Thank you for having me here this evening.
I am representing the West Coast Environmental Law Association. We are a B.C.-based environmental law, advocacy, and analysis organization. We are one of Canada's oldest environmental law organizations and have been providing legal support to British Columbians to ensure that their voices are heard on important environmental issues. We have worked to secure strong environmental laws in B.C. and throughout Canada for decades. West Coast Environmental Law was actually involved prior to during the drafting of CEAA when it was enacted. We have had a role on the environment and planning assessment caucus for years, as well as on the now defunct regulatory advisory committee. We have been actively involved in this round of review, repeal, and now replacement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since the standing committee's review back in the autumn.
I don't want to be repetitive. I know you have heard a lot of submissions over the last few days. I'm going to start by saying we would also endorse the submissions of some of the other witnesses you have heard from, including MiningWatch Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, Ecojustice, and World Wildlife Fund Canada. There are others we would probably agree with in part.
I want to focus here on three different issues. We actually have one main recommendation for the committee. Then, being lawyers, we have a bunch of alternatives if the committee doesn't want to accept that one. I understand the four pillars of the government's responsible resource development plan are to create more predictable and timely reviews, less duplication in reviewing projects, strong environmental protection, and enhanced consultation with aboriginal peoples. We would also support those as part of a robust regulatory regime for environmental assessment and environmental regulation writ large. However, we don't think that part 3 of Bill C-38 accomplishes any of those, and we think that in some cases it actually hinders them.
We think that part 3 will actually result in weakened protection for fish and species at risk. An entirely new and actually less comprehensive environmental assessment process will see the federal government retreat from a strong role and smart regulations, not just from a lot of regulation. We think there are broad and seemingly unchecked decision-making powers given to cabinet and to ministers, which will result in less accountability and fewer opportunities for public participation and public oversight.
Can we still work towards those four goals that we all seem to actually agree on at the core, but which we have different ways of getting at philosophically? Yes. We think doing so would actually require a significant shift in the legislative process that is under way right now and a complete rewriting of part 3, and that goes to our first recommendation. It probably isn't a shock to anybody that we would hope the subcommittee would recommend to the finance committee the removal of part 3 in its entirety from Bill C-38. We would recommend conducting further scientific, factual, and legal studies and having fulsome, open consultation on amendments to the environmental assessment aspects of it, as well as on other environmental regulation, including that on fisheries and species at risk. That would include contemplated regulations, schedules, and other information that neither the public nor parliamentarians, to my knowledge, are privy to at this point.
After such study and consultation is complete—which in fairness I think would take months, not a couple of weeks—stand-alone bills could be introduced in the House and could go through a proper, legitimate process that actually gives people faith in the process and legitimizes it, regardless of what the actual contents of the bill and the act are. I think the process here and the review of CEAA that has gone on are flawed. Jamie Kneen touched on this the other night when he talked about referral to standing committee for a review, the process that happened at the standing committee, the dissenting reports from that, and then a lot of rhetoric that has ended up in a whole repeal and replace which is smushed into a budget bill where it doesn't belong. I think we need to step back and actually do this properly, regardless of what the content is or what one would say about that.
We believe that's the only way to ensure that the proposed new legislation is reviewed and modified in a fact-based, scientifically, legally defensible way. I know that some members of this subcommittee have spoken about the desire to move away from talking points and rhetoric in drafting a report. I would certainly endorse that. I worry that there's actually a lot of facts, science, and law missing right now that would hinder one's ability to write such a fact-based report. I talked about missing regulations and missing schedules. We haven't heard a lot about how this is actually going to be implemented, and I think that if and when it is implemented, it's going to lead to a lot of uncertainty. People have talked about that as well in terms of what this means on the ground to proponents. What does it mean to the public? What does it mean to first nations? Timelines are uncertain, the process is uncertain, public servants are probably uncertain, so I think things need to be thought out a little bit more thoroughly.
Should the subcommittee not take on our first recommendation, we would, as the alternative, ask that part 3 at least be delayed until regulations and schedules can be produced and people can review them properly. I think the one regulation that no one's heard anything about, the project list regulation, is really pivotal to understanding the legal, scientific, on-the-ground, economic and profit implications of the rest of this new act. It would really be a shame to see it introduced at the last minute and just thrown in without any consultation on it.
Related to this, another recommendation aims at increasing the transparency and accountability of the process. Just last year the Government of Canada signed onto the open government partnership, an international partnership to adhere to accountability, transparency, and open dialogue on controversial issues. While they have made some progress on that in terms of freedom of information, there's been a lot of things in this process, in reviewing and revising environmental regulation, that have flown in the face of that. Again, to put faith in the process, both from an environmental organization and a lot of proponents' perspectives, clearly, this proposed legislation is creating a lot of controversy. A lot of people are interested in it. We need to know more about it and where it's coming from, why it's so urgent. If it is so urgent, why weren't we doing it before when we were doing the review of CCEA?
Finally, our other main recommendation is that in drafting any environmental assessment and environmental regulation legislation, it should take account of the top ten principles for strong environmental law that West Coast Environmental Law and some of our partners released in February. These include things like smart regulation. We released the principles in February because we knew that changes to environmental assessment were coming. We are currently in the process of creating a report card for this bill and whether or not it matches up to those principles. Not surprisingly, we don't think it does, but we do think that working towards those principles—those are public participation, increasing the legitimate role for aboriginal peoples, and the sustainability approach.... In fact, the sustainability approach is a key one, because we see a lot of compartmentalization in the new CCEA 2012 and not a lot of understanding or respect for the fact that we live in ecosystems that are connected. That's not just in CCEA 2012, but in the rest of the bill as well.
You'll see in my written brief that we actually have ten recommendations that are small amendments to the existing part 3 of the legislation that we would like to see made if that part is goes forward. It's things like allowing the National Energy Board to retain its independence, rescinding proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act, and going back to the drawing board with those. It also includes some things about species at risk, permits, and retaining the current triggering approach for environmental assessment rather than going to a project list. There are some other ones in there.
I think I'm probably running out of time No? I can keep going. All right.