Evidence of meeting #4 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.
NDP
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
On this line of questioning Ms. Rempel is going after the witness with, I don't think there's any question she's twisting his words. When he made the reference to the Mackenzie Valley and the pipeline, he was talking about the irony. It was a little bit of irony when he was talking, and I believe it's a misrepresentation of what he's saying to continue to present his words in this fashion. I don't think it's very fair or, frankly, respectful.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I appreciate that, Mr. Chisholm. I think Mr. Hazell is experienced enough to explain his position.
Madam Rempel.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
I would like to speak to this point of order.
I appreciate my colleague bringing this up because this is important. This is why I gave the witness the opportunity to clarify his comments on the front end, to make sure that what I had heard was correct. What we're talking about here is inserting policy on how government regulates industry into an environmental assessment process when what we should be talking about is how we balance rigour and environmental assessment while ensuring the project proponents have access to predictability and timeliness in the process.
And that's the point—
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Chairman, maybe Ms. Rempel should be having this discussion with the witness in a respectful manner, rather than trying to berate him.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Mr. Chisholm, I'll let Ms. Rempel finish her thoughts. Respectfully, your interruptions are becoming quite more frequent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I don't hear a point of order here at all. If you two wish to have this debate through your lines of questioning with the witnesses, I would encourage you to do it that way, rather than usurping the rest of the members of this committee's time by having your own personal debate at the table.
Continue on with your line of questioning, Ms. Rempel.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Thank you.
I don't mean any disrespect to the witness, because I do respect Mr. Hazell's knowledge and passion in this area, but I can't get over that comment because I think this is the hurdle that we as committee members need to address. How do we address process in environmental assessment, ensuring we're getting it right, rather than talking about whether or not we dictate how industry operates?
With that, I want to go into the environment commissioner's—
Senior Counsel, Ecovision Law
Could I respond? I thought there was supposed to be a question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
It's the member's time. I'm sure you're going to get an opportunity to respond, Mr. Hazell.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
I just wanted to clarify your position.
The environment commissioner last night brought up the fact that CEAA is on record stating that 99.9% of the environmental assessments that happen right now are screenings, and that 94% of them would be characterized as having little to no environmental impact.
There was some testimony that came out through our review of CEAA, where I do have to push back that there hasn't been consultation on this, because we spent the better part of the fall session reviewing CEAA.
Mr. Hazell, you made a comment:
At the federal level, I think we do need to focus on the big stuff and not sweat the small stuff so much, which unfortunately hasn't been a feature of CEAA so far. Not that there hasn't been a lot of good work done in the screening assessments—there has been, but we've learned some things. A lot of standards have been developed because of the work that has been done, such as, for example, no pipeline crossings over streams.
We also heard from the environment commissioner last night. He agreed that by reducing the amount of small projects that have little to no environmental impact, the 94% of them, we could allocate resources to review those big projects, the ones you're rightly concerned about.
How do you reconcile those comments with some of the things you've said tonight? How can you depart from that comment so much?
Senior Counsel, Ecovision Law
It's completely consistent with the remarks and with my brief that I tabled with the House environment committee in the fall.
My point was that having mandatory legal requirements to conduct screenings of all of these various small projects may not be necessary. But if we take away those legal requirements, we need something else to ensure that those projects are promoting sustainability, as my colleague, Mr. Kneen, pointed out. That's the essential thing. We need to have some sort of process. There's nothing in this bill that deals with—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Ms. Rempel and Mr. Hazell. Ms. Rempel, your time has expired.
Thank you very much for that. We have to move on. Members need to have an opportunity to get their questions answered.
Mr. Allen, for up to five minutes, please.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate the witnesses being here.
Mr. Hazell, I want to go back to some of the questioning, and some of the answers, from my colleagues across the way who talked about a lot of uncertainty with respect to...and obviously some regulations. We've seen the same thing elsewhere. I'm on the fisheries committee, and we know there are a number of consultations that are going to happen after this, and the fisheries minister is going to do some things on the regulatory side.
I'd like to ask some questions about testimony that we've already heard.
When we spoke to Mr. Gratton the other night, from the mining folks, he said:
First of all, for mining projects we fully expect to have mines on the list that will follow in regulations, so we expect the same number of projects to be assessed in the future as have been up to now. In fact, we've even speculated that we might end up having more projects, as some brownfield sites, which are mines that are being developed on already disturbed mining areas, may fall under the new definitions. So we actually may see more projects assessed, but they will be assessed in a more timely manner.
