Evidence of meeting #2 for Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was environmental.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Collyer.
Ms. Rempel, your time has expired.
Ms. Leslie, for seven minutes, please.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to all of the witnesses for your testimony.
Mr. Collyer, we heard testimony about the Environmental Assessment Act at the environment committee. A number of industry representatives talked to us about this idea of social licence, the idea of having a robust regulatory process in place. This gives the public a reason to believe that a good assessment has taken place, and that companies should be allowed to dig or to pump or to extract. I'm sure you're familiar with it, because I've seen your ad campaign.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
If a project goes through this regulatory process of environmental assessment, the National Energy Board may say, for example, “Look, there are some serious problems with this project that need to be addressed.” Would cabinet overruling that decision help or hinder your social licence?
8:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
There are two dimensions. You have to back up and look at the policy construct in which the regulatory process is working. Some elements of project review are clearly in the purview of the regulatory regime. Other elements relate much more to broader public policy.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
But you would have to agree that the public says, “Hey, it's an assessment process and these guys said no.”
8:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
No, the answer I would give is that it's important to look at the reasons for a yes or no. The regulators have a responsibility to look at the regulatory framework, and they need to do that within a broader public policy context. I think the public can make a judgment about the reasons why cabinet or the government made a decision to support or not support the decision of a regulator.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
We also heard from industry that proper funding of the Environmental Assessment Agency could ensure more efficient and effective environmental assessments and provide some of the certainty you were talking about. Would you disagree with that?
8:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Clearly, the Environmental Assessment Agency needs to be funded to do what it's been mandated to do.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Ms. Carpenter, I was intrigued by what you were saying about money being better spent on environmental redemption than on environmental regulation. I wonder if you're implying that we would save money on the $1 billion to clean up the Sydney Tar Ponds or the $13 billion for Fukushima simply by eliminating some regulation.
8:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
The example I was using was Chalk River, where there were 37 environmental assessments on the same site over time.
8:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
No, absolutely not.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Rees and Mr. Meisenheimer.
When I'm talking to folks in the community about changes to the Fisheries Act, often I get the response, “Well, I'm not that concerned about fish.” They don't see how it relates to their lives if they're not fishermen, for example, or if they're not anglers.
Can you talk a bit about the other implications of fisheries habitat, whether it's on water quality, for example, or on habitat generally?
8:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Commercial Fisheries' Association
There are broad implications in a number of directions. There are broad implications to restricting the definition of habitat for fisheries that are largely a result of the fact that fish and fisheries are not things that we observe directly, which is why I think the people you speak to don't care. Out of sight is out of mind.
There is an enormous amount of uncertainty about pretty much everything we claim to know about fish and fish stocks, and the fisheries that are based on them. So when you make statements as are made in the legislation and the supporting documentation that I've seen with reference to section 35 of the Fisheries Act, that we can presume to know what will be a significant harm or what will cause destruction and we can regulate on that presumption, I think it is a denial of the reality of fisheries management.
The underlying truth about everything to do with fisheries management is that it's uncertain. You have to have some humility about what you're doing and you have to be precautionary at times. You have to manage from a risk management perspective. That requires good science. That requires that you view habitat broadly, so that the food base, the spawning, the flow of water from wetlands, all of these things are protected out of a full realization of just how much risk there is in the exercise.
On the other hand, by protecting fish habitat, you very broadly protect a whole lot of other values that are social values. Clean water, as Mr. Rees said, is good for property values. I'll leave it to him to talk about that, though.
8:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations
I'd like to just add that the fisheries have been a proxy for environmental conditions—the canary in the coal mine, if you will.
Protecting fish and the underlying conditions that allow them to thrive gives a level of certainty that's not really available through fisheries science, frankly. Given conditions in an aquatic environment that are healthy and thereby protecting fish habitat, you protect the underlying conditions required for healthy life of all kinds.
8:25 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
I often try to talk about the issue of the next generation of fish. So if you're not impacting this particular fish that exists at this time, it could have serious implications for the next generation, and therefore the things that eat those fish, for example.
8:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Commercial Fisheries' Association
Yes. You talk about the next generation of fish. The next generation of fish could very well be produced in areas that didn't have any fish a generation ago. There is an enormous amount in Ontario and elsewhere in this country of highly degraded, formerly productive fisheries habitats. One of the concerns I have with this legislation is that it appears to define those places as not regulated by section 35 because there are no fisheries in those areas. There used to be, but there aren't now. They're not there now because there's dioxin in the sediments or because...there's a list, a very long list, of reasons why fisheries become degraded or disappear from areas.
To me, that is still a fisheries habitat. It should be treated as such and regulated as such.
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Meisenheimer.
Ms. Leslie, your time has expired. Thank you very much.
Ms. Duncan, please, for seven minutes.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for coming and presenting your testimony.
I'm going to begin with Mr. Collyer. Current oil sands production is about 1.6 million barrels per day, with not insignificant climate and other environmental impacts. Alberta has already approved over 5.1 million barrels a day in oil sands projects, which is more than a tripling of current production levels and will have a significant environmental impact. Some suggest a tripling.
Given the amount of production already approved, to what extent do you think we need to streamline approvals to further speed up development of the oil sands?
8:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
You're correct in saying that there are a number of projects that have been approved. I think this is about more than oil sands and it's about more than upstream development. The point that was made earlier was that we need to attach ourselves to markets. That requires pipelines. It requires other infrastructure that will need to be developed. So it's both a question of upstream development and looking down the value chain—
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
No. I've asked a very specific question, if you don't mind.
Given the amount of production already approved, to what extent do you think we need to streamline approvals to speed up development?
8:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
You're going to continue to see projects come forward. I would argue that we need to be competitive in that regard and give people who have a viable project an opportunity to get that off the ground and get through the regulatory process.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
How do you anticipate that these additional environmental impacts from oil sands are to be reduced under the changes proposed in Bill C-38?
8:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
As I said earlier, I don't think this is about changing environmental impacts; it's about changing process. The environmental impacts will have to be assessed in a broader policy context than in a land use planning context. We're talking about the regulatory review process for projects, and there are a number of different dimensions of environmental impact that need to be assessed as part of the project review. I don't think anything in this process change impacts that whatsoever.
There are a number of other elements that need to be addressed in a broader policy context. They'll continue to be addressed in that context, and they should be.