Finance Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Arlene Kwasniak]

Not at all. This is Arlene Kwasniak from Calgary. I've been a member of the RAC for years, the regulatory advisory committee, and have also been very active in environmental and academic communities. There was no consultation whatsoever, either with respect to this or with respect to other things that Stephen Hazell has mentioned, such as the regulations that were put out last March, which were also very destructive of environmental assessment. Not even the RAC was consulted.

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

Okay. The other four?

[Richard Lindgren]

I would advise that the Canadian Environmental Law Association was not consulted directly or indirectly, on or off the record, before Bill C-9 was introduced.

[Andrew Van Iterson]

The Green Budget Coalition itself was not consulted. I can't speak for the individual member groups, but if these three groups were not consulted, it's unlikely that any others were.

[Jamie Kneen]

MiningWatch, either as a member of the Green Budget Coalition or on our own, were not consulted in any way, shape, or form. I want to add, though, that the regulatory advisory committee is precisely a multi-stakeholder body that involves representatives of industry, provincial governments, and non-government civil society.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Hazell?

[Stephen Hazell]

Neither Ecojustice nor Sierra Club Canada were consulted on Bill C-9.

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

Does any one of you know of any other environmental group that was consulted?

[Stephen Hazell]

I think we can say with some certainty that no other group was consulted, because we did receive briefings from the Environmental Assessment Agency some weeks before Bill C-9, and there was no mention that any of this stuff was coming.

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

Okay.

I certainly agree with the point that this is not the best place for this bill to be, because this is the finance committee and not the environment committee. I don't quite understand. There's a statutory seven-year review coming up in June. Is that correct? If this legislation were to pass, would that make a mockery of the review? Would it go ahead anyway, or would it not have to happen? What would happen in terms of this review if this legislation were passed?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McCallum, can you direct your questions, just to be helpful?

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

Okay. Mr. Lindgren.

[Richard Lindgren]

I'll start. I suppose it's conceivable that the Bill C-9 amendments could be passed and in place prior to the commencement of the statutory review, which must as a matter of law begin by the end of June. I guess the main purpose of the review, first of all, would be whether we should undo these changes.

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

Does anyone have anything to add on that point?

[Stephen Hazell]

No, he's right.

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

Okay. In principle, I would not be opposed to changes that made things more efficient, streamlined things, or reduced overlap and duplication without weakening the environmental assessment. Mr. Hazell seemed to imply that there wasn't much overlap and duplication. Let me just pick randomly. Mr. Van Iterson, do you agree that there is very little overlap and duplication?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

[Inaudible--Editor].... I'll pass this to Mr. Lindgren.

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

Okay, Mr. Lindgren, then.

My impression, as a non-expert, is that there was quite a lot of overlap and duplication.

[Richard Lindgren]

That's certainly a perception, sir, but I would characterize that as a misperception. And to the extent that there is overlapping jurisdiction on a project that would require both federal and provincial EA, there are already built-in provisions in CEAA and provincial law to accommodate coordinated EA review. So it's a complete red herring and a myth to suggest there are all kinds of costly overlaps or duplication.

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

I now have a question for Mr. Lemelin.

The Canada Post people feel they may lose $60 million to $80 million in revenue. Do you think that's a reasonable estimate? If this bill is adopted, is there a risk that we may see the number of these businesses increase even more sharply and that the loss of income will be more significant?

[Denis Lemelin]

Canada Post's estimate is indeed $60 million to $80 million. However, I believe that deregulation is the central component of this part of the bill. By taking away our exclusive privilege, we're enabling businesses to start up in this sector, which is allegedly profitable. These private businesses that will be exploiting a profitable sector and that will have cheap labour will probably gradually capture other aspects of the exclusive privilege. For us, that's the danger of this deregulation.

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

In English, it's sort of the thin edge of the wedge or the beginning of a bigger trend?

[Denis Lemelin]

Yes.

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

I would have thought that if something that is officially illegal now were to become legal... Certain companies might have been afraid to enter when its legal status was in question, but you could get a substantial growth if it were to become legal. Would you agree with that?

[Denis Lemelin]

Yes, that's absolutely right. The most important thing for us is the fact that it goes. We have the exclusive privilege, and this exclusive privilege is attacked now. And it's the remailers who are really the first to go around and try, by the back door in some way, to privatize, and use this tool after that to expand.

We already know that the population of Canada doesn't want deregulation. They really want the post office to stay a crown corporation and a public service. So that's the situation for us.