Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 17th, 2012

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes. Thank you.

As colleagues know, the Species at Risk Act is due for review and legislative improvement later this year, but there are a number of provisions within the Species at Risk Act that are impacted by this new legislation.

Essentially, as was mentioned by my colleague, at the moment, the issuance of SARA authorizations for major projects provides for three-year periods that must be regularly renewed, which is unrealistic in regard to larger projects like hydroelectric dams, for example, that have a time horizon of decades. So there is provision for ministerial authority to issue one permit, and to ensure that the conditions of that permit are met over a period of years, without the constant red tape of three-year renewals.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Again, you spoke about how, under this proposed legislation, for the first time we're introducing enforceable environmental assessment decision statements under this new CEAA. Could you speak in a little bit more detail about that and how it actually helps strengthen environmental enforcement in this country?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure. As I said, there will be significant financial penalties provided for those project developers who are not in compliance with mitigation. The mandatory follow-up inspections and monitoring will be required in every federal environmental assessment. We believe this adds both great value and significant improvement in terms of the environmental oversight and enforcement of the mitigation provisions that any federal panel would impose on a project going forward.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

It's also my understanding that for the first time we're providing federal inspectors with authority to examine whether or not conditions set out in an EA decision are met. Is that correct?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely. That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Ambler, you have five minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the ministers for being here today. My questions are for Minister Oliver.

Mr. Oliver, the leader of the NDP has argued that increased resource development benefits only western Canada and that in fact eastern Canada's manufacturing sector will be hurt as a result of further resource development. Needless to say, the western premiers were not pleased by this statement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

This is completely outside the committee's mandate. It has nothing to do with part 3 of the budget bill. I'd appreciate it if you would ask your Conservative members to stay within the committee mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I'm the impartial chair, Mr. Julian.

Would anybody on this side like to respond to that?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chair, I actually believe that pitting workers in one region against another directly pertains to the information contained in this bill, which is designed to promote jobs and economic growth in this country. I do believe, therefore, that Mrs. Ambler's line of questioning should be accepted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Well, it does address points that were raised by Minister Oliver in his opening remarks, and I believe it has been common practice that if ministers go there in their opening comments, members of the committee are free to ask some questions pertaining to that. As that testimony was heard here this morning—I certainly heard it—I'll allow the line of questioning to pursue.

However, Mrs. Ambler, I will encourage you to stick to part 3 as much as possible.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I will. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could the minister please explain how these new provisions will benefit all regions of Canada?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for the question.

There is a misapprehension about the impact of resource development in Canada, and I think it's very important for people to understand that we are enormously blessed with immense natural resources that exist throughout this great country, resources that can be transformative for local communities and can create trillions of dollars in economic activity, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for governments to support important social programs.

Every region of the country will benefit, and the responsible resource development legislation is designed to deal with all projects, be they oil and gas or metals and mines. They will impact on the LNG projects in British Columbia, the oil and gas in Alberta, the Ring of Fire in Ontario, the Plan Nord in Quebec, and hydroelectricity in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been some talk about the so-called Dutch disease, whereby the existence of bountiful resources somehow works to the disadvantage of the manufacturing sector, and this has been recently debunked by two independent economic studies. One study under the supervision of the renowned economist, Jack Mintz, points out that in the states of Ohio and Michigan, the decline in employment in the manufacturing sector parallels that of the decline in Ontario, and has actually exceeded it. Therefore, the Canadian dollar had no relevance in that regard. The key challenge, of course, was competition from lower-cost producers, particularly in Asia.

