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

[Pierre Gratton]

As I said earlier, it will depend entirely on the quality of the implementation of the legislation. If the evaluation process for a mine, be it in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia, is well done, if our member companies do their work properly and develop good relations with the communities, including the aboriginal communities, there will be no conflict. This is a law that delineates the conditions governing environmental assessments; that is all.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Fine.

However, I am sure you know that many experts say that the deadlines are much too short to allow for exhaustive assessments in relation to large projects. You mentioned aboriginal consultations; you said that there would be a sufficient number of them. However, section 83 of the act to implement certain provisions of the budget proposes the addition of new clause 55 to the National Energy Board Act. This clause requires that any request for leave to appeal a decision to issue a pipeline certificate be filed in the 15 days following its publication in the Gazette. However, there is no provision stating that the parties concerned, which would include aboriginal populations, be advised of this publication in the Gazette. And so it would be difficult for the groups who would have 15 days to discover the order published in the Gazette by chance, to analyze, interpret it and challenge it.

Do you think that there will be more legal action challenging the projects, since there is a lack of transparency, and a lack of information for the population, including aboriginals?

[Pierre Gratton]

Excuse me, but are you talking about changes that affect the National Energy Board?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes, but I am also talking about the assessments.

[Pierre Gratton]

Honestly, as that part of the bill does not affect our members, we did not analyze it. So I have no comments to make on that. I think that you put the question to Mr. Collyer, from...

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

No, I did not.

[Pierre Gratton]

He would be in a better position to answer you.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

But you agree that it is somewhat difficult, when people, including aboriginal people, have a 15-day deadline but are not told, that they...

[Pierre Gratton]

I really have no comment to make, because I have not examined this aspect of the bill.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

That is fine, thank you.

I also wanted to come back to what Mr. Prystay was saying concerning the assessment procedures.

You were happy that the wait periods for the assessments were shortened, as you found them long. However, the environment and sustainable development commissioner was very clear on this. Why were the wait periods for the environmental assessments long? Because there were some communication gaps between the various departments and the federal agencies.

Do you think that Bill C-38 sets out any solutions to this lack of communication between the departments, which would explain why the timeframes have been shortened?

[Ward Prystay]

The proposed changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act actually don't reduce the timelines. They actually provide timelines for the environmental assessment process, which is a significant benefit.

As an example, for comparison, the provincial environmental assessment process in British Columbia has legislated timelines that have been in effect since 1995. Those timelines include a 30-day review for the draft environmental assessment to make sure it meets the terms of reference for the project, a 180-day review period by the regulatory agencies, first nations, and affected local communities, and a 45-day ministerial approval time, so the province can get through the environmental assessment review process in 255 days. The federal government is giving itself 365 days to do what the province does in 180 days.

I think this demonstrates that the timelines here are generous and that they provide lots of opportunity for interdepartmental-like relationship-building and communication through the environmental assessment process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you.

Madame Quach, unfortunately, your time has expired.

Mr. Kamp, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us. We appreciate the clarity you've been able to provide to Mr. Chisholm and some of his colleagues.

Mr. Orb, I saw a statement that I think was from your organization that said Saskatchewan rural municipalities have been paying inflated costs to accommodate the provisions of this act for over 10 years. I'm taking from that that you don't think the status quo was adequate and it needed some changes.

Let me ask you then, given the direction that we've taken with these changes in Bill C-38, do you feel that what we've done here, by focusing attention on fisheries that Canadians value most, and the food fish and habitat that support them, is a better use of taxpayers resources than the current system, which requires DFO to protect all water bodies and species regardless of their value to Canadians?

Perhaps I can ask each of you that question, and I'll start with Mr. Orb.

[Ray Orb]

Yes, generally speaking, I think we agree that the current blanket approach does not do us justice, nor does it do the federal government justice. I think we could use that money elsewhere. We need to repair infrastructure all across Canada. I think we could use some of that extra funding to be able to do those kinds of things, certainly.

