Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 30th, 2012

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much.

You also commented on federal liaison and provincial liaison, and you seemed to welcome the idea of provincial governments. You don't seem to stress any issues with the provincial governments being able to take on some of these bigger roles. In fact, for the fish and fish habitat provisions, you said there's an overlap with the provinces on some of this.

Given that a lot of development of hydro dams in Canada occurs by, in some cases, provincial crown corporations—as is the case in my province—New Brunswick—and also in Quebec, would you see an equivalency provision to the province in that case as a conflict, or would you see that as possibly a bigger role or more important role?

[Eduard Wojczynski]

There certainly can be an appearance of conflict at times. I think that question is a good one.

Our experience is that the provincial fisheries people are the ones who are closer to what is happening to fish in their jurisdiction. In most provinces, if not all, it's the fisheries departments that are charged with the management of the fishing quotas—I'm talking about fresh water. They're closer to the issue and they have the responsibility there, not just for that part of their economy, which is, let's say, hydro, but also for the other parts of the economy. So they take that very seriously. I can say with confidence that I know in our province—but I know it's true in other provinces—that's taken absolutely seriously and would not be subjugated just because there's a crown corporation there.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

You did also say one issue about improving, and it involved activities to enhance species. I might ask you to clarify that. I might not have heard that just right. However, there are new provisions in the bill, in proposed section 4.4, which talks about partnerships and the minister being able to create partnerships with conservation organizations and others to improve habitat, whether that be through stocking or other kinds of activities.

Do you see that as one possible provision to help with enhancing the species?

[Eduard Wojczynski]

I think when you're referring to my comment on enhancing, I was referring to the Species at Risk Act. The provision you're talking about is in the Fisheries Act. The comment we were making is that we see—and we had a lot of discussions in various forums, whether the species at risk advisory committee or other places—that there is now no good opportunity to encourage industry to focus on overall stewardship rather than just on the individual compliance mechanisms that are in SARA. We think there's a lot of positive opportunity there that would be good for fish habitat and overall for industry as well.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay. Really quickly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Unfortunately, your time is up.

Mr. Anderson, five minutes, please.

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

I'll give Mr. Allen an opportunity to ask his question.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

The one follow-up question, then, is with regard to dams in some of the rivers. I'll use New Brunswick as an example, which is working with organizations such as the Saint John River basin salmon recovery unit, the Miramichi Headwaters, and those other ones.

Do you see the ministerial ability to create partnerships and investments in conservation being a positive step in working possibly even with your members on that?

[Eduard Wojczynski]

Absolutely. There's a lot of opportunity there, and I think it's very positive. If you have the bigger utilities, whether crown or privately owned, with a number of hydro facilities, they're very familiar with it, and they do a lot of the research. Frankly, what's happened....

Science is very important, and whether you're talking about provincial governments or federal governments, the reality is that there has been less research. Private industry often is picking it up, subject to other people's review.

So there's a lot we can do, working with governments and others, to overall have better stewardship.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, David.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

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

Thank you. I guess my time is short here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Four minutes.

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

Ms. Schwann and Mr. Wojczynski, do you think this idea of “one project, one assessment” actually can increase the timeliness and certainty of environmental assessments? Would you agree with that?

[Pamela Schwann]

Yes, we'd agree that it does definitely assist in predictability for the industry in terms of knowing what their timeframe will be for their investment. It also, I think, ensures that the outcomes are well understood as you go into an environmental assessment process.

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

Would you agree with that as well?

[Eduard Wojczynski]

Yes. We've had projects—for instance, the Wuskwatim project, which is actually just under construction—where we've had both federal and provincial processes. In both processes we were asked much the same questions, and had duplicative processes. One process could have done the job just as well.

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

Okay. So the whole idea is that it reduces bureaucratic overlap as well. Both of you would agree with that. I think you both mentioned that.

That actually puts you in agreement with the premiers. Today the four western premiers put out their news release talking about environmental assessments.

I'd just like to read a couple of the sentences they wrote:For several years, Western Premiers have noted the importance of streamlining the environmental assessment process through a one project, one assessment approach that reduces wasteful duplication and delays. The 2012 federal budget shows that the federal government is taking action and Premiers welcome the progress being made.

Further down they talk about how the premiers and the federal government do share common goals. They say: One project, one assessment, one decision increases timeliness and certainty, and reduces bureaucratic overlap without compromising environmental rigour. With an environmental assessment system that makes sense, resources at both orders of government are freed.

I would assume that both of you agree with that comment as well.

It's good to see leadership coming from the western Canadian premiers as well, and an agreement that we're moving in the right direction on this.

Ms. Schwann, I wanted to ask you one of the questions that Mr. Allen asked. Do you see partnerships being encouraged in this legislation? Do you see that as part of your future, working with conservation councils and conservation groups and that kind of thing as well?

