Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 24 - Evidence - May 31, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 31, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:08 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.
[Français]
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone.
This is our regular Thursday morning meeting and today we are continuing our study of Bill C-38 and our pre-study of Part 3 thereof, dealing with the development provisions for resources.
This is our fourth meeting on the pre-study. We have a group of witnesses here this morning and we have to be finished very shortly after 10 o'clock, so we will get right into it.
Good morning to Tony Maas, Director of the Freshwater Program with the World Wildlife Fund - Canada.
Just so you know who we are, I am Senator David Angus from Quebec, and I am the chair of the committee. Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta is the deputy chair. Ms. Sam Banks is from the parliamentary library and is of great assistance to us. Senator George Baker is from Newfoundland; and from Saskatchewan, we have Senator Robert Peterson. Senator Yonah Martin is from British Columbia and is filling in for the absent Senator Neufeld, also from British Columbia.
Ms. Gordon is our clerk. Senator Janis Johnson is from Manitoba and Senator Judith Seidman is from Montreal. From the Yukon there is Senator Daniel Lang, and Senator Linda Frum is back again on our committee.
I am delighted to see you here, Senator Frum.
There is also Senator John Wallace from New Brunswick, Senator Bert Brown from Albert, and last but not least is Senator Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
We have a full committee complement today and are anxious to hear what you have to say. You have the floor.
Tony Maas, Director, Freshwater Program, World Wildlife Fund - Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to speak on Bill C-38 the budget implementation bill.
I direct the national Freshwater Program for World Wildlife Fund of Canada. For those not familiar with us, we are one of Canada's largest and oldest conservation organizations. We have staff and offices across the country and an important point underpinning our work is that it is science-based and solutions-oriented. The overarching goal of freshwater work in Canada and internationally is about protecting and restoring the health of aquatic ecosystems so that we and future generations can benefit from the many values they provide, whether it is clean water and recreational opportunities or fish and water fowl.
I would like to focus my comments on changes to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill C-38. In my view and that among colleagues, the Fisheries Act is widely recognized as one of the strongest legal tools Canadians have to protect fish in their habitat, including the water they depend on; that is, water that needs to be of a quality that does not poison them, that shows up at the right time and quantity to maintain their habitat. This is the same water we drink and swim in. The act also offers an additional level of security for the water resources we humans depend on.
The overarching question in my mind is this: Is the act and how it is currently administered perfect? I would say no. There is plenty of room for improvement in the Fisheries Act and how it is administered. However, I would assert that opportunities for improvement relate largely to how it is applied in a management context, not to the fundamental principle of protecting fish and fish habitat. That fundamental principle certainly holds water today more than ever given that the numbers of endangered fish across the country continue to rise as pressures on Canada's rivers, lakes and wetlands continue to grow.
Let me give three specific concerns related to the changes proposed in Bill C-38.
First is the narrowing of the act's scope to include only commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. Creating a system that is based on determining what rivers and lakes deserve protection, by definition, leaves some without protection. Does this mean that wilderness waterways that are not presently fished by commercial or recreational interests or Aboriginal peoples are no longer afforded protection by the changes proposed in the Bill C-38?
Further, within the act it seems there is an expectation for those rivers, lakes and wetlands that are left out that the resulting gaps in aquatic ecosystem management will be filled by the provinces and territories. However, as we all know, those governments are under-resourced and oversubscribed. As past experiences have shown, rapid downloading of responsibilities can lead to troublesome and often tragic consequences related to water resources and the environment.
Second is the shifting of rationale for prohibition from harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of the fish habitat to a test of ``serious harm'' defined as deaths of fish or ``permanent alteration or destruction of habitat.'' Many new words are being introduced in Bill C-38 as it relates to the litmus test under federal fisheries. It changes the test from a precautionary assessment based on accumulated expert scientific advice concerning the potential impacts of a project or undertaking to an as-of-yet scientifically undefined test of ``serious harm'' and ``permanent damage.''
I am not saying these new terms cannot be defined by science; I believe they can be if they are brought forward to the scientific community. However, I would assert that when it comes to management and protection of natural resources like fisheries and the ecosystems that sustain them, clear definition of foundational scientific concepts and criteria should precede, and not be a servant to, legal and policy reform.
Finally there is the issue of expanded ministerial discretion. These are provisions in the act that allow for the exemption, through regulation, of certain works, undertakings and activities, and/or certain fisheries or waters, that has the potential to undercut the important influence of scientific experts in the civil service who have the required knowledge to properly assess the impacts of a project and the importance of particular habitats.
I will wrap up quickly with a brief comment on the process by which the changes to the Fisheries Act are being advanced. I noted that our organization is a solutions-based organization. The success of what we do is largely a product of our efforts to create and sustain diverse, often challenging relationships and partnerships that cut across civil society, governments, and importantly, business and industry.
I believe that the process by which changes to the Fisheries Act — and for that matter, the broader changes to environmental regulations — are being brought forward through an omnibus budget bill undermines very important progress that has been made over the last 20 or 30 years in developing strong, functional principles between the industry and NGOs.
The necessary improvements to the administration of the Fisheries Act do not require the significant legislative proposals in the bill. I urge members of this committee to use your influence to separate the reforms to the Fisheries Act from the bill so that they can be addressed in a timely but thorough manner through a reasoned multi-stakeholder and science-based consultation process with the overarching goal of creating collaborative solutions to protect and restore the health of our remarkable freshwater fisheries and the habitats and ecosystems that sustain them.
Thank you.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Maas, thank you very much. I appreciate it greatly. Could you give us an idea of whether you, or groups like yours, were consulted? What was the nature of the consultative process with stakeholders, people in the industry, naturalists and so forth?
Mr. Maas: This is the first official consultation I have been involved in as it relates to Bill C-38. I will be appearing before the Finance Committee this afternoon or this evening, with the same comments that I brought forward today. As an organization, we have also appeared before the Finance Committee as it relates to the national conservation plan.
In terms of a broader stakeholder consultation process prior to seeing the content of the budget bill or particulars that might have appeared in there, there was no real process, aside from an ongoing relationship with scientists and staff of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is part of our everyday work.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Baker will probably want to go into in more detail, but at a general level the problem about the change seems to be the only fish that will be protected under this new configuration will be fish that are of commercial, recreational or Aboriginal significance. However, if sea life is not one of those categories, what are the consequences, and why would anybody think to exclude them in this way? I am asking for speculation in that regard.
Mr. Maas: On the latter part of your question, I do not know why one would seek to exclude from protection any fish or their habitat. The focus on commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries, as you know, is very new. While those terms are defined in Bill C-38, the precise nature of what is in and what is out on the map of the country remains to be seen. There is some concern on my part that the process is then opened up to political influence, much more so than anticipated by the expert scientists both within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and other federal and provincial departments for that matter, and also to the broader conservation community.
Senator Johnson: Mr. Maas, I am a lifelong member of your association, the World Wildlife Fund. I come from Manitoba and I wonder if you could comment on the new act in terms of a quote that says ``establishing ecologically sensitive areas, such as spawning habitat for salmon and other species.'' Based on new habitat that is supposed to enhance the protection of fish habitat, how will this be determined in the different lakes, like Lake Winnipeg or Lake Manitoba? It is the entirety of the lake that is an issue and is the problem, and we have a very challenged lake where I live.
Can you comment on that and give me some clarification from your perspective as to how this would be improved in the act?
Mr. Maas: Again, that is a new term in the legislation, so as best I understand it, term ``ecologically sensitive areas`` is still to be defined.
Similar work has been done in the past around what we have called ``high conservation values'' — areas that are particularly important to certain life cycle processes of species. As you point out clearly, in a fresh water ecosystem in a like Lake Winnipeg you cannot really put a fence around the particular part of the lake ecosystem if it is defined to be ecologically sensitive and cordon that off from the water that moves across it. It is a difficult prospect.
With so many undefined and unclear terms and what seems to be very little time provided to the department for consultation about what they might mean, I fear these terms will be defined through more of a political process than through a science-based consultation.
Senator Johnson: You say you are scientifically based and solutions oriented, and do you feel that separating it from the act and dealing with the fisheries section separately is a better thing for our environment in terms of the fish?
Mr. Maas: Yes, most definitely, and beyond fish. As I pointed out in my comments, this is same water we rely on for drinking water and swimming. Lake Winnipeg is a remarkable lake, as are the Great Lakes and all the lakes and rivers across the country. They should all be afforded a similar level of protection.
As I pointed out, there is significant room for improvement in how the act is administered, and we will not get to that unless we are able to pull it apart from the budget bill and have proper consultation.
Senator Johnson: Is it not also a problem in our lakes with invasive species coming from other water sources? For example, in Devil's Lake, there is a constant battle to keep that system filtered. Flooding on the flatlands of the prairies and throughout those regions will cause transference of fish.
Can we deal with this better with this act, or how would you propose dealing with it separately?
Mr. Maas: Again, the focus on invasive species is another new component brought forward, and one which I welcome. It is a problem across the country, as is the threat of Asian carp in the Great Lakes system. If you click around YouTube, it is not only troubling from an ecosystem perspective but they can be damaging to humans if you are boating in those areas.
I do not think that taking the changes to the Fisheries Act out of Bill C-38 would compromise at all the introduction of a focus on invasive species, and that is something we welcome.
