Evidence of meeting #3 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo  National Chief, Assembly of First Nations
Fred Denning  President, The British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd.
David Schindler  Professor of Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Terry Quinney  Provincial Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
William Amos  Director, University of Ottawa - Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice Canada
Ron Bonnett  President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Kevin Obermeyer  President and CEO, Pacific Pilotage Authority
Scott Vaughan  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Clarence T. Jules  Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Tax Commission

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to share my questions with Mr. Kamp.

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Mr. Kamp, there are a couple of minutes remaining.

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you.

Let me just go back to Mr. Amos.

Let me ask you a simple question to start. Are you satisfied with the status quo in section 35?

10:45 p.m.

Prof. William Amos

In short, no.

That is because, one, insufficient resources are dedicated to habitat protection, and, two, the discretion that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has to authorize harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat pursuant to subsection 35(2) is very broad, and it has resulted in a number of authorizations over the years that simply result in important habitat damage.

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

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

We believe the status quo is inadequate. We've presented a way forward, and that's what we're debating here. I think we disagree on whether that's adequate or not, in your opinion.

You seem unhappy about the fact that there might be some kinds of works, perhaps very minor, some kinds of waters, like perhaps seasonal things that freeze to the bottom during the winter, which the minister could prescribe by regulation—not by ministerial order, as you said, but by regulation—and that these fall outside of the purview of the protection. Most people we've talked to, and I think Mr. Bonnett would be one of them, would say that's a common-sense thing to do, and that we don't have the resources to look at every piece of water—for example, a slough on a farmer's field that only has suckers in it—and expect Fisheries officers to show up on that property, with guns drawn in some cases, we've been told—we hear horror stories—and enforce section 35 of the act.

In our view, this is a common-sense approach to being able to focus the resources in the areas where they need to be.

I think I'm out of time.

10:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

A brief answer, Mr. Amos.

10:50 p.m.

Prof. William Amos

Sure. I appreciate the point. I think that focusing resources is an important objective. The issue is how one solves a problem. Does one solve it legislatively, or does one solve it through guidelines and policies?

Ecojustice Canada would suggest that the objective of avoiding the harsh application of prohibitions and requirement for legal authorizations under subsection 35(2) could be avoided. Issues related to, hypothetically, drainage ditches, could be avoided. What we have here is a situation where, for instance, it may be legal to temporarily remove vegetation from a spawning stream, or disrupt the gravel, or add sediment through roadwork. Those kinds of activities could wipe out an entire year class of salmon, even though it doesn't permanently alter the habitat. We would suggest that the fallout of trying to solve the “drainage ditch” problem is that there are going to be important impacts on habitat that weren't intended.

With respect to the objectives that were set out, I think that focusing government expenditures on those habitat issues that are really important is a laudable goal. I couldn't agree more. The point is how you go about doing it.

10:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Thank you, Mr. Amos.

Colleagues, again I must seek unanimous consent for the committee to continue on with these deliberations, as the bells summoning members to the House of Commons for a vote are now clearly ringing. We have two more members on the list, which would finish the second round completely. My suggestion is that should take approximately 10 minutes, which should give us lots of time within the realm of 30-minute bells to do that, at which time I think our committee hearings would be over. I think it's fair. Every member of the committee would have had a chance to ask questions at that point in time.

Let's continue on. I sense there is consent.

Mr. Chisholm, for up to five minutes.

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Vaughan, I would like you to clarify an exchange you just had about the 99% of assessments. It was insinuated that these weren't important, and that we're just going to go after the big ones. Would you explain the types of screenings that may be picked up in that 99%? What is the potential impact of allowing those projects to go forward without any assessments?

10:50 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Just to reiterate, Ms. Rempel is absolutely right. The majority of screenings are very small projects for which there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. The agency has estimated that 94% of screenings would not pose significant adverse environmental impacts. We had a different number, but at the end of the day, the question is for screenings of larger projects. I name some of them: metal mines below 3,000 tonnes, oil sands below 10,000 cubic metres, offshore projects including exploratory drills of 75 kilometres, all aquaculture projects, all bridge projects. Those are also under screenings. Those are larger projects. Those are projects that can pose significant adverse environmental impacts.

From what I understand, it may be useful to get the agency and ministries before the committee. Our understanding is that because all those are under screenings, they will no longer fall under the federal EA process.

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you for that.

You made a comment earlier in your testimony and I want to follow up on it. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, I believe, is looking at the Old Harry site. You indicated that the changes in this bill would affect whether or not those boards would be required to do an assessment under those circumstances. Could you please explain that?

10:50 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Under the bill they are moving from the current regime of 100 responsible authorities to three, which are named. There is a fourth one, which is an agency which will carry out regulatory responsibilities. Our understanding, from discussions with the boards, is that they would then retain their responsible authority powers, if you will, under that fourth category, both the Nova Scotia and the Newfoundland offshore boards. We're actually meeting with them on Thursday to clarify what their understanding is of these changes.

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Unfortunately, we'll be done here.

10:55 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

By Thursday?

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

By Thursday, by the time you seek clarification.

As you may know, there's a fair bit of controversy around what is being proposed with respect to Old Harry, the fisheries, P.E.I., Quebec, and the coast of New Brunswick. If we were ever to go forward and there were a spill, it would be a catastrophe that would make the Exxon Valdez look like a minor incident.

10:55 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

What I will say is that we are doing an audit right now, so I can't comment on it, but we will be reporting later this year on what the strategic environmental assessments are for both boards, as well as the environmental assessments, and that would include, then, what has been done to date on Old Harry.

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you.

Mr. Amos, I wanted to also ask you about these changes, as they deal in particular with the offshore petroleum boards in my neck of the woods, and also about the implications of them being as Mr. Vaughan has described—not having the authority to do those assessments.

10:55 p.m.

Prof. William Amos

I appreciate the question.

In the interests of full disclosure, I note that I represent three different groups on matters pertaining to the Old Harry proposal: the strategic environmental assessments being undertaken by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the screening process that is also currently being run by that same board as the responsible authority. My opinions will reflect those of our clients.

The situation right now is nothing short of uncertain. We're not certain, as Mr. Vaughan has suggested, whether or not the board will be a responsible authority, so we're not sure what impact that may have on the screening assessment process. It won't impact the strategic environmental assessment process because that EA process is in fact not even legislated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. So it won't be changed.

But in regard to the screening assessment, who's to say? In fact, we don't know, because we don't have a project list regulation in front of us. We don't know, going forward, if exploratory wells, whether they take place in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the Beaufort Sea, or anywhere else in Canada, for that matter.... We don't know if proposals to drill will be subject to environmental assessment federally.

I think the point that was made earlier by Mr. Vaughan is really important, which is that among the thousands of environmental screening assessments that currently are taking place, there are many projects that are on a very small scale—they're bridge crossings. So I appreciate the line of questioning from Ms. Rempel. On the other side, there are important and significant projects that are subject only to a screening. If such projects as exploratory well-drilling, for example, and it's that kind of well that caused the Macondo blowout.... If those projects are not subject to federal environmental assessment, the question is, who's going to do it?

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins

Thank you very much, Mr. Amos.

Mr. Chisholm, we are almost at seven minutes. I've been very lenient.

Mr. Anderson.

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

We're talking about screening here. I'd like to spend another couple of minutes on it.

Ms. Rempel mentioned a couple of examples of the types of EAs that needed to be done. I have an example as well. The RCMP Musical Ride came to Fort Walsh in Alberta. That was their base for many years. They did a re-enactment there. They were actually forced to do an EA to see whether they could use the parade grounds. I think maybe that's one of the examples you're talking about in regard to the 94% you mentioned that have little or no environmental impact. That percentage was 94%, I think?

10:55 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

That's what the agency is using—

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Yes, and we've increased funding to CEAA, so I would suggest that we're actually increasing the capacity to take a look at the bigger projects that have been talked about here, the projects that Mr. Amos was speaking about.

I would like to talk a bit about social licence. It came up a little earlier. It also came up last night

Mr. Quinney and Mr. Bonnet, you're on the ground. If we come out with a proposal to have one project, one review, and set timelines, average people can understand that, right? We'd come out with a clear EA process.

Clearly, last night's testimony indicated that there would be an EA process that would be clearer. The outcomes would not be changed. The process may be changed, but the outcomes would be similar. It would be with a focused definition of fish, fisheries, and fish habitat, and a very serious and focused definition of serious harm. As well, we understand that we need consistent application and we need appropriate regulation.

Do you think that's going to increase social acceptance across this country of what we're doing? Or do you think that will decrease it?

11 p.m.

President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture

Ron Bonnett

Anything that can be done to increase clarity would really build public confidence in the process. I come at this not only from the agriculture perspective, but in a previous life I was a municipal counsellor. Trying to get your hands on what an EA process was going to be, what the regulations were going to be, and what the definitions were going to be was a moving target all the time. Anything that can be done to bring clarity and certainty to that and establish timelines will build public confidence.

11 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Quinney.

11 p.m.

Provincial Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters

Dr. Terry Quinney

I really don't think I have anything to add there.