Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is requesting funding of $139,000 under the supplementary estimates, for a total budget of just over $31 million. If renewed, these funds will allow our Pacific and Yukon regional offices to continue supporting ongoing treaty negotiations with aboriginal groups.

Environment committee  There was probably a little bit of a hiccup in terms of the transition at that time because of projects that were already in process or assessments that were in process were transitioned. However, I would like to make clear we do have with the participant funding program, and the EA process in general, an inherent inability to predict when projects will be completed, when a proponent will deliver an EIS, etc.

Environment committee  It's not the act per se, but it's the transition in terms of what we were funding, and how. Now we focus participant funding on certain stages of the EA process. It's based on take-up and need when a proponent is moving through those different phases of a project. If it's at the EIS stage, the environmental impact statement stage, if the proponent delivers on time as per their forecast, then the participant funding would go out to first nations or other aboriginal groups to participate at that—

Environment committee  I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you.

Environment committee  Often, the significance will also relate to impacts on aboriginal communities, and that is determined through discussions with the aboriginal communities and the proponent in terms of what the expected effect will be. I'm not an EA science practitioner, so I won't get myself into scientific details.

Environment committee  What I can say is that in situ was not on the project list before and it continues not to be.

Environment committee  I think, Mr. Chair, the point with respect to the project list is that it focuses on those major projects that have the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects related to the project. That's not to say that the federal government writ large doesn't have an interest in and responsibility for GHGs, but it's not handled on a project-specific basis through the EA process.

Environment committee  I would not characterize it that way.

Environment committee  The minister has authority under the act.

Environment committee  Thank you. I'll start, Chair, and others may jump in after. What I can tell you is that changes to the project list regulations were made to ensure that they cover those projects with the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction, which focuses resources on where they most need to be.

Environment committee  I think a more accurate way of framing that would be that we are putting the resources we do have to those areas that have the highest potential for adverse effect. So rather than dealing with some that may have been more inconsequential, and that were subject to a federal EA simply because, for example, the federal government may have been putting in money even if there were not significant effects, those have been removed so that the bigger, more major projects that are expected to potentially have significant effects can be focused on with the resources we have.

Environment committee  Thank you. Mr. Chair, I can first of all acknowledge the question in terms of the lapsing. There were really two portions to the lapse identified by the member, the $4.1 million lapse. Part of it was through grants and contributions, the dollars that were lapsed, and the other part was the O and M that was lapsed.