Environment Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Time has expired.

Mr. Hoback, we'll have five minutes from you.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find this very interesting. I sit on the finance and agriculture committees. A lot of the issues you're talking about pop up in agriculture, and in finance, in the pre-budget talks, we're looking at things we can do to stimulate our economy. Regulations are definitely required, but duplication of regulations and duplication of jurisdictions definitely get in the way. Seeing projects move forward.... Whether it's in the mining, petroleum, or manufacturing sector, there have always been items or areas that have been identified that we need to move forward on.

Coming from Saskatchewan, I just did a round of meetings with a lot of my municipalities, and they talk about the culvert example. I'm sure you guys have heard that, where they're going to put a culvert in and all of a sudden they have to get an environmental assessment, then they have to look at the Navigable Waters Act, and then Fisheries and Oceans.... Where it would have taken them four hours to put the culvert in, all of a sudden it takes them four weeks, and where they would have spent $5,000 for a culvert, all of a sudden it's $35,000 for a culvert.

That's just in an RM with a group of farmers. That is a beef that comes across quite commonly and quite often, whenever I meet with my municipalities. How can we get this streamlined so that common sense comes back into the process, so that we still protect the environment but we move forward and allow activity to happen without stifling or choking it and making it impossible to do?

I'm sure you have examples of this in both the petroleum and the mining sectors. What kinds of examples could you tell this committee about? I think you started off with one in B.C. versus Australia. Maybe you can elaborate on that one a little bit?

[Pierre Gratton]

I'll give you two that come to mind.

Well, Australia's environmental assessment can take as little as six months. Even with our improvements, which are significant, we're still much slower than Australia.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Can I just stop you there, then?

Is it fair to say, though, as far as the assessment, as far as the impact on the environment, they would be equal?

[Pierre Gratton]

I wouldn't have enough knowledge to say, but I'd be surprised if Australia was much different from Canada.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Based in the assumption that, yes, they would—

[Pierre Gratton]

Their distribution of power is different from ours, so there could be reasons there as well.

The other example I'll give you is Baffinland. This goes back a couple of years, but they were going under a Nunavut review board environmental assessment for their bulk sample—this is a major potential iron ore mine, and this was for a large bulk sample.

They had gone through the NIRB, and then very late in the game, after they had their NIRB approvals, Transport Canada put their hand up and said, “Oh, your culverts are the wrong size.”

They ended up having to spend six months.... They'd already ordered their culverts. The culverts were on a ship heading towards the site to be installed, and Transport Canada came up at the last minute—after they'd had ample opportunity throughout the process to say so—and it cost the company a lot of delay and a lot of grief.

In the end it was resolved, but that is what happens when you have a process at the federal level that isn't well managed. Now, again, I go back to where I was. I don't believe that would happen now, but it happened then.

[David Collyer]

We have many analogies to the culvert example. It's just an example of an assessment being triggered over a rather trivial and routine issue.

I talked earlier about the Mackenzie Valley experience, which nobody wants to repeat. I think there are some good lessons to be learned per your reference to Australia. It's different, but there is some learning there. I think there are some good lessons in terms of the provincial processes that can be looked at as well.

There's an opportunity to make some fairly significant improvements.

The only other comment I wanted to make—just to go back to the aboriginal piece for a minute—is that we talk a lot about what doesn't work. But there's a huge list of things, examples of things, that work very well, where aboriginal peoples are engaged, they're employed, and there are tremendous opportunities for economic growth. Fort McKay is a great example of that.

I think we also need to focus on what is working, as opposed to what's not working.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It's interesting you say that because actually that was the next place I was going—to the example of northern Saskatchewan's uranium sector. There are a couple of great examples of aboriginal involvement, and the reality is that if the uranium sector wasn't there and operating, there would not be aboriginal employment in that region.

I'll look at a new example that's coming up. There's a possible hydro dam on the James Smith first nations, the three nations there—how they're working with Brookfield and trying to bring that project forward, and how they're working together right from the start through the process. I's such a good example of what can happen when you work together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Hoback, your time has expired. Thank you so much.

Mr. Coderre, you have five minutes.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Obviously, the difference between Australia and Canada is the Constitution. We can all agree that they are not the same. This must be taken into account. In Quebec, we are faced with a reality specific to Quebec that must be taken into account.

