Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 31st, 2012

[Tony Maas]

Yes.

[Rachel Forbes]

No, it doesn't, because the proposed additional amendment to section 35 is much worse than the one that's first proposed in the budget bill.

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

In what respect?

[Rachel Forbes]

It minimizes even more the protection to fish habitat that we rely on the Fisheries Act and the federal government for.

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

So you'll look forward to the new section 35, which is a consolidation with section 32 as well.

[Rachel Forbes]

I'm sorry? I'm looking forward to it?

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

Well, you don't like the amended version that will be in there temporarily, so you will prefer it when we finally get the new section 35 in place.

[Rachel Forbes]

No, I'm not looking forward to any of it. I think it's all a several-decades step backwards in environmental protection. It's messing with what I think has been referred to as a piece of environmental legislation that most people really resonate with.

In industry, I have friends who build bridges in the Okanagan. My family are fishers, and everybody knows section 35. They know what it is; they know how it works. We're rolling back the clock and throwing out all the case law on it.

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

Well, if they're in the Okanagan, it would be a recreational fishery, which will be protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp. We have to move on.

Mr. Chisholm, you have two and a half minutes.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you,.

On that point, Mr. Kamp tried to suggest to former fisheries minister Siddon last night that what they are doing is very similar to or exactly what the policy and the definitions from back in 1986 represented. Of course, Mr. Siddon said very clearly that it's not, that it's a—I think he used the words “devious and scary”—process and change.

We don't have a lot of time, but I would like to ask you, Ms. Forbes, to talk a little bit about why you have the kind of concerns you have concerning the new concepts that are in this newly amended section 35.

[Rachel Forbes]

It's probably because they're just that: they are new concepts. I think my colleague referred to the fact, and concerning the regulation point too, that the thing that's unique about this process is that so much of the substance is being left to regulation.

While it's okay to do regulations after you've passed the act, we can't have any certainty about what the act really does until we know what these terms really do. I can't say with certainty that it is a rollback of environmental laws and that we are going to decrease fish habitat protection and are going to decrease the ability to protect our commercial, aboriginal, and cultural fisheries for the long term.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

This is a last point, probably. It's Interesting that Mr. Jean said everything is going well with first nations. We had the Grand Chief in here the other night talking about the fact that he was appalled at the changes that are being proposed in this legislation and that there has been absolutely no consultation with the first nations and that there are no provisions in this legislation to consult with the first nations. He also questioned the constitutionality of the designation to the provinces.

I know you have experience working with first nations communities, Ms. Forbes. Would you comment?

[Rachel Forbes]

I'd agree with that. I don't know that I can speak with any more specificity about it; I'm not from a first nation.

I think there is danger in using particular examples of first nations as success stories, because I am even less able to make generalizations about them than I am about white Canadians in this room. We clearly come from different communities and have different interests and different values that we protect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Ms. Forbes.

Thank you, Mr. Chisholm. Your time has expired.

Ms. Duncan, you have two and a half minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My final question will be for Ms. Forbes.

We were told by Stephen Hazell that by his reading of CEAA 2012, it does not require any evidence of equivalency before a substitution to a provincial process occurs.

I'm wondering what your reading is of that.

[Rachel Forbes]

I feel that the whole provincial-federal question needs to be looked at further, as I think many things in this bill do. In terms of looking at the gaps and substituting things, there was reference made before wondering who will fill the gaps.

There's actually no legal responsibility for anybody to fill the gaps, and so things will fall through them. That's the whole point about this patchwork of provincial regulations: they're all different. Ontario does, by and large, only government projects; B.C. has a threshold approach, and if a project is given to B.C. to do and it isn't triggered by the legislation there, then it doesn't have to be assessed.

So there's no legal responsibility for people to step up to the plate. We hope that they will, but they may not. That's a big problem.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Are you aware of any assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each of the provinces and territories?

[Rachel Forbes]

Yes, I'm aware of some in B.C. where I have identified some systematic problems in terms of consultation and the thresholds. We have a project list approach in B.C., much like the one the federal government is proposing. It can either anticipate different types of projects or leave it to the proponent to tailor-make their project so that it is not triggered by an EA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Colleagues, that brings to a conclusion this particular panel.

I would like to thank Mr. Smith, Ms. Forbes, Mr. Everson, Mr. Steedman, Mr. Maas, and Mr. Toner for making the effort to come here to Ottawa to share with us your knowledge and expertise on this most important subject. Thank you very much for your time.

Colleagues, this is something that I think we all appreciate as members of Parliament. I would like you to join me in thanking our staff who have been so wonderful in supporting us here for the last four nights.

I am going to specifically thank our clerks: Mr. Jean-François Lafleur, Michelle Tittley, Julie Lalande Prud'homme, and Jean-François Pagé; and the analysts who have joined us throughout this, those being Ms. Kristen Courtney, Penny Becklumb, Mark Mahabir, and Brett Stuckey.

The translation services have been absolutely phenomenal, and not only for the simultaneous translation but also for the bunch of documents and the blues that have come out on the following day from four hours of meetings, so that we're able to look at them. I would like to thank Dominique March, Josette Noreau, Nadine Chouinard, Catherine Richard, Denis Samson, Yvon De Repentigny, Paul-André Gravelle, and Josée Deschênes. If I've missed anybody, I apologize.

I also thank the staff who look after us here in the rooms and bring us our cards and keep the water filled, the staff who have kept us nourished during some of these marathon sessions. It's been an absolute privilege to be here and have you serve us so capably. Thank you so much.

[Applause]

Colleagues, we will now suspend and move into the consideration of the report.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With your permission, I'd just like to thank you as chair. I think you've been handling this very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Ms. May.

[Proceedings continue in camera]