Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 22 - Evidence - May 10, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:07 a.m. to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 3 of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures.
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everybody.
I want to say, right at the outset, thank you all for being here. It is a very wonderful and impressive turnout on extremely short notice.
My name is Senator David Angus. I am from Montreal, Quebec, and I am the chair of this committee. I think I will introduce everyone so that everybody knows who is who. On my right is Senator Grant Mitchell, from Alberta. He is the deputy chair of the committee. To his right are Sam Banks and Marc Leblanc, from the Library of Parliament. They are very able assistants to us in our work. To Marc's immediate right is Senator George Baker, from Newfoundland and Labrador. To his right, from Saskatchewan, is Senator Robert Peterson. To his right, from Montreal, Quebec, via Manitoba, is Senator Paul Massicotte. To my left is our able clerk, Lynn Gordon. To her left, from Manitoba, is Senator Janis Johnson. From the Yukon is Senator Daniel Lang; and from Montreal, Quebec, is Senator Judith Seidman. From Saint John, New Brunswick, we have Senator Johnson Wallace; and, last but not least, from the great province of Alberta, is Senator Bert Brown.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome everybody, not only our senators, our witnesses and wonderful members of our civil service here but also our viewers on the CPAC network and the Worldwide Web.
We are here today, as I say, at relatively short notice, to conduct a pre-study of Bill C-38 and, in particular, Part 3 thereof.
Bill C-38 is the 2012 budget implementation legislation, which is making its way through the House of Commons as we speak. We are preparing ourselves for what we consider our very important role of sober second thought on this very important piece of legislation.
On May 3, given the size of Bill C-38, of which we have hard copies available for everybody, the Senate authorized various committees of the Senate to examine the subject matter, in other words, to conduct a pre-study of the bill. The bill was originally introduced in the House on April 26, 2012.
Our committee has been authorized — and, indeed, requested — to conduct this pre-study on Part 3 of the bill, which is described in the bill's summary as containing certain measures related to responsible resource development. I refer you all to this handout, which is a deck summarizing the responsible resource development section.
Honourable senators, you should have a copy of the bill, as I say, and you will note that Part 3 encompasses pages 31 to 184. Today, we will receive a technical briefing on the bill from officials of the various departments and agencies that are affected by and involved in this particular legislation.
We have, as you can see, a cast of thousands, literally. In the back are not all members of our staff. There are also officials who are going to be on standby to answer our penetrating questions if their leaders here at the table are unable to satisfy our questions.
As the leadoff batter, I am pleased to welcome, from Natural Resources Canada, Mr. Dale Eisler, Assistant Deputy Minister, Task Force on Energy Security, Prosperity and Sustainability.
I understand that you will deliver the opening remarks, and then you will take your leave and leave your colleagues to manage things.
You will be leaving your seat empty so that that will be the hot seat to which these other officials can come if necessary.
Without further ado, let me introduce the other officials at the table.
We have, from Natural Resources Canada, Mr. Jay Khosla, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office. We have heard about that Major Projects Management Office, so we are glad to have you here to tell us a bit more about it. We have Adam Hendriks, Director, Western Operations, Major Projects Management Office. From Fisheries and Oceans, we have Kevin Stringer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Policy. We have, from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Jean-François Tremblay, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government. From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, CEAA, we have Ms. Helen Cutts. With her is Steve Mongrain, Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Development Sector. Finally, last but not least, from Environment Canada, we have Coleen Volk.
It is a complex matter. It is a matter of great importance, we believe, to resource development in Canada and to the protection of our environment, or at least to expedite development without prejudicing the environment.
Finally, Mr. Eisler, you have the floor. Another senator has arrived, Senator Elaine McCoy, from the great province of Alberta. We are off and running. Over to you, sir.
Dale Eisler, Assistant Deputy Minister, Task Force on Energy Security, Prosperity and Sustainability, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you very much and good morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for your invitation. My name is Dale Eisler, and I am an assistant deputy minister with Natural Resources Canada.
Before I answer your questions about the responsible resource development plan, I have a short presentation that will describe the context and the key measures of the legislation.
[English]
My colleagues from relevant departments and agencies will be able to answer your questions on various aspects of the bill that is now before Parliament. I think it is fair to say that the breadth of the representation we have here today from across government reflects what truly has been a whole-of-government approach in terms of this legislation.
If you are following along with the slides, I am on slide 2. First, a few facts to put this subject in context.
The Chair: So we are dealing with this document, sir?
Mr. Eisler: That is right, with that document — slide 2, context. Natural resources have always been an important part of the Canadian economy and remain so to this day. It is estimated that there could be more than 500 major projects, representing some $500 billion in planned investment in Canada's energy and mining sectors, over the next decade.
[Translation]
To benefit fully from its investments and from Canada's economic potential, the government believes that Canada should have an effective and efficient system for reviewing major projects.
[English]
The objective of the legislation is to give Canadians the best possible economic opportunities but also to maintain the highest possible standards for protecting the environment while meeting the duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples.
Slide 3: There are many challenges with the current regulatory system. First, the government believes existing laws, regulations and policies should all work in a coordinated fashion.
Second, the government has identified several issues with the way reviews now take place. They have no fixed timelines and are unpredictable, sometimes taking years to conclude. Too many small, routine projects are assessed. Accountability is diffuse, with responsibility spread across multiple regulatory bodies. There is duplication between federal and provincial processes. There are gaps in environmental compliance and enforcement tools, and there are inconsistent approaches to Aboriginal consultations.
[Translation]
The government thinks that, to address system-wide challenges, a comprehensive solution is needed for legislation, regulations and policies.
Slide 4: Under the current rules, various types of small projects are caught up in the regulatory net.
[English]
Often, these small projects pose little or no risk to the environment, and I will just cite one as an example. Marine Atlantic Canada was making a parking lot. It had to do an environmental assessment for the project when it really just wanted to do some necessary upgrades to a terminal parking lot in Argentia, Newfoundland. It was not a new parking lot, just upgrades to an existing one, and it still required a full environmental assessment.
Slide 5: The government also believes the system needs to be modernized, not just because of what happens to small projects but also because major projects run into problems as well.
An example is Enbridge's proposed $2 billion pipeline connecting Hardisty, Alberta to Gretna, Manitoba. In addition to the National Energy Board, several federal departments were involved. What happened? The federal departments finally made their decisions on the project two full years after the National Energy Board had approved it.
[Translation]
This is why the government thinks the system must be reviewed and modernized.
[English]
Slide 6: The government's plan for responsible resource development builds on initiatives taken in recent years to improve the management of major resource projects. This legislation is part of a continuum. In 2007, the government established the Major Projects Management Office initiative to better coordinate federal reviews by taking a system- wide approach. In 2009, it introduced changes to accelerate infrastructure investments made under Canada's Economic Action Plan. That same year, the government also developed an action plan to improve the regulatory regime in the North.
In 2010, the government made targeted changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and it established dedicated participant funding programs.
[Translation]
As part of Canada's Economic Action Plan 2012, the government proposed allocating $165 million over two years to support responsible resource development, including funding for the major projects management office.
[English]
The ultimate goal in this process is to put in place a system of one project, one review within a clearly defined time period.
The plan for responsible resource development has four pillars that form the policy framework for the legislation. They are; first, making reviews more predictable and timely; second, reducing duplication for project reviews; third, strengthening environmental protection; and fourth, enhancing consultation with Aboriginal peoples.
[Translation]
The government is proposing a number of measures to make the reviews more predictable and more timely.
[English]
It will consolidate responsibility for environmental assessments with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for most projects and with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board for projects within their mandates. It proposes beginning to end timelines of 24 months for Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panels, 18 months for National Energy Board hearings and 12 months for standard environmental assessments. These timelines are based on years of experience.
The government also proposes to enhance the authority of the chair of the National Energy Board so that the board can deliver more timely reviews.
To establish clearer accountability for decisions on major pipeline projects, the government proposes to give cabinet authority to make the go, no-go decisions based on the recommendations of the National Energy Board.
The government is proposing steps to reduce duplication for project reviews. The legislation sets out new tools to enable substitution in equivalency with provincial processes as long as they meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with the goal of achieving one project, one review. The provinces have been asking for these changes for a number of years. It will make it possible for a province, the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to issue authorizations under the Fisheries Act. The government will no longer require joint review panels for projects fully regulated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
The government is also proposing steps it believes will strengthen environmental protection. It will focus federal efforts on major projects with potential for significant environmental impacts. It proposes to implement enforceable environmental assessment decision statements to ensure compliance with mitigation measures to protect the environment. It will introduce compliance and enforcement provisions to fill gaps in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The government will provide for enforceable conditions under the Fisheries Act. It will introduce financial penalties for violations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act. It is also proposing to provide funding to strengthen pipeline and marine safety.
The plan for responsible resource development is also designed to better integrate Aboriginal consultations into the new environmental assessment and regulatory processes. Budget 2012 provided funding to support consultations with Aboriginal peoples.
[Translation]
The government will also establish agreements and protocols with aboriginal groups of the provincial governments.
[English]
The objective is to promote positive and long-term relationships with Aboriginal communities in order to improve reconciliation and facilitate greater participation of Aboriginal people in the direct and indirect benefits of new resource projects.
In conclusion, several federal statutes are being amended as part of efforts to modernize the regulatory system for projects review. To summarize, these include the introduction of a new federal environmental assessment regime under the proposed Canadian environmental assessment act 2012, including consolidation of responsibilities for environmental assessments, introduction of legally binding timelines and new tools to support cooperation with other jurisdictions; amendments to the Fisheries Act that will focus the act on the protection of fish that support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries and to better manage activities that are the greatest threats to those fisheries; amendments to the National Energy Board Act that would allow the Governor-in-Council to make the final go, no-go decision on whether major pipeline projects are in the public interest; the introduction of new enforcement tools such as administrative monetary penalties for violations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act; and targeted changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act, including new authorities to establish timelines for permitting process.
That summarizes the legislation and we look forward to answering questions. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Eisler, you have done a tremendous job of cogently synthesizing this mass of material. All of these departments must have been hard at work, not just since budget day, but for many years.
This committee has been travelling the country for three years with a focus on the energy sector and environmental aspects thereof, and without exception across the nation we have heard a strong demand, in one way or another, for streamlining the process.
This committee did a study on the Navigable Waters Protection Act elements of a previous large budget bill. It was pursuant to that that the major projects office was established.
We have heard constantly that this is necessary. It is amazing how you have put it all together, and we are hopeful that it will work.
Is it fair to assume that much of this is enabling legislation for the introduction of regulations across the board? Can we expect a lot of regulations to flow?
Jay Khosla, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you for the question.
Regulations certainly do follow such a broad piece of legislation. Many of the changes that we are making are in legislation at the same time. I would highlight the timelines as being done largely through the legislation, but there are other aspects that will follow through regulation as the bill goes through.
Our objective is to get those regulations in place as fast as possible, but consultation must take place on them. The short answer is that you are right.
The Chair: The people of Canada who are watching these deliberations have no idea of the complexity of this. This bill has about 412 pages, and it only scratches the surface. Massive volumes of regulations will underlie this, and some are already in place. That is why we have so many officials here to tell us about it. It transcends many sectors of the Canadian fabric and the Canadian economy. The committee is delighted that you are all here.
Senators are chomping at the bit to ask questions.
Mr. Khosla: You have highlighted one of the key tenets that underpin this work. There has been a lot of work done with a whole-of-government approach. That was necessary to get to where we are, and that is why you see the officials here today. Many departments and agencies have been working together over a long period to synthesize this. Thank you for recognizing that.
The Chair: Although it is a given that no one likes to have an extra work load, we were delighted to be asked to review this, because we think it is the touchstone of the whole budget legislation. It is a massive change to how we do business in Canada, and I hope it signals a brighter future.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, chair. I second your assessment. This was a very good presentation. It captures and summarizes a lot of complex material. Thank you very much.
I have a general question to begin with. Over the last number of years, many scientists have been laid off from the environment department.
In fact, there are suggestions now that the real scientific credibility of the department is in jeopardy. You have the CCS program, which had much to recommend it, falling apart. There are over 1,000 people laid off from the Department of the Environment. You have the Environmental Emergencies offices basically closed, removed from the West Coast where they would be reassuring, in light of the possibility of spills from the pipeline going out of Kitimat, consolidated in Quebec. You closed the northern round table on the economy and the environment. I could go on.
In the process of all of this, which some people are seeing will dilute the process of review, is anyone over there considering the question of social ability to gain the social contract with people to allow our projects to proceed and to allow our markets to open up internationally to get approval in the U.S. for Keystone? What message does all of this send?
Mr. Khosla: I will start and then will ask my colleague from Environment Canada to follow up.
Thank you for that question. It is a good one in light of what this package is saying.
The one thing I would say that really we have thought about here is the ability to focus our reviews on major resource projects. What this package does is target our resources to the projects that matter the most in the country. It does link into the aspect of maybe not looking at projects that we feel do not necessarily need the full attention of an environmental assessment. Sometimes the environmental assessment process can be a bit like taking a hammer to squash a fly. At the end of the day we are targeting our resources as part of this.
Having said that, Budget 2012 does reinvest in this process: It provides about $165 million toward the project reviews. As part of that, you may have read — and I am happy to say — that the Major Projects Management Office initiative has had its funding renewed.
When it was first created the Major Projects Management Office provided capacity funding to partner departments to conduct these reviews. That money is targeted for scientific and technical expertise, for administrative expertise and for Aboriginal consultation purposes, and that has been included as part of the package.
Having said that, there are other things outside of this package that are contained in the budget that may affect reviews but, again, the idea here is on better focusing our resources.
I will turn it over to my colleague at Environment Canada because many of the items that you mentioned are outside of this package. I think the real answer is focusing on targeting our resources.
Coleen Volk, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Environment Canada: If you do not mind, I would like to point out a couple of inaccuracies. The media has been unkind and, in some cases, vastly inaccurate in terms of the actions at Environment Canada.
The first thing I will mention is that Environment Canada, in this round of deficit reduction, we expect to lay off no more than 200 people in the department. It is not anywhere close to 1,000. We had about the same number last year. We are still much larger than we were in years gone by. We are still larger than we were even just a few years ago. We are still quite a vibrant department and not concerned about our ability to meet our mandate.
I did want to mention also on the emergencies program on the West Coast, it is true that we have centralized our routine emergency operations, or we are in the process of centralizing them. However, we have not changed at all our response to an actual emergency. If there was a real emergency on the West Coast, our folks would still be there. We would have the exact specific scientists that we need and our responders. Our capacity on that side has not changed.
In terms of the ability to grant industry a social licence, I would point out the work we are doing on the oil sands monitoring program where we announced a $50 million a year program that will ramp up over a couple of years. That is predominantly industry funded, so there is very little new government investment. In fact, there is no new government investment. There is some government investment, but it is a continuation of our investment. The incremental funding comes from industry. That is specifically targeted at identifying an issue with social licence and trying to improve the situation there.
We believe that this legislation does not detract from our ability to protect and monitor the environment and do the due diligence we need to do.
Senator Mitchell: You say you are adding $165 million. How does that compare to the total that has been cut? Is it getting back to the same level? The fact of the matter is that whatever it is that you have cut, if you have not replaced it then the Commissioner of the Environment's statements in his report this week would sustain. That is, you simply do not have the resources to do what you need to do. You do not even have the resources to assess what the cost of the regulations that you say you will implement on carbon emissions will be. Where will the resources come from to assess equivalency? That is huge in making this work at all, if at all.
Have you made up what you have lost? I think it is more. It may be 400 in the last two years, but it is many more than 400 in the last four or five years, I would argue.
Mr. Khosla: The $165 million is really about a major resource project review. Some of the things that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development mentioned, while linked, are not necessarily directly attributable to what we are talking about here today.
In essence, the government is investing in these types of reviews and making sure that we can do them effectively. Much of what we are talking about here today, as was pointed out in the presentation, builds on many years of experience. We are aiming to be more focused, accountable and efficient in our project reviews.
At the end of the day, these resources are definitely targeted toward ensuring proper capacity is in place to conduct these reviews of what — you are quite right — may be some difficult processes to go through.
It is a good example. Equivalency and substitutions may be areas where we may, downstream, see efficiencies come into place. If we can find a way to work better with the provinces in particular and leverage resources, there is overlap and duplication recognized in the system, it may be an area, again, to achieve savings and work better together in a scientific, technical and administrative way.
Senator Mitchell: I understand that you have seven bilateral agreements with provinces now. Have you not kind of squeezed out all of the efficiencies with the provinces that may exist? How will this be different than what we already have with seven provinces?
Mr. Khosla: We are aiming to up the bar. There are areas in the environmental assessment process where there is duplication. We want to ensure that duplication is reduced and minimized in areas where provinces can meet the federal standard and conduct an environmental assessment process on behalf of the federal government. We will be looking at that.
This is a long-term process. At the end of the day, you are right, there are some ahead of the game and may be able to take it on earlier.
Coming back to your original question, I do think this is an area for efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the package. I will ask my colleague from Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to pick up the answer.
Helen Cutts, Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: Certainly with our bilateral agreements with provinces it allows us to be as efficient as possible with the existing tools. One of the tools that we use the most often is to conduct a joint review with the province. Our officials are working hand in hand with the provincial officials to assess and reduce the burden on proponents so that they are not responding to two sets of information and not having to deal with two governments. We try to deal with a one-window approach as much as possible.
However, pushing efficiency is only possible with those tools. What this bill gives us is two additional tools. It gives us substitution and equivalency. These are the real means of reducing duplication. As the environment is a shared jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments, there are a lot of resources when the federal and provincial officials have to work together on a review.
Under substitution, if the minister sees that all the conditions are met, then that work would be done by the province, they would produce a report and it would come back to the Minister of the Environment for him to make a decision.
Under equivalency we can go even further in terms of efficiency and good use of resources, because we would turn the work completely over to the province and the particular project would no longer be subject to a federal environmental assessment.
Mr. Khosla: On those two tools, again, building on experience, the provinces have been calling for the addition of these tools in the tool kit for quite some time now. British Columbia's Speech from the Throne a couple of years ago actually mentioned that we should be moving in this direction.
The Chair: On that collaboration with the provinces, has Quebec been cooperative? Are they involved as well?
Ms. Cutts: Yes, we have had excellent cooperation with Quebec. Every province, of course, has its own system. Our officials basically have a mapping of how the federal system works with each provincial system. They work out the timelines and how best to work together. We have a very cooperative relationship on EA.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mitchell: I have a couple more questions.
The Chair: We will come back on another round.
Senator Lang: Thank you. I want to say at the outset that I welcome the initiatives that the government is taking with respect to trying to make a complicated system much simpler and much more straightforward, and hopefully they will deal with the issues we have to deal with as opposed to what we have now. I see issues being brought forward that are more in the political realm than in the technical realm as to whether projects are environmentally sound and can meet our economic objectives. Hopefully, this goes in that direction and we are able to meet the targets.
I have a couple of questions. First, if I could go to the actual bill itself, the passage of the bill. The chair spoke about regulations having to flow from the changes in the various acts.
What is the time frame you envisage if everything goes according to plan? When will everything be in place so that these changes can be implemented as far as the overall program is concerned?
I would also like to ask about the time frames and the recognition of the provinces where you talk about substitution equivalency. My understanding of the legislation is that with the passage of it, the federal government will be able to pass on the responsibility to the province, the province can do the environmental assessment and then a decision can be made by the province at that point. Is that correct? Or does it have to come back to the federal government for a final decision?
Mr. Khosla: I will take the first question and Ms. Cutts can take the follow-up.
Senator Lang: Okay.
Mr. Khosla: In terms of the passage of the bill, we crafted it in such a way so that many of the main pieces of the legislation can come into force upon Royal Assent or shortly thereafter. Some of the main changes, for example, in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is one of the biggest pieces in the overall package, will come into effect the day or shortly after Royal Assent.
In terms of regulations that will follow, they will be metered out over a series of months. We know the timelines are the ones that matter the most to folks in terms of ensuring that we have the regulations for certain timelines in place quickly. Those will come into force, we are aiming for anywhere between six months and a year.
There are some other regulations that will take a little longer, and maybe my colleague from fisheries can speak to that. They require further consultation. They are less related to timelines and are more about management. It is important to ensure that consultation takes place. It may take up to a year or so.
At the end of the day, we recognize overall as a federal family that this needs to happen quickly. We are building on years of experience, so we are preparing for that entire process. Hopefully it will occur fairly quickly, and we are preparing for it now.
Ms. Cutts might want to follow up on the substitution account. Perhaps she might want to add something on the regulations as well.
Ms. Cutts: With respect to substitution and equivalency, these are the new tools. It is important that we spend time with the provinces to assure ourselves that they have a regime that works.
In the case of substitution, the law applies on a project-by-project basis or a class of projects. For equivalency, the law applies only on a case-by-case basis. A province would come forward with a request to either have their process substituted or to use the equivalency provisions. At that time, we would begin our analysis of the conditions that are in the act. The minister must be assured, for example, that all the elements of section 19 of our act — these are the substantive elements — are ones that province can carry out. These would include being able to look at significant effects, being able to look at cumulative effects and setting out mitigation measures.
They are also required to have public participation. The other provinces do have public participation, so that should not be difficult. They should also be able to prepare a report. The minister can set additional conditions, which will be determined.
We are now starting our consultations with the provinces to get a feel for their interest in using these provisions, because they are the trigger for using them, to see how it will work in practice and to achieve the conditions that will assure ourselves and the Canadian public that the environment is protected.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being here this morning. A lot of witnesses have spoken to us about delays and the fairly significant economic consequences they cause. I respect the objectives of the amendments of the legislation, but I would like more detail.
With respect to the Enbridge pipeline, you said in your comments that the federal process has fallen two years behind since the National Energy Board approved the project. Could I have more detail about what caused these delays? What is the specific problem?
As for aboriginals, what are we trying to resolve, what was the problem at the outset?
Mr. Khosla: That is a broad question, which is why we are here today. It is also why it was difficult to say exactly what caused the delays when we developed the legislation. The reasons are, in fact, many and, as a result, we decided to reinvent the system. Perhaps my colleagues Adam and Steve could give you some examples of why there were delays.
Senator Massicotte: What caused the delays? What problem in the existing system is causing such long delays?
Adam Hendriks, Director, Western Operations, Major Projects Management Office, Natural Resources Canada: For example, several people currently make decisions or are responsible for assessment in the projects. For the Enbridge project, various departments made decisions and conducted separate environmental assessments. Several assessments were made for this project. What we are trying to do here is to centralize this responsibility.
Senator Massicotte: I understand. Tell me about Enbridge. You said that several people are involved; who are they? Federal government, provincial government?
Mr. Hendriks: A number of federal departments have made decisions for environmental assessments for the same project.
Senator Massicotte: The legislation required it, effectively, is that right?
Mr. Hendriks: Everybody has to make their own decisions. So, instead of having one centralized responsibility, everyone made decisions separately.
Senator Massicotte: The bill basically centralizes the authority in three agencies, but at the end of the day, you are giving the minister the ultimate decision in almost all cases. Even when the National Energy Board decides, it is up to cabinet to approve or refuse the decision. Do I understand this correctly?
Mr. Hendriks: Basically. The way it currently works, when the National Energy Board has a project that it deems is of interest, it submits it to cabinet, which makes its decision. We are trying to ensure there is consistency between this process and all the other processes that require a decision from cabinet.
Senator Massicotte: If I understand correctly, you are giving cabinet the authority not only to give approval but also to give directives, if not change the decision of the National Energy Board. Is that correct?
You are giving cabinet powers for the directives it will give to the National Energy Board to promote projects. I think you are expanding the minister's authority?
Mr. Hendriks: What we are trying to do is make more tools available to the minister for time management in the projects. That is the type of authority we are giving. It really is for time management. We think the National Energy Board is an organization that is doing a very good job at pursuing its objectives. We have also given the board's chair more authority for time management. We have put in place a legislated time frame that we are sufficiently confident in, based on our experience.
Several of the National Energy Board's assessments have been done within the time frames, and we think they will be able to meet the legislated time frames. But we are adding tools in case the agenda is tight.
Senator Massicotte: We are all defenders of democracy. However, the democratic system has flaws and has sometimes had failures. We elect people who will be there sort of for the short term. Politicians are too often interested in remaining in power for four or five years. However, they do not have long-term vision.
Are you not worried that the ministers will decide too hastily, with a vision that reflects their short-term interests, rather than the long-term environmental interests of Canadians?
Mr. Hendriks: The National Energy Board is responsible for security. That organization is responsible for all aspects of security.
[English]
It is an integrated regulator.
[Translation]
It focuses on different aspects.
Senator Massicotte: If I understand it correctly, the final decision belongs to cabinet?
Mr. Hendriks: Yes, basically, and it always has been that way. Before moving forward, the projects must go through cabinet.
Senator Massicotte: Generally to generally ratify the decision?
Mr. Hendriks: The National Energy Board always makes recommendations on the terms and conditions of projects. The board will always be responsible for all aspects of the health and security of oil pipelines.
Senator Massicotte: In fact, aboriginals are major players when we speak about northern projects. People have different interpretations of the respective rights. However, they are important partners that we must engage. We have the feeling that the amendments as they stand will improve this relationship.
Mr. Tremblay, could you give us some more detail on this point? These are fine words, but how will we change our relationship to ensure their involvement in goal of having a partnership and not of refusing to gain ground?
Jean-François Tremblay, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: The obligation to consult and accommodate aboriginals is not legislative, but it is constitutional. This obligation comes from common law. It stems from the Taku Haida decision of 2004, which established that the Crown has a duty to consult aboriginals and sometimes to accommodate them when Crown activities might interfere with the potential rights of aboriginals. When we talk about the Crown, we mean the federal government and the provincial government. The court has left us free choice in how we consult aboriginals and integrate those consultations in our activities.
Since then, we have developed action plans. We published guidelines in 2007 and 2008, I believe. We created new guidelines last year, and we carried out various activities. The provinces have also been active. Increasingly, the provinces, including Quebec, have their own guidelines on consultation and accommodation.
By consulting aboriginals, we have understood that there is always a risk of what we call "consultation fatigue". The issue of consultation can be raised in plenty of projects. There are about 630 First Nations communities, in addition to other aboriginal communities. So there are a lot of communities, but especially a lot of locations where we can hold consultations.
With this project, we are trying to respond to what we have heard. How can we ensure we develop relationships before even needing to hold a consultation? The practice is referred to as upfront consultation and upfront relationship.
It is important to make sure you identify who must be consulted and who is responsible for this consultation, so that the aboriginal groups are not required to sift through the bureaucracy to try to find out who does what and who they need to speak to for a consultation. That is what we are doing with this project.
As was mentioned, funds are allocated for aboriginals to take part in the environmental assessment process. We are continuing with an information system we are developing that gives access to all federal public servants. In a given area in Canada, you can see which aboriginals are there, what rights have been claimed by the aboriginals and what discussions exist. People can quickly identify the groups they need to start working with.
In recent years, we have also trained a lot of people within the public service. Over 2,000 public servants have received training in consultation and accommodation.
Increasingly, we also want to develop agreements with the provinces and agreements with aboriginals. We already have some in place. The goal is to build the relationship prior to the consultation.
Senator Massicotte: What will the bill enable us to do? I do not understand this very well. We will be providing better information?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: But in reality, what are we doing? It looks like a minor proposal. What is the bill going to affect?
Mr. Tremblay: The bill as such does not dictate what the consultation and accommodation must be. Things have to be integrated. The approach used here is to ensure that we continue to include the capacity for consultation and accommodation in our day-to-day activities.
What we are confirming here is that, in the case of major projects and when an environmental assessment is done, we must incorporate consultation with aboriginals, and we are providing the resources to ensure that this is actually done.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senator. You have touched on one of the more perplexing issues that we have to deal with in accomplishing the goals here, and you have delegated a lot of your time to Mr. Tremblay to outline for us the constitutional position.
We are facing the same position in running these hearings. We would like to give the Aboriginal community an opportunity to give their opinions on this legislation, but where do you start and who do you invite? You have given a good exposé of how we manage this obligation of trust to consult on all these matters. It is an ongoing challenge. As you described it, this is where we are at in terms of that. Thank you, Senator Massicotte.
Senator Seidman: I would also like to say that I truly appreciate the goal that the government has put forward here: one project, one review process, within a clearly defined time period. However, I also recognize that in developing this, as you have said, a whole-of-government approach has been taken and it is an extremely complex process.
I would like to address the consultation process prior to coming forward with these proposals. Undoubtedly you have had an extensive consultation process outside the government. What stakeholders, organizations and groups have you consulted in the development of these proposals?
Mr. Khosla: Thank you for the question. As outlined in the deck, if you look at the timeline, what we have before us today has been developed over several years. That is the starting point. It actually probably even predates the creation of the Major Projects Management Office.
Many of the issues we are talking about have been discussed with all stakeholders, be they Aboriginal peoples, the industry sector, provinces and territories, or environmental groups. Of course, the departments have consulted on their own over time.
In the lead-up to this particular piece, through the Major Project Management Office and working in a whole-of- government way, we have also had a lot of input through that process as to what works and what does not work, so it has a good baseline.
One other key benchmark in the lead-up to this bill was that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act underwent a review of Parliament, so another consultation occurred directly on one of the main features of the bill, through Parliament.
At the end of the day, there have been extensive discussions with a variety of groups over many years, and all the departments have done it individually. We have done it also collectively.
Senator Seidman: That is impressive. In slide 10, you focus on strengthening environmental protection. I know indeed and I do believe somebody mentioned the fact that the press has not been very kind in dealing with a lot of this.
The Chair: That is a very astute observation.
Senator Seidman: I would like to look at how this is going to strengthen environmental protection. You talk about strengthening enforcement and compliance provisions, and I think that is very critical. Would you be able to explain in more detail for us today how that is going to happen?
Mr. Khosla: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. It is sort of a key pillar behind what we are trying to do here. It speaks to the overall policy frame, and the policy frame is attempting to take a very balanced approach. Of course, you do not sort of look at economic interests at the expense of environmental. At the end of the day, we recognized over time that it is important to take a life cycle approach to some of our project reviews, especially when it comes to major resource projects. Some of the mechanisms that you are referring to are new tools that we are putting into the tool kit to do that, not just sort of approve a project at the front end but also to ensure that, throughout the life cycle of the project review and development, we are able to monitor it. When we say compliance and enforcement, those are key tools. Another key tool very obviously is we are focusing our resources on the projects.
A third key tool is that we are adding what are known as maybe minor penalties, administrative monetary penalties, for the National Energy Board, for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to be able to intervene if there is something that comes up quickly vis-à-vis the review or post- review process. Beyond that, there has also been funding allocated for pipeline safety, for inspections, and as well for marine and tanker safety.
I think I covered it. There are also aspects in the Fisheries Act or enforcement and compliance mechanisms that we are bringing in the Fisheries Act. When you think about it, that is a quick jog through some pretty complex pieces, but it should give a flavour of the many action items we are bringing forward to ensure environmental protection is a key cornerstone for this package. I will ask Ms. Cutts to follow up on enforcement and compliance and Mr. Stringer on the Fisheries Act piece.
The Chair: Perhaps when those officials are making their comments, again with our audience outside in mind, we often hear of CEAA and CEPA, and one of course is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the other is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Those of us dealing with it on a daily basis sort of know the difference. They have both been subject to parliamentary reviews. This committee did the CEPA review, and the Commons committee made the CEAA review. You have made references. Could one of you encapsulate the difference between these two laws, and then carry on. Is that relevant?
Mr. Khosla: Very much so. Thank you for the reminder, chair. We have talked to a lot of people, and this is an extensive package, and we use a lot of acronyms. It is a bit of inside baseball. We will try to make sure that we provide the words behind those acronyms.
The Chair: Thank you.
Steve Mongrain, Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: I will try to answer your question on the differences between the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I worked on both, so I will try and make the connection. Actually, I think my first appearance before the Senate was on CEPA, this very committee. My hair was not so white or grey at the time.
The Chair: But the chairman's was, and it was not me. It was Senator Banks, and he said you were a great witness.
Mr. Mongrain: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act primarily deals with the management of toxic substances, preventing the releases of toxic substances into the environment from whatever source, whether it is a physical work, a project or some sort of industrial activity. It has other elements dealing with disposal at sea and regulations of fuels. It is about protecting the health and environment of Canadians from substances, particularly chemical substances. My colleague from Environment Canada will correct me if I have gone astray.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act deals with projects — physical works, a mine, a hydro dam, construction of a highway — and is a process to look at those projects before construction, identify the environmental effects, identify ways to mitigate those adverse effects, and improve the project design in ways that protect the environment and health of Canadians, and sometimes will even save money for the proponents.
The Chair: Thank you. That was a good explanation.
Ms. Cutts: I wanted to expand a little bit on the points regarding enforcement.
Senator Seidman: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Cutts: Under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, there are no enforcement provisions per se. The minister does not have the authority to issue penalties. There is nothing. We currently rely on enforcement mechanisms in other acts.
In order to fill this gap, we have introduced this new version of the act that gives the enforcement to the minister. What happens is that at the end of our work in assessing a project, where we have figured out what are the mitigation measures to ensure that the environment is protected, these are all prepared and written in a single report called the decision statement, and that decision statement is enforceable. The proponents, by law, have to carry out those mitigation measures. They also have to carry out the follow-up measures. This is a very big innovation with the act.
Senator Seidman: Perhaps I could just give you a specific example, which I think would be clearer for people watching. For example, with the oil and gas operations offshore in navigable waters, you talk about referring things to the provinces. My question to you specifically would be in terms of enforcement and environmental protection. If you defer a decision to the province over a particular project and then you see that there are issues, is there any kind of monitoring? Is there any possibility for the federal government to take back authority that they have deferred to a provincial government or a territory if they see there are issues, for example, in the waters?
Ms. Cutts: Let me answer it in general terms first. Under the substitution or equivalency provisions, it is largely done on a project-by-project basis. Once the project has a decision about it, for example, that we are going to substitute it to the province, we cannot unwind that midstream. What we know, however, is that substitution has, at the end, a decision by the federal minister. It is not that we are totally out of the game. We need to avoid surprises. We absolutely cannot live with getting a poor report and ask our minister to make a decision on a poor report.
We have to check in with provinces as they do the work. Even though we have already assured ourselves that they are capable of doing it, there has to be a checkpoint along the way so we know what we were going to get roughly in terms of a report and that we can make a good decision and get a quality environmental assessment at the end of the day.
Senator Seidman: I probably should defer to the rest of my colleagues here. Thank you very much. That really answers the question, in that you have set up a system of checks and balances. I was happy to hear about the final step.
Mr. Khosla: For sure. It is absolutely about working collaboratively with the provinces, and agreements will be signed to ensure that we maintain our high environmental standards.
Kevin Stringer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs Policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I will say a couple things generally about this specific issue on equivalency, but also from the Fisheries Act, changes that are proposed in the bill, but also about enforcement. In terms of equivalency, the general rule is that as long as the province has similar laws that meet or beat the federal laws, that is the application. At the end of the day, our minister remains responsible for ensuring that it is being done, so I think those checks and balances are there.
In terms of enforcement of the Fisheries Act, Mr. Khosla was speaking to enhanced protection and enhanced compliance tools. The objective, in the Fisheries Act changes, is similar to what is happening with CEAA in terms of focusing our efforts. We are focusing our efforts, in the case of the Fisheries Act, on commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries, which is still a very large field. In those areas, you focus it to provide enhanced compliance tools and enhanced protection tools. For example, in the Fisheries Act, we have new provisions that align the penalty provisions with the Environmental Enforcement Act and that draw a distinction between large corporations, small corporations and individuals and have a gradation of penalties, which is very different from what we currently have in the Fisheries Act. I point to conditions of authorization being enforceable. What that means is that right now, when our minister issues an authorization and says, "You can go ahead and do this project," we will often put in conditions. The conditions might be that you have to monitor how it is going, have to report to the government and have to do a number of things. Those things are not enforceable at this time. Under the proposed changes, they would be enforceable, so you would be able to take action and compel compliance around that.
There is a duty to notify from the proponent, so, if there is serious harm being done, the legislation proposes having to notify the minister or the department that that is taking place.
There is the authority to make regulations for aquatic invasive species. When the Fisheries Act's fisheries protection provisions were considered a generation ago, this was not an issue. Today, it is, so we have the authority to make regulations around the possession, import and other actions around aquatic invasive species, like Asian carp.
I point to one provision in particular where the Governor-in-Council is able to identify and establish ecologically sensitive or significant areas where you can provide enhanced protection, and there are extra tools for the minister in those areas.
The idea is to focus, as Mr. Khosla said, but also, where you are focused, to provide enhanced protection and enhanced compliance tools.
The Chair: Very good. Thank you, sir.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentation. I just have a couple of questions. I think one of the frustrations in the past has been that a project could be approved, and then some department would come along and say, "Well, we do not agree with that; we want to do our own assessment, or whatever."
Under your new initiative here, I see that you want to kind of remove that. Would it be the Major Projects Management Office that would take control? What ministry would this be under?
Mr. Khosla: Thank you for the question. Excellent question. We are essentially transforming the system to provide the authority for review under three lead agencies. To this point, reviews — you are exactly right — have been conducted by over 40 agencies in the federal government. One of the key issues that we found that we need to resolve is to consolidate responsibility under those three key agencies for environmental assessment — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We feel that, through that, we can stop some of the spin cycle that has gone on in the past in terms of how these reviews are undertaken. The Major Projects Management Office will continue to exist and has been provided capacity funding for another couple of years, and part of that will be to see how the process now gets implemented. We hope that many of the measures that we are bringing forward will resolve the issues that have been put forward by various stakeholders, and you saw it in the diagnostic slide. The Major Projects Management Office will oversee the implementation of this process. I can frankly say that, over time, the goal is to maybe not have a Major Projects Management Office if the system runs smoothly. We will be monitoring it over the next couple of years and will continue to make improvements, and we will see where it goes after that.
Senator Peterson: As for the tightened timelines for the reviews, are you going to be able to see or accommodate all the witnesses who may want to appear? If not, how do you intend to handle that?
Mr. Khosla: Sorry, can you just —
Senator Peterson: With a major project, you have a lot of witnesses who want to come forward and make presentations. Will you have the time to do that, to accommodate all of them who want to appear, and, if not, how would you handle that?
Mr. Khosla: The package brings into place a few new tools to manage these processes a little bit better. What we are really trying to do here, on that front, is to align with current administrative tribunal practice and current court practice. That means that we definitely want to hear from the people that absolutely will be impacted by the project. A lot of times, as we have said, those are Aboriginal peoples. Scientific and technical expertise is part of that. Certainly, people who live close to these projects are part of that. However, at the end of the day, we could not function if we were to hear virtually everybody on an issue, and no court or tribunal could function.
It brings into place some pretty cogent tools to manage the process better.
Senator Peterson: In this legislation, will or can either the approval or rejection of a proposal be determined by cabinet?
Mr. Khosla: That is a tough question to answer because it is technical. The simple answer is yes for a certain component of projects. Those are National Energy Board projects and a subset of projects on pipelines within the National Energy Board.
Let me just simplify to the extent possible. Many projects now do go to cabinet. They do in the case that they have significant adverse environmental effects. There are some that, in the past, may have had significant adverse environmental effects that did not go to cabinet, and so we are taking that one sub-component of National Energy Board projects — major pipelines — and ensuring that cabinet has authority over them. Frankly, that is just aligning the process.
Ms. Cutts: I would like to add that what they are doing with the National Energy Board is aligning what we already have in CEAA. Right now, if you are talking about all projects, if there is a determination that there are significant adverse environmental effects, the item has to come to cabinet. Cabinet has to decide if those effects are justified in the circumstances, in which case it would authorize the project to go forward with a certain set of conditions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I hope you can assure us that the White House will not have to sign off on any of these matters.
Senator Johnson: I would like to discuss the Fisheries Act more. I was on that committee for many years, and I am concerned about the shift from protecting fish habitat to protecting commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries and the harmful alteration or disruption of the fish habitat that would no longer be prevented.
In light of the fact that the bill would no longer prohibit this but would prevent serious harm, as I said, to the part of the fishery that supports it, how would the proposed changes protect our fish throughout the life cycle? Could you give me an example of an effect that would harmfully alter fish habitat but not seriously harm the fish?
Mr. Stringer: Thank you for the question. Serious harm is actually defined in the definitions section — I think it is section 2 — and it includes habitat.
Senator Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Stringer: Serious harm is defined as the death of the fish or the permanent alteration or destruction of the fish's habitat. Habitat is still part of that prohibition. There is a change from the current section 35, but habitat is still protected.
As I said in response to a previous question, the objective is to focus, and the focus is to protect that habitat and those fish in commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. The objective is to focus in on that, and we have identified the threats to those fisheries as habitat, pollution, which is dealt with under section 36, the killing of fish by means other than fishing, and aquatic invasive species. We have given ourselves new tools to be able to deal with that, but we are certainly still dealing with habitat.
We hear from Manitobans and others that they are concerned that we are looking at virtually everything regardless of the impact on the fishery or the overall impact. We hear from farmers and landowners. In our program we have a risk management tool that says what we will look at and what we will not look at. The problem is that the legislation says we have to look at and consider everything.
This legislation seeks to give our minister and our department clear direction on what is important to look at and the types of things that we would probably not be looking at. Someone mentioned earlier developing regulations afterwards. The minister can identify minor works, the types of things that you would not need to look at. He can say that we will not look at docks for cottages and that type of thing if you meet certain of conditions. He can also identify by regulation minor waters where you would not require a site-specific review. An example of that might be irrigation ditches that a farmer has developed. We can identify that as an area where we do not think it needs to apply, if you comply with certain conditions.
Those are some examples that have been raised with us in previous years. We have the direction in the legislation and the tools through the regulations to work with provinces and stakeholders to identify those things specifically. Those are two examples that we hear about often of the types of projects and the types of waters in which we do not think we need to be as engaged.
Senator Johnson: I have worked on these issues for many years in Manitoba, and we are always running into federal- provincial jurisdictional issues. A study will proceed so far and then it is past the high-water mark so federal provisions apply. Then we sit for years without getting an agreement, and by the time we get one the problem is threefold.
For example, on a fish dumping site that has been a hazard to our environment for years in the Interlake region in Manitoba, it has taken my office two years just to get to the point where they are going to dig it under. However, there is nowhere to put the rest of it. The province says they cannot do any more. The feds say it is a provincial jurisdiction, and the municipality does not make a decision.
Is there anything in this bill that will facilitate these types of decisions being made more quickly?
Mr. Stringer: Yes. There are a number of tools, and we have spoken to some of them already. With equivalency, where the province has a rule that meets or beats the federal rule, the provincial rule would apply. In the Fisheries Act we have an additional tool that has not been mentioned, and that is that it is proposed that the minister would have the ability to delegate his authorization responsibilities. That would be a similar provision to equivalency, but for the permitting process. The minister would need to make a regulation outlining the terms and conditions and the governance under which he would do that.
We have these new tools. As Mr. Khosla said earlier, provinces have requested it. We are now talking to provinces. In fact, there is a Canada-Manitoba meeting today in Winnipeg that I will attend by phone. They are very interested to know what tools there will be.
The objective is to provide the tools to do away with overlap and duplication, to ensure that jurisdictions work more closely together, or to have only one jurisdiction working on the project.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Stringer, you argue that the act would prevent serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery. What if they are not part of any of that? What protects them? Are they only getting protected because they have commercial value? Is there some way to protect species that simply have ecological value?
Mr. Stringer: There are a number of other pieces of legislation, both federal and provincial, that deal with these pieces. The Fisheries Act is one, and the view is that the Fisheries Act needs to ensure that we are managing and protecting fisheries. We think that commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries is a pretty broad tent, but that is the focus.
Senator Mitchell: You do not fish octopus, do you?
Mr. Stringer: I do not know if you fish octopus, but I am sure that wherever octopus are, we fish something.
Senator Mitchell: They are off the coast.
Mr. Stringer: The objective is to focus.
There is the Species at Risk Act and the ecologically significant area. We have a number of tools to identify that.
We will be talking to provinces, particularly inland provinces, about the fact that under the Fisheries Act proposals the minister would have the authority to clearly define which fisheries we are talking about. Fisheries are managed by the provinces in inland areas, so there is one set of regulations that basically says that all waters are licensed for fisheries. We need to talk to provinces about the specific application. They have the lead in terms of fisheries management. We need to make sure that we are working with them to protect fisheries appropriately.
Senator Lang: To follow up quickly on this, if I understand what you have just said, I think it will be welcome news to the provinces and to those who are involved in this. Common sense does prevail in respect to protecting the fisheries and allowing certain projects to go ahead.
If you want to build a small bridge on a small waterway in the northern part of a province, would the responsibility to meet the fishery requirement be delegated to the province and therefore a contractor would deal with that one authority only? Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. Stringer: It does enable that. It would require an agreement between the federal and provincial governments to enable that. We do hear from the people who are building bridges that they have to get six permits from the provincial government and four from the federal government. It would be nice to have that consolidated. We will have the same level of expertise with similar rules. It is an attempt to overcome that duplication.
We would have to ensure that the capacity is there and that they are able to meet the federal requirements, but it does enable that sort of an agreement.
Senator Baker: I would first like to make a correction. There is not a broad definition for "commercial" or "recreational" or "Aboriginal." Those words are clearly defined in the act, and they are restricted to, only in the case of commercial and recreational, only the case of fish for which a licence has been issued. However, I am getting ahead of myself.
I want to thank the officials. Sometimes we ask questions that are a bit political and a bit policy directed, but the officials have been very cooperative in answering those questions.
From reading some of the articles in the media about this bill a member of the general public would conclude that the minister must be a pretty busy person, because the minister has authority to do everything under the act, whereas in reality the responsibility is delegated to officials. The final word does not rest indefinitely with the cabinet minister.
The Chair: Speaking as a former minister, you would understand that delegation is the spice of life.
Senator Baker: That was a long time ago, Mr. Chair.
I think the general public can understand, and everyone understands, correcting a system when you have similar requirements under federal and provincial legislation. We all know of cases. The chair knows, from case law, of cases where developers have had to have a public hearing, twice, to meet the federal and provincial regulations, to meet the same requirements. The federal government requires this and the provincial government requires this. The courts have said this is repetitious, but it is in the law. You will be correcting that now, and that is understandable.
The phrase repeated so often by Mr. Eisler is "strengthening environmental protection," which he used many times. In fact, as referenced in the changes to the fisheries requirement, you go down the road of saying you are going to protect the commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fishery. Then, when you then look at the definitions of those three words, you see that, in the case of "commercial and recreational," it only covers fish for which a licence is issued. That is the requirement in law, as the chair knows.
You then go down the road of having the general public say, "So you can kill whatever you want to kill — all kinds of fish, organisms and food that the fish eat, et cetera," which is protected under the present Fisheries Act. I agree with you that it is a very wholesome act, if you can call it that; the requirements are endless. However, they are that way to protect the environment, and the federal government is seen as the overview of the environment traditionally.
The Chair: Is there a question?
Senator Baker: Yes. The question is this: The question now arises as to the fact that this is not environmental protection. In this particular case, this would give a licence to kill things that you presently cannot kill under environmental assessments?
The Chair: That is a question mark?
Senator Baker: That is a question.
Is this true? Do you agree with me?
Senator Johnson: No.
Senator Baker: Does anyone wish to comment on that?
Mr. Khosla: I will start. That is a broad question and a good question.
Much of what we are doing here is about effective decision making and is another key pillar in the policy platform in ensuring that the program is efficient and effective.
At the end of the day, when you look at, for example, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and some of the tools we are bringing in on enforcement and compliance, those are there to mitigate some of the issues we are talking about.
Mr. Stringer will come back on the fisheries point, but I just want to make a basic point. In the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the effects we look at are, broadly speaking, in the new act, the same as the old act. We are looking at many, if not almost all, the same issues as we go through this process. The aim is not to go in that direction just willy-nilly, if that is the type of question that is coming; it is actually to provide for better decision- making.
On the Fisheries Act piece, I would ask Mr. Stringer to weigh in.
Mr. Stringer: In terms of the Fisheries Act piece, it really is about focusing in, as I said, on commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. There is a definition, as you point out. It does speak in commercial and recreational fisheries to licensed fisheries. If you look at the fisheries regulations that exist, both done by the federal government and coastal areas but also by provincial governments and inland areas, a lot of fisheries are listed for licensing, and some provincial regulations actually say all waters are covered by licences. That is something we need to talk to the provinces about. However, you are absolutely right; it is an attempt to focus the effort.
There is also an attempt — and this is in section 6 of the proposed Fisheries Act — to focus on ongoing productivity of fisheries. The objective is to ensure the ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. I should make it clear that right now the minister can authorize the killing of fish by means other than fishing. For example, the minister can authorize the destruction of habitat, and he does. However, he must look at every piece. The proposed changes would focus where he would be doing that and give him direction — and give the department, as you point out, delegated direction — to ensure that that authorization will be done based on supporting the ongoing productivity of the fisheries. That section provides direction to the prohibition, to the regulations, to virtually all the fisheries protection sections.
The minister can now authorize those things. There is more clarity about where, how and under what circumstances he or she may do so in the future. That is the objective, as well as having the tools to work better with the provinces and other government agencies to ensure they are streamlined in doing so.
Senator Baker: I will leave it at that and go on to another question. However, I want to point out that what is commercial today was not commercial 10 years ago.
The Chair: Do you agree with that? This senator tends to want to be sworn in as a witness, and I resist the temptation to do that. If you disagree with his testimony at any time, feel free to say so.
Continue with your question.
Senator Baker: The chair should have been a superior court judge. Many years ago I watched him before the Supreme Court of Canada, back in the mid-seventies. He shone there; he was incredible.
Many of us from coastal areas remember a time when, for example, lobster and flatfish were not caught and rock cod were considered to be a nuisance. There was no licence for these things. There are many species for which no licences are held. The definition of commercial fish and recreational fish is very explicit under this act and it does not cover a vast array of fisheries, which will now be excluded from this particular attention in these assessments.
My second major question is this: Much reference has been made to what the provinces want. I would say to that: So what? The requirements under the law for environmental management, the environmental requirements, differ, and certainly the risk-based corrective action plans that they have for contamination sites differ considerably.
When you delegate to the provinces the authority to make decisions and you pass on to them the authority to make decisions, do we have in the background a federal standard that will be applicable so that the federal government will say, "No, we will not accept the provincial risk-based corrective actions"? I am using that as an example, and I presume you know what I am talking about here.
The Chair: There is your question, right?
Senator Baker: Yes.
The Chair: It is a good one, too. Who will answer that?
Mr. Khosla: I will start. We are talking about several different acts. Maybe we can focus on the Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Fisheries Act, for this particular question.
The simple answer is yes, we do have those standards; they are embedded in these pieces of legislation. Ms. Cutts may want to expand on the environmental assessment portion and Mr. Stringer can speak about the fish.
Ms. Cutts: What we are looking for when we are doing an environmental assessment is the degree of adverse environmental effects.
We distinguish between your garden-variety adverse environmental effects and significant environmental effects. Our standard outlines what are significant environmental effects. This can do with the complexity or the duration of those effects and the degree to which they are reversible or not. Careful assessment is done of all the effects in various dimensions.
When we are talking with the province about the possibility that they would do some work instead of us, we have to assure ourselves that they have the same standard as we have. Right now, there are differences across the country. In an ideal world, if I could wave my magic wand, I would want everything the same across the country. Based on experience in regulation of securities, it is hard to get a single standard across the country no matter what field of endeavour you are looking at, financial or environmental.
A second best to establish exactly the same standards and force provinces to change their regulations and their laws is to say, "Here is the federal standard; province, if you want to take on this particular project and evaluate it, you have to live up to our standard." In some cases, it is possible that if they want to take it on, they might have to change their legislation or they might just have to make a policy change in that particular instance.
Mr. Stringer: I would add, if I may, from Fisheries, one other piece that we are proposing that is in the proposed legislative change is for the authority for the ministry to establish standards. We have not had that in the past under the Fisheries Act. You can establish standards. The types of things you would look at are approaches that you may take in and around water and the standards for flow of water that are required for ongoing flow. Those would be the standards, as Ms. Cutts said, that would be required to be met. If you were doing equivalency or delegation, those would be the national standards that need to be met no matter who is taking the decision.
Senator Lang: I want a supplemental to make it clear on the record. My good friend Senator Baker made the statement that other than for the Aboriginal recreational and commercial, all other aspects of the fisheries, I think he said, would be excluded — he used the word "excluded" — from the Fisheries Act and the enforcement of the Fisheries Act. From what you said, that was not the case. The Fisheries Act will apply, as it has in the past, will it not, other than the fact that you will be delegating some of this authority and putting some rules in place that allow common sense to prevail? Is that not correct?
Mr. Stringer: Yes. The Fisheries Act applies everywhere. However, the significant prohibition, which is with respect to enabling habitat to be impacted and the killing of fish, is limited to commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. As I said, the minister has the authority to clarify exactly what that means in regulation, but that is meant to focus our efforts. The Fisheries Act is about managing and protecting fisheries, so that is what we will be focusing in on.
Senator Baker: Since there was an objection to what I said, briefly, I want to read into the record what is in this act that we are passing right here.
The Chair: What page?
Senator Baker: This would be on page 150. It defines what "commercial" means. It says:
"commercial", in relation to a fishery, means that fish is harvested under the authority of a licence for the purpose of sale, trade or barter;
Similarly, you go down the page to what "recreational" means. It says:
"recreational", in relation to a fishery, means that fish is harvested under the authority of a licence for personal use of the fish or for sport;
It is, Mr. Chair, as I pointed out so correctly before. I did not realize how correct I was.
The Chair: The official confirmed it.
Senator Baker: It is not a broad definition, as you would say in law.
The Chair: Exactly. You read that very well. Mr. Stringer, do you want to say something?
Ms. Volk: Either one of us could add, but it is important to note that section 36 of the Fisheries Act is not constrained to commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. It continues to apply to all waters frequented by fish. Section 36 is the pollution preference provisions of the Fisheries Act, which are much broader and will continue to be broad.
The Chair: That is a significant distinction. Would you agree, senator?
Senator Baker: It is not on point to what we were discussing, but I must admit it is a consideration.
Senator Brown: I have to ask you a question, so I will do it this way. Are you going to continue to simplify the environmental acts? I think it is one of the best things I have seen going on in quite a while. We went through a period where we had watercourses that were intermittent and we were discussing whether or not a canoe could be floated in four inches of water or whether it could be 20 centimetres or whether someone would be smart enough to get out of the canoe and portage around the culvert. I think you have done a good job here when you mentioned installing standby generators and replacing a culvert and paving a parking lot does not require the environmental act to go into place and spend a lot of money trying to figure out whether or not you should pave a parking lot or replace a culvert. I think there is enough common sense in our nation that people can handle things like that. I have to applaud your finding that and the fact that you will have more time to do deal with things like the Exxon Valdez so that we can have double- hulled ships and more protection for blowouts in the Arctic Ocean when we drill. Those are the things that crank my case around. I think they are more important than some of the things that the environmental things have been doing for years. Thank you.
The Chair: You just wanted to say those things? You did not have a question?
Senator Brown: Yes. The question was, will they continue? That is how I started.
The Chair: Sorry. I missed that.
Mr. Khosla: Thank you for the question. The simple answer again is absolutely. This is an ongoing process. This is a major milestone for the federal family. We really are looking at consolidation and being more accountable, effective and efficient. We have to underscore the effective part. We know that. At the end of the day, the reviews must be thorough. We will continue to look for efficiencies in all of the acts that we are administering here over time. We know that the implementation of timelines is major. We have been working towards that. It is one of these things that will involve a major culture change. At the end of the day, if we do these things and put timely and responsive processes in place, the whole system will get better. Absolutely. I thank you for that question.
Senator Brown: I have one other comment, in that we are putting a lot of pipelines in the ground, and they are the best way to move things without causing disastrous effects. Could someone look at how many valves they could put in so that you could not have a big break when you do have one, because inevitably with a backhoe or something might rupture a pipe? I would like to know the cost of putting more valves in and how close they should be together so that we do not lose then tens of thousands of metres of oil.
Mr. Khosla: That is a very specific question, and we could come back with a fairly specific answer. There are measures in the package that do speak to that. We are taking efforts to strengthen pipeline safety through inspections. The administrative monetary penalties that we spoke about earlier will help with some of the instances that you talk about. They are largely targeted for issues like that. For example, if someone dug close to a pipeline and caused a rupture, that is exactly why they are in place for the National Energy Board to intervene quickly.
The Chair: Senator Brown, you would appreciate it if they give us in writing a specific answer through the clerk?
Senator Brown: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that.
Senator McCoy: I appreciate the difficulty we are all under here, I know you mentioned it earlier, with the abuse of process that an omnibus bill puts us all under. There are 150 pages of statutory change in front of us, covering six acts, and we have only two hours with you. The amount of detail that we can get into is severely constrained, which certainly erodes our responsibilities. However, we do our best.
I will give you a little context so that you know; for 10 years I ran an environmental analysis institute at the University of Calgary. We did peer reviews and various studies. It was our view, at all times, that at that great deal of the frustration between the federal and provincial processes was due to mismanagement at the federal level. Now, we were provincial, so you might appreciate that there might have been a little bias, although we did not perceive that. However, that was a sincerely held view, especially when we went out and interviewed people in the processes, including proponents. The difficulty was that we would not get decisions from the federal government, or, if a decision was made, then it was reversed or altered and the time lagged on. The timelines, in my view, are a very good thing to do, as is the Major Projects Management Office.
My concern, among numerous other concerns with this package that you are putting forward, is that you are, once again, trying to approach this thing with a rules-based approach instead of an outcome-based approach. As Ms. Cutts said earlier, if we only had the same rules across the country, she would be happier. I would say that what we have said in Alberta is, "No, we want the same outcomes all across the country." There is no way you can write a sufficiently detailed rule to cover equivalency of outcomes. That is my context.
Let me ask you this question: What is there in this legislation that does not make it a travesty? You say you have timelines, but there are any number of holes that I saw when I went through this that will not encourage or effectively monitor the honouring of those timelines. Either the minister or the Governor-in-Council — primarily the cabinet, the Governor-in-Council — can, without limit, extend any timeline there is in here. In the CEAA, there is no requirement as to when you pick a start date, for example. There are no penalties on the Government of Canada or its staff or cabinet, anywhere along the way, if they do not meet a deadline.
What is there here in this legislation that is not more of a public relations task — good intentions, absolutely — than you are claiming it to be?
Mr. Khosla: Thank you for that question. We thought long and hard about that particular question, just so you know. There are many aspects to it.
Coming back to the federal-provincial dynamic, if you want to put the blame on the federal government — and I am not sure that we would necessarily wholly agree with that statement — there is something in the package that does addresses that — the consolidation of responsibility to three departments or agencies as opposed to a diffusion of responsibilities across the provinces and departments. That is clearly an outcome to manage the process better that can be pointed to.
In terms of the timelines, that is a good point. How do you manage timelines to the letter? We do have very specific and concrete timelines embedded in the act. We have been working toward that over time. Thank you for acknowledging the work of the Major Projects Management Office. In some ways, this legislation hardwires all of the initiatives that we have undertaken in the Major Projects Management Office to better manage our practice. We have project agreements in place across federal departments now. We put out service standards. We are open and transparent in terms of how those timelines are shown to proponents, environmental groups and so on. We engage with proponents early on to help manage all of these timelines.
In terms of the extending provisions on the timelines, which is another good point, there is a safety valve. However, imagine, if you will, a federal department or agency caught having to bring an item to cabinet for an extending provision. It would have to be something extremely serious, in our view, that would have to get there. It is largely there as a safety valve; it is not there as a way to garner an excuse, if you will. There would be — and we have talked about this as a federal family — extreme pressure on bureaucrats to make the case as to why this issue would have to come to cabinet. We do need the safety valve, in some cases, and that is pretty clear.
I think I addressed some of the points, but I know that Ms. Cutts may want to add something.
Ms. Cutts: I wanted to emphasize that, in the goals of the whole legislation package, we are having to ensure that we have a more efficient and effective process. We want to also ensure the best environmental protection. The experience at our agency is that projects are very different from one another. There are some that are extremely complicated. Some of them are very simple. They take various lengths of time to do them. We were concerned that, if a timeline was put in that was extremely tight, it would be difficult to meet that timeline for a very complicated project. That would be a case where the environmental assessment might not be of adequate quality. We want to ensure that there is that safety net so that if a project is particularly complex, the extra work can be done.
In setting out the reasons for extensions, we only list two. One of them is of a project-specific nature; the other is to facilitate harmonization with the provinces so that if there were some difficulty in aligning our process, we would not then throw the baby out with the bathwater and say, "We will go ahead and get our process done in the timelines, and then they can do theirs and come up with their decision some months later." That is not good for the public or for the proponent.
Senator McCoy: I have two follow-up questions. Let me blurt them both out while I still have them on my mind.
Number one, when did the Northern Gateway project get assigned to the MPMO?
Number two, what happens if the decision maker, whether it is the National Energy Board, the Nuclear Commission or the CEAA, does not meet their timeline? Let us say that, at the end of 18 months — that is with one extension with the minister — the NEB has not issued its recommendations. What happens? Does the proponent get to go ahead anyway?
Mr. Khosla: No. It does not necessarily mean that we are undertaking a concept of deemed approval.
Senator McCoy: What does it mean?
Mr. Khosla: We should make the distinction here that we are talking about government time, in particular, so it is the government being accountable for its practice.
Having said that, as with most timelines in government, the proponent in that particular case, or maybe other parties, clearly could follow up through the existing administrative processes for timelines, which includes court action.
Senator McCoy: It is a paper tiger, then?
Mr. Khosla: I would not necessarily call it a paper tiger. At the end of the day, they can seek remedy through the courts. I am not sure that it is fair to call that a paper tiger.
Senator McCoy: When did the Northern Gateway project get —
Mr. Khosla: Mr. Hendriks, would you mind answering that?