Again, to put money behind that and spend it effectively requires strong scientific expertise to ensure we get the value and protect our waters and restore them in the context of invasive species.
Senator Lang: I appreciate your presentation this morning. I think it is very thoughtful and gives some reason to really examine the sections of the bill.
I notice on your blog that you make some observations. However, at the same time, you are positive and say that some positive changes are being made.
It takes me three time zones and 12 hours to travel home from Ottawa, door to door, so it shows you how large our country is.
We have an industry in Yukon called placer mining. When you come to Ottawa, they pronounce it differently, and they are making the rules for us in our part of the world when it comes to fisheries. The point I am making is that we have in Ottawa, at times, individuals who have all the good intentions in the world but have no understanding and no on-site information in respect to practical solutions to some very real problems and the people who are trying to make a living.
I want to refer you to proposed section 4 of the Fisheries Act, which I very seriously welcome, which allows the Government of Canada to delegate to a provincial or territorial government where they feel the responsibility should lie, so that we can go into agreements that meet the objectives of our fishery as well as those who are making a day-to- day living.
We have experienced absolute stupidity at times in respect to some of the requests that have been made by Fisheries and I think this is a step forward in trying to bring some conclusion and some common sense to the real problems we face. It also helps us meet our environmental, social and economic responsibilities.
Could you comment on proposed section 4?
Mr. Maas: I am not, in principle, opposed to this idea of delegating responsibility. It only takes me a short hop over to Kitchener-Waterloo to get home. Under the act as it sits, where I live, the conservation authority has been delegated responsibility for many of the administrative functions of the Fisheries Act. When I talk to them, it does work, but it is done under an administrative memorandum of understanding that is based on their own recognition that they have the capacity to do this.
Before the advance of further delegation of responsibilities — and there are agreements with provinces across the country — we need strong standards and principles in place that underpin that delegation, and of responsibility, and some sort of gap analysis so we can understand, when it begins to happen, what gaps need to be filled and how can be much more efficient collectively in this world of limited resources to ensure that provincial — territorial in your case — conservation authorities and Fisheries and Ocean staff, when needed, can collectively do a better job of managing water resources and ecosystems.
Senator Lang: My understanding is that once the act is passed, the minister's office is committed to speaking to the stakeholders across the country in areas of this kind to see how the implementation will be put into effect. Is that correct?
Mr. Maas: That is the process as I understand it.
The Chair: I think it should be noted that Minister Ashfield came to the committee on Tuesday night, was questioned quite closely and then met with the media afterward. He is aware of the criticisms and will be going on this consultation trip, as far as I understand.
Senator Baker: Mr. Maas, would you agree that apart from the fact that fish are now defined under the act and the applicability of a prosecution as a result of harming fish are defined as fish that are used for Aboriginal purposes, for commercial purposes and for recreational purposes, but perhaps more restrictive than that is the requirement under commercial and recreational to only apply to fish for which a licence is issued? Would you agree with me that that means there is a whole huge category of fish that are now not captured under the normal environmental protection standards under the act because of this licensing requirement?
Mr. Maas: Not knowing the full details of licensing across the country, in every province, it is hard to comment in a national perspective. However, I do agree that the focus in this instance, to follow your question on licensed recreational and commercial fisheries, certainly does leave out a whole suite of fish. For that matter, it also does not consider other aquatic organisms that these fish feed on.
Senator Baker: Under the prosecutions, as you probably understand, you are normally prosecuted for disturbing the fish habitat, destroying fish under section 35 or for the emptying of deleterious substances under section 36 of the act.
Section 35, under which the charges are brought, has now been restricted to only fish that are defined as, as you point out, under Aboriginal, commercial and recreational. Then there is the further restriction of serious harm.
Mr. Maas: Yes, and permanent damage to habitat.
Senator Baker: Which you have suggested would be defined as killing the fish.
Mr. Maas: I think that is what the act says.
Senator Baker: Yes, so you have even a further restriction, a further change that goes miles away from what the present law is. Would you agree?
Mr. Maas: Yes. I think it is much less precautionary because we are not talking about a proactive stance on habitat. One thing is for certain, the test of a dead fish is pretty concrete; when a fish is dead, it is dead. That test can be pretty certain, but if you ask me, that is kind of late in the game to be figuring out how to protect them.
Senator Baker: Yes. Commercial licenses are only granted in Canada under federal jurisdiction for about one in every thousand species of fish.
I tell you, there is something that confuses me about the entire thing. We heard from the mining association, and they said section 36 of the act will further restrict them. It does not matter what you do to section 35, but section 36 still says ``fish,'' and it is not restricted to Aboriginal, commercial and recreational.
Have you had a chance to look at the legality of that claim by the mining association? If that is true, then it supports the thoughts of the chair of the committee, that perhaps it is not as damaging as some people suspect.
Mr. Maas: I had not pondered that legal question. Some of my colleagues that are coming along behind me may well have and be able to comment on that.
I do think it brings into question, though, this confusion of — my point at the end is whether the changes in the legal words or the legal tools are really needed in order to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency. I would again assert that I do not think that is the case.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us. I want to go a little further on the same question.
We have now defined to what extent the legislation applies. Tell me about those rivers that will not be protected. Give me more detail on that. I am trying to visualize your concern. A river that is not fished recreationally or commercially is obviously pretty distant from the population, I presume. Tell me about the risk to those rivers and what could occur.
Mr. Maas: I think there are potentially two categories or two groups of systems at least that may not be afforded protection. For example, as I mentioned in my notes, there are these remote water systems that are not easily accessible and are not typically accessed by people. That is in the present day.
However, as we know, the impact and development of the landscape in Canada is and will rightfully continue to grow. In some future period, if those systems are not listed, they may not be afforded protection when development encroaches into those areas. The process for systems being listed under those three categories or being included or excluded remains to be seen. One would assume that is an ongoing process, but that remains to be seen.
Senator Massicotte: I wonder if the minister would not respond wherein if it is not being recreationally fished because there is no access, what is the risk of damage to those rivers? In other words, there is no population adjacent that has access to the river, so what do you want the minister to do? Fly in by helicopter and do some testing? I am trying to figure out in a practical sense where the risk is and what happens.
Mr. Maas: I think the concern is a future risk of development encroaching. I would turn it around and say maybe nothing needs to be done in those areas at this point, but why not afford them similar protection even if nothing needs to be done to them?
I do not think that by inclusion or exclusion that necessarily requires intensive monitoring programs to suddenly spring into action and we need to be counting fish where nobody is harvesting or having impacts on them.
Senator Massicotte: Let us stick with the other argument. You say eventually there may be development. We are seeing a lot of development in Quebec, so the north is being opened up to some degree. When it does have access and becomes fished, would it then be applicable under the legislation?
Mr. Maas: I think that remains to be seen. I think the process by which those commercial, Aboriginal and recreational fisheries will be defined is something that I assume is forthcoming through the consultation process the minister is speaking to.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Maas, I noticed in one of your concluding comments in your presentation you said that the necessary improvements to the administration of the Fisheries Act, in your opinion, do not require the changes proposed in Bill C-38.
When you refer to ``the necessary improvements in the administration of the Fisheries Act,'' are there any of what you consider to be ``necessary improvements'' that would in any way address the issues that are contemplated by these changes in Bill C-38? Or are you talking about issues completely aside from Bill C-38?
Mr. Maas: No, I think there is certainly some overlap. A good example is in some instances the number of hoops one has to jump through to get a permit to restore an aquatic ecosystem and fish habitat seems a little bit over the top. Those, again, are administrative issues, in my mind. Those challenges are not related to the definition of habitat or habitat protection. They are related to how the act is administered.
Senator Brown: If the government has the law to protect licensed fish for retail sale and for Aboriginal use, how can the other species of fish that show up in the same water not be protected?
I used to have a trout farm, and I had a commercial licence to raise them on a six-acre lake. We were forced to screen the water coming in with large rocks and then smaller rocks, and then we had a screen on the dam at the end to make sure that none of them got out. There were minnows that came in, and they grew up as pike and bottom feeders and all these other things. They were all protected the same way the trout were.
I do not understand how you can separate out and say, well, we have a licence for Aboriginals or for licensed fishermen, and yet we are not protecting all these others that swim in the same water. It is inevitable they will. It is not possible to stop them. If you are protecting one, it seems to me you are protecting all.
Mr. Maas: It certainly may be the case, functionally, which then begs the question, what are the changes being proposed getting at? If habitat is being protected under the act as is, and the fish that other fish rely on that show up inadvertently are already protected through that mechanism, I am not sure what the changes are being proposed, as you have described them, because they are in the same system.
Senator Brown: Is that not true of lakes and rivers all over? If we are trying to license these or trying to protect them from some kind of contamination, whether it is sedimentary contamination or whether it is poisonous stuff that might be dumped into a river, it seems like they would all fall in the same thing because the protected fish would be dying as well as the ones that are unprotected. It seems to me we are still leaving fish protected, regardless of where they are or what kind they are. That is what I do not understand.
Mr. Maas: Yes, and I think I share your kind of confusion, to be quite honest, what these changes actually look like. I think a lot remains to be seen in how this unfolds. I will speak for myself only, but I am kind of going into this somewhat blind still. All we have is what we have all seen in Bill C-38 and pored over.
Senator Brown: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: My question was asked by Senator Wallace.
