Evidence of meeting #5 for Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tony Maas  Director, Freshwater Program, World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
Robert Steedman  Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board
Warren Everson  Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Rachel Forbes  Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Geoff Smith  Director, Government Relations, Canadian Electricity Association
Terry Toner  Chair, Stewardship Task Group, Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc, Canadian Electricity Association

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

I share your concern. Thank you.

Mr. Steedman, perhaps I could ask you a question. Regarding the proposed NEB assessments under the act, interested parties are going to be defined as persons “directly affected by the carrying out of a designated project” or if the person has “relevant information or expertise”. We also know that under Bill C-38 the minister is going to have the power to dictate who should be defined as a directly affected person, therefore giving him the power to specify who will be allowed to speak, for instance, in pipeline reviews.

Given that the current minister and this government seem to have made unprecedented attacks against environmental groups, I'm really worried that this is quite an undemocratic principle. I'm wondering how you feel about the minister's ability to define “directly affected” persons, and what is your definition? Do you expect to have any conflict with the minister on this?

8:10 p.m.

Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board

Dr. Robert Steedman

Thank you for the question.

Our reading of the bill is that it's quite clear that a panel of the National Energy Board struck for a facility hearing would make the call, based on the individual circumstances, as to who is directly affected. That's how we read the bill.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

So it's not of concern to you that the minister could simply come in and decide for you who the directly affected person is?

8:10 p.m.

Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board

Dr. Robert Steedman

That's not how we read that bill.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

That's not how you read the bill.

So if the minister came down and told you his definition of a “directly affected” person, you would be comfortable in saying that you disagreed, and you would be able to counter what the minister has directed to you.

8:10 p.m.

Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board

Dr. Robert Steedman

It wouldn't be me; it would be the panel that had been struck.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Yes indeed, it would be the panel. But I'm asking you, in your opinion, if you believe that the NEB would be able to say no to the minister and that you could countermand a decision made by the minister as to his definition of what a directly affected person could be.

8:10 p.m.

Chief Environment Officer, National Energy Board

Dr. Robert Steedman

I believe a future panel would be well advised and would take their own decision on that.

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

I think there will be some very unhappy people in the future. I am very concerned that the NEB will be left powerless.

Ms. Forbes, under sections 71 and 83 of the proposed NEB Act the minister will be given the power to remove or replace any panel member in the middle of a review, and hand-pick a single member to complete the review.

What do you think the impact of that will be?

8:10 p.m.

Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Rachel Forbes

Being a lawyer, I'm thinking of levels of a court. For example, at one level you have a judge, and as the matter becomes more serious you have three judges. Then you have five to nine judges reviewing it, because more people can provide you with additional analysis and perspective on difficult-to-make decisions.

On these larger projects like pipelines, where the NEB is looking at them, we have derived a great benefit from having more than one mind making decisions. If we have one mind making a decision about who is directly affected, and making an entire recommendation on a project that could affect multiple provinces, hundreds of first nations, and thousands of waterways, that's a lot of responsibility to put on one person. Ultimately we're putting it on the minister anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter.

But we are definitely in favour of having a three-person panel, and including first nations representation on every panel.

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

We heard from Chief Atleo earlier that as far as consultations on the process in front of us today, he was completely unsatisfied.

Would you speak briefly on the process that brought us here today and the ability to fan out the concerns people have on Bill C-38? Do you think the process we have here is adequate?

8:15 p.m.

Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association

Rachel Forbes

I do appreciate being here and I think this committee is doing a good job hearing from a diverse variety of witnesses. The breadth of the budget bill in its entirety, even just part 3, is so enormous and such a policy change for Canada—and, admittedly, the government has said that this bill will change the direction of Canada in many ways—it's difficult to wrap your mind around how many changes are happening and what they will really mean.

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Thank you, Ms. Forbes. We're well over a minute.

We're over six minutes now, Mr. Toone. I've been very generous. I thank you for your acknowledgement. I blame the chair for the fairness of this.

8:15 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Mr. Jean is next for up to five minutes, please.

May 31st, 2012 / 8:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and you would be accurate in your assumption that we are all blaming you for the fairness.

I am a member of the finance committee as a whole and I have to tell you that I found it amusing when I first came in here. I wasn't going to say anything when I heard words like “not properly consulted” and “not enough hours spent on this bill”.

To put it bluntly, I've never spent more time on any bill in my eight years here, and I think this is actually the most time that any committee has ever spent on a budget implementation act since I've been here, for certain. So I do want to thank this committee for all the hours they've put in. Today, we didn't have enough witnesses so we had to cancel the meeting. Yesterday we had to do the same thing. So we are hearing from a lot of Canadians, and as you say, it's a very diverse group. I'm glad of that because I think it is an important issue, especially because it is a milestone in relation to some particular pieces of legislation.

I'm also glad to hear the NDP is interested in creating more jobs in Canada. Certainly I think that's important, to have value added that actually pays for itself. Here I just want to let the member know that with the glut of refining capacity in the United States right now, it's not a competitive industry so it would be very difficult indeed for a Canadian to make a profit on refining some of the raw materials we do have, because the refining can be done much more cheaply in the south—without government subsidies, of course, which I'm not into.

