Environment Committee on April 26th, 2018

[Matt Gemmel, Acting Manager, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

I'd be happy to take that question.

In our written submission, we acknowledged—and I can reiterate today—that the addition of the early planning phase provides a mechanism to include municipalities. Our concern, as Brock stated, is that it's not a requirement, so we're asking for that to be strengthened and codified in the statute.

We are supportive, as we indicate in our submission, that with the early planning phase, there will be more broad engagement. Also, by looking at a broader list of factors to consider, health and social impacts—concerns that municipalities have related to their responsibilities for public safety, public health—have an opportunity to be considered in more depth. We support those changes that do that, but, as we've said, we're asking for that to be taken a step further.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Notwithstanding Ms. Duncan's experiences with municipalities in one part of the country, the municipalities I've dealt with in my part of the country take the environment very seriously, so I think that they're going to be great partners in this.

Mr. DeMille, I represent Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We have lots of waterways and lots of lakes. Dartmouth is called the “City of Lakes”. On impediments to navigation and enjoyment of all waterways, the complaints mechanism, is it simple enough? Is it rigorous enough? Are Canadians going to be able to know how they are able to lodge complaints when navigation is impeded?

[Matt DeMille]

One of the points that we are trying to make is that sometimes we get caught up in the legislation and the regulations, but the education and outreach is probably just as important, particularly in our experience with landowners and groups of landowners. Engage them and let them know that there is navigation legislation and what it means, what it means for them, and, if they are doing something on their lands that is going to impede navigation, what they need to do about it.

The second part of that would be what you're talking about with individuals or groups, with the public being able to come forward. In our experience, often the reason that complaints probably aren't heard as much as issues are happening is that people don't know that there is recourse.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

They don't know that there is recourse. For those who do know that there's recourse, is there comfort in how our process would be for them to field that complaint?

If not, how could we strengthen that?

[Matt DeMille]

It's a good question. I don't think that I have a good answer right now for exactly how that would work and what it would be like. I think that, when we see the details of that and see how it works operationally, that's when you can really start to look at what needs to be done.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

There has been such a change. You know, there was a time when every town had one newspaper, and everybody got their news from one place. I think it makes it more difficult on governments now to get that word out and ensure that Canadians have the ability, the simple process to allow them to voice their concerns.

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just about a minute.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I will pass my minute on to Mr. Amos for a short time.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Doelle, could you please opine further on how you would like to see a specialized tribunal structured?

[Dr. Meinhard Doelle]

The basic idea would be that you identify what decisions along the way can be appealed to that tribunal. The tribunal would be independent, and it would hear appeals from anyone who has an interest in the process, and it would be an expedited process. It would develop rules of procedure. I don't think it's complicated to set it up. The key issue is to ensure its independence and to identify what decisions can be appealed to that body.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. You're pretty much done. You have another round coming up.

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Carlton, I appreciate your comments on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have 36 municipalities in my constituency.

I have just a quick, little anecdote here. Spring pressure tore out a culvert. This ravine had water in it for perhaps a month a year. Well, the bureaucracy told the municipality that they had to put a bridge there because it was considered a navigable water, which is clearly ridiculous. What made it even more ridiculous was that the estimated cost of the bridge was $750,000, and the total budget of the municipality was $1 million. So we changed the stupid law that did stupid things, like I have just described. I will stand by the changes we made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act any day. It's all about the definition of what a navigable water is.

Also, on municipalities advocating for economic development and resource development, three of us here think that's a good thing, so keep up the good work in that regard.

I would like to direct my next questions to Teck Resources. Pierre Gratton, the head of the mining association, was before us a while ago, and he made the point that, in spite of the fact that commodity prices are increasing around the world, investment in mining and natural resource development in Canada is going down. It's fleeing this country.

You alluded to it, Ms. Risbud, but I think your point was far too mild. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers talked about how Canada is losing investments, and they see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve that. Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association made the point that Canada has a toxic regulatory environment. He used the word “toxic” in his testimony, and he said that, if the job is to kill oil and gas production and pipelines, this bill will do a very good job. I noticed on your website.... I know you're not in the pipeline business, but you're in the steelmaking and coal business, so when pipelines are not built, your company and your employees are directly affected.

Can you comment on why investment in Canada is declining? It's in the billions of dollars, 56%, at a time when commodity prices around the world are increasing.

[Sheila Risbud]

I think there are many factors that affect competitiveness in Canada. Getting a robust regulatory process in place that offers greater certainty is one element. It is not the only element. I'm not here to talk about those other elements today. I'm here to talk about impact assessment, and we've made some recommendations on how we think that this process can be done right and clearly, in order to restore investor confidence in Canada and make Canada a global mining destination.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Again, I'm surprised because the representatives of the various natural resource industry associations directly focused on the effect of this legislation on investment. I'm surprised at your reluctance to talk about that because that to me is the key issue. At least the three of us here believe in economic development, jobs, and livelihoods, and having lived in a resource town, when the forest company went away, I saw the human wreckage that's left behind. It's the same in mining communities when these communities close down. As well, the mining industry overall is the largest employer of indigenous people in Canada, and Mr. Gratton made that point very forcefully.

Australia seems to be eating our lunch in terms of the mining world. What does Australia do that's better than Canada in terms of attracting investments, because their investment in mining is skyrocketing, as I understand it?

[Mark Freberg]

Unfortunately, we can't comment specifically on Australia, I don't think, either of us. Our company is not active in Australia. I'm aware of some of the things they do. The process does appear to be faster, but I'm not really in a position to talk to you about the specifics of the practices of Australia versus what's proposed in this bill.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Again, I have a legal opinion in front of me here and the legal opinion says, “Despite the Government of Canada’s suggestion that the new legislation will improve the efficiency and timing of federal regulatory reviews, there is nothing in the new legislation that will necessarily achieve these results and many aspects of the legislation will likely have the opposite effect.”

That's the opinion from Osler, a natural resource law firm.

Anyway, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You're done?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Rogers.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the panellists for appearing today.

I have a question for Brock. With my municipal background, of course, I want to talk to you a little bit about municipalities. FCM is the umbrella organization for all municipal governments across the country, big and small, some pretty tiny, some large.

How does the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, overall, view this new proposed legislation, Bill C-69? In your opinion, does it improve or hinder the future work that municipalities will have to undertake under this proposed legislation?

[Brock Carlton]

We think it's a step in the right direction. There's work to be done, improvements to be made that we've identified in the comments today and in the submissions that we've made. I think I said there were nine submissions over the life of this consultation process.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

In terms of land use planning, future land use planning, construction, or things around roads, bridges, and that kind of thing, does this bill go far enough to address the concerns of the municipal sector?

[Brock Carlton]

As I said in my comments, the question about the definition of “minor works” and “major works” in this, right now, kind of mushy middle, with the act applying to non-scheduled waters in a way that's not clearly defined is a challenge for the municipalities. As I said, we're looking for a clearer definition of the minor works order particularly, as a way of ensuring that there's an appropriate balance of environmental protection, navigable water protection, and the opportunity for small projects to go ahead in an appropriate way.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Chair, Mr. Fast actually asked a couple of the questions I had for the municipal sector.

I have how much time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You have four minutes.