ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 23, 2002

0910

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Chair

0915

Mr. Don Sullivan (Executive Director, Manitoba's Future Forest Alliance)

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. Don Sullivan

0930

The Chair

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere (President, Inverhuron & District Ratepayers Association)

0935

0940

The Chair

Mr. Rodney Northey (Lawyer, Environmental Defence Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Penny Richardson (President, Coalition of Concerned Citizens)

0945

0950

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.))

Mr. Andrew Dumyn (Member, Coalition of Concerned Citizens)

0955

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Ms. Michelle Campbell (Coordinator, Citizen Support Program, Environmental Defence Canada)

1000

1005

1010

1015

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance)

1020

Ms. Penny Richardson

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Don Sullivan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

1025

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Mr. Rodney Northey

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Rodney Northey

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

1030

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Don Sullivan

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Don Sullivan

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Rodney Northey

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mrs. Karen Redman

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

1035

Ms. Penny Richardson

Mr. Julian Reed

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

1040

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Ms. Penny Richardson

Mr. Don Sullivan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Rodney Northey

1045

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Mr. Rodney Northey

1050

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Mr. Gary Lunn

1055

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere

Mr. Gary Lunn

Mr. Rodney Northey

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 073

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning. We start this morning with several interesting and powerful witnesses. But before we do that, I'll make a brief comment of a general nature about next week.

We have next week, on Wednesday, the Minister of the Environment, and before and after him--Tuesday and Thursday--the Auditor General's report, volume number 12 on National Defence, and on Thursday the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, from Montreal.

Then it would be my intention to invite the Minister of Fisheries to discuss priorities and policies on environmental assessment emanating from his department, one of the reasons being the decision made by the Minister of Fisheries on the Tay River, one that raises a number of questions. When the clerk is in a position to distribute the letter the minister wrote me on the subject, you will probably understand the reasons why, and I will not take up valuable time on it.

Then we will of course take advantage of the fact that we are sitting in June, and perhaps in July and August, to examine the bill and to start studying it. There are a number of amendments that committee members are, I'm told, working on. There is also an amendment that has been sent to us by a colleague of ours who is not a member of the committee, Mr. St-Julien. Then there is that massive presentation by CEAA, which amounts to quite a number of possible amendments. Then there is the study put together by Kristen Douglas and Tim Williams, which is in your hands and which offers the potential of almost one amendment for every clause.

I can assure you not one stone will be left unturned to make this bill more meaningful and significant; therefore we are engaged in a good exercise to give this bill the necessary significance--within the limitations of the rules, of course.

Then--last but not least, of course--we are waiting to receive the amendments from the agency, amendments which have already been defined in general terms by the agency when they appeared before us a month ago.

I welcome the witnesses on behalf of our committee. I will have to absent myself at ten minutes to ten to introduce or register a document in the House of Commons, and I will ask a colleague--hopefully the vice-chair will be here--to take the chair, or otherwise another member.

We have ready to go a number of witnesses, but I know that Madam Redman would like to make an intervention. Please go ahead.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the fact that you're laying before us the time available, but I'm not very clear when we're going to come in with clause-by-clause. Have you turned their thoughts to that, or is it something we as a committee should--at some other date obviously, not to hold up the witnesses--discuss so that we have some kind of specific timeframe?

The Chair: We could discuss the beginning, at least--when we will start. I suppose we'll start in June, but we certainly cannot predict when we will complete the work; I suppose in the fall, considering the volume of amendments that have been produced so far and that are still to come from members of this committee.

So I would imagine that not next week but early in June, whenever the work is completed and compiled and translated and put into a reasonable order--this is a fairly massive operation for the clerk--then we will start, whenever we can.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would merely observe that we're coming up on our first anniversary of this review. I in no way mean to take exception or denigrate the importance of this piece of legislation, because it's clearly highly important to this government and to Canadians, but committee members are often able to get their heads around it and move productive activity forward in a more expeditious manner when we have tighter timelines. Having this drag over the summer and into the fall may not be the best thing for either this committee or this bill. I would suggest that we work on a tighter timeline, and would be happy to enter into this discussion in the near future.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll keep that in mind. I know the lessons of Bill C-5 and CEPA are indications that timelines are very theoretical and abstract business around here, so I don't know how much we can do about that.

Without delay, we will start with Don Sullivan, from Manitoba's Future Forest Alliance. Welcome. The floor is yours. If you can contain your enthusiasm within ten minutes, it will be very helpful, so we can start a round of questions after everybody has had a chance to speak.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Sullivan.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Don Sullivan (Executive Director, Manitoba's Future Forest Alliance): Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the first time I've appeared before a standing committee of Parliament, so bear with me.

I have some maps I would like to hand out to the committee members, so you can get a sort of visual context for my presentation. I believe I sent my presentation out, so I will try to contain my enthusiasm for ten minutes and read the prepared text. Then I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that might arise from my presentation.

I'm here representing the Manitoba's Future Forest Alliance, which is a coalition of many organizations mostly representing folks from the province of Manitoba. My position there is on a voluntary basis. My real job is as coordinator for the Boreal Forest Network, which is the North American arm of the Taiga Rescue Network. The work I did on behalf of Manitoba's Future Forest Alliance was strictly volunteer.

I have taken great pains to make a written presentation, because every time I think about the particular experience I've had with CEAA, I really can't contain my enthusiasm.

Manitoba's Future Forest Alliance is a coalition of citizens and environmental organizations. The alliance has had considerable experience with the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, in the context of the present government's failure to trigger a federal environmental assessment of three major forest projects covering over 15 million hectares on the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border. I hope everybody has the map before them, to get an idea of the scope, size, and nature of the three forest projects I am alluding to in my presentation.

Despite repeated requests by the alliance for the minister to trigger a panel review under section 46 of CEAA and a subsequent court case, the only assessment invoked was a lifecycle analysis of a single 20 foot by 70 foot bridge. The purpose of this submission is not to re-litigate the case, but to focus on the proposed reforms to section 46 and the federal coordination role, and why these reforms do not yet address fundamental problems.

I'm going to put some legislative context to this. Presently, section 46 of the CEAA requires a federal panel review where a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects in another province. Section 47 requires the same, where a project is likely to cause such effects internationally. In the six years of CEAA, the minister has never triggered either section.

A central issue is the use of the term “project” in those sections. While this term is defined in section 2, it has been interpreted extremely narrowly by the federal government, so it does not mean something a proponent proposes, or something that requires federal or provincial regulatory approval. Instead, a project is only something that requires federal approval, and nothing else related to the work or activities requiring approval.

As for federal-provincial coordination, the CEAA presently allows the possibility under section 12, but does not require it.

¿ (0920)

I want to put some facts and some context to you on this particular issue. In 1989 the Manitoba government granted Repap Manitoba a forestry licence for a 12.5 million hectare area—an area larger than New Brunswick and P.E.I. combined. By agreement, the licence was issued by the province in return for Repap constructing and expanding two pulp and paper mills, harvesting over three million cubic metres of timber per year, and constructing over 1,000 kilometres of new permanent and winter roads to access the harvested wood. The province treated the mill development, mill expansion, and harvesting as three separate development proposals.

In 1990 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans screened the entire proposal and triggered a federal panel review under the environmental assessment and review process guidelines order, the predecessor to the CEAA. This review was suspended, pending the clarification of constitutional issues raised in the Oldman Dam litigation.

In 1992, one month after the Oldman Dam litigation confirmed the constitutionality of federal environmental assessment, the proponent, Repap, withdrew their proposal.

In 1994 the Manitoba government granted a new proponent, Louisiana-Pacific, access to 2.6 million hectares overlapping the original 12.5 million hectare area, subject to a commitment to build a new mill and harvest at least 900,000 cubic metres of wood per year.

In 1995, under a modification to the 1989 agreement, the Manitoba government granted Repap a forestry licence to 10.8 million hectares, in return for a new mill, mill expansion, and harvesting of 2.4 million cubic metres of wood per year. A forest management plan submitted by Repap identified the need for 1,400 kilometres of new all-season and winter roads, with over 35 river crossings. The federal government was immediately aware of the entire project, and in fact took specific action to assess the crossings for potential to trigger the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and thus also CEAA. It concluded that at least 20 of these crossings required federal approval. Nevertheless, the federal government refused to trigger CEAA for all crossings, and refused to consider CEAA for the proposed mill changes. Instead, it elected to wait for the proponents to seek approval, even though it had triggered EARPGO in 1990 without any proponent application.

Later in 1995 the Saskatchewan government proposed a forest management licence area of 2.5 million hectares to Saskfor, immediately adjacent to the Repap and LP Manitoba forest management licence areas.

Relying on CEAA, the Alliance wrote three separate letters, unsuccessfully seeking to trigger a federal panel review under section 46 for the Repap, LP, and Saskfor projects.

In 1997 Repap made its first application for Navigable Waters Protection Act approval. DFO approved the application following a screening, which excluded consideration of the road leading to and from the bridge; all other crossings and roads; forest harvesting; the new and expanded mills dependent on the new roads and bridges to obtain timber; and the effect on fisheries and migratory birds from any of the roads and/or harvesting.

In 1997 Tolko Manitoba bought Repap. Provincial hearings on the Tolko project occurred, with negligible federal participation on fisheries, and no consideration of migratory birds.

I just want to give you a little context on the science around this issue. The federal government has exclusive authority over several environmental issues not addressed by any of the provincial regulatory review processes, including fisheries and migratory birds. For the Repap project, the following two events occurred. In 1992 the DFO received a commissioned study that determined that approximately six million hectares of crown land within Repap's forest licence area contained superior quality fish habitat, which would be at high risk from forest harvesting and road construction. Another three million hectares within the area was identified as unknown, because it was too remote to review.

In 1995 and 1997 the federal minister of environment declared that the LP and Repap forestry projects were in an area of national and international importance for migratory birds and their biodiversity. And the minister identified the effects of these forestry products on the habitat as unknown but with potential for continent-wide consequences.

¿ (0925)

Neither of these issues has ever received scrutiny under CEAA for the Repap, LP, or Saskfor projects.

It also bears noting that the federal government was the first signatory to the Biodiversity Convention, which was subsequently ratified in 1992. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has also published a guide to assessing biodiversity impacts. Nevertheless, there was no consideration of biodiversity impacts, even for an assessment limited to a bridge and the physical effects of other bridges.

This follows the court case I was involved in. Following Repap—

The Chair: Mr. Sullivan, it is a very interesting presentation. If you could, summarize and conclude now, please.

Mr. Don Sullivan: I am really close to summarizing and concluding.

Following Repap receiving the Navigable Waters Protection Act permits, the alliance took the federal government to court to seek a declaration that for CEAA the project included mills, roads, and harvesting and that the project required consideration for cumulative effects, including the Repap, LP, and Saskfor projects totalling over fifteen million hectares of land. The court upheld the federal approach to limit the project to a single bridge and to limit cumulative effects to the navigation effects of the bridge and other bridges. The court also assessed court costs against the alliance and its president. Tolko followed this up with a bill for costs of $25,000 and an insistence that this be paid into the court or held in trust before any appeal could proceed.

The federal government then advised that it would not seek court costs. The appeal for this case ended after the Federal Court of Appeal adopted the reasoning of the trial judge in this case, which concluded that the project subject to federal assessment was not the mill, roads, and harvesting but simply the 20 foot by 70 foot Sewap Creek bridge, for which the proponent sought Navigable Waters Protection Act approval for forest harvesting purposes. The alliance subsequently paid Tolko $25,000 in costs.

For years leading up to the proponent's Navigable Waters Protection Act bridge application, the alliance sought to trigger federal panel reviews under section 46 of the CEAA because of the transboundary effects from forest harvesting of the proposed Repap-Tolko and LP projects. Each of these requests was denied. Thus, the interprovincial and international effects of mill expansion leading to effluent discharge into interprovincial waters and of forest harvesting destroying internationally significant bird habitat and millions of hectares of high-quality fish habitat were never considered by the minister.

The proposed reforms to section 46 correct some problems, but do not address the fundamental issue of what constitutes a project for the purpose of environmental assessment. By not properly addressing this issue, the minister's twin objectives of having a certain and predictable process are not achieved.

As presently interpreted by the government, there is a fundamental contradiction between sections 5 and 15, projects requiring assessments and the scope of the project on the one hand, and sections 46, 47, and 48, environmental effects on lands of federal interest, on the other. Under sections 5 and 15, government treats a project as very limited: it is the life cycle of a single physical work. If a road crosses a stream and thus requires federal approval, it is not the road but the bridge that is the federal project. The federal government has also interpreted the section 16 duty to consider the project in combination with other projects in such a way that the road is not even another project for cumulative-effects purposes.

However, under section 46, the project as a whole is viewed as the thing that may cause transboundary effects. It is the entire project that is considered, without any division, with respect to federal approval. In fact, under the present wording of CEAA, a section 46 project cannot involve any federal approval or the section is inapplicable. Thus, a section 46 project should be the whole forestry project proposed by the proponents, including the bridges, the roads, the mills, and the harvesting, such as the 11 million hectare project proposed by Repap in 1995. Yet section 46 uses the same term “project”, that the federal government considers under sections 5 and 15 to be a bridge only with no regard to new roads, other bridges, harvesting, or mills.

The act needs to be reformed to correct this contradiction regarding the meaning of “project”. The alliance recommends that a subsection be added to section 46 as follows—

The Chair: Would you mind just completing that paragraph and concluding, please, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Don Sullivan: The alliance also recommends reform of the federal coordinator's role so the coordinator has authority to ensure the timely triggering of CEAA and the involvement of federal authorities. The Tolko project underwent years of provincial review, including hearings, with little to no federal participation. That should not occur again. The federal government has the power and duty to intervene immediately in regulatory reviews in cases of the scale of these forestry projects that affect federal interests.

CEAA should be amended to ensure that its purpose of federal-provincial coordination and consultation are met and not left to discretion. The alliance recommends the proposed paragraph 12.2(e) be amended, and the wording is in there.

¿ (0930)

In conclusion, the purpose and goals of CEAA are broad and should ensure that projects do not result in significant adverse environmental effects. The drafters of the legislation did not intend that project to be subdivided to the point where such effects could be ignored. Put another way, if the above-noted facts had been put to the committee originally considering the legislation and then it had been told that CEAA could be interpreted so as to commit only a life cycle analysis of a 20 foot by 70 foot bridge, it is almost certain that amendments would have been made to prevent such a situation from occurring.

Bill C-19 does not contain the necessary amendments to prevent another occurrence of a project being subdivided to the point of non-significance. The alliance is asking the committee to act now to ensure that the purposes and goals of CEAA are truly achieved.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. This is quite an historical document and you're to be commended for having put the chronology of events on paper for us. This is a very important contribution you've made to the committee.

We have now guest number two, Normand de la Chevrotiere. À vous la parole, monsieur.

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere (President, Inverhuron & District Ratepayers Association): I'm here today representing a volunteer community association of approximately 300 families in a hamlet called Inverhuron, Ontario. It's on the Lake Huron shoreline and is immediately next to the Bruce nuclear complex.

I'd like to emphasize that we're not anti-nuclear and that this is not a “not in my backyard” problem. But let me take a little time to describe what is in our backyard right now.

The Bruce nuclear complex is the world's largest such facility. It has nine nuclear reactors and a heavy water production facility, which in the past has emitted hydrogen sulphide gas. It has Canada's only production facility that burns radioactive waste, and in the past it has emitted levels of dioxins and furans hundreds of times in excess of national limits. It has two dedicated radioactive waste storage sites that store not only what's produced at Bruce, but also what is imported from Pickering and Darlington, all Ontario Power Generation facilities, and both of those existing waste sites are already documented as leaking radioactive contaminants into the groundwater.

We're concerned about local food. As an example, an apple has been tested at 900 times natural background radiation levels, fish at over 25 times, and drinking water up to 50 times.

There are troublesome increases in prostate and colorectal cancer rates. There's a 40% increase in childhood leukemia deaths around Bruce and Pickering, and there are two documented cases of progeria within a 25-kilometre radius of the Bruce plant. Progeria is advance aging disease in children. These are statistics, but when you see a six-year-old child who looks like sixty and who dies before the age of nine, it breaks your heart.

We already have a number of concerns with this facility, and now the latest development is a new high-level waste storage facility for used fuel bundles. This is the most toxic and deadliest of all industrial waste products. A used fuel bundle is about 50 centimetres long and about the diameter of a fireplace log. So it's just a little bit bigger than a fireplace log. It is so toxic that a person standing within a metre of it would receive a lethal dose of radiation in seconds and would be dead within an hour. This facility would house up to three-quarters of a million used fuel bundles in addition to what's already there, and that's only half of what's projected at the Bruce site, some 40,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste. It would be to date the world's largest nuclear waste storage facility.

So when it came time to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, we thought, “This is a slam dunk. If anything deserves a panel review, this has to be it. But we'd better not be complacent. We'd better participate in the process.” We spent thousands upon thousands of dollars of our own money because we had no access to intervener funding. We hired experts, who uncovered a number of apparent inadequacies and uncertainties.

We weren't the only ones who were concerned. There was the local MP, Ovid Jackson; the local medical officer of health; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; the Chippewas of Nawash; and the Saugeen First Nation. There was overwhelming public concern in terms of asking for what we thought was very reasonable: an independent and expert assessment. We didn't get it. We couldn't believe we didn't get it. It would appear that the public concern trigger for panel review is only lip service.

Then we had absolutely no other recourse than to go through litigation. It's not as if we enjoy taking the federal government to court. It's more like, oh God, do we really have to do this? At that point we filed in the Federal Court trial division an application to seek judicial review of the minister's decision for panel review. Through the discovery process, to our amazement we found a paper trail of letters from the Atomic Energy Control Board, our regulator, and Ontario Hydro.

¿ (0935)

Ontario Hydro changed the project materially in the middle of the public comment period and didn't tell the public. The Atomic Energy Control Board recognized that. It wrote letters to at least four government departments to say that there were three major design changes that needed to be studied and that information about them needed to be disseminated to the public, so there was need for an additional public comment period. Even Ontario Hydro's own consultant said there needed to be major changes to both the safety report and the environmental assessment report on the part of Hydro.

Ontario Hydro subsequently wrote back, basically to say that it was running out of time and couldn't afford any more delays under regulatory processes. It promised to give a response to public concerns within a month. It did not. The Atomic Energy Control Board reversed its position and recommended approval of the project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency agreed. Within two months the minister approved it. The project was done.

We only found out about these documents because we took the federal government to court—not much of a transparent process. Since we had a strong case before us, we now thought this would be a fait accompli. It could not have been any clearer; yet the trial division ruled against us, and awarded costs against us to be paid to Ontario Hydro and the federal government.

We appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal: no, again. We sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and not only did it deny our application, it awarded even more costs against us. So now, on top of absorbing costs to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, on top of the costs to pay our lawyers, we have to pay $100,000 to Ontario Hydro and the federal government because we were concerned about our children's health.

I cannot tell you the stress this has caused. It has gutted our community. It has taken a terrible toll on me personally. It has strained my relationship with my wife. It has impacted my work and career in ways I'm even embarrassed to admit. My employer is working under the funny notion that I should be spending more time working for the company than for this volunteer effort.

But when our children ask us, “What the hell happened here?” we can look them straight in the eye, hold our heads up high and say “We did everything humanly possible. We exhausted every regulatory avenue. We exhausted every legal avenue. We did not fail you; the system and the government failed you.”

This has left us so absolutely disillusioned that we're wondering why we even have a government. Why do we have a regulator? Why do we even have a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? If the world's largest nuclear waste storage facility, housing the most toxic and deadliest of all industrial waste products, does not merit a panel review, what would?

I am here imploring this committee, I'm begging this committee, to please make changes to the act so no other citizens' group has to go through the ordeal we went through. Projects of this scope and magnitude should be subject to a panel review and should be mandatory. All relevant information has to be on the public record and it should be guaranteed. I'm asking this committee to please do that.

Thank you for your time and attention.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. de la Chevrotiere, for your very moving presentation. We will certainly take to heart your experience and your request. I notice you have amendments indicated in your paper, several deletions you are proposing. We will certainly look at them very carefully.

I now call on Environmental Defence Canada.

Mr. Rodney Northey (Lawyer, Environmental Defence Canada): I've asked the representatives from the Coalition of Concerned Citizens if they would go next in line.

The Chair: That would be fine.

Ms. Penny Richardson (President, Coalition of Concerned Citizens): My name is Penny Richardson, and I represent the Coalition of Concerned Citizens in Caledon. Supporters consist of approximately 3,000 people now. Thank you very much for hearing our presentation. I'm going to present part of this, and Andrew Dumyn will report the latter part.

The coalition was formed in 1997 in response to a proposal by James Dick Construction Limited to build and operate the Rockford Quarry in the western part of the town of Caledon, in the headwaters of the Credit River, a significant cold-water fishery. The planned rate of extraction from the quarry for 30 years will be up to 2.5 million tonnes of aggregate per year, with virtually all of the valuable aggregate lying below the water table.

Since 1999 the DFO has acknowledged that if CEAA were triggered, the quarry would fall into the comprehensive study category, pursuant to the comprehensive study list regulations.

JDCL's studies also show that the construction and operation of the quarry will cause a harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat on three sides of the quarry.

For almost four years, the coalition, the Town of Caledon, and other local regulatory authorities have spent significant time and resources trying to obtain and then review information on the quarry. As early as 1998, for example, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority raised detailed concerns about the quarry's effects on fisheries and fish habitat and the need for additional information. The DFO was advised of these concerns formally in May 1998. The DFO did not intervene, even though the authority did not have the DFO powers to require JDCL to provide information in a timely or comprehensive fashion.

After 18 months, with the coalition nudging all the time, and without any response from JDCL, the authority referred the project to the DFO. In turn, in October 1999 the DFO advised JDCL of its interest in the project and requested information.

Following a meeting with ministerial staff and the director general of habitat management in February 2000, the coalition's legal counsel was advised the quarry would be subject to a CEAA comprehensive study. It was clear the DFO had concluded the quarry would likely cause a HADD. However, after advising JDCL of this conclusion, DFO management reversed its position. We had the letter in hand. We understand this was done on the basis of assurances by JDCL that it would make important revisions to the design and operation of the quarry, in order to avoid HADD.

The DFO has asked their parties, including the coalition, to submit comments on the material filed to date by JDCL. At the same time, we understand DFO has chosen not to consult Environment Canada, the principal federal body with expertise in water resources and hydrogeology.

Over this same period of time, JDCL proceeded to file initial applications under the provincial and municipal regulatory processes to commence the informal hearing in front of the Ontario Municipal Board. Early in the hearing, JDCL advised the board that its application for a site approval was complete years ago. In particular, in October 2000, counsel for JDCL informed the board the Rockford applications were complete, and a comprehensive application package, including technical reports and studies, had been filed with the Town of Caledon on or before March 1998, thus there were no changes to the site design or the quarry.

Even though the coalition formally advised DFO of JDCL's position before the board, the DFO has still failed to act on its March 2000 conclusion that the existing design and mitigation would cause a HADD.

Comprehensive study under CEAA is not intended to kill a project; instead, it is intended to ensure a proper assessment is completed in a timely way before irrevocable decisions are made, including assessment of alternative needs of carrying out the quarry project and their environmental effects, mitigation measures, and cumulative effects associated with the quarry. These elements of assessment would provide a scope and rigour on topics like fisheries that would not be contemplated by current provincial and municipal regulatory processes.

The CEAA requires the environmental assessment of a project as early as practicable in the planning stages of the project, and before a federal authority like the DFO takes any designated action to enable the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

¿ (0945)

The CEAA regulations designate section 35(2) authorizations and section 37(2) orders as actions triggering an environmental assessment. Further, CEAA regulation SOR/97-181, the “coordination regulation”, provides a number of requirements around what triggers the CEAA. This regulation came into force in April 1997. According to section 3 of this coordination regulation, where the DFO receives a project description it shall, within 30 days—not two years—of the receipt of the information, determine if: (1) the DFO is likely to require an environmental assessment of the project; (2) the DFO is not likely to require an environmental assessment of the project, or (3) the DFO requires additional information to make either of these determinations.

This approach to triggering CEAA makes sense, since CEAA imposes legislative requirements to consider mitigation measures after assessment is triggered. This approach is also consistent with the Fisheries Act and the 1986 DFO policy on fish habitats, since the Fisheries Act provides DFO with authority to require an authorization for any project or work likely to cause HADD, with provision for DFO to add conditions to avoid or mitigate HADD. The policy triggers DFO review of any project that may cause HADD, without regard to mitigation, and makes provision for the review to determine if any mitigation will work.

However, despite this history, DFO has adopted an internal practice to entirely ignore or subvert law, regulation, and policy. By this practice, DFO will not require an authorization or trigger any environmental assessment until after: (1) it has received complete information on possible measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on fish habitat; (2) it has concluded that prevention and mitigation will not work; and (3) it has concluded that compensation for lost fish habitat is appropriate.

The Fisheries Act refers to mitigation and provides no reference to compensation. Under CEAA, compensation is an aspect of mitigation and the coordination regulation makes no reference to either.

In addition to this controversial approach to legal requirements, we also say that this DFO practice is duplicative and inefficient. It makes no sense to us to assess mitigation options internally in order to determine that mitigation won't work, and then trigger a process that assesses mitigation options.

Another obvious effect of the DFO failing to trigger environmental assessment and comprehensive study almost four years into the regulatory process is that DFO is applying a “behind closed doors” process. I can't tell you how many thousands of dollars we have spent getting the information from the Freedom of Information Act in order that we know what is going on. It's absolutely incredible to me.

Panel review provides even more onerous public involvement and transparency requirements. As stated above, JDCL has already commenced obtaining provincial authority for the quarry. The CEAA makes explicit provision for joint project reviews by panels of provincial regulatory authorities. This is the dominant approach to major projects in several provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia, yet as the result of DFO's approach, it is conceivable that the quarry will possibly only trigger a comprehensive study after the provincial regulatory process is completed.

This would resemble the approach taken by the DFO in the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Far from meeting federal objectives for coordination and harmonization with provincial authorities, the DFO appears to be pursuing policy that works in isolation from other jurisdictions.

To summarize my part, CEAA says trigger an assessment as early as practicable in the planning stages of the project. The coordination regulation requires the triggering of an assessment in 40 days or less on the basis of a project description that does not include mitigation. The comprehensive study list regulation sets out the projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects—including stone quarries with a production capacity of one million tonnes or more per year—and requiring comprehensive study. But the DFO has an internal, untimed, non-legal, behind-closed-doors practice of not triggering assessment on even major projects until it concludes that prevention and mitigation of the environmental effects cannot work.

¿ (0950)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)): Thank you very much.

Mr. Dumyn.

Mr. Andrew Dumyn (Member, Coalition of Concerned Citizens): Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would just like to conclude.

The purpose of the coalition's participation before the standing committee is as follows. Given your mandate, the coalition would like to comment on first, the role and duties of the proposed federal environmental assessment coordinator; second, proposed amendments to purposes of the CEAA dealing with cooperation and coordination; and third, proposed amendments to the public registry.

In our view, the amendments to provide for a coordinator do not go far enough to meet the purpose of cooperation and coordination. As we read the amendments, there is no role for the coordinator until the CEAA is triggered. We believe it is fundamental that either the coordinator have a role triggering the CEAA or that the CEAA be automatically triggered for projects that may require a federal decision, particularly if comprehensive study is involved.

We have witnessed now almost four years of the DFO doing everything it can to avoid triggering the CEAA for this project. There are literally feet of studies from all sides showing the complexity of this project in relation to its setting and water and fisheries resources. These documents are the result of DFO giving James Dick Construction three separate opportunities to claim that mitigation will work and there is no need to engage either the Fisheries Act or the CEAA.

As we see it, mitigation is a key feature of why environmental assessment must be triggered, not a reason to avoid assessment.

Secondly, we say that more must be done to require coordination with provincial regulatory authorities. We do not understand how it is that Alberta has several examples of joint federal-provincial hearings, yet there is no such requirement in Ontario for hearings involving either the Ontario Municipal Board or the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Again, we strongly recommend that CEAA be amended to automatically trigger, at minimum, federal involvement in any provincial regulatory hearing on a project that may trigger CEAA, unless and until it is clear there will be no federal involvement.

We also believe that CEAA must provide stronger requirements for a joint federal-provincial panel membership in any triggered provincial hearing for a project that involves a federal comprehensive study.

Thirdly, while the coalition supports the establishment of a federal environmental assessment coordinator, his or her duties as prescribed by proposed section 12.2 do not go far enough in ensuring that specialist or expert information is in fact obtained and used in the environmental assessment process. In our view, simply “coordinating” federal authorities' involvement does not go far enough. The coordinator should also ensure that experts within departments provide their expertise and have the legal authority to provide such expertise without being managed by those without expertise.

Our experience suggests that the managers are dictating federal results, even on complex technical issues. On this point we would also suggest that, like the requirements for federal panel members, the CEAA provide no person may be a federal coordinator without “knowledge or expertise relevant to the anticipated environmental effects of the project”.

Fourthly, in circumstances like the quarry project where the federal authority is contemplating triggering CEAA, it is clear that all relevant documents should be placed on the registry. The public should not have to use the Access to Information Act to obtain information on what the federal authority is reviewing and what it is proposing to do. Under the Access to Information Act, the coalition has only received that information the DFO has chosen to release, and such information has generally been at least three months out of date.

In addition, we note that even under proposed section 55, in the event that CEAA is triggered the DFO will still have no obligation to put all relevant documents, such as scientific and technical records, on the registry.

We would recommend that proposed subsection 55(3) be amended to provide the agency with the power to order responsible authorities, on a case-by-case basis, to include specific documents on the registry, in addition to those set out in proposed subsection 55(2).

¿ (0955)

In conclusion, the coalition has expended significant time and resources seeking to have DFO do what it proposed to do in February 2000, namely, trigger a comprehensive study of a core project expected to have effects on water and fisheries 50 years after extraction concludes. This raises obvious questions about how mitigation will be carried out after all the profits have been made.

The federal regulatory process, as currently interpreted and applied, has failed to be integrated, precautionary, accountable, timely, transparent, or adequately consultative. To overcome these deficiencies for future projects, Bill C-19 must be amended to account for the above-noted recommendations. Otherwise, responsible authorities such as the DFO will continue to avoid using CEAA to adequately capture and assess projects, which will likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Dumyn and Madam Richardson.

Now we will hear from Madam Campbell and Mr. Northey from the Environmental Defence Fund Canada.

Ms. Michelle Campbell (Coordinator, Citizen Support Program, Environmental Defence Canada): Thank you very much. I'm the citizen support program coordinator at Environmental Defence Canada. We were formerly known as the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, and I think some of you may be more familiar with us under that name.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about the proposed amendments to CEAA. By now you've heard from other environmental law organizations across Canada, such as the Environmental Law Centre and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. Environmental Defence Canada supports the particular submissions made by Sierra Legal, but we're here today to talk about broader issues of public participation and access to information in environmental assessment. I just have a few comments to make, and then I will hand it over to my colleague Rod Northey, who will speak about the more technical aspects of the proposed reform.

Environmental Defence Canada is different from the other environmental law organizations you've heard of in that we don't take over law cases from citizen groups. Rather, we make resources available to citizens to continue to work for environmental protection by participating in environmental decision-making, environmental law cases, and policy reform.

We're a capacity-building organization. We help citizens and citizen groups find appropriate lawyers and experts to help them. We help raise funds for them so they can gain access to the legal system and we help with communications and public awareness. Since 1985 we've helped hundreds of citizens and citizen groups, and several dozen of those cases were or are currently regarding federal environmental assessment.

I'm here today to tell you, on behalf of all the Canadians who can't be here themselves, that Canadians aren't being served by CEAA. You've heard personally from four of our clients who have had disastrous experiences with CEAA. Three of them have just appeared before you, and John Lavoie appeared some weeks ago regarding the destruction of Ontario's largest wilderness waterfall.

For each of these, we are aware of at least ten more stories like them across the country regarding how CEAA has failed Canadians. I know because these Canadians from all across the country call me for help on a regular basis, and I really want to be able to tell them that CEAA can help them. I want to be able to tell them it is a good tool for them to use to ensure public participation in environmental decision-making, but as it stands right now it's hard for me to do so. More and more it is becoming clear that CEAA is not a good tool for citizen participation, despite what we believe it was designed to do.

Environmental Defence Canada had higher hopes for CEAA. We thought it would be better than the old EARPGO system, and we still believe it was designed to do more than it is doing for citizen participation, but as it stands right now, it's not working. If it were better than the previous process, how could 11 million hectares of boreal forest be approved for cutting with no more than an environmental assessment of one bridge? How could the world's largest nuclear waste dump be assessed without a panel review? How could the destruction of Ontario's largest wilderness waterfall be approved before citizens could even gain access to the information regarding the environmental assessment? We expected this new federal law to do more to protect the environment and increase public participation, but the harsh reality is that it has not decreased arbitrary and discretionary decision-making and it has not increased government accountability.

In the absence of a functioning CEAA, it is very difficult for me to help citizens participate in the process. However, what CEAA does do very effectively right now is force citizens to go to court to demand a say. The four citizens and citizen groups we're helping that you've heard from already have had to incur enormous expense on judicial review, as they've told you, and that's because CEAA didn't work. Some have even been hit with enormous adverse cost awards for bringing their cases forth in the public interest. The courts should not be a substitute for a functioning effective environmental assessment law. We believe CEAA can be more, and we would like to suggest how it can be fixed to ensure meaningful public participation and access to information.

At this point I'd like to call on my colleague Rod Northey, who we have retained to articulate the more technical aspects of our position. Rod Northey is a partner at the law firm Birchall Northey and has extensive experience with environmental assessment issues. In fact, he wrote this book, which some of you may be familiar with, which is an annotation of the federal Environmental Assessment Act. It was written in 1994. He has a long relationship with environmental defence. He's past president of the organization and he's argued several of our federal environmental assessment cases.

Rod.

À (1000)

Mr. Rodney Northey: Thanks, Michelle, and I'm also familiar with some of the other stories you've heard today.

I'm very pleased to speak to this committee, because frankly I've been dealing with environmental assessment in virtually every public forum, court, and discussion and with bureaucrats, multi-party stakeholder groups, and all that kind of thing, yet we haven't have much of a say before Parliament. I'm particularly pleased to come here today to talk about something that should be of interest to this group, which is, what is the relationship between environmental assessment and democracy? I'm going to pitch it that high because I want to say to you that you should regard environmental assessment a bit as we do a canary in a mine.

What you have been hearing today should strike you all as an incredible warning that citizens across this country are not getting democracy when they try to deal with environmental matters. Not only are they not getting democracy, they're being pushed off to other fora that are not democratic and being hit with awards that discourage further participation. I'm here today to talk to you, who are now sitting at the pinnacle of democracy in Canada, about what this committee and what democracy in Canada should stand for as concerns environmental assessment. I have three points.

The first point is that this legislation, CEAA, is the result of 20 years of non-parliamentary review in environmental assessment. It started with a cabinet policy in the early 1970s, it proceeded to a cabinet order in the early 1980s, and only in 1992 did Parliament officially weigh in on environmental assessment and make a commitment to it. Yet here we are at the end of a five-year review, and once again Parliament is, remarkably, the last body to weigh in on what a five-year review of CEAA should look like.

We've had the bureaucrats, the public, and everybody else involved in this for some years. Now here we are finally dealing with Parliament, and what you are being told is it's all a fait accompli: The review is done, so worry not. There's no more democracy for this, it's all been sorted out, and just be assured it's working fine.

Well, I want to say that there's a test about democracy that's applicable to you, and the test is whether this legislation provides accountability to the public from those who are not otherwise accountable. I'm not talking about ministers who I think are accountable. I am taking about bureaucrats. What I'm going to say to you is that by any measure of environmental accountability—science, planning, public access, or public involvement—this legislation is a disaster for accountability.

Now, those are very strong words, and let me just follow up with why I say that. When one starts with the issue of what accountability there could be for a public institution and a public piece of legislation, the first thing one might expect is clarity. I'll remind this committee that in 1969 the United States led the world by passing environmental assessment legislation in something called NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. The environmental assessment component of that act is two pages long. That act and that provision are regarded as so clear that despite many errors—and one can think of several different errors not friendly to the environment—NEPA has been virtually unchanged on these points since 1969.

It's because NEPA is regarded as providing a clear vision in two pages that we ask, so what could one do to improve it? I contrast that with what you have before you, which is an act of dozens of pages, requiring implementing regulations of further dozens of pages. At the end of the day, where someone has gone off to court, the courts have held that they're not entirely sure what can be said about it except that there appears to be a great deal of discretion in all aspects of it.

Well, “discretion” is a very interesting word for a piece of law. You don't need law to have discretion. There was discretion for 20 years before CEAA. If all CEAA amounts to is discretion, skip the law, get rid of the whole process, and let's just go back to a cabinet policy. One puts law in place and democracy thrives on law because law provides standards, not just discretion.

À (1005)

The question is, what are the standards CEAA provides? Well, there are not very many. If you look at page 13 of the brief provided, the Environmental Defence Canada brief, there is a list of excerpts from court cases, going through some of what one might say are the key provisions of CEAA. What those excerpts show is that repeatedly where the courts are asked to find duties, the courts find discretion.

I don't want to go through all of that in detail. What I do want to talk about is what's the alternative to court, because it seems to have been lost in this exercise over the last five years in particular.

In 1974 this government's cabinet policy on environmental assessment led to something called “panel review”. Panel review, you should all take note, made Canada a world leader in environmental assessment. There is no other country that had Canada's insight or foresight to do that when Canada did.

What is panel review? Panel review is referring a project off to an independent and expert group, which is then involved in a very public process to review a project's effects. Panel reviews occurred in approximately fifty instances prior to CEAA.

In terms of accountability, you have heard, if you read the minister's statement, some projection or estimate that approximately 30,000 projects have been assessed under CEAA over its period. We're now into seven years, so I don't know exactly what the number would be.

In a measure of accountability, one might say, well, let's ask ourselves, should 1% of those projects get panel review? That would be 300 panel reviews. How many panel reviews have we had? I'm not going to answer that. I'm going to tell you, it hasn't been 300. Is 0.1% a measure of accountability for a statute? That would be 30 panel reviews. We haven't seen that. We have seen 10 panel reviews over the course of CEAA.

I want to get even more specific. CEAA has two routes to panel review: one is a process called “screening”, and another is a process called “comprehensive study”. Comprehensive study is for the bigger projects, and you've heard about that today. But let's talk about screening. Screening applies to more than 99% of all projects subject to CEAA. So more than 30,000 projects have gone through a screening. How many have led to panel review? The answer is, staggeringly, one. So for 30,000 projects, apparently there is no need for independent or expert scrutiny; it has all been figured out.

And I'll put it to you that when you read the act, it's not even that one has to have certainty. Panel review is supposed to be triggered if there is uncertainty about effects. So in 30,000 screenings we don't have anything that is significant? We don't have anything that is even uncertain?

I specifically targeted the bureaucracy on this point, because there are instances, in my personal knowledge, when ministers have requested action and the bureaucrats have refused. You have one of those examples before you today—Caledon, in March 2000. The minister's office ordered that CEAA be triggered. That's March 2000. A letter was written; a letter was sitting in the hands of the bureaucrats to hand across to the proponent. The letter never crossed the desk. We are still without a trigger for that project two years later. The bureaucrats refused, and they continue to refuse.

À (1010)

A second example not before you today, perhaps not subject to this committee at this point, concerns the Diavik Diamond Mine, a project in the Northwest Territories subject to comprehensive study. There was an enormous amount of back and forth internally to get to a minister's decision. But let me just say at the start of this that we ultimately found out the Minister of DIAND wanted it to be referred to a panel at the outset. It was refused. Do I know who refused it? I am not sure, but the fingers appear to point to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, who said that no such panel review was needed. You should confirm that fact.

Those are two interesting examples of ministers trying to do things and bureaucrats stopping them.

Now, panels provide the planning and the science. If you go back to NEPA, the two-pager, you'll see what happens in the U.S.: science and planning are at the heart of NEPA. What does this legislation say about either? Well, I don't have a spell check to do it today, but I don't believe the word “science” appears anywhere in CEAA. I don't believe the word “planning” appears anywhere in CEAA except the preamble.

So what exactly is happening, after all that guidance and all those screenings? What is going on? Well, one gets accountability in planning and science in the panels. If you look at the track record of panels going back the 20 years, you will see that independent experts have a great deal to say about planning. They come up with alternatives that governments and proponents of projects don't want, and they put them on the table. In many instances, government ministers have accepted the recommendations of a panel to go against the wishes of proponents and bureaucrats. How can that occur without a panel review? It simply cannot. You need a panel review to provide that independent scrutiny.

The same thing goes with science. If there are 30,000 assessments that say an effect is not significant, panel review is the only place one's going to get some measure of independence about what the definition of a significant effect is.

I've given you some of the excerpts from court, but let me just say that if you think judicial review is a substitute for panel review, please be aware that the courts will say they do not review science. They do not second-guess any kind of scientific claim in a judicial review. If the government says the moon is blue cheese, the court is not going to second-guess that. “It's blue cheese”, it will say; “let's look at the law.” If the government said a moon shot is a better way of dealing with nuclear waste than leaving it at Inverhuron, well, that would be fine. The court would not second-guess it. Panels can second-guess government. There have been panels in 10 instances; there has been litigation in over sixty. What's going on?

I am concluding, Madam Chair, I say to you that this committee needs to go back to some basics. This assessment process started with panel review and it needs to be reminded of panel review. The minister's own report to you asserts that panel review is a core strength of the act, a core strength used ten times. It would be just as useful to say combating terrorism is a core strength of the act for the amount of use being made of the panel review process.

I conclude by saying please look at what accountability means. Courts do not provide accountability; panels do. Do something. And my final point—I'm a broken record on this to various parties—is that panel review need not be a two-year process. Reform the act. Panel reviews could occur over one month or two months. They can occur for whatever length of time you choose to stipulate.

Perhaps the next time this is reviewed there will be 300 panel reviews before this committee to review, not just ten.

Thank you.

À (1015)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Northey.

Thank you very much, Madam Campbell.

I have Mr. Bailey on the list, Mr. Comartin, Mr. Herron, and then we'll be taking names from the other side.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

After hearing all this, one is almost speechless. Imagine me being speechless; that would be a surprise, wouldn't it?

Thank you very much.

I'm really taken back by all this. While not having served on this committee for all that much time, I happen to have seen the extremities in many things in life. Go back to the days of the TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the CCC, which built the dam just south of where I live, to some of the projects in this country that would still have been built but would have at least gone through the proper channels.

What I'm hearing from you is that there is an almost complete disregard for the legislation that is in place, yet projects are proceeding. That's what I'm hearing, and you clearly pointed out to me that yes indeed, something is being side-stepped, totally omitted, when Mr. Northey mentioned how many instances there were when you used the true input of the democratic process, which to me is basic to this act but isn't being used.

I was extremely interested when you said you found the bureaucrats were all indeed using a position to bypass what the act actually intended to do. I hope that without being specific as to anyone, this committee will spend some time looking at what you people have told us today. It's so big that we could take one meeting for each of you.

I just have one concluding point, Madam Chair, I'd like to make to Mr. Sullivan.

I didn't hear all of your report, Don, but I want to point out that there are changes that take place because of nature itself. For instance, I lived for 12 years right in the middle of the main flyway of Canada geese, their migratory route. I heard all kinds of objections about Gardener Dam, Lake Diefenbaker, and so on. But now, because of the drought in that area, the flyway has changed dramatically. I don't know who told the geese to change it, but they did, and the flight comes down where they can land and feed at night. Many things take place in the environment that are not necessarily caused by man's actions.

And finally, does your organization get any federal funding as such?

À (1020)

Ms. Penny Richardson: None. No.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. That answers a big question of mine.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): This is open to whichever witness would care to respond. Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Don Sullivan: I would like to respond to Mr. Bailey.

I don't question the fact that things change over the course of time. Nature's like that; it's constantly changing. I think I do, though, as a citizen have every reasonable expectation that there will be some transparency when a process is set up and that I'll have some assurance that the federal government is going to do what it's supposed to do, regardless of what the issue is.

For me, it has certainly been a huge, personally stressful, financially reckless nightmare resulting from what I think is a reasonable expectation, a right of us as citizens, that the federal government will do undertakings they're bound to do.

This goes to democracy. It isn't whether there are birds flying in the air. I want to know what the impacts are. I have every reasonable expectation, as does every citizen in Canada, to have information given in a forthright and timely manner and to know not only what the environmental impacts are but what the social and economic impacts of anything are. This is a right in a democracy, and I'm finding this is a huge failure under this act.

That's why I'm trying to contain my enthusiasm, but it's certainly not enthusiasm; it's downright hostility. I am an angry man. I am a person who has suffered greatly because I thought I had a reasonable expectation that a process was going to be followed. I think this is just unbelievable, and I have no words to express the anger I have here about my government's inability to do what they're supposed to do.

I like my country, I like democracy, and I'd like to see both function.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.

There is a total of five minutes for questions and responses as well.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I ask some questions, the chair--I'm not sure you were here at this point--before he started into testimony this morning, indicated we would be having the Minister of the Environment here next week, and then indicated that the.... I think he said--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Comartin, is this a question for witnesses, or is this a question of procedure?

Mr. Joe Comartin: It's a procedural question.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): All right. We'll have a few minutes here on procedure.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I was not clear. He left us with the impression that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was coming--and given what we heard this morning, it's obvious we should have the minister here--but I was not clear as to whether it was an absolute fact.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Are you referring to the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

À (1025)

Mr. Joe Comartin: No, the Minister of Fisheries. He confirmed that the Minister of the Environment is going to be here next Wednesday. He then went on to say that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would be coming. But I have to say I was left with the impression it was not definite that minister was going to be here. So the position I want to take, and I'll indicate Mr. Herron is supportive of me in this regard, is it's an absolute must that minister do appear before we start into clause-by-clause.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes, Mr. Comartin, listening to witness testimony, particularly this morning, when there are a number of questions that are coming before us, seems to suggest it would be indeed very important that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans come before this committee.

On a personal note, I have had many inquiries sent to that office and have a few questions I'd like to ask the minister regarding the bill that's before this committee. I would suggest there's a great deal of urgency to have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans before the committee. Of course, the committee can only invite the said minister. It's up to the minister and the minister's schedule. But I will certainly pass that on to the chair.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The point I am making is that if that minister is not here before this committee, we should not move to clause-by-clause until we hear from him, and I want to pursue that, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Comartin, as I understand, there was a good debate about that before we had the opportunity to speak to witnesses. I would suggest that we have witnesses who have travelled a great distance to be here this morning.

If the committee would like--I don't know what the situation is with the room after 11 o'clock, but perhaps the clerk can find out for us--the committee can have a meeting at 11 o'clock.

I am deeply concerned about having an opportunity to question the witnesses. We have heard incredibly moving testimony and very important testimony this morning. I would suggest very strongly that we get on with that. I think the issue of clause-by-clause is an issue for committee business. I think we need to discuss it; I absolutely agree.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC): I just want 15 seconds.

I think the point Mr. Comartin is trying to express is that there is a heavy emphasis of fisheries aspects related to environmental assessment. I think it would be prudent and responsible for the committee to seek input from the minister and DFO officials before proceeding, because we really don't have the full tool kit. That's our position as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Herron, I thank you for your position. As vice-chair of the committee, I'm acting as chair right now. I'm fully in support of that, but let's get on with witness questioning, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, I want to just take issue with you.

The point I'm trying to make here, and I'm trying to say this to the witnesses, is that we have all been moved by your statements to us and the testimony you've brought to us. What I'm trying to assure you by my statement is that not only should those two ministers be here to respond to--quite frankly--the accusations you've made, but so should somebody from the Atomic Energy Commission.

I'm particularly upset at them, because I went through a bill with them on disposal of nuclear waste, and then they told me nothing, in the course of all the evidence we took at that time, about what they were proposing to do at Bruce. That evidence was not before us; it was a whole other scheme that has in fact gone into legislation, except for the Senate passing it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Comartin, I'm sorry you're taking issue with me, because I'm fully supportive of your intent. I am very concerned, and perhaps we may want to have Atomic EnergyCanada answer some of these questions. Personally, as chair I'm a neutral party, but in my neutral fashion I am appalled, for the record.

Mr. Comartin, you have your five minutes of questioning. You're four seconds into your five minutes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

Mr. de la Chevrotière, with regard to the bringing of the spent rods, have they begun to do that? It wasn't clear from your testimony.

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: The facility is expected to be up and running by this fall. They're constructing it now, and it's just about complete. It will need a licence from the Atomic Energy Control Board to actually come into operation.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you know if that licence has been granted?

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: No, it hasn't. The application will probably be made shortly to have the facility up and running in the fall.

Mr. Rodney Northey: For the information of the committee, that licence does not trigger a Canadian environmental assessment.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Nor does anything else, obviously.

We heard all this testimony when the disposal of the nuclear waste was going through, and none of that came out. The whole thing was that they were going to bury it in the Shield. That's what the legislation now provides for, Madam Chair. I just can't believe that the commission didn't disclose that they were in the process of doing it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I've just spoken with the clerk, and we're going to make a request for witnesses from AECL to come before the committee so that we can have a discussion on this issue.