I might just observe that Quebec has been very successful in applying environmental protection rules within their purview. Perhaps there is some hope that, as we delegate to specific regions and provinces, we can be more successful and more relevant than, at first glance, is apparent.
Mr. Maas: Yes. To restate the point, the idea of improving the effectiveness by sharing or delegating responsibility already occurs and can be effective. I think it just needs to be done with oversight. Constitutionally, fish are under the federal purview, so we cannot completely have the federal government step away from this. There needs to be clear standards and a framework, under which those delegation relationships happen, for them to be effective and to have clear accountability at the end of the day.
Senator Seidman: My understanding is that there is built-in oversight on the part of the federal government, and that if the provinces do not have the kind of standards that exist federally that, in fact, they would not have the oversight.
Mr. Maas: That is right, yes. Again, I think that standard remains to be seen.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Maas. I hope you feel you got your message out. Certainly it has been well received. You can see some senators share your own concerns about some of these provisions.
Mr. Maas: Right.
The Chair: Senators, our next witness, from Ecojustice Canada, is Mr. William Amos, Director of the Ecojustice Clinic at the University of Ottawa. Their staff lawyer, Mr. Robert Peterson, was to appear this morning as well.
Good morning, sir. I take it Mr. Peterson is not with you this morning?
William Amos, Director, Ecojustice Clinic, University of Ottawa, Ecojustice Canada: No, Mr. Peterson is not here, but he sends his regrets. It is always an honour to appear before such a distinguished and experienced group of Canadians.
This is an important moment, I think. It is at times like this when we are dealing with a budget bill of such consequence, in terms of Canada's environmental laws, that a chamber of sober second thought is really important. I hope we can have a good discussion today.
The Chair: Mr. Amos, first of all, on behalf of my colleagues, let me welcome you. This is not your first time before us, and we always value your input. I might say we were very impressed with the three, I think, or maybe even four learned tracts that you distributed to us earlier this week, and which all members have seen. It is very helpful background stuff.
My first reaction was we were going to need this witness for three hours to go through all of that, but I know you understand that we have a time issue this morning. Within those limitations, you have the floor for eight to ten minutes, and then we will do our questioning. Again, thank you for coming.
Mr. Amos: Thank you, chair.
I will start by introducing my organization. Ecojustice, which was formerly known as Sierra Legal Defence Fund, has been in operation for over 20 years. We are Canada's leading non-profit, public interest, environmental law organization. We are a charity. Our budget runs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 million, which allows us to hire about 17 lawyers and 3 scientists. We provide free assistance to community groups, to citizens, environmental groups, Aboriginal groups and municipalities. We regularly work with governments of all stripes to improve Canada's environmental laws, always with a view to protecting and restoring the environment, but we were not ideologues and we do recognize laws have to be improved. Ultimately we want the laws to be improved such that we achieve better protection for the environment on the ground.
The Chair: How are you funded? I think it is great what you do, and you give out this free advice and so on.
Mr. Amos: Certainly. The broad brush strokes are that we are funded 70 per cent by individual Canadians. Another roughly 20 to 25 per cent comes from foundations, primarily Canadian ones, and so we are entirely independent. We do not receive government funding. We do not seek government funding. We are very independent, and that is in part because we litigate regularly to ensure the implementation of Canada's environmental laws federally, provincially and municipally. We cannot put ourselves in a situation of conflict of interest.
We are regularly speaking truth to power, whether the power be a judge or whether the power be this committee or other elected politicians.
I should emphasize that we are looked to by the environmental community for sage legal advice. If there is a matter that is going to go before the Supreme Court, even if it is an obscure environmental point of law, but one that will have serious repercussions and will set a precedent, we are typically counsel who will be involved. Bill C-38 is, in our opinion, the most far-reaching and fundamental reform of federal environmental laws ever in any one single act. These are the kinds of issues where Ecojustice is asked to step to the fore. We would urge committee members to read through our brief.
At the end of the day — after all is said and done and after all the ticky-tacky analysis is done of different provisions — the ultimate request is the same as that brought to you by Mr. Maas of World Wildlife Fund. The amendments are proposed to a variety of acts, not just the Fisheries Act, but also the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act and the National Energy Board Act.
These provisions as they relate to the environment are so significant and have by and large not been subject to public consultation. The idea that there would be such sweeping changes through an omnibus budget bill — I am choosing my words carefully — is offensive. It is offensive to Canadians and it cuts at democracy itself. We would urge this committee to advise the government that more time be taken to evaluate these aspects of the bill. I am not here to engage in rhetoric. It is simply what Ecojustice thinks the best course of action is, given the potential consequences.
I will not emphasize the Fisheries Act today, given that time is short and I know that there will be questions on the issue, but I am very open to speaking to that issue in greater depth. In particular, I would like to answer to Senator Baker's comment about the section 35 and section 36 distinction; the fact that more fish are protected under section 36 than they are under section 35. For now, I will try to provide a broader look.
First, to go to just a bit of history, it was one year after Confederation that the Fisheries Act was enacted. This is one of Canada's oldest laws, and if one threw three stones to the north, it would land in the Ottawa River. The history of the Fisheries Act is so interesting because it brings us to understand why it is so important to ensure that the Fisheries Act is actually enhanced as an environmental protection tool.
Back in the mid-19th century, there were sawmills up and down the Ottawa River, and they were dumping all sorts of sawdust into the river in quantities we cannot imagine today. Dead fish were everywhere. There were literally explosions in the water and people dying due to explosions because of the quantities of sawdust. Property owners were extremely upset up and down the river. This is when they actually lived on the river. The Fisheries Act was enacted in no small part because of pollution in the rivers.
This is the beginning of federal environmental legislation, and since 1868, the act has only been strengthened. In 1977, then environment and natural resources minister Roméo LeBlanc brought into place the section 36 protections in relation to deleterious substances and also the habitat protection under section 35. This was a landmark time or a landmark improvement, and I think that it is important to note what he said about it. He said:
The main effect of the changes would be: for landfill, dredging, excavation, or other such projects in these sensitive areas, we would be able to examine plans first, and to require modification or, if necessary, prohibition. Instead of accusing someone, after the fact, of destroying fish habitats, we would be part of the planning to save them.
The point is that this was designed three years after I was born; these provisions were enacted so that the federal government could engage in a proactive planning way to protect our waterways and our fish. We are seeing a narrowing of the section 35 provisions, protections against harm, harmful alterations, disruption or destruction to fish habitat. We are seeing a narrowing of these provisions. There are proposals to create exemptions that would remove waterways and activities and works from those already narrowed provisions.
The issue of delegation has been discussed a bit. I am happy to get into that. Generally speaking, I would share the views of Mr. Maas.
The Chair: I want to point out that the time is going fast, and you have two more minutes now. However, you can get into other stuff in the question and the answers.
Mr. Amos: I will do that. I would simply say that on the Fisheries Act side, we are dealing with monumental changes and there has not been consultation. I would point out that in the Cohen commission, there was testimony from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they said that there would be consultation if ever there was to be amendments. This simply has not been the case.
Ecojustice is very concerned about the Environmental Assessment Act changes on many levels. We think changes are required to environmental assessment, and there is nothing wrong with the notion of streamlining and reducing duplication, but the simple fact of the matter is that the legislation as it currently exists — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act — already provides for reductions in overlap and duplication. The Supreme Court of Canada said so in 2010. It is our position that what needs to happen is that we need to ensure that more rigorous and comprehensive environmental assessments take place so that we do not end up in a situation where deficits and debts related to environmental destruction start burdening our future generations. I do not say this lightly.
We look down at what happened in the United States in the Gulf of Mexico. The BP spill occurred in no small part because they did not have to do the level of environmental assessment that had previously been required. They exempted them from doing certain assessments, and the assessment that they did was done in a boilerplate fashion. They do not do their homework, and now they are facing billion dollar bills. We would suggest that the investment in environmental assessment is an important one. There is a way to balance resource development with environmental protection, but the way of balancing that is not by reducing the number of projects that get assessed. It is by improving the systems by which provincial, federal and sometimes Aboriginal environmental assessment processes are undertaken.
I believe I am approaching my time.
The Chair: You are. You have passed it.
Mr. Amos: If I could conclude on one point. I do not want to get too political here, but this simply goes to the issue of democratic accountability and ensuring that there is social license for industries to continue operating in this country.
We need strong environmental laws so that industry can operate knowing that the people of Canada support their projects because there is rigorous protection and that underlying layer of protection that governments are there for them. If those laws are chipped away, then that social license to operate is also chipped away.
Yesterday, I looked through the government's 2011 platform, Here for Canada. There was not one mention of environmental law reform; nothing about the Fisheries Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act or the National Energy Board Act. It is difficult to understand how we could have such massive changes proposed in a bill without significant consultation and debate. Those would be my submissions. I am happy to get into the specifics.
The Chair: Thank you very much; very articulate.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks, Mr. Amos, for your excellent documentation and analysis.
I think you are emphasizing a point at the end of your presentation that has been made even by people in industry: Some of this diminishing of environmental rigour in Canadian government policy is not helping industry at all; it is actually eroding their ability to get the kind of social license they need to build a Gateway or a Keystone, or to avoid the FQD problem in Europe.
In fact, if you want to sell our projects and sell our products nationally and internationally, you should be going in exactly the opposite direction. You should actually be establishing credibility, not diminishing it on the environmental side. Am I right when I say that?