I do want to talk about something that was brought up and that has, to my mind, not received enough time, and that is the impact of this particular legislation on aboriginal people.

I come from Fort McMurray. There were 1,500 people when I moved there in 1967. Today there are about 130,000. A large component of my family is aboriginal in background, from three reserves in the area. I have seen tremendous changes in that group of individuals in the last 10 to 15 years since we've had economic development there, and I'd like to tell you a story about my nephew. He served some serious time in jail, lived on the streets for a period of time, and is a full treaty Indian from the Janvier Indian Band. Today, at 33 or 34 years of age, he has a family of five children and over a million and a half dollars in the bank. He has a very successful business, after three years, and that is because in Fort McMurray there is a pro-aboriginal hiring policy. Syncrude, for instance, has a policy that 15% of its workforce be aboriginal, for Suncor it's 8%, and there are another 28 companies up there with similar policies of hiring aboriginals because it's very important to them.

We have seen a tremendous change in the communities around us—not the chronic alcohol and drug problems as there were back in the seventies and eighties. There has been tremendous improvement in people's lives, and in going to some places in Canada, I've not seen that same reflection of success in aboriginal lives. And here I'm not just talking about economic success; I'm talking about success in families, success in their general quality of life.

I wanted to address the Chamber of Commerce especially.

The Northeastern Alberta Aboriginal Business Association, which has over 300 members, has the following mission statement: Aboriginal Business in partnership with Industry; enhancing opportunities by supporting economic development of Aboriginal people in the Wood Buffalo region.

I have to tell you, the relationships between the aboriginal bands and the aboriginals in northeastern Alberta are very good, leading to tremendous success for aboriginals.

Now, is that what you see taking place in the rest of Canada in areas that don't have economic development right now and have high percentages of aboriginals? Do you see their coming into the work force and having economic success and quality of life improvement, which is very important to me?

8:20 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Warren Everson

Well, there's much to be hoped. Thanks for the question.

The issue of access to, and integration of aboriginal communities into, the workforce is itself a huge preoccupation with members of the Chamber of Commerce, especially in the natural resources sectors. I would think that most of my corporate members would say that they appreciate the legislation addressing the aboriginal consultation process but that they don't necessarily believe the solution for this lies in Ottawa.

I hear all the time that the only thing that works with respect to forging good relationships is forging good relationships. You have to be there and it's on the ground and it's over a long period of time and it's about acting in a trustworthy fashion.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

But what the federal government can do with the provinces and with consultations with aboriginal bands and leaders is to provide them with the proper tools. I have to tell you that from what I've seen, the tools are education; pride in themselves, which comes as a result of that; and jobs, which make a huge difference.

Could you comment on that?

8:20 p.m.

Senior Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Warren Everson

I completely agree. There's an ongoing debate, which I think the country has to face up to, about the adequacy of educational support for aboriginals. Once that issue is addressed, there is also a whole raft of cultural and societal relationships that has to be worked out. I've seen a big difference just in the last few years among corporate members in respect to that.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

I would agree with you. I have many aboriginal friends who have successful businesses there.

Thank you.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Thank you, Mr. Jean. This is much appreciated.

Thank you, Mr. Everson.

Colleagues, I'm not typically a clock-watcher at work, but here is the reality. We have scheduled this section of the meeting to go until 8:30. Given that we have now completed the second round of questioning, we have about seven minutes left. If we want to do a third round to let each party have at least one more opportunity to ask questions, it would mean that we would have a little over two minutes for each.

Is that worth our time, or shall we simply suspend now and move on?

I'm sensing that we're ready to go.

Okay, going in the order in which we're mandated, I will go with Mr. Allen for two and a half minutes.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have just a very quick question, and then I know Mr. Kamp wants to ask a question.

I want to go back to the electricity association again. I asked this question to the Canadian Hydropower Association.

Proposed sections 20 and 21, which are in clause 136 of the budget implementation act, talk about fish passage. Are there any concerns or issues with respect to that? I got the drift from the Hydropower Association that they might be a little bit nervous about that.

8:20 p.m.

Chair, Stewardship Task Group, Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc, Canadian Electricity Association

Terry Toner

We think there's an opportunity to amend it to the extent that a mechanism be put in place, which doesn't appear to be there, to deal with existing fish passage that might be in the system.

I think there is an interpretation issue afoot, and we would be interested in understanding how that will unfold.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp.

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Both Ms. Forbes and Mr. Maas seemed somewhat concerned about passing legislation without seeing the regulations—which almost always follow in that order, so I'm a little surprised at that concern.

In this particular piece of legislation, section 35, which is a key focus of the critique of this act, has the odd situation whereby we amend section 35, and then we have a subclause to actually repeal it, but we repeal it at a later date, and that later date will be when the regulation-making process is complete.

Does that provide any greater comfort for you?