Bill C-469 (Historical)

Blaine Calkins Wetaskiwin, AB

Thank you, Chair.

I'm just going to fire my questions out there--I've got about four. For those of you who feel comfortable responding, please do so.

The first thing I'm going to talk about is the Species at Risk Act. This committee is undergoing a study of that right now. We've heard from other department officials that the expenditures to date under the Species at Risk Act have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not one species at risk has been moved off the various schedules in that act. Can you tell me what's being done in the department, as far as budgetary allocations, on any evaluations to determine dollars versus results, to ensure the taxpayer dollars are being used wisely for species at risk?

Mr. Boothe, you brought up rail. In my constituency there is a rail siding used by CN in the hamlet of Mirror, where CN constantly leaves their motors idling in close proximity to residents. This can't be very good for the environment. Are there any programs or any expenditures through Environment Canada that would either change the regulatory approach in dealing with these large diesel engines idling for excessive hours at a time, or programs that might encourage rail companies to reduce their footprints and their fuel consumption?

Mr. Latourelle, I'm going to come at you with park fees. Right now, if citizens of Calgary or Edmonton who drive west into British Columbia, or vice versa, say at the park gates that they're not going to be staying in the park, they get free passage through. Yet the 7,500 residents of Rocky Mountain House and 1,500 residents of Bentley who head west on Highway 11 are hit with a $20 fee for driving for 20 kilometres on the parkway. They end up driving south to Cochrane or north to Hinton to avoid that park fee. Wouldn't it make more sense for the environment to allow a shorter distance of travel from central Alberta to British Columbia by removing that fee? Frankly, I don't think it's fair, and it is quite punitive to people, depending on where they live.

When it comes to litigation, this committee just examined Bill C-469 a little while ago. Various environmental organizations, like Ecojustice, and so on, assured this committee that the cost of litigation for this bill, which actually.... The clauses in the bill actually create a litigious environment and make it easier for litigation to happen. Has anybody in the department prepared any expenditures to examine, should that bill come to pass, what the cost would be? They assured us that litigation would not happen if the bill were passed, yet we've seen increased budgets for litigation. I'm hearing conflicting stories from groups like Ecojustice that the taxpayers of Canada are going to be on the hook for these lawsuits against the Government of Canada.

Mark Warawa Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. Thank you for sharing the good news and dispelling some of the myths we hear all too often from the opposition members. There is very good work happening, as we've heard. We do have a plan, and we are well on our way to meeting our very aggressive goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17%. We are a world leader and we're very proud of what Canada is accomplishing.

I'd like to focus on page 116 of the main estimates in my questions, and one of the two issues I want to ask about is aboriginal consultations. We're increasing that by $1.5 million, so I'd like to know what the total amount will be. Also, we're increasing by $1 million to deal with litigation costs. Ms. Duncan's response to the $30 million was, well, do as the activists demand and that way you will save that $30 million--just buckle down and buckle under and do what the activists say. I don't think it's quite that simple. Of course the NDP Bill C-469 brought by Ms. Duncan calls for even more expenses and dramatic increases of litigation if that were to go ahead. Hopefully it never will see the light of day.

Also, under the study of Bill C-469 there was no consultation with first nations, unfortunately. I think it's very important that we do have consultation with first nations. So the aboriginal consultations are going up. What is the total amount now that's being proposed?

Linda Duncan Edmonton—Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canada committed under the NAFTA environment agreement to directly engage concerned Canadians in decisions impacting the environment, yet Canadians remain shut out.

The government supported my motion for a comprehensive public review of environment and safety risks from unconventional oil and gas development, but it refused to commission the review.

The Conservatives ran on a platform of openness and transparency, but opposed my bill to enshrine Canadians' rights to participate and hold the government accountable.

Will the government finally deliver on these promises and support passage of Bill C-469?

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Madam Speaker, I find it a little rich that the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who was in the Manitoba legislature, would talk about having committee meetings at all hours of the night. A few years ago, the agriculture committee was holding hearings on a moratorium on the hog industry. Those hearings went through the night. Over 300 farmers and people in the community wanted to appear before that committee, but the meeting dragged on and on. People were not able to stay in the middle of the night to make their presentations. It was really unfortunate that people were not provided with a true opportunity.