I'm trying to reconcile that, because very clearly Mr. Gratton, and Mr. Prystay also, have read the legislation very thoroughly and they came up with that interpretation. I'd simply like to understand how I can square that circle.
Senior Counsel, Ecovision Law
There are two things. One is that the legislation is very clear that the 99% of projects that are currently screened under CEAA will be not be happening. We know there will be a huge diminution of the number of projects assessed overall. So that I think is clear.
What isn't clear, and what I've been saying, is that we don't know what's going to be on the designated project list regulation. Maybe Pierre has some inside information that I don't have. I'm not sure this committee has seen any of this.
That's why I'm saying that this bill could be an empty shell, or maybe it won't be so bad, if Pierre is right, at least with respect to mining projects. We know there's going to be a huge reduction in the number of projects, but whether or not some of the key mines of Mining Association of Canada members will be subject to the act through the designated project regulation, I don't know.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I will agree with you on the fact that we did hear it last night, too, from the environment commissioner that there's 95% of these that really have little or no impact, so we wouldn't see much of a change, but Mr. Gratton obviously sees mines as being something significant, that they're going to have to go through some kind of review. In fact, on questioning, Mr. Prystay was even responding to the question of whether he foresaw anything less rigorous, and he said:
I don't anticipate any less scientific rigour in any of the reviews. The process is going to include both federal and provincial or territorial environmental assessment processes regardless, so we don't anticipate any reduction in the quality of the work....
So they weren't anticipating any reduction in the quality of work for any of the types of things they were trying to do. It's kind of one of those things where we're going yin and yang on this, and it seems to me that they're fully expecting a very rigorous process for their projects.
Senior Counsel, Ecovision Law
Well, we're not going to get it through CEAA 2012. I mean, we know that in this bill there are a number of very profound changes from the previous bill—for example, just in the definition of what an environmental effect is.
For projects such as a mine.... Let's take a base metal mine in British Columbia that's subject mainly to provincial regulation and not so much to federal regulations, other than the Fisheries Act and some other federal provisions. If you look at that, what would a federal environmental assessment involve with respect to that base metal mine?
The assessment would be restricted to the comity of the environmental effects section in the bill, which is limited to studying impacts on fish, impacts on migratory birds, and other components of the environment to be specified in schedule 2. And guess what? There's nothing in schedule 2. There's nothing there at all. So it would be a very, very narrow environmental assessment if it were just the federal assessment of that mythical base metal mine in British Columbia.
That's just one example, but they've also taken out another set of factors in the current bill—for example, the need for the project and the alternatives to the project. They have been taken out. Those are extremely important parts of many environmental assessment laws in this country, and perhaps especially in the province of Ontario.
So there are a number of ways in which the assessments under CEAA 2012 will be very much weaker and more fragmented than is the case currently. Now—
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fisher, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Anderson, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to clarify something. With all due respect, I studied sustainable landscape management at UBC. I made many visits to the valley and to Chilliwack and other valley towns. I studied in that environment, and I want to clarify the basic science of surface hydrology and the role of riparian corridors, because I've heard a lot about farmers' ditches for the past couple of months.
Ditches act as first-order streams, whether they're man-made or natural. First-order streams flow into second order and they flow into third order, and eventually they reach deltas at the ocean. If you look at a satellite picture of the Fraser delta, you'll see massive siltation at the outlet of the delta.
Now, people will ask, “So what?” Well, any runoff that goes into those ditches increases siltation in a river, and the silts reduce the oxygen in that river. The reduction of oxygen reduces the capacity of a river to carry aquatic life—plain and simple. That's the plain science of surface hydrology.
The Fisheries Act leads to the protection of those riparian corridors because it recognizes that surface runoff reduces a river's capacity to carry life and fish. Mitigation such as hedgerows—or gravels, as you mentioned—helps the process, but if you remove these acts and the incentive to protect fish, some farmers will cut costs, and they will not take on the extra costs to do the mitigation measures. So this act is actually protecting the whole system.
A farmer knows their land well. I wouldn't want to say they don't. But it's a system. They're part of a system. A lot of farmers want to use all of their cultivable land. It makes economic sense. You want to increase the productivity of your land, but by doing hedgerows and by taking mitigation measures, you're protecting fish, which protects that industry.
Now, that's science. It's not manipulation, such as the government is doing in using language and perceptions to turn people against science. So I'd just like that clarified.
My question is actually for Mr. Hazell. Changes in Bill C-38 mean that cabinet now can overrule the National Energy Board's decision. Do you think the decision-making should be based on science, or is allowing big resource developments to be decided on a political whim a good idea?