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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask the witnesses to respond briefly. We appreciate their being here tonight. We do have many questions for them.

My next question is around what Mr. Gratton mentions, seeking clarity on a whole range of the bill's “overarching impact”. I'm quoting from your paper, and thank you for providing it.

I'd also like to say this to Mr. Prystay. You mentioned earlier as well concerns around clause 67. The government has said there will be no amendments to this bill. The government has systematically refused amendments and has refused that clarity. We have four nights of hearings and then the government has signalled the bill will be rammed through.

Do you feel, with such an important process, with the questions you've raised here tonight, that this is an effective public policy process, to ram through, without amendments, legislation that you admit raised concerns and questions?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

A point of order, Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, Mr. Julian is not exactly being factual. I don't recall the government saying there won't be any amendments. In fact, I believe that's what the committee is here to do; it's to put together a report, to make recommendations. So I hope Mr. Julian hasn't given up on the process already on the first day of hearings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I don't necessarily hear a point of order there, Mr. Storseth, although I think your point is well taken.

The witnesses have heard the question in the context framed by Mr. Julian. Perhaps you're prepared to answer, please, Mr. Gratton.

[Ward Prystay]

I was going to ask him to reclarify it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Julian, it doesn't appear that there is consensus of what you were—

[Ward Prystay]

Could you please clarify your question again?

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

You raised concerns around clause 67. Mr. Gratton raised concerns around the bill's overarching impact. The government has said they are not going to provide for amendments, regardless of the opinions that have been expressed here. So do you feel that four days of hearings, if the bill is speedily adopted, which is what the government seems to be signalling, is appropriate for this kind of process when you've raised some legitimate concerns and questions around the bill itself?

[Ward Prystay]

The Canadian Construction Association has been consulted on concerns and issues that the membership has had with the Fisheries Act and with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and we have provided our testimony here and we've provided testimony at hearings in the past as well. We've provided our input to the committee and to government, and it's up to you to do your job now.

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

Mr. Gratton.

[Pierre Gratton]

With respect to some of the concerns we have with CEAA—well, actually we don't have any major concerns with CEAA. We think this proposed legislation is one of the finest pieces of work we've seen coming out of the federal government with respect to EA ever. But there will be the need for more clarity through regulations, which is normal.

What we're saying is we are looking forward to seeing what the subsequent regulations will look like because that will provide additional clarity to us, as we would with any other piece of legislation that has subsequent regulations.

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

Thank you very much for your brief answers on that.

Mr. Orb, I'd like to bring you in—I think I have a few seconds left. And it's around the issue of the municipality, which you raised: the culvert that saved what was a fish stream and the fact that the federal government is not currently providing supports for these kinds of modifications that are very important.

In my municipality, which Mr. Prystay shares, the City of Burnaby has put a lot of money into ensuring salmon enhancement, and the salmon have come back wonderfully.

To what extent is that important, that rather than downloading costs on municipalities and provinces, the federal government actually supports the kinds of programs that allow the fish to continue running and provides for that protection of the environment? We've seen quite the opposite from this government so far—cuts in all of those fundings. Do you feel, and are you suggesting to this committee, that there needs to be funding provided by the federal government to support these important things?

[Ray Orb]

The short answer for that would be yes. We believe, as we have stipulated in our document, that where there are fish and there is fish habitat, there should be assistance from the federal government on this.

There is some assistance now. Some of these projects in my municipality were subject to a disaster last year. That was because of flooding. When the culvert washed out it had to be replaced. In that case, there was some assistance from the federal government and the province because they cost-share on that program.

The problem is that we had to put that culvert back to its state to look after fish, and in that case, there are no fish in that area and never have been. I've lived there all my life and I've never seen fish in that area. It complicates things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Orb.

Mr. Julian, we're already about half a minute over your time.

Ms. Duncan, you have seven minutes, please.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses. I'm going to begin with Mr. Gratton.

As you alluded to earlier, I have a briefing note from your organization from January of this year praising the current process under the environmental assessment review. It says, “The amendments to CEAA made in 2010...were implemented quickly and competently by the Agency”, and it has “provided mining project proponents with relief”. It says, “For the first time, provincial and federal assessments are synchronized.”

The Mining Association of Canada says its “primary interest in the review [of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act] is to convey support for the new system brought” in, and to “renew funding for the Environmental Assessment Agency”.

My first question is, why did you ask for new funding for the agency, please?

[Pierre Gratton]

That funding is necessary to carry out environmental assessments of our projects and to do them well. It is our understanding that the funding has been renewed.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It was announced last summer that there would be cuts of 43%. We're hearing that it's not a cut of 43%, but I don't know what the figure is. We haven't been given that.

Were you surprised by the repeal of CEAA, yes or no?

[Pierre Gratton]

With the additional amendments to CEAA that have...?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No. There has been the repeal of CEAA. Were you surprised, yes or no? Give a one-word answer, please.

[Pierre Gratton]

No, I guess.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Why is that?

[Pierre Gratton]

I look at it as a continuation of the 2010 amendments, but to the other elements of the act, the screening level assessments and the panel review. They are largely consistent with what they had already done in 2010 to comprehensive studies.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What consultations did the government have with you regarding the new environmental assessment legislation?

[Pierre Gratton]

What consultations...? We certainly did what we could to present our views at every opportunity we had.