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

Mr. Gratton.

[Pierre Gratton]

With respect to fisheries, I'll elaborate a little on where our concerns lie.

When you're building a mine on a particular mine site, you're also governed by section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which governs what you're allowed to deposit. Strictly speaking, there's an absolute prohibition on depositing a deleterious substance in any water body. Although these changes for certain sectors of the economy might make it easier—for a lower-level impact it might make it easier to proceed, such as in rural communities. For mines, because we're also governed by section 36, it's not really doing that at all. We'll continue to have the same kinds of limits and controls on our activities that we've always had.

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

You're aware, though, that there are some changes to section 36 in this legislation as well.

Mr. Prystay.

[Ward Prystay]

I haven't had time to go into the details of the legislative changes to the Fisheries Act. However, in my review of it so far, I see one of the key improvements to be the addition of section 6, which outlines the factors to be taken into account when an authorization is to be considered, and that includes contribution of the fish to the ongoing productivity of a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery; fisheries management objectives, which are established by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; opportunities for mitigation measures, which I fully anticipate will follow DFO's current hierarchy of approval, to relocate, redesign, and then mitigate; and then the public interest.

This really establishes a clear understanding of how Fisheries and Oceans will go about looking at each project.

With respect to the fish habitat itself, the definition hasn't really changed between the current version and the proposed version. It has been clarified, and I think the definition of serious harm also clarifies a lot of the areas that have been kind of grey zones within the current Fisheries Act.

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

Would you say you have some confidence that with the prohibition now being to not do serious harm to these fisheries and the habitat that supports them, fish habitat in Canada is still going to be protected where it needs to be protected?

[Ward Prystay]

I think the focus of Fisheries and Oceans going forward is going to be on the really important habitats that exist within Canada. It's interesting that the terminology refers to the contribution to the commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. I think most people don't realize that means the minnows and other fish that actually may not form a fishery at any one point, but feed fish that support a fishery will be protected. It does incorporate an ecosystem-based approach here.

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

Yes, and you're right.

Let me just conclude with one comment. Really, I think what you see in the act is a new strategic direction, and maybe to Mr. Gratton's point, it's kind of a foundation for a new policy framework that still is yet to be built through the regulatory process, which will require consultation. I think we look forward to working with all of your organizations as we work on that to provide the clarity that I think you're still looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I think we'll just leave that as a comment. Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. Bevington, for five minutes, please.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've found this discussion to be fascinating. I sat for a number of years on an environmental assessment board in the Northwest Territories. I know there are some things that are different between CEAA and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. One of the key elements, and I think this relates to a very important principle in our country, is the cumulative impact assessment. Within CEAA there were opportunities to look at future developments. If we had a mine in one area, and two or three other mines were being planned in that area, we could look at them and see what the combined impact of those mines would be, for example, on caribou herds. The linear disturbance of those might change the feature.

In the new act, is there any sense that we will be looking at future developments, that we will be considering the cumulative impact of developments? We're living in a world where there are seven billion people. We're living in a world where you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in this country.

What is your industry's take on cumulative impact assessment? How does it fit in with what's happened in this bill?

[Pierre Gratton]

There is another measure of this proposed legislation, one that we had recommended and that we also see as an improvement towards environmental protection, and that is the regional study provision. We made this recommendation when we appeared before the standing committee in the context of the Ring of Fire.

To your point exactly, you've seen this with the diamond industry in the north, and we can see it in the Ring of Fire potentially going forward. A new mine comes in and we know there's the potential for additional mines in the future, so one looks at the environmental assessment of that proposed project, but then one wonders, what about the others that will come? What will that do to the region as a whole? Asking the proponent to answer those questions is unreasonable, in our view, and I think there's often an agreement on that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is it unreasonable when you're developing a project to look at the induced impacts of that project, to look at all the things that happen around it?