Mr. Rodney Northey: Madam Chair, it wouldn't be AECL. It would be the new Nuclear Safety Commission, which replaced the AECB.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I have a follow-up question on the costs issue. Have those been paid?

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: We had to put up a $10,000 security for costs at the appeal level. We did lose, and in good conscience we had to release those funds. We released them to Ontario Hydro. We haven't paid the balance of Ontario Hydro's costs award, nor have we paid the government's. As you can appreciate, financially we're pretty strapped. Ontario Hydro's costs award continues to accrue at the maximum interest rate allowable of 7%.

À (1030)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Were the costs awarded against individuals or the association?

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: It was against the association.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Collectively.

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: That's right. There is a very good chance that we'll be forced into bankruptcy.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Have any steps been taken by either Ontario Hydro or the federal government to enforce the costs awards?

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: Two days after the Supreme Court decision denying the application, Ontario Hydro was knocking at our door for its money with interest. The federal government subsequently asked for its money as well. We've asked if we could meet with representatives of the government and Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro said it only wanted to deal through the lawyers, and we have yet to receive a response from the federal government.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Sullivan, I understand that your group did pay the costs that were awarded against you.

Mr. Don Sullivan: Yes. The federal government didn't come after us for its portion of the costs. By the nature of the legal suit, Tolko vigorously pursued its money and got it.

Mr. Joe Comartin: That was $25,000.

Mr. Don Sullivan: Yes, and personally it has caused me a fair amount of grief. Certainly it was $25,000 that could have been better spent somewhere else, in particular to reduce the incurred debt for the legal fees, which are astronomical, and which I am personally liable for should somebody wish to follow up on it.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Madam Chair, do I still have time?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): You have another minute.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Northey, we're being told that we're operating within these four corners of the amendments and that we basically can't do much beyond that, except maybe use a little bit of creativity. Quite frankly, I think some of the amendments you're proposing would take us beyond the four corners. Do you have any comment on that from a drafting or legal standpoint?

Mr. Rodney Northey: I don't have a specific technical comment to Parliament, but I have two responses.

I believe the amendments, and I've seen the ones that have come before you, do fit within the corners of what is before this committee properly because they are addressing the very issues that are proposed to be addressed by the present amendments. They're specific to provisions that are already proposed to be introduced. So amending those provisions I think should be within the four corners of what this committee can do.

But going back to my bigger pitch, I think there are some bigger issues here. I would put it this way: the minister has set three benchmarks as to what the minister thinks the reforms achieve, and these reforms all deal with whether those benchmarks have been attained. It seems to be preposterous that the minister can articulate three objectives, come to the committee and say they've been achieved, and the committee isn't allowed to say whether there are better ways of achieving those objectives.

What I say is, if the five-year review is so technically circumscribed in the same way that courts have decided to scope assessments down to nothingness, then I would suggest this committee independently do its own report outside the parameters of the five-year review and write the very thing that should be addressed as this committee sees it in meeting the purpose of the environmental assessment.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Certainly that is an option for the committee as well.

I want to thank you, Mr. Northey.

Mr. Herron is not here then.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Sorry, I was supposed to tell you, Madam Chair, that's he's gone to the swearing in of his new members, but he is coming back.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): He will come back, he's on the list.

I have Mr. Reed and Mr. Tonks. Was there anyone else from this side? Madame Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Sorry, I pointed away long ago, but I'm happy to wait.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Fine.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair.

In welcoming you all here I don't want to take issue with Mr. Northey, but I want to reassure you that the reason why you are welcomed here and invited here as witnesses is so that we can make this into a workable act and can achieve the necessary amendments. It's not easy, but certainly this five-year review was put into place specifically so that we could take a look back and say what worked and what didn't work when this bill is finalized, hopefully. It's not a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination, so we shouldn't approach it from that point of view.

I'm very concerned when a minister has ordered something to happen and it appears to be have been subverted. When the minister comes we'll certainly address this question to him, you can be absolutely certain of that.

I have to say a special hello to my neighbour Penny, too. Sorry I was a bit late getting in.

I am really concerned about these issues, because they do somehow indicate that the minister somehow has his power subverted, it would appear from what we hear from all of you.

I must say as well—I'm saying things rather than asking questions—that putting high-level nuclear waste on top of the ground is a dumb idea, and you can quote me on that. We just passed a bill in this House to establish a means for using the very best technology for the storage of high-level waste. Mr. Comartin made reference to it. I very much agree with his concern over that.

In terms of this quarry issue, Madam Chair, I have to go on record as saying this is one more degradation of the Credit River watershed, a river I live on, a mile of which goes through the property I own.

À (1035)

Ms. Penny Richardson: It won't be as cold if the quarry goes through it, Julian.

Mr. Julian Reed: It may not be as cold, but also there may not be as much of it going through. I don't know all those answers, but we're going to try to get answers for you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Are there other witnesses who want to...? Mr. de la Chevrotiere.

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: Yes. May I please make a quick response to Mr. Reed's comments?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Yes.

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: I would just like to mention--and I'm sure I belaboured the point of how big the facility is and how potentially dangerous--that I'm absolutely astounded that it made it through three regulatory levels and the three top courts in the land, and the facility was never studied...just absolutely astounded.

The second comment I'd like to make, which goes with Mr. Reed's comment, is that by profession I'm an actuary, so my job is to identify and assess risk and put a price tag to it for insurance purposes. I can tell you right now that the Bruce facility represents a significant concentration of risk. And although hopefully the potential for an accident or a terrorist attack is very small, let me tell you, it would be absolutely catastrophic if it ever did happen. It's sitting right on the Lake Huron shoreline, on the Great Lakes basin, home to 36 million people. It makes me stay up at night sometimes.

À (1040)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of you for your very impassioned and, as Mr. Sullivan said, enthusiastic interventions. It has been very meaningful.

However, I can't help but react to Mr. Northey's comments. There has been a very comprehensive review across Canada of CCEA, the results of which this committee is now dealing with in the form of Bill C-19. While your voices are impassioned and compelling, we've listened to many voices across Canada, and it is now the charge of this committee to deal with those interventions and then to make recommendations on what's before us.

One of the recommendations among many to strengthen CCEA in Bill C-19 is actually the public participation in the environmental assessment. And I would address this initially to Mr. de la Chevrotiere, but I would welcome anyone to respond. That is, looking at the comprehensive study review, the bill proposes to extend participant funding to comprehensive review studies to indeed support public participation. As a matter of fact, a good portion of the $51 million that is earmarked over five years to help implement this bill is exactly to support public participation. I'm wondering if, in your view, that would have helped your case in the past or indeed could help people in your position in the future.

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: That's wonderful. We're realistic here. Electricity is a good thing. We don't want to go back to the dark ages, and we know unfortunately it has been delayed and delayed. It has to go somewhere. All we were asking for was an independent and expert assessment so we could sleep at night.

The problem with the process, at least in our opinion, is that it's very inequitable currently. We're giving this mile-high pile of very technical paper to an ordinary citizens group, and we'd appreciate their comments on this within thirty days, without any intervener funding.

A panel review, as I understand it, would give us intervener funding. Intervener funding would be absolutely wonderful.

Ms. Penny Richardson: I would just add that the coalition has probably spent close to $500,000 in the past six years for consultants, lawyers. We have a group of probably 30 to 40 women who do fundraising, and that is their main occupation year in, year out, just to save the watershed system in this area and to save the cold-water fisheries.

I was a young person when I started this, and I work full-time. For me to come down to Ottawa—this is my third trip, because we've presented before the Senate—it is indeed a labour of love. But I don't feel that we should have to do this. I think the process should have long taken over. We are doing what the fisheries department and CEAA should have been doing four years ago.

Mr. Don Sullivan: Just to follow up on that, I'm happy that there's going to be intervening funding. That assurance might help people in the future. To me, fifty cents will get me a cup of coffee.

At the heart of it, while intervening funding is necessary in order for participants to participate, you're right; 30 days to review, in my case, three separate forest management plans.... Each of them is 10 to 15 volumes and highly technical in nature. Of course, being confronted by a row of experts by the proponents, who are all bought and paid for, seems to be a very huge imbalance and very intimidating. Then you have to go and find your own experts and you have to raise money. However, what it comes down to is that if there's going to be participant money to intervene, there must be something to participate in. So if you're not going to have panel reviews, that's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

If you've heard Rod, we've had, what, 10 panel reviews in the entire existence of CEAA, over 30,000 projects. Fine, great. Give me something to intervene in. That's the point. If I can't get the federal government to intervene on the largest forest management licence agreement in the world and commit itself to doing what it's supposed to be doing in law—to review federal jurisdictional issues—intervening funding is kind of useless.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Northey, just a short comment.

