Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 Committee on May 31st, 2012

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You take it all then.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Forbes, you said you have experience and that you'd like to be involved in the process, so it's great to see you here tonight. I'd like to get right into the bill. You said the bill would lead to uncertainties, specifically in timelines for proponents and participants. In section 54(2) it says this:

the decision maker must issue the decision statement no later than 24 months after the day on which the environmental assessment of the designated project was referred to a review panel under section 38.

Would you characterize that change in timeline as more uncertain or less uncertain than the previous timelines?

[Rachel Forbes]

I think that timeline is more certain. What I was referring to is that under the current process, we in Canada experience more uncertainty with proponents delaying the process, and then the new CEAA doesn't address that because the timelines don't apply to proponents.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Were you aware that there are no timelines in the existing legislation?

[Rachel Forbes]

Yes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

So having timelines now leads to more uncertainty in timelines.

[Rachel Forbes]

There are still no timelines for the proponents to be held to.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Actually, the timelines are what I just read to you.

[Rachel Forbes]

I believe you're talking about panels and the decision.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

So the decision point is now 24 months after its time. So how is this less certain than what it was before?

[Rachel Forbes]

If you can point me to a clause that says that proponents have to respond with additional information within certain times, or they have to submit enough information initially that the panel wouldn't have to come back to them for additional scientific studies and information that they're missing—which is what often happens—or their economic conditions aren't right so they requested delay, then I would be happy to see those clauses.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

So clause 54 speaks to the timelines and the requirements set out therein—the assumptions being completeness and fulsome review. So how is a panel review timeline decision for 24 months less certain for any participants? There is now a defined timeline.

[Rachel Forbes]

It's not less certain unless the proponent asks for a delay.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you.

Moving along, you also spoke about uncertainty in funding status. We've heard from the Commissioner of the Environment that 94% of screening reviews under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are deemed to be of little or no environmental import. He also said that by reallocating resources spent on those screenings to larger projects, we would have more robust review. The government also re-funded CEAA to its same level, plus increased funding for project review. Would you consider that funding uncertain?

[Rachel Forbes]

I don't think I said anything about funding in my submissions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

In your statement you did. You made a statement about funding status.

[Rachel Forbes]

Not to my knowledge, I didn't.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Continuing, Mr. Everson, you made some comments about the World Economic Forum calling the bureaucratic process an impediment to growth, and you referred to labour shortages and the need for training, and to pension funds being invested in energy firms, etc. Would you characterize those statements as perhaps indicating a need to have certainty, and thus the above as among the reasons why there is a rush to have certainty in the timelines to ensure that these projects can be reviewed?

[Warren Everson]

Absolutely, and I don't think it's much of a rush. I think this issue has been extant in Parliament for a couple of decades.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Would you characterize a statement that Ms. Forbes made questioning the urgency for having these changes as perhaps false?

[Warren Everson]

My membership thinks these changes are timely and very appropriate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

With regard to the question of access that came up, the finance committee will have had 50 hours of study, and there will be 18 hours in this committee. I'm told that the finance committee has had to cancel a couple of meetings because we haven't been able to have witnesses. During the statutory review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we had two months' worth of testimony. During these committee hearings we've had associations that have represented over three million Canadian jobs. We've had representatives from academia, law, aboriginal organizations, environmental non-governmental organizations.

How would you characterize this, Ms. Forbes, as not having access?

[Rachel Forbes]

I would characterize the seven-year review of CEAA very differently than you would. Factually there was a witness from an environmental group and a witness from the Assembly of First Nations, and there were multiple witnesses from industry. I guess you said you met over two months, but these were very short meetings, with a lot of them in camera. We were invited to present and then uninvited. The question was called 36 hours prior to the committee finishing its business.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Were you aware that the process was open and that anyone in Canada was allowed to submit written briefs, of which we reviewed dozens upon dozens?