Mr. Amos: I would agree entirely. I will point to one example. There is significant controversy right now in the Gulf of St. Lawrence regarding the drilling of an exploratory well at the Old Harry Prospect. This is an issue that touches five jurisdictions, and there are significant implications for all five jurisdictions insofar as their coastal communities that are reliant upon the fisheries industry and ecotourism. Also, many Aboriginal communities have claims outstanding regarding the waters and lands that may be impacted by a spill. It is clear that the impacts of a worst-case scenario would be absolutely catastrophic.
However, as it currently stands, with the shift from a trigger approach in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act over to a project list approach, where only those projects that are identified on the project list regulation will be subject to a federal environmental assessment, we do not even know right now if the drilling of an exploratory well will trigger an environmental assessment. That is not a tenable situation for business, or for any of the communities involved. It is not a tenable situation to not know, going into the voting on this bill, whether these kinds of major issues will be covered.
It can be difficult to engage in a civil debate around what are appropriate changes to the environmental assessment regime, federally, when there is such rhetoric that the proposed changes are being based on suggestions that ``we do not need to do as much federal environmental assessment because they are assessing park benches and forcing farmers to do assessment on drainage ditches, and it is a waste of money. Let us focus resources where they belong.'' There is nothing wrong with focusing resources and rationalizing a system and ensuring there no overlap or duplication. That ought to be done, and there are already provisions for that.
If we amend the federal environmental governance regime so comprehensively through an omnibus bill that does not receive consultation, we end up undercutting the industries — the businesses — that rely upon that regime to give them their licences to operate. I would suggest that in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, it will be very difficult for a company that seeks to drill to earn that licence to operate if there is not a robust process to allow for public consultation, to allow for the airing of views, to have expert opinions compete against each other and to have a learned panel of environmental assessors determine whether this is in the public interest.
Senator Mitchell: I will pursue that theme of eroding the credibility of the process, and then hand off questioning. These changes are in a broader context, and it is one of profound cuts to research facilities, research stations, scientists in the department — and elsewhere in the government, I expect — to monitoring systems, to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, et cetera. Therefore, one would think that if you will streamline, compress and intensify the environmental review process, you would not want to do that in the context of reducing the resources that are necessary to make that process work effectively.
Do you think there is a danger also with these extraneous or parallel cuts in other kinds of resources that might be brought to bear or have been brought to bear on the environmental review process that these will undermine the ability of government to adequately fulfill its obligations, particularly under a more intensified, shortened, reduced environmental review regime that is being contemplated by these changes?
Mr. Amos: Yes.
Senator Lang: I would like to just to move back to one of your comments. I believe you referred to democratic licence, or social licence I guess it was. Let us call it social or democratic licence.
I want to refer to a couple of points and I would like your comments. You indicated that there has been no consultation in respect to the principles of this bill and, subsequently, it should be deleted from the omnibus bill as it has been presented.
As you know, and it has been very public, there has been unanimous support in general principle from the provinces and territories for this type of legislation in recognition of the real day-to-day problems that they face. As I said earlier, and as you heard, I am from the Yukon, and I live so far away, some people do not know we are there and yet they want to take care of us.
I want to refer to the newly-elected Premier of Alberta, Alison Redford. She said:
I'm pleased to see them moving so quickly on this, because I think it sends an important signal in terms of the fact that we can have both economic development and environmental sustainability.
Then we go to the Premier of Saskatchewan, Brad Wall. He said:
We want to make sure we have a rigorous environmental assessment process. But we don't think that means we need two. This is welcome news and we thank the federal government for doing this.
I move on to New Brunswick. The Minister of Energy stated that New Brunswick will certainly benefit from a streamlined environmental assessment regime that provides for robust and transparent reviews and stakeholders consultations.
In view of the fact that there is unanimity amongst the premiers across this country and those involved in the regions who are dealing in day-to-day situations with these environmental regulatory processes, how can you say that democracy is not working? All these people have run for office, not unlike in the other place, in the House of Commons. Why should they not be proceeding in a reasonable manner to meet these demands that have been put before them?
Mr. Amos: Senator Lang, thank you for the question. I will start by saying that I love the Yukon. I have paddled many rivers there: South MacMillan; Big Salmon; and the Yukon River a lot, into Dawson. I have enjoyed Kluane. I am a big fan.
I appreciate the territorial views that are shared from Nunavut, the NWT and Yukon around the broader issue of devolution, and I know that is a core issue for those regions and it cannot be ignored by those of us who live in Canada's version of the beltway.
That said, I do not think that I would characterize the provincial and territorial views around what needs to be done to ensure adequate comprehensive, rigorous environmental assessment as being unanimous on the idea that what we need is federal legislation that effectively sees the federal government step away entirely and leaves the job to the provinces.
There somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000 to 6,000 environmental assessments a year right now, and many of them are small scale — just ensuring that a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat would trigger an environmental process. It would be a low-level screening process, usually done in writing as between a project proponent and a bureaucrat at DFO. Those are the kinds of small-scale assessments that caused those numbers to get up into the thousands.
We will see a shift from doing that number of assessments over to a far smaller number. Therefore, the federal engagement in the process will be much more limited. It is fair to say that the federal government has important constitutional responsibilities to protect certain aspects of the environment that the provinces do not have.
There are clear examples where projects have been approved pursuant to provincial environmental assessment processes, and where they have subsequently been rejected pursuant to a federal process. I will point to one recently: The Taseko gold mine project in northern B.C. It was approved by the B.C. environmental assessment office. Federally, by the current government, by former Minister Prentice, it was rejected pursuant to a joint review panel that recommended against the project. It was very clear in that instance that having a layered approach to environmental assessment, a coordinated but layered approach, actually served the public interest.
To be blunt, the plan was to destroy an entire lake that contains 85,000 trout, of which First Nations rely upon. It was a very controversial project. To assume that the proper approach to environmental assessment governance in this country is for the federal government to say ``we are mostly out of the business except for a couple hundred big projects per year and the rest you provinces and territories can deal with'' is a misguided approach. I think we need one that is integrated and that takes advantage of national standards. We live in a resource constrained world; we cannot expect all governments to do everything twice over. That would be totally inefficient, and I do not think anyone would suggest that is the right approach.
By the same token, it will not improve environmental outcomes and it will not improve the use of taxpayer monies when we have environmental catastrophes occurring because there were less than rigorous provincial or territorial assessments.
Senator Lang: I would like to go to another area. Taseko Mines is another issue and it is still on the table, as you well know. I think that should be made very clear.
One major area that has been brought forward is putting in timelines for these regulatory processes, when they begin and when they are completed. Are you opposed to timelines being put in place for the purpose of these regulatory processes?
Mr. Amos: Broadly speaking, our organization is opposed to the approach to timelines as currently designed, primarily because in most of the circumstances where the timelines of environmental assessments have been perceived as being excessive, it is because the proponent of the project has failed to provide information that is required. They have been asked either by the government or by a review panel, as the case may be, to provide certain information because their project description or some other aspect of their own environmental process duties has not been completed, so there are delays generated most often by proponents. The way the debate has been framed in the media and politically is that the delays are related to excessive consultation; everyone wanting to have their moment in the sun in front of a microphone is clogging up the system, and that is the reason we have delays.
The simple fact is that for the vast majority of environmental assessments, 98 per cent, the public is not even involved. There are no comments. That is not the issue. There are consistently issues around backlog of environmental assessments because the responsible federal authorities have not had the funds either to get through their pile or —
Senator Lang: I am not quite clear. Are you for or against timelines?
Mr. Amos: We do not believe that timelines will generate appropriate outcomes.
Senator Baker: Of course, when you have two layers of examination that require the same procedures — you have one provincial and one federal — one requires public hearing and the next one requires a public hearing and public panels. You would agree that perhaps that is a duplication of effort in some cases?
Mr. Amos: Absolutely I think there are situations where better coordination could occur, and I think that is a laudable policy goal. It can be achieved without applying the sledgehammer to the act.
Senator Baker: It is hearsay, but I understand that four former cabinet members of fisheries have come out against this legislation for the reasons that you have put forward.
So that I understand your position, under the new legislation, for a prosecution under section 35 that the previous witness was talking about, the proof of the impugned act that caused the charge to be laid would be that you would have to be killing a commercial or recreational fish for which a licence has been issued for commercial or recreational purposes, federally or provincially, or for which Aboriginal persons use as a food supply.
If you had, say, thousands of dead minnows or barnacles, as we call them, there is no licence issued for that, so it would be permissible to kill those fish or frogs, unless there is a licence for frogs' legs. Therefore, in order to prove the offence, the Crown would have to prove the killing of a commercial fish that is licensed for a commercial purpose or recreational purpose or that is used for a food purpose. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Amos: I will have to give you a qualified answer. I am not sure if it is section 32 or section 33. I believe it is the current section 32, which provides for prohibition against the killing of fish, and section 35 speaks to an offence against the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
Senator Baker: Right now it does.
Mr. Amos: The amendments that are being made — and I would have to double-check — are in relation to the section 35 fish habitat protections and not, as I understand, to the section 32 killing of fish prohibition.
I understand that the two prohibitions are being merged into one, and we will end up seeing a narrowed prohibition such that any serious harm is what is prohibited, and ``serious harm'' is a new concept that is defined as being the death of fish or any permanent alteration.