I've travelled across the country and met with many companies, from St. John's to Vancouver, who are benefiting directly from the oil sands, as one example. A thousand companies here in Ontario, companies across the country, are employing people and are benefiting in terms of revenue to provinces. So we're very fortunate, and we want to make sure that our legacy does not languish, that our resources are not stranded, that they're developed responsibly while protecting the environment, but that they're developed in the interest of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Minister. That's especially reassuring for Ontario's manufacturing sector, which is hearing these same rumours.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada has highlighted the importance of diversifying our markets, which you mentioned, for resources and other products. He noted that emerging economies are growing exponentially faster than are advanced economies. Considering the amount of resources those emerging economies will need, what are the benefits of diversifying our markets, and how important is it to move forward quickly on this?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We have, with the United States, the greatest trading relationship in the entire world, some $1.6 billion of trade every single day. And we want to nurture that relationship. But the other fact is that 100% of our energy exports go to the United States. It is always a problem to have one customer. In this case, the problem is exacerbated, as we've seen recently, by some political decisions that have put off the acceptance of the Keystone XL pipeline. But there is an ongoing economic disadvantage to that dependency on the United States, and that is the difference between the price of oil in the continental U.S. and the international price. This is costing us more than $40 million every single day. The cost is $135 billion over the next 25 years, just as a result of that price difference.

In addition to that, the United States is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Minister. Sorry, we have to move on. We're already a little bit over. We're hoping you'll be able to finish up on that great thought.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

These are some really good points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I know, Minister. As an Albertan, I agree with those points. But I have to be fair here.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to suggest that having three ministers, pleased as we are to have them for an hour, is not an adequate way to properly asses the impacts of this legislation.

Since I have only five minutes to try to deal with these issues, I want to focus on some of the concerns that have been raised about the Fisheries Act changes, including the concerns of two former Conservative fisheries ministers.

One of them, Tom Siddon, said:

This is a covert attempt to gut the Fisheries Act, and it’s appalling that they should be attempting to do this under the radar.

John Fraser, also a Conservative fisheries minister back in 1984, expressed his concern about eliminating appropriate safeguards and a lack of “understanding, intelligence or wisdom”.

Let me start, Minister Ashfield, with the factors to be taken into account to allow activities harmful to fish. Absent from these fundamental environmental principles, such as the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach...they are removed from the proposed changes. There were changes proposed between 2006 and 2008 that were meant to “modernize” the Fisheries Act. These fundamental principles were included in that.

They're not here. Why is that, Minister? Is it because you now have a majority and you feel you can throw these fundamental principles to the wind? This seems to be something that the scientists and biologists have taken as being extremely important to manage the fisheries and manage habitat. You have removed them. Why?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your question.

What we're proposing is to focus the Fisheries Act on fish and fish habitat together with commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. We think it's important to focus on these areas. The approach is to manage serious harm to fish that contribute to those fisheries and that support those fisheries.

From an ecosystem perspective, the changes in no way limit the ability to manage serious harm. To the extent that streams and other water bodies support fish and contribute to these fisheries, they will need to be considered. Discussions with stakeholders will be ongoing to determine the policy framework we have to have in place to go along with the legislative changes we're proposing.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Minister, you have not carried out any consultations thus far, because 625 scientists are complaining that you're undermining the protection of fish and fish habitat. You said in your opening remarks that protections have not been impacted in any way. Yet you've defined serious harm—it's the only thing that qualifies as serious harm—as the killing of fish or the permanent alteration of habitat.

That's a new definition. There are, of course, tremendous effects that can happen to others and to nature because of a temporary change. In fact, the first nations have already come out and complained that using the word “permanent” leaves the whole field open to something temporary, but maybe for a long period of time, that causes serious changes to their habitat, whether the temporary period is during a construction phase for a pipeline or whether it is for a lease of some kind. It is very disturbing that your serious harm doesn't include mutations of fish or blinding of fish or anything else that could happen. It has to be killing of fish or permanent alteration of habitat.

Why have you gone so far in changing that?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, again, for the question.

In terms of the consultation process, we've had many discussions over many years with all of our stakeholders, whether it be aboriginal groups or whether it be municipalities, provinces, and territories.The information we've received from them and the feedback we've received from them we've input into the context of our legislative changes.

Over the course of the next six months, we'll be consulting broadly with all of those individuals to develop our policy and the regulatory process, and that will determine a lot of the outcomes of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. Your time has expired. I appreciate your line of questioning.

The ministers have been here 10 minutes past the one hour we've started already. To give us an opportunity to have adequate time to question departmental officials, I would like to thank Ministers Kent, Oliver, and Ashfield for coming today and for giving your testimony.

We will suspend for one moment until the departmental officials get here. Thank you.