from one end of the country to the other.
Then there are all the 600-odd Indian bands in the south that are subject to the act at this point. We've been working with the first nations, trying to develop a regulation to make sure the application of the act is compatible with the reality of first nations.
So it's a major task. Whether we're up to the task or not time will tell, but we're trying to make sure systems are compatible throughout the country.
The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln: On policies and programs, to follow up on what Mr. Caccia was discussing with you, if my memory serves me right, some of us worked very hard to get it included in the act. Unfortunately it didn't happen. So the only way whereby we can have some real legal input from your standpoint will be to try to get policies and programs into the act by amendment. There was a project to have them in.
Mr. Dorais: Legislation on policy and programs is evolving very rapidly throughout the world now. New concepts and new ways of doing it are being developed every year. It could be dangerous to have a very rigid system.
The current system is a system that is public. The environmental assessments of policies of the federal government are being made public. Therefore the accountability structure is built in there. To a certain extent, in some cases, it has been used by Canadians asking questions based on the documents and the assessments have been made public. But it has not yet been used to its full potential.
Mr. Lincoln: About plutonium, what is your judgment of what's happening? I was reading about Professor Gordon Edwards and others saying that even if we burn this plutonium, the wastes are going to be just as dangerous and we'll have a real problem. Then there's transportation. There are massive amounts of rejects from the United States and Russia. It amazes me that the United States can't look after its own. I can maybe see a case for Russian plutonium on the basis of helping a poorer neighbour, but my logic fails to understand why we have to help the United States with burning massive amounts of plutonium here.
The minister will have to make.... It's triggered under the Atomic Energy Control Act. So they're going to screen it, and eventually the Minister of the Environment will be given a file to make a recommendation on whether there's to be a public hearing and a panel. If he were to ask for your recommendation, would you say we should have a panel, given the huge impact of this issue?
Mr. Dorais: It's not for me to answer the first part of that question. Although I would love to have an opinion on that, I feel I'm very far from competent to offer a technical opinion on whether or not such a project would eventually be good if it were turned into a project.
On the actual process itself, I think the member described the process quite accurately. Then the Minister of the Environment would have to weight the elements that have been produced in the.... It would probably be a comprehensive study on that, if I'm not mistaken; but I may be wrong there. A comprehensive study would have to weight all of the elements that have been raised and the significance of the potential impact or the significance of the impact and the public interest that has been raised and then make a decision on that basis. What that decision would be at that time is quite speculative at this time.
.1020
Mr. Lincoln: Do you or Mr. Connelly have any idea of how long it will take from the time the Atomic Energy Control Board looks at this issue, screens it, studies it, and sends it on to the minister? What can we anticipate in the way of delays?
Mr. Dorais: I stand to be corrected by my colleagues, but at this point in time I think the only thing that has been talked about is the possibility of looking, through a feasibility study, at whether or not this could be turned into a form of project, and that could take quite some time before it actually reaches the stage of a potential project.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could tell us when your hands-on guide to the application of the environmental assessment process for policy proposals will be completed and made public.
Mr. Dorais: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we were hoping to be a bit faster than we are now. I was hoping that after one year we would have been able to complete our work. The first year has been tough because implementing a new act was not easy; we had surprises at every corner. But I'm certainly hopeful that during the course of the second year of implementation of the act we'll be able to provide the minister with some recommendations and some data on policy assessment and that he'll be able to make a decision.
The Chairman: So the hands-on guide mentioned on page 19 of the program probably will see the light of day when?
Mr. Dorais: I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question. The hands-on guide is ready.
Mr. Connelly: It's very close to being completed. It's in draft form right now and we're having it reviewed by other departments. So we hope to issue it soon.
The Chairman: Before the summer or the fall?
Mr. Connelly: By the summer, we hope.
The Chairman: Mr. Dorais, Mr. Bernier, and Mr. Connelly, we thank you for having appeared before this committee. We had a very good exchange. We learned a lot, and we look forward to seeing you again.
This meeting stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon.