Bill C-469 (Historical)

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

This enactment establishes the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights whose provisions apply to all decisions emanating from a federal source or related to federal land or a federal work or undertaking. The purpose of this enactment is to
(a) safeguard the right of present and future generations of Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment;
(b) confirm the Government of Canada’s public trust duty to protect the environment under its jurisdiction;
(c) ensure all Canadians have access to adequate environmental information, justice in an environmental context and effective mechanisms for participating in environmental decision-making;
(d) provide adequate legal protection against reprisals for employees who take action for the purpose of protecting the environment; and
(e) enhance the public confidence in the implementation of environmental law.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, just to support what Mr. Woodworth has said, the witnesses who came to the committee were basically divided up into two groups. There were witnesses who represented industry and Canadians in general, and they opposed Bill C-469. The only groups that supported Bill C-469 were those who were special interest groups, actual groups that would profit from Bill C-469. This supports what Mr. Woodworth has just said.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. I'll just briefly summarize.

I wish to amend Bill C-469 in clause 22 by adding, after line 4 on page 14, new paragraphs 22(3)(a) to (i).

May I speak to that, Mr. Chair?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

What should be in this clause is a balance, including sustainable development. It's missing. It's missing in every clause of Bill C-469. On the matter of sustainable development, the House voted on December 1, two months ago. The NDP--every member of the NDP--voted against sustainable development. I have it right here in Hansard. I'm not questioning motives, but I'm sharing facts that the NDP did not support sustainable development.

They do support, though, changes to Canadian legislation that would permit special interest groups to profit, and this is actually providing an incentive for them to take action. It removes the Federal Court's existing discretion.

What is the result of this? Well, it's anti-sustainable development. As we've heard, it creates American-style litigation. It empowers special interest groups and activists trying to intimidate. We heard from the witnesses that the reason they supported Bill C-469 was that they wanted to have a stick to bully and intimidate.

It will be bad for the environment. Why? Because it creates duplication. It creates red tape. You have this government trying to eliminate red tape and the coalition trying to increase red tape and duplication. It will increase administrative and legal costs for government and industry. It will threaten existing first nations agreements.

It'll threaten existing facilities like Hydro-Québec, and that's why Hydro-Québec is against Bill C-469. That's why Mr. Woodworth brought this up with members of the Bloc. I too am puzzled about why Bloc members would be supporting something that would be bad for Quebec. They're supposed to be standing up for Quebec, and it seems that this government is the only one standing up for Quebec, for all Canadian provinces, for all territories, for all Canadians. It'll threaten B.C. Hydro, and B.C. is my province. I'm very concerned about this.

We heard from the witnesses that it will kill jobs. How will that happen? It will create uncertainty in existing permits, uncertainty in existing legislation, and the economy is the number one thing for Canadians right now. This government is committed to improving the economy and creating jobs, and Bill C-469 will kill jobs.

Clause 21 is one of the important clauses within the bill. It creates an incentive for certain residents or entities within Canada to seek profit. They will be able to receive costs for counsel even if they don't have counsel. That's why I'm hearing clearly from Canadians that this is a bad bill. Clauses 19 and 20 carried, even though members of the coalition wanted to amend them, acknowledging that they were bad. Yet they supported them even without having them amended.

This bill moves forward. Our time is limited, which is also a shame in that we can't speak adequately.

Chair, I think I've made my points. Clause 21 is bad and we will not support it.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

No. But I'd simply like to make a small comment, in response to Mr. Woodworth. I have read and reread the memo that we were sent by the Conseil patronal en environnement du Québec about Bill C-469. In fact, some clauses of the bill, including clauses 16, 22 and 23, bother that organization a little, but I see nothing in the brief that the organization presented to us that indicates a problem with the clause that we are currently looking at.

When Mr. Woodworth claims that this clause is so important that Quebeckers would tear their hair out, I don't know what he's referring to. I'm also trying to find mention of clause 20 in the speaking notes of the witness from the Canadian Hydropower Association. Of course, they mention clauses 16, 19 and 23, but there's nothing in clause 20.

We would support the clause that was presented to us.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For clarification, although we can't talk about the next amendment, the agreement simply is that I proceed with mine and we can deal with the next one later. I was going to withdraw mine, but I will speak to this proposed amendment.

The proposal is that for Bill C-469, in clause 19, to be amended by deleting lines 22 to 38 on page 12.

Could I speak to that, Mr. Chair?

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am moving amendment BQ-6, which states the following:

That Bill C-469, in clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 9 on page 11.