Different procedural moves and antics are often used by all parties of the House to make sure that debate is not turned into a filibuster. That is essentially what the NDP wanted to do here.

I am chair of environment committee and we just went through this process while studying a private member's bill. The opposition parties worked as a coalition and limited the amount of time that any party could speak on any clause within the bill. If Conservative members were to share their time equally, they were limited to speaking not more than one and a half minutes on a particular clause.

If the member wants to talk about stifling debate, that stifled debate. That prohibited other members from being able to get up and voice their concerns about particular clauses in a troublesome bill, namely Bill C-469.

I am surprised that the member never rose and asked me a question about the importance of bringing this bill to fruition and that we actually get rid of the accelerated parole review.

I want to turn his attention to what some of the victims are saying.

The Earl Jones Victims Organizing Committee actually put out a press release saying:

The elimination of the so-called 1/6th access to early day parole for crimes committed by non-violent offenders not only better protects these victims, but also serves to provide the strongest deterrent in our society against any acts of serious fraud, and theft resulting from such fraud, from white-collar criminals.

One of the victims from Lac-Saint-Louis, Quebec, is quoted as saying:

As a victim of the Earl Jones Ponzi Scheme I know first hand how devastating the effects that white collar crime has had on the lives of the victims, their families and their descendants. Almost every week there is a new Ponzi Scheme discovered in Canada and to date there is little incentive in our current criminal code to discourage criminals from taking this lucrative path. White collar crime is fast becoming the most debilitating crime for Seniors in the country. We have been left without our savings and have been shamed and ridiculed in the press. Time is of the essence in this matter.

Thus we are hearing directly from victims that we must do this, that we must make sure that these fraudsters play by the same rules as violent offenders and every other criminal in our federal penitentiaries. Stony Mountain Institution is in my riding and I have attended parole board hearings. It is a thorough and just process and there is no reason why fraudsters, the people out there stealing money from Canadians and seniors, should not have to go through the same process as every other convict.

Mark Warawa Langley, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to summarize my opposition to the bill.

The Osler analysis of Bill C-469 was that it “encroaches on areas of provincial environmental jurisdiction”; it “does not allow for the social, economic, and environmental pillars of sustainable development to be balanced appropriately”; it overlaps with aspects of existing legislation; and it removes numerous safeguards.

We heard from the witnesses, and they said that it was not good policy for Canada. They believed it was fundamentally flawed and that it could not be amended into good policy.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said that the lack of legal clarity will chill any investment consideration, that a fundamental precondition of commercial development, wealth creation, and economic acceleration is..... They said that it had completely failed the test of being a good bill and they don't support it.

We've heard there's been no aboriginal consultation on this. We've heard now that it creates classes of people that the bill will apply to; it limits judicial discretion; it's anti-sustainable-development; it creates American-style litigation; it duplicates, creates red tape, and kills jobs.

So it is not good for Canadians. It's not good for the environment. It is good for special interest groups.

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

This involves amendment BQ-3, which reads: That Bill C-469, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 5 with the following:"principle that there should be a just distribution of environmental benefits".

The amendment would eliminate the principle of consistency. So it would remove the word "consistent" from the section as presented.

That there be some kind of fairness is one thing, but that there be some kind of consistency is another. It is the principle of the associated costs and the burden imposed consistently on all Canadians. We think that this will go against the polluter pays principle.

There needs to be fairness. But imposing a burden that would be consistent across Canada could create concerns in Canada. We think that the polluter pays principle should apply and not the principle of consistency in sharing the environmental burden.

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Yes, Mr. Chair. I propose amendment BQ-2, which reads as follows:

That Bill C-469, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 36 on page 4 with the following: "the advantage of two or more provinces."

Stephen Woodworth Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I have listened to this member go on at great length about how closure is non-democratic.

I wonder if the member is aware that the environment committee right now is subject to a closure rule on an NDP bill that is being considered, Bill C-469, giving every Conservative member on that committee one and a half minutes to speak to each clause of that bill.

Would the member be willing to have his leader instruct the NDP member on the environment committee to abolish that closure rule so that we could have some good discussion about what is really a revolutionary bill in the environment committee, and do it in a nice, democratic way?

In light of the member's comments today about how closure is non-democratic, will he push to open up that debate in the environment committee?