I see where you are headed; is it going to require the death of fish but only when commercially licensed? I would suggest, yes, there can be concern around that narrowing. However, I think most significantly, when you are talking about moving from any alteration of fish habitat as being an offence as opposed to it will now no longer be against the law to harmfully alter or disrupt, that changes things significantly.
Senator Baker: Some people think this is an outrageous piece of legislation that somehow should be declared unlawful, either constitutionally unlawful or unlawful for some other purpose.
Have you turned your mind to the challenge of this legislation being either unconstitutional for purposes of non- consultation, as we saw in the Minister of Fisheries versus the Nunavut Fisheries Corporation over turbot, or any other means of declaring this legislation unlawful? Have you turned your mind to it as an organization yet?
Mr. Amos: I think it is fair to suggest that there are many people examining the constitutionality of Bill C-38, should it be enacted. The discussions are necessarily contemplative. We do not have a law that is passed. Our present focus is on ensuring that appropriate and positive amendments are made, if there are to be amendments made.
Right now, we are not focusing on a litigation approach. Yes, lawyers in the hallway will talk about these kinds of issues, but at the end of the day, Ecojustice's focus is on ensuring that there is an appropriate debate around transformative changes to the Fisheries Act and other acts. Certainly we are hearing the drums being beaten, particularly from First Nations communities who have constitutional rights and would have the most significant opportunity to bring a challenge.
At the end of the day I do not think anybody wants to see that. In a functioning democracy, we do not have massive changes to environmental laws brought through omnibus bills in a budget context and then legal challenges brought by First Nations. For me, that is not a functioning democracy.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate the documentation provided because it covers all the points very well, if I understood, including the NEB, the Species at Risk Act, et cetera. You can be sure we are taking them into consideration.
Mr. Amos: Thank you, chair. We appreciate the opportunity.
The Chair: Good morning, Mr. Bennett. Welcome back. The last time I saw you here was I believe on March 24, last year, when you appeared with your colleague Mr. Torrie to help us with our study on the energy sector. You are here today. We received your documentation which covered wide-ranging array of subjects. I think you appreciate that we are focusing on Bill C-38 and I would ask you to first of all you respect the eight to 10-minute time frame that you have seen us working this morning, and the terms of Bill C-38.
You have the floor.
John Bennett, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada: Thank you Mr. Chair and honourable members. I will not try to read the entire document. I hope that it is registered in the record.
I wanted to thank you for inviting me. I did have a good time and we enjoyed ourselves on presenting on nuclear energy last year.
When I was invited, I was happy to be here. However, I have a problem which made this decision to appear difficult for Sierra Club Canada, because the bylaws require all members to respect Canadian law and by extension, Canadian law members. I personally have a great respect for the Senate and I strongly believe society should look to its elders for advice and sober second thought. Respect is the basis of a functioning democracy. After all, if we do not respect each other we will not respect the institutions that govern us, and that will not lead us to a good place.
I raise this issue of respect because it is essentially the reason for the success of Sierra Club Canada over the past half century. It has been able to contribute to public policy because we have respected its institutions and have the respect of Canadians. Two of our members have been awarded the Order of Canada for their work with the Sierra Club Canada.
Why do Canadians respect the work of Sierra Club Canada? It is because it has always been based on science, knowledge, expertise and experience. Frankly speaking, it is for this reason that our members, supporters, and millions of Canadians are appalled by the recent comments from government ministers and senators. Clearly, there are those in this place and elsewhere who have forgotten the importance of respecting others and differing points of will view. They have taken it upon themselves use their seats of privilege to attack the reputations of environmental organizations, and by implication, the reputations of millions of Canadians who describe themselves as environmentalists from coast to coast to coast.
By definition, an investigation involves the uncovering of facts from all available sources and determining if wrongdoing has taken place. It allows for the accused to present evidence and defend themselves a fair and open forum and yet, no government senator would agree to meet with Sierra Club Canada and hear a different point of view. There are those in this place who are conducting a witch hunt; not to uncover facts, but to make accusations to smear the reputations of organizations like Sierra Club Canada and people like me. Why attack the Sierra Club? It is an organization that is nothing more than several thousand concerned citizens hoping to preserve a built of our natural heritage for future generations.
What is happening to Sierra Club Canada and other environmental groups across this great country is clearly part of a well orchestrated campaign by the government and its backers to silence dissenting green voices. It is not only an attack on the environment, it is worse; it is an attack on democracy. Those involved should be ashamed.
This is the worst kind of McCarthyism, so I will answer a McCarthy question: Yes, I am, and have been, a member of the environmentalists of Canada, a well-known coalition of committed and well-informed citizens. I am proud to say so despite the campaign to destroy my organization, my reputation and good name. I appreciate you taking the time to hear from me today, especially considering I am allegedly a radical, money laundering puppet of socialist billionaires, a dupe of foreign interests, and prepared to accept funds from terrorists.
It is offensive, and in the Senate chamber those remarks were made in reference to Canadian citizens.
For the issue before us, we are extremely concerned by the rush of these proceedings. There is no need for this session to be taking place today.
In fact, there is no real fundamental need the change the act. By definition, sober second thought must come after — not before — a decision is made by the lower house and we feel it is inappropriate to be conducting this hearing today. We feel the situation is illustrative of a larger government plan to silence dissent and to rush through Draconian, unpopular changes to environmental law and policy without public debate.
The Sierra Club Canada members strongly object and will demonstrate their concerns on Black Out Speak Out day on June 4. Over 330 groups have already signed on to participate in our action to call attention to this railroading of unnecessary changes to environmental law.
In preparing, I asked the members of the Sierra Club to send their comments and I offered to present them on their behalf. When I run out of time, you can let me know.
The Chair: At this point, we have invited you hear to give your comments on Bill C-38. We have 19 responses that you got to your emails and your in-house blog on the subject. Why do you not tell us what recommendations and/or specific criticisms you have of Bill C-38? You have already made the point that you feel the process is flawed to say the least. Others have said that, and we understand it.
If you have specific provisions as other witnesses this morning did, we are all ears. We have a job to do and that is to focus on Bill C-38. We are not the government. I think you know that, and this is not the forum to air your beefs on the government. That thing on June 4 is quite an appropriate forum. We are here trying to do our job on this study and I know you will help us. That is why we invited you here.
Mr. Bennett: On the contrary, the point is: Should you be doing this now before the law has been passed by the lower house or are you facilitating the government by trying to get this through as quickly possible and curtail public consultation?
The Chair: That is a question you are raising. I think it is legitimate and it is clearly on the record.
This is the one hundred fifty-ninth time that the Senate has done pre-study of legislation. In this case, Bill C-38 — which is a large document — has been divided into five sections and referred to five different committees which are doing pre-study to help the Finance Committee, which is seized with doing the full study of Bill C-38 when it arrives in the Senate, whenever that will be.
Our section is Part 3, which is the alleged streamlining of the environmental assessment process. We thought — because we respect your organization and the wise words you have said to us in the past — that you might help us in this regard.
To be honest, I do not think this is place to ventilate your diatribes. If you want to do it, up to a point —
Mr. Bennett: I am just emulating the honourable senators in the house.
The Chair: We are not in the house; we are here as a committee with our own independence.
We have used up a minute. I will add it to your time. You have four and a half more minutes.
Mr. Bennett: I will look at some of the specifics. I am not a lawyer, and you have had some good advice. I am also not a technical expert on the delivery of programs. I will give a more general approach in terms of how the public look to things, when they talk to us about being involved in environmental assessment.
We are very concerned about changing the rules for who has standing in environmental assessments. We think it should be open to any Canadian citizen. Putting in a boundary that you have to have a specific interest has been interpreted in Canada as meaning a property interest or an ownership of property. It is not correct. Everyone has an interest when someone is building a big project that has a big smokestack; it spreads pollution a lot farther than the adjoining property. That should not be in the act. Everyone should have a right to be a stakeholder and participate in these processes.
We think it is a fallacy that there is tremendous duplication. There is duplicate legislation. However, in practice, most duplication is being and can be addressed on the bureaucratic side, not on the legal definition side. It is not necessary to change the act — for two ministers of the Crown to get together and sign agreement on a particular project or a particular range of projects so that there is not the duplication.
We are also incredibly concerned that we would, at the same time as changing the act, devastate the government's ability to actually fulfill its responsibilities in terms of scientific and administrative capacity. The funding for the agencies that are doing this has been cut significantly. The resources that they used to be able to turn to in other departments in terms of scientific knowledge are being cut, as well.
Clearly, you cannot have a better, more streamlined system if you have less capacity to act. You have to look at the passing of this act in the whole context of whether it can actually be achieved or whether the real goal is to eliminate assessment or to lessen quality.
That goes for the timelines, too. As Mr. Amos said, regarding most of the overruns and the anecdotal stories that come up, when you look at the details, the overruns were not created by the act or by the responsibilities of the federal government. They were created by the proponents of the projects not providing sufficient information or taking a long time to respond to questions when questions were raised. That is not a necessary thing to do. You need to put more resources into the management of the programs, not less resources and restrictive rules.
We believe that the changes to the Fisheries Act are unnecessary and that, again, administrative problems are trying to be cured with legislative solutions, and they will not cure the problems.
