Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 28th, 2012

[Ward Prystay]

Yes. When I look at the factors to be taken into account in a decision for authorization, it focuses on a lot of the same principles that we see in DFO's current policy. I think a lot of it is going to come down to how DFO defines its policy and how they're going to implement this.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think one of our other witnesses said this was not the case. Do you have any idea why this witness would perceive it that way?

[Ward Prystay]

Earlier, I talked about the regional differences in the application of the Fisheries Act. I think that may account for it. We see how the habitat provisions are applied in British Columbia, where you can have authorizations required for the removal of riparian vegetation. We don't see that applied consistently across Canada.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

So just bringing consistency to this process—

[Ward Prystay]

Just bringing consistency will significantly improve the application.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Orb, you're a municipal representative. Do you see how this legislation is going to make it easier for you to work with other jurisdictions, with the provinces and the federal government? You mentioned that you share some costs. But do you see any improvements, or is this pretty much a neutral gain?

[Ray Orb]

We hoped we would see some improvements, particularly where there is fish habitat. We don't feel it is fair for a municipality to bear the brunt of this. So maybe there should be something looked at in new regulations or legislation that compensates both the municipalities and the landowners. I think that would be very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Orb.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

We now have a little bit of time left in this committee meeting for the last round of questions. We have Ms. Rempel, followed by Ms. Leslie, and then Ms. Duncan.

We have a little bit of business we have to do at the end, so I'll ask you to keep within the tight timelines.

Ms. Rempel.

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

I want to pick up on the line of questioning regarding cumulative impact. Earlier today we heard testimony from another witness who spoke about certain issues being process and certain issues being policy. This legislation seeks to ensure that the process for environmental review achieves a balance between environmental rigour and predictable timeliness. This way projects can be planned. There are equivalency and substitution measures in this act.

Mr. Gratton, please talk a little bit about how this might allow provinces more autonomy in aligning their review processes with land use planning, which is typically the jurisdiction for a cumulative impact analysis.

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes, that's how I think the regional study provisions under CEA could contribute to provincial land use planning. I think that's exactly what that new provision will help support.

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

Would this give provinces like Quebec more autonomy in setting priorities for land use development and then applying that to the review process in a more efficient and streamlined manner?

[Pierre Gratton]

Yes, and I think the equivalency provisions or the substitution provisions will depend on where the federal government has determined that the provincial process is deemed to be equivalent and sufficiently robust, as I think it is in Quebec and British Columbia. It is an opportunity for those provinces to be able to make decisions about developments independent of the federal government. I think it's an incentive for provinces whose systems may not be equivalent to improve their legislation. I know that some governments, like Manitoba, are already looking at what they need to do to make sure their systems of environmental assessment are sufficiently robust so that they can carry them out independently of the feds.

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

Have you or your member companies encountered successful instances of provincial land use planning that might tie in with these new regulations?

[Pierre Gratton]

There is land use planning under way right now in the Ring of Fire, so that would be one obvious opportunity. This legislation has to pass first, but should the province invite the federal government to participate, that would be one such opportunity.

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

I think that's an excellent point to note.

Earlier, one of my colleagues opposite brought up a point. I believe the comment was something to the effect of whether shortening the timelines would be harmful.

Mr. Prystay, you mentioned that we actually have timelines. I think this is an important distinction to make. Could you talk about the effect of having timelines and predictability, specifically on your employment outlook forecast? How will the changes in regulations having that predictability affect some of your members?

[Ward Prystay]

The employment opportunities that come from projects that are generally subjected to environmental assessments really range by project. They range from tens to thousands of construction jobs and tens to hundreds of permanent full-time jobs. It really brings about more certainty in the timelines for the process, which gives investors greater confidence and greater likelihood to invest in projects in Canada.

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

Thanks.

Mr. Orb, I'd like to go into a little bit more detail about some of the roadblocks in routine operations that your members, the rural municipalities you represent, may have encountered under previous, ineffective legislation. Could you perhaps give us a few examples of some of those roadblocks, how they affect your resourcing, and perhaps how the new regulations would affect that?

[Ray Orb]

You're talking about the Fisheries Act, I assume?

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

Yes.

[Ray Orb]

Actually, it does a couple of things. It's the time factor, and I know in our case it was almost an entire month that we had to wait for the permit. In the spring of almost every year there is a disaster somewhere in rural Saskatchewan. Sometimes there are roads that are washed out or there are culverts that are washed out, and if those are deemed to be fish-bearing water streams, then DFO is consulted.

I know a few years ago there was a delay of almost two months before they got back to us. It's a long time, and I think it's really unfair to ask municipalities and ratepayers, who are mostly farmers, to have to put up with those kinds of delays.

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

The culverts—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thanks, Ms. Rempel.

Sorry, we have to keep going with our questions here.

Ms. Leslie, for five minutes, please.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gratton, I appreciate that you said in your testimony that you still have to figure out some of the changes to the Fisheries Act, and, Mr. Prystay, you said in your answers to questions that it's not something you looked at closely.

When it comes to the Fisheries Act changes, there is some strange drafting, in my opinion. I have tried to look at this section closely, and it says that habitat changes are going to happen in two steps. One section, 35(2), comes into force when this act is passed, and it's similar to what's in the law now, but then there will be another one, another section that comes into force later, whenever the government chooses.

I'm having a hard time understanding the way that's drafted. Do any of you have any insight? Mr. Orb, do you have any insight as to why it would be drafted that way?

[Ward Prystay]

My understanding and my interpretation of the way it's currently drafted is that the proposed subsection 35(2) that will come into effect with the legislation passing is strictly a clarification of the definition of a harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. Essentially, they've added a comma to that definition so that it's understood that your disruption of habitat needs to be harmful to fish before an authorization is required.

The second part is the bringing into provision the serious harm aspect of subsection 35(2), which essentially prohibits serious harm to fish, and that is the death of a fish or any permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat.

Currently, the prohibition is the destruction of fish, so DFO could essentially charge you for destroying a fish that's already dead.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks.