Finance Committee on May 11th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

We'll go to Monsieur Paillé, s'il vous plaît.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Welcome.

It's obvious to everyone that Bill C-9 is an unpalatable stew that the government has put on the table, betting, even though it's a minority government, that the bill will be adopted. If the ranks of each party were respectable enough, this bill would not pass. The government wouldn't have tried to introduce this mess. As proof that we're being served up this stew, we have both people from the environment sector and a union president defending his business. That's what this leads to.

Mr. Lemelin, earlier we were told that no one had been consulted among the people in the environment sector. I'm going to continue down the road by asking you a first question. Were you consulted on Part 15, which concerns you?

[Denis Lemelin]

Absolutely not; we weren't consulted. We know that this part, which is now included in Bill C-9, existed in other forms in the past. For example, there was Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. However, we were never consulted. We have always tried to be publicly accountable and we've always called for public debate on the postal services issue, since it's a service we provide to the public. This is a roundabout way of avoiding public debate on the issue.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

With regard to Bill C-9, if this was a minority government and there was an opposition with backbone—some opposition parties have backbone—we could continue by saying we are in favour of it and that we agree to withdraw Part 15. However, we aren't sure that everyone will agree with us that Part 15 should be withdrawn.

One of the reasons why you're opposed to it is that Canada Post's mandate is to distribute the mail at the same rate, regardless of whether you are in downtown Montreal or in the confines of a very remote region in Canada. This is somewhat like Hydro-Quebec's situation. It's national and, as a Crown corporation, it can't bill the Magdalen Islands at a different rate from the one it charges in downtown Montreal. We understand that.

You mentioned that there has been lobbying. The people from the Department of the Environment told us that too, in view of the fact that none of the environmentalists here before us were consulted. What lobbyists could make us swallow this postal mess? Can the people from the Department of the Environment—perhaps Mr. Lindgren could do it—identify the lobbyists that would be strong enough to have bills passed amending all this, in an omnibus bill that has nothing to do with us? Which, if the official opposition had backbone, could even risk bringing down the government? Who are these super strong people?

[Denis Lemelin]

In our presentation, we talk about the Canadian International Mail Association. It's an organization representing remailers as such.

The act was changed on the international side, for example, to allow remailing to be done. Then there was the court case starting in 2004. It was after those results that Key Mail Canada and Spring Canada had the opportunity to request that the court decision be set aside. So it was from that point, in 2006 and 2007, that we saw this was developing.

We warned the government. We also sent letters to the government saying this sector couldn't be opened up to the private sector without a major public debate. The government confirmed that for us in 2006-2007, saying that the issue was important and that an economic study had to be conducted. No economic study was conducted by any party or by the independent committee that looked into postal service. So there's nothing. There's no evidence of the impact this may have.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

If I go back to my question, is the lobby essentially private?

In environmental terms, can people identify specific lobby groups?

[Richard Lindgren]

Well, sir, I cannot speculate what parties or sectors may have been consulted or who may have been lobbying the government for these kinds of changes. I would presume it would be proponents of large-scale environmentally significant projects who undoubtedly would like to see themselves exempted from EA or subject to whittled down or speeded up EA. But as I indicated earlier, sir, I would caution those folks to be careful what they wish for, because they may end up with a slower, more uncertain EA process if you turn it into let's make it a deal approach and you start negotiating the scope and scale of the EA requirements that have to be undertaken.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Paillé, you have 30 seconds.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

All right.

Mr. Lemelin, I'm coming back to you. On page 5, you identified differences between the English and French versions. Could you enlighten us on that subject? Some say the French version of the Canada Post Corporation Act carries no weight and that the English version should take precedence. What does that refer to?

[Denis Lemelin]

It was simply one of the arguments raised by Key Mail Canada and Spring Canada when they appeared before the court. They said that the English version of the Canada Post Corporation Act was different.

According to the English version, the perception was that they in fact were entitled to do it without any amendment being made to the Canada Post Corporation Act. The judges said no. They found that the two versions were official versions and that, in their view, the two versions were equivalent and they had no right to do it. It was somewhat in those circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Paillé.

Mr. Menzies, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank to you our witnesses for joining us here today.

I think I should put it on the record to start with that I am an environmentalist. Having grown up in agriculture, having grown up during a lot of my younger years in the wilderness, I'm a strong advocate of protecting the environment. I'm just a little concerned by some of the language that's been raised here today.

In our budget bill last year we made some changes to navigable waters so we could get the stimulus spending out quickly so we wouldn't have duplicate environmental assessments, unnecessary duplicate environmental assessments, but rather make sure that we had one good, comprehensive one.

We had many environmental groups, mostly the canoeists, here telling us how the sky was going to fall. I haven't heard from the canoeists in a year, so I just take a your concerns with a bit of a grain of salt.

Mr. McCallum posed a very articulate question, and very well worded—

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

As usual.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Absolutely, as usual. He's a very articulate gentleman. I've heard him quoted in the House of Commons many times.

He asked all of you groups if you were consulted on these changes in Bill C-9, and I truly believe that you probably weren't consulted on Bill C-9. But going back over history, this discussion about this process has gone on for a long time. Most of you here are on the record as suggesting that these changes should take place, and that rather than having 40 or 50 federal authorities spread across government, we should narrow the focus down on environmental assessments.