I would first like to remind you of the subject covered by this clause, that is, the fact that the federal government being given the power to authorize an activity that may result in significant environmental harm does not constitute a defence.

Many groups, stakeholders and witnesses have told us that Bill C-469 is lacking safeguards and pointedly ignores existing laws and regulations. Under this amendment, the government will not be able to authorize an activity, regardless of what it is, that may result in environmental harm. This would limit the government's decision-making power and its activities.

In addition, there are some issue with the interpretation of the bill. I want to point out that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does exist. In defining environmental effects, the act's provisions use the wording “significant adverse environmental effects,” while Bill C-469 states the following:“significant environmental harm” includes, but is not limited to, harm whose effects on the environment are long lasting, difficult or irreversible, widespread, cumulative, or serious.

The fundamental issue is deciding which legislation will apply when this clause is adopted. We are opposed to subclause 16(4) and we propose its deletion.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I wish to table an amendment that Bill C-469be amended by replacing the heading “JUDICIAL REVIEW”, before line 24 on page 10, with the following: “ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACTION”.

Mr. Chair, if I could speak to that--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for the record, I'd like to clarify that I think that Mr. Warawa is comparing apples and oranges. Clause 14 of Bill C-469 is not comparable to the Auditor General Act, it's comparable to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The timelines set forth in clause 15 of this bill before us now are identical to the timelines set forth in CEPA for reviewing and responding to investigations. So they are, in fact, completely consistent. There isn't duplication. In fact the two provisions can stand if they are consistent and don't conflict.

The purpose of the provision in this bill is to provide for consistency of rights and opportunities to Canadians across all environmental statutes. Why should Canadians only have the right to file a request for investigation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to do with a toxin and not be able to file an investigation under, for example, the endangered species act, or the Fisheries Act, or any other environmental statute?

The discretion lies 100% with the government. Simply because somebody files information suggesting that a potential alleged violation should be looked into necessitates no specific response. The responses by the Government of Canada are set forth in their enforcement compliance policy with each of their statutes. This in no way interferes with that. This right to file a request for investigation in no way automatically leads to a prosecution. In many cases it may simply lead to a warning. It may lead to reassurance that in fact there is no violation. It may lead to a discussion with provincial authorities saying maybe they'll proceed with the matter; it's more relevant under their legislation. We don't know what the end result will be.

The whole purpose of setting forth these provisions in one bill is to make it a user-friendly opportunity for the public to know what their rights and opportunities are to participate in the environmental protection process.

My concern is that we don't have enforcement officers, inspectors, and investigators in every little community in Canada. We have the vast Arctic. The Auditor General of Canada reported that she was concerned that there wasn't sufficient monitoring going on in the Northwest Territories on compliance with federal laws. So what this provision does is it gives a very clearly prescribed process whereby members of communities can be watchdogs and can pass on the information in an orderly way to the enforcement officers.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Clause 15 sets out the timelines applicable to the request for investigation under clause 14 that just carried. Regarding the timelines, this clause would require the minister to acknowledge receipt from the commissioner within 20 days of receipt and give notice of a decision not to conduct an investigation within 60 days of receipt. Otherwise, the minister must report on progress every 90 days.

As we've heard repeatedly, the government is supportive of providing opportunities for residents of Canada to seek investigations of environmental offences. Such opportunities are already provided under the Auditor General Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA 99, and the Species at Risk Act. The provisions allowing the public to request investigations would create significant overlap of those opportunities.

Over the last number of weeks, as we approach the budget, the spring budget, all Conservatives have been asking Canadians—jobs is number one, the economy is number one—“Do you have any suggestions how we can do better?” One of the common messages that I've heard is eliminate waste, that there is only one taxpayer, that you can't keep going back to the taxpayer for more taxes—more, more, more. They want us to eliminate waste.

Sadly, what is being proposed in Bill C-469 is increased waste, not removing red tape. Bill C-469 creates red tape; it creates duplication of what already exists. To jump to the front of a parade that's already in progress and say “Look at all the people following me, look at all the support I got” is disingenuous. We need to find out where the problems are and eliminate red tape.

We've heard repeatedly from witnesses that Bill C-469 is creating duplication. Duplication creates waste. If you have one entity or one resident within Canada who puts in a request through what already exists, and then under Bill C-469 could initiate the same thing, you could have in the same office the same exercise repeated numerous times. Does that create efficiency? No. That creates waste.