I am trying to understand. I am in favour of good environmental assessment. I try to cut red tape, because that is the issue. We also need to come up with different regulations, in an area where we must respect existing treaties and the duty to consult with First Nations, to ensure that this does not take forever. Because one of the issues is that…

you want a timeframe. You want to make sure that we have a time limit, but at the same time you have to protect the environment, you have to be respectful of the consultations. They are players. In my book, this is key. We didn't have that convention for nothing in 1975, and there's a reason that it's in the Constitution of 1982.

But at the same time, David, when we spoke in the past about the oil sands, that's the same thing.

What I'm looking for is to protect the strategic resources, to make sure everybody benefits out of it, but at the same time you need a process, because there were some tables regarding the water monitoring and all that. Sometimes less government might be interesting, but we need government. So this is the difference between smart regulation, cutting out the red tape, and seeking some results and protecting the environment--and protecting the people who are living in that environment.

Where's the beef? Do we need to put more money in the environmental assessment because we're cutting the budget? We can talk about all the philosophy we want, but if we don't have the resources, it means nothing. We can have a nice law with nice regulations, but if we don't have the resources to do so, it will create some other problems. We'll finish that in court, and we all know lawyers will get richer.

If you have one recommendation from both sides, how can I cut the red tape and be respectful of the Constitution? There's a reason that there's

… shared protection. Once the Northern Development Plan becomes reality, it will hit us head on. It will be an opportunity to show how the federal government, provincial governments, First Nations governments and industry can work together.

How can we manage it? Is it just a matter of resources and saying, “Okay, we put that in that law. You respect the first nations. You have to work with them--consultations, money, and that's it--in a timeframe.” Would that be appropriate to do?

[David Collyer]

My short answer is this. I would just like to be really clear. Our view is that more regulation is not necessarily better regulation, but a foundation of all of this has to be environmental performance. Nobody's disputing that.

I would come back to two things. One thing is the equivalent substitution piece as an opportunity. And the second thing is timelines and clarity of process, including aboriginal consultation, because we all want to do that well. I think those are two key opportunities to improve the overall process. I think if this committee could make some inroads on those, we would all be well served.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Roger, do you want to deal with that?

[Roger Jones]

Thank you.

I think the Assembly of First Nations, and first nations generally, have done quite a bit of outreach in trying to engage everyone who has an interest in this issue to have a discussion and work things out. An example of that was the mining and energy conference that was held in June, earlier this year, where governments were invited, industry was invited, and they participated in a very constructive discussion. But it's the beginning. It can't be the end, and when the meeting ends the issues and the topic are forgotten.

I think we put forth a recommendation that the state--in this case, Canada--needs to work with the first nations governments to help shape and inform legislation that is going to address the relationship issues that are critical. When you get the James Bay agreement, or any other land claim agreement, it's a relationship that is created, and it's done by agreement, not imposed legislatively or by unilateral decisions on the part of decision-makers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Next is Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I want to pick up on something in Mr. Collyer's written report here. We are used to hearing quotes from the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund on Canada's relative success during these difficult last couple of years of recession. In your written report, you make the comment that the International Energy Agency and the World Economic Forum have cited our overly complex, redundant, and open-ended regulatory system in Canada as a threat to our ability to track capital to develop our abundant natural resources. I wonder if you could tell us where we could access the source of those quotes.

[David Collyer]

We can provide those submissions for you. I'd be happy to do that. I guess my observation would be that we've not done as good a job on the regulatory process as we've done on managing the financial side of the system, and there's an opportunity to improve.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

It's the object of our exercise today.

Coming back to our friends from the AFN, you said, Mr. Jones, something very close to the quote that I have here from Chief Atleo. He says, “To be clear, First Nations are not opposed to development but it must be responsible, sustainable and based on partnership.” I think your opening remarks were similar to that. That was from National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo.

I guess the only word I'd have a problem with is “sustainability”. Extractive projects may have a life of 30 years or so. The particular projects may not be sustainable. I'm not sure of the context in which he meant that word, because extractive projects are not eternal. They have a lifespan. In that context, how do we work out situations where there are differences of opinion on moving ahead with first nations, industry, and government? How do we work this out?

A particularly thorny problem that's surfaced in British Columbia--some may be nervous about me even bringing this up--is the new Prosperity Mine. We have an area of British Columbia that has been ravaged by the pine beetle. In fact, our B.C. caucus had a presentation just yesterday with the Canadian Space Agency. They showed pictures from RADARSAT. When it was going over B.C., you could see it from outer space, the red death of those pine trees. They will be decades recovering. While in the last couple of years the forest industry has been booming, harvesting pine beetle wood, which had to be harvested, there's going to be a dearth of economic activity for decades as that section of the economy recovers.

We're looking at this Prosperity Mine. I don't have the figures in front of me, but it has maybe a 30-year life, billions of dollars in economic revenue and opportunities for first nations employment. I don't know all the details, but I understand the company involved has been trying to negotiate with first nations, but there has been a standoff about partnership, working together, economic, educational, and moving ahead opportunities. AFN Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould says it's “hard to understand why CEAA did not reject the so-called New Prosperity Mine proposal, which is essentially one of the options in the first proposal that CEAA has already rejected”. She goes on to say that there “can only be one legitimate outcome of the second review process and that is rejection”.

So if we start with no as a beginning, how do we resolve issues like that, and is there a process? Is there going to be any hope of resolving this through process, without going to the Supreme Court?

[Roger Jones]

I think we have to be careful about talking about that project, because it is in litigation now. But one of the observations that people have made about that situation is that sometimes you have to look at it more broadly. In resolving disputes and mediation approaches, sometimes you have to expand the pie. That means you have to look at alternative options, what is available in the way of economic development in that area. Is that the only one, or are there others that might serve the needs and interests of everyone in that area?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much. Time has expired.

Ms. Leslie, you have four and a half minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As the chair pointed out, it is voluntary to answer questions in writing and follow up, so if you choose, James Bay committee and AFN, I would love a follow-up about something that my colleague, Monsieur Coderre, brought up: the cuts to the environmental assessment agency.

These are my questions. What is your experience of the agency's efforts to address aboriginal consultation? We can give you this in writing, so you don't need to write it all down. What do you foresee with the sunsetting of the funding for consultation? Also, we've heard some testimony about consultation fatigue and the inability to keep up. That to me has a lot to do with participant funding. Do you think there is or will be adequate participant funding?

Then I'd like to turn the rest of the time over to you, back to my original question about what we're doing here as a committee. We're going to meet soon and talk about our schedule and talk about what we're doing next with this seven-year review. Should we be out in communities? Should we be talking to first nations currently engaged with the process or engaged in the past? Who? What? Any ideas on what we should be doing, specifically with first nations issues?

[William David]

I'll try to be quick. On that, I think it would be entirely productive for you to be engaged with first nations that have had both beneficial and poor experiences with CEAA. It would be good to hear from all sides.

AFN takes the position that the government has to respond to this, and we think that would also be an appropriate time for first nations to become engaged. So there are multiple entry points for that.

To follow up again on Monsieur Coderre's point, if there's one thing I could say today in terms of a beneficial change to the act, it would maybe be a statutory basis for that participant funding, because the one thing that's going to be really bad is for that funding envelope to close, and the plan is for it to close. I think that's entirely unproductive at this point. Despite the fact that it's probably going to be renewed in some other form, first nations can't plan activities past March 31, so it's going to slow things down anyway, irrespective of whether the cloud of uncertainty is lifted.

In terms of participant funding, I will say the levels we had in the past, from my perspective, at least, are grossly inadequate. I have the privilege of helping some first nations with actual environmental assessments. I'm a trained environmental scientist from MIT. I have all kinds of trouble deciphering the assumptions that are fed into models to feed some of these outputs, as we'll call them. In some cases, there's an entire absence of data. So if we're going to assume we have a clay underburden or overburden when we have silt, that leads to an entirely different projection.

Those are isolated instances, but my point is that the first nations don't even know about what's in there because the participant funding itself is so meagre. Adding issues about consultation and accommodation means an addition of scientific experts. You have to hire legal experts to be able to engage with the crown, which is fully resourced to deal with those issues.

I don't know what to do about it because it places the burden on first nations and on proponents to deal with issues that I think the crown ought to be dealing with, and particularly, the participant funding program, the main vehicle for doing so, is potentially going to go away.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

[Graeme Morin]

Just one quick note. The duty to consult is clear, from the Supreme Court and within the case of the James Bay agreement. It behooves federal agencies to provide that funding, if it is applicable at that particular time and to that particular case.