Mr. Hendriks: The Northern Gateway project entered the MPMO in 2008 when it restarted. The project originally came through in 2006, though the proponent went back to do some additional work around the project. That was before the MPMO was in place. When the project came back in 2008, that is when we brought it in. The initiative was in place, and we brought it under the whole-of-government review.
It has gone through the National Energy Board process. That is a joint review panel between the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board, and over that period it has changed hands, back and forth, from the control of the government to the control of the proponent time.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Eisler, you referred to the change in focus of the environmental assessment regime and said that the focus will now be on significant environmental effects, more particularly significant adverse environmental effects.
The public obviously wants assurance that environmental interests will be properly balanced against the economic/ financial interests that we wish to see developed in the country. What does the phrase "environmental effects" mean? I appreciate that there is a change in how that would be dealt with under the bill from what exists today.
Mr. Khosla: To the first part of the question, the policy frame has been outlined to balance those interests. The four key pillars as laid out in the presentation are predictable time for reviews, reduced duplication, strengthened environmental protection and meaningful engagement of Aboriginal peoples. We are taking a balanced approach.
"Environmental effects" is defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and I will ask Ms. Cutts to walk you through that.
Ms. Cutts: Section 5 of the Environmental Assessment Act lists the environmental effects. The initial part of that section talks about effects that are within federal jurisdiction. It is important that we are able to look at anything that is federal. With considerable legal work we have defined what is truly federal, and that is fish and fish habitat, other aquatic species, migratory birds, transboundary issues and environmental effects on Aboriginal peoples.
The second part of section 5, which outlines the environmental effects, focuses on those effects that are directly linked to federal decisions. In both halves of section 5, we are focusing on federal jurisdiction through either these defined areas or through the fact that there is a federal decision to be made, such as providing money, being the proponent, or having to give authorization.
Senator Wallace: Are there any criteria that would be applied to determine what "significant adverse environmental effect" means or if one exists?
Ms. Cutts: There are guidelines that are separate from the act that allow all our experienced staff to look at those effects. They would be looking at the duration of the effects, the frequency of the effects and the nature of the effects. They will look at how many species are affected and these types of things.
The federal family works together to do this analysis. While we put the report together, we rely on scientific expertise in other departments. We would often turn to Mr. Stringer and Ms. Volk in DFO and Environment Canada to help us work through that information.
The other source of information needed to examine significant environmental effects comes from the proponent itself. We would get an understanding of the project and then set out requirements for the proponent to look at. They will do their research, and then the scientists in Ottawa will examine it independently and come up with a report.
Senator Mitchell: I am concerned about the redefinition of who can appear before these kinds of reviews. For example, currently the NEB can allow representations from any other interested person before the board as the board deems proper. Under this bill it seems to be specifically limited to people with a direct interest or those who are directly affected. Why not give the NEB or other review agencies some discretion? That would seem to be reasonable.
On the other hand, in the case of greenhouse gas emissions, would "directly affected" not be quite broad? Everybody is directly affected by climate change.
Mr. Khosla: As we said earlier in terms of this change in the act, "directly affected" is exactly that. It provides some tools in the tool kit; it provides for discretion on a project-by-project basis, which is key to the answer, for the people managing those processes, and not only at the NEB but also with CEAA review panels, to be able to ensure that they are hearing from the right people. We are talking about scientific and technical expertise; we are talking about Aboriginal peoples, in particular; and we are talking about people who live in close proximity.
It certainly applies to all parties. That needs to be mentioned here. It does not apply to only one set of stakeholder communities. It is a tool in the tool kit to allow better management of the practice. It brings these processes in alignment with most administrative tribunals and courts.
The idea is to hear from all the people who have an interest in the project without inundating the process with everyone. It is definitely is a tool in the tool kit to manage the process.
You cited the words in the legislation. This is embedded in the legislation with the words "directly affected" and "interested party," but they are synonymous.
Senator Lang: I would like to pursue this a little further as well, because there have been many concerns about the fact that there is a lot of money being brought in to the country to finance these organizations that then go before various panels for environmental assessments.
Perhaps you would expand on your statement to Senator Mitchell. My understanding is that the process will not necessarily prevent anyone from appearing but is targeting those who could appear before the panels or assessment review boards. If they have specialized knowledge, they obviously would be heard and that information would be brought into the process. Is that correct?
Mr. Khosla: Again, it is on a project-by-project basis. I think that is the key to all of this. Having said that, it is to give the folks who manage these processes the ability to seek and prioritize the witnesses that they want to hear from, in particular those with specialized knowledge.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paragraph 5.(1) of the bill, sets out what environmental effects will apply and paragraph 19.(1) indicates the factors to be considered.
What is the difference between these two paragraphs? What is excluded?
Mr. Khosla: Thank you for the question. There is a link between the two. Perhaps Helen and Steve could describe the situation quickly. Is it the interaction between the two sections?
Senator Massicotte: Yes.
Mr. Mongrain: Yes, the two sections in the two acts are fundamental and concern changes to the environment.
[English]
As Ms. Cutts pointed out in her description of 5(1), it is precisely linking those things that are related to a federal head of power that are within federal jurisdiction. We do not have that degree of precision in the current law. It just says "changes to the environment."
The reason why we have that precision is that it allows us to enforce those conditions on a proponent after the environmental assessment. Subsection 5(2) of the bill deals with federal decisions, the environmental effects or the changes in the environment that result from federal decisions. That is essentially the basis of the current CEAA. You have to have a project and a federal decision. Then you have an environmental assessment that looks at the changes to the environment essentially resulting from that decision. We have covered that in subsection 5(2).
The difference between the two legislative schemes is that under the current CEAA we have to have that federal decision about a project before an assessment is required. We need a trigger, as Senator McCoy pointed out. We may have effects on migratory birds, but there is no federal decision about the project so we are unable to assess it. Under the proposed scheme, there might be effects on migratory birds, on federal lands, on Aboriginal peoples, in the absence of a federal decision, so we can look at those specific effects and mitigate them at the end of the day. The splitting is necessary for constitutional and legal reasons so that the federal government in enforcing the implementation and mitigation measures is not intruding; it is not a Trojan horse into the provincial regulation of these projects.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I understand, but what does that mean concretely? Are there projects these days that are subjected to an environmental review that will not be in the future that have a significant impact for Canadians?
Mr. Mongrain: It is a change in the environment. We look at the impacts, and the minister and other responsible authorities make a decision.
Senator Massicotte: Is there a significant difference between the bill and the existing act from the point of view of the studies that will be done?
Ms. Cutts: There is certainly a difference between the two bills. In the proposed legislation, we are emphasizing major projects where there is a possibility of significant negative effects.
[English]
There is a really small possibility of effects. Those ones are not being examined.
[Translation]
We will emphasize the major projects, and we are confident that our system will strengthen environmental protection through the decision of not assigning financial resources to very small projects.
[English]
Senator Johnson: At the very start, Ms. Volk spoke about the media coverage about the job cuts in the environmental department, and you said they were saying they were up to 1,000; you are saying they were 200. Can you tell us more about the areas where these cuts were made and how these decisions were arrived at?
Ms. Volk: Sure. I am obviously most familiar with the cuts that were in my branch.
Senator Johnson: How many were there in your branch?
Ms. Volk: In my branch, we would be close to the majority of the 200, but not the 200.
For starters, we did some what I would call belt-tightening. There were many cases where we were just able to do the same things with less by reorganizing and restructuring. An example would be the Environmental Emergencies Program where we have centralized our routine operations. We used to run six 24/7 operations where people could provide notification of small spills. We do not need six 24/7 operations, and they are very expensive. You are covering multiple shifts, overnight, overtime. We have centralized that, with great savings. We can save close to $4 million a year through that, without actually affecting our real response to a real emergency. That would be something that was one of the big effects in our branch.
Let me back up. You have asked how the decisions are made. I would say we approached this in a couple of ways, first by looking at what we can do to deliver the same results with fewer people, and that only gets you part of the way to meet the deficit reduction targets. Then we looked at what areas we are involved in that other jurisdictions are also involved in, things that are maybe less core to our mandate or things that other people are already quite prepared to do. There we eliminated work where there were already other people doing the kinds of research that we were doing or doing the kinds of surveys that we were doing. For example, the water program is something that we brought up. The U.S. EPA developed the WaterSense program. It is a little bit like the EnerGuide program, the label on your dishwasher that says it is energy efficient; the WaterSense logo is something that you see on your taps maybe. That program originated in the United States. We brought it up. It is now implemented and being used here. The provinces and municipalities are active. The federal role does not need to be active anymore, so we eliminated that group.
We looked at places where other jurisdictions were operating, where the federal role was not as prominent and where we felt other people were already filling or could fill the void.
The Chair: Let me thank all of you from the various departments and agencies. I see Mr. Eisler decided to stay and oversee the excellent work of his flock, if I may use that term.
For those of you in the back who did not get a chance to come to the hot seat, thank you for being here. This process will not end tomorrow and we may well need to have you back. As you know, certainly the ministers of NRCan and the environment are slated to appear, and that means some of you, and maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as well.
Many, many thanks. We are off to a good start. Senators, thank you all very much for being here on time and so well prepared.
(The committee adjourned.)