[Pamela Schwann]

Certainly with respect to the fish habitat alteration agreements, there are many partnerships already between industry and community groups, which of course are stewarded by the government. There already are many different types of conservation agreements that occur right now in development stages.

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

Okay.

I doubt I have much time left here, but I would just like to get both your positive and negative here. If you could talk about some of the examples where you've been able to work together, that would be great. If you have some examples of where duplication in the current process has really slowed down some of your members' projects, I would be interested in hearing that as well. I'm interested in hearing both the positive and the negative.

We know that things like farmers' fields have been included in this to the detriment of local communities and those kinds of things, but where have you run into duplication? Where have you been able to work well with conservation councils?

[Pamela Schwann]

In terms of duplication, one example I can bring forward is a licensed tailings facility that ended up undergoing.... It was licensed by the provincial government, and it ended up going through at least a two-year delay on the federal process. It was deemed as a fish habitat because there was a fish in it, even though it was a licensed tailings pond.

That cost a significant amount of money and delay for the company without any environmental benefits in terms of outcomes. It was a ridiculous application of the existing fish habitat policy. That would be one example of, I think, some poor cooperation.

I think where we're seeing some positive collaboration in agreements right now is in terms of some of the work in northern Saskatchewan. There are lists of projects that would absolutely make a difference in fish habitat that might not be in an immediate area where there's activity. Allowing fish habitat banking to happen so that there are sufficient funds at a point in time that can actually work to improve a designated project that is identified on a provincial or federal priority list, I guess would be an example of something that I think would be beneficial, or is continuing to be beneficial, on a cooperative basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Ms. Schwann.

Mr. Anderson, your time has expired.

Ms. Quach, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to use my time to ask Mr. Simard some questions.

Mr. Simard, thank you for joining us. I would first like to point out that you said that Bill C-38 violates the non-regression principle in terms of environmental protection. I would like you to provide us with more information about that.

It is said that Bill C-38 will enable the federal government to delegate environmental assessment responsibilities to the provinces, under the pretext that time delays are too long or that there is duplication of work. However, yesterday, the commissioner said that the delays were due to a lack of coordination between departmental agencies and that an agency may exempt the same designated project because it no longer has enough time to assess it.

As a result, the number of assessments could go from 6,000 to 30 per year. How could that affect the Great Lakes or the Gulf of St. Lawrence?

[Christian Simard]

This is important. I have heard a lot of nonsense about it. However, as a former sovereignist MP, I am very interested in the issue of overlap between provincial and federal authority.

As you know, there are already some agreements on environmental assessments between the federal government and the Government of Quebec, with a view to using the best procedure available. When a project comes mostly under Quebec's jurisdiction, Quebec's procedure applies, and when a project mainly comes under federal jurisdiction, federal procedure applies. There is an agreement about that.

Actually, this provision looks more like an abandonment of responsibility than delegation. There are various elements involved. For instance, earlier, it was said that habitat protection responsibility may be delegated to third parties. However, those third parties can be companies, which are not necessarily conservation agencies.

If we take a closer look at this, it is not a matter of halieutic strategy—in other words, a strategy for protecting fish and their habitat. It is more of an industrial strategy based on the philosophy whereby the environment is an impediment to resource development. According to that philosophy, if a lot of resources are developed and a lot of money is made, some of that money will go towards environment protection. That is a very outdated view of sustainable development, but it is nevertheless the underlying strategy.

When it comes to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we could say that it is better for a single office—in this case the National Energy Board—to assess the gulf, instead of five provincial offices or partnerships between Canada and Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador. In a way, that is somewhat logical. The issue stems from the fact that this task will be entrusted to the National Energy Board, which is primarily concerned with energy projects and for which environmental or habitat protection is an afterthought. The whole process is being corrupted.

In some cases, it may be said that this is a good thing. We may think that the Gulf of St. Lawrence comes under federal jurisdiction. Resources are a provincial responsibility, but habitat comes under interprovincial jurisdiction. Therefore, if the federal government does not conduct a full assessment, it is abandoning its responsibilities.

The reform is supposed to protect fish habitat, but in fact, it is unfortunately a tenacious attempt to create shortcuts and bypass assessments in order to move things forward as quickly as possible. For instance, Bill C-38, which is before us today, allows the National Energy Board to decide within a 45-day period that a seismic exploration assessment is unnecessary. However, that may lead to serious problems for sea mammals. You know, exploration zones are created to check whether there is oil on site, and the board could simply decide, within 45 days, that it is unnecessary to conduct an assessment at the exploration stage. However, we know that the exploration projects in the Gulf of Mexico were a failure.

The government is playing the sorcerer's apprentice by proposing a very broad reform, included in a piece of legislation on budget application. This is a very broad reform that is riddled with shortcomings and possible loopholes to encourage—in the absence of scientific evidence and time for reflection—overly rapid development of natural resources that may cause massive pollution.

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

Do you have any examples of environmental accident risks?