Fisheries committee  Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and committee members. Before I get started, I also want to express my condolences on the passing of Gord Brown. As some members may recall, I had the privilege of speaking to this committee when this process of reviewing and restoring the Fisheries Act began almost two years ago, and I am pleased to be with you here again at the tail end to discuss Bill C-68.

Environment committee  It's very clear that the “one project, one assessment” mantra is there. We can take lessons from the U.S. on this point. This notion of co-operative federalism has been bandied around a lot lately. The point is that if the federal government has a jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has clearly said it does, then the federal government can set a baseline in terms of what is a strong, rigorous environmental assessment.

Environment committee  There are two big points. The first is that Professor Elgie is right. The last word on this is from the Supreme Court in 2010, and that's the MiningWatch decision. In that case, you had a mine that was triggered by a Fisheries Act permit, and the issue was whether DFO could somehow reduce its environmental assessment responsibilities to just those parts that were going to have an impact on federal jurisdiction.

Environment committee  I think it's pretty unanimous, at least on the side of colleagues that I've talked to, that the more legislative criteria on these points you have in the act, the better. Again, it just provides, as Professor Elgie said, certainty and predictability to the regime. I know several submissions to the expert panel and then to the government itself listed several criteria that could be useful, for instance, where a region is of particular importance from an ecological perspective.

Environment committee  I would second that. In fact, right now, it's clear that the Federal Court of Appeal has essentially.... There is jurisprudence that really cemented in the last couple of years—and this goes back to what I said in my submission—where they have essentially said they're not going to look at the science.

Environment committee  There's scholarship on this point exactly, that in fact, public participation provides an opportunity for groups to.... Essentially, it creates a bubble, if you will, where contentious issues can be resolved. If they are done in an impartial way, then they actually in the long run secure greater acceptability of the project and those kinds of things.

Environment committee  Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today with you in your review of Bill C-69, and the impact assessment act in particular. Briefly by way of background, I am an assistant professor at the University of Calgary faculty of law. Prior to joining the law school back in 2013, however, I spent almost six years as counsel at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where my practice included advising that department with respect to its environmental assessment responsibilities under both the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the current CEAA 2012.