Evidence of meeting #43 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay.
Do I have consent for the friendly amendment of Mr. Warawa's?
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
That's the only point I wanted to make.
Now, we haven't yet defined what “sustainable development” is. We do in present legislation, but of course, Bill C-469 wants to remove the economic and social parts, those pillars of sustainable development. So when we get to that clause and we go back to definitions, hopefully the coalition will support the present definition of “sustainable development”.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
So we're voting on the amendment by Mr. Woodworth, which reads, to the best of my knowledge, “balanced and cost-effective environmental protection and sustainable development”.
That's the question, that's the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
It's back to the main clause.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes, it has. It was amended by Mr. Scarpaleggia's amendment. So we have added the words “oppose or otherwise contest” to it.
December 15th, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mrs. Guyanne Desforges
Do you want to read it, as amended?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes.
Just so we are all clear on the amended version of clause 11, it reads:
Every resident of Canada has an interest in environmental protection and the Government of Canada shall not deny, oppose or otherwise contest any resident standing to participate in environmental decision-making or to appear before the courts in environmental matters solely because they lack a private or special legal interest in the matter.
Mr. Woodworth, you have one minute and 15 seconds left.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I just want to say that I am very glad that this particular clause does not give foreign agents the same rights as Canadian residents. So I suppose a foreign agent could be denied standing, if they didn't have a private or special legal interest in the matter.
But I do think from a legal perspective that this creates some very confusing interpretation issues, because the very next clause, which talks about the government's obligation to ensure public participation, does give foreign agents the right to participate.
So we have sort of a conflict between clauses 11 and 12. But maybe we can fix that by deleting the entities section, which refers to foreign agents, from clause 12.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You're getting ahead of yourself now, but you are pretty much out of time.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes.
So we are voting on clause 11 as amended.
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 12--Government's obligation)
Mr. Woodworth.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess the first thing I would like to address is the question of the rights of foreign agents, which are referred to in clause 12. I don't think that any other statute anywhere else in Canada—although I stand to be corrected—has given rights to foreign agents to participate in Canadian policy on the environment or anything else, simply by their opening an office in Canada. I think, although I stand to be corrected, this will be the first time in history that a statute has granted such rights to foreign agents.
It certainly goes beyond the provision in clause 6 that talks about safeguarding the rights of Canadians and ensuring that Canadians have access to adequate environmental information. Clause 6 at least does restrict itself to simply giving rights and protection to Canadians.
I suppose the reason that we are giving foreign agents these rights in clause 12 and elsewhere in the act is that this bill is specifically designed to be tailored to a variety of international interest groups, who have made their submissions—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, Chair, I'm having a hard time hearing Mr. Woodworth because of the chatter across the way. I would ask for decorum.
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes, I'm having trouble myself.
Please keep the conversations to a minimum.
Mr. Woodworth.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact, I have noticed that throughout this debate, whenever a government member tries to speak—or not whenever, but frequently when a government member tries to speak—the government member is met with an unnecessary point of order, or even with heckling, such as is occurring at this point in time.
I don't think I've ever seen heckling at this committee until it was decided by someone to try to shut down debate on this bill. Now we have heckling. We get points of order. We get motions to curtail members to a minute and a half each, or else they have to extort time from their colleagues.
In any event, I appreciate my friend's intervention to allow me to continue speaking.
To go back to the point, when we look at clause 6, it protects Canadians. When we look at clause 11, it protects Canadian residents. But everywhere else, these foreign interest groups will be permitted to come to Canada, open up an office, and pursue their agenda, regardless of what the Canadian agenda might be. This shows itself again in clause 12.
By the way, it also gives foreign agents the right to sue the government in clause 16. It gives foreign agents the right to sue private Canadian interests under clause 23, all because of the definition of “entities” and the fact that this word, which to my knowledge.... Well, I shouldn't say, because I really don't know, but I certainly have never seen that word used before in a statute.
So this new and revolutionary way of importing foreign organizations to participate in Canadian policy-making is found in clause 12. Not only that, but it creates a problem with clause 12 being in slight conflict with clause 11.
I'd like to move that we simply delete the words “and entities” from clause 12.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I'm told there's a way around this, and it might be by just simply, later on in the bill, defining “entities” to mean Canadian-registered or Canadian-controlled organizations.
I'm just wondering what the analysts think of that. Is there a way of simply changing the definition later on, so that we can move on?
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal