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]

Thank you, Chair.

I have shared some of our concerns, particularly last meeting's concerns about the development and lens through which that needs to be looked at. I was very concerned that Bill C-469 would change all of the good work of Parliament, both in this House and in the Senate, in passing through--with unanimous support--a definition of sustainable development, a strategy, and an act.

What we saw last Thursday, Chair, shockingly, was the NDP voting against the motion in the House and opposing sustainable development. They were the only party that did that.

But I have to give them credit, in that they are being consistent. They want to change the definition of sustainable development through Bill C-469, but they also voted against sustainable development in the House, so there appears to be a plan by the NDP regarding sustainable development or the extinguishment—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, what I would like to clarify is that I lament that we are not finishing SARA. I think we had a moral responsibility to finish that, but we haven't. We've moved on to Bill C-469 and now I think the record will clearly show that we have opposition members repeatedly interrupting as important points are being made.

We have had interruptions using the tactic of points of order and stall tactics, so it's been quite disheartening, and now we have this motion. To say there should be an allocation of “a maximum of five minutes per recognized political party for debate in relation to consideration of each clause or amendment” is just unrealistic.

Ms. Duncan has one member, Chair. One member--so what she is proposing that she would get five minutes. Now, on this side of the table, we have me and my four colleagues. We have five members. So she is suggesting that we would share those five minutes. She is suggesting that the Liberals would share their five minutes and the two Bloc members would share their five minutes, but she would have the sole five minutes, because there is only one person, herself, from the NDP. It seems patently unfair and impractical.

If there were a fairer way of dealing with this—for example, if she wanted to say that we limit it to five minutes per individual—I think that would sell around here in the spirit of fairness, if she wants to move things along, but that may not be realistic either. I look forward to hearing from other members around this table on whether or not five minutes would be adequate.

But in the spirit of fairness—and again, I hope this was not a deliberate attempt by the NDP to stifle healthy debate—I would move an amendment to her motion that the five minutes be “per member” instead of “per recognized political party”. That would be my amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Oh, the motion is. Well, thank you, I appreciate that clarification.

So Ms. Duncan's motion is in order, but ethically.... I don't question her motives, but to me it appears to be in the form of a conflict in that on the one hand it's the responsibility of Parliament to debate this bill, Bill C-469, and to hear from witnesses.

And we should have heard from first nations. We've said that. We've now had a deluge of additional briefings and Ms. Duncan unfortunately doesn't want to hear from them, it appears: doesn't want to hear from first nations and doesn't want to hear from witnesses. This deluge of e-mails and briefings we're getting is again reminding Canadians how bad Bill C-469 is.

Chair, the other irony in this, besides the NDP trying to stifle debate and hearing from other Canadians, from other witnesses, is that it's the NDP that stopped SARA, the Species at Risk Act, with the help of opposition members. We had, I believe, a responsibility to do that. My recommendation was that we finish SARA—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Quite frankly, I am shocked by the motion. I guess the first question I have for you would be whether or not a motion like this in order, on the grounds that Bill C-469 is Ms. Duncan's own bill, which she introduced in the House and which has now come to committee to be debated. Is it appropriate for her to move a motion to stifle debate?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I move:

That the Committee, in conducting its clause by clause review of Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, allocate a maximum of five minutes per recognized political party for debate in relation to consideration of each clause or amendment.

May I speak to my motion?

Environmental Bill of Rights

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and present to the House petitions signed by more than 12 communities in Alberta: Edmonton, Lloydminster, Calgary, Birchcliff, Sherwood Park, Lethbridge, Fort Saskatchewan, Fort McMurray, Camrose, Spruce Grove, Grand Prairie, Red Deer and Valleyview, all calling on the government to pass Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

They state in their petition that as Canadians value a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, they call on the government to afford the rights and opportunities to Canadians to participate in decision-making, and the opportunity to hold the government accountable to protect those rights.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Chair, I think it's imperative that Bill C-469 have that balance, and that is what's missing.

What I'm actually shocked to see is that members of the Bloc would be supporting a bill that doesn't have that balance, that would actually attack their own province. I'm shocked that the Bloc is supporting U.S.-style legal actions against Hydro-Québec. That is shocking.

I'm surprised that the Bloc, using clause 3 and its lack of definition, would want massive tax increases against people living in Quebec, including a tax increase on heating oil, a massive tax increase on natural gas costs, a tax increase on electricity costs, a massive tax on iPods and on cars, and on it goes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I will read that. It says:

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Chair, what is missing in there—and this is the point I've been trying to make—is defending the principle of balance, which is what we've heard about from every witness. That is what's missing in Bill C-469. Just because something is called “the environmental bill of rights” doesn't mean it is an environmental bill of rights. It could very well be a Trojan horse that would be used by special interest groups to attack a balance. That is our concern. That's what we heard from the witnesses: that there needs to be a balance.

Chair, am I hearing interruptions again or...?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the record will show clearly that I am referring to paragraph 3(c), which speaks to the “principle of sustainable development”. I will read clause 3. It says:

This Act must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law, including but not limited to

(a) the precautionary principle;

I'm trusting that others will speak to paragraph 3(a).

Paragraph 3(b) is the polluter pays principle; 3(c) is the principle of sustainable development; 3(d) is the principle of intergenerational equity; and 3(e) is the principle of environmental justice.

I'm speaking specifically to paragraph 3(c) and I'm perplexed that my defence of the importance of that principle of sustainable development, and my sharing of the importance of protecting recently passed legislation.... I'm sharing my concerns with the way Bill C-469 would, through the window dressing of clause 3, just mention the principle of sustainable development, but then within the bill have nothing to support it. That's the end of it. It just makes a window-dressing comment.