Mr. Rodney Northey: I think it's important to relate the participant funding reform that was articulated to the issue of panel review. As most would know, right now there is an option, when one starts comprehensive study, to proceed to a decision by the Minister of the Environment, in which case the minister can review whether that comprehensive study should lead to panel review. It's panel review only that is eligible for participant funding right now.

The reform you are faced with is to say that at the outset, without any information about a project, someone--namely the minister--has to decide whether a project is going to get comprehensive study or panel review. I'm sure Ms. Redman is familiar with the choice that is going to await a minister, but in my experience that would seem to mean that if one says only one panel review is a result of screening, nine are the result of comprehensive study. If a proponent or a minister, in the present track record, is given the choice between comprehensive study and panel review, I will wager there will be more comprehensive studies and even fewer panel reviews.

I would suggest to this committee that if one is going to look at that reform, one has to ask the question of whether that reform will improve panel review access or whether it will be to the detriment of panel review access. I suspect the latter very strongly.

À (1045)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Northey.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question was along the same lines. First of all, I want to reinforce what Mr. Reed has indicated with respect to the compelling case you've made here, and that we take it very seriously. That should be stated right up front.

I want to get back to the panel review. In my experience, which hasn't been a great deal in the federal tradition, in the provincial tradition there is a permanent review panel that the Minister of the Environment in Ontario can invoke. The panel is charged with looking at the science and the best available information that can be brought to bear with respect to provincial environmental assessment.

We have talked about the harmonization of provincial and federal environmental legislation. I guess my question is just for instructive purposes. You have said that the trigger—and it's a very vague one, with respect to comprehensive study—is the uncertainty of impact and effects. In the harmonization of provincial assessment and federal environmental assessment, could you give us specific triggers that, from your perspective, would be satisfactory and invoke the accountability we should be looking for in the process?

Mr. Rodney Northey: Sure. Let me just clarify a few things. I'm also from Ontario and quite familiar with the Ontario process.

It is very important to note that the permanent board Mr. Tonks is referring to, Environmental Review Tribunal, the successor to the Environmental Assessment Board, has no legal requirement to be staffed by experts. In fact, the statutory requirement that it be independent was revoked in 1996 by amendments of the present provincial government. So in contrast to federal panels, the Ontario situation is not as strong on two of the key requirements of panel membership.

But you are right, and I certainly agree that over the years the Ontario system with a permanent body has had—certainly back in the eighties in particular—a number of hearings going through all this through the environmental assessment. I think again, though, Ontario's experience with hearings has diminished rapidly since 1995. I am aware of only one environmental assessment hearing since that time. It was on the Kirkland Lake landfill proposal. So I don't think Ontario itself is moving in a direction of accountability; rather, it's moving away from it.

How one harmonizes is an intriguing question, since neither seems to be leading to hearings. I think the question that might better be tabulated here is why is the Ontario Municipal Board, which is responsible for enormous numbers of hearings in Ontario, not yet in any discussion with the federal level about harmonization with its process?

There are many examples in Alberta of several boards getting joint panel reviews. Why is the Ontario Municipal Board off the table with dozens, hundreds, thousands of projects? I would say dozens might be eligible. So that would be my suggestion to further the move towards harmonization.

You've asked about the scale of projects and how one would do that. It's interesting, because one might say that the comprehensive study list is a useful indicator of this. But as Mr. de la Chevrotiere has indicated, that list itself has some peculiarities. I can remind you that the list of those projects that could cause significant effects is not complete and was never complete. One might say projects on comprehensive study could be a starting point, but I'm not sure that's the satisfactory answer to it. It would seem to do away with the 30,000 assessments subject to screening only. I can't give you a quick answer on that.

I'll make one final point. To me, the whole test of this act is in the definition of what is a significant effect. NEPA has a very similar criterion. It defines significance in a regulation. Here, there is no definition of significance anywhere. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is reluctant to provide a definition. In the 30,000 assessments that have gone on to date, there's only one where I think there has been a finding of significance.

How one can harmonize when the core concept doesn't have anything behind it.... I would say there is a massive bureaucratic imperative against a finding of significance, because then the panel review has to be funded. So how does one create some independent means of assessing whether an effect is significant?

À (1050)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

We have five minutes and then the committee has to vacate this room. Mr. Lunn, this is your five.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First I want to thank all the witnesses. Your testimony was very moving, very interesting. It's not always like that. Sometimes it gets quite dry and technical.

Specifically, I want to focus on the panel review. Listening to you, Mr. de la Chevrotiere—my apologies if I'm not pronouncing this correctly—I found your testimony very moving. What you had to go through was in fact quite disturbing to me. It's almost appalling that an automatic panel review wouldn't be triggered in those circumstances.

Coming back to Mr. Northey's comments, he specifically suggested that the problem with panel reviews seems to be at the bureaucratic level. That's where the process can get stonewalled. We see that in many departments, not just in this situation. I have seen this personally when I've dealt with ministers. We're working on solutions, moving the file along nicely, and things are looking pretty good. Then we get to the bureaucrats, and it's just like someone has thrown a neutron bomb; the process explodes and we're back to square one.

So I specifically wanted to ask Mr. de la Chevrotiere—and again I apologize if I'm not pronouncing your name correctly—in your experiences, where did you see the specific failings? Is it at the ministerial level? I guess you were specifically dealing with the bureaucrats. Where did you really see the system come apart, before you actually had to go through the court process?

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: Where I personally think it fell apart.... This is a series of letters between the Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario Hydro, which we only got access to, again, because we took the federal government to court.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It was through a discovery.

À (1055)

Mr. Normand de la Chevrotiere: Right. That in itself is disgraceful.

Where it fell apart was that the Atomic Energy Control Board appeared to want to do the right thing because these were significant changes. They said the design is completely different; this is pretty dangerous stuff we're talking about here, and we have a duty to the public to study this, inform them of the changes, and have another public comment period. They appeared to be doing the right thing. Then Ontario Hydro came back and basically said that they were running out of time and couldn't afford any more delays under regulatory processes. Yet they were the proponent.

As a carrot, they said they would respond to public concerns in a document that would be issued to the public and AECB within a month. Well, that month passed. They wrote to AECB and said here are the responses to public concerns, on the explicit understanding that this will not be released to the public until the complete process is over. That is, I think, where it broke down, and I'm wondering, why did that happen?

Mr. Gary Lunn: How do we take the word “discretion” out? What process can we use when we come to drafting these amendments that will be a reasonable trigger for there to be a mandatory panel review in certain cases? Obviously, I don't think you'd want a panel review for 30,000 cases, but there has to be a process where you could say you have huge, overwhelming public support, and there's no question but that this should be an automatic panel review.

Do you have any comments—maybe Mr. Northey—on what we should be putting in the legislation that would allow citizens to trigger a panel review but that wouldn't be too cumbersome in that they'd trigger a panel review in every single case? Then obviously the system would fail, or at least wouldn't work as well.

Mr. Rodney Northey: I actually think the comprehensive study is a very good starting point. Why everything in a comprehensive study shouldn't get a panel review is a point one could at least look at. But that would then still leave out the issue of screenings, what one is supposed to do with those, and how they lead to panel review.

In my view, what is critical is to look at the question of whether there are federal policies, guidelines, or laws applicable to a project and whether those are being observed. What Mr. Sullivan has shown you is that even where a minister says this habitat is internationally significant—a minister says it—the bureaucrats can scope the project to ignore the whole thing.

One of the real issues is how does one ensure that the full panoply of effects are articulated with respect to standards? I don't think right now there are requirements that the standards be articulated in an assessment. I think this committee should demand that an assessment include reference to the relevant standards and an assessment of significance be done in relation to those. That would be a good starting point.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much. I'd like to thank all the witnesses here this morning.

I would just like to close quickly with something Mr. Northey said in his brief:

In sum, the principal failure of CEAA is that virtually every aspect of the assessment process has been read to provide discretion, not duty. With discretion, there are no obvious minimum standards. Moreover, if discretion is central, there is no need for law.

Thank you. We'll close this session.