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.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Would you say those funds could be better spent in actual protection of the environment, after the fact or once the project has begun?
8:15 p.m.
Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Hydropower Association
To be honest about it, I think most of that cost that I've just mentioned is probably required regardless. You need to do those kinds of studies. You need to do the work ahead of time.
A big thing though is, if you take four years instead of let's say, two years—I'm talking about a large project—then you're probably incurring $30 million extra that you wouldn't have had to have in terms of process costs, plus you're accumulating a lot of interest. Plus, when you're dealing in a market where you have to have things done quickly, the markets can't accommodate super long timeframes, and you will go away to something of a shorter timeframe like coal generation.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Right. So you don't begrudge the amount of funds that you need to spend on the EA process but simply the fact that it's at least twice as long as it needs to be makes the amount much higher than it already seems to be?
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Thank you.
You also mentioned that hydro power developers have $125 billion potential investment waiting, which would create over a million person-years of employment across the country. We have an NDP leader in Canada who believes in pitting east against west and talking about projects that only benefit the west. Would you say the projects that you're developing would also benefit all of Canada, would create some of those jobs all over Canada, and if so, can you give us some examples of the types of jobs that would be created by a hydro project?
8:15 p.m.
Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Hydropower Association
I'm going to avoid any political comparisons, but I will say that the Canadian hydro is spread out across Canada in virtually all jurisdictions.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Thank you.
I have one quick question for Mr. Tremblay. Ms. Rempel was talking about the consultation process and the changes to that in CEAA 2012, but I wanted to ask you specifically about funding and the fact that the new regulation provides funding to support consultation, while establishing protocols or agreements with aboriginal groups to clarify consultation expectations on given projects. How do you believe this will change, or do you believe it will improve, the consultation process?
8:15 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The funding is $13.6 million over two years, so $6.8 million per year for consultation with aboriginal groups.
On the protocol and the MOU with provinces and aboriginal groups, it's very helpful because there is a clear understanding among the partners on who's doing what at what time before the projects happen. So it's very helpful in building the relationship before you need it, if you want. That's something that we're looking for in terms of doing. We already have some protocols that are signed with some provinces, and we want at the end of the day to have protocols with all provinces and territories. We are also looking at more MOUs with provinces and protocols with aboriginal groups.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chisholm, I believe you're going to share your time with Mr. Nicholls. You have five minutes, sir.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I am going to do that, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make this comment though. It's interesting the exchange Ms. Ambler...I just want to walk on that ground too. Ms. Rempel started it with Mr. Tremblay about consultation. Mr. Tremblay, I think you or Ms. Rempel referred to consultation fatigue. Last night before this committee, we had the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations here, and he talked in very clear terms about a complete and utter lack of consultation. It's why so many of the first nations in this country talk about the government being tone-deaf.
I want to go to Mr. Siddon and I don't want to trespass on my colleague's question too much, Mr. Siddon, but I know you wanted to make three recommendations and you're not going to get a chance to wrap up. One recommendation you made was to split at least the Fisheries Act out of this bill, but you said you had three. I wonder if I could give you a couple of seconds to lay out those other two, please, for us?
8:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chisholm.
I have a number of recommendations and comments on several clauses that we haven't gotten to.
I'd refer to clause 147, the “let them off lightly” clause, because I was the minister who brought in fines of up to $1 million to the Fisheries Act in 1989. We brought in jail sentences for corporate offenders. We treated everyone equally.
But this legislation indicates that if you are a non-profit or a private individual or a corporation with under $5 million of annual income, the minimum fine is going to be $5,000 on summary conviction or $15,000 on indictment.
What do you think a judge in court is going to do with that? This is uncanny, this inclusion of minimum fine thresholds, because that's where the first offence is going to be leaning to—the lowest end.
We brought in these large fines as a deterrent, and for the most part they worked. They are probably the reason that many industry representatives protest. But if we want to save our habitat and save our fish-bearing waters, we have to have some teeth in this legislation.
That's certainly one of the provisions I would comment on.
Another is what I call “the minister cops out” clause, clause 150. I think this is probably one of the most important defects in this legislation—the minister's being able to download not only to provincial governments, under a previous clause, but even to private sector interests, even to delegating enforcement. This is happening in British Columbia with these so-called qualified environmental professionals. The whole thing can be privatized, if we're not careful. So who is going to mind the store?
So the business of the minister not recognizing his overriding responsibility, his constitutional duty, causes me great concern.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Siddon. I appreciate that.
I want to pass what's left of my time over to Mr. Nicholls.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I have a very brief comment to make to Mr. Wojczynski before I pass on to Mr. Siddon.
I want to recognize the efforts you have put into fish rehabilitation. I know it's a very costly enterprise to do, which is why protecting the fish habitat is so important. We end up having costs downstream, once the habitat is destroyed. It's very costly.
That brings me to the point I want to ask Mr. Siddon about.
You said that we shouldn't change the law, but rather should become stronger on implementation and application of the existing law. Can you elaborate on that?
8:20 p.m.
As an Individual
If we hear criticism of certain specifics, whether it's flooding a field or draining a field or somebody wanting to put a wharf up, that's a matter of how the minister runs his department. But the minister still has a constitutional duty to stand up and be counted, and he ought to be very much in this process. I guess I'm sounding repetitive, but I think the dilution and diminution of the minister's....
I'd be happy to hear Mr. Ashfield stand up, as all former ministers of fisheries whom I recall have done, and say, “I understand what my job entails: I am there to look after the fish”—full stop—“That's what I am appointed by the Prime Minister to do”, period.
8:20 p.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
So in summary, the problem isn't with the law; the problem is with good management practices in the ministry and the associated bureaucracy. That because the leadership is not there, there is a lack of leadership.
8:20 p.m.
As an Individual
And if the regulations need to be changed to improve efficiency, if we have to have consolidated administrative agreements with the provinces, I am quite concerned about the fox in the henhouse—that is, proponent ministries running their own environmental reviews—because they are in a conflict of interest, a clear conflict of interest.
The bottom line of my message, if this is my final word, Mr. Chairman, is to take your time and do it right. To bundle all of this into a budget bill, with all its other facets, is not becoming of a Conservative government, period.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you very much.
Mr. Nicholls, your time has expired.
We now go to the last questioner of our first round, for five minutes.
We'll start with Ms. Rempel. I believe you're sharing your time with Mr. Trost.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
That's correct.
I'd like to go to Ms. Schwann for a moment and go back to some of the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act.
Within the proposed changes, there is a “duty to notify” section. Are you familiar with it?
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
It legally requires proponents to inform DFO in the event of serious harm to fisheries—a logical, reasonable step that should always have been taken, if such unfortunate circumstances were to occur.
Do you see this as a positive development?
8:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Saskatchewan Mining Association
I think it's a very common-sense approach to responsible resource development, which this is all about.
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
We talked a little bit with your national mining association about how, sometimes, projects have windows to market that need to be assessed. The timeliness and predictability of timelines could help to promote that, but also ensure that there is rigour in the environmental review at the same time.
Do you foresee any of your member companies lessening their environmental planning or lessening their environmental standards because of the changes in this regulation?