To conclude, we have heard a lot about social licence and about democracy. The public has to believe that there has been a fair process, that it has been democratic, and people have had a chance to participate and feel that there was a fair opportunity. The way this is progressing, the government will strip that oppression in the public.
First, as an aside, I will just say that the Sierra Club of Canada does not participate in civil disobedience. However, I can assure you that if this law goes through the way it has been pushed through, there will be thousands of Canadians arrested over the next five years because people will not stand still for this. We want to protect the environment. We have to think about it in terms of sustainability, which is the final point I would like to make.
That point is that the purpose of having an environmental assessment is to move the Canadian economy to one that is sustainable from one that is not sustainable. There is no more reference to sustainability in the new legislation, and that means it is meaningless. We want to encourage corporations, municipalities and governments to do projects that make the Canadian economy more sustainable in the long term, not less.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. That is very helpful. The comments you have made are on point. Quite frankly, we had a raft of people in here the other day from the bureaucracy — Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, NRCan and even from the agencies. I urge you to look at the transcripts, which are on our website, in terms of how many years this exercise has been going on for. I think it is four and a half years that we have been in the works to try to find a way forward.
I am not personally taking a position. We are here, as I think you do appreciate from previous experience, to try to run this committee as a non-partisan, but bipartisan, committee in terms of composition, and we like to listen carefully to the points of view.
I will tell you this is not an easy country to govern because there are usually about seven different sides on each issue.
Anyway, we are glad to have your points on the record. I am sure my colleagues would like to question you.
Senator Johnson: Welcome, Mr. Bennett. Like many Canadians, I have been very supportive and admiring of the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, being a conservationist, which I guess is why I am Conservative.
The Chair: Dead fish in her back yard.
Senator Johnson: I love my fish and I am worried about them in Lake Winnipeg. I have worked on that for 20 years with many others.
I am wondering if you could offer some comment. You say nothing should be changed as things exist. If there were things to be changed, other than the way it is being done now, what would you suggest to improve things for our environment, our protections and our habitat in Canada?
Mr. Bennett: I would look at the application and the bureaucracy that supports it and ensures that there is a good enough infrastructure, so that we do not get the stories about long delays and we do not get the stories about farmers and ditches. They are very small parts, but they should not happen, and they can all be fixed with changes to how we administer the acts. We do not need to re-write them in order to solve that problem.
I do not believe the goal of the changes here are to make it better; it is to make it worse. If they were trying to make it better, they would sit down with us and talk, but they have not done that. The process for reassessing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was built into the act, and it included having hearings across the country. The last time it was renewed, that is what took place. There was a lot of public consultation and discussion before anything was put before Parliament. That is the way it should be done, because this affects a lot more than a handful of industries. It affects everyone, and not only those who are living today but those who are born in the future.
We think it is a fundamental democratic thing that when you are contemplating changes of this nature and of this wide a scope, with these huge implications for the future, that there should be full public discussion. As Mr. Amos said, there is no reference to this in the campaign documents of the government. This came with very cursory hearings of the Environment Committee. I also have testified at those committees, and I can tell you there was not much interest in what I had to say.
The Chair: So this is quite a refreshing contrast for you.
Mr. Bennett: As I said at the beginning, I did enjoy my last visit.
An Hon. Member: You seem to be enjoying this, too.
Senator Johnson: We heard from officials for four hours the other night, and then three hours the night before. As the chair has said so eloquently, we want to know what people are thinking. It is our job. We are the Senate. We are a part of Parliament, but we are our own institution.
The officials tell us we have not gone to all this trouble; we have not done this all these years if we were to come in with something worse to offer the Canadian people in terms of our environment.
Mr. Bennett: If that is the case, then why did they not have consultations —
Senator Johnson: That is what I am saying.
Mr. Bennett: — and put it out before us and put it in a separate bill, so that we could look at it? Why is it stuffed into the budget with closure and the demand that ``we are going to do that as quickly as possible''? If this could stand the scrutiny, why do they not let us scrutinize it?
Senator Johnson: That is a telling point and one that has been brought up before. I have many more questions, but I will let others speak.
Senator Brown: I will read about three sentences of your diatribe here. ``I will be demanding —
The Chair: Are you going to ask a question?
Senator Brown: Yes, I will ask a question. You wrote that:
. . . I will be demanding that government Senators apologize to all Canadians who consider themselves environmentalists for the derogatory remarks and unfounded allegations made by several Senators who say they are conducting an ``investigation''. In fact, their investigation is a witch hunt — ripe with McCarthyism . . .
Sir, I was selected by the people of Alberta, and I have been an environmentalist all my life. My question is, what gives you the right to make those kinds of comments to this committee?
Mr. Bennett: I would hope the Constitution of Canada and the Bill of Rights.
Senator Brown: I think you have shamed the Sierra Club.
Mr. Bennett: On the contrary. I did not stand up and accuse people of money laundering. I did not stand up and suggest that environmental charities have done something wrong. There is no —
Senator Brown: Are you suggesting that we have done that?
Mr. Bennett: I am suggesting that the so-called Senate investigation, which has been widely reported, did just that. When I called those senators and asked to meet with them to give them an alternative point of view, they were too busy to meet with me. They did not want to hear another side.
Therefore, I do believe that those senators, and the Senate as a whole, should consider whether or not it wants its members standing up and making accusations about Canadians and Canadian charities who have served this country for decades. The Sierra Club has been in operation for 50 years. We have contributed significantly to good policy in this country, and to have people stand up and suggest that I am a money launderer I think gives me the right to say that you owe me an apology, unless you can prove it; put some evidence on the table.
The Chair: I wanted to interject for a moment. In case you had not noted, this committee is not the chamber of the Senate. We actually invited Tides Canada to come here. We had a two-hour session with them, and they were not called any four-letter words or even six- or seven-letter words.
Mr. Bennett: I was just responding to his question.
The Chair: I know, and that is fine. I was just interjecting to note that this committee is always willing to hear people who have things to say that are relevant to energy, the environment and natural resources.
You are finished, are you, Senator Brown?
Senator Brown: One more.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Brown: In my opinion, you owe us an apology, and if that is not possible, then that is fine.
Mr. Bennett: I am sorry I had to say that. I apologize for doing it, but I felt I had to say it.
The Chair: Thank you for that, sir. We accept that.
Senator Martin: Out of respect for my colleague Richard Neufeld, who I am here on behalf of due to his absence, and him being a former Minister of Natural Resources in the Province of B.C., I want to highlight the fact that in the environmental assessments that take place provincially and federally, there can be some real differences in the process, with the complexity of the federal process and how it can sometimes be two years or more between the completion of assessments.
I know the kind of experience that Richard Neufeld has had, the respect he has, and how he knows his region, as Senator Lang has talked about. As a former educator, I know when someone top down would try and tell me what to do in my classroom, and I know my students, the parents and the community better than sometimes the parents know themselves because of the time we spend.
In the case of these kinds of situations, the attempt to refine provisions in an act that is as old as it is and the history that we have heard, in an attempt to reduce duplication or to make it as efficient as possible, do you agree that we should be moving towards refining federal involvement, not limiting but refining our role? We hear this comment of duplication in every sector, such as health. We are doing clinical trials, and there is duplication with ethics boards. This duplication seems to be an issue across every sector in Canada and the provinces, which are best positioned to really know their regions. These are the challenges that ministers like former minister Richard Neufeld face.
Do you agree that refining provisions within an old act is just one of the natural things we would do in modernizing and improving what we have?
Mr. Bennett: From the context of a person who has personally participated in several environmental assessments and who works with an organization that has been involved in I do not know how many, I think the problem is with the Constitution and jurisdiction. There are federal jurisdictions and provincial jurisdictions, and that is the fundamental problem in all of those issues.
However, in terms of working out the problems around environmental assessment, they are already capable of doing that. If you look at the case of the Mackenzie Gas Project, which is often cited as one of the most horrendous projects, 16 jurisdictions that had authority over that pipeline route before the application was made got together and agreed on the process so that the proponent had only one assessment to go forward.
Every provincial government is perfectly capable of signing agreements with the federal government to work out differences and difficulties. You do not need to take people's rights out of participation in the act. You do not need to remove federal triggers for environmental assessment in order to accomplish that. I guess it is one of those things where a pen and paper could solve the problem and a sledgehammer is being applied.
Senator Martin: In the case of Taseko Mines, without going into all the details, I do know that having listened to the presentations and spoken to officials, everyone in Canada understands the consultation process is ongoing and many stakeholders are always welcome to voice their concerns. It is an open process, just as you are here today.
At a provincial level, just as we respect the role that you play and the expertise you have, I guess I have faith in our provincial officials, elected officials as well as provincial stakeholders, to be able to undertake a process within their own regions, of which they care so much about and live in. Visiting an area, going down to rivers and whatnot as a tourist or a visitor versus living in the region are two very different things.
I guess the faith I have in Canadians to do their part in their regions is one where I see that this could really make the overall process efficient where we are in a global situation of balancing development as well as environmental stewardship, which I absolutely uphold.
Mr. Bennett: I will start off by saying that environmental stewardship is good development. It is one and the same thing, and this act tries to take that away. I do not think you need to change the act in order to achieve what you want to do.
I also believe that the people closest to any project are the ones who have the greatest impact in determining whether it goes forward, and we support that. In fact, that is one of the fundamental ways the Sierra Club operates: We help other groups and local communities when they are faced with these issues.
