Finance Committee on May 5th, 2010

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate you coming before this committee, and I appreciate being before this committee. I wish, in fact, you were before my committee, which was what was supposed to happen. That is the concern I'm hearing from hundreds of Canadians across the country.

It was in fact the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and as I understand, CEAA thought that was an excellent idea. So of course what is most disturbing of all is that this is being given short shrift as far as public consultation is concerned. I'm also advised that the RAC has not met in a year and a half, and that is the logical place to review this.

I apologize if this is repeating, because I wasn't here in the earlier part, but I would appreciate it if you could explain to the committee why it is so necessary to take these measures that are in part 20, one being the transfer to the NEB and the nuclear committee, and the other one giving the entire discretion to the minister to scope projects. That has been raised as a very serious issue with absolutely no guidelines. I'm wondering if you may have recommended that there be guidelines, regulations, or something to the exercise of that discretion.

The bigger concern is about whether there are more amendments to CEAA coming. Are we going to keep having amendments through the budget bill? Have you been working on additional omnibus amendments? Is there going to be an opportunity for a more fulsome review by all the people in Canada who are affected by these changes?

[Yves Leboeuf]

Let's start with the parliamentary review of the act, which is, as you know—and that's what you were referring to—a statutory requirement that was added to the amendments to the act at the end of the last review of it in 2003. This is still a requirement. Part 20 of this bill does not suggest removing that requirement to do a comprehensive review of the act. This legal requirement is still there and the review has to commence, if I'm right, by June of this year. It will be based on what this specific provision says, for the House of Commons to refer the review of the act to a committee of the House or of the Senate or a joint committee. I'm not aware that this referral has occurred yet, but the requirement is there.

To go back to another point you mentioned, Ms Duncan, about the NEB and CNSC, that's a point I made before you arrived. Just to clarify once again, there is strictly nothing in part 20 that would result in a transfer of responsibilities from our agency, or from the Minister of the Environment, to the NEB or to the CNSC. They are currently responsible for the conduct of environmental assessments they're regulating.

The proposals here are neutral in that regard in the sense that they would consolidate in our agency the responsibility to do comprehensive studies, except for those regulated by those two quasi-judicial bodies. They would remain responsible for them, as is currently the case. So, to clarify, no change is proposed in that regard.

The third one was related to the discretion to scope. As a requirement under the relevant provisions of part 20, there will have to be conditions established by the Minister of the Environment, and there's a requirement to ensure that those conditions will be made public. As you can imagine, those conditions are not in place, but it is our objective to work with the minister and with partners on the development of such conditions if those amendments become law.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you for your response, sir.

I think the preference of Canadians would be that Canadians are consulted in the development of those conditions and are not told after the fact, which has become the pattern.

I'm not pointing fingers at you. You only happen to be in the agency.

It would certainly be encouraged by all the Canadians I've heard from. We need a more open and transparent process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute left.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, okay.

One of the arguments put forward by the minister was on the remaining duplication. I wonder if you could provide the committee with a single example of the main mechanisms that you and your predecessors have put in place.

Isn't there still a responsibility for the federal government to look after its jurisdictions--for example, for fisheries, first nations, transboundary, and international agreements?

[Yves Leboeuf]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

What has happened to those under part 20?

[Yves Leboeuf]

Perhaps you could help me and tell me which part.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's particularly the exemptions. I'm specifically talking about the provision that exempts the necessity for an environmental assessment.

[Yves Leboeuf]

For exemptions that would now be introduced in the act and that are in the regulations, as I mentioned previously, a body of experience is developed by those federal departments and agencies. They assess these types of projects for a period of 14 years to demonstrate, based on their best experience, that the projects will not cause significant adverse effects.

At the end of the day, the purpose of the CEAA is to ensure the projects do not cause significant adverse effects. Based on their experience, it was demonstrated that these types of projects do not cause significant adverse effects.

It was independent from federal environmental assessments, because they're regulated by the provinces, the municipalities, and the federal government through all the other regulatory instruments you mentioned that remain in place in relation to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

We're going to move on to part 21. We'll let the witnesses come to the table for part 21.

Part 21 amends the Canada Labour Code with respect to the appointment of appeals officers and the appeal hearing procedures.

Monsieur Paillé.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning, madam.

With regard to the proposed clauses concerning the Canada Labour Code, I won't ask you once again to comment on the fact that amendments to the Canada Labour Code appear in a budget implementation bill. However, I would like to address two questions, two themes.

Clause 2172, on page 712 of the bill, states that the Minister of Labour appoints officers at his discretion. However, they are currently being designated. What will become of the current officers, who were originally designated? We have to take it for granted that they are experts in the field, in health. Will they continue their work or will they be replaced?

[Lenore Duff, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Legislative Reform, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Current officers who were designated will continue to work in health and safety but will not hear appeals.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

How was the designation done at the time? I'm trying to see the difference between designation and appointment within the machinery of government. Why are we doing this?

[Lenore Duff]

The use of “appointment” indicates Parliament's intention to ensure the independence of decision-makers from government.

The amendments would bring part II of the code in line with part III of the code in terms of labour standards. Under part III, the wage recovery referees are appointed by the minister. In the other, the designations were public servants. The appointments are outside experts. It's a change in terminology to match what's already done under part III of the code.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Does that mean that we were previously protected from the government and experts were designated, but that now the government will be able to appoint whomever it wants?

[Lenore Duff]

They were designated in the past as well, in the same manner, by the minister. The appointments now will allow the minister to make outside appointments. In fact, that wasn't restricted before. This is just bringing it into line with the same language that applies to part III of the Labour Code for wage recovery referees. It will mean the appointment of outside experts, and it provides some arm's length from the government in order to hear these appeals rather than having public servants do it.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Clause 2176, on the following page, states that appeal decisions must be provided within 90 days after the end of the hearing. Do we have an idea of the current average length of the time period?

[Lenore Duff]

I unfortunately don't have the current average, but I can provide that information in writing to the committee. The 90 days will provide for more timely decisions, as there has been some concern about the length of time that the appeals processes have taken.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The fact that you don't know the current average and that you wanted to restrict the time period to three months suggests that the average is longer. In fact, I want to know what will happen if the 90-day time period is exceeded.

Will a procedure apply making it possible to appeal the decision rendered in the context of the appeal? Shouldn't a provision be included stating that, if the 90-day period is exceeded, the appellant wins? No penalty is provided for cases in which people who are appointed exceed that time period. I'm not saying they will, but if that 90-day period is set, it has to be complied with and an incentive has to be provided for in that connection.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Could we have just a brief response, please?

[Lenore Duff]

The amendments are intended to address issues of timeliness and efficiency. A 90-day timeframe for a decision is seen as reasonable and is in keeping with labour code practices of other tribunals. There isn't a way to arbitrarily decide whether or not it's a win. I believe the minister has the power to extend that deadline beyond the 90 days for certain provisions, but I need to check that as well and get back to you. Really it is aimed at providing for more timely decisions, which both employers and employees are interested in having in these cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. If you can get that information to the clerk, we will distribute it to all members.

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good morning, Ms. Duff. I'm going to go back to the appeal officers since that's the main object of Part 21.

How many appeal officers are there right now? I only need an approximate figure. Is it five, 50, 5,000 persons?

[Lenore Duff]

It's not 5,000. I'm sorry, I don't have that number. What I have is that this will reduce the number of FTEs by between three and five people. So it's a very small number.