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.
5 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Certainly, if you wanted to....
I stand to be corrected, but I believe Mr. Woodworth's concerns could be addressed through the definitions.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay.
That's what I would suggest, Chair, because I'd like Mr. Woodworth--
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just a minute.
I've been advised that if we don't amend the bill.... Right now it just says “entities”. If you amended it to say “foreign entities”, then we'd have to change the definition. But right now, since we aren't amending the bill on that particular issue, we wouldn't do an amendment to the definitions.
December 15th, 2010 / 5 p.m.
Wayne Cole Procedural Clerk
There are two reasons for amending an interpretation clause. One is to clarify something that's in the bill. The other is to make a substantive change to a definition that is required because of amendments that have been made to the bill.
What the chair was saying is that, because no change is being made to the use of the term “entities” in the bill, there might be procedural difficulties with attempting to change the definition.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Essentially, if we wanted to address Mr. Woodworth's concern, which I think is shared by others, we would have to amend clause 12 by perhaps inserting the words “Canadian-controlled” entities. Is that what you're saying?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Well, I would like to propose that amendment, to add “Canadian-controlled” between “and” and “entities”.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I have an amendment I have to deal with.
Do you have a point of order?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, I don't believe the motion is in order, or the subamendment is in order, because what is on the table is a motion to remove the word “entities”. It's not appropriate for them to be adding a word in front of “entities” when the motion is to remove it.
So I believe the point of order would—
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes, you are out of order, because he's removing the word “entities”.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I have speakers, though, and then we can come back.
I have Ms. Duncan, then Mr. Woodworth, on the amendment.
5 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it would be rather inaccurate to say that there's no other law that allows foreign entities to sue the Government of Canada. The Conservative Party in its wisdom, with the support of the Liberal Party, passed NAFTA, which is the only law I'm aware of—there may be others—that allows foreign entities to sue the Government of Canada. I am not aware of any, and I would welcome anybody tabling any case where a foreign entity has brought an action under environmental law other than NAFTA.
On the amendment that I would suggest to be made, I'm a little bit unclear from the clerk about the first category. I don't understand why the kind of amendment that Mr. Scarpaleggia's suggesting isn't an amendment that hasn't come up over and over again that would clarify. So there are a number of things coming up, and I would think that if the Conservative members want to be constructive at this table they would actually be suggesting some amendments when we get to the interpretation clause at the end, which I would certainly welcome as amendments to my bill.
By the way, a number of statutes reference adults and corporate persons. The Northwest Territories bill of rights references adults and corporate persons. This is not unusual.
I think a better turn of phrase to what Mr. Scarpaleggia said would be “a registered Canadian entity”. To take out “entity” would make absurd our process. Regularly, members around this table invite the Assembly of First Nations, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Shipping Federation of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Canadian Hydropower Association, so are they suggesting that we don't think any of those associations should have the right to participate in any of this decision-making?
The purpose of this bill is to recognize the process that has gone on, since time immemorial, where, yes, we like to hear from individuals, but generally the policy of every federal government that I've worked with in four decades is to reach out to the Canadian Environmental Network, they reach out to CAPP, to the shipping association, to the forestry association. In fact, probably 99% of all witnesses we've heard before this committee have been registered entities. So I find it really puzzling.
Now, if they want to say that you don't want foreign entities, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. I'm not aware of any foreign entities intervening in any of these sessions, but to restrict it I think is a very good idea. So I think Mr. Scarpaleggia is moving towards a very sensible recommendation, to change it to a registered Canadian entity.
If we cannot add a definition at the end or clarify a definition, then I would suggest that if there is common interest in this committee of constraining entities to registered Canadian entities, I would certainly welcome that as a friendly amendment where it's deemed appropriate.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay. We have to deal with this amendment first.
I have Mr. Woodworth, then Mr. Armstrong.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Well, you're speaking now to the amendment, so you have your eight minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
All right, then I'll try to express this fully.
I commend Ms. Duncan on an ingenious argument. I won't go back in history to say that I was no great fan of NAFTA when it was brought in, for actually one of those reasons, but apart from that, NAFTA is at least a mutual agreement. It at least allows Canadians to sue...as well as other North Americans to sue Canadians. If we were to enter into an agreement on the environment that gave Canadians the right to mess with the American environmental policy process, there would be some mutuality allowing them to come here to mess with ours.
But quite frankly, I can't imagine any country in the world inviting foreign agents to just open an office in their country and have full rights to participate in their policy development process the way this act does. So without mutuality, I don't think Ms. Duncan's very ingenious argument holds up.
Second, and much more important, I'm glad that Ms. Duncan brought out the fact that simply talking about residents of Canada excludes first nations and perhaps other organizations. She has really pointed out another flaw in clause 11. I'm not talking about clause 11 here, except to contrast it with clause 12, because regrettably clause 11, as we have now approved it, does not refer to entities, foreign agents or domestic. Therefore first nations groups, as Ms. Duncan quite rightly points out, can still be denied standing because they lack a private or special legal interest, although individual first nation members would not be so denied standing under clause 11.
As a responsible and professional lawyer, when I look at the two clauses, headings don't have any legal effect, but they are both under the heading of “Public Participation” and deal with it. One gives rights to residents of Canada only, and the other gives rights to residents of Canada and entities.
It is not a responsible way for a legislator to proceed, having different rights for no apparent reason. I can't think of a reason. Maybe Ms. Duncan has a reason why in clause 11 she only gives rights to residents of Canada, whereas in clause 12 she gives rights to residents of Canada and entities.
For the sake of consistency between those two paragraphs, I hope my amendment will pass and make this a slightly more sensible bill. I wish we could do something about the definition of entities, but one way or another we certainly can't accomplish that in this paragraph.
Thank you.