We heard from witnesses that the principle of sustainable development will be set aside and all legislation will be looked at through the lens of the environmental bill of rights, which would give any resident or entity the ability to launch an action. So I think it's very important.

As I said, clause 3 indicates in the bill that it is to be interpreted through the principle of sustainable development, but what does that mean? At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, eight years ago, all countries endorsed the concept of sustainable development as comprised of the three pillars: economic, social, and environmental protection. Yet the bill is silent on how the right of a healthy environment is to be balanced with the economic and social realities.

That's what we heard from the witnesses, Chair, that this is missing, other than for the window dressing.

We should have heard from the agricultural community. We should have heard from first nations.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I also want to thank Ms. Murray for her interruption.

Chair, we heard that it's very important that Bill C-469 create a balance; this is what we heard. And we heard that we have the principle of sustainable development mentioned in the bill, but in fact, it's not in the bill. Bill C-469 would usurp the principle of sustainable development; in spite of it being this clause, in clause 3, it does not address sustainable development.

Now, sustainable development is a term that we've heard often, particularly over the last couple of years, as this committee unanimously supported the Federal Sustainable Development Act and, as recently as earlier this year, the strategy. The commissioner had an opportunity to comment on the strategy from the government. Actually, this committee did too, and it was a good strategy: we now are looking at all legislation--all new bills, permits, everything--through the lens of sustainable development.

That would end if Bill C-469 were to become the law of Canada. The lens would change from sustainable development to a lens that is entitled an environmental bill of rights, but is anything but, and that's the other concern. It has the title, “environmental bill of rights”, but does it have that balance? It does not. We've heard that from the witnesses.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan, for the interruption.

The focus was on the principle of sustainable development. I was referring to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who was here, and to the appropriateness of a commissioner making comments on a bill before us. The commissioner was very careful not to comment on whether the bill was good or bad. The commissioner was commenting on--and will only comment on--performance of the government and assessments in that way.

Unfortunately, Bill C-469 will change the focus of sustainable development. We heard that very clearly. The focus changes from sustainable development to litigation, the big stick. I believe we need to hear from more witnesses, Mr. Chair. What we heard from the witnesses so far, as I had said in response to comments from Ms. Murray, was that, overwhelmingly, this bill should be set aside. Now, unfortunately, through some manoeuvring--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It says: “including, but not limited to...the principle of sustainable development”. I want to focus on that.

What we heard from the commissioner is that all legislation is looked at through the lens of the Federal Sustainable Development Act. We also learned that if Bill C-469 should become law, it would set aside the principle of sustainable development, which has its four pillars of social, economic, and environmental impacts. It would primarily focus on the environment, setting aside the social and the economic.... This government is committed to protecting the environment, but also protecting jobs in a balanced way. This bill, this clause, does not permit that.

We've also heard from the witnesses, Chair, and we've heard from a number of the witnesses who have suggested that this bill be set aside. Ms. Murray, before she moved her motion to move us away from discussing whether or not this bill should be set aside.... She has moved the dilatory motion to take away that discussion, to take away that opportunity for a decision, and we find ourselves moving to clause-by-clause, against what the witnesses had recommended.

Ms. Murray referred to Mr. Miller, the commissioner for Ontario. When I questioned the commissioners, both Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Miller, I began my comments by reminding the federal commissioner...I confirmed with him that his responsibility as the commissioner of the environment is to provide parliamentarians with objective independent analysis--not critiquing bills and legislation, but to critique existing legislation, existing law in Canada--and to provide an analysis as to whether or not we are living up to the responsibilities and focusing on the environment. So it is to provide parliamentarians with objective independent analysis and recommendations on the federal government's efforts--not recommendations on bills but on the government's efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development.

There it is again: sustainable development. This is the lens through which we now look at Canadian law--the lens of sustainable development.

The commissioner did confirm that it would be very inappropriate for the commissioner of the environment to be commenting on a bill, so he did not. He made that very clear.

Now, when that issue came up, it was actually Mr. Scarpaleggia who talked to Mr. Miller, and he said, “Going back, I guess, to Mr. Warawa's point--”. Mr. Miller responded, “You didn't quite put it the way it's done”. Again, I'm again referring to legislation and comments by a commissioner on the legislation. This is my understanding of what he was talking about. This is what he said: For instance, let's say we're talking about a piece of legislation. If there's an issue going on, I may...on my own initiative bring forward an issue on such things. But once it has progressed to the posting of a proposal on the environmental registry, and especially a proposal pursuant to a law, I cease comment until after it has gone through the entire consultation process and the legislature and is passed. It's only afterwards that I review it.

That is consistent with what we have with Mr. Vaughan, Canada's commissioner of the environment: that a commissioner of the environment does not critique legislation. The commissioner assesses whether or not the government is performing its responsibilities.

So what was left is--and hopefully that answers Ms. Murray's comments--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have a recorded vote. All those in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is carried, so we can go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-469.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 are postponed, so I will now call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

I have been advised by our legislative clerk that I'm going to stand clause 2 because there are things later on in the bill that will affect clause 2. Since there are some repercussions down the road, we're going to stand clause 2 and move to clause 3.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

(On clause 3--Interpretation)

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was speaking to the motion of Mr. Warawa. I have plenty more to say, but I think the best time and place to do that is in a clause-by-clause debate, so I'd like to move that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-469.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The motion Mr. Warawa has put on the floor at every meeting for the last three meetings now is that the committee recommend to the House that it does not proceed further with Bill C-469.