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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to share my time with Ms. Turmel.

I'd like to start with Mr. Oliver.

One of the most controversial aspects of this very controversial bill is the redefinition of those who are entitled to come to hearings. We've never had a clear answer on the definition around those people who can intervene in hearings and are directly affected, despite repeated questions.

When you talk about those directly affected, are you talking about those who live within one kilometre of a proposed project—or 10 kilometres or 20 kilometres, which was the exclusion zone in the recent Japanese nuclear disaster? Where is your cut-off? How do you define whether an individual or an organization is directly affected and whether or not they can attend public hearings for proposed new projects?

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

The first point is that the decision will be taken by the panels that are conducting the hearings. The guidance that is being given is to make sure the people who are directly affected and therefore have an interest in the project will be heard. I'm quite sure they will not be mechanistic about this, and if there will be an impact on people a little farther away, they would take that into account.

The other category of people who would be allowed to be heard would be experts whose expertise could add to the knowledge that's relevant for the panel to consider. The important point here is that there should be a relationship between the scope of the hearing and the subjects that are relevant to the people wishing to appear.

To give you an example of that, the Northern Gateway hearing does not include in its scope the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Important though those issues are from a society perspective, they're not issues that are directly related to the project in question.

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

But that is my question, Mr. Minister. How are you defining “directly related”?

This is a concern in British Columbia, as you know, where there's increasing feeling that Ottawa is just ramming down our throats a project that, if it is not properly environmentally assessed, could threaten thousands of jobs on the B.C. coast, in the fisheries and the environmental tourism industry, a project that provides for a few dozen permanent on-site jobs.

So my question to you, because clause 83 gives you that power, is how you have been defining “directly related” internally. What are the criteria you are using in what many British Columbians feel is an attempt to exclude them from hearings that have an impact right up and down the B.C. coast?

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

As I said, this will be a determination by the hearing panel, and the word “direct”, I think, is pretty clear. It is those who would be affected by the project in question.

So that determination would be made on a reasonable basis by the independent panel.

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

But you have the power, and you admit that you have the power, to impose that.

What you're saying is you're not going to share with us what criteria you were using internally in your ministry.

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

We're not...that type of specificity is not what I was talking about. That will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the panel.

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

I will now turn it over to Ms. Turmel.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

My question is also for Minister Oliver.

I am going continue in the same vein. As already pointed out, this legislation gives you a lot of power, and yet you are telling us that you won't give the review panel clear instructions as to how to determine who will be directly affected and invited to attend the hearing to voice their point of view. That is the understanding and clarification we are looking for. How can you empower yourself, on one hand, and then say that there is free access, on the other?

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

As I said, we are going to establish general guidelines and principles that will be provided to the members of the review panel to specifically determine who will be allowed and who won't. That's what regulations are. We set out general principles, but the competent authorities apply them.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

My next question is also for Minister Oliver, but I am switching topics.

If we are to believe what the media are saying and what you have told us, you are going to give the Arctic a lot more priority in terms of development projects. The National Energy Board indicated, in its latest report, that it was extremely concerned about the size of the contracts that will be awarded because of the lack of resources. The report also mentions that the number of accidents has risen significantly over the past year. How do you plan to protect the environment while ensuring safety, bearing both of those considerations in mind? We have seen an increase in contracts and a decrease in the number of employees in the working group, coupled with an increase in accidents.

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

First off, the number of public servants doing the reviews will not decrease in the least. On the contrary, it will probably increase. More money is going to the office, which, after all, is funded by the private sector. There is enough money for enough people to do the job in an independent and scientific manner. More projects simply means more money for these people to carry out their analyses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Your time has expired.

Ms. Duncan, for seven minutes, please.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by saying that I am disappointed. Whoever took the decision to schedule our three ministers for one hour was not acting on the authority of this subcommittee. I feel it was presumptuous, it was undemocratic, and I think it's farcical to have three ministers appear at the same time for a total of one hour. Taking away time for opening statements and friendly questions from the government, that gives about 20 minutes for the opposition parties to ask questions of three different ministers on the 150 pages devoted to the environment in this omnibus bill.

Having said this, I will be sharing my time with my honourable colleague, Mr. MacAulay.

To the Minister of the Environment, looking for a very short answer, what percentage of current assessments will no longer receive federal oversight, given the repeal of CEAA?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'll give a very short answer.

Under the new regulations and the elimination of duplication with other authorities, provinces, and municipalities, the Environmental Assessment Agency will focus on major projects, which represent the most—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Sorry, I'm looking for the percentage.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, that's a hypothetical question, because we don't know how many projects will be placed before CEAA to be assessed. The agency will assess the major projects with the greatest possibility of negative impact.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Minister, I'm going to step in. Surely the department has past data and will have a projection going forward in order to plan for resources.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Year to year, the number of projects, the number of assessments of all sorts, those very minor and those major, varies significantly. There are over 2,000 assessments, for example, in recent years, that are subject to assessments at lower levels, screenings. At any given time, the agency is looking at between 100 and 200 major projects that represent a major possible negative impact on the environment.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer here.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Do your own reduction to percentages, 150 to 2,000.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What are the projected costs of changes to CEAA for each province and territory?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Again, it's a hypothetical question. It depends on the province. Some provinces have more proposals before the agency than others. Some have a greater likelihood of an increase in project proposals in the years ahead. Again, that will depend on the specific province and the proposals placed before us—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Do we have numbers for the specific provinces?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It is a hypothetical question. You can say in general terms that the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec—and increasingly, with the Ring of Fire, Ontario—will have an increasing number of project proposals, but again, the absolute number, and when they will come forward and in what calendar year, is a matter of speculation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What assessments of the adequacy of the environmental assessment process in each province and territory have been conducted?