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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Well, province to province there are different capacities to carry out assessments. The federal minister—and I'm sure you're aware of this through the proposed legislation—allows for substitution or equivalency agreements in the case of—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'm asking you what assessments have been undertaken by the federal government on the adequacy of the assessment process in each province and territory.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The assessment is ongoing from our continuing experience working with our provincial counterparts in carrying out environmental assessments. We well understand, and the law provides very specifically, that if a province does not have the capacity to undertake an environmental assessment, it will be done; the minister has the discretion to direct that it be done by CEAA.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I would ask that you table the results of these assessments with this committee.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You'll be able to see that online with regard to the projects that are currently under assessment and those that are proposed. When the new act comes into effect—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No, I've asked that the assessments of adequacy be tabled with this committee.

I'm going to move on.

What analysis has been undertaken to assess the cost of liabilities that will arise under the new environmental assessment process?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The new environmental assessment process is no different from the old environmental assessment process, except for the improvements that all three of us here today have listed for you.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Has there been an analysis to assess the cost of liabilities?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

There is a continuing assessment, based on the experience of federal assessments, joint panels with the provinces, and the provinces themselves in carrying out what used to be called “comprehensive studies” and will now be called “standard environmental assessments”.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'll ask one last question and then pass it to my colleague.

How do the liabilities under the new assessment process compare with the cost of liabilities under the old assessment process?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

There is no change.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

I'll pass this to my honourable colleague.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for showing up for a few minutes, anyhow; it's good to get this chance to ask...because I also have great concerns about fisheries habitat. If you do not have habitat, you have no fish.

My question to the Minister of Fisheries is with regard to division 18 and proposed subsections 10(1) and (2).

It's my understanding, Mr. Minister, that it gives you the power to confiscate fish in order to pay for science in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Also, with regard to the budget, I understand we're going to lose about 275 jobs, a lot out of the science area, and $12 million for science. Is that loss on top of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Excuse me, Mr. MacAulay.

I have a point of order from Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's my understanding that the terms of reference for this committee were to look at part 3 changes in Bill C-38. I believe that's in part 4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I believe Mr. Kamp is right.

I'm looking at our mandate from the finance committee for the subcommittee, and I'm also looking at what the analyst has just given me:

Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate fish for the purpose

Our scope of mandate as a subcommittee, according to paragraph (v), is that we will look at part 3 of this particular bill.

So Minister, I guess the question that's been put is out of order, because it's out of the scope of the mandate of this committee. However, I will leave it up to your discretion as to whether or not you wish to answer.

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll attempt to answer the question, I guess.

Proposed subsections 10(1) and (2) grant the minister the authority to allocate fish for the purposes of financing scientific and fisheries management activities in the context of joint project agreements. That is true. But in terms of overall, in this year's budget we applied another $10.5 million for the purposes of science.

Mr. MacAulay I have great respect for; he is wrong in this...in his thought process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Minister.

That ends the first round of questioning. We will now move on to the second round.

I have Ms. Rempel for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll direct my questions to the Minister of the Environment.

Minister Kent, we've heard much from colleagues across the table about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's budget. We've heard allegations that the budget will be cut by 43%.

Perhaps you could clarify for members of the committee and shed some light on the inaccuracy of that fact, and talk a bit about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's budget and if there have been any jobs cuts to date.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you. I endeavour at every opportunity to correct my colleagues on the other side of the House.

As I said in my remarks, and as I've said any number of times since we began this dialogue, the budget of the Environmental Assessment Agency has not been cut. There are no job cuts. No job cuts have been made and none are contemplated. In fact, as I've said, the agency will receive funding through the major projects management office initiative that was renewed in Budget 2012.

The agency's 2012-13 budget, this fiscal year's budget, will be $31 million, which is an increase of $1.5 million over the amount originally slated to sunset. I think the opposition sometimes misunderstands the difference between sunsetting funds for agencies that are required to be renewed over a period of years.... But this funding has been renewed, as requested, and this additional funding of $1.5 million is intended, as I said in my opening remarks, to broaden our capacity to consult with aboriginal Canadians.

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

Thank you.

We've also heard what I think are some misperceptions from various organizations across the country that the changes in this legislation will actually weaken the protection of the environment in favour of resource development, and that it would have Canada in violation of its environmental obligations under international agreements, including NAFTA. Perhaps you could shed some light on those misperceptions as well.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the fact that the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are to improve, to strengthen, and to contemporize the abilities of the government and its various agencies to ensure that resource development is conducted in the most responsible way possible, with an eye to protecting the environment.

We have new tools, which I outlined in my remarks, to ensure that proponents who receive clearance to go ahead with a project comply with the mitigation measures, and there are new provisions for significant enforcement of those that don't follow through. For the first time—again, as I mentioned—we are introducing enforceable environmental assessment decision statements under the act, which will enable the issuance of binding environmental assessments on project proponents.

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

In Budget 2012 there was an additional $50 million over two years to be provided to the federal species at risk program.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes.

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

There are some amendments in this legislation that we're studying today that affect this particular program. Could you explain how the funding will help assist the protection of species at risk in Canada?