However, we do not need to take people's right to participate in hearings out of the act in order to do that. We do not need to take the federal triggers out of the act so that we do not have assessments. We need to make sure that the federal government continues to live up to its responsibilities, and I believe that the fundamental goal in the re-writing of all these acts is to reduce the federal presence in environmental protection in Canada, and that is not something that the Sierra Club would like to see. The Sierra Club likes to see a balance among all levels of government in making good decisions for environmental stewardship and sustainable development.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Bennett, I want to say that I appreciate your frustration, and you have expressed that extremely well here. I think you have represented the feelings of many Canadians, so thank you.
The issue of the fact that many delays in the process to this point have been caused by proponents is an interesting conundrum. If you put a 24-month limit on a process and the proponent just decides that they are going to drag their feet, in your understanding of these processes elsewhere, what can you imagine would happen if at 23 months and 29 days the proponent just said, ``We have not got it in so —
Mr. Bennett: Can we have an extension, please?
Senator Mitchell: It may end up being delayed, in any event. This will not inevitably solve the problem that is being touted as the reason for these changes.
Mr. Bennett: I do not think arbitrary solutions ever work. Each situation is different. Each proposal is different, and each situation is different. There could be thousands of reasons why the government managing the process, the proponent submitting information or those stakeholders who wanted to participate in that process could all lead to some delay. However, I think what is most important is that we see all the facts.
The outcome of most environmental assessments in Canada is not the cancellation of a project. The rarest thing that ever happens is when a project is actually cancelled because it is not environmentally acceptable. Usually, the project actually becomes better because someone stands up and says, ``Hey, you cannot really put that thing over there because when I go fishing there I know what is happening.'' It is an opportunity for the proponent to get a better project. To time constrain it will just limit the opportunities to improve projects.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you.
Senator Lang: I just want to go on the timelines if I could, and I think the record has to be corrected. I have to say to you as the witness that I am surprised you did not mention the fact that a large number of the major projects — ones that really require the environmental diligence and the environmental commitment to review — have been delayed primarily because governments, provincial and federal, cannot get their act together.
For the record, and as an example so Senator Mitchell is aware of this as well, in the uranium mining and milling project in Saskatchewan — which I believe you being the Sierra Club would be aware of — in the environmental assessment required for that project, there was a 19-month delay at the beginning of the review for the Darlington nuclear power plant. The panel review was required to be put in place and it took 12 months to prepare the guidelines for that review. For the Northern Gateway pipeline, which is of concern to all Canadians — in British Columbia and across the country — they are at the beginning of the process and it took eight months to confirm the project would require a review panel. That is government. That is not the proponents.
I can go through a litany and a list of these, and for the record I want to make it very clear that there have been significant delays because governments cannot get together and put their act together. This bill will do that, and I do not know why you would stand in your place and say proponents are largely the responsibility for this, because that is not the case. These are the facts.
Mr. Bennett: Neither of us has given enough statistics to know whether we are talking the facts or not. However, I would point out that that is a resource problem more than anything else. It is not putting enough bodies on the job to get the work done. That has been the hold.
Talking about Darlington, I want to point out that in terms of environmental assessments the original Darlington plant that started to be built in the late 1970s went ahead without an environmental assessment because it was needed in a big rush. Proponents at the time said that it would cost $3.5 billion to build, and then they went ahead and built it without an environmental assessment. In fact, it cost $13 billion to build and as a result, Ontario hydro is basically bankrupt by the year 2000 trying to pay for it.
If it had an environmental assessment done properly in the 1970s, we could have saved the rate payers of Ontario probably $20 billion. That is the point of having good environmental assessments, allowing lots of people to participate and having lots of time to do it.
Senator Lang: I know we are short of time, but I think it is important to realize that the legislation before us will bring discipline into the system for the proponent, for the various governments that are involved, and also stakeholders. It gives us that time and a period. There is also the ability to extend if it is necessary, built in to that legislation. To compare us to 1970 and the laws back then to where we are now is really unfair, and I think you would agree. We could go back to 1860 and talk about logging on the Ottawa Valley if we wanted to go there.
Mr. Bennett: I would like to make one final point on this, if I may. In fact, we are going back to the 1970s because the changes in the act give the minister far more discretion to pass on an environmental assessment the way that Bill Davis did in 1976.
We are actually going backwards with this act. There is no guarantee that having time frames built into the act actually guarantees that those time frames will be met if the government is not prepared to put the resources in. Clearly we are seeing them chop the resources everywhere in the government right now, at the same time saying they are going to do a better job. They are not going to do a better job. They are taking us back to the 1970s. There will be far more Darlingtons and huge messes for our children to clean up and pay for, and that is not responsible.
Senator Lang: I have one other point.
The Chair: Senator Frum has just told me she is giving you her time, so that is 30 seconds.
Senator Lang: I would recommend what the chair says, which is to read the testimony that was brought forward here by officials of the various departments the other day. We had four hours, and they presented a very good case in respect of the fact that there is going to be more money available for the regulatory process than there has been in the past. I would suggest you read that so that you can go to bed with some comfort.
The Chair: Mr. Bennett, on behalf of my colleagues I want to say thank you very much for coming and for the trouble you have taken to prepare. It is never a perfect exchange, but hopefully you feel you got your message out. We certainly feel we had a civilized session with you this morning, and you are welcome any time.
Mr. Bennett: Thank you for having me.
The Chair: Mr. Dave Collyer and Mr. Nick Schultz, President and Vice-President of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, are here. Good morning gentlemen.
Senators, you may wonder why they are here, as today we had set aside for hearing our friends from environmental groups. I received a request from Mr. Collyer because when they were originally scheduled to come there was a scheduling hiccup and there was no way they could make it. I agreed to give them a small amount of time today.
They understand the restrictions, and so you both are very welcome. We have seen you before. We appreciate your ongoing help to this committee in terms of educating us of some of the issues and we are hoping to learn more from you this morning. Without further ado, I can tell you that the Legal Committee is coming in here in about 25 minutes and they are studying citizen's arrest; Senator Baker and I do not want to be arrested, but we think we might be.
You have the floor, and we will play it by ear as we see them moving in to put the clamp on us.
Dave Collyer, President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers: Thanks very much. I will try to keep my remarks relatively short so there is ample opportunity for questions. My name is Dave Collyer, President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which I think all of you know represents the interests of the oil and gas sector of Canada. With me is Nick Schultz, our general counsel. He can respond to all of the difficulty legal questions with regard to the proposed legislation.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on Bill C-38. I think it is a very important piece of legislation. It is very important to our industry. It is going to help attract investment that is required by the oil and gas industry in Canada to create jobs, economic growth and energy security in what I would characterize an increasingly competitive global market.
I would make the observation that we very often get quite focused on what is going on within Canada. I think it is very important when you look at this legislation to think about the fact that we are competing in a global market. If I can use LNG as an example — the liquefied natural gas export proposal off the west coast — we are competing with a number of other countries who want to supply those same markets.
The regulatory process in Canada is on the critical path in terms of getting any of these projects off the ground, and this is not just about what we are doing in Canada. It is how we position ourselves, both from an environmental and economic standpoint, vis-à-vis the competition elsewhere in the world.
In our view, the bill sets out a framework for legislative change that will significantly improve the regulatory review process for natural resource development projects without compromising our record of strong, sustainable development and responsible development in Canada.
The current regulatory process has often led to project delays and cost escalation, which both defer and reduce the employment and revenue benefits that accrue from these projects to Canadians.
I will highlight again that capital is extremely mobile. It is sobering to note that a variety of domestic and international authorities, including the International Energy Agency and the World Economic Forum, have characterized our current regulatory system as being overly complex, redundant, open-ended and a significant threat to Canada's ability to attract the capital necessary to grow our resource sector.
We are encouraged by the measures in Bill C-38. I think that if they are properly implemented they will address many of the issues we have recognized within Canada, which international bodies have recognized as well.
It will not surprise you to know that we strongly disagree with those who allege that Bill C-38 is going to result in lower environmental standards or turn back the clock, as some have described it, on environmental regulation. The existing regulatory process to review and approve, or not approve, industrial activity in Canada has developed incrementally over the years. It has resulted in a patchwork of requirements that are confusing, overlapping, often conflicting and, frankly, ultimately uncertain. We think the existing process undermines competitiveness, negatively impacts project economics, and does not contribute to better environmental outcomes. More regulation is not necessarily better regulation; in fact, it is often quite the opposite.
It is rather disingenuous to represent that these changes came out of left field without any notification or awareness. Regulatory reform has been discussed in Canada over an extended period of time — years, not weeks or months. Many stakeholders have had an opportunity to express their views during that process. It has certainly not been a secret that the Canadian government has been looking at regulatory reform for an extended period of time, and I think it is fair to assume that those who have brought forward these recommendations in the civil service have had ample opportunity to hear from and consider the views of the broad diversity of stakeholders, industry included, but certainly extending well beyond industry.
I will briefly touch on what we think are the key elements of Bill C-38. One project, one review for the purpose of reducing and, we hope, largely eliminating redundancy and overlap in the process is about overlap and redundancy between levels of the federal and provincial governments.
Another important dimension of this discussion is being clear about what is policy, what is regulation and what is permitting. Part of the challenge in our current regulatory process is that too often we end up continuing to dialogue in the regulatory process about what we would view as fundamental public policy decisions. The regulatory process is for the purpose of reviewing projects. I argue that public policy is distinct from that, and it is important to think about this in the context that we have a broad public policy framework within which the regulatory process is embedded. There is overlap and duplication between levels of government, and I think there is also confusion in the process about what is an appropriate public policy decision vis-à-vis what is an appropriate regulatory decision.
The consolidation of regulatory bodies is common sense regulatory reform. The notion of a risk-based regulatory review process is extremely important. Allocating resources to those projects that have the greatest potential for environmental impact is a fundamental underpinning of the proposed changes, and we think that clarity and predictability in the regulatory review process largely through timeline is also very important.
Further to a question that was asked in the previous session, it is clear from everything we have heard that if the proponent needs to substantively revise the project description or the input that they are provided, that will extend the timelines. It is incumbent on the project proponent to bring forward a complete application, and our understanding is that the timelines will be administered in that context.
To conclude, we think this is the right legislation at the right time. There has been ample opportunity for a broad diversity of stakeholders to provide input to the broader consideration of regulatory reform over an extended period of time, and it is time to get on with this. In doing so, we will improve the process, ensure that we continue to have responsible environmental outcomes and thereby enable Canada to be more competitive and attract the kind of investment we need to grow the economy.
We welcome your questions.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you Mr. Collyer. I appreciate your being here. In your previous life you organized my last trip to the oil sands.
You are saying that your industry and perhaps CAPP has been specifically consulted. Did you have a chance to see this legislation in draft form?
Mr. Collyer: We did not see the draft legislation. We were consulted, as were a broad range of stakeholders, in the budget process. I had a meeting with Minister Flaherty on a broader range of issues, along with many others. We provided input on our views on regulatory reform, and I know that many other people have as well.
Senator Mitchell: When you talk about the need for changes and better regulations to get better environmental outcomes, what regulatory changes would have been useful to get the tailings ponds cleaned up sooner? I know that is an ongoing problem, and I think it is a visual problem for the oil sands. That is very unfortunate because it makes a great visual for people who want to attack it.
Do we need timelines to get the tailings ponds fixed? Do we need timelines to get the land reclamation fixed? If we want to talk about timelines and regulatory changes to make better outcomes, why are we not advocating for those kinds of things?
Mr. Collyer: I would first observe that there is a lot of work going on to deal with the issues that you raise. There is a very strong incentive for industry, for a variety of reasons, to deal with those. You probably heard that there are some very encouraging developments with respect to technology that will significantly accelerate the reclamation of tailings ponds and reduce their impact going forward. That is all part of the regulatory review process for projects.
I want to emphasize that in our view this is not about changing outcomes. It is about improving the process by which we get to regulatory decisions. The outcomes, whether tailings ponds need to be reclaimed in two years, five years, ten years or whatever length of time, will still be decisions made by the responsible regulators. In our view, none of this is changed by the outcome of the regulatory process, and the environmental outcome that follows from that is not impacted by these changes. If anything, I think redirecting effort and resources to those projects that have more significant environmental impacts, or potential for more significant environmental impacts, will ensure that they are appropriately scrutinized.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on outcomes and the regulatory process. We hear, on the one hand, that these changes will provide for less scrutiny from the environmental point of view in the regulatory process and, on the other hand, you have just stated these changes will provide stability and also further diligence because the resources will be there to scrutinize major projects.
I want you to comment on another aspect of this that I think gets overlooked, and that is the legal responsibilities that proponents and government have with respect to completing a regulatory process properly. If it is not done properly, would you not be facing legal challenges to the process that would prevent you from proceeding as a proponent? Is it not to everyone's benefit to ensure that everything is covered off during that process?
Mr. Collyer: I will invite my lawyer to add to my comment, but I will provide the non-legal answer.
I think a credible, efficient and effective regulatory process is very important in terms of environmental outcomes. It is also very important in terms of social licence, if you will, that we as Canadians and we as industry need to be concerned about.
A more complex, confusing and unnecessarily long regulatory process does nothing to address that issue. We need an efficient process that gets the right issues on the table and gets them dealt with efficiently and effectively. That is what delivers social licence, not an extended process that is unnecessarily redundant and complex.
Mr. Schultz: The short answer to your question is, yes. The failure by the proponent to provide the required information and the failure of the regulator to look at the things they are required to look at would result absolutely in legal challenge.
Senator Frum: We heard from Mr. Bennett and Mr. Amos, who made the case that if you account for what causes the delays in the process, you will find that in the majority of cases it is the proponent who delays the process. You touched on this in your comments. Could you address that point, please?
Mr. Collyer: From my perspective, the answer to that question is that many factors, often beyond the control of the proponents, lead to lengthy regulatory delays. I will give specific examples. Shell has an application in front of the federal government for a new oil sands mine at Fort McMurray. It took four years to get the terms of reference finalized for that review by the federal government. In the meantime, the provincial environmental assessment has been done. It is hard to attribute that delay to the project proponent.
I was personally involved in the Mackenzie Gas Project review. Some elements were the responsibility of the proponent, but I would argue that there were many external factors that led to the very extensive regulatory review process. I do not want to represent that it is never the proponent. As I mentioned earlier, the proposed legislation deals with that. If it is the proponent's responsibility, the timeline gets extended in a substantial way.
Many other factors are unnecessarily extending the regulatory process in Canada that need to be addressed; and this proposed legislation does that.
Senator Brown: Two new projects are being used to bring up the oil from the bitumen. I believe one is superheated steam and the other is a solvent. Can you tell us whether that process is getting better all the time? Do you know very much about what is happening on those projects in the oil sands?
Mr. Collyer: I am not a technical expert, but I know a bit about it. The greatest single opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands is to improve the in situ recovery process. Effectively, in situ or drillable recovery technology is about how much energy you put into the system to recover oil. This is all about reducing the energy that goes in to recover each barrel of oil. Solvents and other innovative recovery techniques, such as lowering the temperature of the recovery process and so on, are driving a significant improvement in the process. It offers great potential going forward.
Senator Brown: Is the solvent better than the superheated steam?
Mr. Collyer: Are we seeing reductions in the steam requirements by using solvent?
Senator Brown: No. I am asking whether the solvent process will be better than the steam process.
Mr. Collyer: Currently, they are being used in a complementary way. Solvent is being used in conjunction with steam to improve the recovery process. Over time, if we can get to the point where we use significantly less steam, it will be much improved in terms of greenhouse gas impact. Whether it provides commensurate benefit in terms of recovery process has yet to be seen; but it holds a lot of promise.
The Chair: Gentlemen have you had a chance to set out your points today? We have your brief, but is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Schultz: Mr. Chair, I would add one thing. One of the most important aspects of the changes to the CEAA is the strengthening of the commitment to work with the provinces in a way that will reduce duplication. Reduction of duplication was stated clearly as a goal of the CEAA when it was first brought in twenty years ago. It was a goal that was not achieved. In this proposed legislation, there is a renewed commitment to do that. We think it is extremely important that that proceed and not become frustrated with minor issues. It will be important that the will to do that be carried through.
The Chair: Is it your understanding, as it is ours, that the provinces have expressed willingness to collaborate in this regard?
Mr. Schultz: It has been the clear signal from the provinces from the very beginning. The stumbling blocks have been the complexity of the federal approach coupled with a view at the federal level that perhaps ``father knows best.'' I think it requires more of a conversation between equals and an acceptance that there are different ways to achieve good outcomes. They do not have to be identical.
The Chair: You are familiar with the name of this Standing Senate Committee: Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, all of which are provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian conundrum is how to rationalize and work together within this constitutional sort of cross jurisdiction. This committee is constantly wrestling with the role of the federal government and how we can bring the provinces to the table without them feeling that the feds are impinging on their territory. I am sure that this is endemic to the whole subject matter, which is huge to our country.
Mr. Collyer: I would add, by way of wrap up, Mr. Chair, two comments: The first is with regard to implementation. There are two pieces. One is that the resources be provided by government to implement this legislation in the manner in which it is intended. We have seen from all the evidence that has come forward that that is the intention, but it will be important. The second is to Mr. Schultz's point: The collaboration and coordination with provincial governments will be very important. Obviously, it will be a responsibility of both levels of government to make that happen.
Finally, I would like to thank you for accommodating us under rather tight timelines. I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Collyer and Mr. Schultz.
Colleagues, we have had a full, complicated agenda this morning. You have all been great; and I want to thank you very much.
I had intended to have a small brief in camera session, but our numbers have dwindled. It was intended to bring you up to date on the committee's report. I plan to have an in camera meeting on the report next Tuesday. I would like to speak to you individually today to give you the latest news and to send a memo, which I have not drafted yet. I will get it out before the weekend. Things are going well.
You will have heard me standing in the Senate to ask for an extension of our mandate beyond June 29 to September 28, when I will no longer be wearing this pin. You will also hear me asking permission to file our report during the summer, before July 21, when I will still be wearing the pin.
We have logistical issues that make it at least 50 per cent likely that we will not make it by June 29. All of this is with an abundance of caution, so we will have our options clear. Everything is going well with our writers, editors and graphics people. Let us keep our fingers crossed. As soon as I have a draft available, I am counting on everyone looking at it for immediate study and input so that we can be sure the report reflects the views of the members of the committee.
Gentlemen, thank you for allowing us to make those comments in your presence.
(The committee adjourned.)