Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 29th, 2012

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

That's fine.

We've heard again and again that the outcomes will not change, but the process will change. I think that's to strengthen the process. Definitions may be amended, but environmental results are going to be similar, if not more effective.

I want to ask you a question that may have partially been asked before. Do you think your drainage ditch should be treated the same as a salmon fishery? Do you think changing a culvert municipally should be treated the same as putting a pipeline across a river?

[Ron Bonnett]

No, and I think that goes back to when you developed the regulations. We need to get some definitions on the types of projects that should be subject to more thorough reviews than others. Basically it's a waste of resources to go through a full-blown review on those types of projects.

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

Does anybody else want to respond to that?

Everything is treated basically indiscriminately right now; everything is applied the same across the board. I see Mr. Vaughan shaking his head there or agreeing with me.

Does it make sense to give the minister the power to provide enhanced protection for ecologically sensitive areas? Is that a good move, rather than everybody treating your drainage ditch the same as a salmon fishery, or treating your culvert the same as a pipeline crossing a river? Isn't it a reasonable thing and a good idea for the environment minister to be able to move to protect ecologically sensitive areas?

[Dr. Terry Quinney]

I have two quick comments. As you know, we have members in all corners of Ontario, and for some time the status quo has not been working. We need improvements. We're certainly willing to cooperate with whomever wishes to make improvements. So we appreciate that commitment by the federal government.

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

One of the things we haven't talked much about tonight is enforcement. Fines can act as deterrents to any kind of ecologically damaging actions, and they're only effective if they're stringent enough. This proposed legislation is going to align infractions under the Fisheries Act with the environmental enforcement act, which actually provides higher maximum penalities.

Do you see that as a reasonable thing to do? Is that going too far? Will that be beneficial for Canadians?

Mr. Vaughan, go ahead.

[Scott Vaughan]

I certainly would agree with you. The fines are a very clear signal within the act. We looked at fines in the past and said in past reports that they were low enough to have no effect. So increasing those fines would be aligned with something we found in past audits.

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

We've heard that from people for a number of years, and Mr. Sopuck mentioned it. We've moved in that direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Unfortunately, the five minutes have gone by. This brings to an end the second round of questions.

I would sincerely like to thank our witnesses for staying here, travelling here, and being here this late at night. If it is any consolation, Mr. Jules, Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Obermeyer, Mr. Bonnett, Mr. Amos, and Mr. Quinney, most of us who are about to leave will probably be here until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. conducting business in the House. So while we have sympathy for you, we're not asking for any sympathy in return. We sincerely thank you for your presentations and your help in guiding us with our deliberations.

Colleagues, well done tonight, and we'll see you tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.