We also heard that Bill C-469 will kill investor confidence. It creates uncertainty. Does it increase the protection of the environment? No. When you have limited resources, again, only one taxpayer, limited resources of tax revenue, and you try to do the same thing again, where do those dollars come from to actually duplicate the same thing over again? Well, those dollars have to come from somewhere, so it would have to come from what is already been allocated to that ministry, to that department, and to that commissioner's office, making that office and that department even less effective and efficient.

We've also heard that there will be an increase in litigation. Where do those funds come from? Again, they come from those departments. We've heard that Hydro-Québec and B.C. Hydro increased litigation, to their costs. Those costs for increased litigation, where are they going to come from to protect themselves? Well, it will have to come from Canadians, the taxpayers.

Bill C-469 creates uncertainty, duplication, and waste, and that's not what Canadians want.

We've also heard that it's very directly related to a possible court-directed tax, a carbon tax, which could be attached to this.

So what we have in clause 15 is a timetable, or timelines of what there would be under Bill C-469 for requests for investigations. For example, the requirement for the minister to give notice of a decision not to conduct an investigation under Bill C-469 is 60 days from the minister receiving it. Under the Species at Risk Act, the minister is not obligated to a timeline imposed. Under the Auditor General Act, it's 120 days. So there are inconsistencies there too, duplication and inconsistencies.

For the minister to acknowledge receipt of a request for investigation under Bill C-469, it's 120 days from receiving it from the commissioner. What already exists under the Auditor General Act is 15 days from the minister receiving it. Again, it's creating confusion. Which request will take priority? When you have a department doing the same thing twice, which takes priority? Or should it be the same person and we do a cut-and-paste? Well, why would we do a cut-and-paste?

So I guess this is further evidence of the duplication and the lack of need for Bill C-469. If this already exists, why would you introduce Bill C-469?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll call this meeting to order. We're at meeting No. 44, and of course everybody knows we're continuing our study of Bill C-469, an act to establish a Canadian environmental bill of rights.

I welcome all of you back from your winter break. I hope you're all recharged and ready to rock and roll.

Now, as you recall, we were considering clause 12. At the last meeting we had just passed an amendment to clause 12, moved by Mr. Scarpaleggia, which read, “and registered, Canadian-controlled entities, the Government of Canada shall”. So that is inserted on line 22 in the English version on page 8 and line 24 in the French version on page 8.

We left on clause 12, and this is how much time is left: the Conservatives have used up all their time on clause 12; the NDP has five minutes left; the Liberals have six minutes left; and the Bloc have the full eight minutes available to them.

There is no time left on the full motion for the Conservatives. The time had completely ticked away.

So is there any further debate on clause 12?

I'm going to call the question.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development respecting the request for an extension of 30 days to consider Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Actually, every witness that we heard from that did not have...would not be benefiting from Bill C-469. Every witness said the bill should be set aside.

You, Chair, clarified that when we had the Canadian Hydropower Association. You asked Mr. Jacob Irving. And they also represent Hydro-Québec.

You said:I just want one clarification as chair. In your presentation and in your responses, you definitely had reservations about the bill. Would the Canadian Hydropower Association prefer that the bill be set aside or be amended?

Mr. Jacob Irving responded, saying: There is probably opportunity for amendment, but it depends. Ideally one would like to see amendments come through that deal with all of our issues, and then that's fine. But if those amendments don't come to the fore...And that's what we're seeing already here. They're creating a bill that is not based on expert advice. They're not wanting a clause to be set aside, but they want to move forward.

So then he went on to say, “...setting the bill aside would have to be the logical choice.”

And Chair, yet we forge ahead. I think we should have listened to the advice of the witnesses and set the bill aside. It is so badly flawed. Clause by clause by clause, Mr. Chair, the bill is turning out to be a Frankenbill.

I think at the first opportunity--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, we heard from the analyst that she could not provide guidance on this. And what we see being developed here is a “Frankenbill”.

I went back and reviewed some of the testimony we had. We were told by the experts that this bill should be set aside. Why? Well, because it was so badly flawed that it was not amendable.

Who said that, Chair? It was the vice-president of policy and environment for CAPP. He said, “In our view, Bill C-469 is not good policy for Canada.”

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, in my comments I brought up two points. One, normally the courts have discretion on whether or not to grant standing. We heard that from the analyst. So that is the norm, that the courts would have that discretion. Then we heard that the Canadian Environmental Law Association--which spoke in favour of Bill C-469, possibly having a bias in favour of this bill--wants to make this bill better.

The clock is ticking, so perhaps Mr. Woodworth can speak on this.