In fact, Mr. Hazell, when you were executive director of the Sierra Club you said that the conduct of comprehensive studies could be transferred from federal authorities to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. That was back in the mid-nineties at some point.

My good friend Elizabeth May, in her former role as executive director of the Sierra Club, made a similar statement in 2002 in front of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I will quote her as well.

Now, Liberals, stay seated in your chairs.

So we were extremely hopeful with the 1993 red book,

--I'm not sure which iteration of the red book that was--

where there was a commitment that CEAA would receive royal assent, but it would be with significant strengthening and the creation of an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency that would be more like the CRTC in its functions. That would take us a step away from self-assessment, it would create rigour and professionalism in that body, it would create more predictability for industry, and it would create decisions that were not merely advice to a minister, as, if it was like the CRTC, those decisions would be binding unless cabinet overturned them.

Having said that, you've been consulted over the years—most groups, I won't say all. You've put your positions on paper. So if this bill, as part of Bill C-9, is doing what you'd asked for previously, for a comprehensive study of the environmental assessment of most major projects, moving that over to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, have your views changed?

Can I first direct this to Ms. Kwasniak of the Alberta Wilderness Association? I used to be a member of that association, so we'll give her the chance to answer that first.

[Arlene Kwasniak]

Sure. Thank you.

Yes, I think it is true that a lot of us have made that specific recommendation. But I think that is, with all due respect, irrelevant to the larger question here about the way this is being done. Moreover, one possibly good thing is in with a whole lot of provisions we have never been consulted on, we would not agree upon, and that would be destructive to environmental assessment in Canada and really need a full airing.

I think the fact that there is something in the bill we would agree with is neither here nor there, and certainly most of the things in the CEAA amendments are definitely very bad for environmental assessment and bad for Canadians, and even bad for a regulated industry, as has been pointed out.

[Richard Lindgren]

I noticed in the preamble to your question that you didn't quote anything I ever wrote on behalf of CELA, and that's simply because we have never endorsed, supported, or recommended any of the changes we see in Bill C-9. That's all I can say on that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

That's why I tried not to point to everyone.

[Stephen Hazell]

My name was mentioned, so I think I should have an opportunity to respond.

First of all, Mr. Menzies, I'm glad you're an environmentalist, because you live in a very special part of the world. I hope you will be able to support the Sierra Club in getting the Andy Russell Park established in Castle-Crown. We'll just leave it at that.

Neither the Sierra Club nor Ecojustice has ever supported any of the amendments in Bill C-9, and there are a number of movable pieces in this. We all want the most efficient and effective law we can get, but we need to look at it comprehensively. We can't come at it with piecemeal, ad hoc, quick-and-dirty types of amendments, which this committee is being asked to sanction.

There are lots of good ideas on the table, but let's take some time, deliberate, have some public involvement engagement, have some considered review by the parliamentary committee that has the most expertise in this matter, I would submit, and do it that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

l must comment that I had the greatest respect for Andy Russell. I first met him in about 1965 up in the northwest branch of the Oldman River. I was privileged to be invited, along with our premier, to his funeral in Pincher Creek.

I'm done. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

Monsieur Mulcair, s'il vous plaît.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'm going to make a general comment to thank all the environmental groups that have made their presentations here today. They were to the point and extraordinarily clear. They concerned the entirely foreseeable harmful effects of the amendments provided for under Bill C-9. What you said is entirely consistent with my analysis. My friend and colleague Linda Duncan, an NDP member from Alberta, was one of the first to sound the alarm on this subject.

I also want to tell you that your presence here today is essential. Last week, we heard from departmental representatives who tried to stuff our heads. They told us a lot of nonsense about the foreseeable effects of this legislation, and it's scandalous. We are elected members. We agree or we do not agree, we dispute but we do our jobs as best we can. On the other hand, officials, agency leaders, the people who are paid to serve the government—if we literally translated the English term, we could say functionaries—are supposed to be a little more neutral. However, neutrality comes more from your side because you have an enormous amount of experience. You examined the bill and you say it cannot produce the anticipated results.

I also take the liberty of thanking you particularly, Mr. Lindgren, for your comments on what you call “the red herring”. It's true that the feared duplication and overlapping of roles is nonsense.

When I was Quebec's minister of the environment, I had no difficulty signing agreements with the federal government. We brought together two members of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement and a federal government assessor. The results were excellent. The concerns that are expressed in piecemeal fashion by the Canadian right, that all this is too complicated and we have to try to simplify matters for the public, are nonsense and bunkum. It's not true.

What we have before us is an attempt to destroy a system that exists to protect future generations. Earlier I was listening to my friend and colleague Ms. Menzies, who said that last year an attempt was made to improve matters so that infrastructure spending would be done more quickly. In fact, they ruined a 100-year-old act respecting the protection of navigable waterways. That's what they did, period.

Now I want to come back to Mr. Lemelin, from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I'd like to ask him whether he received a signal from the Liberal Party. The Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party share the idea that Part 15 must simply be deleted from Bill C-9. On the Liberal Party, you have a worthy representative of the left wing in Mr. Pacetti, of the centre in Mr. MacKay and of the extreme right in Ms. Hall Findlay. This will depend on the group that wins the internal battle. That's why I would like to know whether the people from the Liberal Party told you whether they were going to support you in the effort to delete Part 15 from the bill.

[Denis Lemelin]

You probably have more indicators than we do on the subject. We're obviously here to invite the opposition parties to take a firm position.